SCP Foundation - Creepypasta with roid rage - now ITT: SCP fans

[Furret]

>"I vote yes to delete them. She wanted them to be deleted, and going against her word is really transphobic tbh."
What is it with these people and transphobia?

Apparently some people in this discussion think not deleting a transgender person's work when they ask for it is equivalent to deadnaming them, which is probably the most bizarre pro-deletion argument I've seen so far.

>"I believe all of Harmony's work on their old account should be given a disclaimer, citing the above egregious actions. We can't erase history, but we can hold them accountable."
Dude. Like, wow. Holy shit like, they have a clear legal right to keep the articles. It may not be the right thing to do but at least there's somewhat of an understandable reason behind it. But holy crap, this is something else. Who posted this one, ToS?

It's possible that I'm just blind, but I went through the entire thread and couldn't find it. It might have been edited out, but I remember seeing it before so it was definitely there, I just didn't pay attention to the user.

I find it funny that some people like the above user are focused on accountability right now. It hasn't been posted here yet, but Roget/Harmony was just permanently banned by Anti-Harassment, which is the harshest punishment a user can receive from staff. There's no appeal for people banned by Anti-Harassment, they're gone forever. Despite this, some people are still out for blood, and would see Roget/Harmony publicly shamed on hundreds of pages for her actions. How typical.

 

[Cow-Chan]

Apparently some people in this discussion think not deleting a transgender person's work when they ask for it is equivalent to deadnaming them, which is probably the most bizarre pro-deletion argument I've seen so far.

I'm pretty pro-trans but this is anvil-to-the-skull retarded. Just because someone is trans doesn't mean you should be bending over backwards to fuck yourself in the ass for them.

I find it funny that some people like the above user are focused on accountability right now. It hasn't been posted here yet, but Roget/Harmony was just permanently banned by Anti-Harassment, which is the harshest punishment a user can receive from staff. There's no appeal for people banned by Anti-Harassment, they're gone forever. Despite this, some people are still out for blood, and would see Roget/Harmony publicly shamed on hundreds of pages for her actions. How typical.

Accountability is bull. Roget/Pixel spent their time and effort writing those article. It's absolutely her right to delete them purely based on morals, regardless of what she's done that the staff don't like.

 

[ToS]

>"I believe all of Harmony's work on their old account should be given a disclaimer, citing the above egregious actions. We can't erase history, but we can hold them accountable."
Dude. Like, wow. Holy shit like, they have a clear legal right to keep the articles. It may not be the right thing to do but at least there's somewhat of an understandable reason behind it. But holy crap, this is something else. Who posted this one, ToS?

It’s the reply post to the very first one from DrBleep, “honestfriend” who is some SCP podcaster.

 

[Furret]

It’s the reply post to the very first one from DrBleep, “honestfriend” who is some SCP podcaster.

View attachment 1932806
View attachment 1932807

An SCP podcast is this guy's day job? Poor bastard.

 

[Cow-Chan]

It’s the reply post to the very first one from DrBleep, “honestfriend” who is some SCP podcaster.

View attachment 1932806
View attachment 1932807

This looks like what they're saying is that they should literally steal all of Harmony's work and reupload it from a different vector so she can't claim ownership, almost. Whoever this "honestfriend" guy is, he's neither honest, nor anyone's friend.

 

[Furret]

This looks like what they're saying is that they should literally steal all of Harmony's work and reupload it from a different vector so she can't claim ownership, almost. Whoever this "honestfriend" guy is, he's neither honest, nor anyone's friend.

It's in his best interests to keep those pages around if he does an SCP podcast for a living. He's probably more concerned with that than with the moral debate everyone else is having.

 

[AnOminous]

This looks like what they're saying is that they should literally steal all of Harmony's work and reupload it from a different vector so she can't claim ownership, almost. Whoever this "honestfriend" guy is, he's neither honest, nor anyone's friend.

It was released under a Creative Commons license. Those are irrevocable. It seems like it's against this particular wiki's policies not to delete on request though. That makes it a dick move but pretty much anyone can use this material, creative derivative works from it, or whatever, and even sell it.

I think this is the license:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

I'm not sure this has always been the case, though. Older material might have been under an older license like this:

Creative Commons — Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic — CC BY-SA 2.0

Or even under no CC license at all. I don't know the history of how SCP has done this.

 

[Furret]

It was released under a Creative Commons license. Those are irrevocable. It seems like it's against this particular wiki's policies not to delete on request though. That makes it a dick move but pretty much anyone can use this material, creative derivative works from it, or whatever, and even sell it.

I think this is the license:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

I'm not sure this has always been the case, though. Older material might have been under an older license like this:

Creative Commons — Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic — CC BY-SA 2.0

Or even under no CC license at all. I don't know the history of how SCP has done this.

I believe everything published to Wikidot wikis is automatically released under CC BY-SA 3.0, and it's been this way since the wiki was made. There's a precedent for staff to listen to Roget/Harmony and delete the pages even though they don't have to because of Fishmonger, a banned author from a decade ago who threw a hissy fit and threatened to sue them if they didn't delete everything he wrote. They knew he had no legal ground to stand on, but they decided to do it anyway in an effort to be the bigger people. Now that Roget/Harmony is doing it, they suddenly don't like the precedent that set.

 

[AnOminous]

They knew he had no legal ground to stand on, but they decided to do it anyway in an effort to be the bigger people. Now that Roget/Harmony is doing it, they suddenly don't like the precedent that set.

They're in a bad position because now, the material is actually apparently pretty popular (mostly past my time with SCP so I am not familiar with all but the earliest stuff), and other stuff has been based on it. So it kind of rips the foundation out from under a lot of people who have created derivative works since then, relying on the fact that they were licensed to do so.

So no matter what they do, they're going to look like colossal dicks. That's fine with me because they are colossal dicks. The precedent they should have set earlier is you put this here, you've done it for good, no takebacks. And then they should have been absolutely unambiguous about that going forward. They've made their bed, let them lie in it.

 

[ToS]

It was released under a Creative Commons license. Those are irrevocable. It seems like it's against this particular wiki's policies not to delete on request though. That makes it a dick move but pretty much anyone can use this material, creative derivative works from it, or whatever, and even sell it.

I think this is the license:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

I'm not sure this has always been the case, though. Older material might have been under an older license like this:

Creative Commons — Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic — CC BY-SA 2.0

Or even under no CC license at all. I don't know the history of how SCP has done this.

I believe everything published to Wikidot wikis is automatically released under CC BY-SA 3.0, and it's been this way since the wiki was made. There's a precedent for staff to listen to Roget/Harmony and delete the pages even though they don't have to because of Fishmonger, a banned author from a decade ago who threw a hissy fit and threatened to sue them if they didn't delete everything he wrote. They knew he had no legal ground to stand on, but they decided to do it anyway in an effort to be the bigger people. Now that Roget/Harmony is doing it, they suddenly don't like the precedent that set.

@Furret is right, the very first day of the wiki is captured on the Wayback Machine. At the bottom of the page, there is the same “CC BY-SA 3.0" disclaimer that is there now because that was the default for Wikidot accounts unless you specifically changed it as a master admin. That was something even the God Admins of Wikidot itself argued over a whole bunch. It’s clear from early discussions on the wiki about making a movie and possibly setting up SCP as an LLC that the original users had no clue what the CC meant, even as late as 2012. They even tried to change it, several times actually. I'll make this sperg-out mild becuase I have been taking up a lot of space lately. There is some hilarity in the site's awkward relationship with the license they didn't know they were permanently choosing for themselves; like the time staff greenlit Audrey Duksin for his now infamous art book (he's the dude who trademarked SCP in Russia). Or the time the English SCP staff discovered that the Russian branch had been illegally operating under a different license for almost 10 years, and threatened to cut all ties to them for fear of legal fall out, really pissing off the Russian SCP in the process.

Anyway, I'll go into more sperg if it ever becomes relevant. But by using his deadname as a blunt weapon, Rogrette is attacking the CC BY-SA at the "Attribution" level, which really is its legal capstone. If you can't attribute it, you can't do anything with it strictly speaking in a legal sense. That plus the CC grey area of "implied intent" (something the SCP Licensing Staff has used to justify their use of Moto42's original SCP-173 for the first 4 years of the wiki)... might be enough to support a legal claim of having a right to get the articles removed. So, Rogrette has a very wobbly and grey leg to stand on here if you just want to talk about the CC and avoid the very clear moral argument (like d-kak and other idiots).

-----------

A funny little development, it looks like staffer Pedantique is stepping down just after seeing the writing on the wall regarding the impending changes to author sovereignty. He is resigning officially for other reasons, but has vocalized likely leaving the site when the staff don't take down Harmony's articles (as have other stalwart members).

 

[Furret]

@Furret is right, the very first day of the wiki is captured on the Wayback Machine. At the bottom of the page, there is the same “CC BY-SA 3.0" disclaimer that is there now because that was the default for Wikidot accounts unless you specifically changed it as a master admin. That was something even the God Admins of Wikidot itself argued over a whole bunch. It’s clear from early discussions on the wiki about making a movie and possibly setting up SCP as an LLC that the original users had no clue what the CC meant, even as late as 2012. They even tried to change it, several times actually. I'll make this sperg-out mild becuase I have been taking up a lot of space lately. There is some hilarity in the site's awkward relationship with the license they didn't know they were permanently choosing for themselves; like the time staff greenlit Audrey Duksin for his now infamous art book (he's the dude who trademarked SCP in Russia). Or the time the English SCP staff discovered that the Russian branch had been illegally operating under a different license for almost 10 years, and threatened to cut all ties to them for fear of legal fall out, really pissing off the Russian SCP in the process.

Anyway, I'll go into more sperg if it ever becomes relevant. But by using his deadname as a blunt weapon, Rogrette is attacking the CC BY-SA at the "Attribution" level, which really is its legal capstone. If you can't attribute it, you can't do anything with it strictly speaking in a legal sense. That plus the CC grey area of "implied intent" (something the SCP Licensing Staff has used to justify their use of Moto42's original SCP-173 for the first 4 years of the wiki)... might be enough to support a legal claim of having a right to get the articles removed. So, Rogrette has a very wobbly and grey leg to stand on here if you just want to talk about the CC and avoid the very clear moral argument (like d-kak and other idiots).

-----------

A funny little development, it looks like staffer Pedantique is stepping down just after seeing the writing on the wall regarding the impending changes to author sovereignty. He is resigning officially for other reasons, but has vocalized likely leaving the site when the staff don't take down Harmony's articles (as have other stalwart members).

That license has caused them a pretty hilarious amount of trouble over the years. Half of the Licensing team is dedicated to making sure every single image on the site is compliant with it, and the other half is dedicated to monitoring digital markets to tell people to stop making merch with 173's likeness on it because Izumi Kato only released the image to them under a non-commercial license.

 

[AnOminous]

Half of the Licensing team is dedicated to making sure every single image on the site is compliant with it, and the other half is dedicated to monitoring digital markets to tell people to stop making merch with 173's likeness on it because Izumi Kato only released the image to them under a non-commercial license.

That's particularly hilarious because it is probably the single most iconic SCP image. Serves them right for trying to turn a shitpost collection from 4/x/ into some weird child grooming SJW cult.

 

[ToS]

That license has caused them a pretty hilarious amount of trouble over the years. Half of the Licensing team is dedicated to making sure every single image on the site is compliant with it, and the other half is dedicated to monitoring digital markets to tell people to stop making merch with 173's likeness on it because Izumi Kato only released the image to them under a non-commercial license.

The sink hole in the middle of it all is that Moto42’s original article is based off of the image in the same ways video game is based off the words, so since 173 is technically a derivative of that non-commercial image, all SCP merch might be illegal.

Whatever though.

 

[BurnerPhone]

Rogrette has a very wobbly and grey leg to stand on here if you just want to talk about the CC and avoid the very clear moral argument (like d-kak and other idiots).

Nah, I'll say he's properly screwed if he cares that much about it. An easy defense against his claim is that he's not providing a reasonable way to attribute the work to himself. The license says reasonable attribution must be given as determined by the author. Roget has no legal right to say "Delete all of the works I have licensed" because the very nature of the CC Share-alike 3.0 license allows people to copy his work without compensation or notice, as long as they attribute the work. If Roget doesn't want to provide a name or method to attribute the work, it's definitely a defense against a civil suit to claim that Roget is placing an unreasonable burden on SCP by making an attribution request that is impossible to fulfill.

Nevermind the fact that Roget can't afford a lawyer and the legal problems you'd encounter suing an unincorporated writing collective anyways. Hey Roget, if you're reading this, stop caring about SCP, you spent a decade there and you can't even put it on a resume. Put your writing passion to good use for once get a job doing it. Just take an English literature class before you do because your prose sucks and your diction is twice as bad.

 

[Whoever]

I'd heard that the SCP Foundation wiki started off as a normie horror project and then got taken over by insane people because they didn't gatekeep hard enough, but was it infected from the very beginning?

 

[Furret]

you spent a decade there and you can't even put it on a resume.

Actually, I've heard of some SCP Admins putting their staff work on their resumes as volunteer work. The name that comes to my mind is Zyn, but she has a million posts and I don't remember where I saw this, so it might take me a bit to dig up. I'll edit this post with a link if I find it.

 

[ToS]

Actually, I've heard of some SCP Admins putting their staff work on their resumes as volunteer work. The name that comes to my mind is Zyn, but she has a million posts and I don't remember where I saw this, so it might take me a bit to dig up. I'll edit this post with a link if I find it.

I think the funniest example is Randomini, the receipts are in this thread somewhere.

 

[Gar For Archer]

I'd heard that the SCP Foundation wiki started off as a normie horror project and then got taken over by insane people because they didn't gatekeep hard enough, but was it infected from the very beginning?

You must not have been around for the LOLfoundation days, where SCP was a fucking sitcom starring the popular author's mary sue self-insert researchers. Watch the Down the Rabbit Hole video on SCP if you want a rundown of the early days of the SCP wiki and the drama that came along with it.

 

[AnOminous]

The sink hole in the middle of it all is that Moto42’s original article is based off of the image in the same ways video game is based off the words, so since 173 is technically a derivative of that non-commercial image, all SCP merch might be illegal.

Whatever though.

Izumi Kato does not appear to be an utter cunt, though. He just doesn't want people selling copies of his actual sculpture and turning a profit when he never gave permission for that, and I don't blame him in the least. He was pretty much a sport for even tolerating the SCP itself.

I'd heard that the SCP Foundation wiki started off as a normie horror project and then got taken over by insane people because they didn't gatekeep hard enough, but was it infected from the very beginning?

No, the opposite, it started out as /x/ schizos and that was when it was at its best, was taken over by normies, and then by SJWs.

Nevermind the fact that Roget can't afford a lawyer and the legal problems you'd encounter suing an unincorporated writing collective anyways.

I don't think Roget actually intends that, but just to let things play out and let these assholes show what complete hypocritical jerks they are.

 

[Furret]

Izumi Kato does not appear to be an utter cunt, though. He just doesn't want people selling copies of his actual sculpture and turning a profit when he never gave permission for that, and I don't blame him in the least. He was pretty much a sport for even tolerating the SCP itself.

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with anything Kato did, and it was generous of him to allow the wiki to use his image at all. He could have just told them to not use it at all and they would have had to find a new image. I suspect that he may not have understood what exactly was being done with his work, but I don't blame him for not caring enough to find out.