Struggling as a Black American role player in GTAW

[peruvianflake]

49 minutes ago, King of Idlewood said:

A lot of words about a lot of things that are generally just barely related but after joining a few black factions it's very clear to me black street gangs in general have a major problem with serial-rulebreakers, OOC toxicity and way too many people (when compared to the pool of available roleplayers) who want to be the leader of their own thing and end up making factions that last for 10 pages and aren't very good or active. Don't ask me about X or Y scene as a whataboutism, because I don't know and I don't care since that's not what the discussion's about.

 

More economic support would be nice, but the reality is that a basic look at the archive section will net you 6 black street gangs where none of them made it past one month, one of which was shut down and its leadership banned en masse, another that had leadership that was ban evading, and yet another that was about to be shut down by IFM for a probable third strike before shuttering by its own hand.

 

As much as I'd like to blame IFM for it, I really can't. The reality is that the scene is dead because a sizeable minority of the people in it are actively making it worse, knowingly deathmatching, ban evading, metagaming etc etc. Some of these factions are/were more active in the reports section than their forum threads, or in-game.

 

You've pointed out some issues within certain black factions, but it seems like you're overlooking a crucial aspect: the game's inherent rules and structures, which, intentionally or not, can perpetuate a certain racial bias.

 

By focusing solely on the problems within black factions, there's an implicit endorsement of the existing power structures, which, let's be honest, aren't exactly neutral. This isn't just about individual factions and their internal issues; it's about how the rules of the game create an uneven playing field.

 

Think about it: the game has designated 'safe zones,' areas where violence and certain types of gameplay are restricted. On the surface, this seems like a fair measure, but dig a little deeper, and you'll see it's a double-edged sword. These safe zones often align with areas and activities dominated by majority-white factions, inadvertently offering them a shield against the rougher aspects of the game. Meanwhile, areas where black factions are more active, which could use some form of protection or balance, are left as 'unsafe zones.' This isn't just an oversight; it's a subtle reinforcement of a racial hierarchy where one group is safeguarded, and the other is left to fend for themselves.
 

This disparity in the rules doesn't just affect gameplay; it reflects and amplifies real-world racial dynamics. When you criticize black factions for their internal issues without addressing these systemic inequalities, it's like blaming someone for struggling to swim while ignoring the fact that they were thrown into the deep end without a life jacket.

So, while it's valid to call out rule-breaking and toxic behavior, it's also crucial to question the rules themselves. Why are there safe zones that inadvertently favor one racial group over another? Why isn't there a more balanced approach that acknowledges and addresses the unique challenges faced by black factions? By not challenging these aspects, we're essentially supporting a status quo that's tilted against minority groups, both in the game and, by extension, in the larger societal context.

 

7 minutes ago, King of Idlewood said:

What an odd thing to say. People who RP in black street gangs (because I assume we're roleplaying and there's no ooc skin color requirement) play with the same rules as everybody else.

 

The factions I was in which were at least mildly established had no problems getting guns. It's expected that if a faction isn't very old (ie, spawned in 2 weeks ago), they aren't going to have many connections either. You can't just spawn in and expect to have every one of your 40 members strapped at all times, it's simply not going to happen unless you're using OOC connections. The reality is that most factions (not just black street gangs) shut down within 1 month, and that's not really enough to get any sort of consistent gun plug. But in general, why should the need for guns so high right off the bat? If you're a new faction trying to establish yourself, you should be at an IC disadvantage, it's one of the few ways that the system actually works well.

 

Most people doing this weren't even part of any faction, they were just OOC friend groups that liked to get into shootouts together, and robberies were a convenient excuse. You can argue about robberies with cars all day, but the fact is that in a server where 400 or so people of the 700 online are criminals, the ratio of robber:victim is going to be way too much and result in too many armed robberies.

 

It's a 10 year old issue and fairly complex, but unfortunately I do believe that stopping people from robbing with cars was the right decision and avoids lots of headaches. Every other type of faction has been able to deal with the change well - I don't believe going around four deep in an STX was so vital to the black street gang experience that it's now impossible to be successful as a result.

 

Somehow I don't think letting people shoot each other for even less worthy offenses is going to fix the issue.

 

 

You seem to be coming from some sort of reasoning that black street gangs in real life shoot each other over petty reasons more than hispanic or asian/white gangs do, but that's really not the case. I don't see why black factions should have a lower bar to clear on having a reason to murder somebody else.

 

And even if this was the case in real life - it wouldn't matter. We aren't here to be a 1:1 analogue to real life. We already have enough of an issue with people "roleplaying" hot head characters so they can have an excuse to always pull a gun or escalate verbal arguments into fights. I don't want to have to approach every situation with another black character knowing that he can just roleplay that he's the hardest thug in Davis and a hothead and etc etc so he can pull out a gun and drop me whenever the fuck he feels like it, that's completely ridiculous.

 

 

You seem to be completely hellbent on blaming everything on "racism" and completely dodging any criticism of the scene. Calling the rules "racist" because they don't let you shoot everybody you want whenever you want is an odd position to take.

 

PS: The concept of an unsafe zone already exists, even if not officially and even if it's applied with a bias towards certain official legal factions. SD and PD were both told several times in reports on the forums that Rancho was, in-character, a high risk area, and they're liable to be CKed (and have been) if they don't appropriately roleplay fear.

 

The same goes for Harvard Park - it's considered, in-character, an unsafe zone. This is because there's actually roleplay and development behind that. You don't get to just spawn in and start claiming you're big, bad, and everybody should respect your faction. HPB and TGS put in the work to be big, bad and respected in-character and now they get to reap the reward of being in an "unsafe zone".

If you think being an "unsafe zone" should just allow you to shoot people for even less reasoning, then thankfully that's never going to happen.

Alright, let's break this down because your argument seems to be skimming over the surface of some deep issues here.

 

First off, saying that everyone plays by the same rules and implying that it's a level playing field is oversimplifying the situation. It's like saying everyone has the same opportunity in a race, but ignoring that some are starting a mile behind the start line. The rules may be the same on paper, but their application and the environment in which they're enforced can be vastly different for different groups.

 

You mention that factions, including black street gangs, shouldn't expect to be fully armed from the get-go. Fair point, but you're missing the context. Why is there a high demand for guns in the first place? It's not just a gameplay preference; it's a response to the environment these factions find themselves in. The need for self-defense or asserting presence in the game shouldn't be brushed off as just a gameplay strategy.

 

The safe zone argument is another oversimplification. It's not about wanting to shoot people for less worthy offenses. It's about recognizing that these 'safe zones' inadvertently create a safe haven for certain factions while leaving others exposed. The game inherently favors certain areas and types of gameplay, which aligns with the interests of predominantly white factions. This isn't about advocating for violence; it's about pointing out an imbalance in how the game is structured.

Your take on black factions and their propensity to engage in violence over 'petty reasons' is a gross generalization and reeks of stereotyping. Just because a faction is roleplaying a certain background doesn't mean they should be pigeonholed into a narrow set of behaviors. It's a game, yes, but the narratives we create and engage with are influenced by our perceptions and biases. By painting black factions with such a broad brush, you're reinforcing harmful stereotypes.

 

And finally, brushing off concerns about racial bias in the rules as an excuse to dodge criticism is a classic redirection tactic. It's easier to label the argument as 'blaming everything on racism' than to actually engage with the nuanced issues being discussed. Racism isn't just about overt actions; it's also about structures and systems that create and perpetuate inequalities, even in virtual environments.

So, while you may see these points as 'odd' or as dodging the scene's issues, they're actually highlighting systemic problems that need to be addressed. It's not about wanting to run around shooting everyone; it's about acknowledging and correcting the biases embedded in the game's rules and structure.

 

If it exists, as you say, then why is the unsafe zone not codified in the rules?Further proof of the bias!

[King of Idlewood]

38 minutes ago, peruvianflake said:

Think about it: the game has designated 'safe zones,' areas where violence and certain types of gameplay are restricted. On the surface, this seems like a fair measure, but dig a little deeper, and you'll see it's a double-edged sword. These safe zones often align with areas and activities dominated by majority-white factions, inadvertently offering them a shield against the rougher aspects of the game. Meanwhile, areas where black factions are more active, which could use some form of protection or balance, are left as 'unsafe zones.' This isn't just an oversight; it's a subtle reinforcement of a racial hierarchy where one group is safeguarded, and the other is left to fend for themselves.

What a ridiculous idea on all levels.

 

Let's go through the safe zones and see where's this "bias" (and then I'll ask why the fuck you'd even want a safezone in your territory?)

 

Quote

• All airports and airfields;
• government buildings, such as the State Capitol, city halls and hospitals (medical centers not included);
• banks, ATMs not included;
• Los Santos Fire Department buildings, such as their fire stations, headquarters, lifeguard tower and training facilities;
• NPC dealerships that are scripted in where you can buy cars brand new (player owned dealerships require admin permission to commit crime at);
• gun stores.

All of these are fairly irrelevant. Most of these places aren't anywhere where anybody roleplays actively (and in fact, the only one of these in what can really be called gang territory is the SD station in Davis).

 

Quote

• customization areas, such as clothing stores and barber shops;

Most active clothing store and barbershop are both in Davis, though currently not in any gang territory.

 

Now, restricted crime zones:

 

Quote

• tourist areas which include Vinewood Boulevard, Galileo Observatory (including the parking area), the Vespucci Beach promenade (the paved area with storefronts that run the length of the beach) and the Kortz Center;
• the University of San Andreas, Los Santos (ULSA) & Richman Hotel;
• Downtown Los Santos (Pillbox Hill and Legion Square), with the border defined as east of the La Puerta Freeway, south of the Del Perro Freeway, north of Adams Apple Boulevard and west of Strawberry Avenue (alleyways and other discreet locations are not counted); 
• all freeways and highways, including the on-ramps and off-ramps, not including under them;
• the immediate area and parking lots of gun stores, regardless of them being open or not;
• Portola Drive and Little Portola (the pedestrianized zone where the single-player jewel heist occurs);
• the entire dock/port area (Elysian Island/Terminal);
• beaches connected to populated areas as well as their piers, parking areas and recreational areas (tennis courts, workout areas and skateboarding areas). This rule includes Vespucci Beach, Del Perro Beach, Chumash, Paleto Bay Beach (the border is in line with the town itself at the western-most point and ends where the beach ends on the east side). Other beaches are considered too remote and crime may freely occur there;

The only ones that even mildly affect illegal roleplay (street gangs even more specifically) would be the beaches and I very much struggle to find any reason why having a safezone in your territory would actually be advantageous in a server where you can't even drive to a robbery anyway. You're gonna take walks down the beach to find your enemies? I find your whole reasoning flawed, having a safezone in or near your territory isn't advantageous, it functionally makes no difference, you can't run away to it to find safety, you can't camp it all day long (because again, these aren't in places where illegal factions tend to roleplay). So what do you actually gain from them again?

 

Are you implying that white street gangs are block-hugging the beach so they don't get robbed by other factions or something? It's completely bizarre and down right nonsensical to blame safezones (which as I demonstrated, aren't even a problem since what you claimed was wrong) as a reason for why factions die off quickly.

 

Quote

By focusing solely on the problems within black factions

I'm focusing solely on what the thread is about. You want to complain about something else, go make a new thread.

 

Quote

First off, saying that everyone plays by the same rules and implying that it's a level playing field is oversimplifying the situation.

The rules may be the same on paper, but their application and the environment in which they're enforced can be vastly different for different groups.

Yes, they can be, thankfully. If certain types of factions keep breaking certain types of rules (IE: when Italian-American organized crime factions walk around trying to extort people like it's 1990 or have massive shootouts in the street and all the OOC garbage and politics behind it all) then I expect admins to come down harder on them if they keep repeating the behavior.

 

Which they did. Continuously poor portrayal of Italian-American factions resulted in these concepts being denied, in their vast majority, and the remaining concepts forced to roleplay a smaller scale operation and not being allowed to roleplay made men.

 

Quote

Why is there a high demand for guns in the first place? It's not just a gameplay preference; it's a response to the environment these factions find themselves in.

It's a gameplay preference too. But in general, that also tends to be an issue that could easily be avoided in-character by not starting beef when you know you don't have any guns. Playing defense only isn't the most fun thing in the world but if you don't have the IC power to go toe-to-toe with established factions, then you shouldn't be acting like you do and then complaining when you're out of guns on the second day of the war.

 

Like I said, most of these factions, being less than a month old, should have no need for large amounts of weaponry since they hopefully aren't in shooting wars yet or even have a lot of active beefs. If factions choose to be aggressive towards other factions instead of taking the hit to the ego and ignore a few insults on facebrowser, then that's their fault.

 

Quote

Your take on black factions and their propensity to engage in violence over 'petty reasons' is a gross generalization and reeks of stereotyping

I don't know if you actually bothered to read the post but I wasn't the one to say black street gangs shoot each other for petty reasons, and in fact I argued against that being true.

 

Quote

And finally, brushing off concerns about racial bias

Oh I didn't brush them off. I said they weren't true. Which they aren't, and which I demonstrated in this post and my last one.

 

Quote

If it exists, as you say, then why is the unsafe zone not codified in the rules?Further proof of the bias!

It's not a question of "does it exist?". It exists. LEOs have been handed character CKs for not fearing for their lives in TGS territory, and as far as I'm concerned so should have the 4 cops who tried to arrest Demain Jopp, but no report ever came of that unfortunately (though I understand why since it was clear PD thought they did nothing wrong and there was an OOC component to Jopp's arrest and charges).

 

I'd also like to know how this is proof of any "bias" considering, again, the currently most unsafe zone in the city in-character is TGS territory, followed by HPB because there are factually the only factions that are both long-lasting and notorious for defending their territory with extreme violence.

 

Both you and the other poster are really just making excuses and not addressing any of the actually real and tangible issues that currently plague the scene, most of which are unfortunately internal. I understand why, because self-criticism is hard and definitely doesn't make you feel as good as just saying "everybody is against me because of X and Y" but the scene isn't going to get better like that at all.

 

It's very clear to me that you have an OOC chip on your shoulder over real-life issues so I won't even be replying anymore. I don't think you or the other poster will ever be reasonable about the issue due to this.

Edited December 22, 2023 by King of Idlewood

[gunman]

19 minutes ago, peruvianflake said:

First off, saying that everyone plays by the same rules and implying that it's a level playing field is oversimplifying the situation. It's like saying everyone has the same opportunity in a race, but ignoring that some are starting a mile behind the start line. The rules may be the same on paper, but their application and the environment in which they're enforced can be vastly different for different groups.

 

You mention that factions, including black street gangs, shouldn't expect to be fully armed from the get-go. Fair point, but you're missing the context. Why is there a high demand for guns in the first place? It's not just a gameplay preference; it's a response to the environment these factions find themselves in. The need for self-defense or asserting presence in the game shouldn't be brushed off as just a gameplay strategy.

 

The safe zone argument is another oversimplification. It's not about wanting to shoot people for less worthy offenses. It's about recognizing that these 'safe zones' inadvertently create a safe haven for certain factions while leaving others exposed. The game inherently favors certain areas and types of gameplay, which aligns with the interests of predominantly white factions. This isn't about advocating for violence; it's about pointing out an imbalance in how the game is structured.

Your take on black factions and their propensity to engage in violence over 'petty reasons' is a gross generalization and reeks of stereotyping. Just because a faction is roleplaying a certain background doesn't mean they should be pigeonholed into a narrow set of behaviors. It's a game, yes, but the narratives we create and engage with are influenced by our perceptions and biases. By painting black factions with such a broad brush, you're reinforcing harmful stereotypes.

 

And finally, brushing off concerns about racial bias in the rules as an excuse to dodge criticism is a classic redirection tactic. It's easier to label the argument as 'blaming everything on racism' than to actually engage with the nuanced issues being discussed. Racism isn't just about overt actions; it's also about structures and systems that create and perpetuate inequalities, even in virtual environments.

So, while you may see these points as 'odd' or as dodging the scene's issues, they're actually highlighting systemic problems that need to be addressed. It's not about wanting to run around shooting everyone; it's about acknowledging and correcting the biases embedded in the game's rules and structure.

 

If it exists, as you say, then why is the unsafe zone not codified in the rules?Further proof of the bias!

 

I agree with everything I saw before reading what I just quoted above. This conversation really just went there.

 

Not only are you accusing the server's staff of intentionally placing rules to inhibit players that want to portray certain races but you also are saying that they are also intentionally engineering a set of rules that somehow reflect how they OOCly feel about the races of some of these characters? Absolutely no evidence for that and it's just how you want to interpret these rules. You are steering the conversation into an area of the OP's original message that does not exist nor ever will exist because everyone would sniff that shit out before you could even write this essay over again.

 

And before anyone is even going to start talking about racial or ethnic politics on an RP server forum, what an embarrassing thing to post. To say that people on this server are trying to push their outside perceptions on African, Asian, or any other groups for that matter. You're picking at an invisible problem and you think you can convince people that it exists by pointing at the "safe-zones"? If you're for real, this is a huge troll and oversight of why people play this server. People may have characters on GTA:W for many things, but if there's one thing I definitely haven't witnessed it's OOC-fueled racism in the form of digital blackface through characters. You need to really prove this accusation before trying to sound intellectual about it because this is some ice-berg level shit.

 

You're absolutely right on restricted safe-zones. You're right that they create areas for certain factions based in them to be safe from what's outside, like castle walls enclosing a keep so to speak. You're also right that this in fact mirrors, and rightfully so, a major west coast American city where not only is it a huge melting pot but contains a history that is pretty tragic and should be reflected. 

 

But. When you and @King of Idlewood discussed the nature of why African-American based criminal factions needed guns and you said that it's because of the environment "shouldn't be brushed off as a gameplay strategy" is where that just starts to go all sorts of wrong. The first part is right, environment plays a huge role in a person's feeling or "necessity" to defend themselves. But you mean to tell me that factions who are based on groups, criminal in nature, of majority one ethnicity or skin color, are exempt from the rules just because you view them as inherently racial bias? Further more, you're actually the one implying that they don't have the capacity to decide if using a gun or diplomacy would benefit both parties, whoever they are. You cannot possibly make this assumption because there are so many different factions and situations between them that this would require evidence at a statistical level that proves that this is the case, and you don't have any of that. You just told people in 10 paragraphs that you take this game at a level nobody else does, and nor should they, because this is some crazy talk I just exposed myself to.

 

I'm not going to speak for anyone else but myself so I'll say that based on what everyone else has been saying in response to the OP, the state of gang RP has always been tainted with people who either play to win which leads to poor portrayal and a cycle of toxic behavior that nobody wants to be around both in-game and OOC, which then bleeds the reputation of the gang scene of Davis, Rancho, and pretty much anywhere else in Idlewood as the last place you want to make a character at. Nothing more, no conspiracies or secrets there. Definitely no racially motivated character or server rules that make this a reality. It's nobody else's fault for their reputation being so damn poor than the players themselves.

 

You still made some valid points, so I think if you want to accuse server staff of inherent racial bias in their rules you should probably make a server suggestion and tell them what you think will fix this issue you apparently see.

 

But the last thing you should be doing is accusing people of engineering a race simulation with the rules, even though this isn't even remotely true.

[vralf]

holy shit the 2023 yapathon

[WeBrim]

W rambling

[DeadPlaya]

Never in my life have I heard anyone accuse an entire server and its staff of racism because a couple 3 week old menyoo spam black gangs didn't get a gun drop on day 3.

 

There's amazing black rp portrayals where people bother to rp actual characters with actual storylines and flaws, instead of power fantasy self inserts (as seen in literally every legal or illegal scene), and they tend to last.  It's not that deep.

[pa la bra]

if you think a servers staff team or server rules are biased and racist, why would you keep playing on said server? 

[The Plug]

MLK ain’t die for this

 

I have a dream! Of a server with no safe zones! Where I can rob and kill enemigas anywhere and noobs can’t use a location to evade IC consequences! Where firearms are distributed fairly across all IC races of RP and certain factions aren’t protected OOCly cuz they can’t protect themselves ICly and keep whining!

 

(Im a black American IRL so don’t forum warn me I can say this. MLK literally did die for me and mines to have a better life. RIP King <3)

[Barbary]

This entire topic feels like it's spiraled into the thesis of a sociology major's freshman final.

[Dante_Inglewood]

don't even play this shit anymore but black rp is dead because everyone rps the same character— continuous big dick harassment with play to win mentality, finding any reason to shoot and refuse to take no for an answer

 

character is often filled to the brim with drugs, guns and high end cars and often just roam the streets to terrorize or find something/one to shoot. it's stereotypical roleplay that the majority refuse to break out of to develop a half-decent character.

 

nonetheless, spend 5 minutes in davis and you'll realise why black rp is dead and probably won't make any meaningful return.