Nydekore

-Support AFK or join maintenance or both. You don’t really need money for anything anyways (other than guns but I hardly ever see people not able to afford those if they budget correctly)

-Support Coltable himself offered this switch and I’ve hardly noticed the change. The 98B has a very long time between shots so unless they get ZJ back all you gotta do is move enough and they’re not gonna get you

Please fill out the format listed here or this will be denied:

Honestly, -support The reason 2191 is so consistently hated on is the current “culture” of SCP players. Many like to simply camp outside dblock where they can pick on Gensec OFCs and Dclass. This is exacerbated by the health regeneration of 2191 but is not caused by it and I think it’d be unfair to the 2191 players who do not simply camp LCZ and bully non-combatants, no matter how few they are in numbers. I would perhaps like a better system of dealing with the constant LCZ camping SCPs do though.

Meh, +support, I don’t see why it’s that big of a difference, very little importance to it

I’m coming up on a year May 7th

If there are any “nerfs” recently they’ve been CI HCMD’s choice for balance reasons (which I respect the hell out of them for considering how unpopular it can be). As far as I’m aware stats have not been touched either, it’s just creating/removing aspects of gameplay which would give CI’s advantages they found unfair

-Support Nothing has changed since this suggestion was last made and denied

-Support 50 players occurs around 3-6 AM. Most of the time that would be mostly AFKs meaning no one to stop your breach. Also, if there are 50 people on, that likely means maybe 8-10 active dclass, anywhere from 5-8 Gensec, maybe a couple MTF/CI, and maybe 1-4 research/utility. If you are breached during this time as 682, for example, there is not a fair amount of people to counteract you. This will just lead to people getting off as no one has fun when one person gets to run around with a one hit swep with no one to stop them.

610 used to be like 25/30 I thought, perhaps a simple mistake in changing the job title on accident?

+Support Good answers Active on the forums My god we need imperial staff on diplomats, those people are always giving me work smh

+Support -Great Dude -Good decision making -We scared him into thinking we’d hide his super admin app a while ago lmao

Please format this correctly. Also, this sounds like it should be a staff report, after all you did just admit to baiting the n word on purpose so I don't think you're getting unbanned on this one. If you'd like to instead make a staff report you may file that here: https://gaminglight.com/forums/forum/507-staff-reports/

Like LVL 100+ jobs? Or like Sec Jugg/RIG?

ACCEPTED ...but you already knew that

ACCEPTED Welcome back!

The goal right now is to change that with and our Operations Advisory are making good progress on that. All MTF have to do is hit one of our agents up when they're in game or TS.

Instead of RFA or Analyst? Please no, that’s one of the near-exclusive things about RFA -Support

Best of luck man!

DENIED Due to inactivity, behavioral issues, or another unstated reason, we do not find you suitable for command at this time. You may reapply in 2 weeks.

Clarification, is venatoris like a tier 2 job then? +Support either way, looks fun!

Any Research Personnel from the ranks of Associate Researcher to Research Administrator respond to this post. Failure to respond will result in removal. Roll-call submissions are due by the start of the research/security meeting on 4/16/22. Format (copy & paste below, do not make a separate post): Roster Name: Steam ID (ex: STEAM_0:1:114460542): Current Rank: Activity Level (Out of 10): Notes:

+Support Awesome work boys

What bug is occurring?: Proficient Researcher has no comms, needs /site and /research Is it tied to a specific job, swep, player model, etc?: Proficient Researcher Has it only occurred once, or is it continuous?: Continuous Please provide screenshots or a short video of the bug in action:

Denied Due to circumstances we in Research High Command do not believe that removing this blacklist is appropriate at this time. You may attempt to appeal this blacklist 2 more times as is consistent with branch blacklist appeal guidelines.