Karmac - Moderator Application

[Karmac]

Byond ID: Karmac

Colonial Marines Character: Garth 'Nurse' Pawolski

Age: 17

Gender: Male

Timezone: UTC +10

On average, how many hours are you available per week to moderate? Roughly 21, I might be on a couple hours less some weeks due to varying work shifts, but I'm reliably on 3 hours a day at least.

Do you have any previous experience in being staff (not just SS13)? None at all.

Did you play any of the previous Colonial Marine servers? No, joined SS13 mid-august I think, so I missed out on all the cool servers and pre-alpha whatnot.

What other servers do you play on? I play Hippie Station once a week when there's only 5 people on to see if I still know how to play the game. I played the Fallout 13 server once. Once.

What are the 3 biggest servers you play on besides CM? Hippie Station, that's about it.

Have you had an application to Colonial Marines before? No.

Are you currently a staff member elsewhere (not just SS13)? If so, where? Not currently.

Have you ever been banned for more than 24 hours on Colonial Marines? Yes, I believe the first ban I got that was longer than 24 hours was due to breaking the name rule during my first week or so of CM gameplay.

Have you ever been banned for more than 24 hours on ANY server? If so, where and When (roughly)? Just CM.

Are you familiar with the chat program Slack (its use is required)? I'm looking into it right now, but other than that I've had no prior experience with it and am completely new to the program.

Common Staff Situations:
Write a description of what you would do in each situation (BELOW) the situation. If you start it on the same line, I'll assume you can't follow directions and auto-decline your application.



1. A player is firing his weapon in the briefing area near the start of the round.

Investigate as to why the player is firing his weapon, if it turns out to be intentional FF I'd sleep the guy, check his notes and ban history to see if this is a recurring thing for the guy and punish him accordingly, only handing out aheals to players if Medical staff doesn't exist in that round. If they're just firing randomly and they aren't hitting anyone I'd see if the marines take action against the man or if MP's do anything, if they don't I'd PM the guy and let him know he shouldn't be doing that aboard the Sulaco. If it's part of a fight that escalated appropriately or wasn't ahelped, I'd watch the fight to make sure it doesn't get too out of hand, but no punishment would be dished out without deserving it.

2. The Sulaco has a breach to space.

Fix the breach and then investigate the cause of it, if it was intentionally breached by someone, check their notes and ban history to see if this is a common problem with them and punish accordingly, first time offenders would just get a warning of course.

3. The marines want the nuke codes because they claim they are losing too many marines. There are currently 4 aliens and 20 marines in your /who.

As a trial Moderator, or even a full Moderator, I don't have access to said codes, and considering the situation I wouldn't hand them out. Instead I'd write up an inspiring MOTHER report telling the marines to pull their act together and sort out the weakened enemy force, accompanied by a relatively accurate estimation of how many xenos are left.

4. A Sulaco researcher has made several napalm grenades and hands them out to marines. One of the marines throws the grenade into Logistics. There are no admins or other moderators online.

If the grenade was used to grief, then punishment would be handed out according to the player's notes and ban history, if it wasn't then I'd warn the player about proper use of said grenades. I would then investigate the notes and ban history of the Researcher, to see if he's commonly been involved in incidents relating to grief caused by his grenades, if he has than I would inform him that he will be being punished for the actions of someone improperly using his grenades/warn him that he should be more careful about who he hands the grenades to and he will also be punished accordingly. To follow this up I'd make a MOTHER report warning the grenades about faulty research grenades being unreliable and a danger to the men using them.

5. A played is starting to talk about the things he did with your mom last night over Ahelp.

Ignore him.

6. You notice a marine with a name that doesn't fit our naming rules.

Inform him that he needs to change it before the start of the next round, and offer to help him figure out a new name.

6a. The marine is arguing that: They've used the name for several years, noone has told them to change it before, and that they didn't know it was a rule.

Inform them that reading all the server rules is necessary if they want to be a part of the CM community and that if he doesn't want to change it he can be banned for breaking said rule. Punishment will be handed out according to his response.

7. You see a Sulaco Doctor with an M41A rifle strapped to his back running around the briefing area. There are wounded in medbay, and the other doctor is in surgery.

Inform the doctor that his duty is to heal the wounded marines, or at least assist other doctors in doing so, and then inform him that a doctor carrying a gun larger than a pistol is against server rules, and would then link him the server rules for him to re-read. I would only punish the man according to his response, a negative attitude would result in removal from the round, a positive one would result in him being watched for further mistakes but no punishment otherwise, unless his notes and ban history inform me this is a repeated offense for the man.

8. You see a Squad Medic performing surgery on the planet. He claims it was because there were no doctors in the FOB.

Inform him as a Medic he cannot perform surgery, if there are no doctors than marines won't get surgery, that's just how it is, and link him the rules for the server, pointing him towards the metagaming section in particular. As above, a positive response would result in watching for further mistakes, a negative one would result in punishment, a bad ban history or notes relating to this particular incident would also be cause for punishment.

9. The round is stagnating. There are 30 marines and 4 aliens. The marines won't leave the Sulaco, and the aliens won't attack. What would you do, to "encourage" the sides to engage each other?

Inform the xenos that the Queen Mother is dissapointed by their failures and expects them to redeem themselves in combat very shortly, and create a MOTHER report informing the marines of lacking xeno numbers, give them a moderately accurate estimation of enemy forces and encourage them to 'Finish the fight', possibly mentioning pizza as a reward.

10. The round ends, and a marine starts unloading his weapons on other marines.

EORG, ban for three hours on the spot. Keep an eye out to see if any of the stricken marines decide to follow suit and open fire on more marines.

11. A marine who has recently awoken is using soap to slip other marines.

A bit of slipping at round start is fine, if it continues to the point he's going to miss briefing due to being un-prepped and busy slipping marines, PM him to stop the madness or suffer a ban for intentional grief. If MP's step in to handle the matter I would remove myself from the equation and let marine law do it's job.

12. A marine has killed another marine. When you ask him why, he said it was because the other marine had punched him.

Inform him he has improperly escalated a fight, direct him to the server rules, ask him to re-read them and punish him according to his notes and ban history.


Any additional information you'd like to add?

I'd like to thank slc97 for inspiring me to make this. I'd also like to recognise the fact that in-game I have caused a lot of problems in the past, aquired many bans for reasons I felt were justified and have never appealed them, aside from job-bans, and I can be a terrible player. I just want to say that I believe I can and will improve my attitude both in game and out of it, and that I can meet the professional standard that staff should be at.

Edit: I completely left out adding notes to players accounts, but I felt that would come under the category 'punish accordingly' as opposed to adding it to 75% of the answers I've got there, I feel like I've overused checking notes and ban history a bit, but I know it's a necessary factor.

[LocalizedDownpour]

Carmac isn't a bad guy overall and I feel he could really step up to the plate for staff.

Plus he has some solid answers, and if the b0s supports him I do to. +1

[slc97]

I was actually pleasantly surprised how good this app is. Your answers are pretty solid. Anything else is something you'll be taught in trial.

I'm gonna +1 this. You'll just have to clean up your act a bit the way we discussed. Like Local said, you are absolutely not a bad guy. If you can stick to the rules and act professional, I think you'll be a very good mod.

[Karmac]

Honestly I'd only ever hoped to be a Mentor at some point, and I thought even then I'd have serious trouble getting the position, I'm genuinely surprised by this, thanks guys.

[Toroic]

EDIT: Your recent behavior is unacceptable, and having an app out makes it especially so.

Changing to a -1, and it is unlikely that I will support any of your future apps.

[Aetsuki]

I like your app, for the most part the answers are solid and I see nothing in particular I need to break down and explain why or why not it's not a good response.

In general I've really only got one major problem, You've got a ban as recent as the last week on your account, reading over it I can't leave my +1 just yet because the ban is for behaviour that would absolutely abhorrent from staff. I appreciate that you say you'll change your behaviour, and whenever I've interacted with you, you generally seem like you'd be good mod material aside from occasional salt, so for now I'll remain neutral and observe your behaviour ingame.

On a lesser note, I'm interested to know a little more on what you'd consider appropriate punishments and times for each scenario, though most people just learn to get a feel for it during their trial period so it's not part of the overall evaluation.

[Rain7x]

I'm going to add my +1 as well. You're a frequent, competent player and the app is solid.

On discord/dchat I've seen you express some saltiness and some of that was directed towards staff, but once you see things from our end I think it's easier to see why we do the things we do, and Slc has been working hard to help continue to improve consistency in enforcement.

We expect higher professionalism, and more emotional detachment from staff than players, but based on your responses I personally have faith you are capable.

I agree with this. I brought this up to SLC and I think you are active and a decent player and your notes can be a thing of a past if you put them behind you and improve yourself.

+1

[Karmac]

On a lesser note, I'm interested to know a little more on what you'd consider appropriate punishments and times for each scenario, though most people just learn to get a feel for it during their trial period so it's not part of the overall evaluation.

I presume any of them could range from job bans to lengthy server bans depending on the history of the griefing players/rule breakers, and considering griefing ruins the game for others and people that don't read the rules are bound to cause trouble I don't think I'd pick sides as to who's more in the wrong, their both deserving of decent punishment. Mostly I'm presuming punishment lengths and details are something I'd learn more about in the trial period yeah. Thanks for the criticism man, I thought I'd get a lot more.

[Toroic]

Edited my previous note.

Strongly against Karmac on staff due to his recent actions.

[Karmac]

Gunning down a survivor certainly wasn't my best display of intelligence I'll freely admit.

[Snypehunter007]

I just banned you the first day of the new year along with your previous notes that seem to be have glossed over in favor with your, admittedly, superior quality application.

You have three notes from last year in December and one from me this year. Three of the notes are 24 hours or more bans.

Banned by X|Duration: 3000 minutes|Reason: Purposely misrepresented innocent colonists as "Commies" so that Command, beliving it was actual russians or perhaps slang, would give him the instructions to open fire. by X (TrialAdmin) on Thu, December 8th of 2016

Survivor and marine were screwing around and imitated a hostage situation, player quickly OD'd the survivor on quickclot. Not too big of an infraction but they should know to get a grasp on the situation before acting. by X (TrialAdmin) on Fri, December 23rd of 2016

Banned by X|Duration: 2880 minutes|Reason: Threw the SSD RO into space because they 'threw their violin into space'. by X (Moderator) on Sat, December 24th of 2016

Banned by snypehunter007|Duration: 1440 minutes|Reason: As a SL, shot down a survivor because the survivor was slightly sketchy and picked up a fireaxe. Without warning or question, Karmac gunned the survivor down, killing them. by Snypehunter007 (Moderator) on Sat, December 31st of 2016

Additional note, he was very calm and understanding when it was explained he couldn't do that. by Snypehunter007 (Moderator) on Sat, December 31st of 2016

As much as I would like to give you a +1 for a superior app, your recent behavior is below standards.

-1

[Scrat505]

I like you on a personal level, Karmac, but I can't support this due to recent bannings.

-1

[Mordrehel]

I think there was a certain requirement in what SLC sent you. While an application is being processed I believe that you should hold yourself to the standard that you would as a staff member. I was neutral until I saw what you did infact act like while this application was active. Now that I see it.... -1

I also liked your answers but it takes more than proper words to be a staff member.

[Karmac]

I'm really starting to realize I should've held off on this for a month and spent that month learning not to be an idiot. I completely understand your opinions.

[Aetsuki]

Unfortunately, I can't support your app with today's behaviour. Staff need to display a clear understanding of the rules, and your answers were solid enough to support you despite your past behaviour, but actions speak louder than words.

I'm not happy with this, because I really did want to see you succeed, but it's a solid -1 from me.

[LocalizedDownpour]

Fuck dude. Not editing my last post for record. But -1 actions speak louder then words

[Karmac]

I'm pretty sure this's gonna get denied, but in any case I'll definitely spend a couple months improving my ability to follow the rules and not get banned on a bi-weekly basis so that I'll stand a better chance if I re-apply in the future, if that's even allowed.

[slc97]

You promised me a change in behavior, and it didn't happen. Unfortunately, this was a very good application, but if you are unable to change your behavior to match the professionalism required that we discussed, it has to be a no. -1.

[Feweh]

Denied