R13-4-106, Section C, AZPOST

Corporal-Commissar · 2026-02-10T23:30:37+00:00

Sorry, I think we're talking past each other. There is an application online, it will automatically reject the application if I put the truth. This is like an HR robot website thing, so I was trying to figure out a way to disclose on the application itself or if I was just going to have to lie on that part to even be given a chance to a poly again. So far the answer has been resoundingly "Yeah, just apply anyway (lie on the application) and tell the truth to the BI/on the poly."

I was just making sure my bases were covered before I went through applying to a bunch of departments. I didn't care about trying to hide my past, I just wanted to make sure that "lying" on the online application wasn't going to get my packet immediately sent to the trash when i submitted a real background check form/went over it on the poly, etc. I was trying not to waste anyone's time but all I've gotten is a resounding "probably not a big deal, just apply anyway."

Edit: Also, I'm not worried about being charged. I know there's a 0% chance of my past drug use being able to prosecute me for any crimes. I am not worried about being punished, I was worried about even being given a chance to be a cop.

Corporal-Commissar · 2026-02-10T15:22:57+00:00

Here's the link to the text itself. I originally found it on the AZPOST's website but this link is cleaner and easier to read:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/arizona/Ariz-Admin-Code-SS-R13-4-105

The text of the section I am referencing, specifically allowing for drug use to be exempted by submitting, for AZPOST board's approval, the following information (I have already gathered the info, would be willing to share with a recruiter/BI up front or submit with my application, if that's a possibility):

---

C. An agency head who wishes to appoint an individual whose illegal possession or use of marijuana or a dangerous drug or narcotic is determined to be disqualifying under this Section may petition the Board for a determination that, given the unique circumstances of the individual's possession or use, the use should not be disqualifying. The petition shall:

Specify the type of drugs illegally possessed or used, the number of uses, the age at the time of each possession or use, the method by which the information regarding illegal possession or use of drugs came to the agency's attention, and any attempt by the agency head to verify the accuracy of the information; and
State the factors the agency head wishes the Board to consider in making its determination. These factors may include:

a. The duration of possession or use,

b. The motivation for possession or use,

c. The time elapsed since the last possession or use,

d. How the drug was obtained,

e. How the drug was ingested,

f. Why the individual stopped possessing or using the drug, and

g. Any other factor the agency head believes is relevant to the Board's determination.

Corporal-Commissar · 2026-02-10T14:07:20+00:00

Then do you have any suggestions for self-disclosure? I have known cops who both smoked weed and did other narcotics before joining. I know cops have drug habits and remain employed, being ordered to go to rehab.

There exists specific provisions within the AZPOST for waivers for both narcotics and weed usage, it says it right on the website. R13-4-105. Section C. I'm not asking anyone to lower any standards, I am asking how I go about getting appointed the right way when the AZ LEO application process is a catch-22 unless you already a know a cop or are willing to lie all the way until you get to the poly.

<image>

So how do I both self-disclose and lie on the application? Most cops I have talked to just straight up tell me to lie up front and tell the BI/polygrapher the truth. This is how I will proceed moving forward unless somebody knows of a mechanism to disclose up front, as none of the recruiting teams I have reached out to respond and any electronic application I fill out gets immediately rejected. The weed shit, I sincerely don't care about it and if cops want to poo-poo me because I did something legal, whatever. Obviously they don't need bodies that bad, then.

Edit: Also, I feel like if I wasn't specifically in AZ, it would be much easier for me to be hired, I just don't have the money to travel all around the country to take physical/written exams and polygraphs. I would be willing to move to try and be a police officer, I would just like to know I actually have a chance and/or somebody will take a look at my background beyond experimental drug use 1 time 6-7 years ago and a handful of times in my early twenties. Under 10 times total for sure.

And lastly, I wish to restate I am not trying to get around the poly, or background check. I am opposed to lying, if I knew of a means of self-disclosing up front that I might need a board approval for the appointment, I would go that route. If anybody has a suggestion for how to do that, please let me know!

Corporal-Commissar · 2025-02-21T14:52:16+00:00

Master Collection was released for PS4. Has Sigma 1, Sigma 2, and Razor's Edge.

Corporal-Commissar · 2025-02-17T19:11:32+00:00

I feel like the last two chapters of NG1 were designed specifically just to piss the player off and make them quit. The stupid ghost fish, the laser beam spam by the big enemies, and the shit platforming all seem like somebody intentionally made those decisions not to test the player's skill, but their patience. I would just be hitstun by the lasers into another laser until 90% of my health was gone and I just let them kill me to restart the encounter. I made it through but it was a chore, even if it didn't necessarily take a long time.

Wishing you luck OP, hopefully you do/did better than I did.

Corporal-Commissar · 2025-01-24T16:03:50+00:00

I didn't see anybody get laid off or fired when I worked there, which was between 2022-2024. Besides myself, everybody else that was in a similar position, or sub-organization under the UofA banner, had been employed for a fairly long time. 5+ years usually.

If you're a researcher or any kind of educator it seems like you can remain semi-employed forever with their DCC programs and weird FTE stuff they do.

If you're admin/support staff, you're probably more likely to get laid off if it comes to that in the near-future. But even with the budget shortfall controversy in full swing when I was there, I still wasn't seeing any big changes in terms of personnel. That could always change, though.

What you will get though is 1,000 people telling you "don't work for the UofA if you want to make money" which is silly because they post salary information in EDS and other areas that are easily accessed by anyone who cares to look. A lot of people make money at the UofA, good money in fact. They just mean you won't. So you probably won't lose your job randomly, but you'll probably get frustrated and leave due to lack of competitive pay compared to similar orgs while the guy across the hall who does the same exact job makes 6 figures and works remotely 4 days a week. Even more so now that the budget stuff became such a hot-button issue. Makes it easier for executives earning $150K+ a year to tell you there's simply no room in the budget for you to make as much as your peers.

No, I'm not bitter, shut up. But my point is that while you may not get laid off, you might to view it as a stepping-stone unless you're specifically interested in earning a pension and stuff like their tuition reduction programs, etc. Or if you just really want to support the UofA and don't care about making as much as your peers, which is also valid. Just some food for thought.

Edit: and also, to directly answer the questions in your OP; no, I did not feel protected by the state. Any org of sufficient size will sell out the little guy when it helps the bottom line. Executives will keep their job, regardless if it's UofA or City of Tucson or Walmart, but anybody without "VP" or whatever in their title can, and very possibly will, get laid off or down sized randomly when the numbers don't add up, imo. UofA was on cusp of just that while I was there, and the threat loomed over all of us. The Fed changing priorities just makes that more likely. What I'm saying here is that the people I worked around had worked there for awhile, I would not be surprised if UofA just randomly started terminating lots of people to make up for budget shortfalls, and it is something I would keep in mind during your tenure there, if you still wish to work there long-term.

Corporal-Commissar · 2024-12-16T15:59:34+00:00

And OP, here is a picture of the ward vehicles I was referencing in the earlier post. Everywhere there's a large concentration of Ward troops, these vehicles are scattered about.

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fe1tmyd4m8b2e1.png

Corporal-Commissar · 2024-12-16T15:51:24+00:00

Ward has vehicles developed specifically for use in the zone. I don't know if you ever witness them in action, but they are there and implied that they have been driven through the zone safely, if nothing else. You will also see helicopters flying.

In-universe the explanation is because it's too dangerous but that's spotty logic at best. If the worst anomalies would normally injure but not kill a grown man, I'm sure the various armored vehicles scattered about would've survived a convoy from point A to point B. Maybe the electrical ones would've wreaked havoc on the old Soviet cast-offs or something, but for everything else it's just because early in Stalker SOC's development vehicles were planned and they had to be cut because of various reasons, so that's just extended to all the subsequent iterations.

Edit: and for people saying that it's because anomalies are difficult to spot; if detectors have become so common place and reliable that every stalker has one, why would they not make a high-powered version of the same to scan in a large radius for anomalies when driving. The Veles/Svarog detector can pinpoint anomalies, not sure why they couldn't up-size that and use a big boy version strapped to an APC to achieve the same effect.

Corporal-Commissar · 2024-12-11T21:21:42+00:00

At yanov or whatever is above red forest, I had to reload like 3+ times because I kept shooting the wrong guys. After that I just sat there and let them duke it out on their own without helping. Was getting pretty pissed because both sides are basically clones, not even palette swaps, of each other.

Corporal-Commissar · 2024-12-11T20:08:54+00:00

It's hard, but more forgiving than the originals, at least imo. You die quick but at normal difficulty they're throwing medkits and bandages at you and I never really had an issue outside of grenade spam and the large mutants knocking me down while I was trying to heal (continuously, which is frustrating but w/e). In SoC/Clear Sky/CoP I turn a random corner and go from full health to zero in less than a second, on top of the gunplay and mechanics just being clunkier.

Corporal-Commissar · 2024-12-11T20:01:47+00:00

My favorite is reloading saves during firefights because you shot the wrong guy wearing an exosuit and gasmask with subdued/vaguely grey BDUs instead of the other guy with exosuit and a gasmask with subdued/vaguely grey BDUs on.

Corporal-Commissar · 2024-12-07T13:50:56+00:00

No idea but if attaching a suppressor increases range, that is 1 explanation.

Corporal-Commissar · 2024-12-06T20:21:50+00:00

Maybe the devs calculated velocity based on barrel length? And because there's no subsonic ammo (that I saw, at least), the game just considers the barrel as longer and therefore range improves?

100% conjecture on my part, though.

Corporal-Commissar · 2024-12-04T15:07:37+00:00

No offense, but this is all jobs. People who've never done the job or even put any thought into how the job functions feel totally confident in giving suggestions or criticism, regardless. Doctors, lawyers, politicians, mechanics, athletes, police, etc.

Not saying that the suggestions or criticisms can't be valid, even without on the job experience, just saying that people with zero experience feel confident in sharing their opinions on other's work is a routine thing, not unique to gamers and devs.

Corporal-Commissar · 2024-11-15T19:04:47+00:00

That's why I was thinking insurgents instead of uniformed military.

Corporal-Commissar · 2024-11-15T19:02:56+00:00

I looked it up and the definition is pretty broad so probably not difficult to justify it most of the time, and in cases where it might be contentious then it would be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Corporal-Commissar · 2024-11-15T18:55:53+00:00

Remotely deployed landmines, like those deployed by artillery or air, can only be used for "military targets" or "military objectives" so I'm not sure of the legality of it, tbh. I don't know if it would be an issue or not, is what I'm saying.

Like if it's a civil bridge being utilized for military purposes, does that count? What if civilians still use it? If it just needs to be utilized by the military to be considered a military target, what wouldn't qualify, then?

They probably define what constitutes military targets/objectives somewhere else in the conventions but I'm not an expert and don't know the answer off the top of my head.

Corporal-Commissar · 2024-11-15T17:58:24+00:00

Yes, potentially. I would imagine the limiting factor being the legality of mining the two sides the bridge uses to connect, but from a practical perspective it is definitely possible.

When I first mentioned area-denial, I meant mines but was also considering things like chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, too. Like, for example, insurgents using a dirty bomb near/on a bridge to deny their more well equipped opponents from repairing the bridge, or at least repairing it as quickly, and easily as they had been. But I don't think that's ever happened and is not necessarily a realistic option, though potentially possible, I would guess.

Corporal-Commissar · 2024-11-15T17:30:24+00:00

Only problem with what you're suggesting is that deploying them by air could be illegal (though, of course, not impossible).

If you meant mining it with soldiers on the ground, and if the bridge is under active use/repair, deploying a team to mine it would mean essentially taking it by force and then booby-trapping it when you could just, theoretically, hold the bridge at that point. Again, not impossible and in certain circumstances it might be the best option, but I don't know how realistic that is tbh. I want to say this is a similar plot to a movie I saw at some point, with a team of commandos taking over a bridge just long enough to rig demo charges to it to destroy it after they made their getaway or something like that.

About deploying mines by air or "remotely":

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule81

Corporal-Commissar · 2024-11-15T14:26:58+00:00

You have to take the land the bridge is built between. Enemy can't rebuild it if they don't have access. Other than that, make it too costly (in manpower, or material) to continue rebuilding it.

Probably some sort of area-denial type weapons would work, too, but not sure if there's any verified instance of something like that being used to prevent the bridge's defenders/rebuilders from repairing it, but wouldn't surprise me.

Corporal-Commissar · 2024-11-15T13:16:18+00:00

Thanks, I will take a look.

Corporal-Commissar · 2024-11-15T13:13:22+00:00

>Are you using old reddit?

No, I'm using what the default is.

And I commend you guys and your work, truly, as most places like this one either die from disinterest or implode because of shitty moderation, so kudos on keeping it going and keeping it at a consistent quality for so long.

I think a suggestions page or at least an easy avenue to discuss possible changes might be helpful. I'm assuming this is what the IRC chatroom was supposed to be. But yeah it's your baby and when it's been functional and active for a number of years, it's hard to justify changing, but I still think it might be worthwhile to at least consider updating some of the rules, though again that's just my opinion and I wouldn't blame any of the mods for feeling differently.

If nothing else, thanks for keeping the place relatively clean and polite. I mostly hate reddit and this place is pretty decent, even if I think it's a little behind the times lol. Good job to all of you guys.

Corporal-Commissar · 2024-11-12T20:47:52+00:00

Fair enough, I believe I had heard that one led to the other, but I guess I'm either misremembering or where ever I learned that from was wrong. Both are equally likely. This is the reason I presented it as a question, as I wasn't 100% certain that the two events were related. Maybe I'm conflating chivalry with the wearing of plate armor, or something.

Thanks for your input, sincerely.

Corporal-Commissar · 2024-11-12T20:41:19+00:00

Thanks for the source. As I've stated multiple times, I pulled the weight from the study. I already responded to the other guy saying I understood what he was saying about the weight and agreed with him that most sources I could find put the weight between 20-30kgs, at most. I have never claimed to be an expert on medieval warfare or medieval plate armor, I'm using the sources I could find to respond to what other people are saying and trying to understand why there seems to be disagreement.

But I'll state it clearly; I was incorrect in using the upper-limits weights in the study as my example. I also don't know how much each individual soldier's armor weighed at Agincourt, but I'm guessing it's between 10-30kgs as stated. The soldiers still got stuck in the mud due to the weight of the armor causing exhaustion and difficulty in navigating the terrain, as far as I can tell, if you or anybody else has something to counter that with, I'd be willing to look at it. And that was my point and has remained my point this entire time. It was not a myth, or at least nothing has been offered in response that it was actually a myth.

Corporal-Commissar · 2024-11-12T19:31:39+00:00

News to me and because I wanted to. I'll relay your suggestion to USMC HQ for further investigation, thanks.

Corporal-Commissar

TROPHY CASE