Rookieblue

PARTIALLY ACCEPTED This situation and the final decision involves a variety of factors, and as I have recently been accused of favoring CI, I will, as always, discuss all factors that have led to my decision in the case. 1) Established Precedent From a Previous Report Under a previous report from a player on April 6th, 2020 (https://gaminglight.com/forums/topic/54954-oranges-player-report/) CI personnel reported that E11 personnel violated then MOTD rule "You may not shoot/interfere with Chaos Insurgency/D-Class that are outside the foundation unless it is on Defcon 3 or lower, and Epsilon-11 has been called. You are to act as if you were not there." E11 personnel had been requested by a Site Administration member despite not being able to validly due so based on the MOTD. In this case, the following actions were taken: - Case presentment established that the MOTD always trumps branch SOPs. - Established that it is the responsibility of branch command members to request updates to the MOTD when they would like rule changes. - In the decision that I previously authored, I stated, "Given the various factors involved in this report, such as confusion between MOTD vs SOP supremacy, the E-11 being requested to guard the DOC, and the clear directive of the MOTD, I will not be issuing a warning or taking enforcement action against the player in question. HOWEVER, this decision servers as a notice to all branches, reinforced by my personal conversations with each branch's command yesterday, that that MOTD is the law of the land. Any further actions that violate the MOTD, even if in compliance with branch SOPs, will result in warnings or other sanctions. Additionally, E-11 Command is directed to ensure their SOP is in compliance with the MOTD, or go through proper channels to suggest edits to the MOTD." 2) My Current Affiliation with CI While I am currently a 1 LT with CI, this does not, nor has ever impacted my ability to make impartial decisions based on warnings and reports that I handle on a day to day basis. I have played on this server since January of 2019, and have held the following positions: - GENSEC Command, Senior Field Trainer - Utility Senior Technician, Field Trainer - Utility Junior Janitor - MTF E-11 Private - Research Associate Researcher - CI Command, 1st Lieutenant, Supervisory Field Trainer, Head of Sawbones I have been involved in every single branch, including MTF, with the exception of the recently formed OMI, NU-7, Utility Medical, and O5/Site Administration. I approach each situation and each report in a neutral manner, and I believe that my experience working in these branches in fact makes me better suited to handle these types of reports, as I know the difficultly of working D-Block as a GENSEC Lance Corporal and having people line bait, I know the difficultly of being a researcher and having D-Class minge when you're trying to complete a test, and I know the difficultly of being an E-11 MTF member and trying to keep the facility secure from both CI and MTF. I am also acutely aware of the difficultly of being a command member and making decisions that affect others while being constrained by various policies and rules through my current position as a CI command member, previous position as a GENSEC command member, and real life experience as a police officer. 3) Facts in This Specific Incident The following occurred during this incident: - While on DEFCON 4 OMI WO Kilo requested E-11 personnel respond to the Foundation, which violates the following MOTD rule: 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 Utility, Research, or GENSEC. - STF D4 Frost responded to the request for E11 assistance, but ordered E11 personnel to remain in the Entrance Zone, also violating the following MOTD rule: 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 Utility, Research, or GENSEC. - When CI personnel confronted OMI and E11 personnel after the fact, E11 LCPL Rhodes specifically cited OMI's request as their reason for entrance, and OMI WO Kilo's statement when told he does not have the authority to make such a request of, "It's out of date" showing that he was at least aware of the rule being in the MOTD. Whereas given the above information, Including the previous report precedent in which all branch commands, including E-11, CI, Research, GENSEC, NU-7, Utility, and Site Administration were advised that the MOTD trumps any and all SOPs, including that a verbal warning was provided in the previous case to those individuals that violated MOTD rules based on a misunderstanding between the MOTD and SOP, and including that it was specifically stated that further instances of this type of misconduct would result in additional sanctions, the following actions are being taken: A formal warning is being issued to OMI WO Kilo for FailRP - Falsely Requesting E-11 A verbal warning is being issued in the form of this report response to STF D4 Frost for FailRP - E-11 On Site Without Proper Authorization

This player has the following warnings on his record: 06/20/2020, 18:38:24 - SCP - Shotgun Soviet (Moat.gg) - [GL] Rookieblue - Player Report Accepted - Self Breaching as SCP 173 06/02/2020, 18:36:57 - SCP - Shotgun Soviet (Moat.gg) - [GL] [TTV] Ze Blightcaller - FailRP (going into armory as 1048-A) Based on what is now recurring issues of misconduct on SCPs, including misconduct on one of the three SCPs that are subject to more stringent enforcement due to their ability to be abused, a blacklist was issued for SCP 173 and SCP 1048-A due to continued misconduct.

Yeah, I'm going to need a STEAM ID at a minimum to even start processing this appeal.

Why was E11 in EZ on DEFCON 4, and why did you order they remain there prior to being called by Kilo?

If I remember correctly, this specific update was requested prior to OMI even being implemented, but I'll admit I'm not 100% sure on it, the months blur together for me. Additionally, we had dealt with a dust up on this before, if a branch wants an update to the MOTD, they need to approach me/post a suggestion/literally do something to say they want a rule updated. MOTD > SOPs always, and saying, "It's out of date" is not a valid defense, considering I just made some pretty significant updates to it recently regarding CI's combat rules. If CI can talk to me/Hoovy/SMT and get rules updated and added, I have no idea why it's always MTF that seemingly decide they can just disregard the MOTD and do their own thing. It's frustrating because I've literally reached out to every command a number of times and previously worked closely with OMI command to get their info added to the MOTD and it never happened.

Accepted Thank you for the report. This player has received a warning and a one week ban.

- Support. While I'm very much in favor of opening up CCs to other branches, allowing combatant CCs would basically just allow people to play GENSEC and sometimes do other stuff. It erases the boundaries between branches and makes them useless. If you want to play as a combatant, either reach the official rank within that branch to do so, or play GENSEC/MTF/CI.

I'm just gonna drop the screenshot of his inappropriate language that got him a warning, and his own request for a five day ban.

Accepted Thank you for the report. Appropriate action against the player and or staff member will be taken to ensure that they receive the correct punishment.

That's literally not a thing except for staff applications. Do not perpetuate false information. As to the application itself, -Support, 3 months isn't a long punishment. Wait it out, show that you can do better.

Denied

You know, it's hard to argue that you're being discriminated against for being gay, when I'm a Head Admin and also openly gay. Bye Smoke, see you on your next alt.

@Rangiatea

Accepted Thank you for the report. This player will be issued a warning for Advert Spam / Not Complying with Staff and receive a two week ban based on this conduct, and the conduct in the previous report I previously accepted.

Didn't I just accept a player report about this guy? Oh, I did.

Accepted Thank you for the report. After viewing the video evidence and using logs on the server to confirm the RDM, I have issued the player in question a warning for FailRP/RDM as SCP 096. As this player does not have a history of such conduct they will not be blacklisted from SCP 096 at this time. However if further misconduct of this type occurs, that can easily change.

Threshold bans are generally applied when you hit 10/20/30/40 warnings on a particular server, but sometimes staff members miss them and don't notice. But, I mean, that doesn't negate the fact that you have 25 warnings on PoliceRP, which meets the 20 warning criteria? A cursory look on your jacket shows you never served the 10 warning threshold ban of a day, so I'd say you already caught a break there. You also have a warning and ban on your record for, "Talking and RP'ing as a 'School Shooter'" which, I'll be honest if this was on SCPRP I'd have perm banned your for that, but my PRP colleagues are a lot more lenient it seems. Speaking as an occasional PRP player, serve out your ban time. - Support

Accepted Thank you for the report. Switching to a new job in such a clear and blatant attempt to violate NLR and gain an RP advantage is not tolerated. This player will be receiving a warning for NLR violation.

As was said numerous times, apps are currently closed. However I will keep your application active if/when they're opened back up!

Name: Rookieblue Rank: 1LT SteamID: STEAM_0:1:42428330 Discord: Rookieblue#2667 SubBranches(s): Sawbones (Commander), Hotshot Things you wanna see in CI: I would like to see the squad system returned and a greater role played by our NCOs to provide them with opportunities to increase their leadership skills. Activity: Currently on Emergency LOA Why should you keep your position?{COMMAND ONLY}: I believe I should retain my position as a command member with CI because I have a lot of ideas on how to continue to improve the branch, and I've thus far assisted with a lot of the admin level stuff with the branch. While my activity is currently low due to being on an emergency leave, I have instituted a large number of reforms within the Sawbones subbranch, which has led to higher engagement, fewer members being removed, and larger total numbers.

Accepted Thank you for the report. This player has been issued a warning for Homophobic Slur / Player Dis and issued a one week ban.

Not necessarily a bad idea, would help with the overall balance issues with his recontainment, making him a larger threat. + Support

I support this change. I believe that if a player is interested in creating a CC that falls under the Utility or Research branch they should be required to work directly with that branch's high command to establish what the expectations are for the CC, what rules or authority the CC is required to follow, and the like. This change would give the player base more freedom to customize their experience, while providing easy ways for staff to intervene during cases of misconduct. Additionally, an easy way to prevent combat classes being introduced into non-combat branches would be to restrict the types of weapons these CCs would be able to be equipped with during the creation process. While there have been issues in the past, we also previously had significant issues with people abusing self breaches, which we brought back and has generally been very successful. + Support

Accepted 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.

Accepted 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.