2 days ago - edited
# RzdFCo07Y5ljXi_cThank you for your interest in joining Research Command. Please complete all sections thoroughly and professionally. Incomplete applications may not be considered.
Section I – Personal Information
Steam ID: STEAM_0:0:55505359
Discord Username (including tag): rogunmattrik939
Age: 32
Country of Residence: UK
Time Zone (GMT +/-): GMT
How long have you played on Ultra SCP?: 1 month i beleive
Section II – In-Game Information
Character Name(s):Eckhardt Thule
Do you have a working microphone?:Yes
List all whitelists you currently hold or have previously held (on this or other servers):
Gensec Captain (Werewolf Gaming
Head Of Security (Dominus Networks)
A1 Captain (Dominus Networks)
E9 Commander (Dominus Networks)
Executive Researcher (Civil Gamers SCPRP UK)
Internal Affairs Ambassador (Civil Gamers SCPRP UK)
O1 Specialist (Civil Gamers SCPRP UK)
Have you received any warnings, kicks, or bans? If so, please explain the circumstances: None
Section III – Application Questions
Please answer the following questions in full detail. Low-effort responses may result in denial.
1. Why are you applying for Research Command?
I am applying for the position of Research Command because I aspire to once again contribute but at this time at a higher level to the intellectual, structural, and ethical development of the Foundation’s research division. Having spent considerable time observing and participating in research operations in the past and currently present, I have developed a deep appreciation for the complexity and responsibility that accompanies leadership within this department.
Research Command is not merely a position of authority; it is a role that demands discipline, strategic oversight, and a comprehensive understanding of anomalous sciences. I am motivated by the opportunity to guide research initiatives, ensure procedural integrity, and cultivate an environment where scientific curiosity is balanced with containment protocol and ethical awareness.
Furthermore, I wish to assist in elevating the overall standard of documentation and experimentation within the server. By providing structured leadership and mentorship to junior researchers, I believe I can help foster a more immersive, professional, and lore-consistent research environment. My application stems from a genuine desire to strengthen the department and contribute meaningfully to long-term narrative development.
2. What qualities, skills, or experience make you suitable for Research Command?
I believe I am suitable for Research Command due to a combination of leadership experience, roleplay discipline, documentation proficiency, and strong decision-making skills under pressure.
Leadership & Organization: I am capable of coordinating multiple researchers, overseeing testing schedules, and ensuring experiments are conducted safely and efficiently. I maintain composure during high-risk scenarios and prioritize clear communication.
Documentation & Writing Skills: I possess strong formal writing abilities, allowing me to produce detailed, structured, and lore-consistent research documents. I understand the importance of clarity, proper containment procedures, and clinical tone in SCP documentation.
Ethical Awareness: Research Command must balance scientific advancement with moral boundaries. I demonstrate sound judgment when determining whether a test is justified, excessive, or requires Ethics Committee consultation.
Lore Knowledge: I have a strong understanding of SCP Foundation structure, hierarchy, containment classifications, cross-testing risks, and interdepartmental cooperation (e.g., Security, Medical, Ethics).
Problem-Solving: Anomalies are unpredictable. I am able to adapt quickly to unexpected outcomes during testing and respond in a manner that protects personnel and preserves immersion.
Previous experience: I have previous experience in work as a CL4 on numerous occasions giving me an indepth knowledge on how too acrt and run day too day work.
Overall, I combine professionalism, creativity, and structured thinking — qualities essential for overseeing complex anomalous research operations.
3. In your opinion, what makes an SCP research document excellent?
In my opinion, an excellent SCP research document is defined by structural precision, clarity of language, internal consistency, and depth of analytical development. While traditional Foundation formatting is essential, I believe that expanding upon the standard structure elevates a document from acceptable to exemplary.
First and foremost, an outstanding document should begin with a formal Cover Page. This page should clearly present the SCP designation, classification, assigned researcher(s), clearance level requirements, and relevant departmental affiliations. A professional cover page establishes authority, context, and organization from the outset.
Following this, the inclusion of a clearly formatted Index of Contents significantly enhances readability. Particularly in extended research reports, experiment compilations, or cross-testing files, an index allows readers to efficiently navigate between containment procedures, testing logs, incident reports, and analytical summaries.
Beyond the standard SCP formatting (Item Number, Object Class, Special Containment Procedures, and Description), I strongly advocate for the inclusion of the following structured sections:
Aims: A clearly defined research objective outlining what the experiment or study seeks to determine. This demonstrates that testing is hypothesis-driven rather than arbitrary.
Methods: A detailed explanation of experimental procedure, materials used, personnel involved, and control variables. This reinforces scientific realism and procedural transparency.
Findings: An objective presentation of results, including observed reactions, measurable data, anomalous fluctuations, and deviations from expected outcomes.
Conclusion: A formal analytical summary interpreting the findings. This section should explain whether the aims were achieved and propose future research directions.
Personal Notes: When appropriate and clearly separated from formal documentation, brief researcher commentary can add depth and character development. These notes must remain professional and should never compromise the clinical integrity of the primary report.
Additionally, meticulous attention to grammar and spelling is essential. Errors in language weaken immersion and diminish the perceived credibility of the document. Proper formatting, punctuation, and structured paragraphing reflect discipline and professionalism within the research department.
I find that incorporating these additional structural components results in a document that feels comprehensive, methodical, and worthy of an excellent evaluation. That said, I recognize that documentation styles can vary. Different researchers may adopt alternative structures depending on their methodology, experience, or departmental expectations. Diversity in approach can be beneficial, provided the core principles of clarity, consistency, and professionalism are upheld.
Ultimately, an exceptional SCP document is one that not only informs but demonstrates deliberate effort, intellectual rigor, and respect for Foundation standards.
4. What are the responsibilities of Research Command within roleplay?
Within roleplay, Research Command carries significant operational, administrative, and narrative responsibilities.
Oversight of Research Operations: Approving, supervising, and documenting experimental procedures involving SCP entities.
Safety Enforcement: Ensuring all tests comply with containment protocols and that D-Class usage is justified and documented.
Authorization Authority: Approving cross-tests, high-risk experimentation, and access to sensitive anomalies.
Mentorship: Training junior researchers in documentation standards, roleplay conduct, and proper experimental design.
Interdepartmental Coordination: Working alongside Security, Medical, and Ethics Committee representatives to ensure operational harmony.
Crisis Management: Taking command during containment breaches or anomalous incidents within research sectors.
Lore Contribution: Developing ongoing narratives, long-term research arcs, and structured scientific progression.
Research Command is not simply a higher rank — it is the backbone of organized scientific exploration within the Foundation.
5. Please provide detailed lore for your Research Command character.
Dr. Eckhardt Thule was born in Stuttgart Germany and moved to Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1976 to a family steeped in fringe theological study and esoteric tradition. He holds two doctorates: one in Comparative Theology (Oxford), and the other in Parahistory and Occult Phenomena (University of [REDACTED]). Thule was recruited by the Foundation in 2009 after assisting in the containment and analysis of SCP-███, a liturgical text that caused spontaneous angelophanies within an isolated Ethiopian monastery.
Thule was mentored by Executive Researcher William G. Gawber at Site-64. Gawber, a controversial figure known to boast of his alleged bloodline connection to famed occultist Aleister Crowley, took an interest in Thule’s exceptional grasp of arcane languages, necrotheology, and applied demonological containment strategies. Under Gawber’s tutelage, Thule assisted in the classification and documentation of several high-threat theological anomalies, including:
Section IV – Scenario & Leadership Assessment
6. How would you handle a situation where a researcher repeatedly breaches protocol during testing?
If a researcher repeatedly breaches protocol during testing, my response would be structured, measured, and proportional to the severity of the violations.
First, I would immediately halt any ongoing experiment if the breach poses a safety risk to personnel, containment integrity, or Foundation assets. Safety and containment stability must always take priority over data collection.
Second, I would privately address the researcher to determine the cause of the repeated infractions. It is important to assess whether the issue stems from misunderstanding, inexperience, negligence, or deliberate disregard for regulations. Leadership requires investigation before judgment.
If the breaches are due to inexperience or lack of clarity, I would:
Reiterate the relevant protocols.
Provide additional guidance or supervised training.
Temporarily restrict the researcher’s authorization level until competency is demonstrated.
If the behavior reflects carelessness or intentional disregard for procedure, I would escalate the response:
Issue a formal written warning within departmental records.
Suspend testing privileges pending review.
If necessary, refer the matter to Site Command or the Ethics Committee for disciplinary evaluation.
Repeated violations undermine not only containment safety but also immersion and professionalism within roleplay. Research Command must set the standard. However, corrective action should always aim to improve performance before resorting to removal.
Ultimately, my approach balances accountability with mentorship. The objective is to protect the Foundation while maintaining a structured, fair, and professional research environment.
7. How would you manage internal conflict within the Research Department while maintaining professionalism and roleplay standards?
Internal conflict within a research department is not uncommon, particularly in an environment driven by high-stakes experimentation and strong intellectual personalities. As Research Command, I would address such conflicts with neutrality, discretion, and adherence to Foundation decorum.
My first step would be to separate personal emotion from professional responsibility. I would meet with the involved parties individually to gather perspectives without public escalation. Allowing each researcher to voice their concerns privately prevents unnecessary disruption to the wider department.
Once perspectives are gathered, I would evaluate whether the conflict stems from:
Scientific disagreement,
Miscommunication,
Personality clashes,
Authority disputes, or
Breach of conduct.
If the disagreement is scientific in nature, I would encourage structured debate supported by data and formal proposals. Intellectual disagreement can be productive when properly moderated.
If the issue is behavioural or personal, I would:
Reinforce departmental expectations regarding professionalism.
Clarify hierarchy and decision-making authority where necessary.
Issue formal reminders that roleplay standards and respectful conduct are mandatory.
Should the conflict escalate beyond informal mediation, I would document the matter and involve Site Command or relevant oversight bodies in accordance with protocol.
Throughout the process, I would ensure that discussions remain in-character where appropriate and aligned with roleplay standards. Public arguments, out-of-character hostility, or unprofessional conduct weaken immersion and departmental integrity.
Research Command must act as a stabilizing force. By remaining calm, impartial, and decisive, I would aim to resolve disputes efficiently while reinforcing a culture of respect, discipline, and collaborative scientific advancement.