Remove supplier role after a rename/CK

[Timzii]

I really hope the people who did this get an investigation launched into them for obvious reasons. 

[Samuel_Chavez]

yes

[Clared]

100% supported, +1

Edited June 21, 2022 by Clared

[marbella mondays]

This has been a long time thing on the server to my understanding, and something I find absolutely disgusting as it prevents newer people from reapplying and just keeps the same people in circulation with the stuff they had prior, except a new name basically; cancelling almost any opportunity of a batch of newer people being involved. If people are trusted as suppliers to have their role on a new character, then I'm sure IFM has no issue with them submitting an entirely new application when apps open up and checking if they're eligible again. 

 

+1 on this suggestion, remove their role after a NC or CK.

[kxrma]

🤣🤣 +1

 

I know the admin he's talking about is reading this mad ash

[Smurf]

As ZaE said on page one; a lot of people and when we say a lot, we mean a lot. Know and understand aforementioned staff member that shall not be named, kill their character over whatever it is (either it be a woman or conflict) has kept their role as a gun supplier across numerous of their characters. Personally I'd like to see diversity and IFM stepping up to the plate of allowing other people to be given the task to supply weaponry to the server. Touching back onto the person whom's been mentioned, they supply any of their character's relationship partners with endless amounts of firearms just for some pixelated cooch.

I would LOVE to see diversity given to the regular joe player that actually took their time out to develop and roleplay around firearms instead of just pop up Joe that's a day old and has a 7+ month old gun supplier role that needs to be given to somebody else; I digress.

+1 for this to be taken up and put on the NEEDS TO HAPPEN ASAP NO ROCKY shelf.

[Peak.]

Why isn't this a thing anyway...?

 

[khadijeh.]

Leader of said "great" IFM team here, and chief in charge of transparency.

 

To preface, in the past, there has been supplier transfers that I have fought venomously against due to the blatant disregard of true progression of a character. However until recently, that choice was entirely not mine to make, it still is not.

 

I will not deny some people have been permitted to move supplier statuses across characters when they blatantly supply their own friends and circles, regardless of what "concept" they tried to portray it as. I cannot deny that fact and agree whole heartedly there has been abuse in the past, and likely still is.

 

To shed some light on what the current process is, individuals do not automatically keep their supplier status after a namechange or CK. They must apply for it for their new character. They are not entitled to keep it, by name-changing or CKing it is entirely a gamble on their part. This is usually accompanied by the lowering of what is permitted to be given to them.

 

However, the supplier program in the last year has opened more slots and options than my entire tenure being on world. If that is not an indication that diversity is being sought after, I am not sure what is. The position of a supplier is more than just in-character, there is a balance to be kept. They are also in their positions because they are trusted individuals who have had an open dialogue with us for their tenure, accepting directives, understanding their position further as well as the dynamics of the market.

 

There are arguments to remove on a CK - what about Mexican Mafia, Aryan Brotherhood, Black Car? They lose their entire connection when one individual dies? Are illegal organization truly that flimsy that the death of one individual can entirely break a supply structure? In these cases we attempt to realistically find an individual within that structure to continue on as the supplier.

 

In terms of name-changing, it's entirely circumstantial. It is just like a new application for whatever supplier they have which they're allowed to submit while they're closed. It is not an automatic process, it's not a process that is any less vetted. Again, this is accompanied by lowering of supplier statuses, reductions, restrictions. 

 

We receive applications that claim contraband comes in through submarines, or flown in from Mexico across the boarder in mass amounts, or a friend of a friend of a friend from jail who had a friend who's cousin knew a guy who drives over. 

 

The supplier program is on my to-do list of things that need modernizing, however, if someone who is a good supplier in whatever area they are, drugs, melee, guns, or even electronics, if they have a new concept, their application to change makes sense and it's reaching areas of illegal roleplay that are otherwise untouched, it will be treated as an application and reviewed all the same.

 

"Transparency" seems to mean something different to everyone. If you have questions about the process, go ahead and ask.

[ZaE]

 

12 minutes ago, honey. said:

If you have questions about the process, go ahead and ask.

I’ve already butchered myself enough, so I’ll just continue to do so. 
 

Anybody well versed in illegal roleplay knows who Scrax are speaking about in this suggestion. A person that has went through 3 different concepts, swearing they are going to make a difference and giving up mid-way through. 
 

with the details you mentioned above on how the process works, I no longer think people should LOSE the ability to reapply for it after they CK or make change entirely, however I personally suggest that a duration of time that prevents them from reapplying until it’s over is put in place. Example…if you get CKed or name change, you can’t reapply for gun supplier for 3 months. 
 

this would let new people flow in whilst still giving the person that was CKed a chance to return at a type of roleplay they are good at, and it makes it a lot easier for anybody who might successfully ck somebody to have a bit of power. If somebody CKed one of these people right now, or rather the specific person right now..they would reapply and be back doing the same type of roleplay with a different fsction or different character Ethnicity.

 

There should be a period after a ck of a supplier where the person that had supplier has to roleplay like a normal person on a normal character like the rest of us, not die and get to remake their character and continue exactly what they were doing on the other just with a new name.

 

If the choice isn’t ultimately yours, even though you are the head of IFM…who’s choice is it? There’s a fine like between somebody keeping their supplier out of trust or a good re-application and somebody just wanting to hog / hold that role. And I think 3 supplier characters i in a row, in the spand of only a few months is just too much. So I propose a period after a ck where they can’t reapply

Edited June 21, 2022 by ZaE

[khadijeh.]

Just now, ZaE said:

with the details you mentioned above on how the process works, I no longer think people should LOSE the ability to reapply for it after they CK or make change entirely, however I personally suggest that a duration of time that prevents them from reapplying until it’s over is put in place. Example…if you get CKed or name change, you can’t reapply for gun supplier for 3 months. 
 

this would let new people flow in whilst still giving the person that was CKed a chance to return at a type of roleplay they are good at, and it makes it a lot easier for anybody who might successfully ck somebody to have a bit of power. If somebody CKed one of these people right now, or rather the specific person right now..they would reapply and be back doing the same type of roleplay with a different fsction or different character Ethnicity.

 

There should be a period after a ck of a supplier where the person that had supplier has to roleplay like a normal person on a normal character like the rest of us, not die and get to remake their character and continue exactly what they were doing on the other just with a new name.

A timed "lockout", as you've suggested for example the 3 months is sometimes put in place. Sometimes we require a player to gather X amount of hours before considering them for the position, sometimes requirements must be met. We open gun suppliers much more than we ever have to get steady flow of applications, new applicants that are becoming eligible and so on. I believe this process will get better once we implement feedback as well. Again, I do agree with points raised, however the scene would be excessively hurt if we did not look at every supplier as an individual rather than taking out a checklist and ignoring all individuality.