- Joined
- Feb 9, 2020
The dude has his own pre-lolcow training wheels thread. What a PR nightmare. Now do IHP.
SCP Foundation - Creepypasta with roid rage - now ITT: SCP fans
- Thread starter Nappy
- Start date
Shitassdeaddude
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2018
Of course. Letting us do all the work.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2021
Sure. I don't know much about him, but I'll do a quick overview.
Compared to some of the other people in this thread, IHP isn't really that bad to my knowledge. He's the second-most prolific author on the wiki behind Roget/Harmony, and I'm pretty sure he has the most Tales on the wiki. Unless I'm confusing him for someone else, he's a furry, and I remember seeing pictures of his fursuit in a Discord server, but that was years ago and I'm not going back to retrieve them. To me, the most notable things about him are his effort to write at least a paragraph about everything he's ever published to the wiki, for some reason, and his tendency to get into petty slapfights with Kaktus and friends. One such slapfight can be found here.
Overall, I don't find him to be that interesting, but he has his moments of strangeness. Also, I'm pretty sure his name stands for "I Hate Pokémon", so there's that.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
They’re holding a community discussion about what should be done with Harmony’s writing. Most people are opposed to it being deleted, but others say that removing it would be the only moral thing to do.
http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14007108/town-hall-meeting:mass-deletion-request# / https://archive.md/9zmb9
http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14007108/town-hall-meeting:mass-deletion-request# / https://archive.md/9zmb9
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2021
Well, Roget/Harmony has successfully gotten staff to actually listen to the opinions of people who aren't staff on a large scale, so that's something. If this is made a community vote, the work is probably going to be kept up. Also, Kaktus once again confirmed what we already knew, that they still read this thread.
Shitassdeaddude
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2018
Dear Erasmus and other assorted less sane staff members.
If I am to be perfectly honest, you guys probably should delete Roget's work. It'll be a chore and it'll fuck up some stuff for sure, don't get me wrong. That said, you've always put yourselves forward as a writers-first place, which means you gotta take your licks when said writers wanna fuck off and take their toys with them, no matter how much they're acting like goddamn toddlers. If you don't delete the work as requested you'll be exposing yourselves as huge goddamn hypocrites, and you can bet it'll be used against you in the future.
Consider this growing pains. Roget was a liability at this point. She hasn't written anything worthwhile since Keter Duty anyway. You're better off without her.
If I am to be perfectly honest, you guys probably should delete Roget's work. It'll be a chore and it'll fuck up some stuff for sure, don't get me wrong. That said, you've always put yourselves forward as a writers-first place, which means you gotta take your licks when said writers wanna fuck off and take their toys with them, no matter how much they're acting like goddamn toddlers. If you don't delete the work as requested you'll be exposing yourselves as huge goddamn hypocrites, and you can bet it'll be used against you in the future.
Consider this growing pains. Roget was a liability at this point. She hasn't written anything worthwhile since Keter Duty anyway. You're better off without her.
I say welcome. That information needs to get out there. Doesn't matter who spreads it.
Last edited:
An Account
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2019
So I finally found Roget's author page and literally the only one I recognize is the one about the hideous tumor blob that tries to look like somebody you used to have a crush on so it can crash on your couch. Also they changed the picture on it which was the only real hook it had going for it. Man, it's been quite a while since I've actually perused the site and they've changed a lot of the pictures. It kinda makes me realize that many of the articles were more interesting for their (stolen) pictorial content than their actual writing.
Shitassdeaddude
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2018
Really just the fact that deleting Roget's work would apparently so severely harm the wiki tells you how much they over-relied on canon and self-reference.
EDIT: Make up your mind on the rating, Roget.
EDIT: Make up your mind on the rating, Roget.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2021
I see where you're coming from, but it's not really staff's fault that a bunch of people wrote things based on Roget/Harmony's work.
LordSifr
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2020
I find it sweetly ironic that the same person that got me banned from everywhere and cut me off from my friends for "endangering the identity of SCP-INT staff" (having a single public chat screencap i took be posted here) and encouraged every INT representative to consider me persona non grata for being associated with KF folk is now a KF poster. What was that about being two-faced, huh Roget?
Well fuck, this thread certainly had some developments. I honestly had no that PixelatedHarmony and Roget were the same person, let alone making an ass out of themselves on The Farms.
And FTR, I'm pretty sure that Roget's a dude, unless they decided to become a tranny.
And FTR, I'm pretty sure that Roget's a dude, unless they decided to become a tranny.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2020
Buckle your seatbelt.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2020
Off-topic, but here's one I forgot to include on the highlight reel: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/ghosts-in-the-machine The opening line is the worst I've ever read. Me and the boys on RPC used to rail on this a lot and for good reason.
so clever much author
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2020
“The tree was crooked and twig-like, as if it was a crooked twig-tree.”
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2020
There's been a lot of sweet irony in this thread. Seems like pedostaff stick to this thread like moths to a lamp for whatever reason.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2020
I understand this and would like to couple this post with:
I know we're not here to stop the pedos, but this is certainly good to keep in mind if you've at least a level head about the issue.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
I’m glad that someone finally said it. This thread is full of specific names and evidence. Use them instead of hurling the word “pedophile” at every single person above the age of 20.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2020
This is a tipped-over nuke. Among other nukes. Just a matter of which side it will fall towards.
This message from staff, even just in kicking it back to a democratic vote & regardless of the outcome, is that SCP’s claim to others’ works as their intellectual property might be equal to or more important than their foundational principles with those others, who make them successful. Property & popularity > promises & principles.
The part about “genuinely not knowing what the right course of action” is BS imo. The moral knot isn’t a difficult one to untie schematically; it’s very straightforward. It’s not an ethics conundrum.
The principle of SCP has been respecting the author’s autonomy despite the CC license and its legality; the author has written under these understood terms; while not a legal right, it has been regarded as a moral right for the author to revoke their own works, whether violently or agreeably; now this author has chosen to do so violently; that’s very unfortunate and means a big headache for the staff, and a big loss for the bookshelf collection for the community, but this has been a known possibility all along; that the author doesn’t want to compromise is not their bad and staff are ultimately not responsible for that decision by the terms of their virtue.
Until now, that is, when they’ve taken the opportunity to suggest avoiding all this by modifying the collaborative fabric of the site in a strange instance of democratic appeal —as opposed to their more typical fiat or oligarchical methods. (They didn’t put Metaphysician’s plagiarism to a community vote, the logo to a community vote, you get the idea.) That they are tempted by the community to put it to a vote is cowardice and should be understood as the stripping naked of author dignity, dangling their moral liberties like meat over a hungry crowd. Ironically, that sort of treatment is what is waiting for you given success + disagreement at SCP. (As opposed to disagreement without success, which is merely just unceremonious banishment). Their moral contract is capped at a certain amount of accrued updoots it seems.
The part about “genuinely not knowing what the right course of action” is BS imo. The moral knot isn’t a difficult one to untie schematically; it’s very straightforward. It’s not an ethics conundrum.
The principle of SCP has been respecting the author’s autonomy despite the CC license and its legality; the author has written under these understood terms; while not a legal right, it has been regarded as a moral right for the author to revoke their own works, whether violently or agreeably; now this author has chosen to do so violently; that’s very unfortunate and means a big headache for the staff, and a big loss for the bookshelf collection for the community, but this has been a known possibility all along; that the author doesn’t want to compromise is not their bad and staff are ultimately not responsible for that decision by the terms of their virtue.
Until now, that is, when they’ve taken the opportunity to suggest avoiding all this by modifying the collaborative fabric of the site in a strange instance of democratic appeal —as opposed to their more typical fiat or oligarchical methods. (They didn’t put Metaphysician’s plagiarism to a community vote, the logo to a community vote, you get the idea.) That they are tempted by the community to put it to a vote is cowardice and should be understood as the stripping naked of author dignity, dangling their moral liberties like meat over a hungry crowd. Ironically, that sort of treatment is what is waiting for you given success + disagreement at SCP. (As opposed to disagreement without success, which is merely just unceremonious banishment). Their moral contract is capped at a certain amount of accrued updoots it seems.
Death of the author indeed.
P.S. Funny to see that not even a newly budded trans in all its social justice glory has enough oppression points to cash this in with them after all. Buncha virtue salesmen.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2021
I'd just like to point out that they had no problem acting like they had to follow rules and precedent and saying that their hands were tired when Max Landis asked for his article to be edited, but now that a popular and prolific author is asking them to do something they don't want to do, suddenly they're able to abandon precedent and put it to a community vote. This is cowardice, plain and simple.This is a tipped-over nuke. Among other nukes. Just a matter of which side it will fall towards.
So, will it be “a massive hole within the literary setting”? Or a massive hole in their morality? Which one is more important to the community; a respect for the free will of the authors that create their entertainment, or an uninterrupted user experience?This message from staff, even just in kicking it back to a democratic vote & regardless of the outcome, is that SCP’s claim to others’ works as their intellectual property might be equal to or more important than their foundational principles with those others, who make them successful. Property & popularity > promises & principles.
The part about “genuinely not knowing what the right course of action” is BS imo. The moral knot isn’t a difficult one to untie schematically; it’s very straightforward. It’s not an ethics conundrum.
The principle of SCP has been respecting the author’s autonomy despite the CC license and its legality; the author has written under these understood terms; while not a legal right, it has been regarded as a moral right for the author to revoke their own works, whether violently or agreeably; now this author has chosen to do so violently; that’s very unfortunate and means a big headache for the staff, and a big loss for the bookshelf collection for the community, but this has been a known possibility all along; that the author doesn’t want to compromise is not their bad and staff are ultimately not responsible for that decision by the terms of their virtue.
Until now, that is, when they’ve taken the opportunity to suggest avoiding all this by modifying the collaborative fabric of the site in a strange instance of democratic appeal —as opposed to their more typical fiat or oligarchical methods. (They didn’t put Metaphysician’s plagiarism to a community vote, the logo to a community vote, you get the idea.) That they are tempted by the community to put it to a vote is cowardice and should be understood as the stripping naked of author dignity, dangling their moral liberties like meat over a hungry crowd. Ironically, that sort of treatment is what is waiting for you given success + disagreement at SCP. (As opposed to disagreement without success, which is merely just unceremonious banishment). Their moral contract is capped at a certain amount of accrued updoots it seems.
Death of the author indeed.
P.S. Funny to see that not even a newly budded trans in all its social justice glory has enough oppression points to cash this in with them after all. Bunchvirtue salesmen.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2018
fucking cowards should just write the deletion in-universe as one of those faggy metafictional SCP's they love so much.