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.
I know I shouldn't comment here but all this talk about contacting the SCP staff just seems like a last ditch effort to avoid the deletion.
Talking to the SCP staff won't solve the problem as Bambu said, it will just make things harder as the writers can just tone the vs-battles lingo down or hide it better, the OP is proof of that already.
If you are a half-decent writer you evitably can. That's what the stuff in the OP pretty much proves. If you can mention vsbattles lingo this explicitely and get away with it, then you can absolutely also creature whatever powerful characters you want if you have a minimum amount of skill and the patience to maybe write more than a single article to establish everything.
Marvel and DC try to have a canon and fail. SCP doesn't even try to have a singular canon.
That aside, Marvel and DC are a trillion times more notable than SCP. They obviously get away with much more. And yet we still have special powerscaling rules for them.
This also doesn't change the fact that its author takes people's OC to just use in his work, which is contamination because obviously whoever throws their OC into the ring wants to see how Yogiri is even more OP than previously thought.
Just because one is more popular/made in a specific way doesn't make it better
The author incorporates the OCs in his story in his own way, not just copy them in. And then he himself, alone, selects who gets in. It's not like anyone with some skill could get a character into the story. The author took the ideas he liked.
That aside, as I said, one has to balance things between notability and influence. If Michael Bay decided to make a 100 million $ budget powerscaling-inspired movie in Hollywood you bet we would list it, because its immense notability just outweighs any flaws.
You're trying to make this a black and white thing where only one factor needs to be considered, but it really isn't.
Instant Death has a WN, LN, official manga and official anime. Marvel and DC are the biggest comic series. SCP is a web series without larger backer.
Marvel and DC attempts to have a canon between the various writers. SCP doesn't. The many many writers overall don't really try. Some do, of course, but not at large.
Parahumans author knows vsdebates. Instant Death author takes suggestions. SCP allows people to write their OCs in with no relevant amount of oversight and, these days, straight up includes vsbattles lingo.
Instant Death has a few 1-A characters. SCP produces Tier 0 characters by the dozen.
Not only does SCP compare disfavourably to all the comparisons, it also unifies all their flaws into one.
Believe me, if there was a random web novel of some notable yet niche popularity, whose author participates in vsdebates, incorporates random OCs people send him into his story and ends up boosting his verse to Tier 0 vsdebate fantasy levels through that, I would absolutely also think that should be deleted.
But the comparisons you make aren't close to being that case.
Throughout this thread you have provided little to no insight, and have dropped multiple inflammatory and downright useless comments. This is behavior unbecoming of a regular user, let alone a staff member.
We do not need a cheerleader here, for either side. If you agree with a take or with an opinion, state it so plainly and just move on.
Throughout this thread you have provided little to no insight, and have dropped multiple inflammatory and downright useless comments. This is behavior unbecoming of a regular user, let alone a staff member.
We do not need a cheerleader here, for either side. If you agree with a take or with an opinion, state it so plainly and just move on.
Yeah for a while, especially since over a dozens of tier 0 characters just showed up left and right for the verse I was kinda skeptical on if the writers are aware of the tiering system here since it's too much of a coincidence, though with these evidence yeah it's very clear that they know about the wiki and are making random stories just to make the characters strong for no reason is almost fanfic levels of ridiculous. I recall Weeklybattles a while ago trying to talk to some of the SCP folks on their website asking if it's possible for SCPs to have 1-A status (he didn't flat out say 1-A but he basically described the nature of 1-A there) but I assumed it was turned down due to the writer not really agreeing or disagreeing with him. All in all put me for Deletion of the verse, this is just ridiculous.
Since I feel like this wasn't really considered by other people, my position isn't just a flat "Don't delete SCP", but rather, "If we want to manage our website being a bad influence on the SCP wiki, we should officially ask the SCP wiki staff what they think we can do to improve the situation, and try to implement their suggestions".
I think that'd only make the problem worse. Ideally, the VSB and SCP Foundation wikis have nothing to do with each other besides VSB having SCPs on the wiki. If we go to them trying to deal with these issues, we only formalize the problematic relationship that has developed and that has stood for years. Deleting the SCPs from the wiki would honestly do more for the SCP Foundation's issues with this than talking to their staff - without the validation that the wiki provides, a lot of people will simply lose interest in barfing out tierwank SCPs.
The SCP Foundation's problems are their own, and our problems are our own. We shouldn't feed into them any more than we already have; all going to the staff would do is continue the influence our wiki has over the SCP Foundation, and consequently, the influence they have on us. We are not affiliated and we shouldn't be. It's a relationship that would only ever cause problems.
I think that'd only make the problem worse. Ideally, the VSB and SCP Foundation wikis have nothing to do with each other besides VSB having SCPs on the wiki. If we go to them trying to deal with these issues, we only formalize the problematic relationship that has developed and that has stood for years. Deleting the SCPs from the wiki would honestly do more for the SCP Foundation's issues with this than talking to their staff - without the validation that the wiki provides, a lot of people will simply lose interest in barfing out tierwank SCPs.
The SCP Foundation's problems are their own, and our problems are our own. We shouldn't feed into them any more than we already have; all going to the staff would do is continue the influence our wiki has over the SCP Foundation, and consequently, the influence they have on us. We are not affiliated and we shouldn't be. It's a relationship that would only ever cause problems.
There is something so sweet and so revolting about reading one of my stories in the deletion thread for SCP. It's the death of the project that my friends and I put so much blood and sweat into. I was considering giving one last defense for the sake of what was, but I get the sense this fight is over and the war is lost. We fought a valiant battle that could never be won, only hold off the doom. The walls have crumbled, and our enemies are at the gates. Thus, I will give a last account.
The SCP staff is incredibly overworked to hell and back, the VS stuff that got through is simply because they did not notice it, and had their own site politics to work on. I am sure the wiki staff can relate. Once upon a time, pages were more heavily scrutinized, and it breaks my heart that even these few examples made it through the cracks. It is a defilement to that which I hold sacred. As the SCP wiki has increased in size, its staff has only been stretched progressively thinner. When I noticed the SCP staff wasn't keeping up with the corruptors, I stepped up to fight instead. I spent a lot of time looking around for power scalers and reporting it in the admin servers. I stalked the collaborative pages to check that nothing made it through, in place of the staff. I not only was cautious about putting anything VS-related in my writing, I also tried to keep it off the SCP wiki from any source.
If there is corruption in SCP from power scalers, it is not from VS Battle Wiki. At least, it is not from any of the users on this forum. It was never about big numbers or high tiers, it was about honoring and documenting a universe we so love. Outsiders see the outer gods, not the unique concepts and creative horror. Outsiders see the crazy cosmology, not the compelling lore. Everyone sees the tier 0s, not Ovens and Tllm's endless quest to document all the tier 9 monsters. I remember the long hours of compiling lore and arguing about revisions fondly. We turned the verse from barebones profiles to some of the most detailed and well-crafted on the wiki; We managed to document one of the most complex cosmologies in all of fiction. These are achievements to be proud of.
I was already into SCP before I came to VS Battle wiki, but it was here that I found the closest group of friends in the fandom. I would likely not have taken the extra step and started writing for SCP if not for the love you all cultivated in me. SCP is the largest collaborative writing project in human history, and I think we have honored that monumental achievement. Each page we crafted was a tribute to the rare, unique treasure we found delving into the database. Some people would decry it as a collection of OCs or fan fiction, instead of seeing it for the megalith to human creativity and harmony that it is. What cynical, hellish world have I awoken in, where the corporate seal of approval is what grants legitimacy? Thousands of talented people came together to make something beautiful, and while some may hate us, we did it to honor that.
The proudest I have ever been as an author was when someone made a page for an SCP that I co-authored on VS battle wiki. It was the best surprise I ever got.
A piece of me dies to see all our work go up in ashes, and our enemies dance on our graves. It has been a Sisyphean task to keep SCP here. It has been a pleasure debating, researching, and working with all of you.
Nobody here who opposes SCP has ever read any of the recent articles have they? Why are you allowed to judge SCP and deem it unacceptable without ever having participated or bothered to actually understand it?
I literally suggested it in my first post, back when the "don't delete" view had more votes. I brought it up again because it wasn't mentioned in the OP, and received almost zero discussion from others.
Please don't attribute bad motives to my behaviour, especially when such motives contradict the actual order of events.
There is! Are you familiar with how many new writings they delete?
Hell, the creator of Chaoskampf and Creation (one of the most egregious examples in the OP) actually tried posting another similar tale, which ended up getting deleted.
Yeah for a while, especially since over a dozens of tier 0 characters just showed up left and right for the verse I was kinda skeptical on if the writers are aware of the tiering system
Again, there aren't a shitton of tier 0 characters because they were all written with tiershit. The vast majority of that stuff are just entities which have a feat of affecting the "noosphere" or a "narrative". It's just scaling to cosmological constructs which are high-tiered for other reasons.
though with these evidence yeah it's very clear that they know about the wiki and are making random stories just to make the characters strong for no reason is almost fanfic levels of ridiculous.
Again, those pages linked in the OP haven't made any characters strong. Either being irrelevant to any actual scaling, or not reaching enough votes to be considered as canon by us.
I recall Weeklybattles a while ago trying to talk to some of the SCP folks on their website asking if it's possible for SCPs to have 1-A status (he didn't flat out say 1-A but he basically described the nature of 1-A there) but I assumed it was turned down due to the writer not really agreeing or disagreeing with him.
I feel obligated to say that Weekly has always maintained that such messages were posted by a troll trying to get him in trouble. Despite the fact that it wasn't brought to our attention by anyone suspicious, but by me noticing that the account had voted on a tale, and tracking down other contributions it had made, which were year-old comments.
I could quite literally go on the site right now and hypothetically make a new SCP inspired by a ton of VS debating lingo and stuff. Sure, that doesn’t guarantee it’ll get a page here and affect several others
You could quite literally write a manuscript inspired by a ton of VS debating lingo, send it to a publisher, and get it published. Or create a video that goes viral, game that gets popular, or apply to work at a large media company.
But in all of those cases that's unlikely to work. You need the skill to create something that people will like enough, and including VS debating lingo makes it less likable. But that applies to SCP too; if you coldpost, your article will get deleted. If you don't coldpost, you'll need to go through multiple rounds of drafts. Once you've gone through those drafts, you'd need to maintain enough positive reception to avoid deletion, and to achieve a notability our wiki needs to let it influence profiles.
There is a non-zero barrier for entry. The SCP wiki is not AO3 or fanfiction.net. The line is fuzzier than I think a lot of you realise.
While I appreciate a lot of the votes, I'm pretty dismayed by the votes for deletion that heavily imply factually incorrect views about how the SCP wiki operates and the influence such tales have had on our wiki, which advocates for deletion have admitted are factually incorrect.
While I appreciate a lot of the votes, I'm pretty dismayed by the votes for deletion that include factually incorrect information, which advocates for deletion have admitted are factually incorrect.
You’ll have to be more specific. Nobody here has spread any lies to advocate for SCP’s deletion. Even if you wanna call my hypothetical example a stretch, we literally have approved SCP pages that use VSBW lingo right down to the tier names. Not just Tier 0 or High 1-A. You’ll see Tier 10 and 9-B on some other pages
I haven’t seen a single deletion supporting vote here that pulls out blatant lies. Everything I’ve read is based in truth. There’s no continuity, VSBW’s indexing of SCP has in fact negatively influenced the SCP Wiki’s approved pages, etc etc
After reading through, I'm more neutral than flat-out. I agree with deletion kinda, but solely due to the low bar to get stuff added, which in theory can, and has, resulted in some sus stuff (though, ultimately, only a negligible fraction, the fact it's possible at all is an issue tho), if not for that I'd disagree completely, rest might suck a lil but oh well, seems to be a lil exaggerated even.
I do think maybe main canon can be salvaged either way tho along with older ones as DT also mentioned, but it seems like the canon still references extended so **** if I know, I did go read a handful within the past day (like 30), and for the most part, the majority seem to be self-contained, so I don't think funny big numbers and bleedover is actually effecting much beyond the big funny number lads or shit like the meme lizard.
I still agree with deletion not like my opinion means much, mostly due to the aforementioned low hurdle, but only in part.
I think a lot can be saved all the same with a lil common sense and actual standards, and ovens, agnaa, lap, etc do make some points worth at least checking out before we decide anything.
Like there's absolutely an issue here, but, said issue is being blown out of proportion so it's not totally honest.
You’ll have to be more specific. Nobody here has spread any lies to advocate for SCP’s deletion. Even if you wanna call my hypothetical example a stretch, we literally have approved SCP pages that use VSBW lingo right down to the tier names. Not just Tier 0 or High 1-A. You’ll see Tier 10 and 9-B on some other pages
I haven’t seen a single deletion supporting vote here that pulls out blatant lies. Everything I’ve read is based in truth. There’s no continuity, VSBW’s indexing of SCP has in fact negatively influenced the SCP Wiki’s approved pages, etc etc
While I could find one thing (which I'll quote below), looking back I think I connected stuff that wasn't explicitly connected.
People have said "It's bad for VSBW, not just the SCP wiki itself" and "They're inspired by VSBW" and "They're writing this way to make their characters stronger, and it worked", but they didn't explicitly say "Writing this way has made their characters stronger on VSBW", which I can't actually find explicitly said. So I can't say they've said anything factually incorrect, just strongly implied something which is factually incorrect.
And beyond that, there were some cases like this, where people both said factually incorrect things like "literally anyone can add to SCP", it also says things that imply those may be exaggerations like "basically fanfiction.net", or things which were judgement calls rather than objectively quantifiable statements like "hilariously low-quality control".
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.
Even here it's hard to say it counts; Ant does say "basically", but there aren't cases of pages on the SCP wiki being rewritten to more qualify for our terminology. All the examples given are newly-written, and most of them are mere name-drops or mocking instead of trying to accurately qualify for our statistics.
In light of realising that qualifiers were included in these posts, I'll edit my previous post accordingly.
Got permission from @Agnaa to make this post so don’t send me to the shadow realm
I feel like this whole situation is kinda being overblown a bit. It’s like finding out your dog has some ticks and instead of taking him to the vet you take him out back and put him down old yeller style.
The main discourse of this seems to stem from the fact that that there’s some suggsverse tier writing that can be applied to are wiki due to are current standards. So why not up are standards to like 100 upvotes to be applicable to the wiki? It be far harder to make some random oc tier 1 scp or scaling for the verse. And even if the person had powerscaling in mind and got it up to 100 upvotes it most certainly wouldn’t be some simple powerscaling slop. It would actually have a narrative,story and characters. And even if somebody did try to “game” the system and some how many 100 fake accounts to upvote there scp, it be easy to tell from the writing alone that it’s clearing powerscaling slop. And then we can ban it.
I don’t think this would mess up most of the profiles on the wiki sense from what I know most of the scp profiles are made from articles and tales with atleast 100 or so upvotes.
I do think maybe main canon can be salvaged either way tho along with older ones as DT also mentioned, but it seems like the canon still references extended so **** if I know
We already deal with the fact that article canon references other stuff; we just ignore those references. As this page says, we only consider "original canon" to be stuff written by the same author, as part of a canon/series/collab, or in cases where both authors have written their own pieces establishing a crossover. Everything else is just treated as if the links go nowhere.
Got permission from @Agnaa to make this post so don’t send me to the shadow realm
I feel like this whole situation is kinda being overblown a bit. It’s like finding out your dog has some ticks and instead of taking him to the vet you take him out back and put him down old yeller style.
The main discourse of this seems to stem from the fact that that there’s some suggsverse tier writing that can be applied to are wiki due to are current standards. So why not up are standards to like 100 upvotes to be applicable to the wiki? It be far harder to make some random oc tier 1 scp or scaling for the verse. And even if the person had powerscaling in mind and got it up to 100 upvotes it most certainly wouldn’t be some simple powerscaling slop. It would actually have a narrative,story and characters. And even if somebody did try to “game” the system and some how many 100 fake accounts to upvote there scp, it be easy to tell from the writing alone that it’s clearing powerscaling slop. And then we can ban it.
I don’t think this would mess up most of the profiles on the wiki sense from what I know most of the scp profiles are made from articles and tales with atleast 100 or so upvotes.
Maybe? We already had that with the bar being +10, and that used to be enough to cover everything, but now Chaoskampf's sitting at +24. It kinda feels unsatisfying to just keep pushing that bar higher and higher.
We already deal with the fact that article canon references other stuff; we just ignore those references. As this page says, we only consider "original canon" to be stuff written by the same author, as part of a canon/series/collab, or in cases where both authors have written their own pieces establishing a crossover. Everything else is just treated as if the links go nowhere.
Yeah, but, as mentioned by Bambu and I forget ngl back on page 1, such a thing was brought up as evidence for why retaining main canon wouldn't be feasible.
Maybe? We already had that with the bar being +10, and that used to be enough to cover everything, but now Chaoskampf's sitting at +24. It kinda feels unsatisfying to just keep pushing that bar higher and higher.
I’m just gonna assume I can still post to a limited degree, hopefully this doesn’t get deleted
True but as I said it be far easier to tell which is which and far harder to “game”. Like most of these at best reach 20-30 something upvotes. I doubt there going much higher then that. And the highest ones bambu dropped are a joke scp, a glossary and satirical article. True but times change, as a great man once said
Wilbow (Parahuman's author) has directly commented and interacted with vs debating threads in Reddit, with those even offering various WoGs of varying quality.
Being someone who gave votes to the opposition even I have to say this is a massive false equivalency. If you actually read the WoGs, Wildbow's mindset towards battleboarding is far different from ours, as well as most people's. Most of the WoGs we get from him in those threads are also based on in-story moments, with some elaboration given. Wildbow is just an author who pays special attention to his powers, lol
Yeah, but, as mentioned by Bambu and I forget ngl back on page 1, such a thing was brought up as evidence for why retaining main canon wouldn't be feasible.
Only bureaus can give permission for multiple posts at once, but I'd have approved this response anyway. Just ask another staff member before any others.
Only bureaus can give permission for multiple posts at once, but I'd have approved this response anyway. Just ask another staff member before any others.
Only staff members with evaluation rights can authorize regular members to participate in Staff Discussion threads. Thread Moderators are able to grant permission for a single post at a time, whereas administrators can give permission for up to three. Bureaucrats are the only staff members that are allowed to give indefinite posting rights for a particular staff thread. If a staff member with evaluation rights determines that a regular member has misused their granted privileges, these can be removed.
I'd also like to point out that I believe deleting SCP would involve an expansion of the Editing Rules we already have on vs debater involvement in works:
It is prohibited to include any personal verses or personal works of VS Debaters within the wiki, except in cases where the work has been officially published by a reputable and well-established company with a significant level of distribution and recognition in the industry. This includes, but is not limited to, large movie productions, major video game releases, and popular comic book runs. For smaller or less-known companies, decisions may be made on a case-by-case basis. It is recommended to consider the level of distribution and recognition in determining whether to include the work in the wiki.
It is particularly prohibited to include any verses or personal works of VS Debaters who are ranked highly in Tier 1/0, that primarily focus on powerscaling purely for battleboard purposes.
I think SCP as a whole easily clears the notability criteria, and clearly doesn't primarily focus on powerscaling purely for battleboarding purposes.
If we delete it, I think we'd also need to either change that criteria (such as by making being tier 1/0 sufficient on its own, or adding sections about including vsbw terminology) or change how we apply that criteria (such that works involving vs debaters have to be more popular and impactful than SCP).
We could also, alternatively, highly change our section on collaborative web fiction.
I'd also like to point out that I believe deleting SCP would involve an expansion of the Editing Rules we already have on vs debater involvement in works:
I think SCP as a whole easily clears the notability criteria, and clearly doesn't primarily focus on powerscaling purely for battleboarding purposes.
If we delete it, I think we'd also need to either change that criteria (such as by making being tier 1/0 sufficient on its own, or adding sections about including vsbw terminology) or change how we apply that criteria (such that works involving vs debaters have to be more popular and impactful than SCP).
We could also, alternatively, highly change our section on collaborative web fiction.
This was discussed (briefly) on Discord where I mentioned the tier 1 rule in passing to Agnaa. Strictly speaking, SCP has a lot more wrong with it than this, which this thread details- including the ease of contribution and open nature of said contributions.
That said, I don't think, as Agnaa does, that these rules are meant to be piecemeal: that is, passing one of them allows immunity from the others. This interpretation results in notoriety being all a verse needs to ignore these, which was already a rule in the first place.
The rule states that tier 1 works from battleboarders focusing on tier 1 things is completely outside of our rules, SCP violates this. I don't believe this thread constitutes any sort of "expansion" on these rules, although a slight cleaning-up would be fine, as usual.
That said, I don't think, as Agnaa does, that these rules are meant to be piecemeal: that is, passing one of them allows immunity from the others. This interpretation results in notoriety being all a verse needs to ignore these, which was already a rule in the first place.
The rule states that tier 1 works from battleboarders focusing on tier 1 things is completely outside of our rules, SCP violates this. I don't believe this thread constitutes any sort of "expansion" on these rules, although a slight cleaning-up would be fine, as usual.
It is particularly prohibited to include any verses or personal works of VS Debaters who are ranked highly in Tier 1/0, that primarily focus on powerscaling purely for battleboard purposes.
Isn't meant to be piecemeal. I think the other one is clearly meant to be piecemeal by being a different point, but that this one includes two qualities ("being tier 1/0" and "primarily focusing on powerscaling") right next to each other, without any intervening clauses like "or", indicating that both must be met to disqualify a series.
If it wasn't meant to be written that way, it should be easy to clean it up.
Isn't meant to be piecemeal. I think the other one is clearly meant to be piecemeal by being a different point, but that this one includes two qualities ("being tier 1/0" and "primarily focusing on powerscaling") right next to each other, without any intervening clauses like "or", indicating that both must be met to disqualify a series.
If it wasn't meant to be written that way, it should be easy to clean it up.
The provided instances of SCP lore are suggested to be both, either way, with the writer of A Journey Through The Afterlife having confirmed it. As I said on Discord, I don't think this is the place to discuss the changing of these rules to clarify one way or the other, but even under this interpretation you present, SCP would be in violation.
Actually, I will address the people agreeing with me for a second.
SCP has oversight and overview in their submission process. And it used to be pretty good, although I've heard that in recent years, their staff force is more spread thin and so it is not as good as it was. Still, it is not so easy as hitting "submit" for your SCP to be let in. There's a rudimentary greenlighting process before it is submitted formally, although strictly speaking this process does not include anything of note for our interests.
I am still of the opinion that SCP is far too lenient for our wiki's purposes, but there is some amount of a misconception regarding this particular point, and it's widespread enough that it bears correcting.
The provided instances of SCP lore are suggested to be both, either way, with the writer of A Journey Through The Afterlife having confirmed it. As I said on Discord, I don't think this is the place to discuss the changing of these rules to clarify one way or the other, but even under this interpretation you present, SCP would be in violation.
As what should (hopefully) be a final point of clarification, I view "primarily focusing on powerscaling" to be about the verse as a whole. You could not take that one page of Thor talking about powerscaling to say that Marvel primarily focuses on powerscaling, even though that one page definitely is.
Actually, I will address the people agreeing with me for a second.
SCP has oversight and overview in their submission process. And it used to be pretty good, although I've heard that in recent years, their staff force is more spread thin and so it is not as good as it was. Still, it is not so easy as hitting "submit" for your SCP to be let in. There's a rudimentary greenlighting process before it is submitted formally, although strictly speaking this process does not include anything of note for our interests.
I am still of the opinion that SCP is far too lenient for our wiki's purposes, but there is some amount of a misconception regarding this particular point, and it's widespread enough that it bears correcting.
I believe that the "staff being spread thin" stuff is more about collaborative logs.
These are parts of the site designated for anyone to be able to contribute new entries to, with much lower requirements than entirely new pages. In recent years, they've sometimes gone for months without staff clearing out terrible additions.
I believe the rest of the submission process still operates as per usual.
I have received permission from Mr. Bambu to post here.
My issue with this is that the articles we're using to remove 100% of SCP from the wiki represents only 0.1% of articles on the entire website. And there are writers for SCP, such as SCP-3812's creator djkaktus, who either don't care about or openly dislike powerscaling.
The people who are using SCP for versus debating represent an overwhelming minority of writers for the website. Much of what makes SCP so powerful are original concepts clearly not meant for power-scaling at all, such as most forms of pataphysics. Take the Noosphere, for instance. The idea of the collective human unconious being this all-powerful, higher-dimensional force is nothing new, Shin Megami Tensei and to a lesser extent the Cthluhu Mythos did this decades ago. All modern art is inheritly derivitive.
Ultimately, what we would be doing is judging an entire creative work made by hundreds if not thousands by a dozen or so writers we find problematic.
If I were to suggest a less extreme solution, perhaps we could warn that using blatant powerscaling terminology will cause it to become banned from our website, and ask for harsher restrictions on such concepts. I understand this is extreme, but nearly any option is better than banning an entire, very popular, verse from our wiki with almost no warning.
The fact is, SCP is a different series from most. Many SCP users are fully aware of our wiki. This very thread proves that. And these "problem writers" may be receptive if we were to give them a warning that their attempts to make SCP powerful will be all but for naught if they don't tone it down a little bit.
Obviously, we wouldn't directly contact the website or the admins. That would be madness. But perhaps an open letter on this wiki (Perhaps linked on the verse page for SCP) to act as a warning so that SCP writers can cease this behavior we find problematic lest the series be removed from our wiki.
This is a problem caused by SCP writers on our wiki, so perhaps it can be solved by SCP writers on our wiki as well.
I simply think that removing such a popular verse from our wiki without strongly considering multiple alternative options would be a poor choice. In my opinion, even a band-aid fix would be significantly better than what is being proposed here.
If the mere possibility of writers knowing of powerscaling and our website is the problem, then there is no verse we could 100% confirm is safe.
If I were to suggest a less extreme solution, perhaps we could warn that using blatant powerscaling terminology will cause it to become banned from our website, and ask for harsher restrictions on such concepts. I understand this is extreme, but nearly any option is better than banning an entire, very popular, verse from our wiki with almost no warning.
You do realize the examples that Bambu have brought up would by default make SCP as a whole be at risk of being banned from the website with your own standard right? Especially with how the tiering system is being used and versus battle words like nonexistent physiology, something rarely if ever said in countless fictional works that describes someone that doesn't exist.
The fact is, SCP is a different series from most. Many SCP users are fully aware of our wiki. This very thread proves that. And these "problem writers" may be receptive if we were to give them a warning that their attempts to make SCP powerful will be all but for naught if they don't tone it down a little bit. Obviously, we wouldn't directly contact the website or the admins. That would be madness. But perhaps an open letter on this wiki (Perhaps linked on the verse page for SCP) to act as a warning so that SCP writers can cease this behavior we find problematic lest the series be removed from our wiki.
This was already addressed by Promestein since SCP wiki stuff is their own thing and the vs wiki stuff is our own thing, trying to demand some form of change for them on another website that has none of our or FANDOM's jurisdiction would be a massive waste of time and just be endless headaches for both sides for nothing. Plus even if we went down the route of making a letter about using non versus debating focused SCPs onto the wiki would just lead to more constant monitoring for this one specific franchise that staff members and supporters in general would have to moderate in order to figure out which one isn't written with versus debating in mind, which is a lot of unneeded work for one simple internet series. The simpler solution would just be to get rid of SCP from the site and just move it somewhere else.
I simply think that removing such a popular verse from our wiki without strongly considering multiple alternative options would be a poor choice. In my opinion, even a band-aid fix would be significantly better than what is being proposed here.
I mean one of the alternate options we can try to do if possible is to move it to another wiki that has some semblance of powerscaling to it, FC/OC is off the tables due to their strict policies on tier 1/0 verses and jokes battle wiki was already checked off the list. Any other website that can have the SCPs moved in that's viable would be something I believe lots of folks would be open minded about.
If the mere possibility of writers knowing of powerscaling and our website is the problem, then there is no verse we could 100% confirm is safe.
That's not really the problem as folks have already brought up other verses with some semblance of reference to versus debating as a whole and addressed the argument. The issue is that SCP articles/writers as a whole is just plagued with many examples of versus battle lingo and just constantly describing them in our standards of power levels that it's violating the standards for what series is considered valid to use on the wiki as a whole. Plus it leads to an issue of if we have to keep the verse while also funneling through many articles and SCPs in general on what's valid to use on the site or not, it becomes a massive headache to juggle for both us on site and the SCP folks, especially if we go down the route of nagging at them for what article doesn't have these terminologies thrown left and right.
If I were to suggest a less extreme solution, perhaps we could warn that using blatant powerscaling terminology will cause it to become banned from our website, and ask for harsher restrictions on such concepts. I understand this is extreme, but nearly any option is better than banning an entire, very popular, verse from our wiki with almost no warning.
The fact is, SCP is a different series from most. Many SCP users are fully aware of our wiki. This very thread proves that. And these "problem writers" may be receptive if we were to give them a warning that their attempts to make SCP powerful will be all but for naught if they don't tone it down a little bit.
Obviously, we wouldn't directly contact the website or the admins. That would be madness. But perhaps an open letter on this wiki (Perhaps linked on the verse page for SCP) to act as a warning so that SCP writers can cease this behavior we find problematic lest the series be removed from our wiki.
I think this is a terrible idea. We shouldn't be so entitled so as to ask them to operate differently.
Plus, as you mention there are writers who hate battleboarding; if you say "Please remove your battleboarding lingo or we'll delete you off the site" that has a real possibility of leading to the writers who hate battleboarding adding more of it so it gets deleted.
That's not really the problem as folks have already brought up other verses with some semblance of reference to versus debating as a whole and addressed the argument. The issue is that SCP articles/writers as a whole is just plagued with many examples of versus battle lingo and just constantly describing them in our standards of power levels that it's violating the standards for what series is considered valid to use on the wiki as a whole.
Three articles very obviously rooted in powerscaling.
Two sections of articles which some people argue are rooted in powerscaling, but imo probably just come from them drawing from the same sources powerscalers have used to develop their systems.
On a website with tens of thousands of pages, how can you justify describing instances that rare as "a whole... plagued" or "constantly describing"?
If you think having that few articles stepping over the line is an issue that's at least an opinion that has a realistic appraisal of the scale. But your phrasing shows you think it's far more widespread than it actually is.
I think demanding SCP writers modify their stories for us is the worst possible way to go about this to be honest. It’s both an unrealistic expectation and would come off as very entitled.
Since votes haven't really changed, I kinda wanna wrap this up, but @Saikou_The_Lewd_King hasn't commented yet; anyone know whether they intend to say something?
Obviously, we wouldn't directly contact the website or the admins. That would be madness. But perhaps an open letter on this wiki (Perhaps linked on the verse page for SCP) to act as a warning so that SCP writers can cease this behavior we find problematic lest the series be removed from our wiki.
The idea of holding our own profiles hostage in order to stop people from interfering with our profiles is hilarious and I support it because it's the funniest outcome and as such it's objectively the best. I'll do it right now and issue this threat OFFICIALLY on behalf of the collective consciousness of Versus Battles Wiki which is legally binding by the code of the sovereign citizen.
MY WEBMASTER IS ANGRY AT ME!. He's BLAMING me! IT'S my fault, I ADMIT IT! It's my fault! I WANT everything A-BOUT MY WIKI TERMINOLOGY OFF! THE! SCP FOUNDATION WEBSITE! I'll send in detectives! I'll send in police! I'll send in EVERYTHING IN MY POWER!
(poorly hidden cut)
So yeah, please, get everything off the SCP Foundation website, Now, NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW, NOOOOOW!
Curse the trolls, peace to everyone else.
Those of you reading this at home should apply this philosophy to serious matters like picking your major or looking for a job or voting by the way. The funniest outcome is always the best.
On a more serious note, the tier 0 thing that got mentioned in the thread is overblown, that happened because one structure got to tier 0 organically and there happens to be a guy over in SCP trying to make a theory of everything of sorts for the universe and as such that structure has been getting tied into all sorts of things which made the 20 profiles or whatever the number was scale, it's not people independently spamming tier 0 feats and iirc the guy has actually been causing some annoyance on SCP among the old guard who are less a fan of that than the newer SCP zoomers (though they seem to be the winning faction). Because people with comics seem to be in love with taking high ends over more average or low ends we've seen a similar inflation over there, for similar reasons. It's not the greatest reason to use here.
Having said that, the best argument for keeping SCP around is likely the sunk costs aspect of it, and while people may be quick to point to that as a fallacy I'll have to remind you that the sunk cost fallacy involves being committed to something due to invested resources despite it having become apparent that acting otherwise would be beneficial. There's no financial concerns or anything like that at stake here, so the calculation is a little different. Let me explain. I'm personally of the mindset that it was a mistake to allow SCP and similar collective commons stuff in the first place. Going from not having to deal with SCP issues to having to deal with them, especially at the time? It seems like a fairly easy border case to just say no thanks to before anyone's sunk any time into this. There's no commitment, you're just turning it away at the gates no harm no foul. Well, we didn't do that and we've had SCP for years, and now the landscape's changed. The bar of entry to create projects and get eyes on them is lower than it ever has been, collective commons stuff is becoming more well known, and SCP in particular has gained prominence in vs debating as a whole, even getting used in a Death Battle cast before Death Battle lost their own death battle to Budget Cuts, a very fearsome creature which all of us must fear. If you want to delete SCP you shouldn't want to delete it for something as silly as thinking it's going to stop vs debaterism within their website. "Me like big strong number" has existed about as long as media itself has, SCP's still going to be debated elsewhere, and SCP fans gumming up their own site isn't inherently our problem. The Indonesian tik tokers who think that Ultima Reality is some godlike fictional character as opposed to some nerd from Brazil have already discovered SCP. It was over before it even began. No, what you should want to remove it for is strictly its effects on our own wiki. So setting aside extrinsic concerns, let's examine what's being harmed for us.
The ultimate purpose of this website is entertainment, and as such we should work in those terms. What's the harm done in vsdebateritis infecting SCP? Mainly the time and effort in shooting it down and maintaining it, which would be done by the people who like SCP and want to engage with it to begin with. It seems the people most negatively impacted by SCP would be the ones who'd want it to stick around the most. If they're still having fun overall I don't really care as long as their proverbial lawn doesn't get so overgrown it starts messing with mine. Do we have examples of a failure of pruning for this sort of stuff? Because as I mentioned, the tier 0 stuff isn't a real example of that. I don't think we're really "giving legitimacy" to it or whatever given how SCP vs debating spread outside our niche long ago and isn't gonna drop dead if we remove it today, so that's a bit of an odd point to harp on. All the examples in the OP appear to be things that aren't used, and I remember stuff being dismissed out of hand in the past on discretion like when Weekly was very poorly disguising his involvement with voting for SCPs, so even for someone who thinks it shouldn't have been allowed in the first place I can't really think of instances where things stayed unchecked at the moment. Then again I've been fairly sporadic, so eh.
I'm ultimately pretty ambivalent to whether it stays or not. I think that it's too late to prevent the issues that could have been averted if it was never allowed, and as far as I can tell those issues predominantly affect the group of people who work on it and with SCP being as spread as it is strange characters aren't really any more an indictment of vbw than something like high 1-B thor. If we're still taking weirdo alt suggestions I'd be interested in looking at what heavily rate limiting the verse could do for it. Lock all pages, only allow edits over a fairly long time scale. It preserves the work done on the pages while dissuading people from interfering going forwards since their stuff wouldn't get any recognition for a long time, if ever. Note the date the profiles reflect, lock them forever/until a while in the future, leave 'em be until then. If we're not accepting weirdo suggestions, I guess I'd lean disagree if I had to pick, though if people can post stuff slipping through the cracks for a while or causing problems outside the SCP "sector" of the wiki that would change that.
Since votes haven't really changed, I kinda wanna wrap this up, but @Saikou_The_Lewd_King hasn't commented yet; anyone know whether they intend to say something?
SCP supporters, which place do you think it would be best to migrate to? So far I've seen Bambu's wiki, Zark's wiki, CSAP, this wiki, or just making an entirely new wiki, all floated around as serious suggestions.
I also think we should ponder how we change some of our rules, specifically the Editing Rules around collaborative fiction, in light of this.
Since votes haven't really changed, I kinda wanna wrap this up, but @Saikou_The_Lewd_King hasn't commented yet; anyone know whether they intend to say something?
I also would have preferred Saikou to speak here, if only to understand that we heard his thoughts on the matter. Still, as far as I can tell, he's been fairly active on Discord talking about this, and given he hasn't replied, I'm not hopeful.
The idea of holding our own profiles hostage in order to stop people from interfering with our profiles is hilarious and I support it because it's the funniest outcome and as such it's objectively the best. I'll do it right now and issue this threat OFFICIALLY on behalf of the collective consciousness of Versus Battles Wiki which is legally binding by the code of the sovereign citizen.
MY WEBMASTER IS ANGRY AT ME!. He's BLAMING me! IT'S my fault, I ADMIT IT! It's my fault! I WANT everything A-BOUT MY WIKI TERMINOLOGY OFF! THE! SCP FOUNDATION WEBSITE! I'll send in detectives! I'll send in police! I'll send in EVERYTHING IN MY POWER!
(poorly hidden cut)
So yeah, please, get everything off the SCP Foundation website, Now, NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW, NOOOOOW!
Curse the trolls, peace to everyone else.
Those of you reading this at home should apply this philosophy to serious matters like picking your major or looking for a job or voting by the way. The funniest outcome is always the best.
On a more serious note, the tier 0 thing that got mentioned in the thread is overblown, that happened because one structure got to tier 0 organically and there happens to be a guy over in SCP trying to make a theory of everything of sorts for the universe and as such that structure has been getting tied into all sorts of things which made the 20 profiles or whatever the number was scale, it's not people independently spamming tier 0 feats and iirc the guy has actually been causing some annoyance on SCP among the old guard who are less a fan of that than the newer SCP zoomers (though they seem to be the winning faction). Because people with comics seem to be in love with taking high ends over more average or low ends we've seen a similar inflation over there, for similar reasons. It's not the greatest reason to use here.
Having said that, the best argument for keeping SCP around is likely the sunk costs aspect of it, and while people may be quick to point to that as a fallacy I'll have to remind you that the sunk cost fallacy involves being committed to something due to invested resources despite it having become apparent that acting otherwise would be beneficial. There's no financial concerns or anything like that at stake here, so the calculation is a little different. Let me explain. I'm personally of the mindset that it was a mistake to allow SCP and similar collective commons stuff in the first place. Going from not having to deal with SCP issues to having to deal with them, especially at the time? It seems like a fairly easy border case to just say no thanks to before anyone's sunk any time into this. There's no commitment, you're just turning it away at the gates no harm no foul. Well, we didn't do that and we've had SCP for years, and now the landscape's changed. The bar of entry to create projects and get eyes on them is lower than it ever has been, collective commons stuff is becoming more well known, and SCP in particular has gained prominence in vs debating as a whole, even getting used in a Death Battle cast before Death Battle lost their own death battle to Budget Cuts, a very fearsome creature which all of us must fear. If you want to delete SCP you shouldn't want to delete it for something as silly as thinking it's going to stop vs debaterism within their website. "Me like big strong number" has existed about as long as media itself has, SCP's still going to be debated elsewhere, and SCP fans gumming up their own site isn't inherently our problem. The Indonesian tik tokers who think that Ultima Reality is some godlike fictional character as opposed to some nerd from Brazil have already discovered SCP. It was over before it even began. No, what you should want to remove it for is strictly its effects on our own wiki. So setting aside extrinsic concerns, let's examine what's being harmed for us.
The ultimate purpose of this website is entertainment, and as such we should work in those terms. What's the harm done in vsdebateritis infecting SCP? Mainly the time and effort in shooting it down and maintaining it, which would be done by the people who like SCP and want to engage with it to begin with. It seems the people most negatively impacted by SCP would be the ones who'd want it to stick around the most. If they're still having fun overall I don't really care as long as their proverbial lawn doesn't get so overgrown it starts messing with mine. Do we have examples of a failure of pruning for this sort of stuff? Because as I mentioned, the tier 0 stuff isn't a real example of that. I don't think we're really "giving legitimacy" to it or whatever given how SCP vs debating spread outside our niche long ago and isn't gonna drop dead if we remove it today, so that's a bit of an odd point to harp on. All the examples in the OP appear to be things that aren't used, and I remember stuff being dismissed out of hand in the past on discretion like when Weekly was very poorly disguising his involvement with voting for SCPs, so even for someone who thinks it shouldn't have been allowed in the first place I can't really think of instances where things stayed unchecked at the moment. Then again I've been fairly sporadic, so eh.
I'm ultimately pretty ambivalent to whether it stays or not. I think that it's too late to prevent the issues that could have been averted if it was never allowed, and as far as I can tell those issues predominantly affect the group of people who work on it and with SCP being as spread as it is strange characters aren't really any more an indictment of vbw than something like high 1-B thor. If we're still taking weirdo alt suggestions I'd be interested in looking at what heavily rate limiting the verse could do for it. Lock all pages, only allow edits over a fairly long time scale. It preserves the work done on the pages while dissuading people from interfering going forwards since their stuff wouldn't get any recognition for a long time, if ever. Note the date the profiles reflect, lock them forever/until a while in the future, leave 'em be until then. If we're not accepting weirdo suggestions, I guess I'd lean disagree if I had to pick, though if people can post stuff slipping through the cracks for a while or causing problems outside the SCP "sector" of the wiki that would change that.
This is a lot but it also doesn't insist upon debate-lording back and forth, really: it's a reasonably well-realized position, just one I don't agree with in its totality (although bits and pieces I consider to be true). Your position has been added the OP as an alternative alongside Everything12's.
Now then, without a sudden tide of votes coming in from somewhere, this thread is going to meet the minimum time requirements for conclusion in about one hour. I think affording some extra time would be a good idea regardless, before considering the voting concluded, but it would be a good idea to begin discussing what to do with SCP now that it is mostly agreed that it will not be staying here.
For the purposes of the thread, would you be willing to shed some light on their feelings regarding it? It is the general opinion of the thread, I think, that we're interested in the archival of the work you guys have done. We would not be content to begin finalizing this until we knew of some sort of plan.
scp-wiki.wikidot.com
