• 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 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
Agnaa said:
@Azathoth What are the new changes with the writing mentality? I haven't actually been keeping up with much meta stuff about the SCPwiki.
Click to expand...
Obviously depends on the writer, but if you mean on the whole, there has been a much, much greater amount of change simply for the sake of it. I obviously don't mean change itself is an inherently bad thing, but there has been a very large number of cases that essentially consist of "get rid of/fundamentally alter this extremely long withstanding SCP because eh **** it/lol i dunno", which doesn't really help the overall coherency of the site.
 
This is what I was talking about when I proposed the changes to canon/scaling.

If there needs to be more discussion on the proposal for changes, I'm willing to pospone posting the rules. But clearly now there are a crazy amount of issues with stuff like retconning that makes Extended Canon really hard to to get a grip on.

If this continues on the site, we're going to have revision threads very often in regards to this.
 
Let's be fair, the Foundation isn't the only verse that has revisions every other week. Also the rules should remain. All this changes is the fact that some SCPs are getting rewritten. If their powers change as well, we adjust accordingly. We do this with every other verse that has retcons.
 
Sir Ovens said:
Let's be fair, the Foundation isn't the only verse that has revisions every other week.
Click to expand...
When the Beyonder was retconned, you could still go back and read Secret Wars II, were you so inclined.

He was not removed entirely from every other comic he was in, nor was it actively made more difficult to find out information about what he was like pre-Retcon.

This is the issue with just replacing skips entirely. The issue is not the retcons, but the way in which they are handled.
 
Azathoth the Abyssal Idiot said:
When the Beyonder was retconned, you could still go back and read Secret Wars II, were you so inclined.

He was not removed entirely from every other comic he was in, nor was it actively made more difficult to find out information about what he was like pre-Retcon.

This is the issue with just replacing skips entirely.
Click to expand...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This, entirely. I'm currently trying to work though the sloppy leftovers of 2722 to scavenge a profile, but you can tell there are references to stuff that don't exist on the site anymore.

A good example of this could be used with webcomics. Imagine if the entirety of Paranatural or UnOrdinary was just removed from the internet. How would we even handle that?
 
@Azathoth I guess so, but stuff like 049 had people going through it and critiquing why it was bad writing and needed to be rewritten. The stuff like "potential 343 rewrite" and "potential 682 rewrite" also have reasons behind them. Also are they really getting rid of longstanding SCPs? 2722 and 1548 got deleted by their author, one of them getting moved to RPC authority.

I don't think they're doing it because change is fun, but because they think their standards now are higher than in the past, and they want to raise the articles up while keeping the article's soul intact.

@Azathoth/Weekly One of the main reasons why 2722 and 1548 weren't archived, is because archiving is only with author authorizatio. We shouldn't be treating this the 2722/1548 situation as a common occurrence or something we should expect to handle a lot. It's pretty rare for an author to leave the wiki and delete their articles. some users even delete their accounts, but leave their pages up and encourage others to write using them.
 
Agnaa said:
I don't think they're doing it because change is fun, but because they think their standards now are higher than in the past, and they want to raise the articles up while keeping the article's soul intact.
Click to expand...
I disagree with their standards being higher. I fully agree that their standards are different than what they once were, but I do not think that necessarily makes them higher or lower. That is of course due more in part to a change in management than anything explicitly written out.
 
Of course, with some prolific SCP writers liking articles like 682 more than many popular ones in the 3000s, but they're not just shooting random articles with the rewrite gun.
 
Agnaa said:
Of course, with some prolific SCP writers liking articles like 682 more than many popular ones in the 3000s, but they're not just shooting random articles with the rewrite gun.
Click to expand...
It's mainly the recent takedowns that have made things complex, and if this situation escalates, we'll be getting more of that.
 
Like I said, that takedown is an unbelievably rare and extreme circumstance. Almost all of the time writers just stop writing for the wiki, a small amount of the time they ask wikidot to disable their accounts as well. I can't personally think of a single other instance where a writer has had their articles deleted when they left, but I don't keep up with SCPwiki history.

This wasn't something done by the staff, or something that should be expected often.
 
Yes, but it has happened, and in a situation that's still escalating. Figuring out the mess with Solidarity and The Hateful Star is already difficult as it is with Extended canon. Like, 682 is now scaling off of something that doesn't exist/will be changed entirely in its collaborative log.
 
I think it should be treated as a one-off event and not something that should be planned around or have rules written for.
 
Agnaa said:
I think it should be treated as a one-off event and not something that should be planned around or have rules written for.
Click to expand...
We were already writing rules for stuff like this, and they're even being posted soon.

That said, it is fair to wait, but I don't expect the situation to improve.
 
I don't want us writing rules which hinder how we treat our profiles, just because once every 2 years a few SCPs get deleted by their authors.
 
Agnaa said:
I don't want us writing rules which hinder how we treat our profiles, just because once every 2 years a few SCPs get deleted by their authors.
Click to expand...
SCP-1143 SCP-1233 SCP-1255 SCP-1313 SCP-1444 SCP-1548 SCP-1548-CU SCP-1654 SCP-1701 SCP-1822 SCP-1917 SCP-2008 SCP-2117 SCP-2202 SCP-2302 SCP-2444 SCP-2544 SCP-2601 SCP-2722 and its supplement, Recovered Materials SCP-DEALS-J

Again, not saying we need to kneejerk as Matt calls it and make rules, we just need to know how to handle the incident itself.
 
Oh sorry, people were only talking about 1548 and 2722 so I thought the writer's other work was left.

That's more of a pain in the ass, but probably not rule-worthy. But I guess I'd have to get an idea of what rule(s) you're proposing first.
 
Nothing different than what we have, I just want to know how I handle doing extended canon if something is deleted/rewritten.

I'm going to be doing a lot of the profile revisions or at least commenting on them, so I'd like to know if I should

A) Ignore references to the retconned/Rewritten SCP entirely.

B) Still use feats from tales to scale to other Extended Canon SCPs

C) Use info from here as well as whatever archived profiles I can get my hands on and keep the profiles as they were with clarification that they have been retconned
 
I think it depends more on how the wiki itself handles it.

If they delete references to the retconned/rewritten SCP entirely, so the collective tales are now never demonstrably referring to a common object, then A should be taken.

If the tales can still build a coherent image of the character, then we treat it as we would treat any tale-exclusive character, i.e. B.

If the old profile is archived and tales are redirected to link to it, C is probably the best bet (except clarification that they've been retconned may not be necessary; we've never had that on Kondraki's profile with all the retconned skips he's used).
 
Cain you know you're allowed to make profiles yourself right? As long as they're well researched and up to the quality standard, adding profiles is encouraged. I like to make them in blogs before they're done, so I don't have to do it all in one sitting like I ended up doing for my first two.
 
Wokistan said:
Cain you know you're allowed to make profiles yourself right? As long as they're well researched and up to the quality standard, adding profiles is encouraged. I like to make them in blogs before they're done, so I don't have to do it all in one sitting like I ended up doing for my first two.
Click to expand...
Try doing reserchs on your phone and you will understand my plight also , im only asking of the possiblty of it haveing a profile
 
After a grace period for any objections and questions, I will be posting the rules soon. Last call for any statements of opposition, otherwise you will need to post a new revision thread and get approval again.
 
Cain Fastus said:
Quick Question!

Would SCP 682 surviving Dr.Clefs Proposal attack would grants hime a new tier?
Click to expand...
Considering:

1. The experiment log hasn't been purged of bad entries since it was added.

2. That experiment specifically had people looking at it to be rewritten/removed.

3. It would be an obscene outlier.

No, it wouldn't grant him a new tier.
 
Agnaa said:
Cain Fastus said:
Quick Question!

Would SCP 682 surviving Dr.Clefs Proposal attack would grants hime a new tier?
Click to expand...
Considering:
1. The experiment log hasn't been purged of bad entries since it was added.

2. That experiment specifically had people looking at it to be rewritten/removed.

3. It would be an obscene outlier.

No, it wouldn't grant him a new tier.
Click to expand...
Damm it!
 
Cain Fastus said:
Wonder what happen to the SCP 4000 entires that didnt win
Click to expand...
Usually they go to other numbers. So either somewhere in the 3000s or 4000s.
 
i don't remember where i saw it, but apparently the 3731 guys haqd gotten to a level of power that even procedure 99-Lilac didn't even affect them, so that scaling is out of the window
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Vyfourthaccount
Containment fiction general discussion thread
Replies
8
Views
1K
Vyfourthaccount
Vyfourthaccount
Mr. Bambu
  • Locked
The Death of SCP
8 9 10
Replies
361
Views
89K
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
LightSoul8
  • Locked
New era FNAF discussion thread
Replies
0
Views
2K
LightSoul8
LightSoul8
EldemadeDityjon
This is Wizard’s Last Card; General Discussion Thread
Replies
8
Views
1K
EldemadeDityjon
EldemadeDityjon
IdiosyncraticLawyer
  • Locked
SCP Foundation general Range/Speed/AP/P&A revisions
Replies
8
Views
2K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Back
Top