Rookieblue

@Rangiatea was the banning admin

Denied Report retracted.

@Protege and Lemon @2Chopper4 Do you have lemon's Steam ID?

PARTIALLY ACCEPTED Traditionally, I and the staff team generally come down very hard on anyone that uses racial/homophobic/transphobic/etc slurs in any context, and they are met with a minimum one week ban. However, this specific case is exactly why I preach discretion in all things. The player was accused of using a homophobic slur by another player without evidence. During the defense of himself he then actually used the slur. Poor decision making beside, the word in this case was not used as an insult, nor directed towards anyone. While its use is still unacceptable, it reduces the severity of this incident somewhat. Additionally, the other sanctions that were applied at the time of the incident, being a blacklist from GENSEC, have also been lifted due to the misunderstanding. Based on the totality of the circumstances, I'll be issuing a corrected warning for Usage of Homophobic Slur to remove the LTAP portion of the warning. I will also not be issuing the standard ban that normally accompanies this type of warning. The player is stringently warned that usage of the same or other slurs again, intentional or not, will be dealt with harshly.

That's all I need to hear. - Support

Moved to correct location

@Garlic

- Support Research isn't involved in the recontainment of SCPs and they should not be.

This was always the intention of the rule. I've cleaned up the wording for the next MOTD push to make it more clear that there is a five minute cooldown upon spawn in no matter what..

Denied No evidence of any MOTD violations provided.

Denied Based on the video evidence, this warning is upheld, and the appeal denied.

Denied Handled in game by staff.

Not quite true. The standard response has always, always been to call staff who can take steps to stop the minging, or demote them off the job. Killing them over and over does nothing except encourage them to continue, something you should very well know as a veteran player. Additionally, quoted from the MOTD: 18) All trainees are required to remain in their designated training room unless accompanied by a designated Field Training Officer from their respective branches. Any Trainee outside of the respective area may be immediately handcuffs and returned to their training area. If personnel are unable to handcuff the trainee, personnel are required to call staff to handle the situation If no staff members are online, the trainee may be killed. There were staff online at the time of the incident, since you received a warning.

Accepted! Your ban has been reversed. No further action is required on your part.

This is a Zeeptin decision, not a server management decision.

18) All trainees are required to remain in their designated training room unless accompanied by a designated Field Training Officer from their respective branches. Any Trainee outside of the respective area may be immediately handcuffs and returned to their training area. If personnel are unable to handcuff the trainee, personnel are required to call staff to handle the situation If no staff members are online, the trainee may be killed.

ACCEPTED Based on the evidence and testimony provided, this appeal has been granted. The warning has been removed from your record, no further action is required on your part.

This isn't a staff report, and you already have a warning appeal up. INVALID REPORT

APPROVED Upon review of the evidence and testimony provided, this appeal is being approved. The core issue in this instance is whether someone needs to specify what they're searching for when attempting to strip someone who has been captured. Some people have drawn a connection between stripping and calling thermals, however that connection is not compelling. A specific reason for thermals is required because it has a significant impact on the overall gameplay across multiple classes and branches. There have been multiple issues with thermals being called without proper reasoning, which has resulted in those rules. However, stripping is an extremely common task that everyone knows what they're looking for. If someone engages in stripping an opposing player, it's commonly understood that they're stripping weapons, communication equipment, and suicide agents. I do not believe it to be necessary to specifically articulate what you're looking for in a strip. The second core issue here is whether a roll off would've been necessary. In general, most opposing RP actions must be rolled out to give both sides an equal chance of succeeding or failing in the attempt. This is to reduce powergaming, and provide a better roleplaying experience overall. The D-Class in question was cuffed at the time of being stripped, however the rule set at the time laid out that only personnel with their hands up are prevented from conducting rolls. As such, a roll off should've been conducted between the GENSEC officer and the D-Class. As a roll off was not conducted, the D-Class would've still maintained possession of his firearm. Based on the above conclusions, the warning has been removed from your record. No further action is needed on your part.

@vSquishyv There are no warnings associated with the Steam ID you provided.

It's just the system we use. Warnings are always active.

That isn't true at all. Warnings never expire, and are always active.

Denied

I'm denying this appeal based on failure to follow the permanent ban appeal process laid out here: https://gaminglight.com/forums/topic/34293-ban-and-job-blacklist-appeal-process-and-formats/ Prior Ban Appeal: https://gaminglight.com/forums/topic/66664-ban-appeal-wilson/?tab=comments#comment-455816 You must wait one month after having your appeal denied before another ban appeal can be considered by a different SCP SMT member. You are eligible to make your second appeal on December 21st.

Was a roll off conducted as part of the strip action?