Remove supplier role after a rename/CK

[marbella mondays]

2 minutes ago, honey. said:

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.

Alright, I'm going to  play devil's  advocate here and my opinion might be ignored because of certain hiccups I made in the  past, in late 2020-early 2021, but I'll shoot my shit here anyways by saying:

 

Whilst I'm aware that people don't automatically keep  their status upon NC, I've also been told and heard from certain individuals that all it takes is  asking someone in FM, specifically HOF if it's  good to go, and then just rewriting a character story and that's  simply it; for the most part.

 

As for removing them on a CK, well the same thing could be said for stuff that happened in the past, not going to directly bring up names but there's a certain instance where I remember something about someone being apart of a major prison organization that left it, and was allowed to keep their status for some reason or another. Now I must play devil's advocate here once again and say something that might hit the nerve for a few people:

 

Prison organizations for the  most  part  IRL, I.E Mexican Mafia, Aryan Brotherhood, Black Car; are not Gods  in the universe. They have members with deep connections, and when those members die, unless said connection has actually been passed  on before their death, it's  essentially a dead leaf in the bush... meaning they need to go back out and once again make connections. Another thing is, the real life argument cannot be made here, you know why?  Because anyone in the USA can buy a gun when they're over 18, and a pistol when they're over 21 (if I'm not mistaken), in certain states down south; and can then bring them back into another state where it isn't allowed; this is what encourages straw buying and major straw networks on a national level. 

 

Black Car, Mexican Mafia and Aryan Brotherhood shouldn't be given ultimate special treatment, those groups maintain power irl with fear and influence they have in the prison system, if it was for anything else they'd have never even gained massive control on the streets to begin with, and IRL everything is subject to change, so the "this happens IRL" argument is well out  of the equation here; or so I'd like to think so anyways. 

 

Now don't get  me wrong, I entirely understand on the server that AB, EME and TBC have major influence rooted into the illegal sector of the community and are the major powerhouses of the server, as they should be due to the fact IRL they rule California, but also doesn't mean that those groups don't  face challenges either; because I hate to break it to  anyone who thinks otherwise, but they do and so does every other criminal group that has ever existed. Even Cartels in Mexico face major challenges in their own homegrown areas of influence, being a powerhouse doesn't exclude said group  from facing major challenges that they must overcome.

 

Supplier should be made where groups, yes including TBC, EME and AB must fully reapply for if a character with the connect dies unless they pass it over to someone beforehand, just as it would work naturally in every criminal organization. I'd  also argue it might bring development to the table too, and letting the community see how they face the struggle and challenges of needing to reconnect with a out of state supplier for that.

 

Prison groups IRL often shift in power too, and this can be also said for the server and it'd make said shifts more natural and seeable and honestly, interesting to see. AB, EME, KUMI, BGF, BB22 aren't always dominating factors on their respective yards as influence changes and it usually depends on the networking of outside crews under them, and members in their structure on the inside with influence too.

[Smurf]

Thank you, Honey. I'll be breaking down pieces of your comment to ask aforementioned questions.

 

5 minutes ago, honey. said:

-

 

Quote

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

Thanks for the quick response on this one, genuinely.

 

Quote

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.

We might not say it, but we thank you for being "Gotta be that person who..." and fighting against such dumb decisions aforementioned suppliers make. Now with whatever grace of power you might have within your position as head of IFM, to somehow circulate different players obtaining gun supplier, melee supplier, electronics and so on to not micromanage but to enforce with a strict hammer on supplying to circles but also for the player to make more connections and deals outside of their character's social group.

 

Quote

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.

With this a counter would be, it just belongs to the faction; aslong as there is a leadership within said faction, players apart of leadership (picking one of the leadership at a time) to distribute the supplier's role out to the server. Now for example, Mexican Mafia would distribute it to Sureno gangs, AB to white gangs, Black Car to black gangs.

I've not really seen a lot of aforementioned roleplay circumventing the player we've mentioned above that's within the staff team with the supplier role; the player just makes a new character and continues on with having the role from what we've seen from an outside POV. Could be different but we're telling you as the players of this community, this is what we see.

 

Quote

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. 

It shouldn't be reduced, restricted. The player should entirely be put into the bin with the rest of the players that apply when the applications are opened for the rest of the server; but again aforementioned person gets around that because they're within that position of being the supplier holder for the role.

Character stories on how XYZ product is obtained should be within realism, sometimes it's not about how unique you obtain a firearm, electronic, dope or a big ass Machete. Sometimes it's as plain Jane as it comes; player gets it from X person whose connected with some big Org and suppliers Y player with them then Y supplies Z with the product. (X being NPC, Y being supplier role holder, Z being community)

 

Quote

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.

How long would you say the ETA on this to-do list is this in position of being modernized?

Again, thank you.

[sCrax]

26 minutes ago, honey. said:

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.

How is the particular staff member a "good supplier"? The guy only supplies his own factions and has been doing it on 3 characters in a row. You say you "sometimes" give a timeout to people. How is this decided? You just randomly pick a name out of a hat? Because this guy has certainly not been put on a timeout.

 

I agree with transferring supplier role to a different member of a faction if it makes sense but not to the same person on multiple characters.

 

Transparency is simply transparency. And you guys are not being transparent about anything. Why are some factions getting official status with 10 pages worth of nothing? It's simply not fair and the process of everything you guys do is just very shady.

Edited June 21, 2022 by sCrax

[ZaE]

5 minutes ago, honey. said:

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. 

So long as you guys know what’s going on is a little janky and are open / in the process of changing and fixing the way it works, not much can be said other then good luck and we can’t wait to see the changes that are going to be made. 
 

I commend and hold nothing but love and respect towards you specifically and you know this, as SavageX said; you are always the one person out of the staff team that seems to stick out like a sore thumb in a good way, and call out when something is dumb, even if it’s not to your own benefit,

 

as I edited in my original post before you responded, 3 supplier characters from the same person, in a row, in the spand of just a few months is just cripplingly baffling and shows a clear lack of dedication if they keep swapping so often. I think that’s the part where irritation comes in from most of the community. not the overall process of people being able to reapply..that’s of course not that bad at all even on paper, and Is very benefital for factions like say, the black car in case their supplier dies, the others at a similar level of power can reapply. but rather this specific situation that has brought it to light, that makes the overall situation seem a lot worse then it is 

Edited June 21, 2022 by ZaE

[khadijeh.]

2 minutes ago, Morrigan said:

shnip

I'm in agreement - for these powershifts, I have been frontline in expressing a required "handicap", or forced powershift when an individual is in power holding the supplier position and removed. One of these suppliers was axed more than half when the primary individual was removed and restrictions were applied. They are treated harsher than others, my point was more so, if we completely cut them off it's a bit of a "????". If there was evidence of an actual in-character handover being present, these may be lessened. Again, it comes back to that treating situations as individuals rather than treating them as tickboxes and straight edge situations. It hasn't always been perfect and I agree to that wholeheartedly but they were handled how "best" it seemed at the time.

 

Hopefully that clarifies what I meant by mentioning the big three.

 

4 minutes ago, SavageX said:

With this a counter would be, it just belongs to the faction; aslong as there is a leadership within said faction, players apart of leadership (picking one of the leadership at a time) to distribute the supplier's role out to the server. Now for example, Mexican Mafia would distribute it to Sureno gangs, AB to white gangs, Black Car to black gangs.

I've not really seen a lot of aforementioned roleplay circumventing the player we've mentioned above that's within the staff team with the supplier role; the player just makes a new character and continues on with having the role from what we've seen from an outside POV. Could be different but we're telling you as the players of this community, this is what we see.

My above answer to Morrigan somewhat covers a little bit of this. I am planning to make a more "structured" faction vs individual supplier system once this weapon overhaul and drug overhaul is complete. Personally I do not care if someone is a staff member when making a consideration that may involve one, however if doubts are there that any supplier is not performing to standards, staff position or not, it will be investigated.

 

8 minutes ago, SavageX said:

It shouldn't be reduced, restricted. The player should entirely be put into the bin with the rest of the players that apply when the applications are opened for the rest of the server; but again aforementioned person gets around that because they're within that position of being the supplier holder for the role.

Character stories on how XYZ product is obtained should be within realism, sometimes it's not about how unique you obtain a firearm, electronic, dope or a big ass Machete. Sometimes it's as plain Jane as it comes; player gets it from X person whose connected with some big Org and suppliers Y player with them then Y supplies Z with the product. (X being NPC, Y being supplier role holder, Z being community)

Again, players that I have reviewed sometimes do get binned if they did not do what was required of them. The last example I gave were for AR12s to be specific as to why it was coocoo - sometimes stories can be simple. Honestly tip for melee/tobacco/electronics suppliers, you don't need an international cartel or mafia connect to get fucking knives. However, some players I truly trust to continue on being a supplier WHEN it makes sense for their character. So to an extent I agree, but I will always take the extra time to review any application as an individual rather than a subjective view of strict guidelines.

 

13 minutes ago, SavageX said:

How long would you say the ETA on this to-do list is this in position of being modernized?

I said this in IFM Public today: "This will be a thing, I've always said we will implement a way of it. Right now we have so much work that I simply cannot also facilitate implementing feedback without sacrificing a large portion of our work and setting priorities. 8 of us and 4 currently on LOA & hiring for more internally. I'm hoping once the weapon overhaul is live and drug overhaul has been forwarded to developers, we can set a date and process for feedback. It will happen but when we're able to give actual constructive feedback"

 

I do not want to implement feedback that is half-assed, it's not fair to individuals that put effort in. Although neither is the current system, but when we do it, I want to do it right.

 

 

In regards to the here and there comments, if there are issues / concerns with a specific supplier the best place to air them is in a PM to myself and Shanks. I will not discuss specific individuals on a public forum as it concerns both them and those concerned in the decision making out of respect.

[RedRover]

@honey.

 

With respect and I understand to a certain extent that your hands are tied (I was a CM for years, the bureaucracy is exhausting), there shouldn't ever be a direct continuation of a supplier role to the next new character without a timeout. One player should not be allowed to take one supplier character and play another supplier on their very next character. There should always be a timeout for a position like that. Giving someone the security of being able to do this even as a remote possibility, just puts less importance on the continuity of their character. If they know that when they get tired of this supplier, they can potentially transfer it to a new supplier character and start over? If they instead know they will absolutely lose supplier role after this character's conclusion, I'd assume different decisions are made. If they want to be a supplier, commit to that character and only that character.

 

I understand wanting to keep the position within trusted players, but that's what the intensive supplier application process is for right? Entrusting players with the position. For all you know, a promising new supplier would have been a better option but passed over for an existing supplier who was approved because they were trusted over the potential new applicant. There should be a 1 month timeout, minimum. Not sometimes, every time. This should go for anyone, not just staff. That is fair.

 

I'm sure with the player base we have now, there are more than enough applications to cycle through. Illegal groups should have to go find a new connection, not an old supplier disguised as a new supplier. It opens up far more RP opportunities than spoon feeding a supplier who is the same player on a different character. These roles are probably monitored in some form or fashion so if they aren't performing up to standards, I'm sure someone will step up and take that spot. That's just my take on it.

Edited June 21, 2022 by Brofessor

[Raf Simons Raven]

To get supplier: Be liked OOC by admins.

To keep transferring supplier: Be admin.

To get supplier & leadership of a faction despite being banned recently: Work with the police.

 

It hasn't been about roleplay skills in a minute, sad truth. lol.

Edited June 21, 2022 by Raf Simons Raven

[Morte666]

20 minutes ago, Phil said:

It's funny seeing all the ooc dealers and scripted roleplayers complain about supplier.

After further review, the ruling on the field stands, YOU ARE A LIAR AND NEED SOMETHING BETTER TO DO WITH YOUR FREE TIME!

[ZaE]

24 minutes ago, Phil said:

It's funny seeing all the ooc dealers and scripted roleplayers complain about supplier.

Uh-oh! La EmE found a ZaE comment speaking  against their great heavenly supplier!  Whatever will I do?

Edited June 21, 2022 by ZaE

[UTOPIA]

Unfortunately this thread has turned into a flame war. Primary issues have been addressed, this thread will be locked and archived.