Rookieblue

9. You must have an RP reason to activate thermals. When utilizing thermals the initial MTF member must include the reason why thermals are being activated. Ie Thermals - SCP 966’s cell is empty. Thermals are then only active for the action you’re taking. Literally in the MOTD already.

I don't like a timer on thermals, but I'm working on reworking the thermal rules.

@Rektify

Because there were multiple incidents of Maynard characters doing that exact thing.

Whitelists fixed

Noted! We have reviewed this issue with our servers and we will be working hard to fix it ASAP! Please allow up to a week for any bug fixes to occur as we go on a first come first serve basis. Thank you!

It was in character backstories.

Supporting bug reports are pointless.

Why is this here. Moved to a more appropriate area.

Accepted Based on the testimony and evidence provided, a verbal warning will suffice.

Protip, making your appeal in all caps doesn't improve the chances of it being approved. You were blacklisted from SCP 173, 106, 343, 066, and 999 due to multiple and continued abuses of those SCPs. The blacklists were not random, nor without reason. You were also not blacklisted from every SCP, though continued misconduct will result in that becoming the case. https://gaminglight.com/bans/player/76561198978831594 05/27/2020, 22:41:41 - SCP - GordanFreeman2020 - FailRP (as 173) 05/27/2020, 21:09:29 - SCP - [GL] Rektify - Exploiting 173 Swep 08/18/2020, 18:09:37 - SCP - [GL] Rookieblue - Having a gun as SCP 999 05/28/2020, 23:10:33 - SCP - [TTV] Ze_Blightcaller - FailRP (using his swep on ppl who come by his cell) 05/28/2020, 22:01:58 - SCP - [GL] PinbalIn - Lower D-block as 173 | Report Accepted 08/16/2020, 09:54:44 - SCP - Weiss Schnee - FailRP | Breaching SCP-173 as MTF. 08/16/2020, 06:23:54 - SCP - Weiss Schnee - FailRP | Breaching SCP-035 as MTF. 07/17/2020, 20:32:19 - SCP - [GL] Warro - FailRP 07/03/2020, 18:31:05 - SCP - [GL] Wolfy - FailRP (066)

Accepted Thank you for the report. Both players will be receiving a formal warning and blacklists for Research.

Accepted Based on the evidence and testimony provided, this warning appeal is being accepted. While the appellate in this case broke a well known rule in the MOTD, some discretion in this case would be warranted. The elevator glitch is well known and well documented, and on the list to be fixed. However, the appellate could've easily called a staff member about the issue, or notified staff immediately upon spawning a prop to fix the glitch to avoid the situation. Additionally, the appellate failed to immediately remove his prop upon fixing the glitch, which led to the staff member in question discovering the situation and handling as they deemed appropriate. To have your warn removed, go to the "Bans" Section at the top of the forums, navigate to your profile, find the warning for this appeal, and for the reason on the appeal, link this post.

DENIED Based on the testimony provided in this case, I am upholding the warning and denying this appeal. While in normal circumstances I would approve this appeal as the MOTD update with the prohibition from D-Class using Riot Shields has not yet been pushed, the appellate in this case had been warned numerous times by staff previously against using the riot shield as a D-Class member, something that the appellate admitted to. As the appellate had previously received verbal warnings for this conduct, chose to continue to utilize the shield despite these warnings, and admitted to doing so, the warning is upheld.

Updated 8/16/2020

Do we really need another MTF branch? My answer is no. As discussed by someone above, I'd much rather see another GOI added before another MTF branch.

I mean, D-Class are prisoners. It's completely reasonable for GENSEC to shoot their prisoners if they're armed.

DENIED Toxicity and bullying are not tolerated on the server, nor the community. However, in this instance it is extremely difficult for SMT members to take action. For one, recording actions on the server is not only permissible, but encouraged for the purpose of documenting potential misconduct, or capturing fun moments on the server. The specific recording that captured the interaction between a player playing SCP 939 and MTF personnel in question is therefore not breaking any rules to have been made in the first place. While the recording captures a player in a poor light, that's not something that we as SMT personnel can control, nor really take specific actions against unless we are able to determine without a shadow of a doubt that recordings are being made or edited to target a specific player for harassment or intimidation purposes. In this specific incident, that isn't the case. While we are not taking actions from a staff standpoint, the players involved in this incident have absolutely placed themselves on the radar of the SMT, Site Administration, and their branch command's radar. Their specific branch commands may take action at their own discretion against the individuals in question, and any further questionable conduct will be met with stringent consequences.

Denied This appeal is denied. The appellate in his own statement stated that he switched jobs to purposefully avoid an RP scenario where he had been turned into a SCP 049-2. He then switch into another class to then FearRP SCP 049. This is both FailRP and Metagaming. The warning is upheld.

I support removing weapons from the Trainer class. However the HP increases for Trainees is absolutely a horrid idea.

Oh my

Whitelist issues fixed!

Accepted After reviewing the evidence and testimony provided in this appeal, I've decided to accept this appeal. In this case, the rule violation that the appellate was penalized for was: "You are not to shoot/interfere with Chaos Insurgency/D-Class that are either inside, or outside the foundation unless it is on DEFCON 3 or lower, or on DEFCON 4 and have been requested by a command member of MTF, Utility, Research, or GENSEC with a valid RP reason." In this specific instance, however, E11 had been on site dealing with a DEFCON 3 situation, and was exiting the Facility as appropriate now that the DEFCON had changed to DEFCON 4 with no request for E11 to be on site. In the process on him leaving, he encountered a suspicious situation, and reacted normally. There has to be some reasonable give and take in this situation, as E11 can't just disappear from the Site the moment the DEFCON changes, and it is reasonable in a RP setting for them to still be in RP while leaving the Foundation. Secondly, and this is me repeating this for the dozenth time, and I'll continue to repeat it a dozen more in the future, arguing that you think a verbal warning should've been issued is not a valid argument. Staff have the full discretion on whether to issue a verbal warning, or a formal warning. Period. Full Stop. End of Discussion. It doesn't matter if you would've given a verbal warning in their place. SMT are (metaphorically) paid the big bucks to decide whether there is enough evidence for a formal warning to stand. As this situation falls with RP norm, the warning is being revoked. To have your warn removed, go to the "Bans" Section at the top of the forums, navigate to your profile, find the warning for this appeal, and for the reason on the appeal, link this post.

Was E11 on site on a DEFCON 3 or above just prior to this incident occurring?

Accepted Based on the evidence and testimony provided, I am approving this appeal. While unfortunately the video evidence in this case is exceedingly conclusive, it does lend credibility to the appellate's argument that had another rule violation (body blocking) not had occurred, he would have been able to exit without being placed under FearRP. However, this body blocking did not appear intentional, and will not result in any punishment. Furthermore, there appears to be confusion on the distance someone needs to be to be able to be placed under FearRP, as well as whether someone running can do so. Senior Moderator Hope's explanation regarding both CI personnel were within FearRP distance because the appellate was within audio hearing distance is accurate. Players that are able to hear each other's mic audio is indeed within FearRP range. The appellate's argument regarding the applicability of this standard also allowing FearRP to take place through doors, walls, or other solid objects that provide cover is not compelling, as a common sense standard applies there. Secondly, the appellate's point regarding a sprinting enemy not being able to point his weapon at a target is indeed accurate. The sprint mechanic prevents a player from being able to accurately point their weapon at a target, making them ineligible to act as one of the two people needed to place someone at FearRP. Upon them no longer sprinting, however, they can then act as a FearRP person. Thirdly, the appellate's claim that FearRP wasn't sufficiently called is not compelling. While calling FearRP out is helpful to all involved, FearRP isn't triggered by calling it, but rather the presence of two or more people holding an individual at gunpoint. To have your warn removed, go to the "Bans" Section at the top of the forums, navigate to your profile, find the warning for this appeal, and for the reason on the appeal, link this post.