The Afterlife of SCP

[Mr. Bambu]

Now that SCP is gone, what remains to be done?

Similar Verses
There exist other collaborative fiction verses with near identical situations to SCP (the one I'm aware of is the RPC Authority, a direct knock-off of the late verse, and I feel certain there are others with similar setups). As SCP was banned in part due to a philosophy regarding its structure, it seems relevant to discuss the fate of these verses. To my knowledge, no other verse has experienced the corrupting influence of VSBW in the way that SCP did, but that comes with a fairly significant "yet". As they have the same structure as SCP, they can very much be influenced in the exact same ways. In fact, it may be that due to their smaller size, it may be outright easier to influence them towards powerscaling.

It is my position that a general rule regarding collaborative fiction verses be written, then, that disallows them- thus disallowing RPC Authority and other verses that are genuinely similar.

Final Cleanup
There exist some inevitable fragments of SCP's presence still littered about the wiki. Blogs and so on have already been discussed and are fine to remain on the wiki- they are the proprty of their authors and we have no need to cleanse them. Notably, SCP is still featured on our "Popular Fictions" section in the Featured Pages tab. Any other remnants of SCP ought to be directed to this thread to be removed, as the sweeping nature of the SCP deletions may have left other bits of detritus about.

Anything Else
My mind is unfortunately not omniscient yet, and therefore cannot conjure a preemptive response to all matters relating to the SCP Foundation's deletion from VSBW. Therefore, if there are any other concerns or questions, they should be brought up.

This is still a Staff Discussion thread, and therefore normal users require permission to post here. I will immediately give Smashor and Hl3 or Bust permission inasmuch as I can do so (which is 3 posts), since they are the normal users most related to SCP as a verse.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

S'pose I'll prod some of you to hear thoughts.

@Antvasima @Agnaa @Catzlaflame @Sir_Ovens @Tllmbrg

Pinging people with more involvement/contribution in the SCP process than just voting, last time.

 

[Tllmbrg]

Similar Verses
There exist other collaborative fiction verses with near identical situations to SCP (the one I'm aware of is the RPC Authority, a direct knock-off of the late verse, and I feel certain there are others with similar setups). As SCP was banned in part due to a philosophy regarding its structure, it seems relevant to discuss the fate of these verses. To my knowledge, no other verse has experienced the corrupting influence of VSBW in the way that SCP did, but that comes with a fairly significant "yet". As they have the same structure as SCP, they can very much be influenced in the exact same ways. In fact, it may be that due to their smaller size, it may be outright easier to influence them towards powerscaling.

It is my position that a general rule regarding collaborative fiction verses be written, then, that disallows them- thus disallowing RPC Authority and other verses that are genuinely similar.

Yah if SCP is nuked idk why RPC would be any different, it's literally that one Bender joke but with SCP

Final Cleanup
There exist some inevitable fragments of SCP's presence still littered about the wiki. Blogs and so on have already been discussed and are fine to remain on the wiki- they are the proprty of their authors and we have no need to cleanse them. Notably, SCP is still featured on our "Popular Fictions" section in the Featured Pages tab. Any other remnants of SCP ought to be directed to this thread to be removed, as the sweeping nature of the SCP deletions may have left other bits of detritus about.

We should get to it yah

 

[SweetDao]

I have almost no real attachment to SCP beside the younger me liking it when it was "the cool internet thing".

I'll premise the following post by saying that the story I'll talk about is, as far as I'm aware, not on the wiki right now.

However, I remember Mr. Bambu answering someone on his wall talking about "Iris Through The Looking Glass" and explaining to said person that it shouldn't be allowed here. As you can see, it's a light novel that uses SCPs and the content of the "lore" that pertains to SCP as a whole. (The foundation, characters, hierarchy between individuals). However, Akira, the author of this light Novel, uses ONLY the reports that were present in the "OG SCP" (aka, before it was wanked to high heaven).

An example I can give is Iris (SCP-105) herself. She only has the abilities that were present within the report I linked from what I recall, alongside a newly "fleshed out" personality that is merely an interpretation of the author.

Another example would be the Vending Machine (SCP-294). That machine gives you whatever liquid you asked for. It's used the same way inside the LN. That's it.

I could go on and on. But while "SCP content should be prohibited", I think, in this particular case, it should be able to exist as it is relatively harmless.

However, I'm only advocating for THE LIGHT NOVEL written by Akira, whatever THIS IS, is irrelevant here.

I can give more information or scan if needed, but I'm quite rusty since the last time I read it was a few years back.

Edit : I have permission by Mr.Bambu.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Fanfiction of a verse that itself isn't allowed is an interesting concept. Personally I'm against it, moreso citing the fanfiction element than anything else, although I suppose we can wait to hear from others.

 

[Antvasima]

Just a note that I have removed the link to our old SCP page from our wiki's navigation bar.

And I do not mind if the RPC Authority is also removed from our wiki.

 

[Antvasima]

Fanfiction of a verse that itself isn't allowed is an interesting concept. Personally I'm against it, moreso citing the fanfiction element than anything else, although I suppose we can wait to hear from others.

I also do not think that we should allow fanfiction based on collaborative/incoherent Internet fiction.

 

[Agnaa]

Works involving SCP that aren't a part of the main site should presumably go to FC/OC wiki, as they have in the past with the many derivative video games.

In a more interesting topic, there's two potential mitigating factors I can think of for collaborative webfiction.

If it's a subset of canon endorsed and vetted by a larger organisation that ordinarily qualifies for the wiki: I remember hearing a while back that TES had some forum RPs between creators and fans that were enshrined in canon. I don't remember more than that anecdote, maybe it was made up or exaggerated to some extent, but if so I think that has a good argument to be allowed, since the risk of them being "influenced" as Bambu fears is mitigated.

If it's no longer being updated: In the last thread I mentioned The Holders. tl;dr it originated in a similar way to SCP, as short stories posted on 4chan's /x/ board, before being ported to its own website. But it had a particularly striking divergence in that, originally, they claimed a limited number of objects obtained from the holders (538). While some people did try to push the boundaries once the first 538 slots were filled, things very quickly died off. Since then, that wiki went for almost a decade only getting a few small grammatical errors, and then went online, but has been fully backed up elsewhere. As such, the risk of them being "influenced" as Bambu fears is gone.

On the case brought up by the OP (RPC), I don't really care either way what we do with it.

 

[Flashlight237]

That reminds me, what about that Instant Death isekai? Technically that would fall under the umbrella since the creator literally takes submissions of OCs to see about having the protagonist, Tadano, kill them.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Sounds problematic from that description, but could you provide further intel on it?

 

[Flashlight237]

Sounds problematic from that description, but could you provide further intel on it?

This verse: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Fujitakaverse

This was the post that brought up that fact: https://vsbattles.com/threads/the-death-of-scp.167378/post-6509373

 

[Duedate8898]

Eh, that shouldn't be a problem for Instant Death. Ultimately, the writer is still the one solely working on it as he's the one writing the story regardless of who these characters are so it is collaborative only in that it allows fan input. Plus, the heart of the rule is to avoid people abusing our system to get verses higher, and there's already plenty in place to prevent users here from abusing the system, the biggest being the language barrier that prevents most users from properly interacting with the author in the first place.

 

[Homie890]

(Mr.Bambu gave me permission to make a comment here)

I don't think RCP should be deleted,you see,the main issue scp had was that it was popular,and due to the fact that scp is an "everyone can write something here" type of thing,people that were (or are) on the powerscaling thingy,would try to wank it to hell and back.
Now,RCP is,as far as i know,not popular,so,due to that,less people(or none at all) would try to wank it to hell and back.

 

[GarrixianXD]

(Mr.Bambu gave me permission to make a comment here)

I don't think RCP should be deleted,you see,the main issue scp had was that it was popular,and due to the fact that scp is an "everyone can write something here" type of thing,people that were (or are) on the powerscaling thingy,would try to wank it to hell and back.
Now,RCP is,as far as i know,not popular,so,due to that,less people(or none at all) would try to wank it to hell and back.

I don't think we should just neglect RPC just because it's not popular, since it still falls under the same category as SCP nonetheless.

 

[Vyfourthaccount]

I got permission from sir ovens on discord to say my thoughts:
Just move both RPC and the holders to alt battles already, collaborative writing on the internet have "anyone can contribute" volatility

 

[Agnaa]

I think Holders doesn't FRA.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

So, my end opinions, I suppose.

• RPC Authority is fine to go, it is distinctly like SCP, enough that it should meet the same fate, rather than wait to see if it goes a similar route
• I think fanfiction work of SCP, such as the aforementioned novel involving it, is unsuitable and ought to be removed

I'd like it if Agnaa spoke more on specific clauses he'd want to see written down for his proposals, because I don't really hold issue with either of the things he talks about. The canons are still, for all intents and purposes, closed. Holders seems fine and a governing body deciding that this fanmade thing be included isn't something I'm really against, either.

 

[Vyfourthaccount]

I think Holders doesn't FRA.

Well it was once popular and alive and there is plans for a Revival as well so it also might have the risk of SCP wank writing

 

[Agnaa]

It's hard to write down the specific clauses marking out those exceptions without the general rule text being present.

It'd just be something along the lines of "Exceptions are made for cases when broader works, that generally aren't open to public collaboration, have their creators collaborate on, review, and enshrine specific fanworks as canon. General statements that "all fanfictions are canon" and the like do not qualify for this, due to the lack of creator review on each specific case. Exceptions are also made for cases of collaborative fiction that have since been clearly finished; indexing of that archived body of works is allowed."

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Failing further input...

Our rules on collaborative web fiction say this, currently:

Verses with a strong online collaborative element, such as SCP and many forms of The Backrooms, have special rules applied to them. This is in part because of their constantly-evolving and freeform nature brought on by allowing anyone on the internet to contribute, confusion regarding canonicity and centralisation, and several other reasons. Rules regarding these verses are currently shaped by SCP's presence as follows.

• Any form of collaborative, community fiction with open participation needs noticeably strict and harsh standards for what they allow on their website. There needs to be significant quality control, with precise and thorough evidence showing this process to be at least comparable to SCP's.
• The verse in question needs to be centralised, with a clear definition of what is canon and what is not, without crossing outside of its own community in any way. Any indexing of a verse has to stay within that site and definitive canon, with no noticeable overlap

I would propose, then, a change to this, which I think covers the bases of what has been discussed so far:

"Verses with a strong online collaborative element, such as The Backrooms and The Holders, have special, strict rules applied to them. This is due to their constantly-evolving and freeform nature that allows theoretically anyone on the internet to contribute, confusion regarding canonicity and centralisation, and several other reasons. The rules on this subject are shaped by the deletion of SCP from our wiki, and are as follows:

• Any form of collaborative fiction with open participation needs noticeably strict and harsh standards for what they allow on their website. There needs to be significant quality control, with precise and thorough evidence showing this process to be at least superior to the SCP Foundation's.
• The verse in question needs to be centralised, with a clear definition of what is canon and what is not, without crossing outside of its own community in any way. Any indexing of a verse has to stay within that site and definitive canon, with no noticeable overlap.
• The verse must also be clear of any influence from powerscaling sources attempting to 'upgrade' it, with any contributions being made with the motive of affecting the verse's ratings for powerscaling communities being disallowed. Verses with high threat of such actions, whether by lax standards that do not reasonably prevent this or some other measuring stick, are not allowed."

The point of SCP was that it was contaminated and that contamination was by some measure attempting to upgrade it, I think this covers that without allowing for much collateral damage in unrelated verses. RPC is included, but the Holders isn't since the threat of contamination is essentially nil.

I'm shit at phrasing these rules so if anyone wants to offer a change, by all means.

 

[CloverDragon03]

My only suggestion would be to change the third bullet point to something like this:

The verse must also be clear of any influence from powerscaling sources attempting to achieve a desired tiering or statistic rating, with any contributions being made with the motive of affecting the verse's ratings for powerscaling communities being disallowed. Verses with high threat of such actions, whether by lax standards that do not reasonably prevent this or some other measuring stick, are not allowed.

This makes it more general so it's not limited to just trying to make the verse higher tiered (though that does seem to be easily the most common form of this sort of thing)

 

[Mr. Bambu]

This is a staff discussion thread, so don't comment again, but I'll answer your question:

Backrooms ain't even allowed on the wiki why mention them

They are, in some way. The original thread on the subject was just restricting what can be added. The Backrooms wiki? No. Specifically Kane Pixel's YouTube content? Yes. There was some allowances made for other possible additions, I don't remember them exactly but it shouldn't be too hard to find the thread if you're so inclined.

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah, the primary issue with Backrooms at the time was that there wasn't a main website to pull the collaborative fiction from; there were multiple competing websites, with none clearly being the originator due to it starting from an anonymous post on 4chan.

 

[Antvasima]

I have attempted to streamline the language somewhat below, so it hopefully looks more professional, but may have misunderstood the intentions in a few instances.

Would something like the following be acceptable, or does the text need to be further modified?

"Verses with a strong online collaborative element have special strict rules applied to them. This is due to their constantly-evolving and freeform nature that allows theoretically anyone on the internet to contribute, confusion regarding canonicity and centralisation, and other reasons. The rules on this subject are shaped by the deletion of the SCP Foundation from our wiki, and are as follows:

• Any form of collaborative fiction with open participation needs very strict standards for what they allow on their website. There needs to be significant quality control, with precise and thorough evidence showing this process to be considerably superior to the SCP Foundation's.
• The continuity of the verse in question needs to be centralised, with a clear definition of what is canon and what is not, without crossing outside of its own community in any way. Any indexing of a verse has to stay within a definitive canon, with no noticeable overlap with other verses.
• The verse must also be clear of any influence from powerscaling sources attempting to achieve a desired tiering or statistic rating, with any contributions being made with the motive of affecting the verse's ratings for powerscaling communities being disallowed. Verses with a high risk of such interference, whether by neglectful standards that do not reasonably prevent this, or some other quantification, are not allowed."