Rookieblue

+ Support You warn history gave me pause, but you haven't gotten anything new for a month and a half. Your experience on the event team is also very valuable.

+ Support for the above reasons

+ Support

+ Support for 1 minute

+/- Support I agree that it shouldn't be directly in D-Block. If there is a piano-based SCP that would make this lore friendly, maybe. Otherwise, this isn't needed.

Sounds like this will need to be done as a branch update, but I do support the concept, as I did previously.

Keep in mind that there is no hierarchy for D-Class personnel. No chain of command or anything. This means that having them follow complicated rules such as riot timers, adverting riots, and such is going to be extremely difficult from both an enforcement standpoint for staff that are stretched taking other calls, as well as for other personnel having to respond to the riots. I'm not trying to shoot down ideas without presenting one of my own (because I don't have one atm), but I also want to highlight the differences between D-Class and other branches that have a more defined command structure that can enforce stuff like NLR, timers, and such.

I'm sorry if this sounds sarcastic, but doesn't the big red line with a sign saying KOS line provide a pretty big clue that they can't cross there?

- Senior Moderator Rookieblue

+ Support Ever since weapons were broadly introduced into D-Class it has significantly increased the number of riots and difficulty of holding D-Block from GENSEC. That isn't necessarily a completely bad thing, as it did make D-Class a more long term viable option to continue playing. However, I've been on staff for a few four-hour shifts and have had riots last either the entire time or the majority of the time. This frustrates everyone all around because GENSEC wants to be able to roleplay and play normally but are forced to continue defending D-Block, while D-Class are frustrated they are stuck in their little area and want to strike out at GENSEC. Adding in some form of formal rules that are enforceable will hopefully balance these aspects.

+ Support There's nothing for researchers to do in the panic room, and I've had to deal with researchers prop spawning and killing each other out of boredom. This would at least give them something to do.

- Support Honestly, this isn't really needed. In the problem you described, the same problem can be rectified by clarifying whether GENSEC are allowed to terminate a D-Class after returning to the non-KOS side after crossing, or by mandating that people playing the chicken game on the KOS line must be warned prior to being shot.

I appreciate you owning up to your conduct and saying you are going to change your ways.

+ Support Would clear up rules regarding GENSEC and MTF authority regarding terminating Foundation personnel.

- Support Your screenshot for evidence links to a picture from Resident Evil Revelations, not anything that would support this appeal. Looking at your disciplinary history across all servers, this is your first warning on ours but you have quite a history on Police and Mil RPs. Additionally, you never stated your side of the story on what happened from your perspective. All you did was complain about the staff member's reaction to the issue.

+ Support I've dealt with this individual multiple times the last few days. He is nothing but a minge that wants to cause problems in the server and ruin RP opportunities for others. I support a long term to a permenant ban of this individual.

- Support Look, had you come clean immediately with the first ban appeal that you filed, I would've supported shortening the ban to a couple months or so. But in each of your appeals you continued to be deceptive, first stating you had no idea why you were banned, then that you may have left some stuff out of the initial ban appeal, and then finally admitting that you "may tried to fuck shit up sometimes". Honestly, with the continued deception that you've shown, it's difficult to justify that you learned from the ban and will change your ways. Actions have consequences, and this is yours.

+ Support I've worked with Tony on a few occasions on an RP level, and I believe I've seen him work in his capacity as an Event Team member. Tony has been nothing but professional and helpful in all of my observations of him, and I believe he would be a good fit for the staffing team. Despite your two warnings, they were far apart and fairly minor, so I'm not holding those against you. Your answer to question 16 was accurate and conformed to the staff handbook. Good luck!

- Support I had a difficult time making a decision on how to support your application, but I decided on - support. On the topic of your 8 warnings, I'm not holding those against you because they occurred in 2017 on PoliceRP. You've had no documented issues since then, so I'm willing to let those slide. Moving on to your activity on the forums, you've also had your forum account since 2017, however, you've only made a total of 10 posts. Generally, we like to see applicants having a strong presence on the forums because it shows a commitment to our server, which you seem to lack. Moving forward to question 16, some of your answer is correct, while others are not. I like that you showed some critical thinking by saying how you would react to different things that may occur in the sit, such as verbally warning him to comply before taking further actions. However, issuing a second warning after gagging him is excessive. A warning should be issued at the end of a sit or the conduct. Unless extraordinary circumstances occur, you shouldn't come out of an admin sit having issued two different warnings. A minge would be warranted in this instance, but you didn't provide a time limit for the minge. Keep in mind, as a potential trial moderator, you are only able to issue up to 300 seconds. Anything more than that would require a higher ranked staff member. As a trial moderator, you do not have the ability to ban someone. Additionally, in this type of situation, a minge is a much more proportional response. Bans are typically used for highly abusive chat (racism, homophobia, etc) or threats against the server. Personally, I don't like the "no commenting on your own application" thing. If someone has a question, or you have information you'd like to add to a point someone brings up, you should be able to do so. So I never hold that particular point against people. In any case, I'd recommend taking some time to further familiarize yourself with the staff handbook and get further involved in the server before applying again.

- Support While you are very active on the server, your app demonstrates a lack of professionalism that makes me question your ability to maintain professionalism while on staff duty. You only have one warning on our servers, which was over a month ago so I'm not holding that against you. Your application seems rushed, as you did not answer whether you read the staff handbook, which may be why question 16 was wrong. Your "meme" response to question 13 doesn't put you in a good light here. A major red flag for me is "I was event team for an amount of time but I couldn't handle that power." As a staff member you will have similar powers to that of the event team, and if you weren't able to handle the power then, why would you be able to handle the power now? However, your answer to question 16 was incorrect. For this question, I typically like to see that the applicant has thought through the scenario and demonstrated how they would react if different outcomes were to occur. In your answer, you answered how you would effectively stop the person from talking over you so you could say your piece, which is good. However, as a trial moderator, you are not authorized to give out 10,000 second minges, which is stated in the staff handbook. Additionally, the lack of a warning being issued is also a concern, as there will be no documentation of the incident having taken place for other staff members to see if the person takes similar action down the line. If you decide to reapply for staff in the future, I recommend taking more time to fill out the application properly, give the staff handbook a thorough reading, and demonstrate why you would be an asset to the staffing team, rather than a liability.

I do have a question, why did you wait nearly 13 days after you received the warning to appeal it?

- Support The first thing I like to look at when deciding whether to support someone is their disciplinary history. Your statement regarding warns is incorrect, you have received a total of 4 warns, for prop spam/minge, LTAP, general minging, and metagaming. Four warns within a month, especially for someone newer to the server doesn't exactly reflect well on you, especially for someone hoping to become a staff member. Staff members are supposed to set the example for server conduct, so I recommend letting more time pass to show that you are going to be a positive player on this server. Regarding question 16, your answer was incorrect. You mentioned that you would jail/minge him immediately, which is an option that would ensure you would be able to say your piece, prevents him from saying his if he calms down. However, as stated in the staff handbook, trial moderators are not able to issue 10,000 minges, trial moderators can only give a maximum of 300 seconds. I'm assuming when you say, "i would also log what happened and his record" you mean you would issue a warning, but I'd recommend making that clearer in future applications. You didn't indicate your current rank on our server, but you mentioned you're a gold donator, which means you are likely a gold rank. However there are more than a few grammatical errors in this application, which show that you didn't take your time with it, and kind of rushed through it. Overall, I'd recommend waiting for a bit to gain more experience with our server, establish yourself as a positive player within the community, and take your time on future applications to show that you want to do a good job with us.