• 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 Commoner's Thread: The Death of SCP

Status
Not open for further replies.
Arceus0x said:
Wasn't Ultima losing in that thread?
Click to expand...
No, the 1-A/High 1-A changes passed, and now the 0 changes have passed.

All that's left to approve are the specifics of how various pages are rewritten, and how certain other tiers should be shifted around to accommodate.
 
Agnaa said:
No, the 1-A/High 1-A changes passed, and now the 0 changes have passed.

All that's left to approve are the specifics of how various pages are rewritten, and how certain other tiers should be shifted around to accommodate.
Click to expand...
1-A bugs bunny here we come
 
Haven't kept up with the tier 0 shenanigans, but has it been set/accepted that it's all just philosophical shit and no longer has any relation to cosmology size now? Or is there still some stuff related to cosmology/structure like every other tier?
 
Rikimarox2 said:
Haven't kept up with the tier 0 shenanigans, but has it been set that it's all just philosophical shit and no longer has any relation to cosmology size now? Or is there still some stuff related to cosmology/structure like every other tier?
Click to expand...
Philosophical. You don’t need a high tiered cosmology to reach 0 as long as the character is given the proper descriptions and follow the guidelines to not contradict having the tier
 
DaReaperMan said:
I hope you don't cause it would be funny if you had to do all 447 or so pages from the ground up
Click to expand...
There's such a thing as a bad moment, Reaper. I would think you would know as such well by now, given that you seem to speak the wrong things during so many of them.

Regardless, just don't be an asshole about it.
 
Crabwhale said:
There's such a thing as a bad moment, Reaper. I would think you would know as such well by now, given that you seem to speak the wrong things during so many of them.

Regardless, just don't be an asshole about it.
Click to expand...
Gotcha, sorry for that
 
Yeah so as an ardent opponent and a stick in the mud who loved the old days when SCP 682 was just an un-killable lizard:

I agreed with there not being an 'official' canon/lore being an issue. That was both because it devalued Tier 0 to have literally 33 characters from one fiction in it, and because there are far less supported fictions that have to fight and hope for tier 9-A or 8-C top tiers even with solid evidence. But that was about it. The points got really irrelevant to the actual substance of SCP stories, and weirdly self-serving after the first.

I always complained about there being dozens of SCP in tier 0. But I just wanted a few of the many High 1-A SCP to be picked as actual Tier 0. Not the whole fiction gone. Especially with the SCP I found compelling in lower tierings, it's astonishing to see one of the most supported and indexed fictions on the site - all that collaborative user time and effort - get completely purged because what mattered most was not users input on the matter, but mods getting double digits.

Mod trains now. Mod trains forever.

hqdefault.jpg
 
Last edited:
The commoner's thread trend is a W concept overall. It makes spam and derailment less likely to happen on the main thread. And encourages more general discussion that could even ignite more serious discussions on the main thread.

I had a conversation with Idiosyncraticlawyer on a commoner's thread that led to the creation of High 1-A+, for example. (Though I still don't really think that tier is even worth being distinct it's practically the same exact thing but whatever)
 
Phoenks said:
The commoner's thread trend is a W concept overall. It makes spam and derailment less likely to happen on the main thread. And encourages more general discussion that could even ignite more serious discussions on the main thread.

I had a conversation with Idiosyncraticlawyer on a commoner's thread that led to the creation of High 1-A+, for example. (Though I still don't really think that tier is even worth being distinct it's practically the same exact thing but whatever)
Click to expand...
Phoenks is High 1-A+ via creation confirmed?!?!
 
The_Smashor said:
The fact the removal of a popular verse is a "Staff-Only" discussion shows how far down the ******* this wiki has gone.
Click to expand...
The alternative is that every single shitpost would fall into the main thread, you've been here long enough to know that's true. If you have something important to say on the thread, explain it and I'll give you permission to post it. The goal isn't to silence you, the goal is to enforce civility.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
The alternative is that every single shitpost would fall into the main thread, you've been here long enough to know that's true. If you have something important to say on the thread, explain it and I'll give you permission to post it. The goal isn't to silence you, the goal is to enforce civility.
Click to expand...
In that case, this is an open letter to the mods, and I would appreciate it if a mod put this on the "Main" thread to make sure nobody misses it.

Out of over 7000 main SCP articles alone, not even counting things like tales and testing logs, and only TEN pages are being used to create SCP's downfall. TEN. A little over 0.1% of SCP content is being used to remove 100% of SCP content from the wiki, and that's just ******* wrong. Because you know that an overwhelming majority of SCP content is made by people who don't give a shit about versus debating. The creator of SCP-3812, often considered to be one of the most powerful SCPs, openly and actively dislikes versus debating.

ehn3q17arny91.png


What's next? Banning Sonic from the website because Ian Flynn clearly knows about versus debating? Banning DC because multiple writers know about shit like spatial-temporal dimensions, which are popular in versus debating? Banning Marvel because Gwenpool acknowledged a fandom wiki which means that the writers probably know about VSBW, one of the most popular fandom wikis? Banning someone's passion project where the strongest character caps at Building level just because they happen to use this wiki on occasion?

A handful of, to put it politely, misguided individuals decided to try and make SCP as strong as they could. And now another handful of of misguided individuals are using the actions of the few to repress the actions of the many twice over.

You say that people are using VSBW terminology? Then let's give them an ultimatum: If all copy-pasted VSBW terminology is not removed from the SCP Foundation Website by this time next year, SCP will be removed from this wiki.

Sure, not all SCP members won't see it, but all the SCP members who are the problem here will see it. And, until that year is up, any pages that directly reference VSBW will not be used in our SCP pages. This message should be made clear on the verse page for SCP. I think this is a compromise that most people can be happy with. It's certainly better than sweeping the creative writing of hundreds under the rug just because of less than a dozen idiots without so much as a warning.
 
Last edited:
The_Smashor said:
In that case, this is an open letter to the mods, and I would appreciate it if a mod put this on the "Main" thread to make sure nobody misses it.

Out of over 7000 main SCP articles alone, not even counting things like tales and testing logs, and only TEN pages are being used to create SCP's downfall. TEN. A little over 0.1% of SCP content is being used to remove 100% of SCP content from the wiki, and that's just ******* wrong. Because you know that an overwhelming majority of SCP content is made by people who don't give a shit about versus debating. The creator of SCP-3812, often considered to be one of the most powerful SCPs, openly and actively dislikes versus debating.

ehn3q17arny91.png


What's next? Banning Sonic from the website because Ian Flynn clearly knows about versus debating? Banning DC because multiple writers know about shit like spatial-temporal dimensions, which are popular in versus debating? Banning Marvel because Gwenpool acknowledged a fandom wiki which means that the writers probably know about VSBW, one of the most popular fandom wikis? Banning someone's passion project where the strongest character caps at Building level just because they happen to use this wiki on occasion?

A handful of, to put it politely, misguided individuals decided to try and make SCP as strong as they could. And now another handful of of misguided individuals are using the actions of the few to repress the actions of the many twice over.

You say that people are using VSBW terminology? Then let's give them an ultimatum: If all copy-pasted VSBW terminology is not removed from the SCP Foundation Website by this time next year, SCP will be removed from this wiki.

Sure, not all SCP members won't see it, but all the SCP members who are the problem here will see it. And, until that year is up, any pages that directly reference VSBW will not be used in our SCP pages. This message should be made clear on the verse page for SCP. I think this is a compromise that most people can be happy with. It's certainly better than sweeping the creative writing of hundreds under the rug just because of less than a dozen idiots.
Click to expand...
A lot of this has been said already- the amount of SCP articles that exist compared to the number that have objectively been proven to be written as VSBW-bleed content, that some of the higher SCP writers and staff don't like powerscaling, etc. I don't think these really address the issues at all, personally, since the stance isn't "all of SCP is written to manipulate VSBW" but rather "a verifiable quantity of it is, with an unknown amount being unverifiable".

Regarding the slippery slope: no, none of those. SCP is entirely a unique situation in comparison with any other verse. That much can't really be debated, it is blatantly true.

The ultimatum (while not great for other reasons) hinges on people only using VSBW for powerscaling. The one tale in the OP of the thread (now deleted, hah) was written by someone who admitted they wrote it for powerscaling, just not for VSBW. If this situation was just Weekly trying to submit more 1-A content for the wiki again, it would be a moderately different beast. But it isn't, so waiting a year to see if people who don't use our site listen to a threat that only affects people on our site just seems like the least efficiency possible compromise.

And I think you're being a little dramatic! SCP still exists. We're not "sweeping it under the rug"; although our two sites are reasonably close to each other in terms of raw traffic, judging by third party sources that track such things, SCP is the larger of the two by a considerable margin, and they certainly weren't getting most of their engagement from VSBW (although I would say that I suspect more engagement was received by them because of us, than we received because of them).

Still. Your post has a novel, albeit misguided, new compromise. I encourage you to drop the harsh tone and DC/Sonic/etc whataboutism (since this point has been circled a lot at this point and isn't really a good point to begin with), and give you permission to speak on the thread. Mind that I can only really give permission one post at a time, up to three: if you want to continue discussion with whoever engages with it, if any, then I'd also be happy to ping 'em here to guide them to an unrestricted setting.
 
To Smashor

Not going to comment on the other points you make, but I personally dislike the approach of calling people from outside the wiki to solve and weigh on internal matters of how these forums want to index things.

This is a matter of these VS Forums and how we here want to approach the indexing (or lack thereof) of SCP.
So it should be solved within here, with its own users.
 
The_Smashor said:
In that case, this is an open letter to the mods, and I would appreciate it if a mod put this on the "Main" thread to make sure nobody misses it.

Out of over 7000 main SCP articles alone, not even counting things like tales and testing logs, and only TEN pages are being used to create SCP's downfall. TEN. A little over 0.1% of SCP content is being used to remove 100% of SCP content from the wiki, and that's just ******* wrong. Because you know that an overwhelming majority of SCP content is made by people who don't give a shit about versus debating. The creator of SCP-3812, often considered to be one of the most powerful SCPs, openly and actively dislikes versus debating.

ehn3q17arny91.png


What's next? Banning Sonic from the website because Ian Flynn clearly knows about versus debating? Banning DC because multiple writers know about shit like spatial-temporal dimensions, which are popular in versus debating? Banning Marvel because Gwenpool acknowledged a fandom wiki which means that the writers probably know about VSBW, one of the most popular fandom wikis? Banning someone's passion project where the strongest character caps at Building level just because they happen to use this wiki on occasion?

A handful of, to put it politely, misguided individuals decided to try and make SCP as strong as they could. And now another handful of of misguided individuals are using the actions of the few to repress the actions of the many twice over.

You say that people are using VSBW terminology? Then let's give them an ultimatum: If all copy-pasted VSBW terminology is not removed from the SCP Foundation Website by this time next year, SCP will be removed from this wiki.

Sure, not all SCP members won't see it, but all the SCP members who are the problem here will see it. And, until that year is up, any pages that directly reference VSBW will not be used in our SCP pages. This message should be made clear on the verse page for SCP. I think this is a compromise that most people can be happy with. It's certainly better than sweeping the creative writing of hundreds under the rug just because of less than a dozen idiots without so much as a warning.
Click to expand...
I agree that it is kinda messed up to neg all the profiles(especially when the problem can be mitigated) but telling the community about our businesses an’t it
 
That there are only a small percentage of known perpetrator articles on SCP isn't important. The number of them was never the point. The fact that SCP can be abused by people in such a way at all is the problem. I posted this on Bambu's Discord server but he says it pretty much sums up the real issue:
Isn't the whole issue with SCP:

1. "Normal people" can become "canon" writers on SCP, including people who have an interest in influencing VSBW's powerscaling, such as VSBW users.

2. Outside of egregious examples outright referencing VSBW in an article('s talk section) or the author of an article admitting that they were trying to influence powerscaling with something they wrote, it is ultimately impossible to determine which articles need to be quarantined and which are completely unrelated to VSBW and powerscaling intent.

3. We have at least a handful of confirmed cases of writers making articles that, directly or indirectly, acknowledge and attempt to influence VSBW—even BAROQUE, which is a satirical hitpiece on Tllmbrg's powerscaling, is ultimately an attempt (probably unintentional but still) to influence VSBW by saying "Tllmbrg's scaling is wrong/nonsense" in the canon. This means the points 1 and 2 stop being merely paranoia over hypotheticals and become a real concern over things that have been confirmed to happen several times already.

4. Other franchises like DC/Marvel and Parahumans for example don't have these issues because becoming a content creator for them isn't realistically accessible (you have to be hired/commissioned by DC/Marvel, and Wildbow would have to sign off on any fanfiction you wrote to make it canon or literally just hand off the entire series to them) and any cases of "battleboarder contamination" occurring in franchises like these would be extremely unusual. While both examples know of powerscaling and acknowledge it, neither of them are writing stories specifically to influence how VSBW and other VS wikis powerscale—Marvel directly ridicules the concept of powerscaling with some shit Thor says, and Wildbow gives WoG statements and engages in "what if" VS debating about his stories but doesn't write new stories or alter existing stories to affect the powerscaling of his characters.
Click to expand...
I wish there were a realistic solution other than deleting SCP from VSBW (it being deleted really sucks, especially for the supporters), but everything I've seen suggested is either an unreliable band-aid compromise, a perpetual undertaking that would require completely unrealistic amounts of work for almost no gain (imagine trying to sus out which articles on SCP are "legit" or not and spending months in threads arguing over a single tale), or utterly fails to address the issue at all. Or is just a denial of the issue altogether I guess.
 
Last edited:
AmogusSusfunni said:
Did I cook, guys?
Click to expand...
As a representative of JBW I will say...

It's okay.

But we think you should putting more emphasis on the VSBW-based meme side of it. Right now it's almost entirely just a straight profile of what the character does in the story, that's pretty boring, I could just read the original story and get that. You gotta spice it up some more if you want it to really shine, like it should say in AP that "they destroyed the SCPverse" with a link to the deletion thread. Be creative, have fun with it.
 
Popping into this thread.
I am once again going to stress that managing wikis is not a job, and shouldn't be treated as such regardless of position or perspective.

As I said in the thread, and regardless of how the vote goes, or whatever happens, I'd believe it'd be very important to look at what can be done to preserve the articles. These are, in most cases, some of the most influential, and well constructed sets of articles on the wiki. SCP at least to me, feels historical to VSB, and it'd be shame for those articles to become lost media. I do still maintain my personal stance regarding FC/OC, but archiving the verse shouldn't wait until the threads results. It's something I'd recommend looking into immediately, for those knowledgeable with MediaWiki. Don't do it out of spite but rather so that it's still publicly documented.
 
Jaften said:
That there are only a small percentage of known perpetrator articles on SCP isn't important. The number of them was never the point. The fact that SCP can be abused by people in such a way at all is the problem. I posted this on Bambu's Discord server but he says it pretty much sums up the real issue:

I wish there were a realistic solution other than deleting SCP from VSBW (it being deleted really sucks, especially for the supporters), but everything I've seen suggested is either an unreliable band-aid compromise, a perpetual undertaking that would require completely unrealistic amounts of work for almost no gain (imagine trying to sus out which articles on SCP are "legit" or not and spending months in threads arguing over a single tale), or utterly fails to address the issue at all. Or is just a denial of the issue altogether I guess.
Click to expand...
I’ve suggested to simply up the standards for upvotes for what is eligible to be profiled which would make things a whole list easier for us and a whole list harder for suggsverse tier writers. So I’d think that be a reasonable solution
 
Ngl I think deleting the entire verse is a solution that's a bit too extreme. But any other solution I see so far doesn't really fix the main crux of the issue.
 
Jaften said:
That there are only a small percentage of known perpetrator articles on SCP isn't important. The number of them was never the point. The fact that SCP can be abused by people in such a way at all is the problem. I posted this on Bambu's Discord server but he says it pretty much sums up the real issue:
Click to expand...
That's right, people are focusing a lot on the issue "the quantity is small, it represents 0.1%".

This is not the problem, but the way in which "anyone" can create an Scp, and that it doesn't even need a single positive vote to continue on the SCP wiki (you can even have 10 negative votes)

I asked a question about the creation process, and from the answers so far (which have been few), it doesn't seem too difficult, along with the thing about the SCP website banning AI but there are articles written by AI, which demonstrates that moderation doesn't seem so exemplary.

I saw a staff saying that you can also make a story or participate in a publisher to make stories with powerscaling language in the same way as SCP etc. (I couldn't find the comment)

But is the difficulty level completely different?

If you are going to write a story, you need a very high notation, which will probably take a while. If it's a comic and you don't know how to draw, you'll need to find or hire someone to draw for you, and then there's the notability thing.

And being hired by a publisher is even worse, especially depending on the country.

Some of the things above take months or years to achieve.

In the case of SCP it is not very difficult, besides there is the issue of notability.

If you make a story by yourself and make characters, they cannot be added (new sbattle) without notability, etc., but by creating any page on SCP the person immediately fulfills this issue by having linked their character on the scp wiki.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

PROPLAYEN
Leaving the wiki
Replies
16
Views
1K
Baken384
Baken384
Tllmbrg
Alt Battle Wiki
Replies
11
Views
2K
Tllmbrg
Tllmbrg
Iamunanimousinthat
Commoner's Thread: All purpose staff thread to discuss any ongoing Staff Discussions
Replies
9
Views
3K
Iamunanimousinthat
Iamunanimousinthat
Mizuki67
  • Locked
The Commoner's Thread: Removal of God of War's "Type 1 Concept Manipulation"
Replies
8
Views
1K
Georredannea15
Georredannea15
CanineAnnoyer
SCP on JBW?
Replies
5
Views
2K
The_King_of_Prudence
The_King_of_Prudence
Back
Top