Johny boi

It's been a hell of a ride since the day I joined research and it's gonna be hard to go, but real life comes at you fast and I'm starting a new job in January so I won't have much time at all to play for the forseeable future. Not doing names, the people that made it fun know who they are. Hopefully those who knew me will cause a bit of chaos in my absence. And remember: Ethics don't exist in the pursuit of science. Hopefully I'll see you all again, it's been fun.

+Support Daman has shown he has a great understanding of how the research branch operates and would be a great addition to Research Command.

Grading: 30/100 Lore: 10/25 This accurately mimics the capabilities of 8286, but a little more background research and explanation would've been appreciated, Format: 5/25 Considering this is a research test log, there's a lack of hypothesis and thorough data/observation here. Presentation: 0/25 These forums posts are meant for actual google documents to be posted, not just a simple test log. This looks more like an activity log rather than a testing document. Writing: 20/25 Very little grammar and no spelling mistakes here, but the lack of depth here is a bit lackluster. Notes: Please check out some past forum posts for testing docs, the forum posts are meant for actual documents and have much higher requirements than activity logs. You are free to include this test on future documents, but this is not what we're looking for on testing log archives. If you're struggling to figure out a good way to present your google docs, there's hundreds of past posts that are great examples. Overall though, more thorough testing and analysis would help you out.

Grade: 81/100 Lore: 20/25 While your SCP-500 background information pretty much covers everything that it does, I can't say the same for your SCP-610 background information. You included that it's biohazardous and no known cure has been found yet, but the same could be said for lots of other known diseases. There's not much description on how SCP-610 is unique to other biohazardous SCPs and why it's particularly difficult to contain, leaving a lot to be desired. Format: 22/25 Pretty standard testing format, but considering these docs don't strictly have to follow the events of your test in rp, I would have liked to see something a bit more in the evidence/data portion. Presentation: 18/25 There isn't much wrong with what you have presentation-wise. The font isn't too hard to read and the computerized style works quite well, however there's not much creativity here at all. There's no pictures of the SCPs or any Foundation logos other than the words "Secure. Contain. Protect." at the top that would add a lot of character to the doc. Writing: 21/25 You have a tendency to use the word "and" in sentences where a comma would suffice, making your sentences feel a bit choppy and drawn out a bit. The events of CI raiding mid testing isn't entirely necessary here either. Overall you did well though.

In-Game Name: Johny boi Steam ID: STEAM_0:0:10013504 Current Research Rank: RS Foundation Test Log(s) (graded 8+/10 only): Your Operations Advisor Overseer, has informed you there is a group of insurgents collecting foundation data at a field operating base on the surface. They are armed and well secured. How would you approach it? (100+ words): Considering they are stealing Foundation data and came well-armed and prepared, it's safe to say they are hostile and prepared for a fight. I would assess the FOB from a safe distance by getting a good idea on the number of insurgents and the type of weaponry they are armed with. After assessing the FOB, I would contact MTF and organize a strike team to take out the insurgents and resecure the data. I would use this time to find any weak points in their defenses and identify key points of interest in the FOB(Armory, Command Center, Data/Upload Center, Medical Station) that may aid the MTF strike team in securing the FOB. Using the information gathered previously, it would be best to target key personnel among the insurgents first in order to destabilize their command structure and defensive capabilities. If the insurgents prove to be gathering data in manner that would result in too much lost data by the time MTF would be able to respond, an airstrike could be called to eliminate the FOB in a timely fashion. After the FOB has been destroyed, the surrounding area should be searched for insurgents that had possibly escaped as well as civilians who may have witnessed the strike team or come into contact with the insurgents prior to foundation discovery of the FOB. There is a strange SCP that calls himself the “targeter”. When the name of another individual is said within earshot of the “targeter” the “targeter” will teleport to the individual that has had their name said, and run off. How would you suggest the foundation approach apprehension and / or termination of this individual? (100+ Words): Seeing as the targetter poses no immediate threat to human life, termination attempts should be used as a last resort and we should use this initial interaction time to watch the targetter to see what happens after he runs off, making sure to mitigate his interaction with personnel outside the foundation. Due to the targetter's ability to teleport, restraining him would prove futile so in this observation time, 2 field agents should be sent to watch the targetter as they are able to say each other's names in order to draw the targetter away from civilians if necessary. While this is occurring, a soundproof chamber outfitted with an external speaker system should be constructed, such that sound can leave, but not enter. Once it has been constructed, it's just a matter of placing a D-class into the containment chamber and having them say their own name in order to have the targetter teleport into the chamber to be contained. If termination is the best course of action, the chamber could be outfitted with a ventilation system capable of pumping gas into or removing the air from the chamber. After the targetter has been successfuly contained, the area around it's first discovery location should be swept for any civilians who may have come in contact with it. An abandoned camp site has been discovered on the surface, hidden incredibly well within the brush. There are documents, newspaper scraps, as well as an old laptop with unknown data being transferred to a suspicious I.P. address. How do you react? (100+ Words): Since the laptop is currently uploading data, it's likely the person responsible for the camp is not too far away, so MTF units trained for surface missions should be contacted immediately to secure the site and establish a perimeter to ensure only authorized personnel leave or enter. While waiting for MTF, it's best to leave the site untouched and back off to a safe distance for monitoring in the event the person responsible arrives before MTF do. Once a perimeter has been secured, all documents and newspaper scraps should be secured and sent for analyzation to determine whether or not the information poses a threat to the Foundation. The laptop should be secured and analyzed to determine the sensitivity of the data being transferred. The IP address receiving the transferred data should be tracked geographically and additional teams should be sent to locate the device receiving the data to ensure nothing is able to be leaked. After all information and data has been successfully secured by foundation personnel, the camp site and laptop should be examined by a forensics team in order to determine the person responsible for the transferring of data so that they can be located and interrogated.

Grade: 90/100 Lore: 22.5/25 In describing SCP-096's relative strength, you did well to keep its reactions and test results pretty accurate to what would be expected, but a little more detail concerning the type of acid used and the effects of it concerning the skin and other tissue would've been nice to see here. Overall, it looks like you followed standard testing procedures. Format: 20/25 The format here is good, it's not over the top and reads as a pretty standard test doc. Some background info on SCP-096 would be great to see here for those who are unfamiliar with the SCP. Presentation: 22.5/25 Blocking out SCP-096's face from all the photos is a nice touch. The font reads a little blurry with the size of text you used though. Writing: 25/25 No issues here, grammar and spelling are on point and the vocabulary used does not feel out of place.

+support Sprucer has some of the best test ideas I've heard and is always willing to hop on RRA for training. He's always extremely friendly and supportive of other non-combatants and would be great addition to Research Command

Grade: 98/100 Lore: 25/25 There's very little to say here. The introduction and conclusion were great additions, not to mention the lore built into artifact logs are just spectacular. Format: 25/25 No qualms here, the introduction and conclusion really pulled it all together with the analytical section in the middle. Great overview doc. Presentation: 24/25 The font used in the introduction and conclusion were a little wonky to read, along with the lack of contextual pictures in the artifact section left it feeling a bit lacking in the contexual department. Writing: 24/25 There're 0 information gaps further than what could be realistically achieved with the presented information given. The grammar and writing format had very little to be desired, very well done.

Grade: 100/100 Lore: 25/25 This definitely feels like an SCP foundation document and the notable works section is a great addition alongside the comments at the bottom Format: 25/25 It's got great flow Presentation: 25/25 Your paper background and font choice make this easy to read. Writing: 25/25 0 spelling or grammar mistakes, this is a very polished personnel file.

Grade: 100/100 Lore: 25/25 This was a lot of fun to read, everything was compliant with SCP lore and adapted perfectly to the server rp lore with a lot of fun additional bits of info. Format: 25/25 This is a great example of an SCP overview document and it's similarities to SCP wiki format are great and make it very easy to follow. Presentation: 25/25 The font choice and paper background are fantastic choices Writing: 25/25 0 spelling or grammar mistakes, the included information felt very complete and not too overboard Notes: There's nothing to be desired here, it was a lot of fun to read and I'm definitely ripping this format for some of my future docs, insanely good work here

GRADE: 95/100 Lore: 25/25 No qualms here, including background info on both 682 and 280 is great for people who haven't done the research themselves is great alongside the adhesion to containment procedures. Including the audio logs between the Security guards and between 682 and 280 is a great touch. Format: 25/25 This doc has great flow, it never feels like there's a break in information or out of place sections of information. The adhesion to the scientific process is great to see. Very well done. Presentation: 20/25 The colors feel a bit over the top at parts and the font choice during the 682 description makes it feel a bit cramped. Overall though, the pictures and additional SCP foundation additions really do pull it all together. Writing: 25/25 I have very little to say here except well done, your attention to detail is phenomenal and seeing as this is a research document, all the additional tidbits of information just bring it all together at the end. Notes: It was really hard finding places to knock you down any points, the bulkiness of some of the font choices and colors were a choice that made it hard to read in those sections where you changed it up a bunch. Other than that, this is a fantastic test document.

Grade: 75/100 Lore: 25/25 The combination of in-game rp with SCP lore is great here. The inclusion of D-0498's childhood trauma with fire expressed in the form of a psych evaluation and the correct biohazardous containment procedure shown through the usage of a C.B.R.N. unit is good attention to detail where it was not entirely necessary. Format: 17.5/25 Pretty standard research format, nothing special and you followed it well for the most part. A little more adhesion to the scientific process would get you there. Presentation: 22.5/25 This document looks great, the font choice isn't too hard on the eyes and the colors aren't terrible so no downsides there. Going back to attention to detail, the redaction of certain information along with the classification and picture of 7274 at the top are great. The pictures at the bottom almost feel out of place with how close up they are. Writing: 10/25 Going back to the scientific process part, this is a research document and it feels like little new information was actually learned here. In the "SCP Overview Section" you have clearly stated that "instances of SCP-7274-1 are usually found in commonplace when a breakout event takes place when exposed to high temperatures or fire" and then your only included tests are raising and lowering the room temperature. Immediately after the trial data you have the addendum, but there feels like a huge gap in information from when the subjects skin began to move and when the breakout event included in the addendum occurred. Notes: This document was a lot of fun to read, the additional information regarding your test subject was interesting and didn't feel too over the top or too lengthy. Some additional context on the pictures at the bottom would've been great to see(maybe a caption including location and damages). The only place you really lost a lot of points here was in the scientific process portion. This test felt uninspired and the results felt quite predictable. The lack of a solid hypothesis and conclusion is what killed the grade though, there's definitely a lot to be desired in the research part of this document. Like the trial data almost feels out of place among the amazing lore you included about the test subject.

Name: Johny boi SteamID: STEAM_0:0:100135046 Current Rank: SR Time in Research: 1 month Why do you believe you should be in Research Command? When I first joined Research, I had no intention of joining Command as well, but the more I play and the more Junior Researchers I train, it's become clear to me that being in Research Command would only give me more opportunities to help Junior Researchers become more familiar with how we do things in Research. Joining Research is a hurdle that very few players are willing to jump over and consistently playing and testing can be even harder for Junior Researchers who aren't familiar with the testing process, turning lots of them away, even after they have already joined Research. After training quite a few Junior Researchers, it became even clearer to me that I couldn't be relied on for answering all their questions, simply because I was not on the Command team. I am already a go to source of information for some of the newer Junior Researchers that I trained, but by joining Command, I aim to be a reliable source of information that all new Junior Researchers can count on to help familiarize themselves with the Research branch and the testing process. What can you bring to the table that others can't?: Cohesion and Mentoring. What I mean by that is, while I lack loads of experience playing the server and other branches, I have spent most of my play time in Research interacting with members of other branches and training new Junior Researchers. I have joined nearly every branch so I understand the function that each one holds within the Foundation, without necessarily having to play in those branches for hours on end. I have also gone through the training process multiple times and have effectively been able to streamline the process, reducing the time spent in training for new Junior Researchers and getting them familiarized with Research before they have even conducted their first test. What would you do to better Research and increase activity?: I would start by streamlining the training document, making it easier and more digestible for RRA's by removing any redundancies and outdated information. I would also bring forward more Mass Test and PT ideas, we are lacking in that department right now and I feel like bringing new ideas to the table would be beneficial for all those within Research. I think implementing some more incentives past "Do a test log and you will be promoted" would be extremely beneficial to keeping new Researchers playing and willing to progress through the ranks in Research. I think the Divisions, where they stand now, are extremely underutilized and creating more Division-forward research tests and lectures could be a great way of revitalizing that part of Research. This idea was Gigazet's, but I think having RRA host open lectures regarding different SCPs would be a great way of adding more rp for RRA and drawing in potential prospects from other branches who weren't too interested in Research initially. Getting researchers familiarized with SCPs through lectures is also just a great way of spurring new test ideas out of the newly learned information,

Your In-game Name: Johny boi Your SteamID: STEAM_0:0:100135046 The admin's name in-game: STF D4 Thanatos TH0 What warning did you receive: Fail RP When did you receive this warning: Tuesday, May 16th Please give a description of the situation that led to the warning: (Playing as Research) While conducting a SCP-194 test alongside AR WID, SU-Genesis-S.148, and O5-2 "The Infected" we were attacked by a CI Infiltrator. Me and AR WID pulled out our riot shields to defend ourselves while O5-2 and Genesis began shooting back, but after the CI Infiltrator unloaded a clip into our riot shields we both pelled out weapons and began to shoot. I was the one who shot the last bullet that killed the Infiltrator so I was the one who got reported. Why do you think this warn was false: As stated on the Gaminglight SCP rules under Foundation Staff - GenSec, Research. Maintenance, Medical "The self-defense clause is satisfied by observing CI personnel, D-Class or SCPs attack other non-combatants or being attacked themselves." Only after being shot at by the Infiltrator did I shoot him, so me killing the CI Infiltrator should've fallen under self-defense and not FailRP. The reasoning I got for why it was FailRP was because the damage logs showed that the Ci Infiltrator did not damage me specifically during the timeframe of the events and that because I did not take any damage, I wasn't allowed to shoot back. Evidence the warning is false: I'm not sure if logs go that far back, but I couldn't recover the clip that was taken but, O5-2 "The Infected" was there and can verify the timeline of events.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZGYb410o0eO-gyIF9Mt2Zn_jyz-FBXPwZ5xgCkUKals/edit?usp=sharing