• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr. Bambu said:
To be clear, I believe what Agnaa is saying is that the pages linked in the OP, specifically, are not "tier-setters"- that is, they don't define the tiers for the verse. They are viable for pages per our current standards on the subject. The belief of the OP is that as the verse has fairly easily verifiable instances of corruption, that these "tier-setters" may well also be the result of the influence of VSBW.
Click to expand...
Isn't it possible to just ban content that has had influence from these "corrupters"?
 
Colonel_Krukov said:
Isn't it possible to just ban content that has had influence from these "corrupters"?
Click to expand...
The issue, as has been discussed already, is proper identification of that becoming less and less realistic. So, broadly speaking, "possible", but very far removed from "ideal".
 
Mr. Bambu said:
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.
Click to expand...
Okay. No problem. 🙏

Anyway, in addition to what Bambu, myself, and others have said above, one extra problem that I have with SCP is that it does not seem to be proper fiction, just an assembly of collectively written wiki pages that another wiki creates pages for, which goes against our fundamental rules and principles, and the extremely high tier spam to force away attention from legitimate fiction as some form of free advertisement also does not help at all.
 
Last edited:
I'm just going to speak my mind.

This thread is just an excuse for people who dislike SCP to get it off of the wiki. I don't see why literally everything has to be deleted because some cringy/bad articles exist, which haters get to use as ammuntion to get it deleted.

This'll, probably, heavily be decided on by the amount of people who dislike the series vs those that like it. Such is the way of VSBW nowadays ig.

That's all I'm going to say on the matter.
 
Colonel_Krukov said:
I'm just going to speak my mind.

This thread is just an excuse for people who dislike SCP to get it off of the wiki. I don't see why literally everything has to be deleted because some cringy/bad articles exist, which haters get to use as ammuntion to get it deleted.

This'll, probably, heavily be decided on by the amount of people who dislike the series vs those that like it. Such is the way of VSBW nowadays ig.

That's all I'm going to say on the matter.
Click to expand...
You're kinda poisoning the well with that approach, the reason why this verse is being deleted because it was not quite keeping up with the site's standards and rather makes everything that got deleted before this has look hypocritical.
 
Colonel_Krukov said:
I'm just going to speak my mind.

This thread is just an excuse for people who dislike SCP to get it off of the wiki. I don't see why literally everything has to be deleted because some cringy/bad articles exist, which haters get to use as ammuntion to get it deleted.

This'll, probably, heavily be decided on by the amount of people who dislike the series vs those that like it. Such is the way of VSBW nowadays ig.

That's all I'm going to say on the matter.
Click to expand...
That is not the issue here. I dislike a very long list of verses that I have not accepted or tried to have deleted. My problems are the issues Bambu and others here brought up combined with that SCP matter of fact seems to break our rules and fundamental purposes for what is allowed to be included, as it is just an assembly of wiki pages, not an actual coherent story, and it also spams our wiki with pages with heavily inflated tiers that seem to have been deliberately constructed to get as high statistics as possible.

But the main issues are likely the interactive overlaps between our wikis that Bambu has outlined.
 
Colonel_Krukov said:
I'm just going to speak my mind.

This thread is just an excuse for people who dislike SCP to get it off of the wiki. I don't see why literally everything has to be deleted because some cringy/bad articles exist, which haters get to use as ammuntion to get it deleted.

This'll, probably, heavily be decided on by the amount of people who dislike the series vs those that like it. Such is the way of VSBW nowadays ig.

That's all I'm going to say on the matter.
Click to expand...
I'm so tired of this rhetoric and disappointed as hell that you're the one applying it. As I said I will not have barbarism in this thread, I will not entertain these ideas, least of all from someone like yourself, who I expect better of. The verse is being removed for entirely legitimate reasons, and you stating this after refusing to elaborate on your reasons for voting against removal speaks poorly for you, one feels.

I've been actively against SCP being on this site for years not because I hate it. You don't have to hate something to feel it doesn't belong here! You don't have to hate something to be against it on certain facets. To view it like this is the epitome is absurdity, in which one must assume every action every person makes every day is motivated purely by bias determined by hating or loving something.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I like SCP. I've read it quite a lot down the years, and back in 2014-2017 I actually wrote quite a few for myself (I'd reckon about two or three dozen). I like it so much I play video games because they're similar to SCP, and I intend to fashion my next Rimworld run into something very similar to SCP in aesthetic.

I don't hate the verse. I just don't figure it should be here.
 
Maybe it's possible we should just delete the extended canons and only look at the article canons because of how much the writers are attempting to use the tiering system to their advantage in making it powerful? Or is this affecting the article canons as well?
 
Psychomaster35 said:
Maybe it's possible we should just delete the extended canons and only look at the article canons because of how much the writers are attempting to use the tiering system to their advantage in making it powerful? Or is this affecting the article canons as well?
Click to expand...
I dunno about that one, I've seem signs of the extended canon having infected the article canon when I made the Sandman vs King of Lineland thread.
 
Isn't it possible to just ban content that has had influence from these "corrupters"?
Click to expand...
In an ideal scenario, I would have agreed with this. But it is too unrealistic to come out with a proper set of rules that cover all bases and even then people can find ways to get around them. It will become too much of an overhead just to discuss if a single page should be deleted or not every time a page is brought up. It's interesting to note that an option exists to remove only pages that are tier 1 and above, but seeing as the main attraction of this verse is the amount of tier 1 and above pages, I don't see many people agreeing to it.

Once again, I would like to reserve my final judgment for later if/after some specific people who have heavily worked on this verse come out and make some arguments.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
I'm so tired of this rhetoric and disappointed as hell that you're the one applying it.
Click to expand...
I think that it was likely directed mostly towards myself, as I actually do dislike this verse, but I dislike many dozens of verses that I have never tried to get deleted, so that is not the reason for me agreeing here. I simply think that it breaks our rules and purposes to include in our wiki.
 
Psychomaster35 said:
Maybe it's possible we should just delete the extended canons and only look at the article canons because of how much the writers are attempting to use the tiering system to their advantage in making it powerful? Or is this affecting the article canons as well?
Click to expand...
The first example in the OP is an article canon (albeit a joke profile, but we still index those). Someone else suggested this pretty early on, so I will reiterate my position then: this is a temporary fix for a fatal injury in the SCP wiki. There's no real difference between contributing to tales vs contributing mainline articles, they both follow the same standards. The only difference for our purposes would be that only indexing mainline articles restricts the spread of a "bad apple" through the bunch, which isn't a sufficient solution in my estimation.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
The first example in the OP is an article canon (albeit a joke profile, but we still index those). Someone else suggested this pretty early on, so I will reiterate my position then: this is a temporary fix for a fatal injury in the SCP wiki. There's no real difference between contributing to tales vs contributing mainline articles, they both follow the same standards. The only difference for our purposes would be that only indexing mainline articles restricts the spread of a "bad apple" through the bunch, which isn't a sufficient solution in my estimation.
Click to expand...
In that case, I suppose I'm fine with it getting deleted. But will it be possible the profiles will just be moved to the FC/OC wiki?
 
Psychomaster35 said:
In that case, I suppose I'm fine with it getting deleted. But will it be possible the profiles will just be moved to the FC/OC wiki?
Click to expand...
FC/OC has rejected taking them on due to their more strict policies regarding Tier 1/0 content as well as the general workload to handle it with their lower amount of staff. I believe the current idea is to archive it, possibly on a wiki of its own that exists solely for SCP and its sister verses (like RPC).
 
Mr. Bambu said:
FC/OC has rejected taking them on due to their more strict policies regarding Tier 1/0 content as well as the general workload to handle it with their lower amount of staff. I believe the current idea is to archive it, possibly on a wiki of its own that exists solely for SCP and its sister verses (like RPC).
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've seen that idea being hinted at over at the community thread (https://vsbattles.com/threads/the-commoners-thread-the-death-of-scp.167379 ). Imo, that looks like the best "appease" route, and even then, I will admit that it's still a touchy subject.
 
I think SCP's deletion has been a long time coming. I definitely think the supporters have done their best to make SCP as coherent and comprehendible on the wiki as possible, but the problem at the end of the day is that there's no "right way" to do it because of how the verse functions. You can't just do "Article Canon" because even the articles alone can often link to stories that fall outside the idea of Article Canon, which are already connected to a ton of other stuff that are also outside the article (such as with SCP-105, who isn't on the wiki, but is a good example of this). Extended Canon is incredibly dubious because there's tons of different stories and continuities that contradict each other in the context of the original articles and outside of it. The site themselves says that the writer can make The Foundation as capable or incapable as they want to. This is already a problem for guys like 173 and 682, but are an even larger problem for pages like The Foundation itself. I'm sure everyone's heard this before, but its true. You can't convince me that the same group that can casually contain Tier 1-A menaces also logically struggles when a dude who's biggest claim to fame is "snapping necks real good" gets on the loose, because there's tens of different writers across the web giving their own takes on this, and unlike a group like DC or Marvel, they aren't part of a larger company that at least has some level of grasp on the story and cosmology as well as official authority. SCP has a lot of fun stories and characters, but its not meant to be looked at through the lens of straightforward continuity. Anyone who contributes to that site and knows what they're doing's gonna tell you that nothing's really canon, you just sort of write what you want. Totally fine on a site like that, not really applicable to what VSBW tries to accomplish

So yeah, I'd say deleting the verse in its entirety off of VSBW is the call to make
 
Just to be honestly blunt here, while I can understand these people has worked hard over these years trying to work this verse out, but at the same time, they all should've been thinking more about the validity of the verse in general whether if it should actually be allowed on site before it eventually came to all this. I saw this coming from a mile away
 
Lonkitt said:
I think SCP's deletion has been a long time coming. I definitely think the supporters have done their best to make SCP as coherent and comprehendible on the wiki as possible, but the problem at the end of the day is that there's no "right way" to do it because of how the verse functions. You can't just do "Article Canon" because even the articles alone can often link to stories that fall outside the idea of Article Canon, which are already connected to a ton of other stuff that are also outside the article (such as with SCP-105, who isn't on the wiki, but is a good example of this). Extended Canon is incredibly dubious because there's tons of different stories and continuities that contradict each other in the context of the original articles and outside of it. The site themselves says that the writer can make The Foundation as capable or incapable as they want to. This is already a problem for guys like 173 and 682, but are an even larger problem for pages like The Foundation itself. I'm sure everyone's heard this before, but its true. You can't convince me that the same group that can casually contain Tier 1-A menaces also logically struggles when a dude who's biggest claim to fame is "snapping necks real good" gets on the loose, because there's tens of different writers across the web giving their own takes on this, and unlike a group like DC or Marvel, they aren't part of a larger company that at least has some level of grasp on the story and cosmology as well as official authority. SCP has a lot of fun stories and characters, but its not meant to be looked at through the lens of straightforward continuity. Anyone who contributes to that site and knows what they're doing's gonna tell you that nothing's really canon, you just sort of write what you want. Totally fine on a site like that, not really applicable to what VSBW tries to accomplish

So yeah, I'd say deleting the verse in its entirety off of VSBW is the call to make
Click to expand...
This is a good way of putting it. Only difference between SCP and Suggsverse (please do not start that *****, I do not want to get involved in it) is the SCP tries to make their lore somewhat sane; otherwise, it likely would not have licensed media based on it.
 
That reminds me, how would this affect licensed media based on the SCP Foundation, like Lobotomy Corporation, Control, and Lethal Company for example? Especially Control since that is essentially a straight-up SCP video game.
 
Last edited:
Flashlight237 said:
That reminds me, how would this affect licensed media based on the SCP Foundation, like Lobotomy Corporation, Control, and Lethal Company for example?
Click to expand...
I don't think it would. Lethal Company, as far as I know, is its own thing that isn't at all structured like how SCP is. Its inspired by SCP, yes, but we don't make revisions for Ben 10 just because Way Big is based on Ultraman
 
Damage3245 said:
I agree with deletion though I would prefer for the pages to be archived somewhere, whether that be on FC/OC wiki or elsewhere if they won't take them as mentioned above.
Click to expand...
Regarding this, we may be willing to accept them on Joke Battles Wiki. However I have not yet spoken with the other staff regarding the decision.
 
Seol404 said:
we may be willing to accept them on Joke Battles Wiki. However I have not yet spoken with the other staff regarding the decision.
Click to expand...
Don’t really think SCP fits the JBW description. While the characters are not orthodox enough for VSB, I wouldn’t go as far as calling the characters, joke characters. At least to the same extent that I would say the “Ohio Final Boss” page, and “Handsome Squidward” page are. FC/OC would’ve been the ideal place, but if not, I personally think we should just save the pages in sandboxes as we’ve done in the past.

Oh yea, for the record, I agree with the deletion.
 
I also think its worth noting that the conclusion of "some pages can stay and others go" doesn't solve the problem. Thats cherry-picking. There's a difference between "a character from a verse can't have a page due to how there's nothing concrete to deal with or their circumstances are incredibly unique" and "this character has the same dysfunctional circumstances as every other character in the verse, but they're not Tier 1, so they get a pass". The issue with SCP on VSBW is much bigger than the tiering alone and I think the fact that its been a verse on the wiki for so long is why people haven't really let that fact sink in
 
Catzlaflame said:
Don’t really think SCP fits the JBW description. While the characters are not orthodox enough for VSB, I wouldn’t go as far as calling the characters, joke characters. At least to the same extent that I would say the “Ohio Final Boss” page, and “Handsome Squidward” page are. FC/OC would’ve been the ideal place, but if not, I personally think we should just save the pages in sandboxes as we’ve done in the past.
Click to expand...
After discussing with the other staff of Joke Battles Wiki, we will be accepting the SCP -J pages, but not any others. Archives of the other pages can be handled elsewhere and reuploads of them to our site will be deleted in conforming to our current rule of not allowed VSB page archives.
 
JohnConquest1 said:
Ideally the pages should be archived on archive.org or in Sandboxes. Regardless of how you feel about this topic I think going through with that is a big priority.
Click to expand...
If SCP gets deleted, I plan to make a separate wiki solely for it.
 
Don't really have time to debate this (still on leave), but Ant asked me to write something, so I will just put down my bare minimum opinion.

As far as I am concerned, SCP has clearly become what I long since thought it would: A make your fanfiction vs-battles viable device.
That high-tiered stuff is attempted to be included in particular makes it worse, but as far as I am concerned just the ability to make anyone's OC be considered proper fiction by vsbattles is already a problem. The ability to create any 9-B you like with broken hax or whatever is bad enough.
No real way to filter for it either. Anyone with some minimum writing skills can hide it. The fact that we have relatively clear evidence at all is showing that people ain't even trying at this point.
Not to mention that I'm quite convinced that even where people don't try to powerscale, the writers are probably inspired by discussion about their characters and in SCPs case that discussion is probably decently power-scaling inspired.

So, all in all, I'm in favour of deleting.

As I said before, personally I would in principle be fine to leave article canons of the old classics, though. Nothing wrong with the likes of SCP-173, SCP-682, SCP-871 or SCP-096 as long as you don't scale them to obscure newer stuff. No idea how mechanically viable that is, though.
 
Last edited:
I am personally fine if we delete the verse; it's not so much I had any hard feelings for the verse. I just personally thought Agnaa's post was making good points. But I think I'll just go ahead and side with the majority + the other staff who outrank the other staff, which the consensus is for the deletion. But archiving the pages and moving them to one of our sister wikis before deleting is a reasonable request. Though looks it seems up to the FC/OC staff decide if they want it there; if not, Joke Battles will be the one left.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I am personally fine if we delete the verse; it's not so much I had any hard feelings for the verse. I just personally thought Agnaa's post was making good points. But I think I'll just go ahead and side with the majority + the other staff who outrank the other staff, which the consensus is for the deletion. But archiving the pages and moving them to one of our sister wikis before deleting is a reasonable request. Though looks it seems up to the FC/OC staff decide if they want it there; if not, Joke Battles will be the one left.
Click to expand...
I am perfectly willing to sponsor an entirely new wiki for this if it comes to that.
 
I don't have any input or opinions to give. I just want to make it clear that if the SCP pages get deleted, Joke Battles is only accepting the SCP-J profiles. 682, 3812 and all the other unironic ones will have to go on another site. Not that I think fans of those characters would want them to be on a site for joke characters anyway lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Mr. Bambu
The Afterlife of SCP
Replies
23
Views
6K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Sir_Ovens
The SCP Mass Exodus
2
Replies
69
Views
15K
GarrixianXD
GarrixianXD
What happened to SCP?
Replies
13
Views
2K
Itzmrbonezone
Itzmrbonezone
Mr. Bambu
Fun Project of Fun Times: Out With the Blessed, In With the Empowerment
Replies
9
Views
297
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
Comiphorous
SCP ROBLOX EDITION (PRESSURE) minor crt
Replies
2
Views
596
Comiphorous
Comiphorous
Back
Top