Sparkle

-Support History of abuse and NCWS. Also it's your responsibility to read the rules before clicking "Close". While some of us may be lenient in that regard, you've had multiple chances to correct that and based on said history, I do not feel your dispute is a valid excuse.

+Support Quality application and has made positive impacts in the many branches she has been in. I very much enjoy the efforts.

Not gonna lie, at first glance it looks like you're going to be gone for 5 months Good luck on the exams.

The leave and immediate rejoin part is what got you. And by handbook, LTAP is generally 3 days so you really got off light. -Support

We will be forever grateful of your efforts in the multiple branches you lead. Good luck on your future endeavors.

+Support Remove le warn for funny guy

Assuming you are truthful with 5 966s being on AND assuming you successfully adverted 3 times over the span of 15 minutes (at 0, 5, and 10 minute marks) then the final advert (at 15 minute mark) indicating the breach AND the MTF did not reach you before that final advert... The door should've been left broken because MTF failed to fulfill the needs in a timely manner. 966 self-breaching rules dictate "If there are 4-5 966’s on, they can instantly breach after they have finished their initial adverts." Meaning there is no door breaking adverts are needed to successfully breach and escape. Again, assuming you timed the adverts correctly and did the final advert on-time and before MTF reached you with the D-Class. If any of those elements are untrue then the action was correct.

+Support due to the overwhelming evidence. We just been through, not one, but TWO reports and a ban appeal regarding "jokes" about sensitive content. There is a fine line to cross and I feel that is crossed here. We have kids in this community and such acts, no matter how small, should not and will not be tolerated. Jack, you are a great command member and overall good friend, but for this report to have to be made... you're already in too deep sir.

-Support Those "jokes" are not taken lightly here sir.

You were banned for Mass RDM/ARDM (x21). That is absolutely extreme for testing out a new weapon. Additionally, the very, VERY first rule of the server, on the MOTD that appears every time you join says "Do not kill without an RP reason, this is considered random death match (RDM)." You killed 21 people, as you admit, for an invalid reason. If you really wanted to test a weapon out, you could've asked someone to agree and go to the designated space just for that. -Support

I hate when I have to deal with multiple sits with no help until the point they explode to seven A lot of this info I feel was excluded from the sit itself. I focused on the issue at hand: Why did you kill a security that accidentally harmed you for following orders to terminate the D-Class? The keyword "accidentally." Also the part that you tried to defend the D-Class with a riot shield putting yourself in harms way. The D-Class was uncuffed so anybody walking by and not in any way previously involved would think he escaped. This part, to my remembrance, was not included in the arguments which lead to my determination. I felt differently about how he handled that issue and his use of his roles as O5 staff and a combatant.

I was given the exact video above, so how I saw this: His positioning of where he was healing was exactly ideal. He was directly in the line of sight of potential combatants that was only hindered by a couple gates of the elevator. I was thinking on if that gate were to go up what the implications would be. Putting himself in a position that would be considered active combat. Now the definition of "active" shootout is very up to us to determine, what constitutes active and what constitutes becoming inactive. I am okay of being told that my interpretation of this being "active" is wrong. I'll take any feedback from this appeal, accepted or denied.

God dammit Gubby! Why you leave us like this. For real though, despite the challenges and roadblocks, you still gave it some effort and made it high up. Hope you come around soon. -Foreman R. D. Sparkle

-Support The text sign on the elevator is extremely clear on what the punishment will be. Based on the story above, I see serious toxicity issues that honestly warrants more but you should count your blessings it ended there. Your one day break is almost over anyways.

+Support Small incentives do work. I would love to see more SCPs on.

Your application is pretty solid so sure. Hope to see you on the field. +Support

I'm gonna lean to a +Support here The offense you committed is pretty up there but I get the frustration of being stuck. Does not give you the right to RDM like you did in that situation. From here, if this is accepted, I hope you acknowledge that the rules for SCPs are pretty firm and any further action will lead to more blacklists. This thread as the documentation.

Whether or not the warnings are "active" does not matter in almost all cases. All warnings, regardless of how long ago, can be used to render decisions. With that in mind, I agree with the above comments and reasons. -Support

It's staff discretion whether to issue a verbal or formal warning. Also this was from a couple months ago. One single warning is not gonna put any labels on you cause we make mistakes and that's understood by pretty much everyone. If your intention is to get a valid warning removed just for this reason then sorry, -Support