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

[Valstrax]

scp is like wine snobs talking about how the wine tastes like blueberries and pear and when you say hey it tastes like grapes, they shun you

It's basically some sort of "top society" club that when you manage to get in, it turns out that it's basically the equivalent of Dashcon.

 

[Furret]

It's basically some sort of "top society" club that when you manage to get in, it turns out that it's basically the equivalent of Dashcon.

It's more like a bunch of high school cliques masquerading as a writing community.

 

[alanshaffer3293]

Not that it was ever about legal standing. Nothing in their CC prevents the owners/admins from deleting anything nor everything, by whim or request.

Hell, we just watched them post an SCP, have a massive spergfest about what a good pwn it was on Harmony, then immediately removed because the optics didn't go as planned.

And not a single consent issue was ever raised.

"Nothing in their CC prevents the owners/admins from deleting anything nor everything, by whim or request."

This isn't true, there is a clause in the version of CC that SCP uses that effectively means they can use your articles without your consent should you release them under CC.

 

[Toolbox]

SCP-5167 - SCP Foundation

scp-wiki.wikidot.com

Archive

This isn't even a J class. I'm sure this will be just as relevant and hilarious in a few years.

Edit: Ah shit, a day late? Well uh... other poster is sus. Laugh!

 

[Baubius]

Edit: Ah shit, a day late? Well uh... other poster is sus. Laugh!

You remind me of myself when I first joined SCP.

 

[AStupidMonkey]

"Nothing in their CC prevents the owners/admins from deleting anything nor everything, by whim or request."

This isn't true, there is a clause in the version of CC that SCP uses that effectively means they can use your articles without your consent should you release them under CC.

Yeah, those aren't mutually exclusive, despite what the admins might like you to think.

 

[alanshaffer3293]

Yeah, those aren't mutually exclusive, despite what the admins might like you to think.

? What isn't mutually exclusive

 

[AStupidMonkey]

? What isn't mutually exclusive

"Nothing in the CC prevents them from deleting" and "they still can" are not mutually exclusive, retard.

 

[ScatmansWorld]

If you aren't interested in reading the whole thing, I'd recommend the following keywords in addition to the names up there: black flag, 19, SCPd, circlejerk, volgun, RPC, death threat, Wexx (Waxx), nazi, goofballs, clueless, vote rate inflation, furryyiffpalace.com, abusive, 200+

#Rogetbox_1 - f90c4fde

2019-03-25 15:35:02: <Ard> I don’t trust those yahoos in 19 at all 15:35:10: <Ard> Th - f90c4fde

controlc.com

https://archive.md/tV7j5

Upload the txt directly to the site unless you want your evidence to be nuked away.

Let this experience be a lesson to all you writers out there. Don't give up your fucking rights. Ever.

Don't. Fucking. Use. Creative. Commons. For. Fiction.

Counterpoint: DO give up your rights but do it under a Copyleft license (In this case it would be CC BY-SA, which the SCP wiki uses!)

Nope, that is the basic, all encompassing Creative Commons.

You’re entirely mistaken I’m afraid. The SCP wiki uses CC 2 (BY-SA) which is NOT the basic all encompassing CC. I believe you’re thinking of CC BY.

You'll never amount to anything because your IP has already been stolen

No wonder the Russians were able to take it over. Because they're legally allowed to as CC is international.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the whole issue with the Russian SCP shit is that someone was trying to trademark the SCP IP/"brand", which the CC BY-SA explicitly does NOT permit. That's the power of Copyleft licenses and why Wikipedia and Wikidot uses CC BY-SA for all their articles in the first place. It's a license that says "Fuck you EVERYONE can do whatever they want with this AND with any derivatives created from it, and you can't stop them." Yes, like you said people are free to edit it and people are even free to make money off it, but the most important thing is that no matter what, no one OWNS it. There is no IP to be stolen.

Hey lookie that, I went to the Russian SCP hub and their licensing works the exact same way. At the end of the day, it's a for-fun (or at least supposed to be) community writing project where no one owns or will own jack shit, and that's a GOOD thing.

The Russians who made the money have all of that now. They've established a brand and popularity. Now they get to dictate what is what with SCP, because they have the capital, clout and just plain look better.

The fuck are you talking about? They can make money from it like everyone else but at the end of the day they still don't own jack shit. Even the people who edit your CC BY-SA work don't own jack shit. If the SCP wiki admins edit your work to mock you or to censor it, you can go right ahead and upload the original somewhere else, or even copy THEIR versions and sell them for cash as long as you give attribution to whoever edited it.

Of course if you're planning to write for a living you could just not license anything and keep your inherent copyright, or you could even use the CC BY-NC-SA license which is more of a "soft-copyright" if you want to allow derivatives but don't want anyone profiting from your work. It's just in my dumb idealistic opinion that if you write something for fun or to share with some community, CC BY-SA is the best choice that gives everyone the freedom to build on it without taking it for themselves. Also yeah for written work never use CC BY or CC0 unless you're a complete sucker.

 

[alanshaffer3293]

"Nothing in the CC prevents them from deleting" and "they still can" are not mutually exclusive, retard.

You just don't understand what I'm saying then. I said there is a clause in CC that allows them to keep Harmony's articles up without their permission, that is their entire argument for doing this in the first place. But if Harmony never released their content under CC in the first place then this argument is moot and they have no moral or legal standing to keep them up. Which, could realistically be argued, since there is no agreement when joining the SCP wiki stating that you are automatically releasing your works under CC.

Edit: Also for some reason I can't quote your original post but no, literally everything is about legal standing. Someone making a retarded article and it getting booed off the site has nothing to do with the complexities of CC and why it allows them to keep Harmony's articles on the site. The CC license being invalid literally changes everything, not just in this instance but in any future instances where they refuse to delete an authors work.

 

[Furret]

Which, could realistically be argued, since there is no agreement when joining the SCP wiki stating that you are automatically releasing your works under CC.

During her time as a staff member, did Roget/Harmony ever edit or post pages containing information about the license or discuss the license on O5 Command? I'm no lawyer, but in the hypothetical scenario where this goes to court, it seems like those things would be used as evidence that Roget/Harmony knew about the license and knew what she was doing when she posted her works to the wiki. For other users, there's the disclaimer at the bottom of literally every page.

 

[BurnerPhone]

During her time as a staff member, did Roget/Harmony ever edit or post pages containing information about the license or discuss the license on O5 Command? I'm no lawyer, but in the hypothetical scenario where this goes to court, it seems like those things would be used as evidence that Roget/Harmony knew about the license and knew what she was doing when she posted her works to the wiki. For other users, there's the disclaimer at the bottom of literally every page.

The confusion lies in the wording "Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License", which is actually displayed by wikidot itself, not SCP. "Page" in this instance isn't specific on whether that just means the one page or the webpage as a whole. Like you said, SCP is adapting the wiki format to host a community writing site, which wikidot was never really intended to do. If SCP wants authors to relinquish their rights when posting an article, it would behoove them to force users to acknowledge this when submitting a membership application. I believe there is an argument to be made that users may actually retain their rights to their articles because sufficient notice is not given on the site specifying which that authors are posting under a Share-Alike 3.0 license. Whether or not Roget was aware of the this may be irrelevant because he still never signed an agreement to specifically relinquish his works. Roget, if you're still hung up on this, DM me and we can discuss potential avenues of action

 

[alanshaffer3293]

The confusion lies in the wording "Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License", which is actually displayed by wikidot itself, not SCP. "Page" in this instance isn't specific on whether that just means the one page or the webpage as a whole. Like you said, SCP is adapting the wiki format to host a community writing site, which wikidot was never really intended to do. If SCP wants authors to relinquish their rights when posting an article, it would behoove them to force users to acknowledge this when submitting a membership application. I believe there is an argument to be made that users may actually retain their rights to their articles because sufficient notice is not given on the site specifying which that authors are posting under a Share-Alike 3.0 license. Whether or not Roget was aware of the this may be irrelevant because he still never signed an agreement to specifically relinquish his works. Roget, if you're still hung up on this, DM me and we can discuss potential avenues of action

I agree with this, it's much more likely that it's meant to be interpreted as the wiki itself is under Creative Commons. Even so, the fact that its up for interpretation at all and can be twisted in any which way + the fact that wikidot is a collapsing company that almost certainly doesn't have any sleezy high paid attorneys to contest such a motion makes this a very weak counter-argument to my proposal.

 

[BurnerPhone]

I agree with this, it's much more likely that it's meant to be interpreted as the wiki itself is under Creative Commons. Even so, the fact that its up for interpretation at all and can be twisted in any which way + the fact that wikidot is a collapsing company that almost certainly doesn't have any sleezy high paid attorneys to contest such a motion makes this a very weak counter-argument to my proposal.

Nah you wouldn't sue wikidot itself, you'd sue SCP for insufficient notice

 

[Furret]

Nah you wouldn't sue wikidot itself, you'd sue SCP for insufficient notice

And staff actually do have a sizeable amount of money to spend on a legal defense after the Duksin case. It's not exactly a corporation defense, but it is sizeable, and Roget/Harmony is apparently broke as shit, so.

 

[alanshaffer3293]

And staff actually do have a sizeable amount of money to spend on a legal defense after the Duksin case. It's not exactly a corporation defense, but it is sizeable, and Roget/Harmony is apparently broke as shit, so.

It would still be a big hassle, and also bring a public spotlight to an incident where they don't look good or in the right.

It's much more likely they'd just back off and try to settle the matter by finally taking Harmony's articles down.

 

[Furret]

It would still be a big hassle, and also bring a public spotlight to an incident where they don't look good or in the right.

It's much more likely they'd just take down all of Harmony's articles at the first whiff of any possible legal action.

Fishmonger also threatened to sue, and that didn't affect their decision back then in the slightest, even though they had far less money and reach back then. The eventual decision to delete Fish's articles was a purely moral one, and they were preparing to lawyer up if Fish did. I doubt they would shy away from court here, especially because it would show that any other author could force them to do things just by suing.

Plus, this is SCP wiki staff we're talking about here. The one thing they're consistently good at is making situations where they do something scummy look good to the audience they care about retaining. The narrative they need said audience to buy, that Roget/Harmony is an abuser who wants her articles taken down out of spite, has already been spread. Optics aren't a factor.

 

[alanshaffer3293]

Fishmonger also threatened to sue, and that didn't affect their decision back then in the slightest, even though they had far less money and reach back then. The eventual decision to delete Fish's articles was a purely moral one, and they were preparing to lawyer up if Fish did. I doubt they would shy away from court here, especially because it would show that any other author could force them to do things just by suing.

Plus, this is SCP wiki staff we're talking about here. The one thing they're consistently good at is making situations where they do something scummy look good to the audience they care about retaining. The narrative they need said audience to buy, that Roget/Harmony is an abuser who wants her articles taken down out of spite, has already been spread. Optics aren't a factor.

It's very easy to give that story to a group of loyal supporters and people who have been entrenched in the community for years, it's not easy to give that story to the wider public, who'll be more skeptical. Plus if Harmony played their cards right the optics wouldn't be an issue. They could make a public statement preempting any reaction by SCP that immediately explains their reasoning along with clear evidence of their claims, essentially taking control of the narrative from the very beginning.

Also I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to crowdfund. The SCP staff have made many enemies over the years, I can think of several people off the top of my head who would have the means and desire to support such an effort.

 

[Furret]

It's very easy to give that story to a group of loyal supporters and people who have been entrenched in the community for years, it's not easy to give that story to the wider public, who'll be more skeptical. Plus if Harmony played their cards right the optics wouldn't be an issue. They could make a public statement preempting any reaction by SCP that immediately explains their reasoning along with clear evidence of their claims, essentially taking control of the narrative from the very beginning.

They already have control of the narrative. We might be harshly critical of them on here, and Tumblr might not be happy, but the people on Reddit? The people who mainly interact with the wiki through the videos of people like Volgun, or who mostly just like the games? They're already sold on the narrative staff wants them to believe. Roget/Harmony can try to make some sort of statement, but then staff can just point to her account on an alleged Nazi hate website where she posts feet pics for an audience that mostly responds with "neck yourself tranny", and suddenly that statement doesn't matter.

Also I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to crowdfund. The SCP staff have made many enemies over the years, I can think of several people off the top of my head who would have the means and desire to support such an effort.

Oh yeah, money on Roget/Harmony's end wouldn't be an issue, I was just trying to point out that the defense isn't just going to be whatever the four Polish dudes running Wikidot can scrape together.

 

[alanshaffer3293]

They already have control of the narrative. We might be harshly critical of them on here, and Tumblr might not be happy, but the people on Reddit? The people who mainly interact with the wiki through the videos of people like Volgun, or who mostly just like the games? They're already sold on the narrative staff wants them to believe. Roget/Harmony can try to make some sort of statement, but then staff can just point to her account on an alleged Nazi hate website where she posts feet pics for an audience that mostly responds with "neck yourself tranny", and suddenly that statement doesn't matter.

Oh yeah, money on Roget/Harmony's end wouldn't be an issue, I was just trying to point out that the defense isn't just going to be whatever the four Polish dudes running Wikidot can scrape together.

Support for keeping Harmony's articles up seems to be mostly based on lies (i.e Harmony is using their articles as leverage, Harmony is harassing staff, etc.), if Harmony were to address and explain these lies preceding any action it would probably make people much more skeptical. Also this has mostly been contained to site internal drama, I've seen no mention of this on the reddit or other big mainstream social media platforms in any real capacity.