The point of the article is that the scenario the reader imagines in their head is ten times worse than anything Clef could actually write, and yet people still chimp out over the possibility that it could be rape, even though Clef actually edited out stuff that made it too obviously rape so it would be more of a mystery.
Honestly, that was so ridiculously edgy that my favorite headcanon for it (and someone wrote one of these) was everything they say about it leads you to believe something awful goes on but in actuality they just read her a bedtime story.
Honestly, that was so ridiculously edgy that my favorite headcanon for it (and someone wrote one of these) was everything they say about it leads you to believe something awful goes on but in actuality they just read her a bedtime story.
Harmony, do you think you could find logs to back up what @Eskisehir said in this post? They've been gone for a while and never delivered. They weren't on AH so it should be somewhere in #site67 around the beginning of January 2019.
Instead of a giant summary post with as much text as is possible in it, my favorite, I'll just release choice Roget/Harmony's chatlogs as I see potential interest and innervations in them. That, plus there is so many logs here, I don't want to keep track of them.
This first one is from #rogetbox, which is consistently described as "site 19 lite without all the noise". Invite only kinda but it is/was an open channel technically. Definitely a cool kids club where you can talk shit about other people.
This first one is from March 25, 2019. A bunch of staff and higher-end users are talking general shit. Includes ARD, DrBleep, Rounderhouse, UncleNicolini, Lily, Vezaz, of course Roget, and some others. They talk shit about SCPD (a lot), Westrin (a lot), Yossi (indirectly), Cimmerian, Vessel, XilasCrow, Dr. North ("newbie we collectively dislike"), Prototype_Toaster, RPC in general, site19 in general, and even the userbase. My personal highlights are talk about how site19 used to be run by a guy who would cosplay in his Nazi SS uniform ("for historical reasons") and how this person was at one point an admin, AND was still a mod at r/scp at the time; the usual elitism re: RPC; the usual upvote idolatry and shilling/bragging, and a pretty funny story of how ProcyonLotor accidentally outed himself to staff as a massive furry.
This is a glimpse of that very "inclusive" face of the site, without its makeup. I was always happily asocial with regards to SCP and its community, so I don't know the social implications of the words here, but I am sure they are there.
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+
Instead of a giant summary post with as much text as is possible in it, my favorite, I'll just release choice Roget/Harmony's chatlogs as I see potential interest and innervations in them. That, plus there is so many logs here, I don't want to keep track of them.
This first one is from #rogetbox, which is consistently described as "site 19 lite without all the noise". Invite only kinda but it is/was an open channel technically. Definitely a cool kids club where you can talk shit about other people.
This first one is from March 25, 2019. A bunch of staff and higher-end users are talking general shit. Includes ARD, DrBleep, Rounderhouse, UncleNicolini, Lily, Vezaz, of course Roget, and some others. They talk shit about SCPD (a lot), Westrin (a lot), Yossi (indirectly), Cimmerian, Vessel, XilasCrow, Dr. North ("newbie we collectively dislike"), Prototype_Toaster, RPC in general, site19 in general, and even the userbase. My personal highlights are talk about how site19 used to be run by a guy who would cosplay in his Nazi SS uniform ("for historical reasons") and how this person was at one point an admin, AND was still a mod at r/scp at the time; the usual elitism re: RPC; the usual upvote idolatry and shilling/bragging, and a pretty funny story of how ProcyonLotor accidentally outed himself to staff as a massive furry.
This is a glimpse of that very "inclusive" face of the site, without its makeup. I was always happily asocial with regards to SCP and its community, so I don't know the social implications of the words here, but I am sure they are there.
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, inflation, furryyiffpalace.com, abusive, 200+
Instead of a giant summary post with as much text as is possible in it, my favorite, I'll just release choice Roget/Harmony's chatlogs as I see potential interest and innervations in them. That, plus there is so many logs here, I don't want to keep track of them.
This first one is from #rogetbox, which is consistently described as "site 19 lite without all the noise". Invite only kinda but it is/was an open channel technically. Definitely a cool kids club where you can talk shit about other people.
This first one is from March 25, 2019. A bunch of staff and higher-end users are talking general shit. Includes ARD, DrBleep, Rounderhouse, UncleNicolini, Lily, Vezaz, of course Roget, and some others. They talk shit about SCPD (a lot), Westrin (a lot), Yossi (indirectly), Cimmerian, Vessel, XilasCrow, Dr. North ("newbie we collectively dislike"), Prototype_Toaster, RPC in general, site19 in general, and even the userbase. My personal highlights are talk about how site19 used to be run by a guy who would cosplay in his Nazi SS uniform ("for historical reasons") and how this person was at one point an admin, AND was still a mod at r/scp at the time; the usual elitism re: RPC; the usual upvote idolatry and shilling/bragging, and a pretty funny story of how ProcyonLotor accidentally outed himself to staff as a massive furry.
This is a glimpse of that very "inclusive" face of the site, without its makeup. I was always happily asocial with regards to SCP and its community, so I don't know the social implications of the words here, but I am sure they are there.
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 inflation, furryyiffpalace.com, abusive, 200+
I'm bored and I don't want to go through more nothingburger PMs right now, so I'm going to read through this entire thing and highlight interesting things:
15:35:02: <Ard> I don’t trust those yahoos in 19 at all
15:35:10: <Ard> Those people upvote Doctor North’s writing
Even ignoring the obvious disturbing thing here, who the fuck says this about a person?
15:43:39: <Rounderhouse> you know what disturbs me
15:43:45: <Rounderhouse> It doesn't even matter if Black flag is good
15:43:54: <Rounderhouse> It could suck and it's gonna be insanely high rated
15:44:08: <Rounderhouse> Because SCPd has circlejerked that draft to kingdom come and back
15:46:39: <Rounderhouse> So I just stuck around in SCPd until I was well liked enough to have a following among clout chasers and then showed myself out
It's incredible to me that he can say this immediately after condemning SCPD for being full of clout chasers without a hint of self-awareness.
15:49:33: <Vezaz> come on down to Drbleep's original crab
15:49:36: <Vezaz> we got hammers
15:49:38: <Vezaz> we got paper towels
15:49:42: <Vezaz> we are definitely a real crab house
15:49:43: <weryllium> hammers, you say
15:49:44: <weryllium> scp-3794
15:49:44: <Vezaz> original crab
15:49:45: <Secretary_Helen> weryllium: SCP-3794: Salsa Hammer (Rating: +106. Written 74 days ago By: Weryllium) - http://scp-wiki.net/scp-3794
Even in a private group chat/circlejerk, the shilling remains strong.
15:56:55: <Ard> Man, can I get an F in chat for the dude in SCPD who thinks three rounds of crit in Cimmerian’s server and one in SCPD is worthwhile
15:57:04: <UncleNicolini> Fuckin
15:57:04: <Rounderhouse> F
15:57:05: <UncleNicolini> F
They've been in this little clique for so long that they've forgotten what it's like to be a new user who doesn't have connections. If you're not friends with people who are good at giving critique, your options are either the long and painful forum process or the unreliable chats. I can see why a lot of new people are inclined to use the latter.
16:06:42: <Ard> North angers me
16:06:46: <Rounderhouse> vezaz: lmaoooo
16:06:50: <Rounderhouse> Roget: mod 16:06:52: <Ard> His writing is so fucking bad
16:06:53: <BusyVolt> SCPD has given me a greater appreciation for 19. Well, “””appreciation”””
16:06:54: <weryllium> what a legend
16:06:58: <Roget> ew
16:06:59: <Vezaz> this was considered somehow a charming fixture. 16:07:11: <Ard> North literally just keeps pumping out the same worthless poetry day after day after day
Emphasis mine. I really don't have anything to add to this, this speaks for itself.
16:21:50: <Lily> only embarassing thing I've done related to scp is get dragged into an abusive relationship thay brought me the closest to suicide i ever have been but aside from that I've been p peachy
16:51:05: <Vezaz> ch00bakka hi welcome to this conversation
16:51:19: <Vezaz> unclenicolini what did north do??
16:51:23: <weryllium> oh fuck
16:51:27: <Roget> ARD: I only see one
16:51:32: <weryllium> vezaz: he's the current "newbie we collectively dislike"
Keep in mind, I'm pretty sure this was before North said anything political that they didn't like. They literally just decided to collectively dislike him because they thought his writing was bad.
And that's the end of that. To briefly summarize, these guys are massive assholes, though I suppose that's old news.
I'd think these will find their way to the relevant people like a homing missile. I'd say 95% of the site's interactions are deeply informed by the upvote economy. That makes for very shallow people who do not value loyalty.
That 5% remainder is probably really special though. Especially around all that fakeness.
^ARD is a very good writer whose dick has to be either very small or very ugly. There's no other way to explain his personality. He's the biggest (attitudinal) dick besides ProcyonLotor, and rule zero does not apply to them.
even in a private group chat/circlejerk, the shilling remains strong.
Yeah to the contrary, I think it is the sink hole in the hour glass sand; deepest part of the site there is these days.
They've been in this little clique for so long that they've forgotten what it's like to be a new user who doesn't have connections. If you're not friends with people who are good at giving critique, your options are either the long and painful forum process or the unreliable chats. I can see why a lot of new people are inclined to use the latter.
The non-use of the forums is an unspoken badge of accomplishment. The site's forums are the slums to them and their incestuous but more importantly trust-style review/crit process serves to centralize their power over the site, garnered in the tally of upvotes they give and direct towards one another; a sort of kick-back system. (Just think of what an act of grace it is seen as if a really prominent ruling-class user shows up -- almost descends -- into the draft forums... usually to critique, almost never with an article to submit.) Their argument that the crit on forum is shit is a function of their prerequisite elitism to not engage it; doesn't it make sense that the crit would be good if they were there critting? Course it does; too much sense. They want to be apart. Makes them feel big.
He's referencing #site67 here, I believe. Staff are so bad at hiding this chat that they needed Roget/Harmony to purge mentions of it for them.
So while the dedicated autists are combing through the logs, I figure I might use my expertise to examine SCP's Community Vote regarding Roget's body of work and what to do with it. Roget, you'll like this, and by "like" I mean it's probably just gonna confirm what you already feel.
Let's start with the Community Vote itself
First red flag here is that users are allowed to change their vote after they have already cast it. This is a big no-no in legitimate elections because it allows opposition to continue to influence voters after they have made their decision. Say you cast your vote in an election and the opposition party approaches you outside the ballot site with a packet of "brand new" allegations against your candidate. Now, you just might be swayed to return to the ballot box and change your vote. This is why when you cast your vote in most elections, it's set in stone and you can't change it. It's to protect against election interference and additionally adds a bit of weight to the decision of whom to cast a vote for.
Take note of the staff's choice of implementing a rank-choice voting system. You see, normally in a rank-choice voting system, voters are forced to list their voting preferences, meaning voters cannot refuse to list a candidate if they have two or more preference slots available, otherwise they would be effectively removing a candidate from the ballot. Now I could explain all the intricacies of rank-choice voting, but that's outside the scope of this wall of text. All you need to know is in a ranked-choice voting system, you have a number of slots available to select your most preferred option to your least preferred. The election is then decided by counting the number of first-preference votes of all choices. If a first-preference choice gets the majority, it wins. If there is no clear majority, a number of things can happen, which is again outside the scope of this post.
Here's where things start getting bad. SCP staff is attempting to use a permutation of ranked-choice voting called Borda count. Essentially, proposals are assigned points by voters and the proposal with the most points win. Borda count is not a very common electoral system, but that's not necessarily a bad thing; it just has a specific purpose. Borda count is designed to achieve consensus, not to work as a majoritarian decision maker. What that means is Borda count works best when voters are presented with a broad set of generally acceptable proposals, so the decision of a vote will represent a median of interest, not just the majority. Notice the wording in the first sentence: "Community Members may vote for one or more proposals using rank choice preference". What you see here is either incompetence or deliberate manipulation. By allowing SCP voters to chose not to cast vote for a proposal, the vote can be effectively manipulated to swing towards specific proposals. Borda count, like all voting systems, has its vulnerabilities and flaws, but this decision by SCP has amplified these flaws extravagantly.
Do you see how similar these proposals are? Don't be fooled by the wording, Proposal III is a "get out of jail free card", allowing staff to delete the articles but upon "request" reupload them. Of course they don't specify what a "request basis" is, which seems important when you're wording your policy proposal, but hey, I'm not staff, so what do I know?
So here's the real problem, take a look at some known and serious flaws of Borda count
After reading that, think again of how similar SCP Proposals I and III are. Like I said, this is either incompetence or a deliberate attempt to bias the voting results towards specific proposals. Don't believe me? Take a look at the voting results on the first page
Imaging this screenshot but 22 pages of it. That's what the results look like right now.
See how Proposal II is receiving zero votes? It may as well not even be on the ballot. Now this begs the question: why would they even choose rank-choice voting if the are going to give voters the option leave Proposal II out of their preference choice? I believe it's because there is a popular online perception that rank-choice voting is inherently better than the common US/UK first-past-the-post systems. I also believe they placed Proposal II in between Proposals I and III so as to not clue in voters that both proposals are essentially the same.
As a final word, I cannot believe they included a pro/cons list along with each proposal. The bias vulnerabilities there are concerning.
So now you're an expert in voting systems and SCP isn't. Congrats.
So while the dedicated autists are coming through the logs, I figure I might use my expertise to examine SCP's Community Vote regarding Roget's body of work and what to do with it. Roget, you'll like this, and by "like" I mean it's probably just gonna confirm what you already feel.
First red flag here is that users are allowed to change their vote after they have already cast it. This is a big no-no in legitimate elections because it allows opposition to continue to influence voters after they have made their decision. Say you cast your vote in an election and the opposition party approaches you outside the ballot site with a packet of "brand new" allegations against your candidate. Now, you just might be swayed to return to the ballot box and change your vote. This is why when you cast your vote in most elections, it set in stone and you can't change it. It's to protect against election interference and additionally adds a bit of weight to the decision of whom to cast a vote for.
Take note of the staff's choice of implementing a rank-choice voting system. You see, normally in a rank-choice voting system, voters are forced list their voting preferences, meaning voters cannot refuse to list a candidate if they have two or more preference slots available, thereby effectively removing a candidate from the ballot. Now I could explain all the intricacies of rank-choice voting, but that's outside the scope of this wall of text. All you need to know is in a ranked-choice voting system, you have a number of slots available to select your most preferred option to your least preferred. The election is then decided by counting the number of first-preference votes of all choices. If a first-preference choice gets the majority, it wins. If there is no clear majority, a number of things can happen, which is again outside the scope of this post.
Here's where things start getting bad. SCP staff is attempting to use a permutation of ranked-choice voting called Borda count. Essentially, proposals are assigned points by voters and the proposal with the most points win. Borda count is not a very common electoral system, but that's not necessarily a bad thing; it just has a specific purpose. Borda count is designed to achieve consensus, not to work as a majoritarian decision maker. What that means is Borda count works best when voters are presented with a broad set of generally acceptable proposals, so the decision of a vote will represent a median of interest, not just the majority. Notice the wording in the first sentence: "Community Members may vote for one or more proposals using rank choice preference". What you see here either incompetence or deliberate manipulation. By allowing SCP voters to chose not to cast vote for a proposal, the vote can be effectively manipulated to swing towards specific proposals. Borda count, like all voting systems, has its vulnerabilities and flaws, but this decision by SCP has amplified these flaws extravagantly.
Do you see how similar these proposals are? Don't be fooled by the wording, Proposal III is a "get out of jail free card", allowing staff to delete the articles but upon "request" reupload them. Of course they don't specify what a "request basis" is, which seems important when you're wording your policy proposal, but hey, I'm not staff, so what do I know?
So here's the real problem, take a look at some known and serious flaws of Borda count
After reading that, think again of how similar SCP Proposals I and III are. Like I said, this is either incompetence or a deliberate attempt to bias the voting results towards specific proposals. Don't believe me? Take a look at the voting results on the first page
Imaging this screenshot but 22 pages of it. That's what the results look like right now.
See how Proposal II is receiving zero votes? It may as well not even be on the ballot. Now this begs the question why would they even choose rank choice voting if the are going to give voters the option leave Proposal II out of their preference choice? I believe it's because there is a popular online perception that rank-choice voting is inherently better than the common US/UK first-past-the-post systems. I also believe they placed Proposal II in between Proposals I and III so as to not clue in voters that both proposals are essentially the same.
As a final word, I cannot believe they included a pro/cons list along with each proposal. The bias vulnerabilities there are concerning.
So now you're an expert in voting systems and SCP isn't. Congrats.
They know people are going to request the articles stay. So their options are "We don't delete it and it remains in Harmony's account" and "We 'delete' it and pretend to listen but instantly reupload it under our control because people are going to immediately demand it be put back". Just the usual duplicitous illusion of choice from staff. Might as well not even be an option to remove them.
Well, that was fast. Kaktus, I understand that you need to do a little bit of twisting to make this look good for you and your little clique, but come on. There's like an entire page of posts dedicated to us demanding stronger proof for the existence of this "cabal" from Roget/Harmony, and I've personally emphasized the lack of strong proof multiple times while discussing the claims here. The claim that you're secretly controlling the wiki from behind the scenes isn't something any of us have even tried to push. Anyone who bothers to actually read the thread can see how much you're stretching here.
So while the dedicated autists are coming through the logs, I figure I might use my expertise to examine SCP's Community Vote regarding Roget's body of work and what to do with it. Roget, you'll like this, and by "like" I mean it's probably just gonna confirm what you already feel.
First red flag here is that users are allowed to change their vote after they have already cast it. This is a big no-no in legitimate elections because it allows opposition to continue to influence voters after they have made their decision. Say you cast your vote in an election and the opposition party approaches you outside the ballot site with a packet of "brand new" allegations against your candidate. Now, you just might be swayed to return to the ballot box and change your vote. This is why when you cast your vote in most elections, it set in stone and you can't change it. It's to protect against election interference and additionally adds a bit of weight to the decision of whom to cast a vote for.
Take note of the staff's choice of implementing a rank-choice voting system. You see, normally in a rank-choice voting system, voters are forced list their voting preferences, meaning voters cannot refuse to list a candidate if they have two or more preference slots available, thereby effectively removing a candidate from the ballot. Now I could explain all the intricacies of rank-choice voting, but that's outside the scope of this wall of text. All you need to know is in a ranked-choice voting system, you have a number of slots available to select your most preferred option to your least preferred. The election is then decided by counting the number of first-preference votes of all choices. If a first-preference choice gets the majority, it wins. If there is no clear majority, a number of things can happen, which is again outside the scope of this post.
Here's where things start getting bad. SCP staff is attempting to use a permutation of ranked-choice voting called Borda count. Essentially, proposals are assigned points by voters and the proposal with the most points win. Borda count is not a very common electoral system, but that's not necessarily a bad thing; it just has a specific purpose. Borda count is designed to achieve consensus, not to work as a majoritarian decision maker. What that means is Borda count works best when voters are presented with a broad set of generally acceptable proposals, so the decision of a vote will represent a median of interest, not just the majority. Notice the wording in the first sentence: "Community Members may vote for one or more proposals using rank choice preference". What you see here either incompetence or deliberate manipulation. By allowing SCP voters to chose not to cast vote for a proposal, the vote can be effectively manipulated to swing towards specific proposals. Borda count, like all voting systems, has its vulnerabilities and flaws, but this decision by SCP has amplified these flaws extravagantly.
Do you see how similar these proposals are? Don't be fooled by the wording, Proposal III is a "get out of jail free card", allowing staff to delete the articles but upon "request" reupload them. Of course they don't specify what a "request basis" is, which seems important when you're wording your policy proposal, but hey, I'm not staff, so what do I know?
So here's the real problem, take a look at some known and serious flaws of Borda count
After reading that, think again of how similar SCP Proposals I and III are. Like I said, this is either incompetence or a deliberate attempt to bias the voting results towards specific proposals. Don't believe me? Take a look at the voting results on the first page
Imaging this screenshot but 22 pages of it. That's what the results look like right now.
See how Proposal II is receiving zero votes? It may as well not even be on the ballot. Now this begs the question why would they even choose rank choice voting if the are going to give voters the option leave Proposal II out of their preference choice? I believe it's because there is a popular online perception that rank-choice voting is inherently better than the common US/UK first-past-the-post systems. I also believe they placed Proposal II in between Proposals I and III so as to not clue in voters that both proposals are essentially the same.
As a final word, I cannot believe they included a pro/cons list along with each proposal. The bias vulnerabilities there are concerning.
So now you're an expert in voting systems and SCP isn't. Congrats.
I'mma get back to you after I've read this like 6 times. But I get that there is some slight of hand going on here.
Just want to make a PSA: SCP staff are incredibly bright. You can't be that evil and not be. They are degenerates and you can always count on their basal flaws to override their smarts, yes, but if the exploitation of a voting system is truly going on, I'd put it at about 0.05% chance that it is incidental.
I'mma get back to you after I've read this like 6 times. But I get that there is some slight of hand going on here.
Just want to make a PSA: SCP staff are incredibly bright. You can't be that evil and not be. They are degenerates and you can always count on their basal flaws to override their smarts, yes, but if the exploitation of a voting system is truly going on, I'd put it at about 0.05% chance that it is incidental.
