Jump to content

StreakyHaddock

Game Admin
  • Posts

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by StreakyHaddock

  1. Speaking as someone who has been Security Officer and Detective while you have been Warden (no idea about HoS), you are never in the brig. As Warden, you run around leaving the brig and armoury unguarded and officers/cadets unsupervised while they brig people. I have the same opinion as stealth from what i've seen of your play, you aren't malicious, you aren't stupid, but you just don't understand what the Warden role is for due to lack of experience and don't understand what it's like to be an Officer or a Prisoner under the authority of a Warden that is absent and a HoS that doesn't understand the department. As for Roleplay, recently I've commented in a ban appeal for a Head of Security player who 'roleplayed'. Their roleplay negatively affected their department, and the station's perception of that department and caused problems where there didn't need to be any. What Stealth is looking for from your appeal, is for you to demonstrate what you have learned from playing Security Officer or Detective for at least week. Show us you've become handled the mechanics of the game well enough, to be able to fight with your hand tied behind your back and with a code of honour. That you've developed a grasp of how to de-escalate dangerous scenarios as a security officer, and that you've come to understand how difficult it can be to be an officer or detective who has to handle arrest, brigging, processing and releasing of prisoners all without a warden to take over or a HoS to co-ordinate you and your team-mates. Given this ban was placed to make you play the lower-ranked roles more... there is very little motive for us right now to accept the ban... an hour after it has been placed. I do believe your IC name is Jane Hawking, by the way.
  2. So, even though the appeal is denied, I'm still going to add in context from my end both as a player and as an admin who has handled a few of these incidents in the hopes that you'll understand what changes need to be made if you were to return in December. I have gone back through some a-help logs as well to substantiate my opinion. This will be a long post, but you have a month to digest it. As an Admin: I am responsible for 2 of your notes. First being the Suiciding as QM and the second being you shooting the hostile cargo tech in medbay with a pistol during code green as HoS, which is the only one that matters here. I believe I am the admin that you are referencing as the one respect. As you and Stealth have exchanged a total of 6 message over 2 ahelps. Whereas you and I have had several long conversations. Given that you have acknowledge Stealth as the one you respect, I can only assume you're trying to build a rapport with whoever you deem charitable, or you have a higher opinion of an admin the less they speak to you. Neither is a good look. The Pistol-Murdering-on-Green-Scenario I was keeping an eye on a few obviously new players wandering maints who tended to wander around hitting things, and had been dealing with things like this for a few rounds. One such person was a cargo tech who had a hatchet and was hitting random things in corridors and maintainance before losing interest and moving on. He made his way to medbay side access. A Doctor used that door and left. This cargo tech then moved in and started hacking at a medical intern who was fiddling with their belt. That intern fell over because they didn't know what was going on, at which point the cargo tech started moved on to the CMO. At this point I was getting ready to speak to the cargo tech once you stunned and cuffed him. What you did next delayed that a bit. You reached for your mk and fired eight shots. 5 found their target, the other 3 hit a nearby doctor trying to assist the CMO and the CMO himself, of those 4 that hit their target, 2 hit him when he was actually a threat. The other 3 you when a nearby medical doctor beat him into crit with a crowbar. This whole exchange lasted about 30 seconds and left everybody except yourself badly wounded. To be fair, I got the impression you were cautious with your shots, as you held fire when friendlies were in the way. However this did mean that the cargo tech was able to just... keep... attacking. With a flash and baton, he wouldn't have been able to attack. He would have been stunned in 4 secs, and cuffed. If you fucked up the cuffing, he would at least be disarmed since i GUARANTEE YOU someone nearby would have taken the hatchet from the ground to assist you. I then checked your player notes before approaching. So, here's what leapt out at me when I made my approach regarding this situation: 1) You had violated rule 12 in its entirety. However, if you stopped reading beyond the first sentence of: one could argue that you hadn't. So I approached you to clarify what behaviour the rule was meant to enforce. That is, of using the minimum force required to preserve yourself, the crew and the station in any situation. In addition to keeping those crew alive. Our rules are flawed and are to be replaced. However the exception for antagonists, is intended to apply to their belongings. It also specifies confirmed antagonists. This player, though definitely acting with lethal intent, was not a confirmed antagonist. 2) The Man was a lethal threat, but one that was not only easily dealt with nonlethals compared to a pistol, but nonlethals were an outright superior and more practical option. I wanted to inform you that, generally, nonlethals are BETTER than lethals for 80% of your needs. 3) You had extensive note history regarding escalation and command roles. You had been given several warnings on various aspects of play, but near as I can tell, you did not repeat behaviours. So I wanted to make you fully aware that reading our rules are not optional. They are required. 4) You are frequently combative and disparaging in ahelps when confronted. You deflect a lot. You frequently tell us to handle other issues other than yourself. You clearly do not trust the admin team. So my approach required me to be direct, focused and firm. 5) I had to be as brief as possible, because there were other things going on that required your attention, and I still had the cargo tech to speak to. Here is that log for transparancy. I learned several key points here. You always keep a laser gun and a lethal pistol in your backpack, and make a habit of acquiring one immediately. You put your stunbaton and disabler in your coat, which is your second least accessible container. Accessing anything in the HoS coat requires you to have expanded inventory enabled, and does not have hotkeys such as Shift + E and Shift + B. Not only that, but if you switch to hardsuit you risk forgetting those are contained there. This signals to me that you don't consider your baton and disabler your primary weapons. You consider them to be expendable. I was then very clear that this was the wrong way round. You value the advice of a Head of Security whose name you can't provide, more than the explicit rulings of an admin. Except for my first message, you do not acknowledge the content of my answers. You use subject changes to avoid giving direct answers. When I ask 'was the HoS an admin' you don't answer. When I ask 'why are you carrying lethals on code green' you repeat that you had to act fast to save the CMO. And so on and so on. You keep telling me Chief_Engineer condoned your actions and repeated that. I told you it was irrelevant, and that my ruling mattered. Your last message to me, could be boiled down to: "Back off StreakyHaddock. I have Chief_Engineer's permission. I have the right to use lethal force where I see fit." In short, you used your interpretation of a ruling from an admin who wasn't present, to dismiss the ruling of an admin who was. You use the word 'Sorry' improperly. I let you leave at this point, because there was an actual bomber. I didn't get to finish my point. However, it had [b]not[/b] escaped me that by the end of the exchange, you had given no indication you would change your behaviour. In fact when that exchange ended, I had every expectation to see you posting a thread in this forum. I had made it explicitly clear to you where the limits were, and you had chosen to stick to your extremely selective interpretation of the rules instead of actively engaging with the rules. I can't tell if you genuinely believe you were in the right, or hoping that an appearance of stubborn ignorance would protect you from eventually getting banned. Checking logs now, I see that after the round after that, then after that and every round to the day of y our ban, as HoS, got yourself a laser gun and an MK at the start of the round, in what I interpret as a conscious disregard of my instruction. To your credit, you have shown more care about lethals and awareness of alerts when speaking to your underlings after that incident. However ultimately you crossed the line again. And now you're here. To be honest, you were originally given a command ban by chief. Because he, like I, thinks that you can become a productive player if you learn more about the game and stop playing with guns and authority. To reference your appeal directly: See above. You were spoken to. At length. I was explicit. When you tell us 'My 1st ever HoS said I could'. We don't say 'oh okay go ahead' we say: 'what's the name of this HoS?'. Things like this are noted down in case it becomes a pattern. It's also noted down so that if they are given an answer, and then later go and do the thing they were told not to do... a separate admin can call them out when they then say 'oh i didnt know i wasnt told'. It speaks also to the motives you are drawn to a role. When a Head of Security says 'can i be corrupt and jail people for non-crimes'. that is an immediate red flag. Many, many people have this kind of note because 1984 RP is something that people want to do. For some of them, it is the only note on their account. For you, it was your NINTH. As a Security Officer, not adminning. I have had two interactions with you as a Security Officer, during which time I had turned off my admin powers and effectively gone 'off duty'. During which time we are expected to ahelp and not handle admin business while actively playing, and not to handle any incidents directly related to ourselves. One time you were a chemist, second time you were Head of Security. My first interaction with you: This note here was made by an admin, after I ahelped because you were aggressively and persistently accusing me, a Security Officer, of 'self-antagging' after I arrested you. The Story here, from my perspective: I was a Security Officer. I was wandering around medbay because it had had a few break-ins, but not for a while. I passed you and another Chemist talking to eachother in the lobby. As I left the door to leave medbay, I saw a flash of an explosion and heard a boom. I ran back to see what it was. The tiles were undamaged and there was an empty soda can there. So I went from 'concerned' to 'this is probably fine they shouldn't be doing it in medbays public lobby.' I asked 'who threw that bomb' and you said 'you did.' I immediately assumed you were joking, and asked again. You said 'I told you, you did.' The other chemist, quite wisely, kept quiet. At this point I began to assume YOU had thrown it, and were just screwing with me for a laugh, or deliberately trying to protect the identity of someone who did. I flashed you, batoned you, cuffed you and led you away. You then accused me of self-antag. Which is a very specific OOC word. In this specific incident you were accusing me, a security officer who cannot be antag, of self-antag. Using IC words in Here is the ahelp I sent. Bearing in mind, this is sent while I'm trying to keep you controlled while you're constantly unbuckled and yelling to all and sundry. I ahelped at first to make sure I hadn't fucked up, because I had changed my mind from 'they're hiding the identity of the person who made the tiny bomb' to 'do... do they actually believe I bombed medbay?" Complaining about the OOC in IC was kind of a side-complaint because it was making it VERY DIFFICULT to actually have a conversation with you. This is my first encounter with you. After this, the impression I had settled on of Jessica Von Traub, the Chemist, was this: She doesn't know the game or it's mechanics. She jumps immediately to conclusions without considering them properly. She does not compromise. She will make things as unpleasant and prolonged as possible for security when inconvenienced. Escalating a simple "Who the fuck threw that bomb" "I dunno, I was looking at accordian songs." "Hmmm.... okay." to a 30 minute ordeal where you had to be sealed in a locker by a disorganised sec team simply so you could be processed. Am I condoning you being sealed in a locker? No. Am I surprised that it happened to someone who absolutely refuses to be held in a cell? Also no. I didn't have much of a hand in your processing after the initial part. I handed you off to the Warden quickly because I did not want to deal with you. I encountered you on and off as HoS while playing and as an admin. Week before last, I dedicated a whole 6 days of playing the game without adminning. It was great. On two of those rounds, I was an Officer under your leadership. During that round, I single-person cells crammed with 2 people in them each. Bullet casings strewn all about the floor as well as witnessing you shooting the Clown in the head with a laser gun through a window because he tried to break out. Now the server rules empower you, as Security, to DO something about someone repeatedly trying to escape the brig. You didn't do that, you just shot him in the head, while he was sharing a cell with someone else. The Brig became so packed full of angry people sharing cells and trying to press in the front door that keeping it under control was a full time job. You had not, at any point, communicated over sec radio why they were in, how long for, and how long they had served despite being asked over radio repeatedly. So eventually i released them. You yelled at me and called me an idiot, but thankfully you left it at that. You lost the trust of half of security after that, as well as any of the crew watching. So when there were reports later on that 'Security is shooting up medbay staff!!' myself and another officer were resolved to arrest you because we believed you were capable of doing it. We didn't get the chance, because the Clown later came back to take his revenge on security and killed me with a hatchet while i was dying from poison foam. He was later perma'd for another incident. So was the mime who welderbombed sec. The Second time you were Head of Security, and I was Officer had the opposite problem. Whereas before you micromanaged everything, overruled the warden and tanked our reputation amongst the crew... this time you were utterly absent. You gave the occasional order to 'arrest the clown.' But follow ups of 'Which clown? What did they do? How dangerous are they?' went unanswered. 'HoS we have several incidents going on, we need instructions on what to prioritise' went unheeded. The Warden had to do your job for you with half of the ability, and Officers had to basically handle their own arrests and brig processing. Which, I can tell you, is a recipe for disaster. Why you have been an awful Head of Security and Quartermaster. I have gone into so much effort and transparent with you as possible about my experiences with you as an admin and as a player, so you appreciate the full impact your 'roleplay' has on those around you. Your roleplay is not welcomed. Your roleplay is indistinguishable from the real thing. Someone roleplaying a crazed psychotic HoS has the same gameplay effect as someone shooting up a cuffed prisoner because they can. Your roleplay of a baked, unserious drug-dealing HoS has very real repercussions on the morale and capablility of the department you lead, and the crew's willingness to assist or tolerate security's interventions. Your roleplay as a militaristic authoritarian HoS was indistinguishable from every other Head of Security who acts like The Law and a Trenchcoated Badass Commissar as opposed to the Manager of the Security Department. You get cool guns and good armour out of TRUST not because they're toys. It's fun to pull the trigger and see spacemen turn sideways, but Security and Command are held to higher standards than regular crew. As both Security AND Command, the Head of Security is held to THE HIGHEST standard, because unlike the Captain, the HoS can make it IMPOSSIBLE for a Good Security Officer to BE a Good Security Officer. A Bad CMO doesn't affect a Doctor's capabilities, a bad CE doesnt affect an Engineer's and a bad QM can't... actually, the QM can make a cargo tech and salvager's job impossible. This lack of control and big-picture awareness of your own department and communications with your heads, can be distilled into what got you banned. You killed a guy who had just been cloned, and blamed medbay for being reckless. You justified this as medbay fucking around (as opposed to doing their job, this could have been dealt with by speaking to CMO first but I digress) and justified this to Chief as 'Sec being fucked.' Security and the Brig, was in fact, fine. You just weren't aware. You had made an assumption based on the fact you had seen a dying/gasping prisoner. A prisoner who... you have a responsibility to keep alive. With that cleared up, let's address why I'm being so transparent. We are volunteers, and despite your opinion, we DO talk amongst ourselves about admin matters, even when we aren't online. You are treating Chief_Engineer as an irrational, biased scapegoat and at the same time, wielding your interpretation of his rulings as a shield against other admins. It's extremely blatant in your appeal that you think Chief_Engineer has it out for you. He doesn't. He has helped you deal with bugs regarding the armoury buttons, dealt with bug abusers and rule breakers you have reported. When he speaks to you about things you've done, he keeps a calm tone and shows you far, far, far more patience than 80% of the admin team would give you. Every ban has gone through the rest of the admin team. The reality of it is, Yourself, Chief_Engineer and Myself, all play at the same time. I like to de-admin myself, since I enjoy the game. You play roles that come with high scrutiny. All members of Security, but ESPECIALLY the Head of Security will FREQUENTLY be approached by admins because they will have: A) Fucked up B) Ahelped about someone fucking up C) Understands the whole story behind a really confusing and strange fuck up D) Didn't fuck up, but is being accused of fucking up. The Head of Security is the most frequently contacted role, regardless of ability or situation which means that when you do stuff like this, we NOTICE a lot more. That is it. You are online when Chief is online. Your actions are more high-profile. You accuse Chief of bias, but you are the only one being hostile. Here is how Chief talks to you: In these ahelps he consistently: Asks questions, tries to put you in an observer's perspective to understand why what you're doing is a problem. Outright give you a choice to avoid problems you have put yourself in. Set QM to none. It's a bit like me telling you: Don't carry lethals in your backpack if they aren't required. Looking through logs, he takes you seriously when you complain, and actually rules in your favour when the facts lead him there. In addition, quite a few of your ahelps with him have... other admins in them, showing that he was not alone in his judgement EVEN IN THE MOMENT. Where as you, speak to him like this... i dont even know what that last one is about In Summary I was asked to give a comment on this thread as 'the only admin [you] respect'. Though I believe the suggestion was made with a little bit of irony, I am taking it seriously. Because what I have laid out as the final post in this closed ban appeal is a very, very bad depiction of you. Going through logs, there are things I believe are true about you. I believe you genuinely enjoy SS14 and want it to succeed. I believe you are capable of cooperating with admins and other players even when it doesn't entirely favour you. I believe your lack of game knowledge and refusal to actually ABSORB the rules we keep telling you to look at and then ask for further clarification. The QM ban was meant to serve you by encouraging you to play security. What do you know, you suddenly gained a lot more empathy for security now you know what it's like to be on the receiving end of someone screaming, resisting every time you hold still and making whats meant to be a 1 minute stop and search a 30 minute ordeal. However, it's not worth the impact it would have on the playerbase to have you, someone who is clearly enamoured with authority and the exercise of power, be job-banned from every single command role of every department until you actually decide to just... learn the basics of the game, and how the decisions of command actually influences the people beneath them. So you learn what is a reasonable mistake and what isn't. Because... You always assume malice, not incompetance. Incompetance is fucking rife in the playerbase. Me as an Admin, and me as a Player, are two different people. I have spent four and a half hours compiling everything together and writing this, because I have seen, in my time adminning on Space Station THIRTEEN, players of your calibre/quality get banned, permabanned, unbanned, banned again, unbanned, and then somehow a year or so later, they become a pretty decently respected admin/head admin/developer/head developer etc. I am writing a fucking ESSAY with goddamn CITATIONS and SCREENCAPS so you have the opportunity to blow our socks off on December 1st with a bloody good appeal. We want a totally different kind of person to apply. Your issues are ones stemmed from immaturity and an inability to control your emotions in a roleplaying game. You stubbornly refuse to play by the rules, and I believe that you think you're gaining credibility by discrediting Chief_Engineer. In Ahelps, In Conversations with him and now in this appeal. You are doing the opposite. You're further condemning yourself as a toxic player. I believe, fully, that you have it within you to improve based on interactions with OTHER admins (including chief), your logs IN and Out of Character, and that there is SOME effort shown, to try and change behaviour. For me to support your appeal next month, if you choose to make it, here are my personal conditions which are only influencing my vote: Apologise to Chief_Engineer. He hasn't been biased against you. You've just been extremely disrespectful. Don't Roleplay. Yes, we have a light roleplay server. But your roleplay isn't good. It's not fun for other people. Keep OOC terms out of your IC channel and vice-versa. Focus on just... playing the role you're playing as best you can, while not making other people's time worse. Don't play Command. Play all of the other roles. Even Antagonists. But not Nuke Commander. If you're angry and furious, quit. Ahelp first if you're a traitor, but just go. Take a break. It's not worth getting in trouble. READ THE RULES. ASK FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS. That's it. I'm getting a coffee.
  3. Please follow the Ban Appeal Template here:
  4. As the banning admin, I will not be handling your case. However, I will outline my decision making here. The Station had little security and only the Captain, HoP and Chief Engineer in roles. I also observed that the Captain and HoP were acting responsibly and trying to resolve that issue promptly. Then I hear on the radio 'Mime is sabotaging disposals' and I go to take a look. I see you dragging a recycler to the HoP's office, anchoring it there and leaving. I check your notes to see that you have harsh notes on the very topic of 'blocking areas'. Now let me be clear. You are correct that it does not block movement, something I had forgotten at the time. However this is not why I treated this as a big deal. The Roundtype this time was Nuclear Operatives, comprised of players who I recognise as capable in combat and know how to work as a team. An Emaggable Recycler outside the HoP's office seemed like a huge disruption in favour of the Nuclear Operatives that didn't have to exist. For the best chances for the round to go well and for a good fight, Command didn't need to be hassled by a Mime while trying to do their jobs, the few sec officers that existed didn't need to waste time tunnel-visioning on someone pick-pocketing shoes from everybody they found and interrupting the filling of departments and accesses. For the severity of the ban and lack of communication, according to banning policy, you've already had a 1 day ban for blocking doors. So now it's a 2 day ban, though granted I forgot the recycler doesn't physically block movement. I would ask questions if I was uncertain but it seemed clear to me you just wanted to be a disruption in line with your notes. TL;DR, the ban was dished out because I felt I had more obligation to the Station Crew that round, rather than a singular player who has already had warnings for very similar things. Arguments over whether it does or does not block appeared, to me, to be rules skirting. Perhaps this is a bit wordy, but this is for the transparency of yourself and the other admins who will actually handle the appeal.
  5. Appeal Accepted. Don't drink and plasma.
  6. Please follow the ban appeal format:
  7. Everything stated here is pretty much true from what I observed, and I thank you for not bending the truth at all. I accept that the behaviour of the station was quite chaotic and tbh you'll have more rounds like it in future. However, trying to 'take over the station' never ends well and setting yourself up as the antagonist when you aren't the antagonist (e.g declaring martial law for littering) can interfere with actual traitors. If you want to do this, please please do it as the traitor. As for your behaviour on the station, I did feel somewhat bad for banning you; On paper everything I described is a series of red flags we see every day. However, what I observed was remarkably little body count, an allowance for cloning people who'd tried to kill you and a general sense you were trying to include people in your mayhem which is something that i'd love to see from a traitor. The issue of metacommunicating and cooperating is a harder one to approach, though. Ordinarily I'd be satisfied to unban you now, but in a game where "fog of war" and shifting loyalties from round to round is a core mechanic, two people who will always align with eachother, coordinate quickly in an area that can't be moderated by admins or observed by other players and use eachother's resources to empower eachother... is very unfair. The game and its moderation tools are in a basic form but even so metacommunication is very hard to prove and to police even in games with sophisticated tools and that is the main problem I have with unbanning you both. How can I be sure you aren't co-ordinating in discord? And when I see you two working together, how do I know you're doing it for round-related reasons and not because you're biased against eachother? This is not a trick question. I would like to know how I can allow you back in the server. Because If you're honest and stick to what you've told me, I think you and Mike would be a good addition to the community.
  8. Though I am happy to see you appealing, please use the following Template for your appeal:
  9. We have three alts on record, ACrummyRoyale, ACrummyRival and Acuumyroyale. Which one will you be keeping?
  10. If I don't get a response by Sunday, i'll be closing the appeal.
  11. I'm declining this appeal because even when it has been explained to you, you don't seem capable of comprehending the rules. I presume this is a language barrier issue, which means that the likelihood of you doing this again is very high. After conferring with other admins, I'll be re-assigning the permanent ban to a month's ban. This is to give you time to try to understand the rules more to the point where, when your ban expires, you'll be able to follow them clearly and understand why leading an independent revolt in security which leaves multiple dead as a non-traitor is something we don't want to see happening again.
  12. So as a result, I need to hear a better unban justification than: "I make good meth, i have good midis and the ban is dumb"
  13. Hello, I'm Streaky Haddock the Game Administrator that banned you. I am also going to be the one who handles your appeal. I do apologise for the lack of clarity in my communications and the lengthy time between responses, in incidents like this I have to speak to several people at once and cross-reference with what hard evidence I may have. So yes, when you logged out I didn't view it as you trying to escape the ban, but it did effectively end my ability to question you further and I was the only admin on that server at the time. During my questioning and speaking with several witnesses, it was determined that none of what you told me was true. The shooting had stopped long before you responded. There was plenty of living people around, with only two casualties. Zed said 'Do not Clone them'. You asked: 'Which?'. The CMO had put his gun away, was putting the person he had just killed into disposals and didn't respond, to which your response was to begin stripping the scientist that the CMO had been pulling. Fair enough. What happened next was the CMO told you to stop, and put everything back. Your response was to ask 'which person', and then the CMO told you to put everything back 'or else'. Yes, he threatened you but that threat was precluded upon a reasonable request. Put back everything that was on a body in the care of the Chief Medical Officer. Your response was to wordlessly, immediately beat him with a stunbaton on harm intent until you were interrupted. The reason why the ban is permanent is because not one element of your story was backed up by witnesses. In addition, I record my rounds and now I have gone back to review the clip, I can see the full extent of how misleading your story is. I'll provide evidence of my chat log with you, and my recorded footage in the interest of transparency after this post.
  14. Well, you began by advertising in OOC chat to form cargonia, you raided the brig for weapons and killed security when they tried to stop you all when you weren't a traitor. Does that clarify where you may have gone wrong in terms of violating the rules?
  15. Are you certain that is your final answer after reading all the rules?
  16. Okay, but can you do the thing I asked you to do in my post above, please.
  17. The Permaban's purpose was to bring you here so you could explain yourself in detail and we could have a conversation without the honking of clown shoes or distraction of explosions. I don't believe you evaded me, I think I was just late getting on when you were getting off. As a Cargo Technician your job is to take orders from the station, approve and deny reasonable ones and make sure crates are delivered or collected. I would like you to read through the attached image with the Server Rule written on it and tell me which ones you violated by: Broadcasting over OOC that you wanted to 'make cargonia'. Ordering a mass amounts of weapons for your own use, then invading security to break out Damien Finlay, and killing all of Security in the process.
  18. I'm satisfied you won't make the same errors again, particularly since you've demonstrated a pretty strong awareness of why you got banned. This does mean penalties will be stricter if you violate the rules again, but other than that: Welcome back to the server. I hope you enjoy yourself!
  19. What about trying to pin the blame on the guy who was trying to help you with the window?
  20. I would be more than happy to unban you, if you can tell me all the rules you violated that round when I banned you. That way I know you have certainly read them. I've provided the rules below, sorry I don't have a better link. This is the best I can do for the time being.
  21. I was Insecurity Guard. I joined as Assistant, I was promoted to Engineer. Then Steven Armstrong the Chief Engineer nominated me as his successor, so I was functionally Chief Engineer at the time. I have nothing else to add, the video can speak for itself.
×
×
  • Create New...