Name: Rizzie
Steam ID: STEAM_0:0:141634926
Please state if it is for SCP-RP UK or USA: UK
Level of appeal (2 or 3): 2
Have you already carried out a level 1 appeal - please give details: I carried out a level 1 appeal on the 5th of january and it was denied on the 6th
Who did you carry out the level 1 appeal to, and where: Site director pennington , the appeal was through discord dm's
Rank demoted from: It was a strike , no demotion was given
Who demoted you?: Site Director Pennington with support from SA
Date of demotion?: The strike was handed out on the 5th of january
What is the case against you?: A strike was handed out to the whole of the e11 CO team regarding regimental issues that had arose , specifically i was provided this list
- Failure to ensure activity and presence are upheld on your respective server
- Failure to discuss and make improvements based on Site Administration discussions and feedback
- Failure to uphold conduct and performance standards
- Failure to Engage with the entire Department/Regiment in pinpointing various issues that affect the overall health of the Department/Regiment
Is this true?: No
Prior to this demotion, have you ever been demoted?: Yes
Please list any previous roleplay demotion appeals: i made 2 appeals to site director pennington through dm's , the ranks were CPT-MAJ (Accepted) , MAJ-LTCOM(Accepted) The first was due to abuse of the strike and appeal system by my superiors and the second was due to an SL fuck up
What is your side of the story?:
SA are currently saying i have neglected my duties and failed to uphold e11 to server standards , here i will counter their points debunking them one by one
First of all i need to establish that i had taken LOA from the 30th of November to the 26th of December , during this time i was not responsible for the regiment and Leadership was left up to Commander Ice Victor , Major Benjifoxxy and Major Julien , I believed i left the regiment in competent hands
Pennington was made aware of this in DM's where i said
'just thought i should check in with you , im probably gonna take a long LOA (Like 2 - 4 weeks) after victor has settled in as commander as im getting a bit burnt out again , ill still be here for like small meetings etc. or to pursue rp for fun , but im gonna take a break from most of the responsabilities
victor is also aware of this'
However in my Appeal he said :
'issues in the regiment as still your responsibility. The present issues within E-11 have been occurring over multiple months. You are responsible to ensuring CO's are capable of maintaining the regiments health; yourself and the commander failed with that.'
First of all , i notified him i had handed over responsibilities to the rest of REGCOM , secondly i will respond to the accusations that the issues have been ongoing for months later in the appeal
- Failure to ensure activity and presence are upheld on your respective server
SA are claiming this goes back to before December , they are claiming this because there were three people found on the regiment tabs found to have not been on the server since november , however two of these people had valid LOA in november and one had an loa that didnt end due to a roster bug , in his response to my level one pennington said :
'regarding this point specifically I fail to find relying solely on the roster to be healthy for your regiment. It clearly has led to a situation where individuals were not checked and allowed to remain inactive for a significant period of time. Detracting from your regiments image.'
One instance is hardly an issue that majorly impacts the health of the regiment , yes its a shame that one person managed to go inactive without being detected , however this hardly constitutes enough reasoning for a strike , Throughout the months prior to december i observed the activity checkers doing their job and inactivity punishments were handed out , e11 maintained its presence on the server and members were active , sure in future we will check the regiment tab for activity as well however not doing so didn't cause a widespread regimental issue
Furthermore i would like to make you aware of the fact that SA had knew about the regimental break that was being given to the members , providing them time to go be with their families and celebrate the holidays , they had no issue with this that is until they were questioned by SC about the activity of e11 , that is when they run off to blame us
'There is no time for school when you are registered in a MTF Academy'
- Failure to discuss and make improvements based on Site Administration discussions and feedback
Before the months of december i cannot recall any instances of this happening and SA haven't provided any to me , in my time as regimental command there have been many times that i have taken and acted upon feedback from SA and SC , in my level 1 pennington responded with :
'you have been (as a regiment) spoken to multiple times about various issues. One that I can easily identify/note is when your regiment attempted to bypass site administration and make a policy stating people must "comms in" before entering HCZ; a server rule break regarding comms checking, which was dealt with and handled by SA. We denied the policy and provided that through feedback towards you.'
The example pennington has listed here happened on the 21st of december (i believe , might be off by a couple days) , this is firmly in the middle of my LOA , i had no part in this decision or the controversy surrounding it , i invite pennington or the rest of SA to list examples of when i have failed to discuss or act on feedback from SA (when i have not been on loa) , furthermore the statement pennington has made here is not accusing the co team of failing to respond to feedback , its accusing members of the co team of trying to bypass site administration , you can ask any of the co team , i had no part in anything to do with this and therefore shouldn't be held accountable for it
- Failure to uphold conduct and performance standards
Throughout my time as regcom i have always handed out punishment for people who failed to conduct themselves correctly and made changes to try and ensure that e11 is performing correctly , this can be seen on the roster and in meeting notes where both punishments have been handed out and solutions have been discussed , examples being the co rp requirements , incentives for people leading and dealing with breaches and changes to checkpoints / patrols , pennington replied to my appeal with this :
'whilst this is true is clearly is not working for your regiment. RP standard and creation within E-11 is still at an all time low with many individuals questioning the legitimacy of such actions.'
in the months before december rp creation was actually at an all time high with CO's creating both small passive rp and large events , i think again pennington is failing to seperate the state of the regiment before i went on loa and the state after , many co's that prior to the requirement created little to no rp went on to create a decent amount of rp for the cl3 of not only e11 but other departments as well , unfortunately this requirement was removed in december by ice, this is a decision that i disagree with
- Failure to Engage with the entire Department/Regiment in pinpointing various issues that affect the overall health of the Department/Regiment
Again this is just false , ask anyone on the co team , i always tried to find ways to improve on the regiment and address issues , frequent discussions were had with the entire co team in meetings about this , for the past year i have put constant effort into bettering the regiment and quite frankly these accusations are insulting , its like accusing johnson of not caring for the health of CI , Pennington responded to my appeal with :
'this again is a basic element of the regiment that should of improved but evidently hasn't; for a mixture of reasons, indequate CO's and inability to use appropriate tactics and instead just rushing SCP's for example.'
While it may be true that E-11's battle tactics may not be the best its not like we didn't address them , there have been specific meetings where we have discussed battle tactics and created solutions , co's / breach leads are supposed to give proper orders and split the regiment appropriately to deal with threats , unfortunately there will always be situations where that doesn't happen / goes to shit , however i am not there for all of them , we again have taken measures against this through lectures and trainings , however this is always going to be a hard problem to solve
Throughout this appeal you can see multiple sections where SA have said ' welp , should have figured it out ' however they ultimately should have been there to help us , i hope that whoever is reading this can see that instead of helping us when SA observed issues that they believe needed solving they sat on their asses until someone higher up started looking into it , i think its put best in penningtons own words 'We as SA have Failed you'
Steam ID: STEAM_0:0:141634926
Please state if it is for SCP-RP UK or USA: UK
Level of appeal (2 or 3): 2
Have you already carried out a level 1 appeal - please give details: I carried out a level 1 appeal on the 5th of january and it was denied on the 6th
Who did you carry out the level 1 appeal to, and where: Site director pennington , the appeal was through discord dm's
Rank demoted from: It was a strike , no demotion was given
Who demoted you?: Site Director Pennington with support from SA
Date of demotion?: The strike was handed out on the 5th of january
What is the case against you?: A strike was handed out to the whole of the e11 CO team regarding regimental issues that had arose , specifically i was provided this list
- Failure to ensure activity and presence are upheld on your respective server
- Failure to discuss and make improvements based on Site Administration discussions and feedback
- Failure to uphold conduct and performance standards
- Failure to Engage with the entire Department/Regiment in pinpointing various issues that affect the overall health of the Department/Regiment
Is this true?: No
Prior to this demotion, have you ever been demoted?: Yes
Please list any previous roleplay demotion appeals: i made 2 appeals to site director pennington through dm's , the ranks were CPT-MAJ (Accepted) , MAJ-LTCOM(Accepted) The first was due to abuse of the strike and appeal system by my superiors and the second was due to an SL fuck up
What is your side of the story?:
SA are currently saying i have neglected my duties and failed to uphold e11 to server standards , here i will counter their points debunking them one by one
First of all i need to establish that i had taken LOA from the 30th of November to the 26th of December , during this time i was not responsible for the regiment and Leadership was left up to Commander Ice Victor , Major Benjifoxxy and Major Julien , I believed i left the regiment in competent hands
Pennington was made aware of this in DM's where i said
'just thought i should check in with you , im probably gonna take a long LOA (Like 2 - 4 weeks) after victor has settled in as commander as im getting a bit burnt out again , ill still be here for like small meetings etc. or to pursue rp for fun , but im gonna take a break from most of the responsabilities
victor is also aware of this'
However in my Appeal he said :
'issues in the regiment as still your responsibility. The present issues within E-11 have been occurring over multiple months. You are responsible to ensuring CO's are capable of maintaining the regiments health; yourself and the commander failed with that.'
First of all , i notified him i had handed over responsibilities to the rest of REGCOM , secondly i will respond to the accusations that the issues have been ongoing for months later in the appeal
- Failure to ensure activity and presence are upheld on your respective server
SA are claiming this goes back to before December , they are claiming this because there were three people found on the regiment tabs found to have not been on the server since november , however two of these people had valid LOA in november and one had an loa that didnt end due to a roster bug , in his response to my level one pennington said :
'regarding this point specifically I fail to find relying solely on the roster to be healthy for your regiment. It clearly has led to a situation where individuals were not checked and allowed to remain inactive for a significant period of time. Detracting from your regiments image.'
One instance is hardly an issue that majorly impacts the health of the regiment , yes its a shame that one person managed to go inactive without being detected , however this hardly constitutes enough reasoning for a strike , Throughout the months prior to december i observed the activity checkers doing their job and inactivity punishments were handed out , e11 maintained its presence on the server and members were active , sure in future we will check the regiment tab for activity as well however not doing so didn't cause a widespread regimental issue
Furthermore i would like to make you aware of the fact that SA had knew about the regimental break that was being given to the members , providing them time to go be with their families and celebrate the holidays , they had no issue with this that is until they were questioned by SC about the activity of e11 , that is when they run off to blame us
'There is no time for school when you are registered in a MTF Academy'
- Failure to discuss and make improvements based on Site Administration discussions and feedback
Before the months of december i cannot recall any instances of this happening and SA haven't provided any to me , in my time as regimental command there have been many times that i have taken and acted upon feedback from SA and SC , in my level 1 pennington responded with :
'you have been (as a regiment) spoken to multiple times about various issues. One that I can easily identify/note is when your regiment attempted to bypass site administration and make a policy stating people must "comms in" before entering HCZ; a server rule break regarding comms checking, which was dealt with and handled by SA. We denied the policy and provided that through feedback towards you.'
The example pennington has listed here happened on the 21st of december (i believe , might be off by a couple days) , this is firmly in the middle of my LOA , i had no part in this decision or the controversy surrounding it , i invite pennington or the rest of SA to list examples of when i have failed to discuss or act on feedback from SA (when i have not been on loa) , furthermore the statement pennington has made here is not accusing the co team of failing to respond to feedback , its accusing members of the co team of trying to bypass site administration , you can ask any of the co team , i had no part in anything to do with this and therefore shouldn't be held accountable for it
- Failure to uphold conduct and performance standards
Throughout my time as regcom i have always handed out punishment for people who failed to conduct themselves correctly and made changes to try and ensure that e11 is performing correctly , this can be seen on the roster and in meeting notes where both punishments have been handed out and solutions have been discussed , examples being the co rp requirements , incentives for people leading and dealing with breaches and changes to checkpoints / patrols , pennington replied to my appeal with this :
'whilst this is true is clearly is not working for your regiment. RP standard and creation within E-11 is still at an all time low with many individuals questioning the legitimacy of such actions.'
in the months before december rp creation was actually at an all time high with CO's creating both small passive rp and large events , i think again pennington is failing to seperate the state of the regiment before i went on loa and the state after , many co's that prior to the requirement created little to no rp went on to create a decent amount of rp for the cl3 of not only e11 but other departments as well , unfortunately this requirement was removed in december by ice, this is a decision that i disagree with
- Failure to Engage with the entire Department/Regiment in pinpointing various issues that affect the overall health of the Department/Regiment
Again this is just false , ask anyone on the co team , i always tried to find ways to improve on the regiment and address issues , frequent discussions were had with the entire co team in meetings about this , for the past year i have put constant effort into bettering the regiment and quite frankly these accusations are insulting , its like accusing johnson of not caring for the health of CI , Pennington responded to my appeal with :
'this again is a basic element of the regiment that should of improved but evidently hasn't; for a mixture of reasons, indequate CO's and inability to use appropriate tactics and instead just rushing SCP's for example.'
While it may be true that E-11's battle tactics may not be the best its not like we didn't address them , there have been specific meetings where we have discussed battle tactics and created solutions , co's / breach leads are supposed to give proper orders and split the regiment appropriately to deal with threats , unfortunately there will always be situations where that doesn't happen / goes to shit , however i am not there for all of them , we again have taken measures against this through lectures and trainings , however this is always going to be a hard problem to solve
Throughout this appeal you can see multiple sections where SA have said ' welp , should have figured it out ' however they ultimately should have been there to help us , i hope that whoever is reading this can see that instead of helping us when SA observed issues that they believe needed solving they sat on their asses until someone higher up started looking into it , i think its put best in penningtons own words 'We as SA have Failed you'
Super Administrator
SCP-RP Staff
Donator
Group Moderator
