TOPIC: [SSRP Moderator] Paco's Reapply

<strong>RDM Question</strong> - 0/10
<em>You missed this question out! You have to put it in.</em>

<strong>NLR Question</strong> - 6/10
<em>You didn't specify the correct time. ZARP's timer is 3 minutes. You did give a suitable example of NLR though, and the explicit link of revenge killing to the NL rule is pretty positive.</em>

<strong>Metagaming Question</strong> - 6/10
<em>What you wrote doesn't really make sense (read it back), however it is a suitable example. In comparison to what other people write, this one unfortunately doesn't shine.</em>

<strong>Handling RDM</strong> - 9/10
<em>If player Y provides an invalid RP reason or something that doesn't add up, you can pretty much convict him there and then (he's confessed and you don't need evidence). If he gives a valid reason, you need to obtain evidence. Chances are that a player X will never have evidence, and it's always good to advise them to get it in the future as well as a screenshot of the offender's tab profile (SteamID Evidence), and to report at the forums. Overall, a pretty decent analysis of how this infringement would be resolved.</em>

<strong>Handling NLR</strong> 5/10
<em>You can't warn him because player X says where he killed him, he may not tell the truth simply to get player Y punished. It's best to ask the offender first to see if honesty will come into play, then if what he says is innocent, player X will need evidence to support his claim. As said earlier, it's always good to advise them to get it in the future as well as a screenshot of the offender's tab profile (SteamID Evidence), and to report at the forums. Overall, a pretty decent analysis of how this infringement would be resolved.</em>

<strong>Handling Metagaming</strong> - 9/10
<em>Sounds good, but an instant 'full' warning would be ok too.</em>

<strong>Why you should be chosen</strong> - 8/10
<em>You've listed some attributes that are very relevant to the role. You don't need to code. You've had a good attempt at this question, lots of candidates go into more detail so it doesn't appeal to me that you've only went two words over the minimum, but it seems alright.</em>

<strong>Overall Positives</strong>
- 50 hours is a decent playtime.
- Active and dedicated.
- Comes on TS3.
- Friendly, coherent member of the community who has already made many positive relations.

<strong>Areas for Improvement</strong>
- May want to go further on the last question and perhaps tell us anything not covered by the rest of the application.
- Correct some of the weaknesses I've identified.

<strong>Summary</strong>
<em>An alright candidate, some issues with the application which will need to be resolved (especially the lack of the RDM question, which will lead the application to be denied if it isn't added in), but personality seems top notch from what I've seen so far.</em>