User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Ignominious - Moderator Application

  1. #1
    Admin Ignominious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Ignominious - Moderator Application

    Moderator Application

    Personal Information

    Byond ID?
    Ignominious

    CM Character?
    Zayden 'Courier' Agg

    Are you 16 or older?
    Yes

    Timezone
    (GMT +10:00) Eastern Australia.

    On average, how many hours are you available per week to moderate?
    At this point in time, at least 30 -- alterations dependent on change of circumstance.

    Qualifications

    Do you have any previous experience in being staff (not just SS13)?
    No prior experience in other servers, here or any externally.

    Do you play any servers aside from CM-SS13?
    I've had a fair try and a few of the others. But if I'm being honest, this is easily my favourite.

    Provide links to any previous Colonial Marines applications that you've made:
    None submitted previously as of this time.

    Are you currently a staff member elsewhere (not just SS13)? If so, where?
    No.

    Have you ever been banned for more than 24 hours on Colonial Marines?
    Yes. Specifically 10,080 minutes (10/01/2020 - ongoing from roughly 9:00 AM (AUS, Eastern Standard Time), on account of a collective summary of older offenses. [Further information available upon inquiry]

    Have you ever been banned for more than 24 hours on ANY server? If so, which server, when, and what for?
    None other, excluding Colonial Marines as stated.

    Are you familiar with the chat program Discord (its use is required)?
    Yes

    Communication is a vital part of being a Moderator. Are you willing to actively do so with the team?
    I am both willing and intent on complying with all facets of the Colonial Marines community. In this context: the staff, particularly, to the fullest extent of my abilities.

    Common Staff Situations

    A player randomly shoots someone at round start and MPs have detained him.
    This case, unless brought to one's attention previously, could be the result of a series of earlier events: including, but not limited to prior player agitation, in-character developments, or improper escalation. Most of which do not require the attention of a Moderator unless a rule has been breached, or an investigation has been prompted on-request. In those scenarios not necesssarily involving the need for staff intervention, such as a provoked Assault, the player may be handled by the appropriate in-role procedures. Given that the user had opened fire at another player, specifically, in absence of additional context this might be considered a case of improper escalation -- granted and assuming that they had not presented sufficient in-character behaviour such as a minor-quarrel turned bitter arguement where the latter use of firearms had been preceded by a brawl and/or physical assault with a hand-held object. Unless, and only if deemed serious enough, it is up to the staff investigating, in this case, a Moderator to determine as to whether or not the incident was justified and/or properly carried out in-character; and if such is the case, that it is to be left to those participating. Otherwise, if the marine had accidentally misfired, they are to be warned at most, where required. If it was later determined that the player had intentionally fired at another player without regard for proper escalation procedures, they are to be reminded of the rules and warned against further infringements. However, given that this was characterized as a 'random' occurrence, that is an unlikely circumstance.

    A player ahelps that a predator has violated the honor code when killing him, what should you do?
    Given that one has been prompted to investigate, I would be inclined to gather any related information that would help to characterize the case, if necessitated. Otherwise, this area is out of my jurisdiction and thus the responsibility of the White List Council's reckoning, granted a sufficient player-report is provided by the accuser. White-List roles are typically special cases and are hence resigned to their own systems in place to address misplays or an individual's inability to fulfil the requirements of their respective roles. I am not required, nor allowed, to file a report on behalf of the accuser as it is their duty upon bringing their case to attention to both provide evidence and raise awareness when attempting to justify their disapproval for another's failure to comply to the rules, in this case, the infamous 'honor code'.

    You see a player walking around the ship naked and clearly lost at roundstart.
    We've all been in this position at one point, and every individual is entitled to the opportunity to learn on their own. If other players are not available for troubleshooting, and a Mentor or Senior Listed Adviser is unable to guide them, it is their duty to reach out to us via A-help if they require or so desire assistance. Otherwise, unless deemed necessary, one may prompt them towards the relevant Wiki-guides or if specific information is needed, provide in a timely manner on behalf of those sources. However the latter is not required if the player is either able to learn on their own or via (LOOC sought assistance) and directed by fellow experienced players. As a Moderator, intervention is not usually required in this case, unless noting the previous exceptions discussed.

    A player is being very rude to you in adminhelps, calling you names and arguing everything you say. He is requesting to speak to an Admin+ staff member.
    If a player is dissatisfied or disapproves of how I've handled a case regarding them through prior communications, and any apparent grudge or displeasure with my personage is affecting their judgement or ability to remain level-headed, it is my duty to forward them to another staff member, whether in-game or available through discord. Otherwise, if no alternative is available, I can only ask that they forgive my mannerisms, and subsequently request that they cease such behaviour and if they continue to maintain an intolerant stance that goes beyond reason: I may leave a note, and only if deemed serious enough [I.e., targetted abuse / personal attacks as opposed to general banter or minor 'salty' moodiness], regarding hostility towards staff.

    A player ahelps that a marine is named 'John Doe', how do you deal with this?
    A rule is in place regarding any effort to utilize a name or title that references outside source material in the media and entertainment industry or copyrighted characterization of a written / art, etc. specific publication. It is there to ensure that individuals attempt to provide their own form of originality, while also limiting their ability to stem beyond in-character activity throughout conduct. The following apply [Rule 2. Roleplay, kind of a stretch, depending on circumstances & more specifically: Rule 12. Character names]. In this case, as I've already been prompted, I may reach out to them to inform them that their name does not satisfy standards, i.e., goes against naming rules, and request that they change it whenever possible, ideally, the following round. If they fail to change their name by that time, I may then remind them and warn against any efforts to persist. Thrice is the charm, if they continue to keep the name -- and, unless adjusted for special consideration (haven't had the time, forgotten, again as an honest mistake) it may become necessary, if a third reminder proves unsuccessful, to keep a note on them so that further observations may prompt any additional action regarding the infringement.

    You see a Maintenance Tech running around in armor and carrying a rifle. The security level is green and there has been no threat to the ship in the round at this point.
    Context matters in this case, as though 'at this point' their current paraphernalia does not conform to standard, nor obey the rules in place, their equipment may've been thrown together as a result of a previous event where protection in-character was prompted and deemed necessary such as whether or not there was a prior Code Red emergency or sufficiently raised alert. An exception might apply where players shipside may've announced the presence of hostiles and this MT, specifically might've been given the drive to pre-emptively equip, but were left in an awkward situation as the threat was later eliminated or confirmed against before the appropriate Code was elevated. In that case, I may observe their actions for a good minute to see where they go with the goods from there, and if they continue to remain armed remind them of the rules and state that as per standard procedure they are no longer required to be armed and must put the equipment away at this time. However, given that this question specifically states up until now there has, indeed, been no cause for alarm, I will remind the user that as per their role's duties, they are not, without exception, allowed to be armed (being a non-combatant) and should refrain from using any weapons, etc unless made necessary. Gearing up before a threat is implied, in this case, also goes against Rule. 5 No powergaming as obviously being prepared to counteract a threat when or before it is made immediately apparent would be a staggering advantage. If the MT continues to remain armed, I will provide a subsequent reminder and if ignored beyond that stage leave a note for lack of compliance and state clearly to them that inability to follow the procedures expected of a role may lead to a job ban.

    A Marine ahelps that they were killed by a survivor. It is early round, the Marines have just landed, and the survivor claims that they were outright hostile to all Marines from the get-go and openly stated their intentions. How do you deal with this?
    The current rulings towards roleplay standards specifically go against any attempts to operate in a hostile attitude as a survivor, especially without proper instigation. While as described in both the forum and wiki guide, they are given limited 'leeway' as they would understandably be traumatized depending on events, they are ABSOLUTELY DISCOURAGED from resorting to harmful activity, especially lethal means from 'the get-go' as a Marine had indeed been killed. In this specific case, if the marine had stumbled upon and subsequently been slain by the survivor and a lack of sufficient roleplay clearly demonstrated improper escalation, I would look towards efforts to have the marine Admin-Healed after leaving a serious warning for the survivor-player. If they continue to neglect the roleplay expectations and disregard upholding those standards, I will remind them that further infringements risk a job ban and if later deemed necessary leave a note.

    You receive an ahelp from a player stating that an MP has locked them up in permanent confinement for running into Requisitions and taking an attachment that was laying around.
    If, upon being prompted: the logs, witness accounts and personal admittance of either party did indeed find this to be the case I would remind the MP-player to re-read Marine Law and the Rules regarding improper escalation. While by the books the marine had indeed committed a few in-character offenses, the collective charge for either Trespassing or Theft (no-stacking), being Minor Crimes, does not exceed 30 minutes, with the minimum being escorted out of the area and the property returned. While as a Moderator I have no say in the play style of other's [so long as they conform to the rules], I would ask that the MP tone it down if they maintain such extremes (unless the marine's behaviour had warranted maximum charge), and ask that they immediately look towards placing the Prisoner outside of permanent confinement and into a proper cell and set the timer accordingly (30:00). While the MPs are indeed required to uphold the law, they must do so in accordance to the preset standards. I'd consider that the player may've made an honest mistake in skimming over 'stacking' limitations of charges, assuming they read them previously (probably an indicator of the 60:00, given that max' Trespass and Theft, each 30, might be interpreted as amounting to an hour) and allow the rest to be handled in-character. If the MP should ignore this request and continue to be overtly vindictive in their sentencing, I'd request that they regress from being too punishing and remind them that failure to comply to the expectations of their role may lead to a job-ban. The only exception being: in theory, that either a Trespass or Theft charge could indeed amount to 60:00, GRANTED the maximum sentencing had been applied for Resisting Arrest if added. If it was made apparent that the marine had indeed resisted arrest, the MP player is completely in the right to apply the 60:00 timer, and I would leave the case there, though I'd consider permanent confinement to be a bit too much. Otherwise, if the marine did not, in fact, Resist Arrest, the MP is unjustified in their actions and I would follow through as I had initially stated.

    The round is stagnating. There are 30 marines and 4 aliens. The marines won't leave the ship, and the aliens won't attack. What would you do, to "encourage" the sides to engage each other?
    As a Moderator I am limited in my ability to provide 'incentive' for either party to act towards ending the round, however, I would remind them (including in MOOC, but only if necessitated) that being opposing teams, they are required to fight it out. Should their stubborn behaviour persist, even at the expense of each another, I am still unable, to my knowledge, to intervene with exception to providing encouragement. Had this been a case of just one-player of either team remaining, purposely delaying: I would remind the individual that failure to conform to the expectations of their role may result in a job-ban. However, given the circumstances, I would look towards other staff, if available, such as an Admin to communicate through Queen Mother / High Command to order the teams to continue fighting.

    You are playing as a medic, and another medic overdoses all your patients and prevent marines from being revived. It seems like it may be on purpose. How do you deal with this situation?
    I would continue to follow through in-character, by advising against their lack of concern or awareness and attempt to remediate the results of either party's carelessness to the best of my abilities. Being involved in the scenario, personally, I am subjected to would-be bias and as per standard procedure it is my duty, ONLY if such activity persist, to bring the case to the attention of another staff and have them address the case where applicable, should the player continue to disregard the responsibilities of their role, and that the situation be handled from those externally, in absence of my influence, except in providing my context/side of the story. The very prevention of reviving other players indicates that the other player, if done so on purpose, is in breach of Rule 4. No griefing, as they are intentionally limiting the agency and play-experience of those concerned. Regardless, it is still the responsibility of myself to have another staff member handle the case, as no matter how level-headed I may be, the bias is significant enough to theoretically hinder my ability to handle the case appropriately and fairly.

    The round ends, a Marine starts shooting a hostile CLF member and the CLF member ahelps about being killed after the round ended.
    My understanding of the exceptions towards the 'End-of-round-grief' ruling are limited in this field in that I'm unsure as to whether or not this is warranted. While any player disturbing another after the round has concluded is indeed griefing, this is limited to those on-the-same-team, and granted, that the CLF are typically a hostile opposition, as are the Xenomorphs, any continued aggression is expected per roleplay standard and shouldn't be any cause for alarm if either party continued to maintain conflict. Unless any specific exceptions were applied as Admins have leeway in bending the rules (for example, the USCM and CLF might've had an Alliance formed throughout the round per event), I am only to state that the Marine, acting in accordance to his character and the roleplay rules, was indeed valid in his decision to game-end his opposition. [In retrospect, the question did indeed state that the CLF was hostile so I would follow through as initially stated]

    A Marine is running around disarming, punching and stealing gear at round start. You receive an ahelp from one of the victims.
    Given that I had received an A-help, I'd be inclined to investigate as to whether or not the accused had committed such deeds with proper escalation or to within reason (in-character). Regarding minor acts of hooliganism, however, this is exclusively handled in-character per the Military Police' enforcement of Marine Law, and unless the thief had taken something of significant value that might hinder the USCM teams' ability to perform this round, such as the C-I-C Command Pad or the Requisition Officer's Cargo Stamp, I am still limited in my ability to address this except if I so wish to continue to observe their behaviour and ensure they remain in line with how rediculous they decide to escalate their antics. Though per the Wiki, at least in previous editions, it is stated that all marines are evaluated for 'mental issues' before enlistment to ward against employing those deemed unstable or unreasonable (i.e., anyone that would resort to tom-foolery), this has seldom been established as a grounding rule and has no strict requirement to conform to nor has it ever been explicitly enforced to my knowledge.

    You receive an ahelp from a Marine saying that he was killed by another Marine. When you ask the murderer why, he said it was because the other Marine had punched him.
    This is a text book case of Improper Escalation -- assuming that any post-investigation confirms that this was in fact the case. I would remind the offender to please re-read the server rules and inform them that without sufficient roleplay, especially in this case, he was jumping the gun. I would provide a serious warning against such behaviour for them and if there are no medical personnel available, ask the other staff/Admins if they would be able/willing to revive the victim. Otherwise, I would only take further action if offender has a note history of previous similar events, by adding an additional note concerning a 'repeat-offense' or should they continue to conduct the same behaviour towards others throughout the same round, warn them that not conforming to the server rules may risk a temporary ban and would, where necessary, also keep note of this activity.

    You find out that there is an improper mutiny occuring. The mutineers are rallying together and preparing to storm the CIC. How would you attempt to resolve this situation?
    I would ask in (MOOC) who the leader of this Mutiny is and further inquire upon the reasonings for the Mutiny per the procedures included in Rule 17. Mutinies- where I would act to comprehend who is accepting leadership of the mutiny, the names of those involved (must be at least five and NO MPs). In addition: whether or not their reason is informal, i.e., 'the rules don't apply to us' or 'Unga C-I-C bad' and take into consideration the stage of this mutiny. In the event that their reason is invalid, I would ask that they discontinue their attempt and disband the parties associated. If there is less than 5 players involved, likewise, disband the mutiny. If they are already in the process of mutiny, I.e., oppositions of either side are already taking in wounded and C-I-C is in the process of or has already been breached, I would, granted the approval of other staff in discussion, organize towards having them mass-slept and the rules of mutiny stated clearly. Assuming it is collectively agreed that their efforts be allowed to continue, I will maintain watch over the ensuing events and make sure that no civilians/doctors are harmed or anyone permanently killed or put in danger of being so - and that once the resistance succeeds or ends, either party are provided with medical treatment and the victors handle the outcomes in conformance to the rules set (I.e., C-I-Cs current leadership is changed or the Commanding Officer denies those participating in opposition treatment and/or has the mutineers, justifiably shot.

    There are minor racist comments going on IC. 9 of the 10 people are laughing and RPing but one player gets offended and Adminhelps about it.
    Given the nature of this case, should any of those remarks be carried out in-character and limited to mere minor references/name calling, albeit limited and inconsistent, this does not strictly defy the roleplay standards as granted the historical depiction of military conduct, light banter is tolerated to an extent (I.e., marines calling Yautja/Predators Jamaicans based on their stereotypical features and tribalist traditions). However, being that this player did indeed bring this to my attention, I would take into consideration their wishes and ask that the marines involved tone it down and discontinue such behaviour. Action would especially be taken towards those who continuously personally-attack any persons targetted in an ongoing fashion and per such behaviour remind them that while lighthearted, granted sufficiently humoured attempts made are tolerated, within reason -- open and explicit racism, that is used to purposefully offend a player OOC is most certainly not and I will provide them with a serious warning.

    A marine opens fire at round start in briefing killing multiple marines and instantly logs off.
    Considering the scale of this offense, if one is able to ascertain the name of the culprit, I would check their note history for any previous similar activity and if they are a repeat-offender, leave a note and depending on the seriousness of their continued behaviour likely file for a permanent ban. If this is a one-off incident, it is still serious to the extent that given more than one player was targeted, it is unlikely to have been an accident, and I would apply an appropriate temp' ban for breach of 'Rule 4. No griefing'. and leave a note concerning the infringement. If the player had not logged off, I would attempt to commune with them and ask why they had dealt the deed, (it would more than likely be considered improper-escalation at the very least) and handle accordingly.

    You see a player playing a Xeno larva/chestburster run towards the frontlines straight from the Xeno hive the second they burst and die.
    While it is known that often some players who've been turned to the Hive's side, tend to carry their displeasure over rather vindictively, there are a few rare exceptions involving folks who upon being reborn, were too impatient to wait to evolve before heading out and underestimated the proximity of the focal point of engagement and had accidentally tread into conflict. I am personally guilty of this, as I've previously unwittingly scurried over what I did not become aware of until it was too late, what appeared to be ground-zero for an artillery strike and subsequently paid the price, though I had intended to avoid harm's way. However, if the nature of this case did indeed demonstrate that they had intentionally charged towards their death, I would investigate to sort out any contributing factors (salt, carelessness) and if it was serious enough, discuss with the fellow staff whether or not they should be job-banned. Otherwise, I would merely leave them with a serious warning and if necessary apply a note accordingly.

    You see a Xeno memeing, saying AYYLMAO, REEEEEE etc in hivemind chat, as well as insulting the Queen.
    As branded by the recent uptake in scrutiny towards low roleplay, especially amongst the Xenomorph team, it would be necessary for me to ask them to cease and desist and warn that while lighthearted banter might be tolerated, terms along the lines of net-speaking or clearly memeing have been granted much less leniency and for the most part, will not be tolerated. If they continued such behaviour, I would provide a more serious warning and apply a note if it became necessary. Otherwise, I'm not too sure how we treat this behaviour. In the past, at least, as far back as I've been part of, there's never been applied anything beyond very short temp' bans regarding these cases.

    A Xeno player calls the shuttle a "dropship". A different Xeno player ahelps that it's low role play to call it a "dropship".
    While this would indeed be considered low roleplay in the pure context that these are not the proper terms that one, imaginatively, would expect Xenomorphs to use - it has already been established, almost more than a decade ago that the thoughts of Xeno'-kind in-play are the mere English translations of any would-be processes communicated through the Hivemind, as required for gameplay convenience in communication. This isn't anything worthy of note, and I would mostly likely disregard it, despite prior terminology in dated rulings offering up the alternative use of phrases alike 'metal-bird'. So long as the terms used by the player aren't clearly based with meta-OOC comprehension brought in IC, it should be fine.

    A Command staff player at briefing near round-start mentions there are aliens on the planet. You receive an ahelp from a marine regarding this.
    Well then. This was certainly a more contraversial topic back when I first joined, but since then, the roleplay rules have been updated to include knowledge availabiliy for USCM players that assumes they've had contact with Xenoform species before. However, it does not state that they know that an infestation is the cause of any distress beacons per round, unless an Admin-event warrants that such be the case. In this case, however, granted past-procedures, such conduct would be typically considered low roleplay and at the worst be in breach of Rule 6. for Meta reasons. If prompted, though I would likely personally intervene in this case, I would (MOOC) to ask that all players avoid bringing in such knowledge in-character and disregard what had been previously spoken until it becomes known through later conventional means, and advise the staff member against such word choice and have them rephrase their briefing plan, granted it's not too much of an inconvenience. A simple warning against low roleplay is all. Hardly worth a note.

    You find a Marine killing another Marine on the EVAC Pod to take the last spot and claims it was RP as he was saving himself. There are two other marines in the pod along with him.
    While I've personally been a victim of such a scenario, if sufficient roleplay is conducted that demonstrates that proper escalation procedures were considered before-hand and the logs indicate towards that being the case, this would be fine and I would explain to the victim that unfortunately for them, this isn't - yet, out of line. However, if the accused had shown-up to the pod just before it could launch with three players and without word, immediately began shooting up and removing a member, this would indeed be seen as improper escalation and griefing at worse - I would likely warn them against similar behaviour in future. There would be some leeway, as considering that in those types of situations some folks would be too pressured to mince words in a timely fashion, it's still, in my opinion, kind of dick-move to pull that up on someone and if it's at the expense of others' enjoyment, it's a definite no-no. I'm not sure what else to say about this, but if the culprit was indeed in the wrong, a firm warning would be given, for sure.

    A player insults you after you warn them for a minor issue and begins ranting in LOOC or dchat about staff and mentions you specifically, referring to you as an 'idiot' and a 'retard'.
    While I, myself, am not above criticism, and it's reasonable to imagine anyone would be pretty ticked off for being told they were in the wrong, or being constantly micro-managed, I would continue to wear my skin and acknowledge that these things happen. Though ideally, we would all be able to get along, and nitpicking and calling out someone for just doing their job is kind of low, I wouldn't take this too seriously. Unless they actually started personally-attacking me and making death threats, it's not something I'd actually worry about. If it was targetted behaviour towards a fellow staff-member, I'd definitely feel defensive and concerned for them, but I like to think I've got a thick-skin. Otherwise, if they genuinely believed there was indeed an issue with how I conducted myself in addressing their involvement in something, I would patiently and calmly direct them towards the appropriate avenues to file a staff report.

    A player ahelps saying he was hugged by a Xeno when he was ssd, and wants the larva be removed from him via admin powers. How do you handle the ahelp?
    Though no-one is immune to being barred by outside circumstances that could otherwise limit one's ability to play attentively (Such as power-outages forcing brief disconnections, or IRL requirements depriving one of available time) if the player logged in and put themselves in the way of suchs risks and made the choice to go AFK without retreating: this is the consequence of their own inability and it is up to them to personally have it removed via the proper in-character means should they be able to. Staff powers are not to be abused or utilized to every convenience to account for misplays or in-post event as a response to someone's lack of proper judgement and I would henceforth disregard this case after advising him to handle it in-character.

    You see a fellow staff member give wrong information in an Adminhelp or incorrectly enforce a rule.
    We all make mistakes, not everyone has the time to nail definitions or include every cookie-cutter portion of information when providing help. If I noticed a fellow staff-member mess up I'd remain tight-lipped as I'd be nothing more than a hypocrite for calling someone out for errors I'd likely make as well, if not, probably more often. If it was the case that such information was absolutely necessary for those seeking to perform a certain task or carry out their role, I would personally, discretely contact the staff member through Discord or other appropriate channels and politely give a heads-up to make note of any other info that could also help that they might be able to relay whilst maintaining their dignity. I know I'd feel ashamed and unwelcome if everyone pointed at every fault I've made, and it is up to the collective to do unto others as we would have done unto ourselves.

    Two staff are arguing in msay if an ahelp is breaking a rule. Because the staff who took the ahelp thinks the player broke a rule, they ban the player based on their interpretation of the rules, with others thinking the person was fine. What would you do?
    Okay. This is a pretty finicky situation. If upon verification it was found out that the decision to ban was in accordance to the rulings as provided per result of an infringement, I'd be patient and take the time to explain the full picture. It's very easy for people to glance over the most miniscule of information in a heated discussion and jump to conclusions or worse, take action without proper consideration. However, while I myself might be offering my own understandings, I would also be introducing an alternative perspective no greater or lesser than their own opinions, that is by no means concrete with the definitions written in prior. It is quite easy for rules to be misconstrued, in some circumstances, but that doesn't mean anyone is wrong or right either. Regardless, as a fellow staff I must honour their decision and respect them for carrying out what they believed was genuinely the right thing to do, and it is up to the upper eschelon, Seniors, Admins, etc, to remove the ban or provide a more informed decision. We're all in this together and it's not my job to boss others around or act like I have some level of enlightenment that means everyone should conform to how I perceive things.

    Why would you like to become a moderator?
    When I first came to the Colonial Marines server mid-2015, I was lost, and especially afraid (old ice was not nice, hated those four ladders). I would no doubt have easily happened upon infringing against rules had I not been given room to grow or had my course corrected by those experienced. I had a tonne of fun, still do, participating in the server and would've been completely baffled if not utterly destroyed and distraught if upon my first mishap (I was notorious for my poor aim and consistent FF incidents) I was picked apart and positioned in a way that framed me as some kind of enemy with nothing but ill-intent and subsequently thrown out of participating. However, fortunately for myself, that was not the case. Though as many have described before we'd easily be at each other's throats on a whim for the shenanigans we put one another through, I myself am a personal believer in human benevolence. We're all human beings, and no-one is immune to the stresses of IRL or the inevitable mistake hanging around the corner. I want to be a Moderator because it was both patience and shared enthusiasm that kept me in the zone on behalf of other Moderators before-hand. Though part of the duty is also making sure we all follow the rules and don't follow through with anything at someone else's expense, I personally believe that no-one wishes to do harm, at least, not unprovoked, and that it is an exceptionally challenging duty doing our best to make sure people know where they go wrong, but still allowing them to move past that.

    In your opinion, what is the most important quality for a moderator?
    The absolute, primordial quality that has been demonstrated as being the most beneficial and efficient in conducting procedures is no doubt one's capacity to practice PATIENCE, no matter who they're dealing with. Arguably, this is seconded by one's ability to demonstrate both concern for protecting everyone's experience but also making sure no-one has to miss out, via recognizing the humanity in each and every individual and being as lenient as possible, where appropriate. Not every wrong is backed up with intention and no-one should be crying wolf or screaming lynch at the smallest of mishaps.

    Afterall, while those who disagree see Moderation as an 'iron-grip' police state, we're more or less Curators just trying to make sure everyone has a fair shot, and that they don't get in the way or limit others from having their go as well. Everyone should be welcome.

    Anything else you
    Alright, I'll be as forward with this as possible since it's probably the biggest thorn screaming out to anyone generous enough to read this, but

    TL;DR, I'm in no way perfect or innocent, and I've admittedly done a lot of bad in the past.

    The ban I'm under at this point in time is the result of my own confession to previous transgressions towards several incidents that took place 1-3 years ago. I like to think I've come a long way since then and haven't resorted to any extreme or dick-ish behaviour for a VERY long time, and have no intent to regress in that stead, either.

    I'm a long time fan of Colonial Marines. I'm not merely as dedicated or robust as others and my play time spans across 2-5 years since I joined back in mid-2015. Because of this, I'm fairly aware of the traditions, rules and expectations upheld -- and I've had my fair sure of mistakes as well as witnessing that of others. I recognize that not everyone is perfect, but many are indeed willing to change and if I was to become a Moderator, I'd do my best to provide an enjoyable experience by ensuring everyone can play by the rules, allowing for leeway where agreemant is unanimous and being considerate in addressing the tasks assigned per duty as I wouldn't be stacking boxes in Cargo - these are other human beings too and no-one wants to miss out on the fun.

    As in regards to my play time, yes, the Ban will limit me from participating for a good few days. While my recent play time fluctuates, I'm unfortunate enough to be addicted A-F to this server and throw a lot of my free time around. I've no qualms with sitting through A-helps and if given the opportunity, fully intend on helping to teach everyone along the way. I am both capable and willing to invest months into this as I am very passionate about CM.

    If you have any further inquiries I'll try to answer in a timely fashion.

    I am aware that my current situation both limits and potentially poses the obvious chance of being revoked. Even if that ends up being the case, though I've been wanting to give an application for four-years running, I hope this is enough to show that regardless of my ban, I'm well aware of my previous actions and like to think I've grown a lot since then and have every intention of making ammends and looking out for the best interests of others. While my eye on the rules isn't 20/20, I thoroughly revise them often and hope that knowing I won't be a real game changer, I can lend a hand every now and then.

    Otherwise, thank-you, kindly, for your time and consideration.

    P.S. I apologize for both my poor grammer and inability to keep my sentences concise. I'm not sure how to otherwise convey my understanding.

  2. #2
    Admin Novacti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    427
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's good to see effort being put into applications, such as this one.


    Answers are pretty good, with a few exceptions;


    You see a Maintenance Tech running around in armor and carrying a rifle. The security level is green and there has been no threat to the ship in the round at this point.
    This is completely an IC issue, it only becomes our problem if they self-antag with the weapon in question.


    You find out that there is an improper mutiny occuring. The mutineers are rallying together and preparing to storm the CIC. How would you attempt to resolve this situation?
    When an improper mutiny is already happening and CIC has already been breached and/or a conflict regarding the mutineers is occuring, immediately mass sleep.


    The round is stagnating. There are 30 marines and 4 aliens. The marines won't leave the ship, and the aliens won't attack. What would you do, to "encourage" the sides to engage each other?
    You CAN actually make QM announcements, however if there's an admin online, do leave it to them.


    A marine opens fire at round start in briefing killing multiple marines and instantly logs off.
    Obvious griefing. Insta-Ban. Killing multiple people during briefing with a firearm is intentional.



    Just one question;
    Can you tell me about any recent events regarding the game? Especially matters regarding administration.


    I will give my verdict once an answer has been provided.
    Last edited by Novacti; 01-15-2020 at 11:47 AM.
    Ex- Predator Council Senator, Mentor Manager, Discord Moderator and Moderator Trainer
    My wall of medals: https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1...it?usp=sharing
    Discord: Novacti#0505

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    288
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Going to have to pump the breaks here, you currently have notes from this month. Try to spend a whole month without getting notes.

    -1

  4. #4
    Admin Ignominious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by starmute View Post
    Going to have to pump the breaks here, you currently have notes from this month. Try to spend a whole month without getting notes.

    -1
    I understand. Thank-you, kindly, for taking the time to evaluate my application. I hope I can leave a better impression in the future. Otherwise, have a CM-day!

  5. #5
    Admin Ignominious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    @Novacti

    Good morning, Novacti. Thanks in advance for sitting down and sharing your time to evaluate my application. As in regards to your last question, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking but I'll try to provide an answer nonetheless.

    While given that I've actually been banned at this time, I'm unable to provide a perspective on any recent events regarding how staff have handled new cases [outside of the rather consistent 'nade griefing we've been having from alt-accounts these last two months] I have some limited understanding on some changes that have been brought in as a result of announcements released in the discord.

    Including but not limited to a few re-assigned positions as well as retirees (best wishes to them). I am aware that both former Admin' Manager: ThesoldierLLJK and our beloved leader 'Saint' Emerald Blood have temporarily or indefinitely parted ways from the community for now. -- In addition, I've learned that Scsnv will be looking after Mod' Management from here on out.

    Per in-game events as of last week, I learned that just before I had been removed that a Space Jam event was held over the Week-End, and earlier the same I had participated in a CLF-vs-USCM event round on Big Red (Solaris Ridge). Unfortunately, I have not yet been able to play, again - given my circumstances and therefore cannot provide an anecdote regarding recent changes in the Dev' version such as the new Carrier strains and playstyles. All that I may attest to, concerning recent events is that besides the occasional event here and there, last week was relatively tame for most of the rounds.

    The advent of griefing has been much more prominent as of late with respects to the start of the year. I've witnessed and also been victim to multiple grenade-griefing shenanigans and recognize the disruptions for what they are.

    Besides the 'recent events' involving changes in Administration, I've watched the Staff team shift quite a bit over the years. It's been sad to see many have since taken their leave, but I know we'll all be forever grateful for their contributions, especially to those in founding.

    Good luck with their future endeavours and I wish them all the best -- I know much of the rounds I've partaken in would not have been as safe and enjoyable without their vigilance and well meaning.

    I apologize if this did not answer your question. Please forward any requests for further elaboration or additional questions where applicable. Thanks, again, for your time and have a lovely CM-day!

  6. #6
    Ancient Member Hunk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    938
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    You have a ban this month for Multikeying which is the WORST possible rule break which makes you ineligible for application.

    -1

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    256
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm agreeing with Hunk and Starmute on this one. -1 from me as multikeying isn't taken lightly here.

  8. #8
    Admin Ignominious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    @Hunk1 , @Doctor Compy

    Greetings and good afternoon.

    I apologize if my situation has left a bad image and understand that my actions in prior have indeed backed me into a corner in that context. If it is the unanimous view that I am not to be trusted, that is your verdict, and it is one completely comprehensible given the nature of my labels. A perspective both admirable and respectable as it is your duty to ensure that the standards are upheld without exception or beyond legitimate reasoning.

    I know full well that multi-keying is and has always been a notorious offense, I've been around for more than five years- enough to recognize that loud and clear, and have seen a lot of folks burn their bridges going down that route.

    I was, however, unaware that the mere branding of such is enough to render one ENTIRELY 'illegible' for application, and therefore apologize, albeit too late, if that has wasted anyone's time.

    I've actually been intending to apply for four years running but never really got around to it, and while I am indeed banned for multi-keying, it was never by way of evasion or intent to grief and avoid repercussions. [The majority of, if not, all of the reasonings for those bans were collectively based on actions older than 1-3 years and I have far and away grown from that.]

    As a matter of fact, I personally saw to audit myself (via confession) and thoroughly address my past deeds as I knew the extent of my wrongdoings and that I was not to go unpunished -- also, because either through their own negligence or lack of availability, I was neither dissuaded nor acknowledged for my actions by the staff throughout the entire span of my playtime in precedent up until I had made them aware at this point. Which also leads into the penultimate reason for my application:

    It has become quite clear to me that the team is indeed in need of staff concerning those who are available during Asia/SEA/AUS time standards in order to broaden their vigilance.

    Though I've no means to prove to you that I am a different individual than I was then, I can only promise that I absolutely intend to remain in-line with the rules and expectations placed on those whom choose to participate in the server.

    Otherwise, I was already confident that I wouldn't be accepted, regardless, and merely endeavoured to submit this as a way of proving to myself that I could take things more seriously.

    I knew that by bringing all my history to attention, it would no doubt hinder every direction that may've been previously open as a result of any prior misteps -- I didn't care about that, I was dead set on being as forward and honest with this community before coming here, as I knew that is what it would take JUST to put me back on track with being genuine not only to myself but to those unbeknownst. Many others in my situation could've easily decided to lay low and conform, disregarding anything out-of-sight to play it safe, especially given my former and relatively barren note history, but that is not who I am, nor who I will ever allow myself to regress into. I am wholefully determined to play things by the books and will do whatever it takes to demonstrate that I can.

    In addition to that, I am and will always be a firm believer in human benevolence and will always strive to the furthest extremes to prove that each and every other individual is more than the flaws on their surface, which is why, in my opinion, this now unreachable opportunity, would've been a vessel for me to help the denizens of CM to move beyond mistakes and continue to enjoy their experiences without being excluded nor barring the capacity for others to do so as well -- as long as conformance to the rulesets enable so in ways safe and enjoyable for the collective.

    While I am personally against the mindset of petty grudges and the philosophy of perpetuated exclusion based on upheld stigmas and the concept that one's morals aren't interchangeable nor redeemable if they should cross a certain threshold, I am well aware that my antecedents have earned me such a visage.

    Bearing no qualms or ill-will, I am more than ready for rejection and although this may condemn me to having to find an alternative means to give back to the community, I am fine with that.

    All I desire for myself is the dignity to be upfront about my actions, and as long as I continue to do so, I will never be ashamed for having the initiative in trying to better myself. Furthermore, while no-one is immune to scrutiny, no-one deserves to be bound to the shell of their form 'selves, nor have their livelihoods reduced to being seen as nothing more than the faults they've mustered. If humanity could not look past the imperfections of one another and forsee the capacity for every soul to do good, society would've ground to a halt long ago.

    Anywho, sorry for the rant.

    Thank-you-all, very much so for taking the time to inquire upon my application, and if the earlier concerns are enough to revoke any chance, here's my consenting to have this post both denied and withdrawn if deemed fit. Have a CM-day, everyone. Here's to best wishes moving forward.

  9. #9
    Retired Manager
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    1,455
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Dunno why you made an app while you have a ban active. It's obvious you're not getting accepted for now.

    Also, when you're actually a mod, work on shortening sentences. Giving players an earful is not good.
    Former staff, also former Synthetic senator.

    Now just a shitposter and lurker.

  10. #10
    Admin Ignominious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    TL;DR for any perusing: This application is underway of being denied and I myself consider this withdrawn. Thanks, again, to all those who've offered up their time to read. Have a splendid day and rest of 2020.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •