So first of all, I was quite expressly told that you would not be commenting on the application. By you. Which I see is out of the window less than 12 hours later.
“Before you may leave it again, as PRECEDENT dictates” - Have you read the application? There is no precedent for me leaving roles early, aside from an exceptional circumstance involving blatant player targeting in ISD.
I think you ought to be more ‘transparent’ about the fact that you are, blatantly, hostage holding my progression on the server. How far can I progress before you decide it’s time to resign? It’s a shameful way to handle conflicting viewpoints on a subject, and whilst I am empathic to the subject in question’s importance to you, it is NOT an ‘OOC factor’, its downright unrelated to the server in any way.
I do not need to improve my image, nor do I need to change my viewpoints on any subject to ‘fit in’ or assuage concerns of how easy I’d be to work with. I have made clear, in the application I spent several hours of my time writing and creating, that I know how to fix the Committee and its issues, alongside my own observations of its associated departments showing my understanding of their issues, too.
But with all of that in mind, the only holdbacks seem to be conflation of my views and the idea that, whilst not holding a leadership position, that I have to sit around and constantly maintain my public image. This is not a mayoral election, this is a gmod server.
I’m not withdrawing this application, I will be raising the matter with NL.
Thanks.
Didn't you try hostage holding SSL and NL by being the main impetus behind the mass FCOM resignation based on the server health at the time? Pot calling the kettle black, even if in different contexts. I am genuinely disappointed how vitriolic this message has come off as over one detail, especially considering I absolutely made sure that what I said was as polite as possible and not able to be used by others to form an opinion without full context.
In regards to why I left a public -support; The mere fact that we had such a respectful conversation in private meant that I felt we were on a level playing field with what could and could not be said, and since you were told to your face by me why I oppose you returning, it would not be able to do any more harm to be publicly transparent, and I really had no malicious intent in doing so, and felt it was less cowardly to only say it to you there and not on the forums. Perhaps I should have mentioned it to you first so I can see why that has annoyed you, I suppose.
In regards to being more transparent - okay, sure. Everyone should be aware that I have zero intent of staying as O5-1 if you get back into Ethics, because I have zero desire to have my mirror in Sr. CL5 be someone who fundamentally disagrees with my existence as a person from an OOC perspective. I've had no shame in telling SSL/NL this, it's a very simple matter to me. I also have had zero intent of using this to be some kind of rallying point behind others going for you like some kind of shit-flinging contest, I made it clear that I would simply quietly leave - why do you think I was very vague in my -support in the first place? So people didn't use my viewpoint as a springboard to jump you, because I do not like it when applications devolve into this.
However, being fully honest, knowing you and the history of *some* applicants that you have absolutely tried to deny or -support for your "public image" viewpoint of them tells me that you are more offended that the smoking gun has been turned on you for once, than you actually are at why I'm opposing you. Especially considering I know from talking to you that you absolutely have it out for them still.
Unfortunately, you, GC and your collective opinions about me hold zero relevance to me and how I want to run the server and what I am willing to tolerate as part of my player experience. You critique me for trying to leverage you for holding such disdain based on your views, and I remind you that this is a "private" community, what is viewed as acceptable and what is not is up to those above, which is why I've raised the issue in the first place - to let them decide.
You also think that I've critiqued you solely for this when I already explained that your viewpoint of how to fix O-1 and Ethics isn't what it needs. You are a band-aid, and people will be drawn to you just because you're Remmy and they will leave as soon as you do when the inevitable dislike of the server status prompts you to leave again, just like last time. The issue with Ethics is how alive it is - you are a short-term fix and I have been telling SSL that if they want Ethics to gradually improve, a healthy cycle of active existing players gaining attraction to the role is a better choice.
Rest assured, you also weren't the first to raise this to NL. It's not like anyone with more than 5 brain cells doesn't know which member of NL you went to first, anyway.
Game Master
Donator
Head Moderator
SCP-RP Staff
Event Team
