• 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.

SCP Discussion Thread 5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cain, please stop with the really random responses that don't contribute. Its annoying me way more than it should, but its pretty annoying regardless. I also don't really see any spelling errors besides yours, so no?
 
Of course, but it's a risk factor for it certainly. And if we're making a profile for a character that overall is notable, but only has a few feats in each canon...

Wait a second, do the new rules only allow canons with which the creator of the character is involved? If that's true than the god tiers/GOIs/task forces just have basically zero feats.
 
Wokistan said:
If the profiles can't work out well when not just considering literally anything canon, maybe the scp isn't worthy of a profile. Most of the notable ones seem to be getting extended canon keys anyways.
Click to expand...
Probably not, the extended canon keys have the same exact problem as the old profiles, and would make the pages a huge mess.

"I'd support that because it's a collaborative writing site. Emphasis on collaborative. They're working together to create it, not separately as individuals. They're all part of the same SCP listing. They have quality control, a shared vision, and people who want to deviate from that vision are clearly not canon or an AU."

" It's up to you, as the reader, to decide what you believe and what you embrace as the heart of the universe."

Whe the website outright says that there is no canon, and that authors can do whatever the hell they want, everything that you just said gets thrown out of the window. If there was such a push for consistency in the site there wouldn't be any 001 proposals. There's multiple backstories for 682 and 106. Don't even get me started on 173. There's no consistency, and that kind of stuff doesn't belong here.

Quality control in the form of upvotes and downvotes. That's not quality control, that's "how much do I like this".
 
Authors can't just do whatever the hell they want, they need to justify it. Justify it by having it be an alternate universe, or in the case of different formats for SCP profiles, have the format screw be for a good reason. You don't see the GOC acting out of character. You don't see random author avatars with reality warping powers (Clef tales like this were deleted/redacted/labeled as lolfoundation). You're saying that there's no canon, yet things can be tied up neatly into a canon, with fewer outliers and inconsistencies than a whole lot of other verses.

001 proposals are consistent. In-universe there are multiple 001 proposals given, and in-universe some of them are fake and some of them are real, and in-universe only the higher ups know which ones are real. Part of the "you decide what you believe and what you embrace as the heart of the universe" are bits of "headcanon" like this. You decide which things of vague truth you accept as truth and which you dismiss.

Some aspects of liking things include quality and consistency. Even before articles get submitted, they are almost always drafted and reviewed by multiple people.
 
No, they really don't need to justify it. The entire system works behind upvotes and downvotes.

"You don't see random author avatars with reality warping powers (Clef tales like this were deleted /redacted/labeled as lolfoundatio )"

I'm not even going to comment on that.

"Some aspects of liking things include quality and consistency. Even before articles get submitted, they are almost always drafted and reviewed by multiple people."

You're still basing the view of an entire verse on good wishes and wood glue. You get a Marvel comic book that takes place in 616 and is published officially, the author is at least working for the company as a whole, and it is part of an official storyline that is laid out. What you're proposing is that we should consider fanfictions of that as canon.

Also, I don't remember us being okay with a story that could have its canon rejected if the audience decided they didn't like it.

There is no multiversal explanation. That's something you're assuming because there's no other way to accept the fact that the Foundationverse breaks nearly every rule this site has as it was.
 
If it's unjustified, people tend to downvote.

"I'm not even going to comment on that."

My dude, you linked the lolfoundation hub. That is canonically an alternate universe where one of the 05s granted senior staff reality warping powers through an anomaly and it turned out horribly. It speaks leagues that the only stuff you could find was clef/kondraki stuff from 2008-09, half of which you linked is either retconned, or doesn't feature reality warping on the part of staff at all.

Everything we do on this site involves good faith on verses. We assume that steel has the same fragmentation energy in fiction as it does in real life, how the **** do we know that? How do we know that kinetic energy formulas are the same between two shows?

There is a multiversal explanation, I can link you an SCP which features AUs with different foundations, and I can link you the tale explaining how lolfoundation came to form in an AU and why it failed in the main one. Those are just off the top of my head, I could probably find more and others in this thread probably know more.
 
"Also, I don't remember us being okay with a story that could have its canon rejected if the audience decided they didn't like it."

So if WoG ever says something like "the reader decides what's canon" then we can't use that verse on the site at all?

I know this was already accepted, we got off on this tangent by you saying:

I really don't see how or why you'd support that.
 
The thing is it seems like "extended canon profiles for everyone that it's meaningful for" probably won't happen. There's still seemingly going to be extended canon for around half a dozen SCPs, but other characters like Brothers Death will probably just be featless now.
 
@Agnaa Dargoo is trying to get rid of extended canon in general, meaning basically everyne will be featless
 
In that case we'll just need to put the profiles with actual feats into blogposts.

EDIT: I get what he's doing, but it'll in all likelihood put most of the attention for SCP pages into blogposts which are less regulated and harder to find than actual profiles. Making it confusing for users out of the loop and potentially letting unjustified changes get in and stick.

It seems like an unfavorable outcome, but sometimes stuff like that happens when dealing with verses based on the internet which are serious and have actual feats; the nature of being on the internet and being more open makes it harder for them to get profiles on VSBW.
 
Am I the only that's understanding this wrong?:

"Canon/Series/Collaboration: Series of articles that are clearly brodcasted as a collaboration, with a hub specifying which tales and SCPs exist in that canon, are allowed to have scaling feats within themselves. Due note, however, that this only applies to tales and SCPs specifically written for a canon/series. For example, while SCP-3125 is consistent in all of the Antimemetics stories, SCP-055 was not originally written for the series, and therefore feats and abilities from the canon cannot be applied to it"
 
@Lephyr That basically means that SCPs only scale to:

A) Other things written by the same author.

B) Other things written in a canon hub contributed to by the same author, as long as that canon hub features that SCP.
 
Not even i have a chance of stopping it at this point

Three years of hard work down the drain

Feels great
 
Are there any instances of og authors approving of the "canonicity" of stories they didn't write about their scp? I personally wouldn't be too opposed to using those.
 
The guy who wrote Acidverse stated that Drjoric's stories are in line with his

Acidverse being the verse with the High 1-B statement
 
Because otherwise, if they 100% need to have stuff to do with the original author... Yeah, now I can see where's Weekly coming from. That's actually imposible.

Edit: Case-n-point, Herman's Circus canon. The original author left it unfinished and other people decided to finish it, and it's probably one of the canon with the most crossovers in SCP.
 
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
@Agnna

It doesn't say it 100% needs to be written by the same author, tho?
Click to expand...
The only things not written by the same author which are usable, are things in a canon hub which the same author contributes to.

If I write SCP-A and added it to Canon Hub "Ship In A Bottle", and it interacts with SCP-B written by someone else there, it scales to SCP-B. But if I never contributed to that hub and someone else wrote an interaction between SCP-A and SCP-B there, it wouldn't scale.
 
Oh no...

Okok, are tales written by the original author of the SCP going to be regarded as canon to that particular SCP?
 
@Sir Ovens Yes. Basically, anything written for a canon hub would have most of its feats intact. Anything not popular enough to be written about outside of its original author would have all of its feats intact (dimensionality of multiverse-busting might be downgraded). And everything else will have a bunch of feats removed.
 
Alright, so no cross scaling. Seems alright. But based on what I skimmed through, there should be extended canon and composites for profiles correct? So not all is lost. God tiers can still scale to the High 1-B feat right?
 
@Sir No, composite is being axed completely, meaning basically we'll be lucky if anything goes above tier 2
 
Sir Ovens said:
Alright, so no cross scaling. Seems alright. But based on what I skimmed through, there should be extended canon and composites for profiles correct? So not all is lost. God tiers can still scale to the High 1-B feat right?
Click to expand...
nope, unless everything being scaled was added to a hub by the person who wrote it
 
Also, canon hubs which share a common tale (such as broken masquerade hub and fuhgeddaboutit hub) will only have that common tale be canon to both, all other tales will not be canon between hubs.
 
WeeklyBattles said:
The guy who wrote Acidverse stated that Drjoric's stories are in line with his
Acidverse being the verse with the High 1-B statement
Click to expand...
So..Djoric/EU ver of Yald, Mek, SK, TBD, and THK are High 1-B?

If the two canons share their Dimensionality and all that since Alaggada is the meeting point of all higher and lower dimensions, which would be infinite.

And THK rules over Alaggada, and Yalda/Mek are considered to be around his level of power.

And we know SK and TBD are both stronger than Yalda/Mek/THK...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Vyfourthaccount
Containment fiction general discussion thread
Replies
8
Views
1K
Vyfourthaccount
Vyfourthaccount
Hsharpe
SCP-2747 VS SCP-682
Replies
2
Views
2K
JustANormalLemon
JustANormalLemon
Mr. Bambu
The Afterlife of SCP
Replies
23
Views
5K
Antvasima
Antvasima
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
Back
Top