Ugnip55 - Staff Report: Enforcement Action Taken - Vending Machine

Reports Staff Reports
1

Ugnip55 - Staff Report: Enforcement Action Taken - Vending Machine

What’s your BYOND key:

Ugnip55

Round ID:

29409

Your character name:

Joe Dafoe

Their BYOND key:

Vending Machine

What are you reporting?:

Enforcement Action Taken

Description of the incident:

I was on LV, during a generally normal operation, doing a plan I have done 40 times prior. This being a quad drop, with all four squads. Bravo included; as they’re part of the INITIAL drop with the others, but their overarching plan is then to pull back to FOB after the dust settles (2 minutes tops), to move to FOB and fortify. This happened, yet I was still noted under the claim that it all of a sudden is a requirement to have the marines at FOB at the very second you drop.

This is not what SoP says, whatsoever, nor is it stated anywhere in the rules. If this is to be the new ruling, so be it, but I do not feel it just to punish me retroactively for something that isn’t even in the rules. Refer to evidence for what SoP actually says regarding FoB construction. This is not really an offending claim towards Vending Machine, but rather whomever told him he had to note me for this incident.

Evidence:

The FoB level of the SoP says:

"Forward Operating Bases
When establishing a Forward Operating Base (FOB), the Commander in charge of an operation should take the minimum precautions to ensure security and defense for stationed Marines and incoming land, air, or sea transports.

The primary extraction point, such as aircraft landing zones (LZs), are to be reinforced with a minimum line of non-makeshift defenses to prevent immediate enemy breaching."

FOBs do not have to be placed adjacent to an extraction point, nor does one have to exist at all. However, the extraction point itself must at least be properly defended and guarded.

It does not specify a timer for this, as long as I take precautions that it’s done. And, in under 5 minutes, basically the very minute we hit boots on ground, I had a bravo FT rotated to FoB, undergoing the construction, meaning I HAVE taken the precautions for an FoB, I just didn’t land them the typical way. Vending Machine themselves can attest to this.

Thus, I don’t see any way I have broken any rule. And, again, if this is now the clarification and comprehension of that rule, I accept, but ask my note be removed, because I do not think it’s fair to punish me retroactively for a new change.

TLDR; FoB WAS built, FoB WAS planned, and minimal precautions WERE taken to get a FoB up. I have done this several times prior, and even had CO council clear off on it through their perception of the SoP. Neither me OR the CO that round understand how this can be perceived as against the rules, and even more so noteworthy.

Thanks for your time.

9 Likes
2

I would like to input as the Commanding Officer at the time.

I personally ensured that FOB was being built by making my way down to LZ1 and watching it get built. When I arrived we had multiple comtechs building it and I was there lazing for FOB Coords. I fully understand if this is not something staff want to see but I do not believe it is noteworthy as we did abide by the SOP and tried something unique.

7 Likes
3

Hey there, @Ugnip55.

As you have stated, LZ is to be reinforced to prevent immediate enemy breaching.

The FOB are to be secured with metal/plasteel cades immediately. Deploying Bravo to the front puts an intentional delay, and that’s not something we would like to see. You have to leave at least one Squad to secure the LZ, nothing can take priority over FOB building.

I don’t consider it good faith to try to exploit wordings in the SOP or any other written resource in this way. I shouldn’t have to say this is common sense the LZ must be secured as quickly as possible, and that is the priority of Marine Command. Nothing can take precedence over this, and the securing of the LZ cannot be intentionally delayed. Please avoid this in the future.

Edit: The note was issued under Rule 11, but this is actually a Rule 2 violation, so I’ve updated the note accordingly.

6

I have altered SOP to account for the confusion and conflict of interpretation. As a result, and agreeing that retroactive consequences would not be fair, I have removed the note from Ugnip55.

11 Likes