• 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.
Kep seems to think that Swann only supercedes its own narritive and nothing else when everythig else says otherwise
 
If we assume that SCPs are only canon to things written by their own authors, then he'd be right. Swann could only supersede things written by its eponymous author, and is only transcendent over all narratives in those tales and articles.

So by Kep's perspective, in articles describing the number of dimensions, Swann doesn't exist. In any other articles mentioning narratives, Swann doesn't exist. In the various SCPs that make direct reference to Swann's proposal, that reference is all that exists, and that reference doesn't have the powers of the original Swann's proposal, and even if it did have those powers, it wouldn't scale.
 
Agnaa said:
If we assume that SCPs are only canon to things written by their own authors, then he'd be right. Swann could only supersede things written by its eponymous author, and is only transcendent over all narratives in those tales and articles.
So by Kep's perspective, in articles describing the number of dimensions, Swann doesn't exist. In any other articles mentioning narratives, Swann doesn't exist. In the various SCPs that make direct reference to Swann's proposal, that reference is all that exists, and that reference doesn't have the powers of the original Swann's proposal, and even if it did have those powers, it wouldn't scale.
Click to expand...
>TLDR: if an SCP has higher dimensions, swann doesn't exist

that makes all of the sense
 
Welp, I don't know what else to do. It really seems that there is no salvaging this. Might as well just move SCP to jokes battles. ovo

But seriously, those rules disregard the entire purpose of the canon hubs. Heck, Dargoo goes around with the "there is no canon" thing, when one of the quotes used in the blog states how there is definitively a canon and how it's collaborative.

I won't comment anymore on this, tho. Was awesome learning more about SCP thanks to you guys. Ah, and sorry Weekly to always pester you for tales xP

Was a nice run ovo
 
"There is no canon" has been a running joke in the foundation for years, from back when it was first created when anyone could write anything and it would be accepted. Things have changed since then. The site, the articles, and tales are regulated. But apparently thats not enough to stop some people from thinnking otherwise.
 
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
Welp, I don't know what else to do. It really seems that there is no salvaging this. Might as well just move SCP to jokes battles. ovo

But seriously, those rules disregard the entire purpose of the canon hubs. Heck, Dargoo goes around with the "there is no canon" thing, when one of the quotes used in the blog states how there is definitively a canon and how it's collaborative.

I won't comment anymore on this, tho. Was awesome learning more about SCP thanks to you guys. Ah, and sorry Weekly to always pester you for tales xP

Was a nice run ovo
Click to expand...
They don't disregard the purpose of canon hubs. Weekly and HI3 were just wrong. The rules explicitly allow canon hubs as the exception to the "only the writer is canon" rule.

I think our best shot is moving the old profiles over to blog posts, and if people care about the blogs more than the actual profiles maybe we could get this decision looked at again.
 
Agnaa said:
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
Welp, I don't know what else to do. It really seems that there is no salvaging this. Might as well just move SCP to jokes battles. ovo

But seriously, those rules disregard the entire purpose of the canon hubs. Heck, Dargoo goes around with the "there is no canon" thing, when one of the quotes used in the blog states how there is definitively a canon and how it's collaborative.

I won't comment anymore on this, tho. Was awesome learning more about SCP thanks to you guys. Ah, and sorry Weekly to always pester you for tales xP

Was a nice run ovo
Click to expand...
They don't disregard the purpose of canon hubs. Weekly and HI3 were just wrong. The rules explicitly allow canon hubs as the exception to the "only the writer is canon" rule.
I think our best shot is moving the old profiles over to blog posts, and if people care about the blogs more than the actual profiles maybe we could get this decision looked at again.
Click to expand...
go ahead and post a list of hubs where everything in it was writen by the same person, those would be valid under these rules
 
4) 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.
They don't need to be written by the same person. This quote from Dargoo's proposal page itself uses the Antimemetics hub and 3125 as an example. Not everything in that hub was written by the same author, it is a clear exception to the "only the writer is canon" rule.
 
@Agnaa

I literally asked you about that as that was what I was saying from the start. Guess must've misinterpreted your answer.

Then there is no problem, really. At least, not for the god tiers.
 
That means that the God tiers can remain Agnaa. The Scarlet King and all the Elder Gods have their own stores like Dust and Blood anyway.
 
Agnaa said:
4) 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.
They don't need to be written by the same person. This quote from Dargoo's proposal page itself uses the Antimemetics hub and 3125 as an example. Not everything in that hub was written by the same author, it is a clear exception to the "only the writer is canon" rule.
Click to expand...
if hubs, which are mostly collaborative, are valid, then why are, say, testing logs, which are also mostly collaborative, invalid?

both have quality standards, although they're probably higher for hubs but thats beside the point.
 
There is still a problem for the god tiers, because the god tiers are almost never in a canon hub written by the author, so they'd still only scale to author statements. And even in the cases where they are in one or two canon hubs, there's still a boatload of feats and scaling missing, so it'd still be rough to find many that are Tier 1.
 
@HI3 or bust Because those hubs are tight-knit explicit collaborations where the creators of the hub have guidelines of what to include, and outlines of what the plot's going to be, whereas collaborative testing logs are only given templates. The entries in them aren't reviewed by the creator of the SCP.

If that answer's unsatisfying, it's the best I can do since I don't agree with these rules. Maybe Dargoo will have a better answer.
 
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
But they would be at least tier 2 from Mek and Yalda alone, let's not even mention Alaggada.
Click to expand...
mek and yal have like no feats other than being evenly matched, and alaggada is meaningless without higher spatial dimensions, which we won't have with these rules
 
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
But they would be at least tier 2 from Mek and Yalda alone, let's not even mention Alaggada.
Click to expand...
I doubt most would actually scale to Mek and Yalda. Even if they say they do, those tales in all likelihood weren't written by the original creators of Mek/Yalda.

Also, Alaggada would basically be a worthless nothing. Without canon feats/statements of higher dimensionality, transcending Alaggada is at best Tier 2 and at worst possibly lower.
 
Good lord, I left for a bit then came back to this.

I'm not even going to try and debate with people who aren't going to act maturely and take me seriously, so I'll just make a few points.

The quote establishes that there are multiple canons; which is what my rules are also establishing. Read it more carefully and stop taking it at face value. The quote establishes that there can be canons/series, which I included, and author viewpoints, which I included.

Swann scales to anything else written be Swann, and stop pretending this makes everything featless. I was able to get feats for 682, 173, and 076 easily. Just because you have to look with a different lense doesn't mean you're blind.

SCP doesn't have an umbrella. The site make sure that is very clear. You can't even use stories or SCPs to support that fact, as they would be from an author who has a completely different view on the verse. Marvel doesn't say "there is no canon" or "there is some canons but make what you will", it clearly explains the cosmology and multiverse part from the getgo.

You guys seriously need to calm down. As Kalitas and Kep put it, this is only the end of the verse if YOU choose it to be. We're just doing things differently, more consistently. This is for better quality and certainty to exist in the wiki.
 
Banning 75% of all content on the entire SCP site from being used in profiles for no reason whatsoever is not "better quality"
 
I can understand testing logs not being used as there is an actual problem with them. Take 682 for example, the concept of 682 is that it's unkillable and the log is an extermination log of all things.

Any Tom, Dick, and Harry can edit the log and cross test whatever SCP they wish to use and come up with any outcome so long as they don't kill it. If this goes on for long enough, 682 is going to be almost impossible to kill not just by SCP Site standards, but by all standards, including our own. That's NLF to the max.

But the Elder Gods are a whole different issue.
 
@Weekly The problem with that is it's Acidverse saying Djoric's stories are canon to Acidverse. Not Djoric saying Acidverse is canon to their stories.

Any characters from Acidverse might scale to Djoric's stories (no clue if we came to a conclusion on whether author's statements on canonicity should count), but not the other way around.
 
Dargoo Faust said:
Good lord, I left for a bit then came back to this.
I'm not even going to try and debate with people who aren't going to act maturely and take me seriously, so I'll just make a few points.

The quote establishes that there are multiple canons; which is what my rules are also establishing. Read it more carefully and stop taking it at face value. The quote establishes that there can be canons/series, which I included, and author viewpoints, which I included.

Swann scales to anything else written be Swann, and stop pretending this makes everything featless. I was able to get feats for 682, 173, and 076 easily. Just because you have to look with a different lense doesn't mean you're blind.

SCP doesn't have an umbrella. The site make sure that is very clear. You can't even use stories or SCPs to support that fact, as they would be from an author who has a completely different view on the verse. Marvel doesn't say "there is no canon" or "there is some canons but make what you will", it clearly explains the cosmology and multiverse part from the getgo.

You guys seriously need to calm down. As Kalitas and Kep put it, this is only the end of the verse if YOU choose it to be. We're just doing things differently, more consistently. This is for better quality and certainty to exist in the wiki.
Click to expand...
Jontron
having most of the verse kicked out of their already well-established tier is not improving shit Dargoo
 
WeeklyBattles said:
Banning 75% of all content on the entire SCP site from being used in profiles for no reason whatsoever is not "better quality"
Click to expand...
That's completely and utterly false.

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User:Dargoo_Faust/Sandbox#Comprehensive_List_of_SCP_Changes_Needed

Compare the length of the lists. It's more like "75% of the SCP site on this wiki is staying absolutely the same".

Nothing is stopping you from using tales and canons for profiles, you just can't mash it into a composite like we used to.
 
Hl3 you aren't really supposed to quote stuff that long.
 
Hl3 or bust said:
>profiles that may need to be deleted

>literally all the god-tiers that are SCPs

K
Click to expand...
At least we get to keep the Hanged King and Ambassador.

Except they'd only be maybe universal.

Oh...
 
Yeah, and we should shame every major revision because changing Tiers is not improving content.

Some might need to be deleted, some not. I didn't specify for anything. They just need revision.

But I feel some here aren't taking me seriously, and are just cracking jokes at me at this rate, so I feel like debating is worthless right now. HI3, please give me some proper arguments against my rules instead of whining about them.
 
Unrelated to the current discussion, but Weekly, where does SCP-017's true form lie on the hierarchy of god tiers? It's said to be above the low elder gods, so would that be on the same level as the Leviathans and Adam?
 
Side-Note @Dargoo

Did you have to dig through every SCP Profile (Foundation Site Profile, not VSB Profile) to get that list?
 
Dargoo Faust said:
Yeah, and we should shame every major revision because changing Tiers is not improving content.
Some might need to be deleted, some not. I didn't specify for anything. They just need revision.

But I feel some here aren't taking me seriously, and are just cracking jokes at me at this rate, so I feel like debating is worthless right now. HI3, please give me some proper arguments against my rules instead of whining about them.
Click to expand...
i'm genuinely trying to Dargoo, but basically everything about this verse relies on the whole "collaborative fiction" thing in order to be expanded upon, and you're basically going "lets just ignore that because it raises issues about canon" when the whole canon issue isn't even an issue to begin with
 
Unless we want to disregard the wiki's rules for kicks and giggles, no, a complete lack of cohesive canon shouldn't just be shoved in the back seat of our heads and forgotton about.

Everything on the verse is made so that the authors can write stories in and about this world, with the only restriction being how well the audience receives it. That goes against the very purpose of the wiki, which is getting solid stats and limitations to fictional characters.

Tales that aren't by the original author or made with the author in collaboration are practically fan fiction that may or may not get removed if it's terrible enough. Just look at some of the old entries on the 682 termination log.
 
@Dargoo That was actually agreed upon some time back, that SCP would be made an exception due to its fluid canon
 
Honestly I feel like this his lashback is coming from this whole culture that surrounded this verse regarding how much we could wank characters using tales written by people who don't even know what the other is doing, only limited by audience reception.
 
WeeklyBattles said:
@Dargoo That was actually agreed upon some time back, that SCP would be made an exception due to its fluid canon
Click to expand...
Clearly that isn't the case anymore, probably after those people saw how wanked the verse became after that.
 
@Phoenix I'll try to find the thread but it was back when the original rules were established, that due to the fuild canon things would be allowed but not stuff that is blatantly non-canon or jokes
 
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