Jump to content

Daniels's Warn appeal


Rito

Recommended Posts

Questions

Your In-game Name: Daniels 

Your SteamID: STEAM_0:1:189118265

 

The admin's name in-game: Weiss 

 

The admin's steam name: Weiss

 

What warning did you receive:  FailRP/ Breaking OOC as E-11 on Defcon 4.

 

When did you receive this warning: 08/12/2020

 

Why do you think this warn was false: First, off I got warned because I killed  a CI infiltrator on a Defcon 4, I didn't knew that I was OOC, because It doesn't says it in the SOP, I was on my way the , the CI infiltrator (Named Rainbow) oppened a door infront of me and I bumped into him. So I called thermals and He shot me so I backfired. I also called CI raid. Then I got brought to a sit and the admin (Weiss) told me that I was Fail Roleplaying and that I was breaking OOC on a Defcon 4, while I legitmely  just self-defense and while I was looking for a rule in the SOP saying that we are OOC on a Defcon 4 while RTB, he right off the bat without giving me a chance to prove my point warned me and returned me. CI infiltrator  said that he had video evidence, and I am looking forward to watch this evidence.   I might be in the wrong here and I might did FailRP but I didn't knew it and it should of had been a verbal warning then a warn without even letting me prove my point..

 

Evidence the warning is false: I believe I should of had gotten a verbal warning then a warn WITHOUT letting me explain my point of view. 

1359504620_Capturedcran(8).thumb.png.eb7fa4438228207b30771fdbbdac7dc5.png

Any extra information: I got my friend's point of view, which is that while we are returning to base and still in the facility that we are  OOC but if CI, but if we bump into CI and they shoot us first, we are aloud to backfire and call a CI raid.  Which I think would make sense. All I'm saying is that I might of had really been in the wrong but I didn't knew it and it should of had been a verbal instead of a warn, I also wanted Weiss to bring my friends to show my point of view but he refused and kept asking for my evidence. While I literally was reading the SOP he warned me and returned me, I believe the sit lasted less than 2 mins. 

Current: Nu-7 VCMDR

 Former: E-11 VCMDR/LT-COL totally didn't get demoted || Event Team Member || CI SFTO 2LT

CCs: Snoop Dog Owner || Previous Rho-36 Occult Operative || Used to be Reznov || CI TF2 Heavy || MTF Zeta-0 'Caste Gates' || Tango-12 'Forgiving Hand'

 French Canadian man || Mbappé fan in the making

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+support If a E11 calls thermals you do not have to uncloak. And if CI shoot 1st you bring E11 into RP. As shown in the screen shot the E11 did not start the fight 

however you can not make the argument you did not know you were OOC. We this drill into your guys head.

However the CI started the fight when he did not have to (E11 is off site you dont have to uncloak)

were you in the the wrong for calling thermals yes did the CI have to uncloak no. 

Screenshot (80).png

The old E11 CMDR Jay 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This warn made no sense, and it kinda frustrates me. Daniels and E11 were in the process of leaving the foundation, and saw a threat, they shot it, meaning that they're in RP, and hadn't left the foundation yet, despite the defcon change. Plus, with what Jay said.

+Support

Edited by Zone

Ashie •﹏•#1201

Former CI 2LT Zone | E11 WO Nines 009S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rookieblue said:

Was E11 on site on a DEFCON 3 or above just prior to this incident occurring?

They were on site for defcon 3, we eliminated the threat, the defcon changed to 4, we were leaving, the infil attacked

Ashie •﹏•#1201

Former CI 2LT Zone | E11 WO Nines 009S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not going to leave a stance here but rather my opinion on the situation.
Your argument is that the CI attacked you first. However,  you called out thermals when you were off-site resulting in Rainbow having to uncloak.
Rainbow was in the wrong to engage in combat with you. However as stated above, you made him uncloak allowing others to see him.
On the other hand, he wasn't forced to uncloak as you were off-site. Probably still did it to be safe. You engaged the role-play scenario by calling thermals.
Making contact with cloaked CI would've been OOC as it was Defcon 4. Therefore, you shouldn't have activated your thermals.
It is the staff members discretion on whether they want to issue a formal or verbal warning. Even if you beg for a verbal warning, a formal warning could be issued.
Weiss is not obligated to bring your friends to a staff sit. In the two minutes you were in the sit, you should've been able to explain your side of the story.
Reading an SOP looking for a certain 'rule' while in a sit isn't the brightest of ideas either. Weiss likely thought you went AFK or tried avoiding the sit entirely.
As Jay stated above, E-11 CO's typically drill the fact that you are out of character / off-site on Defcon 4. You cannot interact with Chaos Insurgency or Class-D during this Defcon.

I'm not trying to start an argument on the matter, but I am rather trying to open discussion up to other factors.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my understanding its nothing to do with SOP and more to do with MOTD 

MOTD says "You are not to shoot/interfere with Chaos Insurgency/D-Class that are either inside, or outside the foundation unless it is on DEFCON 3 or lower, or on DEFCON 4 and have been requested by a command member of MTF, Utility, Research, or GENSEC with a valid RP reason."

On the topic of ci interacting with you i would say that if ci opened fire on e11 while they are ooc that would give you a valid reason to shoot back BUT You were the one who adverted thermals and there for forced the ci to shoot you soooooooooo idk its a tricky one.

In my opinion if you hadn't called thermals (an rp action) the infil would of ignored you as he sees you as being ooc. 

+/- support

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I've read everyone replies, I do realise that I was kinda in the wrong here since I shouldn't of had called thermals, but it was his choice either to tell me that I was OOC or just not uncloak and move on than Uncloak and open fire on me.. However I think that the admin should of had given me a verbal warning rather than a formal warning for that because we are both in the wrong here. I didn't think before activating my thermals too, I just saw a door open infront of me then I bumped into something cloaked without realising that I was OOC and I got lit up so I backfired..

 

Edited by That_one_guy

Current: Nu-7 VCMDR

 Former: E-11 VCMDR/LT-COL totally didn't get demoted || Event Team Member || CI SFTO 2LT

CCs: Snoop Dog Owner || Previous Rho-36 Occult Operative || Used to be Reznov || CI TF2 Heavy || MTF Zeta-0 'Caste Gates' || Tango-12 'Forgiving Hand'

 French Canadian man || Mbappé fan in the making

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Head Admin

I happened to be spectating the scene while on duty. From my point of view the MTF fired first, missed and forced the Infil to fire back.
Unfortunately I do not have video proof of this and may just be wrong on this view point.
However, thus after confirming the rule with other staff and E11 command and consideration of the player at hand not being new;
Went ahead and issued a warn. 
As well,  it states in the staff handbook.
"A verbal warning can be given out in response to minor misconduct, and can be used in situations where someone may be new to the server and not fully aware of specific rules."
I took this account and did not consider Daniels a new player; As they are Junior Command and a 3 month member of E11. 
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Weiss said:

"A verbal warning can be given out in response to minor misconduct, and can be used in situations where someone may be new to the server and not fully aware of specific rules."

As with how trivial the rule is, I feel a verbal is best suited

Ashie •﹏•#1201

Former CI 2LT Zone | E11 WO Nines 009S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Zone said:

As with how trivial the rule is, I feel a verbal is best suited

Staff's discretion if a warn is issued.

"Pay increase declined. Welcome to the Foundation, get used to it." -O5-6

3rd time Head of Medical Staff Ex-Director of Research and Security Ex-Director of Utility | Ex-Senior Admin for SCP-RP |  Ex-Admin for TTT 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Accepted

After reviewing the evidence and testimony provided in this appeal, I've decided to accept this appeal.
 

In this case, the rule violation that the appellate was penalized for was: "You are not to shoot/interfere with Chaos Insurgency/D-Class that are either inside, or outside the foundation unless it is on DEFCON 3 or lower, or on DEFCON 4 and have been requested by a command member of MTF, Utility, Research, or GENSEC with a valid RP reason." In this specific instance, however, E11 had been on site dealing with a DEFCON 3 situation, and was exiting the Facility as appropriate now that the DEFCON had changed to DEFCON 4 with no request for E11 to be on site. In the process on him leaving, he encountered a suspicious situation, and reacted normally. There has to be some reasonable give and take in this situation, as E11 can't just disappear from the Site the moment the DEFCON changes, and it is reasonable in a RP setting for them to still be in RP while leaving the Foundation.

Secondly, and this is me repeating this for the dozenth time, and I'll continue to repeat it a dozen more in the future, arguing that you think a verbal warning should've been issued is not a valid argument. Staff have the full discretion on whether to issue a verbal warning, or a formal warning. Period. Full Stop. End of Discussion. It doesn't matter if you would've given a verbal warning in their place. SMT are (metaphorically) paid the big bucks to decide whether there is enough evidence for a formal warning to stand.

As this situation falls with RP norm, the warning is being revoked.

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.

Retired SCP-RP Head of Staff

March 3rd, 2019 - December 16th, 2021

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...