Member Cap Whitelisted vs Un-Whitelisted.

[JordanDMK]

It has become obvious since the gang rules update that some individuals will choose to be part of a "Un-Whitelisted" group to evade certain rules.
This suggestion is to help push out the individuals who favour shooting over RP. This does not mean that shooting isn't a form of rp but the quality that some people in this community provide is minimal to avoid the clauses of RDM.
It goes without saying Whitelisted groups are held to a higher standard whilst Un-Whitelisted groups are not. I've heard from many individuals that being part of a Whitelisted group is nothing special in the form of what perks you get. This suggestion should help Whitelisted groups feel more rewarded for their long-term commitment to the community.

I would like to propose that Whitelisted groups remain at a 25 member capacity.
I suggest that Un-Whitelisted groups to be capped at 15 (open to suggestions)


Pros:
Un-Whitelisted groups who form with the sole focus of fragging will for the most part be outnumbered by Whitelisted groups if they choose to go to war.
Whitelisted groups will group in members as members of the community will seek larger groups.
Whitelisted groups feeling more rewarded.
Realisiticly a "new" group wouldn't form with a 20 person f6 out of no where. I believe their should be development and growth.


Cons:

People will likely make less Un-whitelisted groups (But those who do will likely do it for the right reasons)
Un-Whitelisted groups who exceed the cap would likely have to make some hard decisions.


I'm sure there will be a lot of positive feedback from Whitelisted groups on this topic and a lot of negative from Un-Whitelised.
Lets keep it civil. I am curious on everybodys opinion.

 

[Reece Dunn]

I dont believe in changing something that would affect such a large amount people is the right way to go, especially not when the problem often lays with the individual(s). Let staff do their thing and get rid of those not here to provide roleplay, rather than making a change that could negatively affect those abiding by the rules and keeping to a high standard.

-1

 

[JackJohnson]

I don’t think limiting new groups is the way to go honestly - already we see new groups getting ‘zerged’ by big groups, this would just make that problem worse. Most likely it would just make things more difficult for groups that are actually putting effort into their group and they’ll inevitably get bulled by whitelisted, it already happens now when they are allowed 25 members.
Either reduce the cap for everyone, or nobody. Whitelisted groups has perks, but it shouldn’t come at the disadvantage of new or smaller groups.

 

[Nikolai]

-1, kinda agree with Reece, it's rarely the fault of the group but rather a set of people within a group

 

[Samuel Shire]

Unfortunately I think all it would end up with is having groups forming and just not having a F6 for them untill they got to a point where they are close to whitelisting

 

[Jack Wiltshire]

I don't believe the parameters of creating and building a gang via the F6 is the problem, it's individual people responsible for their own motives on how they want to behave in the city, which exist both in whitelisted and non whitelisted gangs, you obviously have great intentions and show you care with the suggestion, but I don't feel it would lead to the desired results we'd want from it.

The staff and forums serve a great purpose in weeding out these bad actors.. the types of gangs they join whilst exhibiting shitty roleplay is out of all our control up until the point its reported and acted upon.

 

[L1L]

i would rather see the current whitelisted groups to be put down to 15 (and have a greater variety of these) and have the non-whitelisted as a max of 8 members which i feel is abit more fair for everyone.