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

Gar For Archer said:
fucking cowards should just write the deletion in-universe as one of those faggy metafictional SCP's they love so much.
Click to expand...
Don't give them ideas. It'll be one of those vague spiteful articles that definitely aren't poking fun at a person the author and community supposedly doesn't like.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: ThisIsGonnaBeGood, From The Uncanny Valley, Flaming Insignias and 5 others
ImmortalDaisies said:
Don't give them ideas. It'll be one of those vague spiteful articles that definitely aren't poking fun at a person the author and community supposedly doesn't like.
Click to expand...
While true, seeing them be stupid enough to publish something like that while the community is this divided will be even better.

So if you're reading this SCP, do it! It'll fix everything, and I'm sure it will be a very smart and quirky tale to challenge the narrative norm.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: ThisIsGonnaBeGood and Punished “Venom” pH
Furret said:
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.
Click to expand...
Put it to a community vote and then ignore it if they don't like the results.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: ThisIsGonnaBeGood, From The Uncanny Valley, HIVidaBoheme and 6 others
I feel like the best solution is to not care so much about internet spoopy campfire stories. But because literal basement dwelling, Cheeto fuckers are terrified of not being able to cram every hour of their day with consooming fiction (otherwise they might have to go outside or talk to someone in real life) they would rather tell creative minds to go fuck themselves. I really don't think it matters who the author is, tranny, black disabled dwarf, or a Capybara with telepahy, the urge to horde and consoom tops any other decent human emotion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThisIsGonnaBeGood, From The Uncanny Valley, Mexican_Wizard_711 and 4 others
If anyone cares: Rogay doxes his favourite local game store Press Play Media in this post where he asks for help convincing his gf to give him money to buy an ancient console:
This would confirm that he still lives in St. Augustine, FL.
And in this post he's trying to get money to move out of his parent's home:
 
  • Late
  • Informative
Reactions: ThisIsGonnaBeGood, From The Uncanny Valley, Flaming Insignias and 3 others
Furret said:
Kaktus has realized that there's upvotes to be gained, and suddenly Roget/Harmony's articles are fine left up for the community to do what they want with (archive).
Click to expand...
Once again, d-kak is essentially colorblind and sees this in total black and white. And advertises it. Must be easy when you don't have morals. I'm pretty sure he and any other author pushing the legality of the CC as justification would have a shitfit if the Wiki decided to remove all their articles because they "technically aren't theirs". Most of all Kaktus. Am I wrong, dipshits? And kaktus, everybody knows you just want to rewrite all of his articles to assimilate his upvotes, so shut the fuck up with all your "agree" cheerleading. You're a sweaty oaf.

The town hall is really entertaining to me. The whole site is pouring over the interpretation of Rogrette's words as if they were scripture or some Q post. Essentially two kids arguing over their toys. Who's gonna win? Who's gonna lose?
  • Not so sure kicking this back to the users was a great move, even if it wasn't a pathetic abdication of responsibility. Basically, everyone is talking out both sides of their mouths to come down for not deletion. Everyone is suddenly a utilitarian pragmatist philosophers or an expert on CC licenses, because now those two things are the main arguments available to beat the shit out of their previously and loudly demonstrated morality with. Kinda makes you chuckle knowing that the original creators of the wiki just hit "OK" on the default settings for a wikidot and had zero clue what the hell CC BY-SA was. Hey, the community was founded on yanking someone else's work without their permission and going ape on it... why would that be different now? Most idiots there are catastrophizing this way beyond its actual effect; the smart and cool-headed ones are trying to downplay this as an Armageddon.
COMMUNITYTOWNHALL1.png


  • My favorite argument is when people say "please, think of the other authors!" whose works are dependent upon Rogrette's. So your idea there is to value the author's hard work they poured into their articles by... determining that those article's aren't their works and belong to you. "No fair!!! This isn't fair to the authors who did so much work basing their work off of your works!" OK gotcha 👍 The other most common appeal is "the community is collaborative!" but fails to see that this snips the threads by which it has been collaborative; it's like saying "we don't need to honor these wires that are suspending this platform because it is floating!"

  • It's clever to argue that this shouldn't be the responsibility of the staff and should have been done by Rogrette when she had the chance. But staff did this in the past and, as @Furret mentioned, just reinforced this premise by editing that weird pedo dude's article for him, despite him being banned. So, on the one hand, someone who is banned can request their article be edited. On the other hand, Rogrette's articles shouldn't be honored to stay... because he was banned. Hm... "It was a conscious choice that she made..." but the other guy didn't choose to get banned by his actions?

COMMUNITYTOWNHALL2.png


  • Jesus. This is what communism looks like... the utopia of no private property. "All for the greater good." I guess communism may win after all.

  • So they take the idea and request of deadnaming super duper seriously but can't agree essentially deadnaming the works? Cause they have something to lose now? Seems like they are picking and choosing their virtues to signal.

  • COMMUNITYTOWNHALL3.png
  • Oooo, they are holding her being on KF against her already LOL. "Hell, she already went to kiwifarms to shit post just like every other banned writers." These people are like cult members who live in a hole. We're the site that gets off on emotional abuse? You gotta be kidding me.

  • So essentially, the site didn't learn from the FishMonger incident, and kept copulating with "canons" despite there "being no canon"? Remember when they had a strict no-croesslinking policy? They got fat and lazy; then they worked hard to be that fat and lazy by making a crosslinking team an official thing. Sounds like SCP forgot their own lessons and it's finally hitting them.

  • The lukewarm people are converting hard to keeping the articles because Rogrette is being a dick and shit-talking anyone who disagrees in PMs. I guess their policy ideas are based on feefees? Hurt feefees shouldn't change anything about questions of site policy, but then again...


The staff responded, now that they are sure the people want to do what they also want to do (~90% are for not deleting):
Howdy folks,

SCP Wiki Site staff have been closely watching the proceedings of this discussion as it has progressed over the last day or so. We've been incredibly surprised by community response so far and encourage the discussion to continue. Due to the urgency of the issue, staff have begun pulling from community feedback and assembling several proposals based on different community suggestions that we feel will be most appropriate to the stated suggestions/goals/options that the community has come forward with in regards to Harmony's Articles.

Tomorrow evening, 48 hours after the opening of this thread, we will lock this first town hall discussion and put forward 2-3 official proposals based on the community positions that have been carefully reviewed by both staff and the community, in a new thread. The community will then be able to vote on proposals via either ranked choice preference, or Yay/Nay. The exact stipulations/guidelines of this vote will be codified at the time of posting as staff are still working to iron out the specific details, this is all a very novel process for us. We're also currently uncertain of how long this vote will run, as the community is very large, and an equally large number of people who didn't voice opinions may also vote in the thread.

Upon conclusion of the vote, staff will tabulate and announce the results of the community's decision, and then begin implementing the necessary infrastructure and organizational steps in order to comply with the community's wishes, regardless of the proposal.

I'd again like to emphasize how much staff as a whole appreciate the community's support and input. This has been an exceptionally trying as well as emotionally and mentally straining affair that is difficult to even begin to relay. Your support and love for this collaborative project continues to move and motivate us to give the best we can give to the site and its readers/writers.

Sincerely,
SCP Wiki Site Staff
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine. Such a politician, I can see why he was promoted to admin. Nothing about this gesture is genuine. Makes me want to puke a little if it weren't hilarious to watch happen. They're going to keep the articles for sure. And enact a new policy to where no one can do this again. They'll turn to anyone pissed off in the community and say "it wasn't our decision!" and then turn to Rogrette as she threatens to spill some skeletons more closeted than her own lanky ass and they'll say "but it wasn't our decision!"


:popcorn:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Semper Fidelis
  • Feels
Reactions: ThisIsGonnaBeGood, From The Uncanny Valley, gangweedfan and 5 others
AnOminous said:
Lmao nothing past 3 digits was worth shit anyway.
Click to expand...
Roget/Harmony was around for long enough to have a bunch of stuff in Series 1 too, but I've never read most of it so I can't say if it's any good.
  • Oooo, they are holding her being on KF against her already LOL. "Hell, she already went to kiwifarms to shit post just like every other banned writers." These people are like cult members who live in a hole. We're the site that gets off on emotional abuse? You gotta be kidding me.
Click to expand...
I can guarantee you with almost absolute certainty that Woedenaz and the other people bringing up Kiwi Farms have never actually looked at this thread for themselves. All you have to do is tell these people that KF is right-leaning and they'll believe literally anything you say about it without bothering to verify any of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThisIsGonnaBeGood, From The Uncanny Valley, Exterminatus and 4 others
ToS said:
Once again, d-kak is essentially colorblind and sees this in total black and white. And advertises it. Must be easy when you don't have morals. I'm pretty sure he and any other author pushing the legality of the CC as justification would have a shitfit if the Wiki decided to remove all their articles because they "technically aren't theirs". Most of all Kaktus. Am I wrong, dipshits? And kaktus, everybody knows you just want to rewrite all of his articles to assimilate his upvotes, so shut the fuck up with all your "agree" cheerleading. You're a sweaty oaf.

The town hall is really entertaining to me. The whole site is pouring over the interpretation of Rogrette's words as if they were scripture or some Q post. Essentially two kids arguing over their toys. Who's gonna win? Who's gonna lose?
  • Not so sure kicking this back to the users was a great move, even if it wasn't a pathetic abdication of responsibility. Basically, everyone is talking out both sides of their mouths to come down for not deletion. Everyone is suddenly a utilitarian pragmatist philosophers or an expert on CC licenses, because now those two things are the main arguments available to beat the shit out of their previously and loudly demonstrated morality with. Kinda makes you chuckle knowing that the original creators of the wiki just hit "OK" on the default settings for a wikidot and had zero clue what the hell CC BY-SA was. Hey, the community was founded on yanking someone else's work without their permission and going ape on it... why would that be different now? Most idiots there are catastrophizing this way beyond its actual effect; the smart and cool-headed ones are trying to downplay this as an Armageddon.
View attachment 1932121

  • My favorite argument is when people say "please, think of the other authors!" whose works are dependent upon Rogrette's. So your idea there is to value the author's hard work they poured into their articles by... determining that those article's aren't their works and belong to you. "No fair!!! This isn't fair to the authors who did so much work basing their work off of your works!" OK gotcha 👍 The other most common appeal is "the community is collaborative!" but fails to see that this snips the threads by which it has been collaborative; it's like saying "we don't need to honor these wires that are suspending this platform because it is floating!"

  • It's clever to argue that this shouldn't be the responsibility of the staff and should have been done by Rogrette when she had the chance. But staff did this in the past and, as @Furret mentioned, just reinforced this premise by editing that weird pedo dude's article for him, despite him being banned. So, on the one hand, someone who is banned can request their article be edited. On the other hand, Rogrette's articles shouldn't be honored to stay... because he was banned. Hm... "It was a conscious choice that she made..." but the other guy didn't choose to get banned by his actions?

View attachment 1932122

  • Jesus. This is what communism looks like... the utopia of no private property. "All for the greater good." I guess communism may win after all.

  • So they take the idea and request of deadnaming super duper seriously but can't agree essentially deadnaming the works? Cause they have something to lose now? Seems like they are picking and choosing their virtues to signal.

  • View attachment 1932124
  • Oooo, they are holding her being on KF against her already LOL. "Hell, she already went to kiwifarms to shit post just like every other banned writers." These people are like cult members who live in a hole. We're the site that gets off on emotional abuse? You gotta be kidding me.

  • So essentially, the site didn't learn from the FishMonger incident, and kept copulating with "canons" despite there "being no canon"? Remember when they had a strict no-croesslinking policy? They got fat and lazy; then they worked hard to be that fat and lazy by making a crosslinking team an official thing. Sounds like SCP forgot their own lessons and it's finally hitting them.

  • The lukewarm people are converting hard to keeping the articles because Rogrette is being a dick and shit-talking anyone who disagrees in PMs. I guess their policy ideas are based on feefees? Hurt feefees shouldn't change anything about questions of site policy, but then again...


The staff responded, now that they are sure the people want to do what they also want to do (~90% are for not deleting):

Emphasis mine. Such a politician, I can see why he was promoted to admin. Nothing about this gesture is genuine. Makes me want to puke a little if it weren't hilarious to watch happen. They're going to keep the articles for sure. And enact a new policy to where no one can do this again. They'll turn to anyone pissed off in the community and say "it wasn't our decision!" and then turn to Rogrette as she threatens to spill some skeletons more closeted than her own lanky ass and they'll say "but it wasn't our decision!"


:popcorn:
Click to expand...
>"If we're being practical here, this right isn't worth all that much. curious why you're putting so much value into it."
Very subtle, this one.

>"I do not think this should be held to a vote."
>"Notice, however, that I never said that I'm opposed to a vote."
Which is it, Obama?

>"I don't think we should entirely defy an author's wishes. It is entirely within harmony's rights to ask for her works to be deleted."
>"my vote's for keeping the articles up."
Obama²

>"I vote yes to delete them. She wanted them to be deleted, and going against her word is really transphobic tbh."
What is it with these people and transphobia?

>"I believe all of Harmony's work on their old account should be given a disclaimer, citing the above egregious actions. We can't erase history, but we can hold them accountable."
Dude. Like, wow. Holy shit like, they have a clear legal right to keep the articles. It may not be the right thing to do but at least there's somewhat of an understandable reason behind it. But holy crap, this is something else. Who posted this one, ToS?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThisIsGonnaBeGood, From The Uncanny Valley, UnsufficentBoobage and 4 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back