Dr. Omer Mizrachi's Clearance 4 removal Appeal
Name: Dr. Mizrachi
Steam ID: STEAM_0:0:141804280
Please state if it is for SCP-RP UK or USA: USA
Level of appeal (2 or 3): 2
Have you already carried out a level 1 appeal - please give details:
Yes I did. It was mainly a bunch of back and forth with me and my department director regarding whether what I did related to my competence as a researcher.
Rank demoted from: Executive Researcher
Who demoted you?: Dr. Akura Ovaiss
Date of demotion?: 3/8/2024
What is the case against you?: That I am unknowledgable on the research department guidelines
Is this true?: No
Prior to this demotion, have you ever been demoted?: No
What is your side of the story?:
Background
I am very thorough with my understanding of department regulations. On 3/8/2024, I was reading through the Sample Collection Policies. I noticed something very interesting while reading about SCP-939 specific sampling procedure:
Figure 1: SCP-939 sampling collection process steps from Sample Collection Policies
As shown in figure 1, it states that when approaching E-11, an authorization form is required OR the presence of MTF/Any CL4. I thought this was interesting due to the department policy stating such:
Figure 2: Portion from section 1.02 of Research Policy regarding the sampling of anomalies
There is a clear contradiction here as in the Research Policy, it states the ANY sampling of anomalies requires a document, while in Sample Collection Policies it says no such document is required as long as the following conditions are met:
- Presence of a non-E-11 MTF
- Presence of a CL4 holder
Figure 3: SCP-939 sampling collection approval reasons/requirements from Sample Collection Policies
Figure 3 shows that only 1 out of the 4 reasons someone would be sampling SCP-939 is for research study.
Now, as I established, that documentation is not required as long as the conditions mentioned in Figure 1 are met, which are meant due to my being a CL4 holder, I went to go sample SCP-939.
The Incident
I did the standard procedure of sampling SCP-939, which involved me getting 2 D-Class personnel, and an armed GSD of level 2 clearance. We made our way to Heavy Containment, and were stopped by E-11, who asked for documentation. I told him that I am just doing a SCP-939 sampling for the purpose of Class-A Amnestics, and that as a clearance 4 I don't require authorization regarding such a sampling, referring to the Sample Collection Policies, specifically the one shown in Figure 1. I was denied access, and asked to speak to his CO, who gave me the same answer, after also presenting Figure 1. I promptly left after this, and messaged my department director looking for clarification, as perhaps I might have interpreted it wrongly.
After which I was swiftly given my demotion, with the reason being the fact that I don't have an understanding of basic guidelines. I don't see how it is inappropriate to get clarification on grey area. I was going to make the suggestion to clear up this grey area once I understood what the Department Director had to say about it, but instead, I was immediately stripped of my clearance.
I swiftly began my Level 1 appeal
Level 1 Appeal
Akura argues "show appropriate Authorization form" in response to Figure 1, which the entire purpose I sent was for the second part, which implies that an authorization form is not needed in the presence of Clearance 4.
He then quotes section 1.05, which essentially means the same thing when it comes to section 1.02 (Figure 2), as it just restates 1.02. as evident when it says, "is still required". I then tell him that I understand the mistake that I made due to my misinterpretation on the matter, and that an incident like this would never be repeated, but still try to sell some understanding on why something like this happened in the first place.
He then went back to accuse me that I had used AI tools to generate my application, which I argued with him for a while, which I don't get how was relevant as at the start he stated that he "looked over it", and that the reason of my demotion was due to my "lack of knowledge on our guidelines", which he states in the above screenshot. I then suggested that rather it being an issue regarding my knowledge on a rule that EVERYONE knows, research or not, maybe it was a problem with the documents not being clear enough. I gave him the suggestion to change the wording in Figure 1.
After this, we just went back and forth about the same stuff, after which in the end, I was told to make a Level-2 demotion appeal.
Final Remarks
Near the end mentioned that he was advised by Site Admin and across site Department Leadership, and did not make this decision alone, so this appeal is also to those of you who advised my demotion. Perhaps in light of my side of the story, we can undo a wrong that was done on me, due to a communication error. I look forward to hearing your responses.
