[UK] O5-4 'The Justicar ' Application

[Jaffar 'Warhammer']

While I don't necessarily agree with the reviews which were implemented. The idea of a conversation with personnel on what they've done and where they can improve going forward was a good idea.

This, however, as a Site Director shouldn't affects ones ability to apply for an 05 role. As an RP leader, he is there to create roleplay for the server and its players. I'd suggest listing actual reason(s) why he can't be an RP leader as an O5 personnel.

That is an actual reason. If players start complaining how CL4 no longer feels like a position worth going for because of it, if a chief gets immediately kicked off because he didn't fill the quota of a new system being implemented and if a sr. cl4 member complains about being stressed out and how this feels like this is an actual job then the change you made doesn't help with creating RP, it actually hinders it. You suck the life out of the RP by turning it into an actual job. What's to guarantee that if he does become an O5 that A-1 and assistants don't start feeling forced to get on the server to do their "job" rather than getting on to play on an RP server?

 

[Jaffar 'Warhammer']

I did reviews when I got into the role of SD so I could see where everyones was at, considering the findings I would say they were needed. However I never set these to be monthly. I said that they was to be done "as and when needed" as in if there was a performance dip. If SA are choosing to do them monthly thats their choice but was never my final plan.

I get that was your plan, but the way you went about it was too aggressive and left an extremely negative impression, I do not disagree with the need for SA to communicate more with other departments. However, the way you went about it was wrong. There is a difference between reviewing and communicating with other CL4 members to try and get them to do better and just axing people immediately because YOU felt they were not qualifies enough.

 

[Nikolai Kirkow]

quota of a new system being implemented

That 'new' system was checking if Department Directors/Commanders were fullfiling their expectations listed here: Director & Commander Expectations. It's not really Julien's fault that people doing the reviews treated it like a real job interview/review.

 

[hoka]

+support

played overwatch with me! also pretty good at roleplay or whatever

 

[peep69]

Note for whoever has the power to delete this reply, my reply is not meant disrespectfully, antagonistically or in any way other than constructively. I hope you won't delete it, though that might mean something as well.

"I always tend to make sure everything is ok OOC after big altercations and try to help people understand that IC actions are IC."
I have no reason to believe you wouldn't do this. It's only logical after all to make sure OOC relations aren't damaged after IC drama. Unfortunately, this sentiment seemingly doesn't carry over into OOC scenarios, in which you've once insulted someone's intelligence to then remove them the moment they said something back. As an O5 Council member, you're going to get opposition and feedback you won't like. If your answer is to then remove the person or insult them personally, I fail to see how you should ever be considered for a role such as this.

You also have an incredibly pessimistic outlook on anything you're not a fan of. Change happens and ideas are proposed which you won't like, which an O5 Council member should be able to take. A good example is when the Specialist Researcher discussion was reopened by NL and I. UK and US RSD, along with both UK and US SA, were in favour of the role, yet you consistently shat on the idea of it and opted to be rude and passive aggressive in the thread instead of adding to it. When asked to get out of the thread since you weren't contributing (and also, odd for an ECC to be interfering with what should be, at most, a SA matter), you left a salty reply. Maturity is a great factor in deciding a new O5 Council member, and its a trait I've yet to seen you show.

To tack on to you not being able to take feedback / criticism / just even the idea of someone not agreeing with you, there's no greater example than the Walter/John DoR situation. I, as Director of Research, thought it to be understandable of me to want to stand up for my Executive / then new co-DoR, as the process was both incredibly stressful for both and shameful for one, and I was about to potentially lose two of my greatest RSDCL4. The discussion with SA was surprisingly decent until you joined, upon which you:
- Striked me and threatened me with another if I tried to involve myself any further, additionally accusing me of lying and not giving me a chance to explain anything
- Threatened John by saying either he stays as DoR or quits now after he said he might quit within the next 10 or so days
Let me get this clear: you were not involved in this at all. You had no business involving yourself, yet the smidge of authority you hold on a Garry's Mod server made you think you were in a place to do so. This should, again, have been an SA matter at most. Hell, even the other Ethics Member who was there was more reasonable than you as ECC. I truly fail to see how you could do any better as O5-4.

And I'm not the only one who feels this way either. Ask around, there is only a handful of CL4 personnel who liked having you as Site Director. I would know, I also asked around. There were even people within SA which didn't like the idea of you being Site Director. An incredibly disliked ex CL4/CL5 that is good at roleplay but is NOT a good fit for the role going for a new CL5 role isn't unheard of, but it hasn't ended well historically.

Let's not skip over the toxicity issues, either. Besides insulting a Dpt. Lead's intelligence then removing them when they responded, you've also been hypocritically toxic recently. The idea of someone having preferred another candidate for SA to the one who got accepted prompted you to get upset in Discord and speak out against the "rudeness" of this, yet you had no issue saying someone you had removed from ECM - for practically no reason - does not deserve the role of ECC in the public forums. When you then got called out for it, you deleted it to save face. I'll give you credit here though, you apparently had a nice conversation with this person and fixed the issues at hand. Don't know how you didn't know that "You do not deserve this role" is an unacceptable reply to leave on an application in the first place - especially considering you also left zero feedback - but at least you changed your ways. Or something.

You mention communication being an important aspect of being O5-4 in your application as well, which is almost laughable considering you failed to communicate much of anything except thoughtless orders when you were SD. Combine that with the way you handled the Walter/John situation and it become apparent that you absolutely can't communicate so long as the person you have to speak to is someone you dislike. Also, if communication is important, then surely telling the truth is too. Yet I fail to see you answering every one of the questions on your application truthfully, specifically: "Have you received any kicks/bans/warnings? And why?" There's a ban you're refusing to give the reason for, still.

There have been worse ECCs than you and there have been worse SDs than you. That doesn't go to say you were good at either. Currently, the only way I can see you getting O5-4 is if you get biased into it. You don't even hold a junior CL4 right now; from ISD Investigator to O5-4 is a bit of a big step. That's almost SL-emergency-plant levels of rankskipping.

I don't mind you as a person, really. We worked together fine on the GM team, and you were fairly reasonable. This seems to be a common consensus amongst people I've spoken to; you are actually quite a nice person. It appears however that you forget this the moment the chance arises to use your fake roleplay server authority to push people around. You're the CN version of a Disney bully, and I wish you the best in maturing and changing your ways.

Lastly, I truly do expect this reply to get deleted. Though if it does get deleted, that'll likely say more about your inability to deal with opposition than about the contents of my reply.

Best of luck on your application.

 

[Alex 'Sinner' Saint]

During your time as ECC, I had some issues, mainly with how you led it and how EC was when you left it, you left EC in a very bad position where they were very okay with showing the biggest lies, even you as ECC would casually have people turned into D-Class over minor things, Such as dragging a Site Advisor mid war meeting (where we were super desperate for a way to get a leg up) out of the meeting into ISDW and turned into a D-Class, just for suggesting if we should use SCP-939 agiasnt them, this locked me out of the war RP which I was super involved in ever since me and Maxo went to talk to them in pinewood, and was overall a very weird thing to do as ECC, and the rest of ECM were following in your footsteps.

During your time as SD, you were very passive aggressive, the way you talked to everyone made it seem like you were higher than them, the way you talked about people behind their backs as well was very hostile and made the VC very uncomfortable, you were diffirent from Harvey in one way, you simply made everything harder, I had to do more as SA/SM when you were SD and you never appreciated that, not that I care for it but I care for the fact you stated:

During both of these terms, I worked closely with those under me to improve and revitalize the systems in place

when you didn't, It was me and Jason alongside our lovely Site Advisors who were barely keeping the ship afloat, we saw you very rarely in the threads or the ever so rare SA meeting.

You gave the Site Managers feedback *once* and it was passive aggressive, based on false/outdated info, you refused to apologise and even doubled down calling the RP me and Jason made bare minimum, the RP here was getting as much CL4 as possible into EOC and telling them of the issue we are in (the reality breach) and managed to gain persectives of all departments and push RP at the last few days, (shout out Jason for doing 99% of this, it was goated) yet you called this bare minimum and instead of apologising you ignored the message and ignored the proof I provoided showing your passive aggressive feedback was based on false/outdated info.

I believe that one of the main skills you need for any senior position on the server is good communication.

And you do not have this skill, in SA a common trend was constant miscommunication with you specficly, you tell me X but turns out you wanted Y, when did this happend "I told you this at the SA meeting" but no one can recall it for some reason, you allowed for this to get very dire and only then did you put it in text, but by then both SM would of been aware of it without you and dealt with it.

---

You are not fit for a leadership position.
BUT
You are fit for SGM, you do great RP, you can play the characthers you want as SGM even O5 if you contact the needed people which am sure they will approve if you show them what you would like to do, you don't need O5 whitelist to extend your RP/make it better, you are able to do so as SGM, your RP is great, your leadership is not.

- Major Support

 

[King Julien]

if a chief gets immediately kicked off because he didn't fill the quota of a new system being implemented

just axing people immediately because YOU felt they were not qualifies enough.

1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pPxyOz9-g7S9saypQr4YiBqYi2MlvgrcLv2mf6MqdbM/edit?tab=t.0 - Not a new system at all. This is linked in every single Director application, so failure to read it was never SA's fault. I Get its not a job however when yo u apply for these positions with expectations you need to meet the standard which many were failing to do at the time.

2. The entirety of SA agreed to those people being striked or removed and on some of them I had 0 involvement at all and had to deal with appeals.

 

[Noble_]

+Support

one of the most experienced players left on the server and would definitely be a solid contender for O5.

 

[King Julien]

in which you've once insulted someone's intelligence to then remove them the moment they said something back.

I’ve never insulted someone’s intelligence to then just remove them without reason? I fail to see how baseless claims are the norm as of now?

As an O5 Council member, you're going to get opposition and feedback you won't like. If your answer is to then remove the person or insult them personally, I fail to see how you should ever be considered for a role such as this.

The ONE time any SA decided to give feedback to me instead of refusing to face the problem. Systems were changed immediately and I admitted fault in the area that they pointed out. What you fail to understand is that communication gets you what you want. Again I haven’t removed people because of "feedback"

You also have an incredibly pessimistic outlook on anything you're not a fan of. Change happens and ideas are proposed which you won't like, which an O5 Council member should be able to take.

I will not and never will be a Yes man. Some changes are bad and need to be challenged. This doesnt mean that cos I said no they wont happen just means I need you to prove that its worth it or articulate yourself in a way thats convincing. Or at the very least change it to make it more accommodating for everyone which has been done numerous times.

A good example is when the Specialist Researcher discussion was reopened by NL and I.

I agree it is a good example of me not agreeing with something and it still happening because more people it was good than bad. Just because I didnt like it doesnt mean it wont happen cos I disagreed. I voiced my opinion on how it was an unneeded change in my OPINION.

When asked to get out of the thread since you weren't contributing (and also, odd for an ECC to be interfering with what should be, at most, a SA matter)

Odd for FCOM to take interest on changes within the server rank structure? You make a thread for opinoons which I gave mine and cos I didnt agree with you, you seem very upset by it.

the Walter/John DoR situation

The situation where you begged SA to give you one of them and then had the new DoR threated to reign cos he thinks the other guy shoulad got it? This situation in no way relates to my ability to take feedback but how I handle a situation where someone applied for a position to then waste SA's time and say "but he shoulda go it" . It was a dumb situation and the strikes handed out were deemed as valid in the end so whats the point of bringing this up?

This should, again, have been an SA matter at most. Hell, even the other Ethics Member who was there was more reasonable than you as ECC. I truly fail to see how you could do any better as O5-4.

I was Site Director at this time.

And I'm not the only one who feels this way either. Ask around, there is only a handful of CL4 personnel who liked having you as Site Director. I would know, I also asked around.

And yet the people with the problems never came to me or O5 about it? Its just drama inciting and a weird thing to try and ralley on a app response.

An incredibly disliked ex CL4/CL5 that is good at roleplay but is NOT a good fit for the role going for a new CL5 role isn't unheard of, but it hasn't ended well historically.

Good at roleplay but not fit for an RPlead position? Also whiile I understand I wasnt liked for holding people to a set standard this by no means I was ever bad in these roles. In these roles youre bound to annoy someone at some time Site Director is just a good platform to do this in mass im seeing. But I will point out I was never Striked Demoted or Removed from any of these positions for my actions. All this to say I am a good fit for the role.

Let's not skip over the toxicity issues, either. Besides insulting a Dpt. Lead's intelligence then removing them when they responded

Again with the baseless claims

The idea of someone having preferred another candidate for SA to the one who got accepted prompted you to get upset in Discord and speak out against the "rudeness" of this

Baseless with no evidence.

yet you had no issue saying someone you had removed from ECM - for practically no reason - does not deserve the role of ECC in the public forums.

Wasn't my best response but after talking with the person themself I left a +support. Im also going to say nobody gets removed for "no reason" this comment to me just says that this entire post is here to incite drama.

"You do not deserve this role" is an unacceptable reply to leave on an application in the first place

Thats why it was deleted. My -Support had been explained to the people that handle the app. It was to do with their removal reasons. I do not believe I needed to state the reasons on a public forum as it might seem like im trying to incite drama.

which is almost laughable considering you failed to communicate much of anything except thoughtless orders when you were SD.

More drama and baseless claims. Like I said in my app if you even bothered to read it, we had threads open for everything that needed to be talked about. I would assign people tasks to handle and would checkup on them as and when needed. And in those situations where someone wanted to talk with me I would always find the time to do so. So no I did not "fail to communicate".

Combine that with the way you handled the Walter/John situation and it become apparent that you absolutely can't communicate so long as the person you have to speak to is someone you dislike.

I dont "dislike" people for doing something wrong. Again that situation was handled by all of SA yet only my name seems to be gettign mentioned? That desision made was never overturned so clearly it wasnt the wrong one.

Also, if communication is important, then surely telling the truth is too. Yet I fail to see you answering every one of the questions on your application truthfully, specifically: "Have you received any kicks/bans/warnings? And why?" There's a ban you're refusing to give the reason for, still.

This right here proves to me that you have NOT read this application in full or the comments at all.

The ban is not from a month ago xD its from like 8 months ago now.

The reason for the ban was In app tho. Since the ban I have obtained the position of ECC and SD so its not really a reason for me not to get this role

There you go

Currently, the only way I can see you getting O5-4 is if you get biased into it.

You've gone on and on about how I needed things to go my way buit if you dont get the result you want here its "biased". It just seem hypocritical and again like youre here to incite drama.

You don't even hold a junior CL4 right now; from ISD Investigator to O5-4 is a bit of a big step. That's almost SL-emergency-plant levels of rankskipping.

More failing to read the app and comments properly.

While I understand your point it has been just over a month since I resigned from SD. Even after that time I've held the role of SGM so it's not like I've been gone for AGES and coming back for an open slot. Im still very activly playing and providing for the server.

Calling this "SL-Emergancy-Plant Levels of rankskipping" is insane.
That is the requirements to apply for this role which I have. It just seems like youre trying to create a certain picture if of "Nepo" if I get accepted. But why?

It appears however that you forget this the moment the chance arises to use your fake roleplay server authority to push people around. You're the CN version of a Disney bully, and I wish you the best in maturing and changing your ways.

Ah yes even though you admit I am a "nice person" when I have to actually do something because of other peoples actions IM the bully. Im sorry, but no, I have never abused my position to get what I wanted. I have always just delt with situations that were presented to me.

Lastly, I truly do expect this reply to get deleted. Though if it does get deleted, that'll likely say more about your inability to deal with opposition than about the contents of my reply.

Imagine if I took the time to respond. On a serious note though youre entire claim boils down to I don’t communicate well with people and I abuse my position to get what I want. You've provided no examples of this and you wont be able to. To put simply this is not the truth. I dont know where the mentality of "He doesnt take feedback or listen" has come from. But believe me when I say I can communicate with those who actually come to me. Something you never did and neither did a lot of people echoing the reortic.

 

[Rion]

Neutral

I have only interacted with you as E-11 SPC. I did not feel like your actions that I’ve seen were in character as you claim they were. Hacking turrets and running around LLCZ point guns in people’s faces ID checking for no reason, while allowed in E-11, is not how MTFs operatives should or do act.

I can’t say I have seen enough of you personally to negatively support your application but I would at the very least be hesitant to accept you based on my experiences.

 

[Lil Walter]

Hey there, could you expand on that latest ban? Weirdly thats the only one where you dont give the reason.

 

[peep69]

Since apparantly everything I said was a "baseless claim", here's the people you can ask about this:
Intelligence insult - CoS Yorick

Another SA candidate discord thing - Consult the E-11 CO channels (I believe - if needed I can probably find a picture)

Failed to gather feedback and do Much Of Anything Good as SD - The literal ex-SA in this thread -supporting you such as Alex Sinner Saint and Walter. I can probably find more in my DMs with people

Additionally, I felt it important to reply to your comments.

During the Walter/John situation, I voiced my preference for Walter as DoR and my concerns regarding potential advertising of John's application. This isn't me "begging SA to give someone the spot, it's me saying "I could work together with this guy better than with the other guy". I brought this up because, unlike what you say in your reply, you very much were the Chairman during this situation. As in, that was the entire issue with the situation; you being the ECC in a SA matter. Don't see the reason to lie there, but I digress.
You inserted yourself into a situation which you shouldn't have which someone else below you was already handling, also known as micromanagement.
Also, nice use of a personal attack. Don't see how saying I was "begging SA" is supposed to make you look mature, but I see manners are out the window.

As for the Specialist Researcher thread, I didn't bring it up because I'm "upset", but rather because you were outright being rude in it. I've asked US SA during the discussion as well and they agreed that you were being unnecessarily mean in the thread. You weren't just pessimistic, you were actively telling us to give up and that a specialist researcher role "won't be happening". In a thread about making it happen.

"And yet the people with the problems never came to me or O5 about it?"
People did, though. Yet you decided to dismissively state you wanted a discord message outlining what they have a problem with and that you don't have time to speak in TeamSpeak. Like you weren't in TeamSpeak for hours daily at the time.

You have past experience in Snr. CL4 / Snr. CL5 roles, yes. But you haven't been CL5 in months, and haven't had a role higher than ISD Investigator in a month (or more, not certain). There's a sort of statute of limitations on the length of which past experience is still seen as recent, and rankskipping from CL3 to CL5 with over a month of being gone from any position of significance past Investigator is by all accounts a case of bias. A regular player who was O5-1 months ago and SD a month ago wouldn't get O5 out of nowhere now.

Also for the ban reason: please quote me the exact sentence where the ban reason is stated. I can't seem to find it except it being "in app", whatever that's supposed to mean, considering the only mention of it in your application is that it's from 8 months ago and "isn't relevant". The question in the application format doesn't ask about relevancy.

And to be clear, you ARE a nice person. I have no issue with you personally. It's an undeniable truth however that you HAVE misused your power / rank to do whatever you want, such as in the examples I've listed.

It also seems funny to me that you keep accusing me of being here to incite drama when I've attempted to leave feedback, though it seems that's your go-to reason whenever someone does something you disagree with. Ask the better ECC.

Last thing, you mentioning that "the decision was never overturned so it clearly was the right one" is a stupid argument. I won't beat around the bush, that is an incredibly foolish thing to say. You know what happens when people try to file complaints on you; we've lost a great GM I won't name to it. Just because a decision wasn't appealed doesn't mean it was right and I have no idea how that was your conclusion.

 

[Tay]

@King Julien

I can't read. Can you reupload the application in podcast format?

Your forever friend, Tay <3

 

[Aaron Hench]

Neutral

Interactions with you have left me mixed. You are passionate, but I feel like it should be regulated for conflict situations.

Good luck.

 

[MaxoMaxoMaxo]

+support
i think it's fair to say that julien would excel in this role. he has shown time and time again that he has the skills and the dedicated needed for a cl5 role. i think that out of all the viable candidates, julien is probably the best pick here.