Jarold

-1 Samsong i have nothing against you, we get along pretty well generally. Obviously though, you have a few bones to pick with people. When a mistake is pointed out during the application/appeal process (your MRP report) the appropriate thing would be an apology and an attempt to prove to us you realize a mistake was made and that you assume the responsibility. Instead you have a bad attitude about it and say "if they don't care about it why should I". There will be a lot of instances of people on DRP doing things that are against the rules but no one seems to care, it's your job to enforce the rules not judge the enforcement based on players reactions. Not to mention you do have a habit of coming back for a few weeks and then disappearing. If we had a major shortage of staff, i would consider it more but we don't, so i wont. My suggestion: Make amends with the people you obviously are having issues with, and own up to the mistakes you made. Then you can reapply and it might be taken a bit more seriously (making a mockery of the application questions doesn't help your case). Like Rohan said though, i do remember talking about you being blacklisted from staff ( @Chase @eXg-Buddha @proggy will need to confirm this).

DENIED As i'm sure you're well aware, advertisement is not allowed no matter the extent. With these sorts of appeals, you need to prove to use you have learned a lesson and in this case it's apparent you haven't. Replying to every comment from a staff member, even insulting them (see quote) is a big no no when it comes to appeals. The ban is not invalid just because the banning staff member has been removed. The evidence still exits here on the forums in your previous report. I agree that in the future there might be a possibility for you to be un-banned but until you are able to prove that to us, you will remain banned. (Trying to act like the staff member made a mistake in your previous appeal doesn't look good on you either) @Chase@eXg-Buddha@proggy lock & Move.

BELOW IS THE LINK TO THE 327TH STAR CORPS DOCUMENTS. THIS DOCUMENT WILL BE WORKED ON AT ALL TIMES AND IS STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS. IF YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS, (AS MY BATTALION ALREADY KNOWS) I AM VERY OPEN TO THEM. YOU CAN PM ME IN-GAME, ON THE FORUMS, OR ON STEAM WITH AN OUTLINE OF YOUR SUGGESTION. 327TH STAR CORPS DOCUMENT -Commander Bly

-1 @Shalita This is going to get denied unless you fix it. That's not even close to 2 paragraphs, and you clearly haven't fully read the staff rules. Like @Tzar said, you will most likely need to reapply in 3 days.

+1 I've had no issues with this guy in-game, although i haven't had much contact with him i just came across him helping a new player set up a base and explain the rules to help him avoid a fail base. He wasn't angry, he was patient, and explained the rules with care. I believe he will make a fine addition to the staff team. -Mature -Active -Good playtime -Know the Rules Accept this man!

Very simple suggestion. Commander Bly (CDR for 327th) Has the holsters for dual DC-17's but is only assigned a single one as of right now. I suggest the role be updated to include dual DC-17's as according to the lore.

ACCEPTED All we know is chawhead killed him alot. We have no proof to judge whether it was RDM or self defense. @GameClicher1 you need to make it a habit of getting kill/advert/damage logs so we have adequate proof. @Chawhead will be unbanned. @proggy @eXg-Buddha lock & move

@GameClicher @GameClicher1 We need to see some evidence from you.

ACCEPTED The usual response to an accusation of advertising is waiting it out and hoping it still gets accepted. You decided to completely own your mistake and deny the applications possible approval. For that i commend you Contact a Manager+ in-game to receive your rank and wait for an available HR member to train you. Don't make me regret this decision

ACCEPTED Sorry for the late decision, juggling work and school. Contact a Manager+ in-game and wait for an available HR member to train you.

ACCEPTED Contact a manager+ in-game to receive your rank, and wait for an available HR member to train you.

Wouldn't disagree to reducing the ban. But intentionally putting in a ban request on a staff member you don't like, as an ex staff member yourself, is more then a slap on the wrist.

@MsFlees Many people have been permabanned for this exact same reason. Impersonating staff is changing your name to a staff members name, putting in a ban request is a whole different thing.

@BigDiddy and people should be smart enough to not put ban requests in staff chat if they're not staff, but here we are.

@BigDiddy Yeah exploiting the fact that essentially anyone can put a ban request in staff chat. You exploited it by trying to ban a staff member you supposedly don't like.

@BigDiddy @MsFlees Big difference between impersonating staff and putting in false ban requests. It's pretty much exploiting. In the past, these were taken case by case. So we'll see

DENIED You may re-apply in 72 hours, if you plan on re-applying follow the format to be considered.

DENIED You may re-apply in 72 hours. If you plan to do so, you will need to follow the format (on the page previous to this one) to be considered.

DENIED You may re-apply in 72 hours. Indeed. Spend a little time on your reputation and re-apply.

DENIED Feel free to re-apply in 72 hours. (more likely then not, you will need to work on your maturity first)

ACCEPTED Congratulations & Welcome! Refrain from using any commands or going on duty until you've been trained by an available HR member.

DENIED @c0mmunityWillAlways So i would leave this open for the remaining two hours, but you've gotten plenty of feed back with zero change. If you plan to re-apply (which you can do in 72 hours) you'll need to seriously work on your application if you want to actually be considered.

DENIED? So @Yui_ just for future reference, this sorta thing should be made as a suggestion. Feel free to re-make it there if you would like to leave it open to further discussion.

DENIED You may re-apply in 72 Hours. No shitpost in StaffApps.

Using the tunnel as an entry way at all is considered a crouch base since they have to crouch.. i would expect this from someone else not you rohan smh lol Even if you did the entry way slightly passed the crouching point, you can still kill the people crouching as they attempt to enter giving the base owner an unfair advantage. (which is what the crouch basing rule is trying to avoid) Maybe if the tunnel had a turn in it, preventing that from happening. (aka if you weren't able to shoot them while they're crouched) Also, This whole thing can be avoided if you just use the front door of the building as your entry way. Problem solved