[UK] Jaqueline Level 2 Site Advisor Demotion Appeal

[Jaqueline 'Gamemaker']

Name: Jaqueline
Steam ID: STEAM_0:0:582966550
Please state if it is for SCP-RP UK or USA: SCP-RP UK
Level of appeal (2 or 3): 2
Have you already carried out a level 1 appeal - please give details: I privately messaged the Director for my Level 1 appeal, detailing the issues and concerns and was denied with no conclusion or reasoning, only was provided with evidence which I will link below.
Who did you carry out the level 1 appeal to, and where: I dm'd Site Director Daniel Christopher Pennington over Discord.
Rank demoted from: Site Advisor
Who demoted you?: Daniel Christopher Pennington
Date of demotion?: 28/03/2024

What is the case against you?: Unprofessionalism, PAC3 abuse, FailRaiding.
Is this true?: While I was undoubtably unprofessional at times, I can say with certainty that i have not, nor plan to PAC3 abuse in the future, and I have taken steps to improve my professionalism and am currently writing a GM application as it would help maintain my image, while allowing me to be creative and eccentric while writing events. The main case of the pac issues source from my use of animal pacs for my character Cassandra Cain. This lead to me getting permission from a SL to use those pacs sparingly until my application was finished and ready. This caused confusion and then I was issued a verbal warning, to which I have not used or plan to use those pacs again. The image below of me in a UNGOC HMMVV was apart of an event ran by CheetahIvanov, and I was unaware of that pac was loaded and after being told, i fixed the issue immediately. These pieces of evidence alone do not speak to me as deserving a demotion, at most a Strike would feel much more appropriate for the FailRaid, as the other issues were either resolved or have been dealt with.

Prior to this demotion, have you ever been demoted?: No.

Please list any previous roleplay demotion appeals: N/A

What is your side of the story?: The evidence brought against me is at most a collection of minor infractions that have been dealt with privately, or already resolved. The worst thing on here is undoubtably my recent warn for FailRP for combat as a noncombative, which at most should have been a strike. From my perspective it feels like a lot of flimsy excuses to simply remove me from SA without getting in trouble. I've never gone actively out of my way to spite/ruin the image of SA and throughout my time as an Advisor I was active and did my job effectively. From the evidence sent to me so far, this truly does feel like a strike would have been enough, instead of a demotion. If this appeal does get denied, I would appreciate a reason(s) for this demotion, as I have not recieved one as of yet.

Evidence:

Spoiler: Evidence

Untitled - Clipped with Medal.tv

Watch Untitled and millions of other Garry's Mod videos on Medal, the largest Game Clip Platform.

medal.tv

 

[Stealth]

Appeal Response​

---

Hello @Jackie3,

Thanks for taking the time to make an appeal regarding your demotion,


Here I will explain all of the reasons for which you were voted by the council to be removed. You should understand that at the time in which this was occurring, the council had taken on the responsibilities of site director due to the absence of one at the time. Initially, the first pieces of evidence provided were given to Naffen rather than the managers, and Naffen then provided these to both of the site managers with the expectation that action would take place due to the severe amount of unprofessionalism, breaking server rules on site administration, and failure to uphold the responsibilities of site administration. Both site managers had decided you were to be placed on a final warning regarding the following evidence provided to them:

RDM Clip
This clip provided by Department Director Kayla shows you clearly RDM'ing and FailRPing whilst attempting to cover-up a information breach in which you had mistakenly carried out

RDM Clip 2
This clip provided by a DEA operative shows you attempting to RDM a tech expert which you exclaimed "I was shooting around him as a joke", during which you had crossfire an Nu-7. This is considering FailRP due to you being a non-combative.



The following image provided by the ECC shows you using a unauthorized pac3 in an open area, with no valid reason


Additionally, seen here using an unauthorized pac3

I'd like you to keep in mind that the evidence we provided to the managers could've easily been sufficient grounds to consider removing you; however, the managers decided that based on your apology, you'd be on a final warning at this stage. From that meeting with the managers, you were then seen utilising another unauthorised Pac3 as well as attempting to assist in an SCP-049 Containment breach, for which I myself warned you against FailRP.


FailRP Clip
This was witnessed by myself in which you had admitted to committing FailRP within the sit and was warned for such.​

Based on your response to Pennington, who is now site director, We do not believe that you have learned from your mistakes that you previously acknowledged. You were clearly told you were on a final warning and proceeded to make the same rule breaks and "mistakes" that you were previously seen doing. In no way does the Council see this as a "flimsy excuse to simply remove me from SA." Regardless of whether this was to have been a strike, you would've still been removed due to the site managers clearly stating that this was your final warning. Based on both the initial evidence and decisions made by the managers and the continuous reports we've had of your behavioural issues, we don't believe you are fit to continue your role as site advisor.

Based on the above, this will be denied

We hope this clears everything up,
Kind Regards,
Falcon
​

 

[Jaqueline 'Gamemaker']

Appeal Response​

---

Hello @Jackie3,

Thanks for taking the time to make an appeal regarding your demotion,


Here I will explain all of the reasons for which you were voted by the council to be removed. You should understand that at the time in which this was occurring, the council had taken on the responsibilities of site director due to the absence of one at the time. Initially, the first pieces of evidence provided were given to Naffen rather than the managers, and Naffen then provided these to both of the site managers with the expectation that action would take place due to the severe amount of unprofessionalism, breaking server rules on site administration, and failure to uphold the responsibilities of site administration. Both site managers had decided you were to be placed on a final warning regarding the following evidence provided to them:

RDM Clip
This clip provided by Department Director Kayla shows you clearly RDM'ing and FailRPing whilst attempting to cover-up a information breach in which you had mistakenly carried out

RDM Clip 2
This clip provided by a DEA operative shows you attempting to RDM a tech expert which you exclaimed "I was shooting around him as a joke", during which you had crossfire an Nu-7. This is considering FailRP due to you being a non-combative.


View attachment 14526
The following image provided by the ECC shows you using a unauthorized pac3 in an open area, with no valid reason

View attachment 14527
Additionally, seen here using an unauthorized pac3

I'd like you to keep in mind that the evidence we provided to the managers could've easily been sufficient grounds to consider removing you; however, the managers decided that based on your apology, you'd be on a final warning at this stage. From that meeting with the managers, you were then seen utilising another unauthorised Pac3 as well as attempting to assist in an SCP-049 Containment breach, for which I myself warned you against FailRP.
View attachment 14529View attachment 14530

FailRP Clip
This was witnessed by myself in which you had admitted to committing FailRP within the sit and was warned for such.​

View attachment 14528

Based on your response to Pennington, who is now site director, We do not believe that you have learned from your mistakes that you previously acknowledged. You were clearly told you were on a final warning and proceeded to make the same rule breaks and "mistakes" that you were previously seen doing. In no way does the Council see this as a "flimsy excuse to simply remove me from SA." Regardless of whether this was to have been a strike, you would've still been removed due to the site managers clearly stating that this was your final warning. Based on both the initial evidence and decisions made by the managers and the continuous reports we've had of your behavioural issues, we don't believe you are fit to continue your role as site dvisor. We will wait for a senior administrator to make a final decision on this appeal.

We hope this clears everything up,
Kind Regards,
Falcon
​

Hi,

I was not sent those RDM clips prior to this, meaning you either did not send them to Pennington, or you did and I did not recieve them to put into this application. Either way, I could not acknowledge them.

I have learned from my mistakes, otherwise I would not be fighting to get this role back. I am confused on how you could deem my first appeal as me 'not having learned' but I digress. I have consistently and willingly complied with staff and others when it comes to pac related issues, and not once have I ever done something out of malicious intent to sabotage or ruin RP. I love playing the server, and I love playing Advisor. I undertand my mistakes perfectly well, and as stated before, I am taking corrective measures to ensure this type of behaviour doesnt happen again. Thank you for reading and commenting.