• 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 Death of SCP

Tally:
  • Agree with deletion (5): Mr._Bambu, Chariot190, Qawsedf234, Planck69, CloverDragon03, Deagonx, Propellus
  • Disagree with deletion (5): Agnaa, Sir_Ovens, Tllmbrg, IdiosyncraticLawyer, Colonel_Krukov, DarkDragonMedeus, CrimsonStarFallen
  • Agree with deletion of 1-A and up (1): Everything12
 
Last edited:
I share many of Bambu's thoughts here. Theres little doubt that several SCP authors are aware of our site, our standards, and have written articles with some of that in mind.

I always thought of SCP as being an edge case, given it's unconventional nature. I think that the conclusions of the OP are sound, and that it would be appropriate to remove it.
 
Deagonx said:
I share many of Bambu's thoughts here. Theres little doubt that several SCP authors are aware of our site, our standards, and have written articles with some of that in mind.

I always thought of SCP as being an edge case, given it's unconventional nature. I think that the conclusions of the OP are sound, and that it would be appropriate to remove it.
Click to expand...
Noted.
 
I intend to keep an updated tally in the OP, for the record, I was just out briefly. If your wish is to keep it up-to-date via comments, I won't complain, may come in handy when more textwalls arrive. I'd excluded Colonel's before as he was seemingly voting out of context, but if he insists that his vote should persist then by current standards he technically isn't obliged to give justification for it, so its valid.
 
Hl3_or_bust said:
Final post under perms granted by @Sir_Ovens

I'm switching from a point-by-point approach to something more comprehensive, half because of the permissions thing I have been informed of and half because Bambu's response is somewhat baffling to me. Note that I said his argument, not him personally.

I think the fundamental issue here is that Bambu believes that bleed-over is both a nuke-on-sight-worthy offense and widespread. The former is a simply asinine position, as it is an inevitable result of vsbw or powerscaling in general being popular. It is not a good thing and it should be filtered out wherever possible, but it is not something that can be entirely prevented without excessively invasive and extreme methods that would do nothing but kill any fandom it came into contact with. The latter is simple false. This isn't something that can be conclusively proven for somewhat obvious reasons, but many people who read SCP on their own time will agree with me when I say that it really isn't common to any degree. Bambu himself admits that he hasn't read much SCP or even really the articles in question, merely having excerpts with offending portions highlighted sent to him for use in this thread. Going from this alone and with the benefit of the doubt that Bambu did read the rest of the articles he was send parts of, the idea that not only is vsbw terminology and bleed-over common, but not universal as I never said nor implied that, but that authors who disparage it are "simply smart enough to hide their use of it" is outright conspiratorial.

This is not an attack of Bambu's character, but his arguments and the basis on which they are made. I am concerned that vsbw is influencing SCP. I've read from the SCP wiki for well over ten years. It is something enjoyed greatly for that time, even when the trends of articles were going in ways I didn't particularly enjoy. To see all of this get buried under self-masturbatory godmodding and gloating would be a tragedy of monumental proportions. Thankfully, this position is held by most people on the wiki itself. Even though there is definitely stuff of such a nature in there, it is very rare, and the overwhelming majority of content has no regard for powerscaling or similar nonsense. Of course, this is all in regards to the SCP wiki itself, but the point remains, as I and some others occasionally use vsbw as a resource for finding interesting articles.

I simply find Bambu's proposition excessively total. None of the articles he uses as evidence for his position of deleting SCP have come up in other contexts, either due to being intentionally not used by knowledgeables, being obscure in general, or simply not being relevant to anything. Again, I know this is not an exhaustive list, but there is definitely not huge swathes of vsbw-influenced content out there, something that can be indirectly discerned from simply reading from the wiki for a decent length of time. This thread likely lists a significant majority of it, and thus to claim widespread corruption from it is an overgeneralization of comical proportions. SCP's systems are obviously not perfect at filtering it out and I have never said that they are, but it definitely does help to a notable extent.

And no, Bambu, I am not insulting you personally but correctly pointing out that you aren't exactly an SCP regular and thus do not know what the context of the overall wiki looks like. Calling that an attack on your person is farcical. In fact, if anything, you are the one attacking people's characters, as you say that we "should already agree on this" and that it's concerning that I don't. Maybe I just don't agree with you? There isn't something wrong with people just because they don't share your viewpoint, and your insinuation that I am somehow undeserving of calling myself a knowledgeable because I disagree with you is extremely insulting and unbecoming of a staff member. That's also not a personal insult, that's pointing out that you are held to higher standards of conduct than me.
Click to expand...
I think the level of bleedover is what is really important in setting the case of SCP apart from the aforementioned examples of Marvel and DC. The level of bleedover present in SCP, combined with its insanely high potential for it to affect everything written for the verse on this wiki, is staggering in comparison with, I believe, any other verse you could name on this wiki. Also: I do not admit that I don't read SCP, I admit I don't read it frequently. I read the articles in the OP and it is absurd to claim I didn't. What I had said was that they were sent to me, and so I read through them and agreed with the sentiment that they were relatively clear proof of VSBW-bleed. The only one I didn't really read much of was the Addendum, since that was sent after the creation of the thread by Agnaa, who is undeniably the main force in the camp of "don't delete" currently. "Outright conspiratorial" is a false characterization of my position, and it would be equally offensive for me to dub you a participant in collusion in maintaining a verse you support in spite of evidence that it objectively breaks our standards and exists purely as an artifact of the past.

I do not believe in half-measures. I feel some level of sympathy for what I propose to do to hours of work, and I hope that my past in defending verses reflects that as genuine enough: I think people's works should be maintained, and to that end I was the first to suggest FC/OC as a possible solution. When that was shutdown, I offered my old wiki for archival purposes to Ovens. I hate to see work squandered and do not do so lightly. The fact of the matter is is that this is our missing scale on our otherwise impenetrable hide: no other verse is afforded the frankly downright absurd protection SCP is, and that protection has only persisted under the basis that there was no bleed-over. But there is. Some that not even you deny. And where there is some, there is bound to be more, deeper rooted.

I don't think you know what an insult is. I do find it concerning that you are not as worried about the integrity of SCP as I am, given that you are a verse supporter. I have not insulted you by saying this, although it is disparaging. Regardless, I do not intend to make this about who is trying to insult the other, and would rather this not be painted as some silencing effort or a search for slights: you read into my words what is not there, I can do little for you. My concern is that the SCP people on our wiki have not adequately presented the inherent weakness SCP provides us with, and should be much, much more stringent on that end. This has nothing to do with your knowledge of the verse. I encourage you to reread my statement above.
 
I will say, considering how my stuff is the thing that is amongst other things is getting ping-ponged in the arguments I feel like just in this context my vote could have weight comparable to a content mod
 
Mr. Bambu said:
I spoke to him via Discord, I'm aware of his feelings on the subject.
Click to expand...
Is he going to post here?
Tllmbrg said:
I will say, considering how my stuff is the thing that is amongst other things is getting ping-ponged in the arguments I feel like just in this context my vote could have weight comparable to a content mod
Click to expand...
You are a content mod, and our votes don't have formal weight here anyway.
 
IdiosyncraticLawyer said:
Is he going to post here?

You are a content mod, and our votes don't have formal weight here anyway.
Click to expand...
I have no idea. You'd have to ask him. But he made his feelings clear via Discord in a serious, lengthy discussion on the subject. If you think his name is there in error, contact him yourself.

Tllmbrg said:
I will say, considering how my stuff is the thing that is amongst other things is getting ping-ponged in the arguments I feel like just in this context my vote could have weight comparable to a content mod
Click to expand...
Respectfully, Tllmbrg, and I do hope you recognize that I mean respectfully in a very literal sense... I don't think that's fair. I've argued for Content Mods getting votes counted in the past, but this was rejected. It would not be right to allow a one-time use vote count for one specific content mod I'm reasonably good friends with, it goes against every level of site policy. Your position is recognized and you've the right to defend it, of course.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
Respectfully, Tllmbrg, and I do hope you recognize that I mean respectfully in a very literal sense... I don't think that's fair. I've argued for Content Mods getting votes counted in the past, but this was rejected. It would not be right to allow a one-time use vote count for one specific content mod I'm reasonably good friends with, it goes against every level of site policy. Your position is recognized and you've the right to defend it, of course.
Click to expand...
I'm not asking for it because we're friends, I'm asking because my own page being mocked by SCP writers is one of the arguments and is one of the recent things that even got this thread going
I feel like if I am going to be used to try and delete the verse against my will I can get an actual vote on the matter
 
Tllmbrg said:
I'm not asking for it because we're friends, I'm asking because my own page being mocked by SCP writers is one of the arguments and is one of the recent things that even got this thread going
I feel like if I am going to be used to try and delete the verse against my will I can get an actual vote on the matter
Click to expand...
You aren't being used: Baroque Unreality is a minor addition to the general point of "SCP writers directly acknowledging us". They used your profile and we use that as evidence. Regardless, it isn't site policy and it would be entirely unfair. I'm sorry man.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
no other verse is afforded the frankly downright absurd protection SCP is
Click to expand...
I'll be honest, I don't think the level of protection SCP gets should be special. And I don't think it's particularly special, even. If some book came out tomorrow with "vs battle wiki coded language" or that it awknowledged the wiki (something which I don't think is fair to say anyway, our systems transcend our wiki now)... but it otherwise was a proper story and sold a million copies, then I don't think we should be able to ban it from our wiki anyway. I can probably point to plently of Light Novels/webnovels/whatever else you have that do this, actually (Wild Last Boss, Instant Death, the Anos series, the entirety of this thing, this series and everything written by its author). The only real difference is that they don't directly mention vsbw, but some of the things in these series are just as bad as Chaoskampft is, in terms of throwing terminology and ideas around just to showcase someone's power.

And I think that's fine lol. SCP just gets more of it because it's a meta narrative series and it has more authors to work with, but I don't think the biggest and arguably most unique webnarrative story (database?) should get ignored and banished from vsbw because the funny meta authors said some things about the silly power scaling wiki like four times.

Put me firmly in the disagree range.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
I have no idea. You'd have to ask him. But he made his feelings clear via Discord in a serious, lengthy discussion on the subject. If you think his name is there in error, contact him yourself.
Click to expand...
He told me that it's late for him, so he'll respond later.
 
CrimsonStarFallen said:
I'll be honest, I don't think the level of protection SCP gets should be special. And I don't think it's particularly special, even. If some book came out tomorrow with "vs battle wiki coded language" or that it awknowledged the wiki (something which I don't think is fair to say anyway, our systems transcend our wiki now)... but it otherwise was a proper story and sold a million copies, then I don't think we should be able to ban it from our wiki anyway. I can probably point to plently of Light Novels/webnovels/whatever else you have that do this, actually (Wild Last Boss, Instant Death, the Anos series, the entirety of this thing, this series and everything written by its author). The only real difference is that they don't directly mention vsbw, but some of the things in these series are just as bad as Chaoskampft is, in terms of throwing terminology and ideas around just to showcase someone's power.

And I think that's fine lol. SCP just gets more of it because it's a meta narrative series and it has more authors to work with, but I don't think the biggest and arguably most unique webnarrative story (database?) should get ignored and banished from vsbw because the funny meta authors said some things about the silly power scaling wiki like four times.

Put me firmly in the disagree range.
Click to expand...
Noted.
 
CrimsonStarFallen said:
I'll be honest, I don't think the level of protection SCP gets should be special. And I don't think it's particularly special, even. If some book came out tomorrow with "vs battle wiki coded language" or that it awknowledged the wiki (something which I don't think is fair to say anyway, our systems transcend our wiki now)... but it otherwise was a proper story and sold a million copies, then I don't think we should be able to ban it from our wiki anyway. I can probably point to plently of Light Novels/webnovels/whatever else you have that do this, actually (Wild Last Boss, Instant Death, the Anos series, the entirety of this thing, this series and everything written by its author). The only real difference is that they don't directly mention vsbw, but some of the things in these series are just as bad as Chaoskampft is, in terms of throwing terminology and ideas around just to showcase someone's power.

And I think that's fine lol. SCP just gets more of it because it's a meta narrative series and it has more authors to work with, but I don't think the biggest and arguably most unique webnarrative story (database?) should get ignored and banished from vsbw because the funny meta authors said some things about the silly power scaling wiki like four times.

Put me firmly in the disagree range.
Click to expand...
I think you severely underestimate the problem, but you've presumably read the thread and thus know the stakes. Your vote is added.
 
IdiosyncraticLawyer said:
He told me that it's late for him, so he'll respond later.
Click to expand...
Fine either way. I know on which side of the line he lies. I know a couple of others, too, but I'm waiting for them to rear their heads before adding them to the vote count.
 
IdiosyncraticLawyer said:
When did he tell you?
Click to expand...
DontTalk is indeed another staff member who I've spoken to regarding this who affirmed a belief that SCP ought not be on our wiki, same as Ant in the past. I've avoided adding him to the tally until he posts since, unlike Ovens, I haven't spoken to him since this thread was posted earlier today- but I am aware that his last stance was very recent and in favor of deletion.
 
I know Kru and CurrySenpai already left comments on this thread, but I think it'd be better if a more detailed opinion be given regarding the refusal on FC/OC's end. Read opinion, this why I'm personally against it being on FC/OC. I have no comment regarding VSB.
  1. Size of the verse's userbase as a whole - SCP's active user base on VSB wiki from what I can see overshadows FC/OC's. Ergo we'd have to make vast sweeping changes to how our site functions just to accommodate. We're still actually going to have to do that to an extent regardless as we have articles for SCP fan games present on our wiki. It's a policy nightmare.
  2. The Tier 1/0's - On the topic of policy I foresee this probably be tested the hardest, in part due to the number of users who skimed the approval thread and SCP specific issues. Say we don't approve of something that down the line a number of future SCPs depend on. That'd make things somewhat complicated for referencing in a number of ways. At the end of the day I feel we strongly need to stick by having an approval system on FC/OC of some kind just to curtail low effort edits. To give some final bit of context, when FC/OC purged all of it's Tier 1/0s those pages made up at least 1/6th (+700) of the wiki's pages, with an alarming number of them leaning into straight power fantasy. this isn't an equation of SCP to those pages, but moreso why we need to be careful with changing how we treat articles in those tiers.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Bambu said:
DontTalk is indeed another staff member who I've spoken to regarding this who affirmed a belief that SCP ought not be on our wiki, same as Ant in the past. I've avoided adding him to the tally until he posts since, unlike Ovens, I haven't spoken to him since this thread was posted earlier today- but I am aware that his last stance was very recent and in favor of deletion.
Click to expand...
Yes, he mentioned it to us a few days ago.
 
I will say, if this is going to be deleted, there should be a rule emphasizing the fact it's been officially banned from the wiki ala Suggsverse

By discussion rules I don't really have sway on this save what I can directly argue, and I really don't know that much about SCP anyhow.
 
I have read the thread till now and one can note that I have no horse in this race. I have always been rather indifferent about it in the past. Looking at the arguments I lean on Bambu's side of arguments and I do feel that a significant influence of our wiki has poured over to SCP and not in all cases but in many cases it seems to affect how the pages are written. Which becomes an issue. I will however reserve my judgment of the issue for later after I have seen more arguments.
 
DMUA said:
I will say, if this is going to be deleted, there should be a rule emphasizing the fact it's been officially banned from the wiki ala Suggsverse

By discussion rules I don't really have sway on this save what I can directly argue, and I really don't know that much about SCP anyhow.
Click to expand...
I don't see how that's necessary. Animator vs. Animation didn't get one when that was deleted. Suggsverse only has one because people repeatedly failed to add it.
 
@DarkDragonMedeus

Are you absolutely certain that you do not want to reconsider your vote? SCP is basically a case of two wikis in a symbiotic relationship with each other, in which Wiki A creates pages based on pages in Wiki B, which in turn are being continuously rewritten with terminology from Wiki A in order to receive as favourable statistics as possible. It does not seem remotely appropriate.
 
DMUA said:
I will say, if this is going to be deleted, there should be a rule emphasizing the fact it's been officially banned from the wiki ala Suggsverse
Click to expand...
I think that is reasonable, as it seems quite similar to the Suggsverse.
 
DMUA said:
I will say, if this is going to be deleted, there should be a rule emphasizing the fact it's been officially banned from the wiki ala Suggsverse

By discussion rules I don't really have sway on this save what I can directly argue, and I really don't know that much about SCP anyhow.
Click to expand...
You don't have any formal vote but if you have a feeling one way or the other I encourage you to state it.

I would agree with the concept of a discussion rule, yes.
 
Antvasima said:
@DarkDragonMedeus

Are you absolutely certain that you do not want to reconsider your vote? SCP is basically a case of two wikis in a symbiotic relationship with each other, in which Wiki A creates pages based on pages in Wiki B, which in turn are being continuously rewritten with terminology from Wiki A in order to receive as favourable statistics as possible. It does not seem remotely appropriate.
Click to expand...
I might note that this isn't universally agreed upon. A lot of the supporters are of the opinion that the articles that our wiki has even influenced is countable on two hands and aren't even used here.
 
AKM sama said:
I have read the thread till now and one can note that I have no horse in this race. I have always been rather indifferent about it in the past. Looking at the arguments I lean on Bambu's side of arguments and I do feel that a significant influence of our wiki has poured over to SCP and not in all cases but in many cases it seems to affect how the pages are written. Which becomes an issue. I will however reserve my judgment of the issue for later after I have seen more arguments.
Click to expand...
Why is this being counted as an agreement? AKM explicitly stated that he's reserving judgement for now.
 
He said he currently agrees but will reserve proper judgement- I'd interpreted that to mean "I'll maybe change later" but I think Lawyer is right. Whether the vote comes now or later hardly matters so I've removed it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sir_Ovens
The SCP Mass Exodus
2
Replies
66
Views
6K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Padaruyos
The Commoner's Thread: The Death of SCP
16 17 18
Replies
696
Views
32K
Javenplayz253
Javenplayz253
Peppersalt43
SCP-098 Profile Revision
Replies
8
Views
981
Kirinator07
Kirinator07
AmogusSusfunni
SCP-2317 downgrade
Replies
4
Views
781
AmogusSusfunni
AmogusSusfunni
Comiphorous
SCP-682 adapted to VSBattles and is missing a weakness (NEEDS STAFF)
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
Kirinator07
Kirinator07
Back
Top