[UK] Emilia Foddg OSA App #2

[Emilia Foddg]

Spoiler: OOC Info

Steam ID:​

STEAM_0:1:33007778

Discord name:​

nopetoofast

For how long have you played on CG SCP:​

3 years

Here's my monthly VTime taken as of 13:08 on the 10th of June, 2026:

Age:​

28

In what country are you located?:​

UK

Time zone:​

BST/GMT

Character name(s):​

F - Emilia Foddg
CI - Milyuh Ferdge

Civilian name:​

Oh-ho 'Eightzo' M'bee-Varris

What server are you applying for? (SCP-RP UK or SCP-RP USA):​

UK

Do you have a mic?:​

Explode for asking (No)

List all whitelisted, MTF, or CI roles that you hold or have held:​

Holding:

• CI Gamma x2
  
  
• SCP-096 (Both Servers)
  
  
• SCP-22415
  
  
• ISD/DEA WL, Medical License (Both Servers), Riot License

Held:

• Suggestions Subforum Ban
  
  
• Site Advisor Application Ban
  
  
• MTF E-11 CPT
  
  
• Overseer Assistant
  
  
• GOC SGT
  
  
• MTF Nu7 CPL

Have you received any kicks/bans/warning? and why?:​

• 25th of May, 2026 - FailRP for putting a fake 096 pic on lecture hall projector
  
  
• 20th of May, 2026 - Hopped into D-Block as a Chef to play chess with the D-Class, Staff were not amused = FailRP
  
  
• 19th of November, 2025 - Engaged in unauthorised TreasonRP = FailRP
  
  
• 11th of June, 2025 - Broke FearRP by panic-using 106 when held under gunpoint
  
  
• 14th of February, 2024 - Manual AFK Kick
  
  
• 23rd of September, 2023 - FailRP for leaving fake 096 pics in FL3 elevator
  
  
• 13th July, 2023 - FailRP for hacking out SCPs as a Sr. Researcher

What makes you the best candidate for Overseer Assistant?:​

I wasn't the last time I applied, and I'm not this time. Only difference now being that I have a long and storied past experience in the past as both in this role and as a former E-11 CPT. I'm just rusty when it comes to being in an important roleplay position, and just don't know the exact ins and outs - That's nothing that a bit of onboarding, a bit of revision, and a few days of trial can't fix.

It's hard to explain, but there's a specific way that you learn to think when it comes to a position of leadership, you learn to think about things in a certain way and then you never really shake that. That way of thinking sticks with you and you just naturally learn what's right and what's wrong. This served me well when I was an OSA before and should do so again now.

I understand that there is some concern over my perceived lack of responsibility/sensibility, based off of a few occasional moments that people can and are seemingly ready to point to, whether it be on the server or here on the Forums, and since this apparently needed clarification, I can wholeheartedly assure you that I do not intend on that occurring whilst holding an OSA position. Anyone suggesting otherwise is sorely mistaken.

Despite my best efforts, I presently hold no other roles that require significant time investment, which apparently was a requirement to obtain said roles in the first place. "Entry level position, requires 10 years of experience" ahhh roles. I resigned before due to overwhelming mounting pressure from overloading my prior responsibilities between this, E-11 CPT and Game Master roles, but now I'm ready to return to the role. Will you take me back?

What are the responsibilities of Overseer Assistants in RP?:​

Assistant hold a great deal of authority onsite. When executing the direct orders of the O5 council, they have near-absolute authority with which to do so, for the express purpose. Even when not executing O5 orders, they still hold a great deal of power, being above every other junior CL4 position onsite. There's still significant and somewhat messy intersections with regards to standing Site Jurisdiction policy, but the more general things are usually pretty clear and sensible, while unique edge cases are generally dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

An assistant's onsite authority, aside from executing O5 orders, is generally to be used for ensuring departments/regiments are operating in line with Foundation interests & values (observing, investigating and sometimes even interrogating Foundation personnel to ensure their loyalty to the O5 Council remains intact), as well as to generally aid in the Site's continued healthy operation and existence (Potentially assisting in handling Site Codes, maybe authing AA if necessary, being generally involved in Site bureaucracy).

It's not really a forefront duty of an Assistant (unless by the will of an O5), but if needs be, there are situations where an Assistant can give orders to an MTF from outside their internal ranking structure. In relation to E-11, this could be to do with an SCP test, or potentially a passive breach if necessary (Although that's usually the duty of Site Admin). In relation to Nu7, this could generally be to do with GOIs or otherwise some form of obscure surface operation, which may also likely involve DEA - It's really more down to the specific circumstance. AO is kinda funky - There's the obvious case that when you have a security escort, there are some general contextual orders you can give, within the given situation; Especially in situations where you're executing an order involving a specific person of interest, for example, an O5 orders you to forcefully bring the DoEA to FL3, you'd take a couple of A1 with you - I mean in that example, the O5 would probably order A1 to do that directly, but you get my point. Otherwise generally, the way I understand it, you generally don't step on A1's toes and leave things more up to A1 COs. In certain situations, an OSA's presence may also be needed to support A1.

On a somewhat related note, Assistants are Foundation Staff's general first point of contact with the O5 Council (usually referred to as Site Inspectorate outside of CL4+ discussions) - And in a sort of 'vice versa' manner, Assistants are the primary instruments through which the O5 council exert their authority over the Site. So the communication goes both ways.

I know it's planned to allow FCOM roles to sign stuff with a different signature, but since it's a planned thing and this is still an Assistant's duty at the time of writing, when any form of written authorisation is needed from an Overseer, Assistants are expected to do so on their behalf, so as to retain INFOSEC/OPSEC.

Generally speaking, Assistants should know the rules that govern the Site overall. While they don't directly enforce these in the same way an ISD agent would on the ground (unless directly related to their work or an order), there are situations where Assistants may need to order an arrest, or be needed to facilitate an arrest - And hold someone to account where necessary.

As a front for Overseers & one of A-1's VIPs, need to be a proper representative of them, and not do anything that could potentially reflect poorly on their reputation. Otherwise, Assistants are generally just the O5 Council's busybodies, expected to perform tasks on Floor 3 and around the Site - As members of Jr. CL4 personnel, they are expected to follow the typical duties of Jr. CL4, which may be to provide access where needed in the form of operating blast doors (or more usually, restrict where needed by expressly not providing said access, it's situation-dependant), general Code protocol, sometimes even cycle FSL, sometimes emergency command centre stuff, etc. But the chief, most important duty of any Jr. CL4, is to create RP around the Site - Some examples of this are potentially engaging with RSD tests, with Medical, or just very specific, bespoke activities with other Site Departments.

Why do you wish to become an Overseer Assistant?:​

...Well this section's new. Weird that you wouldn't just fold this into the best candidate section for brevity, but whatever - I've been wanting to get back into the thick of it for a while - Been trying for Site Advisor for the past 2 years, no dice. Tried out Nu7, didn't like the direction it was going with high requirements to keep the role, left. Spent time off and on trying to get into A1, no dice. Even tried going for Exec, no dice. There's some desire to rejoin E-11, but I don't quite have the necessary tolerance for the regiment's current demands.

Bereft of direction, I now return to OSA with my tail between my legs, begging to rejoin the fun Assistant environment I used to thrive in before. I loved creating RP with FCOM and AO, and I aspire to do so once more. I'd like to come home.

As for my other ventures, I still retain interest in pursuing an FCOM position and if this falls through, I feel that that's my next step.

Please give some lore about your Overseer Assistant character and what storylines they would be involved in:​

Lore Doc

---

EDIT 12/06: Looked into the signature thing and updated that part of the app accordingly.
EDIT 12/06 2: Expanded further on the 'what makes me the best candidate' and 'why I wish to become an OSA' sections following harrassment in replies
EDIT 12/06 3: Minor addition to OSA responsibilities
EDIT 12/06 4: Further clarification on the best candidate section as previous edit did not sufficiently address concerns
EDIT 12/06 5: Fix

 

[Alex Redmont]

Even tried going for Exec, no dice.

You have a constant and reoccuring habit of applying for positions with either zero experience in their relevant departments, no activity, or a joke application. I would know, I handled your Executive application. You hadn't played a second on Researcher when you applied, while also applying for GSD captain (on the US server) at the same time.

You've also gotten two recent warnings for FailRP.

If you're (ever) serious about applying for any position I recommend actually playing the server and taking it at least semi-seriously.

 

[Niox]

+Support

previous experience, sound of mind, calm and reasonable person.

 

[ArcherOfLegend]

I'm on board as long as you get your foundation play time up.

+Explode For Asking

 

[Skittles]

Honestly? +support, you have the skill and potential. Just please stop printing out 096 photos

 

[Emilia Foddg]

Alright, it's been a little while, so I'll just nip this in the bud now:

You have a constant and reoccuring habit of applying for positions with either zero experience in their relevant departments, no activity

Your standards for these metrics are far too high if you think if I have "zero experience" in RSD and "no activity," holy

or a joke application.

First, that was one time, Secondly, why should that reflect?

I would know, I handled your Executive application.

Given the first part, I can only see this as a massive self-report. Seeing your attitude both regarding my application and me in general, I honestly don't think it's a coincidence how or why you were removed from DoR shortly following my Exec app and the fact that you continue to display this behaviour is telling.

You hadn't played a second on Researcher when you applied

This is patently false.

You've also gotten two recent warnings for FailRP.

Yes. As I have said repeatedly in the past, I absolutely don't mind tanking FailRP warnings if it means everyone had fun. I also think that those two recent ones in particular are overzealous - Like, I can go over the specifics, but the bottom line is, those two warnings IMO were wholly unnecessary and basically just taking away RP from ISD. I would contest them via complaints, but I feel like attempting to overturn them is a waste of everyone involved's time. IMO, FailRP is a little too overzealously policed these days - Like if it's something minor and something that could easily be considered an ISD case, just let the events play out.

Anyway, "recent" in this case being the 20th and 25th of May. It's almost mid-June. If the warns were active, sure I'd see your point, but anyone even slightly looking into this would see only a blatant attempt at character assassination.

If you're (ever) serious about applying for any position I recommend actually playing the server and taking it at least semi-seriously.

Given that I directly and explicitly told you in no uncertain terms before when you asked in my Exec application about whether or not it was serious, and the fact that you still don't seem to believe that after the fact, if you're ever serious about engaging in a discussion or responding to any application, then I recommend this wonderful little thing called 'reading comprehension' and at taking that at least semi-seriously.

If you want to try and make a point about something potentially reflecting poorly on me, maybe don't write these very obvious hit pieces which can be taken apart with even the slightest dissection?

I'm actually so mad at this that I'm going to report it a second time, good god. Firmly downthumbered.

 

[Akeno "Mina" Via]

Lets keep it a buck. That event suggestion was something else, however, it will have to agree with everyone else. Please for the love of God get serious, lock in for a couple of weeks and maybe I'll +support it.

Otherwise

-SUPPORT​

 

[Emilia Foddg]

Please for the love of God get serious, lock in for a couple of weeks

Done. Just because you personally don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Literally have a whole section about how I have been attempting to get back into it for the past year and a bit.

 

[Advil Smith]

Done. Just because you personally don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Literally have a whole section about how I have been attempting to get back into it for the past year and a bit.

The only things I see from you is bad GM tickets and suggestions. I don’t know what you actually do on UK server but you are quite unserious from what I see.

 

[Archie Bambozzini]

+support

funny enough suggestions, haven't seen you once since i play US but can't fault you for that, glad to see you address concerns incredibly directly

 

[Alex Redmont]

I'm actually so mad at this that I'm going to report it a second time, good god.

Best of luck with your application mate

 

[Vxnt]

-Support

You quite literally state in your first sentence that you are not a good candidate for the role. This should be an instant denial.

If you are to apply for a role, do try to actually get it, as it seems like you're only trying to get more subforum bans rather than a whitelist.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

The only things I see from you is bad GM tickets and suggestions. I don’t know what you actually do on UK server but you are quite unserious from what I see.

Everyone sees what they want to, it seems

You quite literally state in your first sentence that you are not a good candidate for the role. This should be an instant denial.

I know I told Redmont to actually read the things people tell them - This is taking that in a 'literally taking everything at face value' direction. It should be fairly obvious to anyone that my angle here is honesty and avoiding over self-aggrandising. And the previous time I held OSA, that app started out the same way, so clearly the people handling that app were able to recognise that not everyone needs to be all 'I'm the best' when it comes to a role, and shunning other approaches enforces that kind of toxic and potentially incredibly damaging positivity.

If you are to apply for a role, do try to actually get it

Yep, doing that. Been doing that. As I keep telling you.

What is happening, is there something in the water? Something is way off here, and I don't quite understand what it is. Why am I basically drawing aggro on what should be a fairly straightforward app? Like... You can't tell someone their own intentions, especially when they are expressly telling you otherwise. That's not a contribution, that's just bullying.

 

[casseno1]

-Support

The application is one thing but the rare times i see you on foundation you do not roleplay seriously at all, constantly bordering mingery, this is shown when you were playing researcher and decided to put SCP-096s face all over your sampling documents. The recent warnings are also a concerning aspect as well and your immature responses to the comments on your application speaks volumes on your attitude.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

While the rest is true, given that I was an okay OSA before and have made it clear that I aim to do so again, it should be clearly understood that that what you describe is an outlier and should not reflect on how I will take to the role once again.

your immature responses to the comments on your application speaks volumes on your attitude.

Being provoked by inflammatory and uncharitable responses that very obviously drew provocation = Immaturity. Who could have guessed that someone gets a little upset when you make statements that are:

• Generally untrue, extremely exaggerated, or otherwise jumping to an obscene conclusion
  
  
• Direct and unfounded attacks on a person's character
  
  
• Matter-of-factly forcing relevance of irrelevant events/circumstances
  
  
• All of the above

This is without a doubt, the single biggest problem with this community. It's good that you're looking out for undesirable behaviour that could have potentially negative impact, but when you continue to insist that upon someone who clearly knows what they're doing, has done this before and makes it crystal clear that this is not how they will approach the position, you go into witch hunt territory. God forbid anyone have fun on the Gmod RP server.

You can only play this card so many times before people realise the bullshit you're pulling. But by all means, kick me while I'm down.

And in case you can't be bothered to read through that very telling series of back and forths, then just take this from my post, which I think summarises the behaviour displayed both there and here pretty well:

...Let the record state that "inability to take criticism" and "being argumentative" are defined as refuting statements made about you in your application - And that in order to not be argumentative or be unable to take criticism, you must not address any of these statements, even if you know them to be wrong.

From what I'm seeing, a lot the comments others have been making here seem to be more reflective of them than they are of Zen. Are we reading the same thread?

None of these are the massive gotchas you all seem to think they are. This is in fact, highly unbecoming of a lot of you. A lot of this is boiling down to mostly just variants of

"Hey, so you did XYZ"

"No I didn't?"

"Wow, how argumentative, you demonstrate inability to take criticism"

I'm sorry, but do any of you even read the posts you make before you post them? How do you not look back on this and see the blatant dishonesty on display?

Zen might be tolerant of this, but I most certainly am not. I'll tell you how it is. If you have a problem with that, that's fine.

But if you seriously want to overtly gatekeep and pretend like you're "the bigger person pointing out potential issues with my attitude," I'd advise you to look in the mirror. The attitude being displayed here is nothing short of abhorrent and the three of you should really be ashamed of yourselves. I'm honestly fine with taking the L and losing my chance to become an OSA again if it means I can contribute to exposing this behaviour. And you say I'm being immature? Grow up.

 

[Rosalyn 'Vrda']

+/- Support

I have to say your reputation was definitely effected when you mass applied for roles on US/UK, it makes it hard to tell if you genuinely mean it when you're applying for a role.

However, as you've said in your application you plan on stopping any mingery on your new role and ultimately if they want to take a risk on it and give you a chance fair play.

Ultimately you're a nice person and whilst being goofy has potential to create some meaningful roleplay if locking in and given the chance

 

[Alex Redmont]

The attitude being displayed here is nothing short of abhorrent and the three of you should really be ashamed of yourselves.

All this making-a-new-application-ing and complaining-in-replies when you could also realise you don't take anything seriously enough to be a good fit for a cl4 position.

When you consistently get denied (or subforum BLed) you should stop and consider that you might be in the wrong. Instead, you have developed some sort of Garry's Mod induced victim complex, as is clear from your messages in mess-hall the day after you got denied for UK Exec and US CPT (see attached image).

When I said you hadn't played a second on Researcher, you replied: This is patently false.

Which is odd considering you yourself said you hadn't done diddly squat on Research when you applied for Executive. See attached.

Cheers

 

[casseno1]

You can only play this card so many times before people realise the bullshit you're pulling. But by all means, kick me while I'm down.

I don't see the point of bring up a year old Sa application of a different person and then shaming us for giving our opinions on the applicant, as stated in my point this reply literally proves my point and is very disappointing behaviour. I would like to see you eventually get a position like this after some self reflection.

Instead, you have developed some sort of Garry's Mod induced victim complex

This is lwk true from what ive been reading

 

[Average member podidski]

I don't see the point of bring up a year old Sa application of a different person and then shaming us for giving our opinions on the applicant, as stated in my point this reply literally proves my point and is very disappointing behaviour.

Past is history and you can't change/remove it on universal level. People will bring out past, no matter how you want it or not and that's sad truth.

 

[codynkn]

-Support

You've spoken quite a lot about responsibility, however you've also made a number of GM requests that are intentionally unrealistic or disruptive. One example that stands out is you requesting a Davy Crockett, which is something an experienced player such as yourself would know has zero chance of being approved.

My main concern isn't really about it being denied, it's moreso why it was made in the first place. Holding a CL4 role should demonstrate that you have a reasonable sense of maturity and judgement, so why would you engage in creating tickets that will lead to other players associating you with the opposite of this? Not only is it hurting your chances of having future applications accepted, but also demonstrating that you lack maturity.

You also recently had a Site Advisor application denied, and applying for another CL4 role makes it seem as if you're effectively 'shotgunning' for any role that will take you.

Additionally, on your previous Site Advisor Application you stated:

Following another year's worth of thought, soul-searching and more allowance for the accumulated burnout to recede, I would continue to seek a Site Advisor position

However, on 16/05/2026 you also stated:

I quit trying to get anywhere last year and decided to take up casual mingery. It's improved my mood a lot. From time to time, I take a few moments to challenge all this and pick a fight with literally everyone

Reconciling these two statements are impossible. One one hand, you're presenting yourself as someone who has spent a significant amount of time reflecting and preparing for leadership positions. On the other hand, you're openly showing behaviour that juxtaposes this. Whether your previous statement was a joke or not, it still raises questions about your maturity and behaviour.

Given all of this, I don't believe that you show the qualities that should be expected for an OSA applicant.