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

[Baubius]

Show me where I asked anyone here for critique?

cope and seethe

 

[ToS]

I was already banned from the wiki, because I vandalized the pedophilia article in an attempt to draw attention to it. The ban was justified, let me be clear. I've gotten more attention drawn to the pedophilia by bringing it up over the wiki, discord, here, etc, than I did by acting like a child vandalizing pages. I'm glad they banned me for that, if they hadn't, that would be a lack of character. Vandalism isn't justifiable. There are better ways of going about it, which I have also done. And so, here we are.

I am going to say, my disciplinary thread did get admins to look over the article again, looking at the discussion for both my thread and the article.

I'm sure you're aware of this also, but they decided your ban should be permanent, mere minutes after you posted here.

I think you are wrong believing that less vandalistic means are the best way to get attention on it. SCP staff has a reliable history of being an exponent to their own scandals. They are their own anti-marketing team. Now they've perma'd somebody for posting publically what they admit to sympathizing with, instead of keeping it a year ban for good-faith-bad-move vandalism. They know damn well you wouldn't vandalize again, because there isn't another instance of group-approved pedo-fic on the site.

Disciplinary - Bettermybutter - O5 Command

archived 9 Mar 2021 21:50:22 UTC

archive.li

I once modified one of my own articles under a new name because I didn't like a part in retrospect. Of course they caught it and reverted it because they thought it was vandalism. No ban for me though.

It was only nominally about the vandalism. It is more evidently about the bad publicity you've caused them. "Shit-stirring" is their term for it.

You over-estimate their sense of honor, and have shown more of it here and in the chatlogs of your ban appeal than they can muster.

 

[BurnerPhone]

You over-estimate their sense of honor, and have shown more of it here and in the chatlogs of your ban appeal than they can muster.

I sure would like to know the success rate of ban appeals, as well as the number of punishments that are retroactively upgraded to permanent bans

 

[LordSifr]

I sure would like to know the success rate of ban appeals, as well as the number of punishments that are retroactively upgraded to permanent bans

They do not work unless staff likes you.

Disclaimer: I am not speaking from my own experience here. I received a justified perma for malicious downvoting and my appeal was justifiedly rejected.

 

[Punished “Venom” pH]

By posting your work in a public space, you are inherently inviting critique. Just because the format you are used to muddled the criticism for you doesn’t make that any less true.

I’m not disputing that, but I still didn’t ask for it. Everyone is just presuming they have something to teach me, which is very cute of y’all to think so highly of yourselves.

 

[shnoopsis]

I'm sure you're aware of this also, but they decided your ban should be permanent, mere minutes after you posted here.

I think you are wrong believing that less vandalistic means are the best way to get attention on it. SCP staff has a reliable history of being an exponent to their own scandals. They are their own anti-marketing team. Now they've perma'd somebody for posting publically what they admit to sympathizing with, instead of keeping it a year ban for good-faith-bad-move vandalism. They know damn well you wouldn't vandalize again, because there isn't another instance of group-approved pedo-fic on the site.

https://archive.md/3joBz

I once modified one of my own articles under a new name because I didn't like a part in retrospect. Of course they caught it and reverted it because they thought it was vandalism. No ban for me though.

It was only nominally about the vandalism. It is more evidently about the bad publicity you've caused them. "Shit-stirring" is their term for it.

You over-estimate their sense of honor, and have shown more of it here and in the chatlogs of your ban appeal than they can muster.

I don't disagree with the staff's actions, but I do disagree with the absence of future actions. But yes, looking at my disciplinary thread here they have found 'new information'.

I vandalized the page, that warrants a ban. But my appeal is being denied for reasons unrelated to that. Me openly pointing out pedophilia shouldn't be what denies my appeal, but at the same time there may be other reasons which I would like to know. I really don't think there's some sort of cabal here. They're doing their best with what they've got, and I just want to know what it is they've got here against me.

 

[Cow-Chan]

I really don't think there's some sort of cabal here. They're doing their best with what they've got, and I just want to know what it is they've got here against me.

You really need to brush up on this thread. Staff are not innocent.

 

[shnoopsis]

My issue is that it looks as if they're denying the appeal because I'm discussing what happened somewhere else. If that's not the case, then I suggest they be less vague than 'new information'.

I can understand why they'd ban me, but it should be because I broke the rules, not because I brought up what 'AdminBright' did.

You really need to brush up on this thread. Staff are not innocent.

Maybe. I guess when I say 'staff' I mean the disciplinary staff, but they aren't innocent either. Either or, I'm not innocent either, but my point is that there's a difference between being innocent of vandalism and being innocent of apathy towards blatant pedophilia.

Thank you for pointing that out, besides. I should've been more informed, I guess I didn't want to bring up stuff that could be seen as irrelevant.

 

[ToS]

I don't disagree with the staff's actions, but I do disagree with the absence of future actions. But yes, looking at my disciplinary thread here they have found 'new information'.

I vandalized the page, that warrants a ban. But my appeal is being denied for reasons unrelated to that. Me openly pointing out pedophilia shouldn't be what denies my appeal, but at the same time there may be other reasons which I would like to know. I really don't think there's some sort of cabal here. They're doing their best with what they've got, and I just want to know what it is they've got here against me.

You really need to brush up on this thread. Staff are not innocent.

My issue is that it looks as if they're denying the appeal because I'm discussing what happened somewhere else. If that's not the case, then I suggest they be less vague than 'new information'.

I can understand why they'd ban me, but it should be because I broke the rules, not because I brought up what 'AdminBright' did.

Welcome in. You have a lot of catching up to do.

Always nice to see a red pill in real time.

 

[BurnerPhone]

Maybe. I guess when I say 'staff' I mean the disciplinary staff, but they aren't innocent either. Either or, I'm not innocent either, but my point is that there's a difference between being innocent of vandalism and being innocent of apathy towards blatant pedophilia.

Thank you for pointing that out, besides. I should've been more informed, I guess I didn't want to bring up stuff that could be seen as irrelevant.

Heads up, it's better to just edit your post with new info rather than make two separate posts

 

[Cow-Chan]

Maybe. I guess when I say 'staff' I mean the disciplinary staff, but they aren't innocent either. Either or, I'm not innocent either, but my point is that there's a difference between being innocent of vandalism and being innocent of apathy towards blatant pedophilia.

Thank you for pointing that out, besides. I should've been more informed, I guess I didn't want to bring up stuff that could be seen as irrelevant.

They were, and probably still are, harboring sex predators. The only reason they're doing anything with that article is because it no longer suits them and stands to bring more trouble. They don't actually care about its contents, but they'll pretend to if it means making themselves look good.

 

[shnoopsis]

Heads up, it's better to just edit your post with new info rather than make two separate posts

Oh, yeah. My bad, I typed out my post and then went to reply after the fact. Fairly new here, but you can probably tell already. Thanks for pointing that out.

On the subject of harboring- I suppose it's less 'harboring' and more protecting, at least when it comes to AdminBright. AdminBright is no longer officially associated with the staff due to his 'retirement', so I don't see why they're still focused on sweeping this under the rug- or at the very least were focused on that up until I called it out.

 

[BurnerPhone]

I’m not disputing that, but I still didn’t ask for it. Everyone is just presuming they have something to teach me, which is very cute of y’all to think so highly of yourselves.

lmao you are so mad

 

[Punished “Venom” pH]

lmao you are so mad

You guys are funny

Oh, yeah. My bad, I typed out my post and then went to reply after the fact. Fairly new here, but you can probably tell already. Thanks for pointing that out.

On the subject of harboring- I suppose it's less 'harboring' and more protecting, at least when it comes to AdminBright. AdminBright is no longer officially associated with the staff due to his 'retirement', so I don't see why they're still focused on sweeping this under the rug- or at the very least were focused on that up until I called it out.

The ss are nothing if they’re not being reactionary~

 

[Baubius]

You guys are funny

learn to write

 

[LordSifr]

For the love of God, please stop making an embarrassment out of yourself. This smug overtone does nothing but further perpetuate the notion that everyone out of SCP is so full of themselves that their pus of a personality leaks out of their ears.

 

[Punished “Venom” pH]

For the love of God, please stop making an embarrassment out of yourself. This smug overtone does nothing but further perpetuate the notion that everyone out of SCP is so full of themselves that their pus of a personality leaks out of their ears.

Who’s supposed to be mad again? lmao

 

[shnoopsis]

I'm waiting for a reply from staff on the subject of my appeal and what this 'information' is, or how it's relevant to my ban. But now that I've actually got people's attention on the article, it's gone from +244 to +203 as of now, so...mission accomplished. It's sad I thought that vandalizing it would do any good when just talking about it over Discord was way more effective in actually eliciting discussion. Also discussing it here.

My main issue is that they did next to nothing for 11 years when some random guy with next to no activity on the wiki had to be the bigger man and edit it out when so many users and staff just ignored it. But then I come along and edit it, and they're able to undo it in approx. 10 minutes.

The best method of getting it removed is through the system, flawed as it may be. When I vandalized it, it only weakened my argument.

 

[Punished “Venom” pH]

I'm waiting for a reply from staff on the subject of my appeal and what this 'information' is, or how it's relevant to my ban. But now that I've actually got people's attention on the article, it's gone from +244 to +203 as of now, so...mission accomplished. It's sad I thought that vandalizing it would do any good when just talking about it over Discord was way more effective in actually eliciting discussion. Also discussing it here.

My main issue is that they did next to nothing for 11 years when some random guy with next to no activity on the wiki had to be the bigger man and edit it out when so many users and staff just ignored it. But then I come along and edit it, and they're able to undo it in approx. 10 minutes.

The best method of getting it removed is through the system, flawed as it may be. When I vandalized it, it only weakened my argument.

Proud of you for getting something done, even if you only got the ball rolling

 

[Cow-Chan]

I'm waiting for a reply from staff on the subject of my appeal and what this 'information' is, or how it's relevant to my ban. But now that I've actually got people's attention on the article, it's gone from +244 to +203 as of now, so...mission accomplished. It's sad I thought that vandalizing it would do any good when just talking about it over Discord was way more effective in actually eliciting discussion. Also discussing it here.

My main issue is that they did next to nothing for 11 years when some random guy with next to no activity on the wiki had to be the bigger man and edit it out when so many users and staff just ignored it. But then I come along and edit it, and they're able to undo it in approx. 10 minutes.

The best method of getting it removed is through the system, flawed as it may be. When I vandalized it, it only weakened my argument.

The "information" is that you posted here. That's it. You joined KiwiFarms and made it obvious who you are, and now staff are burning you, because according to SCP this place is just Nazis because the world is black and white to them.