• 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.

The Backrooms shouldn't be allowed. (STAFF ONLY)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Antvasima said:
So has Mortizva received sufficient agreements for us to create a general rule about SCP being an exception, but that we otherwise do not allow easily cross-contaminated fan-created wiki content, especially if it does not originate in actual stories, just in fact sheets?
Click to expand...
No.

For one, this discussion was just about the Backrooms, which isn't the only exception. There is also, for example, the RPC Authority.

Secondly, a lot of the votes against the Backrooms were issues exclusive to the Backrooms, not wikifiction in general (i.e. not being coherent enough, not having tight enough rules, having many different websites such that we can't distinguish fanfiction from the original source).

If we look at the votes, 10 users (8 staff) were against wikifiction backrooms ever being allowed, and 18 users (10 staff) were open to it being allowed if its specific circumstances change. That's not really a wholesale rejection of wikifiction.
 
RPC is pretty much just SCP but smaller, and the rampant splitting of votes into smaller categories has been proven to be rather misleading.

What has been accepted definitively is the idea of modeling rules around the reasons why SCP are allowed, which would disallow Backrooms wikifiction as of this moment. If people have further problems with Backrooms in-general, they can make a thread on that (or hijack this thread after we get the prior conclusion firmly approved and in writing, but I'd rather that not be the case), and if people have further problems with SCP, that should absolutely be on a different thread.
 
Moritzva said:
RPC is pretty much just SCP but smaller, and the rampant splitting of votes into smaller categories has been proven to be rather misleading.

What has been accepted definitively is the idea of modeling rules around the reasons why SCP are allowed, which would disallow Backrooms wikifiction as of this moment. If people have further problems with Backrooms in-general, they can make a thread on that (or hijack this thread after we get the prior conclusion firmly approved and in writing, but I'd rather that not be the case), and if people have further problems with SCP, that should absolutely be on a different thread.
Click to expand...
Okay. So would you be willing to write a draft for our new Editing Rules page text?
 
Moritzva said:
RPC is pretty much just SCP but smaller, and the rampant splitting of votes into smaller categories has been proven to be rather misleading.

What has been accepted definitively is the idea of modeling rules around the reasons why SCP are allowed, which would disallow Backrooms wikifiction as of this moment. If people have further problems with Backrooms in-general, they can make a thread on that (or hijack this thread after we get the prior conclusion firmly approved and in writing, but I'd rather that not be the case), and if people have further problems with SCP, that should absolutely be on a different thread.
Click to expand...
Actually, would that really be feasible? There's a wide variety of reasons people have for not wanting Backrooms while wanting SCP, RPC, and The Holders.

It seems hard to write something that can encompass all of those reasons, while stressing that people are quite split on which reasons they actually care about.
 
Agnaa said:
Actually, would that really be feasible? There's a wide variety of reasons people have for not wanting Backrooms while wanting SCP, RPC, and The Holders.

It seems hard to write something that can encompass all of those reasons, while stressing that people are quite split on which reasons they actually care about.
Click to expand...
I think the big issue is predominantly around review and quality standards, which gives a clear basis for discussion and rule making.
 
KatBoi69 said:
I think the big issue is predominantly around review and quality standards, which gives a clear basis for discussion and rule making.
Click to expand...
There were other reasons given for not allowing it, and there hasn't been an objectively drawn line for which review/quality standards we want. Hell, we haven't even had a thorough reason given for why Backrooms' review/quality standards are lower than SCP's. Both of them have been linked, without anyone pointing out something that SCP has, and Backrooms lacks, which Backrooms would need to have to be allowed. Hell, Mori said "We'd need to see those standards", they were provided, and then they were just not commented on.

The most we've had is people saying that they feel like SCP's is harsher because they tried going through SCP's process (even though they haven't gone through the Backrooms' process for comparison). Or superficial comparisons of the negative rating needed to delete the pages (not very helpful since the differences in popularity could make a -3 article on Liminal Archives equivalent to a -30 article on SCP, and because we don't accept articles rated below +10 on SCP anyway, we could bump that threshold up for other wikifiction series if we deem that necessary).
 
Agnaa said:
The most we've had is people saying that they feel like SCP's is harsher because they tried going through SCP's process (even though they haven't gone through the Backrooms' process for comparison). Or superficial comparisons of the negative rating needed to delete the pages (not very helpful since the differences in popularity could make a -3 article on Liminal Archives equivalent to a -30 article on SCP, and because we don't accept articles rated below +10 on SCP anyway, we could bump that threshold up for other wikifiction series if we deem that necessary).
Click to expand...
Why not do this instead of not allowing the Backrooms all together?
 
Agnaa said:
There were other reasons given for not allowing it, and there hasn't been an objectively drawn line for which review/quality standards we want. Hell, we haven't even had a thorough reason given for why Backrooms' review/quality standards are lower than SCP's. Both of them have been linked, without anyone pointing out something that SCP has, and Backrooms lacks, which Backrooms would need to have to be allowed. Hell, Mori said "We'd need to see those standards", they were provided, and then they were just not commented on.

The most we've had is people saying that they feel like SCP's is harsher because they tried going through SCP's process (even though they haven't gone through the Backrooms' process for comparison). Or superficial comparisons of the negative rating needed to delete the pages (not very helpful since the differences in popularity could make a -3 article on Liminal Archives equivalent to a -30 article on SCP, and because we don't accept articles rated below +10 on SCP anyway, we could bump that threshold up for other wikifiction series if we deem that necessary).
Click to expand...
And these points are why I suggested having time for community review on the draft, once this thread is settled. I actually agree that there needs to be way more detail put into the analysis of why SCP's standards are higher, even though their rules are essentially identical to The Backrooms.

And heyyyy, that's my superficial comparison from discord ;p
 
Tllmbrg said:
Why not do this instead of not allowing the Backrooms all together?
Click to expand...
I'd say no since my issue isn't about the review standards, it's about how there's no clear source of original canon. Since none of the wikis/YouTube series stands clear as THE big one, there's nothing separating it from fanfiction, like there is with SCP.
 
Agnaa said:
I'd say no since my issue isn't about the review standards, it's about how there's no clear source of original canon. Since none of the wikis/YouTube series stands clear as THE big one, there's nothing separating it from fanfiction, like there is with SCP.
Click to expand...
This is a point I wanted to bring up when the actual thread started as well...

SCP isn't born of anything else besides the base idea and contributing wiki users (as far as I know), unlike backrooms or creepypasta, which originally come from established meme cultures. SCP began on,and exists primarily on, its wiki, and excluding that wiki while adding in any other SCP media is explicitly indexing a knockoff over the original. None of the backrooms wikis have that claim, so there's far less impetus to index it over other, traditional backrooms media (unless you want to index individual pages as works of individual authors, which has been suggested).
 
Technically, SCP was started by a post (maybe a few?) on 4chan, before it moved onto its own website. But eventually the wiki is all anyone cared about as the main canon.
 
Agnaa said:
Technically, SCP was started by a post (maybe a few?) on 4chan, before it moved onto its own website. But eventually the wiki is all anyone cared about as the main canon.
Click to expand...
I think that might be a little different, considering it's a post approaching 20 years old that never saw major spread as a standalone meme.
 
Agnaa said:
I'd say no since my issue isn't about the review standards, it's about how there's no clear source of original canon. Since none of the wikis/YouTube series stands clear as THE big one, there's nothing separating it from fanfiction, like there is with SCP.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I don't like that argument. For example, if we find that both Luminal Archives and Backrooms Wikidot version are valid based on harsh moderation, and some other currently unknown factors, then why not allow both? The concepts are similar and based on the same thing, but just the same goes to other things we allowing right now.

And Youtube one should be off the hook already. No matter where the author takes inspiration from, as someone claimed, it is still a standalone work.
 
Agnaa said:
I'd say no since my issue isn't about the review standards, it's about how there's no clear source of original canon. Since none of the wikis/YouTube series stands clear as THE big one, there's nothing separating it from fanfiction, like there is with SCP.
Click to expand...
I would disagree on that, Kane and Wikidot are the biggest ones as far as I understand
Kane is irrelevant for this so I'll explain why I think Wikidot is the most popular one

Channels like Broogli, BackRooms Explained and so on make videos on this version.
Liminal Archives is adjacent content from what I understand is not even a straight on "Backrooms Wiki" but just tackles the idea of liminal places
So I think it's rather evident which wiki is basically the main canon
 
The only version I, for sure, never want to see on this wiki is the Fandom version. It has no greenlight process, anyone can join and post whatever they want, and the moderation team is far too small to be able to keep up with all the garbage that ends up there because of that.

For now, it's looking a lot like Wikidot is well on its way to becoming the main canon. Content creators seem to favor using that version, if they aren't going completely custom like Kane Pixel is.

Of course, while I personally don't like them, I think versions like Kane Pixel should be accepted on the grounds that they are original content, with fully established lore and storylines, and if something that fits those criteria isn't accepted, literally this entire wiki can't be accepted.
 
Okay, I feel like things got off-topic again.

Given our rules on collaborative fiction like SCP are shaped by SCP at the current moment, I would word it something like --

"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 centralization, and several other reasons. Rules regarding these verses are currently shaped by SCP's presence as follows.

1. 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.

2. The verse in question needs to be centralized, 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 don't believe anything more than this needs to be written. Specifically referencing a verse in our rules may seem weird, but it sets a very definite precedent that needs to be followed and prevents the bar from being lowered under any circumstance. I did just wake up, so I'm willing to hear criticisms and similar regarding my wording or ideas.
 
Moritzva said:
Okay, I feel like things got off-topic again.

Given our rules on collaborative fiction like SCP are shaped by SCP at the current moment, I would word it something like --

"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 centralization, and several other reasons. Rules regarding these verses are currently shaped by SCP's presence as follows.

1. 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.

2. The verse in question needs to be centralized, 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 don't believe anything more than this needs to be written. Specifically referencing a verse in our rules may seem weird, but it sets a very definite precedent that needs to be followed and prevents the bar from being lowered under any circumstance. I did just wake up, so I'm willing to hear criticisms and similar regarding my wording or ideas.
Click to expand...
I think that these seem to be good suggestions.

@DontTalkDT @Mr._Bambu @Agnaa @Maverick_Zero_X

What do you think about this?
 
Nothing there immediately strikes me as problematic.
 
Moritzva said:
Okay, I feel like things got off-topic again.

Given our rules on collaborative fiction like SCP are shaped by SCP at the current moment, I would word it something like --

"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 centralization, and several other reasons. Rules regarding these verses are currently shaped by SCP's presence as follows.

1. 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.

2. The verse in question needs to be centralized, 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 don't believe anything more than this needs to be written. Specifically referencing a verse in our rules may seem weird, but it sets a very definite precedent that needs to be followed and prevents the bar from being lowered under any circumstance. I did just wake up, so I'm willing to hear criticisms and similar regarding my wording or ideas.
Click to expand...
Feel free to respond to this once you're more awake.

In point 1, I think there needs to be some elaboration with respect to what those standards are. Agnaa already brought up that the apparent similarity in written standards between SCP and TBR was sidestepped entirely on this thread. Without some elaboration, this rule sounds like The Backrooms would actually be fine. I know you have firsthand experience on what the differences might be. Also, I guess we could have someone try to submit an article on TBR Wikidot and describe the process.

As more of an editing note, you might want to replace "harsh" with "extensive" or "thorough", as "harsh" sounds like the community has to be mean to each other.

In point 2, maybe mention that the central wiki needs to demonstrate an expansive and consistent body of work.

Most of this is just nitpicking, and overall, the gist of what people want is there.
 
KatBoi69 said:
Also, I guess we could have someone try to submit an article on TBR Wikidot and describe the process.
Click to expand...
Working on that right now, for the unrelated reason that, two months ago, I dreamt about a Backrooms level... So I decided to write it.
The process is (after the obvious steps such as coming up with an idea and writing an article), the steps are as follows:

Step 1. Send it to a Critic. A Critic will, as the name implies, critique the article. You will then be given advice on how to improve on the article, if the following issues are present (in what, to me, seems to be the order of severity, most severe first, least severe last): The concept is bad (doesn't fit The Backrooms, overdone or uninspired, poorly executed, ect.), The concept is disjointed (The concept itself can work, but as it is right now, it feels like a lot of things are added, with no sense of cohesion, the concept can work but feels unfinished, ect.), spelling, punctuation, and grammar (Needs to be at a very high level. I've had an article rejected, even at this level, after having an aunt who happens to be an English teacher help me fix such issues), reading flow (I'm stuck here).

Step 2: Do that two more times once you've been given approval by a Critic (first with a Greenlight Trainee, who's just a much, much stricter Critic, secondly with a Greenlighter, who are even stricter, and usually have months of waiting time before they can get to you).

Step 3: So, you've gotten a Greenlight? Great! Now you're given a password, that is required to actually be able to post the article. If you, somehow, bypass this, your article gets deleted regardless of quality.

Before any of that though, you need to make an account on the Wikidot, which requires giving a quick description about why you want to make this account for the Backrooms wikidot.
 
Last edited:
Moritzva said:
Okay, I feel like things got off-topic again.

Given our rules on collaborative fiction like SCP are shaped by SCP at the current moment, I would word it something like --

"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 centralization, and several other reasons. Rules regarding these verses are currently shaped by SCP's presence as follows.

1. 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.

2. The verse in question needs to be centralized, 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 don't believe anything more than this needs to be written. Specifically referencing a verse in our rules may seem weird, but it sets a very definite precedent that needs to be followed and prevents the bar from being lowered under any circumstance. I did just wake up, so I'm willing to hear criticisms and similar regarding my wording or ideas.
Click to expand...
This is a good enough compromise I feel.
 
Moritzva said:
Okay, I feel like things got off-topic again.

Given our rules on collaborative fiction like SCP are shaped by SCP at the current moment, I would word it something like --

"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 centralization, and several other reasons. Rules regarding these verses are currently shaped by SCP's presence as follows.

1. 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.

2. The verse in question needs to be centralized, 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 don't believe anything more than this needs to be written. Specifically referencing a verse in our rules may seem weird, but it sets a very definite precedent that needs to be followed and prevents the bar from being lowered under any circumstance. I did just wake up, so I'm willing to hear criticisms and similar regarding my wording or ideas.
Click to expand...
@Moritzva @Mr._Bambu @AKM sama @Sir_Ovens

What should we currently do here?
 
1st_Virtue_of_Pure_Void said:
A staff thread or not. This thread Is the most suitable for a question. Can Backrooms into Vs Wiki now?
Click to expand...
I think the consensus was that it is allowed on a case by case basis. It needs to either originate from a single source/individual/group (like that most popular YouTube channel) or, if it is collaborative like SCP, follow very strict guidelines.

You should probably gather staff’s opinion in either CRT itself or question thread.

And with that, unless anyone wants to correct me, this can be closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Sans2345
Question about Backrooms
Replies
1
Views
327
KingNanaya
KingNanaya
Sans2345
Should we really allow Backrooms ARGs? (Like Kane Pixels for example)
Replies
7
Views
1K
Iiliminal
Iiliminal
Sans2345
The Backrooms General Discussion Thread
Replies
11
Views
742
Iiliminal
Iiliminal
H3110l12345I20
Gacha Life in the Backrooms (Marsh vs Bacteria (Kane Pixels))
Replies
0
Views
325
H3110l12345I20
H3110l12345I20
Iiliminal
  • Locked
Fully Embedding Wikidot Backrooms into Vs Battles Wiki
4 5 6
Replies
227
Views
11K
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
Back
Top