Faris

Locking and archiving.

Cake has said that he doesn't mind it if we took this appeal if it came while he's asleep, so I'll pitch in with it. So, for reference, you have five active warnings, one is regarding going AFK as a role outside of security, so I won't include it. They all involve in one way or another your security play-style or general play-style. This is also not counting the plethora of notes you already have. A vast majority show a certain trend, boils down to you rushing things. I'm going to post your most recent note, though you're welcome to ask me to post everyone that exhibits this type of behavior. Accidents happen, we don't punish people for it. The issue however is that this is a consistent thing you've done, antag or not. You've got 39 entries from staff, they become 38 if I exclude the successful ban appeals. By dealing with the situation yourself, which keep in mind we're not punishing you for it, since as you and others mentioned, was escalated, but rather as the ban states. Having a history of overescalation of headgoring, being warned for it, and then it happening again. Feel free to appeal this on the forums. Even if this was an accident, which I don't believe there is a way to prove other than taking your word for it, you willingly put yourself in this situation without making sure you were fully set, resulting in directly breaching two warnings. As of now, I'm more partial to letting you take the ban time and resuming your security play once it expires, but I'm still open to be convinced.

I should. I stand corrected then. I'll give this another look and have the player in question informed of this complaint. I'd like to note we don't have any notes of this behavior.

Seems a lot like it's an issue that should be dealt with through Incident Reports. He does have some security reports so some of the cases have been dealt with. Any reason why you haven't made an incident report?

Locking and archiving.

That's not really allowed, this would only be non-canon on the basis of that. Otherwise due to how persistence focused this server is, that would be canon, unless voided by all sides/staff decision. I'll need to ask that you make a character that would be specialized in chemistry instead of Cohen.

Alright, the dead line has ended and they haven't placed their defense. In essence as I've cited before, they have a substantial amount of notes, warnings and bans. At this time they have 25 entires, the 25th being an ultimatum placed due to this complaint. On their next gross violation of server rules in the near future, they will receive a permanent ban. If they wish to remain and play on the server, they'll need to shape up and act accordingly. Locking and archiving.

Great, consider this appeal accepted. Glad to have you back.

Your ban reason is as follows. I'm willing to unban but I need to try to emphasize how this looks to us at the time. A person that joins is the solo engineer and managed to get the engine to melt down. When you were frozen to get an idea of what's going on, you log off. This is a very common thing people coming to mess around do. It's why the ban stated you should appeal it, since those specific people don't really bother. So in the future, when a mistake happens, do tell us. Don't log off when we try to contact you. I assure you had you stated this was a mistake, this wouldn't have happened.

All rounds are canon. It's only the antagonist actions and actions nfluenced by them that aren't. So even though most of the round may not be canon, some of it is, such as the jobs your character takes.

Complaint resolved per mutual discussion and agreement. Unless there's something else, locking and archiving in 24 hours.

You're missing the bolded parts. Refer to previous applications for an example.

Alright, so I've dug through the logs extensively and I find that the warning is invalid for three reasons. 1) First, the fact you were being warned was never relayed to you, this meant that you couldn't defend yourself further nor provide more information on the matter. 2) Second, considering the circumstances with the hostility of the antagonistic party and the reasoning behind the players decision to attack the heister. I find this was indeed not a violation of any law nor a conflict. Law 3 was in effect with balancing the act of leaving the CE to be killed or trying to rescue them. I don't think this is a case of valid hunting, they just believed that the chances of the CE's survival was better if they attempted a rescue as opposed to letting them go with you. 3) Per the testimony of the hostage and the station unit, the heister wasn't even holding them. They were pulling them and they were standing not directly facing you. They hadn't properly secured the hostage nor made any efforts to indicate it as such. So with this in mind, I'm going to have this warning removed. As per usual, I'll give this 24 hours for more information before carrying it out.

Format not followed and ban should be gone. Locking and archiving.

This is to note that I'm taking over this complaint. I've done some log digging and I found that during the round Superior had in no way, shape or form hinted or informed them that they will be warned.

Just a note that I will be taking this complaint along with [mention]Something Vile[/mention].

Locking and archiving per request.

Considering the only issue cited has been dealt with, I'm deeming this resolved.

I'm going to have to deny this application for a few reasons. You did receive in-depth feedback, but a lot of it pointed out issues in your gameplay and playstyle. It's not that you were bad as a security player, it just needs a bit more work. You show you can follow orders and do work, it's simply the fact that a Head of Security faces things from a whole different angles, and after the Captain, have the most influence to the round, easily making it or breaking it. My advice to you is to play a while more, maybe try applying in two weeks time. There's a security discord which you're part of where you can ask for feedback and to try to get interim when possible. I hope this doesn't discourage you and that you apply again in the future. Best of luck to you.

Locking and archiving.

I'm accepting this appeal and will remove your ban. In the future, report these mistakes to us. Keeping the thread open for a bit.

Follow the format please

That's quite reasonable. Reviewing their records, this is the only incident for clone treatment which I would say is sub par at the very least. It would be an issue if it occurred often when it could've been avoidable. So I think I'll leave it to an advisory for the player in question, with a reminder that if it did happen too often, it may pose a problem. This is the advisory in question and should cover the cloning topic. I'll deem this as resolved with a minimum period of 24 hours before I lock and archive it.

There are a few reasons cited here and a few that I am about to cite which is leading me to deny this application. 1) You've had a few instances in being staff, which from what I can see ended on a bad note. 2) Your activity is all over the place and doesn't give me a good indication, in fact seeing the rounds you've played and time stamps in between some of them has led to me believe that is too much of a gap at times for a moderator. The staff team is fully staffed by volunteers but we have limited slots. 3) Your last staff posting resulted in you disappearing, while a school work load is understandable and more important than a hobby. Dedicated a few minutes if not a few seconds to relay this fact would've been better than how you did it. 4) Previously you came to me with advice about applying for mod when you were in CCIA, which you went against. While not a deal breaker, it adds up to the previous. So with the previous and other feedback presented here. Application denied.

There's been some concerns about your activity being possibly sporadic. While we don't expect absolutely full time activity, sometimes sporadic isn't enough, though the term is very loose. Interested to hear your thoughts.