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

:optimistic:

But then again...

The article is ratio’d: ~20 upvotes and ~40 comments. Clef capitulated and modified the page. Where’s that legendary authorial conviction? Why here, now? Ah. He is desperately trying to patchwork the attempt, and posted a sniveling comment how his frantic re-rewrite to hedge against negative reception is a normal thing for him to do.

As promised two months ago by us, staff is trying to short-circuit all discussion or responsibility on the circumstances by referring to the community’s vote, which was purse-strung. Look for a ban for Noktigo, then for others who don’t care and are willing to voice their beliefs even if it means a ban.

Lots of bans for legitimate contention going on. Does Summer 2018 still ring a bell when you have your ears so thoroughly plugged, staff?
My outlook on the situation isn't based on optimism, it's me seeing the writing on the wall. People are noticing what staff are doing. People will see the Twitter account, staff will claim it's an alt-right hacker, and this will happen again and again until people start asking, "why are they always alt-right?"

What we're seeing here is a shadow of who Clef used to be. He never used to do this, I guarantee. He's a zombified corpse of the Agent Ukulele character being puppeted around so the Inner Circle and staff can cling onto what used to make SCP fun.
 
A walk through the Complaints Thread they recommend is actually pretty fun too. I hope that thread bloats so that several more are needed.

A favorite is a complaint about this, where staff alllmost banned a person for having a high threshold of upvoting. Out of 16 downvotes, 4 of them were on pages with the pride flag, and some of them took this as incontrovertible proof of malicious alt-right bigotry hate voting. (This is statistically expected given the amount of pride flags that are on the site. It also communicates that someone can’t downvote a page with a pride flag without being a bigot. Talk about a protected, privileged class.)

Just wow.
 
Last edited:
What we're seeing here is a shadow of who Clef used to be. He never used to do this, I guarantee. He's a zombified corpse of the Agent Ukulele character being puppeted around so the Inner Circle and staff can cling onto what used to make SCP fun.
This feels like a bit much. Clef saw an opportunity to rewrite an article that he no doubt enjoyed in its original form, took the opportunity, saw that a lot of people had problems with it, and made an effort to address their issues. Looks like pretty standard stuff to me.
A walk through the Complaints Thread they recommend is actually pretty fun too. I hope that thread bloats so that several more are needed.

A favorite is a complaint about this, where staff alllmost banned a person for having a high threshold of upvoting. Out of 16 downvotes, 4 of them were on pages with the pride flag, and some of them took this as incontrovertible proof of malicious alt-right bigotry hate voting. (This is statistically expected given the amount of pride flags that are on the site. It also communicates that someone can’t downvote a page with a pride flag without being a bigot. Talk about a protected, privileged class.)

Just wow.
What's really pathetic to me about this is that the only way this could have been found is if an author saw this person downvote one of their pieces and proceeded to stalk their voting history to find something to complain about. Embarrassing.
 
Bit of a latepost, but I'm not seeing it with the 031 rewrite. It lacks all of the charm of the original -- replaced in favor of Thing That Kill #221 with a flavor of brain vore -- and what it does with the documentation discrepancy is completely uninteresting. There's a discrepancy in the database... So what? No reasons for it to exist are explored, no relationship with 031 is implied, none of its mechanics are elaborated upon. Yeah, some of the details are neat but... it's just devoid of content IMO.
 
Nope, the only rewrites that are safe are stuff that are rewrites of rewrites (where I wasn’t the original author) that have my contributions scrubbed out or were rewrites of my work done before February 16th 2021.

It would have been okay if staff had followed through on their pre-established principles and deleted/de-attributed my work when I originally asked, but it is too late for that now.

They could have actually had everything they think they have now if they hadn’t made a choice to be cowards. Now they’ve lost everything I ever wrote and they only have their own lack of moral fortitude and courage to blame.

Here are some passages from the Creative Commons website which provide the information I’m trying to communicate in a more readable form:
View attachment 2065441
View attachment 2065440
I requested attribution be removed from the collection of the SCP Wiki, because staff don’t have control over aspects of their pages like the history the only way to remove attribution is hard deletion and re-posting. Due to their refusal to follow their obligations under the CC-by-SA 3.0 license they have forfeited their right to use my material unless I provide them with express written permission.

Link to the CC FAQ
I'm a little late to this because my notifications stopped working for this thread for some reason. Just like to add in my 2 cents here:

I believe Roget/Harmony is vastly overestimating the strength of his case. He seems to believe he found his "smoking gun" that proves SCP violated the terms of their license and therefore have lost the rights to rework all of his writings. However, copyright law is not so cut-and-dry as armchair lawyers would like to believe. Just because Roget revokes his attribution doesn't mean staff is automatically violating his rights by not deleting the page, especially since:
1) It can be argued that the history page does not constitute effective attribution
2) Roget's attribution is removed in the licensing section on the newly posted rewrites.

I'd be very hesitant to believe Roget's claims, especially since he has made it clear he does not intend to pursue legal action. I believe he is simply using KiwiFarms a means to intimidate SCP into removing his articles entirely, and I wouldn't be surprised if his so-called "experts" are just discord friends who told him what he wanted to hear. If I were a betting man, I'd lay my chips on SCP in this case. Not because I particularly like them, but because there are better ways to attack their licensing standards. Roget already has proven himself to have a quite dubious understanding of his "rights" and I would not be surprised if he has exaggerated the situation in his own mind.

To SCP staff reading this thread: don't worry about Roget unless he finds his balls again and decides to sue, which probably won't happen

To Roget: Don't make threats you can't follow through on. Twitter rants only go so far and everything you say is being archived
 
Last edited:
To Roget: Don't make threats you can't follow through on. Twitter rants only go so far and everything you say is being archived
I don't think you understand just how very loud Twitter can get over very little. Just the mention of pedophilia is enough to get that site up on a full-on Boba Fett style bounty hunt.
 
I don't think you understand just how very loud Twitter can get over very little. Just the mention of pedophilia is enough to get that site up on a full-on Boba Fett style bounty hunt.
I never said Twitter won't sperg out over small things, I'm saying real action happens in the real world. If Roget wants people to stop using his work, he's gotta do better than tweeting
 
I never said Twitter won't sperg out over small things, I'm saying real action happens in the real world. If Roget wants people to stop using his work, he's gotta do better than tweeting
I missed you! Was wondering where you went off to :)

I’m fully in understanding of my rights, if you’re so sure I’m wrong, then debunk me. You’re right that there are alternate methods to use the licensing, that’s their soft spot because they don’t understand it either the closest they’ve got to a lawyer is a furry ex-paralegal nobody actually likes, they also have shit messaging and communication apparatus and just ceded all the ground on tumblr where there is a disproportionately active SCP fan base. So yeah, definitely plenty of options there. Any suggestions on what you would do in my shoes are welcome 🙏
 
  • Informative
Reactions: HIVidaBoheme
I missed you! Was wondering where you went off to :)

I’m fully in understanding of my rights, if you’re so sure I’m wrong, then debunk me. You’re right that there are alternate methods to use the licensing, that’s their soft spot because they don’t understand it either the closest they’ve got to a lawyer is a furry ex-paralegal nobody actually likes, they also have shit messaging and communication apparatus and just ceded all the ground on tumblr where there is a disproportionately active SCP fan base. So yeah, definitely plenty of options there. Any suggestions on what you would do in my shoes are welcome 🙏
I'm not @BurnerPhone but I would consult a lawyer who deals in CC to find out if I actually have a case, then I would see if I can gather the funds to sue instead of making vague allusions to potential legal trouble on KF without doing anything. Actually, forget going on KF at all, I would consult a lawyer before doing anything else if I got shafted like this.
 
I’m fully in understanding of my rights, if you’re so sure I’m wrong, then debunk me.
No you're not. Let me show you why.
snip1.PNG
"You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work form You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License."
Let me show you this in practice:
Scanner myObj = new Scanner(System.in);
System.out.println("Enter username");
String userName = myObj.nextLine()

String failsafe = "BurnerPhone";

if userName.equals(failsafe)
{
importantObject obj1 = new importantObject();
System.out.println("BurnerPhone made this code".);
}
The code above is structured so that unless the user types in my name, they cannot create an important object for their application, and if they do, it will automatically credit me. If I published this under the ShareAlike liscense and then subsquently revoked my own attribution, the user of this program could not reasonably use it anymore because the application if always set to credit me. Thankfully, the authors of the ShareAlike license thought of this scenario and specifically protects the user from legal action. What this means is I can surely request any reasonable attribution be removed pages where I'm credited, but I can't force people to go into the source code and rewrite it entirely. Now look at the history page on wikidot websites: it's populated automatically and is outside the control of anyone on the site. Furthermore, the site already has a reasonable attribution system in place at the bottom of every page where the author is known and requests attribution. On your own articles, in the attribution section, your credit has been respectfully removed under the terms of the CC-ShareAlike license 3.0. You cannot reasonably state that the history page is implicitly or explicitly indicative of authorship, given the vast number of articles without known authors despite the history page being present. Also, given the history page is technologically out of the staff's control and erasing the page completely would also erase the votes on the article, staff has a logical interest in preserving the original page and avoiding deletion.
snip2.PNG
Point to me where SCP is implicitly or explicitly associating you, with your old internet handle. Your entire smoking gun rests on the entire premise that the existence of a history page populated automatically constitutes implicit association to you. This is literally your only, slim, hope, of having a case, yet your long history with the site and participation in it's crediting format will only lend evidence that the history page does not constitute effective attribution.
Any suggestions on what you would do in my shoes are welcome 🙏
Get off KF and get a lawyer. If your case makes it trial or even mediation I will personally donate $100 in ETH to your legal fees.
 
No you're not. Let me show you why.
View attachment 2069087
"You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work form You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License."
Let me show you this in practice:

The code above is structured so that unless the user types in my name, they cannot create an important object for their application, and if they do, it will automatically credit me. If I published this under the ShareAlike liscense and then subsquently revoked my own attribution, the user of this program could not reasonably use it anymore because the application if always set to credit me. Thankfully, the authors of the ShareAlike license thought of this scenario and specifically protects the user from legal action. What this means is I can surely request any reasonable attribution be removed pages where I'm credited, but I can't force people to go into the source code and rewrite it entirely. Now look at the history page on wikidot websites: it's populated automatically and is outside the control of anyone on the site. Furthermore, the site already has a reasonable attribution system in place at the bottom of every page where the author is known and requests attribution. On your own articles, in the attribution section, your credit has been respectfully removed under the terms of the CC-ShareAlike license 3.0. You cannot reasonably state that the history page is implicitly or explicitly indicative of authorship, given the vast number of articles without known authors despite the history page being present. Also, given the history page is technologically out of the staff's control and erasing the page completely would also erase the votes on the article, staff has a logical interest in preserving the original page and avoiding deletion.
View attachment 2069133
Point to me where SCP is implicitly or explicitly associating you, with your old internet handle. Your entire smoking gun rests on the entire premise that the existence of a history page populated automatically constitutes implicit association to you. This is literally your only, slim, hope, of having a case, yet your long history with the site and participation in it's crediting format will only lend evidence that the history page does not constitute effective attribution.

Get off KF and get a lawyer. If your case makes it trial or even mediation I will personally donate $100 in ETH to your legal fees.
ETH?
 
Cryptocurrency.
Nice. I have reached out to lawyers who aren’t family friends doing me a courtesy, so hopefully one of them gets back to me soon. I appreciate the encouragement! I think my case is stronger than BP seem to believe.

Unfortunately we all know SCP has a helluva war chest so I still doubt that I have a shot at winning but I think you’re right that it’s better than blowing smoke signals and hoping that staff get spooked.

At the least it’ll ensure that the legal funds actually get used on legal matters and aren’t embezzled to pay for them getting a new website or something.
 
Last edited:
We mentioned Mr_stickman before, but I highly recommend checking out their disciplinary thread because it is both hilarious and very depressing. Some highlights:
1617886369558.png

FLAGRANTLY ADMITTED, and to clarify, they had downvoted two articles. This monster downvoted TWO ARTICLES.

1617886265445.png

The offending comment on 031, which caused TOTAL CHAOS and an uncontrollable uproar. My God, stickman, what have you done?

1617886470428.png


ABSOLUTELY

VEHEMENT.
 
We mentioned Mr_stickman before, but I highly recommend checking out their disciplinary thread because it is both hilarious and very depressing. Some highlights:
View attachment 2069722
FLAGRANTLY ADMITTED, and to clarify, they had downvoted two articles. This monster downvoted TWO ARTICLES.

View attachment 2069715
The offending comment on 031, which caused TOTAL CHAOS and an uncontrollable uproar. My God, stickman, what have you done?

View attachment 2069725

ABSOLUTELY

VEHEMENT.
The absolute audacity, who do they think they are, Kaktus or something??
 
We mentioned Mr_stickman before, but I highly recommend checking out their disciplinary thread because it is both hilarious and very depressing. Some highlights:
View attachment 2069722
FLAGRANTLY ADMITTED, and to clarify, they had downvoted two articles. This monster downvoted TWO ARTICLES.

View attachment 2069715
The offending comment on 031, which caused TOTAL CHAOS and an uncontrollable uproar. My God, stickman, what have you done?

View attachment 2069725

ABSOLUTELY

VEHEMENT.
Yeah, they could've done something far more productive other than downvoting articles and calling out staff, like doing ERP with underage users and doxing and harassing kids over trolling the site.
 
We mentioned Mr_stickman before, but I highly recommend checking out their disciplinary thread because it is both hilarious and very depressing. Some highlights:
View attachment 2069722
FLAGRANTLY ADMITTED, and to clarify, they had downvoted two articles. This monster downvoted TWO ARTICLES.

View attachment 2069715
The offending comment on 031, which caused TOTAL CHAOS and an uncontrollable uproar. My God, stickman, what have you done?

View attachment 2069725

ABSOLUTELY

VEHEMENT.
I love how they peg the controversy to his reaction and not on their controversial decision. 👍
 
I would walk away and not spend tens of thousands of my dollars suing over unmonetisable fanfiction for autistics.
Well, we all know they’ve got over 100k in scratch kicking around Mann’s bank account. I don’t want it but Morgan & Morgan might? Creative Commons cases don’t get litigated often so it could also be quite interesting what an intellectual property judge would say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ToS
Well, we all know they’ve got over 100k in scratch kicking around Mann’s bank account. I don’t want it but Morgan & Morgan might? Creative Commons cases don’t get litigated often so it could also be quite interesting what an intellectual property judge would say.
They will say "Yes you absolutely have a very strong case, but you'll still need to pay me up front".

edit ; Oh, you said judge and not lawyer. He'll either rule in your favor or against you and either way nobody will pay costs for the other party and you'll both be down $50,000+ more than any award he sets because your autistic fanfictions are unmonetisable.
 
Back