Rookieblue

ACCEPTED! After review, the SCP-RP SMT team has decided to accept you for staff! Please speak to Senior Admin+ for SCP-RP in TeamSpeak to get started!

DENIED. After review, the SCP-RP SMT team has decided not to accept you for staff. This can be because of your application, experience, behavior, feedback, or other unstated reasons. You may re-apply in 1 week.

DENIED. After review, the SCP-RP SMT team has decided not to accept you for staff. This can be because of your application, experience, behavior, feedback, or other unstated reasons. You may re-apply in 1 week.

Denied

Denied Already handled in game.

DENIED. After review, the SCP-RP SMT team has decided not to accept you for staff. This can be because of your application, experience, behavior, feedback, or other unstated reasons. You may re-apply in 1 week.

DENIED. After review, the SCP-RP SMT team has decided not to accept you for staff. This can be because of your application, experience, behavior, feedback, or other unstated reasons. You may re-apply in 1 week.

DENIED. After review, the SCP-RP SMT team has decided not to accept you for staff. This can be because of your application, experience, behavior, feedback, or other unstated reasons. You may re-apply in 1 week.

DENIED. After review, the SCP-RP SMT team has decided not to accept you for staff. This can be because of your application, experience, behavior, feedback, or other unstated reasons. You may re-apply in 1 week.

ACCEPTED! After review, the SCP-RP SMT team has decided to accept you for staff! Please speak to Senior Admin+ for SCP-RP in TeamSpeak to get started!

Denied I like the RP tho.

Accepted! Please allow up to a couple days to get unbanned from your respective discord.

Ban appeal granted. Any further misconduct will be handled accordingly.

Please provide your Discord Name. Example: Rookieblue#2667

Denied Upon review of the evidence provided, this warning is being upheld.

SCP 079 can already assist some SCPs with breaching by opening their outer most containment doors. I do not think it'd be wise to allow SCP 079 to further buff the SCP breaching process.

Whoops, I'll change that now. Fixed as suggested!

Denied.

Ban will be removed upon your server ban expiring.

Denied.

Denied

Sorry you think not being racist or playing music with slurs in it is a dumb rule, but it's a rule nonetheless.

Accepted After reviewing the testimony and evidence provided in this appeal, the appeal has been accepted. At issue here are two points, both falling under Foundation Staff Rule #3. Rule #3 established that Utility and Research personnel are non-combatants and can only attack D-Class and CI personnel in defense of themselves, other non-combatants, or if they're interfering with Site Operations. In the video provided, it appears that the appealing player is the only non-combatant inside the shelter, meaning that the D-Class attacking the combatants does not trigger that threshold. It is hard to see, however it appears the D-Class did take a swipe at the appealing player, which may trigger the self defense clause, had the D-Class not disengaged and attacked other targets. As such the self defense and defense of others clause is not met here. Secondly is determining whether D-Class were interfering in Site Operations. In this incident, the Foundation was under a Code Nuke, and personnel were evacuating to panic shelters to get to safety. Hostile individuals inside a panic room does in fact meet the criteria of the D-Class interfering with Site Operations, as they are preventing Foundation personnel from reaching safety and saving themselves. As such, this does trigger the Site Operation clause, making this a valid kill. As such, this warning has been revoked and removed from your record.

After reviewing this staff report I have elected to accept the report. At issue here is whether a staff member is allowed to take a sit they're directly involved with and issue punishments. There has been some confusion in the past on what constitutes being "directly involved" in a sit, however being the victim of an ARDM clearly falls under the "directly involved" category. According to staff handbook rule #5: Do not deal with sits involving yourself or your friends to avoid potential bias issue. In these instances you are required to have an uninvolved staff member take the sit, or file a player report. Here, the staff handbook clearly lays out the expectations on handling sits that you are directly involved in. As shown in the evidence provided, the staff member could've easily requested another online staff member to handle the issue in the staff chat, made a report themselves, or filed a player report later. However, there are circumstances where a staff member may be required to take action against someone who wrongs them, such as if the player called the staff member a slur, engaging in mass RDM, or other major misconduct along those lines. In these circumstances a staff member could take action, and, while a violation of rule #5, would likely have their actions upheld. However, in this specific case, this exception would not apply. Based on the violation of the staff handbook, Senior Moderator Walter Scott has been issued a staff strike.

Accepted After reviewing the evidence and testimony provided in this incident, the appeal has been accepted and warning revoked. In this incident, a staff member loading onto the server completed loading in and found themselves damaged. The staff member checked logs, and warned the player without taking them to a staff sit. In this specific case, Staff Handbook Rule #5 was violated, that being: Do not deal with sits involving yourself or your friends to avoid potential bias issue. In these instances you are required to have an uninvolved staff member take the sit, or file a player report. I believe the way this was handled was inappropriate for a variety of reasons: Staff member took a sit they were directly involved in (Victim of a ARDM) Staff member had the opportunity to have a non-involved staff member handle the incident, or file a player report, which was not done. The appealing player, while in the wrong for damaging the staff member while loading in, only did so to move him from the door to allow him to continue gameplay. Nothing of value was lost, and the staff member could've easily done many things to recover his health or swap jobs. No formal sit was conducted regarding this incident. While I have issued warnings as the victim of an RDM while in D-Block to the person that killed me, I only do so when: I'm clearly in an area far away from the door meaning that door blocking is not a valid issue. The player went out of their way to damage and/or kill me. Player has usually killed other people in addition to just me. With all of those factors in mind, this warning has been revoked and removed from the appealing player's record.