purple haze

It says in the Staff Application Format post that it is allowed and encouraged for applicants to respond and address concerns in the reply section. Your not a forum diplomat I dont know why you are doing this, and you aren't even enforcing the rules properly at that.

pretty much sums it up ^^^^^

Even though he answered more questions than needed ( dont see how thats a bad thing, technically its not required though) I would say hes more than equipt to become staff. Through my interactions and conversations with him he is smart enough and mature enough to handle the responsibilites of staff. He definitely has a in depth understanding of the rules and the playerbase. He is already a great member of the community, and I think through time and experience as staff he will be a fantastic addition to the Staff Team. +Support

If this is true then, +Support Well written application I havent had any bad issues with him in game I think he deserves a chance at Staff The only issue is the one stated above, and given that he did create his forums account with a alt then it should be fine.

+Support This was definitely one of the best examples of committment to the server I've seen. I really think this embodies what we need in more department and branches across all GL servers. I dont speak highly about applications very often, so when I do it means a lot. I really hope command and other members can see the light and optimism shown in this application as have I. for these reasons and many more I recommend this application to be ...ACCEPTED

+Support I haven't had any negative experiences with him Application tells a lot Reasons above

There are definitely some questionable grammatical errors. I've always said that I believe that intelligence is more commonly reflected in one's writing. For the reason just stated, and that I don't believe this is an application of someone who should be given a Senior Mod position. -Support (Please dont thumbs down my post, this is my honest opinion and im not trying to be disrespectful. Please respect that I am entitled to my own opinion.)

+Support Longtime member Prior experience I wouldn't find that his previous staff restriction is something to hold against him. Its obvious he was dealing with in real life issues and failed to communicate effectively (which I believe he learned over his 3 months of being restricted.) Other than that, if he feels that he is situated in his life away from video games and he can benefit the community as staff again, I believe he should be given a chance.

that makes 0 sense, this is completely something rule related. unnecessary excessive use of force can and is regulated by the MOTD. When you shoot someone unarmed it is unnecessary, unrealistic use of force (making it RDM) -- same applies to this scenario given with tazing (in this case failrp).

"Although it was my fault for letting my homework get in my way" This statement just disappoints me, please put academics and your actual life ahead of Garry's Mod. Honestly man some people need to relax. 4 month staff restriction for dealing with real life first. I believe the removal for staff was deserved. He has already served 3/4 months of his staff restriction.

In my opinion, grammar is one of the most important things for an application to be competant and it is a direct output of one's intelligence (unless you are not a native speaker). With that being said, I was writing better in 5th grade and I wouldn't trust you to handle my sit properly in game. -Support

@forums mods??? why I am getting down votes for leaving my personal support on the application? @Nydekore Not cool guys I dont go around leaving bad rep on peoples pages because of - and + supports. let people have their opionions please dont oppress people. You doing this makes me not want to give my true opinions or feelings in the staff apps because it will hurt my forums account rep. Intimidating members on the forums from leaving their + or - support should not be tolerated.

Hello, I would like to start off by saying I admire your decisions to reach out and apply for staff. It is apparent your efforts are well mannered, but the vast, overwhelming, and putrid errors found in the application bring the case for denial to light. I would like to say that this application is one of the most ill organized that I've seen. You failed to exemplefiy or explain your knowledge of the MOTD and Staff Handbook, this is a very dire concern to me. You have based and founded your very application upon one of the weakest arguments for your acceptance you could possibly put -- that is that you are not "harsh." This is an apparent problem for me because sometimes being harsh is necessary when staffing and issuing the correct punishments. One of the most important factors of a effective staff member is being impartial or unbias in your decision making. This leads me to believe that there is a significant chance of improper punishment and staff manipulation. For these reasons and more I will be recommending this application to be DENIED. If you would like to contact me via Teamspeak I can assist you further with any questions.

Oh my bad I saw in the post above that Dano wrote saying he missed it. I was wrong. In that case I am going to have to issue a steady +Support in favor of being accepted. I believe this applicant is more than qualified to take the position along with its responsbilities.