• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Regarding the SCP Canon

The Everlasting said:
I feel like our best bet is keys between the main article/log "canon" and various tale canons.
From there, if users wish, blogs can be made for "composites" of the various SCPs.
Click to expand...
I still stand by my proposition here.
 
I still agree with Ever's suggestion, making it so scps can only have information written by the original author and no one else is like us ignoring all marvel and DC stories that weren't written by their original creators
 
There's an actual difference. Marvel and DC storylines are canon.

It is like saying we should have a key for 10-B Thanos or create a profile for the New York Police Department on Marvel and put them at 4-B.
 
WeeklyBattles said:
I still agree with Ever's suggestion, making it so scps can only have information written by the original author and no one else is like us ignoring all marvel and DC stories that weren't written by their original creators
Click to expand...
No. Just, no.

In Marvel and DC, there is some semblance of effort for consistency, the authors are allowed some leeway, but there is rules and regulations that they can't break without saying "alternate universe".

SCP pages have absolutely no collaboration/coordination unless otherwise stated.

I bring up the termination log of 682 as an example. I can still add abilities to it by just editing it.

(EDIT): I also use Creepypasta as an example. Should we be allowed to have "Composite Slenderman", where it consists of every 12-year-old's fanfiction of the guy that isn't completly torn apart by critics?
 
Create a profile for the NYPD in Marvel and put them at 4-B because they arrested Thanos on a non-canon storyline.
 
@Dargoo You can't just add abilities to 682's log. The scpwiki has standards. It needs to be an actual good piece of writing, and serve foremost as a termination log, and not just a suggsverse-esque pile of wank.

This is why we don't accept abilities off 682's log immediately. It gets periodically purged of bad entries.
 
The fact that the writing has to be good doesn't change the fact you're letting people who have nothing to do with the original work give it upgrades.

The standards, frankly, aren't that high.

"Notes: Seriously? I mean… seriously? Drop it out of an aircraft and let it fall… who in the [DATA EXPUNGED]"

(Three articles of poorly written child murdering for absolutely no reason that I won't post here)

Like three or four Joke entries

All of them go way back to the beggining of the log.
 
But stuff like the 682 and Clef's proposal had people proposing and drafting rewrites in the talk page because the writing's cringy and repetitive. We also haven't accepted that experiment log. 682 isn't 1-B in base form based on tanking a hit from Clef's proposal.

That high altitude impact and child/doctor murdering is from probably around 2009-10, at the height of "lolfoundation". Most traces of that have been removed or retconned, but some heritage and archived remnants of that stay.

Joke entries shouldn't be that much of a worry. There's humor in serious articles done by the original authors over the entire websites, why should a few jokes in an experiment log ruin the validity of everything else?
 
Agnaa said:
That high altitude impact and child/doctor murdering is from probably around 2009-10, at the height of "lolfoundation". Most traces of that have been removed or retconned, but some heritage and archived remnants of that stay.
Click to expand...
You're the one claiming it has standards. If they won't delete those because "heritage", there's a massive issue.

The fact of the matter still stands that you're allowing people with absolutely no hand in writing the original article determining its power.

Personally I think my proposals are very liberal compared to the wiki's normal standards. If the SCP Verse wasn't such a long-standing part of the wiki, I doubt it would even be considered eligible for a verse, considering how we treat Creepypasta.
 
@Dargoo Under your proposal basically every single God tier would be changed to 'Unknown' other than a select few

Sorry but Ever's proposal is a lot better while simultaneously not completely needlessly neutering the entire verse
 
@Lephyr And half the SCPs he's weaponized are now archived. Deleted and off the main list, but only kept around because other good pieces of writing mentioned them.

Also, Clef at least did get retconned from being "literally the devil" in a later tale.

@Dargoo Because they think deleting well-known SCPs that are kinda not so greatly written would be more detrimental than keeping them around. Hell, the Plague Doctor was rewritten recently due to how bad the original article was. The kind of entries that you're talking about being problematic aren't problems. They prove that 682 would eat children, and that the foundation doesn't want to drop it from a plane.

I don't think letting other people write for it is necessarily a problem, considering it's a collaborative fiction website. What would we do about the entities that don't really have a single author? Who decides the power of the foundation, of the GOC, of the various task forces?

Also, most of the extremely powerful SCPs are written fully by one person or within one canon. If people could just badly add in powers to an existing SCP, they could also just badly write them into a new SCP. But even that hasn't happened (at least not in a way that's gotten past a coldpost).
 
" I feel like our best bet is keys between the main article/log "canon" and various tale canons. "

This is what i agree with, its not disagreeing with me, this is what i was eventually going to do with the verse anyways
 
Anything that cross scales SCPs based off of one-handed "dimensions" mentions in a random tale would fall under Composite, which belongs to a blog and not an article.
 
WeeklyBattles said:
@Dargoo Under your proposal basically every single God tier would be changed to 'Unknown' other than a select few
Sorry but Ever's proposal is a lot better and doesnt completely needlessly neuter the entire verse
Click to expand...
And is that bad?

Why is it needless? It won't neuter anything that actually follows a canon, or scips that have profiles that explain their abilities.

"Composite profiles should generally only be given to extremely prominent well-known characters with multiple incarnations, and these should only go by their own highest statistics."

You're talking about making half of a verse composite, even for very obscure characters.
 
That seems fine, but we'd need to sort out what happens when verses cross over with each other. Or when canons refer to things only referred to in other canons (bird hub referring to the tree of life, I don't believe the tree of life is referred to in the mainlist?)
 
@Lephyr Ofc, but I think it's a good example of how the verse has changed over the years. We went from badass scientists killing anomalies like it's nothing, to this happening to them.
 
All of the profiles in that picture rely on a massive combination of scaling from comepletly different stories by different authors, based around one scip.

Maybe the Hanged King/Ambassador, but the rest would be composite if we kept them as it is.
 
@Dargoo So 18 out of 140 profiles?
 
@Dargoo

Actually, no. Yalda and Mek have there own consistent feats, and Bumaro and Ion are consistent with it, along with Karcist and Church of the Broken God, being one of the main crossover hubs.
 
Consistency does't mean much when it's from a collection of different authors.

That's like saying if five different Harry Potter fan-fictions line up with the book's lore, you can upgrade characters in the book.
 
Quite a few of those are Tier 1 from their own authors.

Unless you think the structure of the verse (dimensionality, etc) also needs to be defined by every author in order to be canon.

I'd again ask, who owns the concept of "The Foundation" in the scpverse and gets to have only their articles to be canon to it? Same with the GOC, the task forces, and even the dimensionality of the universe itself.
 
We base it on authors and canons, just like you said. If you're getting Tier 1 via a series of stories by the same author, that's fine.

But you shouldn't associate it with works from a different author unless there is a clearly stated/coordinated collaboration.
 
Dargoo Faust said:
Consistency does't mean much when it's from a collection of different authors.
That's like saying if five different Harry Potter fan-fictions line up with the book's lore, you can upgrade characters in the book.
Click to expand...
>consistency doesn't mean much

no, it does, immensely, especially when made by different authors, since they all had some sense of what they were doing and how to not ruin it

fan-fiction is different from collaberative fiction, since collab fiction has a quality standards to be accepted
 
You're still basing a verse's power on good faith and wood glue.

The site has tons of contradictory stories and tales. The front page even says: there is no cano. It encourages authors to do whatever the heck they want, and many times they get away with it if the writing is good.
 
Dargoo Faust said:
You're still basing a verse's power on good faith and wood glue.
The site has tons of contradictory stories and tales. The front page even says: there is no cano. It encourages authors to do whatever the heck they want, and many times they get away with it if the writing is good.
Click to expand...
just because there isn't a canon, that doesn't mean that we can composite everything to hell, since only like 2 SCPs have direct dimensional statements, and basically everything else being "transcendent of the previous guy to an unknown degree"

also, contradicting stories is covered by the canon thing, which is why able isn't always 1-B, that was a different canon/timeline
 
Most of those wacky things can be dismissed as being alternate universes to the one of the main narrative, and hence disregarded (like those "What if the foundation was steampunk?" canon hubs and their ilk EDIT: And the alternate versions of SCPs such as Able, 173, and 682 which was brought up by Hi3).

And don't we a lot of the times base a verse's power on good faith until it goes against that? Trust author statements until they're shown to be wildly inconsistent. Assume scaling works until it's shown to be wildly inconsistent. Isn't this why different verses have different scaling rules, due to the amount of trust we can put in the authors to have consistent scaling?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Peppersalt43
SCP-098 Profile Revision
Replies
8
Views
1K
Kirinator07
Kirinator07
Comiphorous
SCP-682 adapted to VSBattles and is missing a weakness (NEEDS STAFF)
2
Replies
40
Views
7K
Kirinator07
Kirinator07
JustANormalPerson01
It seems our lizard finally made contact with some narrative hazards
Replies
22
Views
5K
Kirinator07
Kirinator07
Comiphorous
SCP ROBLOX EDITION (PRESSURE) minor crt
Replies
2
Views
470
Comiphorous
Comiphorous
AmogusSusfunni
SCP-2317 downgrade
Replies
4
Views
2K
AmogusSusfunni
AmogusSusfunni
Back
Top