[UK] Emilia Foddg's 4th Site Advisor Application

[Emilia Foddg]

Spoiler: OOC Info

Steam ID:​

STEAM_0:1:33007778

Discord name:​

nopetoofast

For how long have you played on CG SCP:​

Over 3 years, since roughly May 2023.

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
(Don't ask. Or do, I'd be happy to answer)

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

UK

Do you have a mic?:​

Yesn't

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

Holding:

• Suggestions Subforum Ban
  
  
• CI Alpha
  
  
• SCP-096 (Both Servers)
  
  
• SCP-22415
  
  
• ISD/DEA WL, Medical License, Riot License

Held:

• Site Advisor Application Ban (I was banned from applying following my 2nd Site Advisor application, I appealed this on 16/10/24 with the then-current O5-1 at the time, who convened with the other O5 and I was told the following day that my appeal was accepted and the ban lifted)
  
  
• MTF E-11 CPT
  
  
• Overseer Assistant
  
  
• GOC SGT
  
  
• MTF Nu7 CPL
  
  
• CI Gamma

VTime​

Taken on UK, as of the 27th of April, 2026, 17:47. The large blocks of no time are where I have been occupied doing other things and most of my time spent on the server recently has been on SCP jobs, and more recently on CI. That being said, I still do a significant amount of RP as SCPs across both servers and this should not be wholly discounted, as I would be willing to dedicate potentially the majority of this time to a Site Advisor role, should I get the position.

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

• 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.

Why are you applying for Site Advisor?​

I generally still feel the same as I did in my past couple of applications to the role - 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. While it was a couple of years ago, I still remember my experience as an E-11 CPT and as an OSA - And how frustratingly limited I was in what I could do, despite the hoops I jumped through to obtain the positions. My disposition is not one that can simply just sit around and wait for the appropriate individual to exercise their authority - It is of one who can decisively and appropriately exercise that authority.

I could go on and on about how I feel about the positions of regimental COs and how, based on my experience, that I feel they're fundamentally flawed, how in terms of power, that they're ill-equipped to properly manage their own regiment and save them from falling into disrepair. At this point, I would rather be one of the people that step into when they do fall into disrepair, point at the thing they were doing that I would have been pointing at were I still a Regimental CO (and ultimately ending up ignored, as I was back then), ask them why on earth they were doing that, and then go over how they could change that thing to improve the regiment. I'm not going back into the blender. You can't make me.

I don't want power. Apparently, it's a necessity. I for one, was content to just remain an E-11 CPL forever, but apparently people had other plans. I'm not mad. Bitter, maybe, but I stopped being mad at this whole series of affairs a while ago. Now, I'm largely just disappointed.

And if you are willing, I would like to channel said disappointment into actually making these groups better places to be. I want to do deep dives into all the departments (or at least as deep as my health will allow), take a look at how they run things, and see where they are succeeding and where they are failing, obviously not to the degree of micromanaging them. But I have a scathing hatred of how much of a second-job everything is becoming and I would like to help put a stop to that. I recently looked over E-11 and Nu7. They are very demanding of people and I don't understand why SL hasn't intervened with them both, yet. But clearly if they don't see them as being beyond the pale, then clearly it's still within the reasonable bounds of IC positions to put their foot down and tell them no. In my experience, this aspect of E-11 cannot be changed from within the inside. I tried. It's a huge part of why I resigned from E-11 CPT, because of how little change I was able to effect in the regiment. When I was in Nu7, I saw it going a similar direction and decided to dip early to save my sanity. And when I recently looked back at it, I unfortunately find myself vindicated in my opinion. The other departments are probably fine? I know Broda's been doing a good job with ISD, so they're probably doing good, but if you were to ask me "How do you progress in ISD?" I wouldn't have an answer for you. So either I lack information that can be easily digested and understood as to what I'd need to do, or - And this is a hunch - There's a progression problem that needs to be solved.

I want people to enjoy these things. I want to know that if someone wants to pursue further positions in any department, that it's reasonably accessible, that it's clear and easy for them to find out and know how to get there from their starting position. For example, you can see my starting position here. And I want to get into Site Administration to try and fix the things that I feel are wrong. Obviously, this admittedly is a bit of a Catch-22, as either accepting me will show that there is intent to improve the general state of things and denying me will further prove my point about not being able to obtain positions by virtue of there just being no way to know what is needed of people.

I'm tired, boss.

...And yes - I still retain interest in potentially pursuing a potential FCOM position at some later point, but acknowledge that I am not ready for it at this time. When that day comes... God help you.

What makes you suitable for Site Administration?:​

Contrary to how this app may be received overall, this is not cold turkey. I've been thinking about taking a more active position in the server lately following off and on stints of SCP gameplay. Contrary to popular belief, I am watching. I am observing. 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.

I'm here, I'm ready, I'm willing, I'm available and I'm a past CL4 holder. That bit I said before in my last app, about making the appropriate and necessary judgement calls when it comes to evaluating a situation and developing a reasonable response for/to/in anticipation of it? Reaffirmed. Reassured. Solidified. Ascertained.

I really don't know what more is needed from me at this point (see prior section), but if a long-time community member who has now achieved the perfect blend of old-guard instincts, knowledge, and psychotic neuroticism to create relevant and engaging RP around the Site that is expected from a CL4 holder still can't get into SA after this many attempts, then I don't know what to say. What am I missing? The fact of the matter is, I'm the only one here who actually WANTS to read through reams of Site & Department Policy. You know I'll do it. I'm animate, nuclear and ready to Site Advise. I'll do the best damn Advising this Site has ever damn well seen.

What are the responsibilities of Site Administration in RP?:​

Site Administration are overseen by FCOM. They sort of have the same kind of relationship with SA, as SA have with the departments they oversee as described later, in that they generally don't micromanage - But they will keep them in line if they are misbehaving, typically through the use of Assistants and AO (I understand that I'll be instructed on the specifics relating to this during initiation - But my intuition on this is that as Senior CL4 holders, Site Advisors know what AO means and what they do, but I may be wrong, that could be a Manager+ thing). Sometimes, O5/EC may discuss policy or a position appointment with SA. This isn't particularly typical and SA are generally given autonomy on the matter of Site Policy - But they may especially do so in cases following some form of major incident involving AO, either Foundation Command branch, or where a policy involves an area directly relevant to O5/EC, such as FL3/ECO, Or some kind of other relevant interest not covered here.

As I understand it, the relation between SA and the rest of the Site's departments are unusual and not easily boiled down - More on a case-by-case basis. In terms of authority, they supersede every department except Foundation Command... And sooooorta AO? That one's a reaaally weird interaction because of certain circumstances, certain specific interactions - Like for example, it'd be perfectly ordinary for a Site Advisor to march into say, E-11 bunks and order a bunch of COs and NCOs to do a bunch of things specific to some specific circumstance, like for example something to do with HCZ, maybe a lockdown for an upcoming test or some kind of policy change - But if they tried that with say, O-1, even if it was related to... Best example I could think of would be some kind of project involving Ethics? It's just really, really fuzzy. The point is, I used to understand what was happening there a couple years ago, but I don't anymore. I imagine that state of affairs has since changed as what knowledge I did have is grossly outdated, but I presume I will be informed of the correct standing when initiated as a Site Advisor.

Anyway, my general point here is that SA don't really micromanage. I mean, when they're on the scene, they're generally exercising their authority and usually with good reason, even though yes, people in general should be typically seeing SA around the site, but for the most part it'd be unusual to see a Site Advisor randomly run into Medbay and just start telling a Sr. Doctor what to do, unless it was part of some specific RP situation or storyline.

As significant RP leadership positions, Site Administration have a huge responsibility and plethora of duties regarding the entire site, most notably its departments and regiments - As the next step up in the CoC from Department Directors (And second-highest authority on-site (...Again, yes, Assistants under direct orders are higher too - But in that case, Assistants are basically just facilitating the will of O5/EC and employing their authority to do so, so this still makes sense in that regard)). To my best recollection, Site Administration are responsible for managing the policies, powers, disputes and affairs of:

• Mobile Task Force Epsilon-11
  
  
• Mobile Task Force Nu-7
  
  
• Department of Medicine
  
  
• Department of Research
  
  
• Department of External Affairs
  
  
• General Security
  
  
• Engineering & Technical Services
  
  
• Department of Catering
  
  
• Janitorial Services

Additionally, to my best knowledge, they handle the appointment of positions to the following roles (at time of writing):

• Epsilon-11 Commander
  
  
• Nu-7 Commander
  
  
• Director of Research
  
  
• Director of Medicine
  
  
• Director of External Affairs
  
  
• Chief of Security

Note that the heads of departments/regiments not listed here are not exempt from say, disciplinary measures that may need to fall upon them (i.e. The DoISD).

Site Administration's chief concern regarding all of the Site's departments & regiments, is ensuring that they are running to an acceptable standard - If they are not, decisions need to be made about what action is to be taken, depending on the nature of the department's failure. Generally, Site Administration will only involve themselves in these cases where absolutely necessary in order to correct the failing health of a given department and will generally try to work with any existing departmental leadership to improve their department, with forced removals and alterations only as a last resort. SA monitors departments via liaising, reviewing and auditing them on a regular basis, with individuals dedicated to particular areas of the Site, for example a Site Advisor may be assigned to liaise with E-11.

Site Administration are also in charge of IC policies - Whether site-wide policies such as the Departmental Obligations & Jurisdictions Policy, which determines a department/regiment's local obligations and authority relative to an area, internal policies, such as the Research Policy, which determines the specific rules for RsD, or agreements between the Foundation and GOIs. In the case of agreements between the Foundation and GOIs, Site Administration are usually present at negotiations and will take part in negotiating terms with the GOI. Sometimes, Site Administration will review these policies to determine if they need revision, to reflect changes within the site or otherwise address any issues within the policy.

Additionally on the topic of agreements with GOIs, Site Administration work in tandem with the DEA, generally overseeing them to ensure that they are appropriately handling external relations - They may also interact directly with other GOIs over comms, if necessary. Generally, DEA are supposed to be the first point of contact for other GOIs, but if DEA are mishandling situations and such, it typically falls to Site Administration to handle such matters.

Site Administration oversee all Code Emergencies with the aim of resolving any incidents as quickly as possible. In addition to maintaining regular communication with GenSec and MTFs to both stay apprised of the situation and determine emergency response, Site Administration can also perform general CL4 duties in the event of emergency, such as operating the PW blast door, Breach Shelter and/or EOC - But most importantly, authorising Advanced Armoury, if circumstances are dire enough and the need arise. The Site Director & Manager also has the capability to call in ERT should an SCP breach become too much to handle; thus as a Site Advisor, it is important to ensure clear and prompt information flow so that the decision can be made with relative ease, should it come under consideration.

Speaking of - To my understanding, there have been relatively recent changes to the protocols regarding calling ERT (Although IIRC, this doesn't concern Site Advisors), FSL (Full Site Lockdown), and the general use of BDs around Site (and a lot more). I don't really have anything to say about it, I just wanted to note that I'm aware of the recent policy changes. Aside from protecting against hostile or otherwise ill-intentioned GOIs, the entire purpose of Site Policy is to get people to behave, while flexibly allowing the various on-site roles to perform their duties. That's the rub when it comes to policy design. You need to restrain, but not necessarily restrict.

Site Administration also generally authorise tests that don't involve ethical concerns, as well as situations where parts of the site need to be locked down for a test or training and passive SCP breaches. As a CL4 role, Site Administration are expected to create RP around the site, which for them usually comes in the form of assignments or long-term projects. Projects can involve SCPs, and generally have some form of goal, which typically also involves further document creation. In all cases, the aim is generally to give people some kind of activity to perform on-site in the form of RP.

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

Lore Document

---

EDIT 28/04/25: Minor corrections