Regarding the SCP Canon

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Seriously, the amount of consistent things dealing with Scarlet King, the Brothers, Yaldabaoth and Mekhane is so high, that even within the stories that are meant to be jokes they remain consistent.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

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).
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?

yes, which is the main reason people had trouble thinking of what to do with djkaktus proposal II, since WoG was shown to be wildly out of sync with the story itself

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I only stated that but with very high discretion. For example, Clef and Kondraki had a linear story, but it was mapped out by different authors. Even then I wouldn't using scaling for them.

Unless every seperate story you're talking about has come to the conclusion of Tier 1 SCP, no. You're still scaling the stories off of each other, and even off of a scip that doesn't even confirm/explain the types of dimensions, instead using statements from completely different stories to determining tiering.

"Most of those wacky things can be dismissed as being alternate universes to the one of the main narratives"

Yet you're still basing how we make the profiles on general consensus. You can't even gauge that past voting scales, in which case Clef is Multiversal due to that one joke page about his death, among other really bizarre statements.

If we determined profiles by narratives, we actually have a shred of authenticity because we know the profiles are made from a clear, narrative vision, and not a mass of contradictory, senseless, statements from different authors. I go back to how 106 was defended on a thread using an origin story that's directly contradicted by something that's approaching it in rating, among other articles. We need consistency.

I feel like there is already enough admin/mod approval of the fact that there is something very wrong with how we treat the Foundation. Matthew, Kep, Everlasting, and even Azzy have all stated that we need changes.

"As I said before, guys like 682 are currently kinda clusterfucks based on pretty much anything that's ever featured it and isn't an obvious joke (as in, he doesn't have "Can be killed by drunk driving" under his weaknesses), which needs changing." - Azzy

"I agree with both Dargo and Ever's propositions." - Kep

"Only reasons why our pages are composite is because people want to exaggerate the SCP powers and end up creating characters who do not exist in any of the separate SCP canon.

My solution: use keys. Do not cross-scale powers, feats, or AP just so you can make the lizard unreasonably OP by ignoring how the verse works." - Matt

"I wholeheartedly agree with this. Although, since there is the new implication of "muh composite hierarchy makes canon", would it be better to have different pages to the characters that pertain to certain tales? Such as the SCP-682 who is the child of the Scarlet King, The SCP-682 who is the steed of the horseman of death, etc" - Ultima

 

[Agnaa]

"and not a mass of contradictory, senseless, statements from different authors"

They aren't contradictory. We explicitly remove contradictions and outliers. e.g. 173 not scaling to 682.

682 is kinda clusterfucky but I've been trying to compile a good concrete list of his feats/adaptations. However, even though it's "clusterfucky", it's still consistent, and I've seen much clusterfuckier pages coming from other verses.

I think right now treating statements from different authors as canon to each other has served well in not causing crazy inconsistencies. Stuff like 106's backstory should be nailed down, but the verse doesn't need to be overhauled for that.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

"I think right now treating statements from different authors as canon to each other has served well in not causing crazy inconsistencies"

I'm arguing this because we're starting to hit a point in scaling where we'll see dozens upon dozens of 1-B profiles due to scaling in different stories. The GOC having 1-B weapons is one example I can think of that made me very displeased with the current way we do the foundation.

"They aren't contradictory. We explicitly remove contradictions and outliers. e.g. 173 not scaling to 682."

See above. If I'm not mistaken, you yourself supported the GOC having 1-B weapons.


"682 is kinda clusterfucky but I've been trying to compile a good concrete list of his feats/adaptations. "

A good way to fix that is to stop using a collaborative log made by completely different users with tons of examples of wanking and flaws, alongside some things that don't even make logical sense. For example, the Foundation not willing to drop 682 off of a cliff, but fine with just feeding it kids for like no reason.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

The foundation wasnt fine with feeding 682 kids, they literally killed the guy who tried to do so by feeding him to 682 as a punishment

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

The foundation wasnt fine with feeding 682 kids, they literally killed the guy who tried to do so by feeding him to 682 as a punishment

If the Foundation was observant enough to disallow a cliff drop by higher command on the first time it was submitted, it makes absolutely no sense that just feeding it a kid took three times before they realised what was happening.

That was an example, anyways, but it stands that you have an open source page that I could edit and potentially add abilities to if my writing was "good" by the site's standards.

 

[Agnaa]

The Foundation wasn't fine with feeding it kids, that was a rogue researcher who decided to feed it kids and then got fed to 682 as punishment. EDIT: Maybe they didn't notice because the researcher didn't seek approval, while the person suggesting tossing 682 off a cliff did?

The GOC is consistently extremely haxxed with extremely powerful technology. Being able over months of dedicated development of creating a cluster of hostile ideas strong enough to take down a 1-B isn't that ludicrous.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

The GOC is consistently extremely haxxed with extremely powerful technology. Being able over months of dedicated development of creating a cluster of hostile ideas strong enough to take down a 1-B isn't that ludicrous.

1-Bs that get their tier from scaling off of a SCP that doesn't even mention the types of dimensions it is using, instead from stories from different authors

This is going in circles. I'm just going to leave it to the mods to read through and see if what we're doing is currently acceptable, which from what I'm aware is currently at 4/5 - 1 (Azzy, Matt, Kep, Ultima, Possibly Ever - Weekly) with many being neutral.

 

[Agnaa]

@Dargoo Under your guidelines, you could also create your own canon hub where 682 is High 1-A if your writing was good enough, and you'd be fine with that going under 682's profile.

EDIT: You're saying it's inconsistent, but it's not inconsistent, it's just written by different authors. We don't just accept everything as it comes, and neither does the wiki. They do their own curation for writing ability and "not extreme wank or out of character", and we do our own curation for consistency and outliers.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

@Dargoo Under your guidelines, you could also create your own canon hub where 682 is High 1-A if your writing was good enough, and you'd be fine with that going under 682's profile.

Uh, no? I wrote scips that are written for a canon, not into a canon. For example SCP-3125 was written by qntm as part of the Antimemtics series. SCP-055 was inserted into the antimemetics series. The former should scale off of the narrative, the later shouldn't.

 

[Agnaa]

So does that mean we'd have no key or profile for the Koitern, the Leviathan of the Fourth Bride, and any others like that?

(Also I added a little bit to my last post as an edit to keep the post count low)

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Agnaa If we go by Ever's guideline like everyone else agreed with, yes, they'd have keys

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

(snip)

i won't go over all the problems i have with this, like you mentioning things that aren't even used or possibly taking quots out of context (they were almost definitiely in relation to something else), but i have many, many issues with one part

>there is something very wrong with how we treat the Foundation.

just because important people agree on it doesn't make it correct, although it increases the chances of it being correct slightly

if we treated SCPs and tales on a case by case basis with no cross-scaling, we would have 3 concrete characters, that 11-D thing wondertainment made, those 6 digit dimensional guys and swann, everyone else would be unknown due to be stated to be transcendant of someone else, but with no usable proof for it

also, the consistency problem is covered by the "no canon" thing, since it can be easily explained as an alternate universe/interpretation, and just because a character has different origin stories, that doesn't automatically mean that they are completely different than their usual counterparts

so, please, stop trying to drag down the entire verse by raising issues about canon when the solution is LITERALLY right in front of you

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

You could make a seperate profile for the Koitern, but no, it shouldn't be associated with 173 in my opinion.

I'm willing to be flexible and allow for different keys for very popular characters, but for all intents and purposes, if they aren't:

A) A writing collaboration that's broadcasted as a hub.

B) Written by the same author

They shouldn't be considered the same character. For example, we have "SCP-001 Proposal (Twisted-Gear/Kaktus" and "Mekhane", even though both were stated to be one in the same.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

The Koitern is a past incarnation of 173, why wouldnt it be associated?

Twistedgears/Kaktus and Mekhane are two very, very different entities

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

You could make a seperate profile for the Koitern, but no, it shouldn't be associated with 173 in my opinion.
I'm willing to be flexible and allow for different keys for very popular characters, but for all intents and purposes, if they aren't:

A) A writing collaboration that's broadcasted as a hub.

B) Written by the same author

They shouldn't be considered the same character. For example, we have "SCP-001 Proposal (Twisted-Gear/Kaktus" and "Mekhane", even though both were stated to be one in the same.

001 is, at BEST, a horrid corruption of mekhane, and that is almost definitely not true

 

[Kepekley23]

Said keys would not be High 1-B.

 

[Wokistan]

HL3, you put forward the idea that everything can be used because of it possibly being different viewpoints, yet you fail to register that that idea of different viewpoints is a self defeating argument. Each viewpoint being different means that the abilities and feats of the others are precluded from inclusion. So unless every scp profile is now composite, that doesn't work.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

if we treated SCPs and tales on a case by case basis with no cross-scaling, we would have 3 concrete characters, that 11-D thing wondertainment made, those 6 digit dimensional guys and swann, everyone else would be unknown due to be stated to be transcendant of someone else, but with no usable proof for it

also, the consistency problem is covered by the "no canon" thing, since it can be easily explained as an alternate universe/interpretation, and just because a character has different origin stories, that doesn't automatically mean that they are completely different than their usual counterparts

That entire post is why I'm making these arguments. Just because it "can" be explained as alternate universes, doesn't mean it is. The Foundation verse is only being upheald as it is by popularity and people who want to continue the status quo, not actual logic or consistency. If what we're doing with SCP is fine, I should go ahead and make a "Creepypasta" verse page and say "uh, well, there isn't a canon on the website, so it's just multiverse. Now, let's start scaling popular Slenderman stories".

so, please, stop trying to drag down the entire verse by raising issues about canon when the solution is LITERALLY right in front of you

Yes, the solution is right in front of me. I posted it above. Apparently many people agree with it.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

HL3, you put forward the idea that everything can be used because of it possibly being different viewpoints, yet you fail to register that that idea of different viewpoints is a self defeating argument. Each viewpoint being different means that the abilities and feats of the others are precluded from inclusion. So unless every scp profile is now composite, that doesn't work.

good argument, but weren't SCPs like 682s base form already composites?

also, a different viewpoint/interpretation doesn't mean that something different actually happened, just that someone else saw it and thought it was different

 

[Agnaa]

@Wokistan There are many confirmations that there are alternate universes within the SCP universe. There are also canon hubs that utilize this to tell tales from the SCP foundation arising in different circumstances, or different times. We can tell that these are alternate universes and don't scale to the main universe where we perceive most of this from.

 

[Agnaa]

Also, there's still the issues of, what do we do to things that are constantly used as literary devices but still had one person coming up with the idea? (e.g. the GOC, the Foundation as a whole, task forces used over dozens of SCPs).

On top of that, there's the issue of canon hubs which have tales linking them together (broken masquerade is linked to team fuhgeddaboutit hub through paperpushing, it shouldn't be hard to find others). Are we just going to have a web of separate canons which are linked to each other and therefore should scale?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Alright, I think what's needed to have been said has been said. I feel like it's a good time to see where the opinions of the mods and admins lie in regards to actually getting changes through.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

On top of that, there's the issue of canon hubs which have tales linking them together (broken masquerade is linked to team fuhgeddaboutit hub through paperpushing, it shouldn't be hard to find others). Are we just going to have a web of separate canons which are linked to each other and therefore should scale?

Most links of pages shouldn't be taken seriously, as they are actually added by a team of crosslinkers, and not the actual author, to give people reference to what is being discussed in the story. Doesn't mean there was any collaboration or that it was produced by the same authors, likely just a reference.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm not talking about links. I'm talking about paperpushing being a tale on the broken masquerade's hub page as well as the fuhgeddaboutit's hub page.

Also, does that mean that crosslinks done by the authors rather than the team of crosslinkers should be taken seriously, as they establish a connection between different canon hubs?

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

if we treated SCPs and tales on a case by case basis with no cross-scaling, we would have 3 concrete characters, that 11-D thing wondertainment made, those 6 digit dimensional guys and swann, everyone else would be unknown due to be stated to be transcendant of someone else, but with no usable proof for it

also, the consistency problem is covered by the "no canon" thing, since it can be easily explained as an alternate universe/interpretation, and just because a character has different origin stories, that doesn't automatically mean that they are completely different than their usual counterparts

That entire post is why I'm making these arguments. Just because it "can" be explained as alternate universes, doesn't mean it is. The Foundation verse is only being upheald as it is by popularity and people who want to continue the status quo, not actual logic or consistency. If what we're doing with SCP is fine, I should go ahead and make a "Creepypasta" verse page and say "uh, well, there isn't a canon on the website, so it's just multiverse. Now, let's start scaling popular Slenderman stories".

so, please, stop trying to drag down the entire verse by raising issues about canon when the solution is LITERALLY right in front of you

Yes, the solution is right in front of me. I posted it above. Apparently many people agree with it.

comparing SCP to creepypasta doesn't work since the vast majority of creepypastas are based on other characters from other verses, while SCP stuff is supposed to be, for the most part, original in all forms

you're right in saying that just because it can be alt universes doesn't automatically mean it is, but most of the time it is, due to the many obviously different timelines present in the verse

also, can you tell me which of your posts was "your solution"? i genuinely can't find it for some reason

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

comparing SCP to creepypasta doesn't work since the vast majority of creepypastas are based on other characters from other verses, while SCP stuff is supposed to be, for the most part, original in all forms

I was going to make a joke about the Garfield and Nick Cage SCPs, alongside the one that is literally a Robbie Rotten meme, but I won't. We even scale an SCP page to The Gatherers, lol.

you're right in saying that just because it can be alt universes doesn't automatically mean it is, but most of the time it is, due to the many obviously different timelines present in the verse

Uh, not really. We don't assume multiverses on the wiki unless there is feats or statements, which wouldn't count for the foundation as a whole as there are many contradictory statements from different authors that should be considered desperately.

also, can you tell me which of your posts was "your solution"? i genuinely can't find it for some reason

1 ) The characters and/or skips come from an already established canon with a hub, written with the full intention of having a linear narrative. (Antimemetics, Apotheosis, dado, Most of the Doomsday and Canon hubs). Basically broadcasted collaborative works.

2 ) The characters primarily exist in stories written by the same author (Clef, Kondraki, etc.).

3 ) Scips should be looked at in complete isolation with some heed given to other stories written by the same author with collaborative test logs being disregarded due to how inconsistent it makes the character and how self-contradictory they can be at times. (For example, 106 has many completely different origin stories but one was treated as "more correct" in a VS thread I debated in because it was older and generally accepted. That shouldn't be allowed)

4) As posted above, profiles can have different keys for different canons as necessary.

(EDIT): Gotta go for now, hopefully this thread doesn't go to down the sh*tter while I'm gone.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm not talking about links. I'm talking about paperpushing being a tale on the broken masquerade's hub page as well as the fuhgeddaboutit's hub page.

Also, does that mean that crosslinks done by the authors rather than the team of crosslinkers should be taken seriously, as they establish a connection between different canon hubs?

bump

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I'm not talking about links. I'm talking about paperpushing being a tale on the broken masquerade's hub page as well as the fuhgeddaboutit's hub page.
Also, does that mean that crosslinks done by the authors rather than the team of crosslinkers should be taken seriously, as they establish a connection between different canon hubs?

Stuff from paperpushing should be considered for both canons then, as they were written for both, but there shouldn't be any overlap beyond that.

Neither should be taken seriously unless the article was made specifically for a collaboration that is in a Hub. Otherwise we'd have the same mess that we do now.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Alright, I think what's needed to have been said has been said. I feel like it's a good time to see where the opinions of the mods and admins lie in regards to actually getting changes through.

Actually have to go now.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

(snip)
i'll admit most of my arguments were shit (even though i only knew about the robbie rotten SCP at the time, thats around 3 kinda-unoriginal SCPs, while around 90% of all creepypastas are based/use characters from other verses, so it's still not a fair comparision)

1) "scale characters to those from the same canon" okay, we already do that i'm pretty certain but okay

2) that defeats the entire purpose of collab fiction, which i'm pretty sure marvel isn't

3) this brings up the problem i mentioned before, that being that this would result in only 3 concrete profiles. also, the collab test logs being ignored doesn't make sense since it obviously takes place within that SCPs canon, and so do, by extension, any other linked to SCPs. using a more accepted calc/tale/whatever (age has jack shit to do with anything) is how both SCP and this wiki works

4) i'm pretty sure at least a few people where working on this, but i'm not sure where it went

 

[Agnaa]

But doesn't that prove that they're part of the same universe and are canon to each other?

Also, should an SCP-A that scales to SCP-B from the same canon also scale to SCP-C which is written by the same author as and scales to SCP-B?

We'd also still run into problems when we run into pages that scale to task forces which are used across dozens of other SCPs, or pages for organizations as a whole which have almost nothing about them written by just one creator, such as the GOC and AWCY.

When you try to write specific rules about which things should be considered canon and non-canon you run up into a ton of edge-cases where those rules break. imo it's better to consider everything canon unless it's inconsistent or an outlier.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Just as an example, im working on a blog for what 682's profile would look like if this were to go through. Literally all of 682's stats would be unknown, and its only powers would be:

Superhuman Physical Characteristics, Immortality (Types 1 and 3), Regenerationn (Low-Godly), Size Manipulation, Genius Intelligence, Reactive Evolution, Adaptation, Berserk Mode (Can enter a "Rage State" where it blindly attacks the closest living target), Non-Corporeal (Described as coming from somewhere where time, space and states of matter operate very differently than they do normally, and that 682 as we know it isn't a corporeal being), Resistance to Acid (Adapted to resist being constantly submerged in Hyrdochloric Acid) and Petrification (Resisted SCP-409's ability to completely crystallize any material into quartz)

Everything else is from its experiment log, tales, and other articles

 

[Agnaa]

Aren't size manipulation, low-godly, genius intelligence, and resistance to acid all from the experiment log or other tales/articles?

 

[WeeklyBattles]

http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-682

Size Manipulation - SCP-682's physical body grows and changes very quickly, growing or decreasing in size as it consumes or sheds material.

Low-godly - "SCP-682 is not, in any way, a biological entity as we understand biology. It is a…thing, which has somehow formed a "shell" or "growth" that we have numbered SCP-682. What it is, I have no idea, but I doubt it normally has a form we would call "corporeal". Anything dealing with normal biological processes does not count with 682. Hurting it is like shaving the hair off a human: annoying, but not deadly." - Dr. Gears

Genius Intelligence - It appears to be extremely intelligent, and was observed to engage in complex communication with SCP-079 during their limited time of exposure.

Resistance to Acid Manipulation - Digestion seems to be aided by a set of filtering gills inside of SCP-682's nostrils, which are able to remove usable matter from any liquid solution, enabling it to constantly regenerate from the acid it is contained in.

 

[Agnaa]

I guess he's just given more feats for those in experiment logs.

Wouldn't profiles such as 173 be basically featless as well?

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Most of the profiles in general would be featless

Hence why an Extended Canon key would be the best option here

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I have major issues with considering stuff from different profiles, but remember, it's still okay to use feats from different works as long as it is from the same author, at least to some degree.

But, like we sort of did for Composite Human, I would be fine with having a "legacy" 682 key, stopped where it is, that can't be updated with additions to the termination log. It would be the sole exception, and we'd be able to keep matches. Compromise is always nice. No 1-B key, but the current base key, I mean, with only feats from the termination log before we stop updating it.

Since we're already discussing a revised 682 profile, I'm assuming we're all on board for change?

 

[WeeklyBattles]

I'm making a blog for what 682's profile would look like, gimme a few minutes