Rookieblue

Fewer jobs, I love it. + Support

Donator ranks aren't used on the forums, you're a member because your not a member of the staff team.

Regarding issues like these? Yes.

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!

We're well aware. Use of this exploit results in a warning/ban/blacklist from the job.

Accepted Thank you for the report. This player will receive a warning for being in D-Block as SCP 1424.

Accepted! After reviewing the evidence and testimony provided I've decided that the warning for this incident will be upheld, while the ban itself will be removed. 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.

Guidelines are just that, guidelines. However I am monitoring this appeal.

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!

If the stun stick were to be removed if would need to be replaced with something, otherwise 912 will just stand there useless. A stun gun was suggested which may be a viable suggestion, but we'd likely need to see more for this suggestion to be considered more deeply.

I don't know how many times I have to say this. There are currently NO RULES PREVENTING GENSEC FROM ENTERING LOWER D-BLOCK. GENSEC has a rule where certain personnel can not enter the Lower D-Block Tower. Tower =/= LDB.

This has been brought up multiple times on occasion, few people take advantage of two lives, fewer that do maintain high activity on both branches, even fewer would be able to make a third life work. - Support

+ Support Skela is an extremely competent and active member of the community. I believe he would be an asset to the staff team.

Additional information for those providing + or - Support: People who become staff members on a server are told that staff duties come before RP duties or scenarios. This is because as a staff member you make a commitment to make the server a more enjoyable place for the entire community. Recently we've been having issues where staff members are playing on their RP jobs when sit requests will pop up and no one will take those sits. This causes a significant negative impact on players, as they don't have staff members to support them when RDM/FailRP/etc is occurring. Currently, we don't have staffing ratios, which is a mandated staff to player number where staff members would be mandated to be staffing if reached, as we believe it is important for staff members to still be able to RP if there aren't any sits coming in. However, to keep this model, we need staff to break away from their RP duties to hop on staff when sits do start coming in. All staff members have been warned, numerous times over the past couple months, that if a bunch of admin sits are flooding in and no one is taking them and no one is hoping onto staff to assist their names would be documented by the SMT team. To be removed from the staff team for this type of conduct there needs to be three documented occasions where the staff member failed to meet the expectations set for them by taking sits. So this is just straight up wrong. Light had a documented history of twice before not taking admin sits when he was online, which Light has even admitted to here. This third incident, where he was AFK on a job he shouldn't have been AFK'ing on in the first place and not available to take sits, made it a third incident. As someone who isn't a staff member, nor a SMT member, I request you don't say what "should" have happened as you aren't privy to current staffing rules and dynamics.

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.

Accepted Thank you for the report. This player will be receiving a formal warning for multiple counts of FailRP as SCP 173, will be blacklisted from SCP 173, and as this is his 36th warning on SCPRP will receive a one month ban for the 30+ warning threshold.

Accepted Thank you for the report. This player will receive a formal warning for entering D-Block as SCP 106 and be blacklisted from the job.

Accepted Thank you for the report. Based on the evidence and testimony provided the player Zerk will receive a formal warning for Prop Spam in D-Block and the player Reaper will receive a formal warning for RDM x2.

Accepted Thank you for the report. Based on the evidence and testimony provided this player will be issued a formal warning for NLR Violation.

Accepted Based on the testimony and evidence provided in this appeal I am overturning this warning. In this instance the staff member failed to conduct a sit, which is a violation of the staff handbook, and failed to properly investigate this incident. While the reporting person was a staff member, the call should have been fully investigated and evidence gathered prior to a warning being issued. 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.

I believe this is a PoliceRP question, not a SCP RP Staff report. Moved accordingly.

The MOTD automatically displays every single time you log into the server. You have to make a conscious decision to close out the rules before playing. We literally can't do much more to force people to read the rules.

I was the person that issued the blacklist for SCP 966 while reviewing the warnings being issued. This individual was warned for FailRP | Weapon as SCP-966 on Thu Apr 23 22:36:09 2020. I also noticed that this individual was also warned for: fail rp entering d block as 106 - Thu Apr 23 19:28:14 2020 Lying to staff | Breaking multiple 106 rules - Wed Apr 22 04:37:18 2020 In less than 48 hours he had amassed three separate warnings for high level misconduct on multiple SCPs. To prevent further instances of misconduct from occurring, which I deemed extremely likely, I issued a blacklist for SCP 966 and SCP 106/173/343. Please excuse the late response, I'm on LOA at the moment, otherwise I would've seen and responded much earlier.

Name: Rookieblue Rank: 2LT Callsign: SB76 Date of LOA Leave/Return: 4/26/2020 - 5/06/2020 Reason (if private write N/A): Just taking some personal time.

While handling other duties I was alerted that an individual playing on SCP 173 was potentially abusing the SWEP by going through walls and such. I began spectating and observed this player on SCP 173 outside the Foundation Site in the water area. Per the MOTD: 10. SCPs are not allowed to enter the water on the surface at any time. Additionally, upon reviewing the warning history of this individual they have a history of abusing SCPs: Sat Apr 11 18:09:58 2020 - SCP - 76561198208426309 - Field Medic Cormad - spamming 1048-A swep Sat Apr 11 19:41:02 2020 - SCP - 76561198208426309 - Rektify - Harming another SCP as an SCP I would support revising the warning to remove the 173 on surface portion of the warning, but the in the water portion is valid.