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

I didn’t realize there was so much shit going on with these stories. I think I read these when I was a teenager or something. Back then I even realized they needed a bigger filter because some of the writing and ideas were pretty bad...

by the size of this thread I can just imagine how it’s all been butchered, but it’s not really surprising when people like Trevor henderson and his weird feminist babbling and childish scribbles are the face of internet horror memes.
 
I didn’t realize there was so much shit going on with these stories. I think I read these when I was a teenager or something. Back then I even realized they needed a bigger filter because some of the writing and ideas were pretty bad...

by the size of this thread I can just imagine how it’s all been butchered, but it’s not really surprising when people like Trevor henderson and his weird feminist babbling and childish scribbles are the face of internet horror memes.
Wow and I just found his stuff. Dare I ask?
 
Wow and I just found his stuff. Dare I ask?
He’s an alright artist at surface level, but sooner or later you’ll realize he’s not really putting in any effort at all and constantly recycles his formula ad nauseum because it takes ten minutes. His artwork has objectively gotten worse and more lazy. IMO he’s arguably way too close to PTSD radio and doesn’t have much of his own identity besides following that mangas’ unique formula of shocking ghost images with short stories.

I hate using this term because it’s really overused, but he is genuinely the quintessential stereotypical soy boy on social media as well.

sometimes he’s surprising and puts in enough effort to make nice looking, unique ideas though. Don’t listen to me and make your own judgement. You could like his stuff.
 
For example, they say that this Connie would need evidence of her claims about someone being anti-trans or whatever. But they don't bring this up for the claims of Bright being a sex pest. I think I know why, and I think they did/do too. The odd thing is, there was enough from Bright's behavior by then -- the 13 year old's boobs tale, the request for nudes on his 36th birthday at the least -- for staff to have known to take this more seriously. They likely buried their heads in the sand regarding it, because they didn't want to come to terms with the reality.
The thing with Bright is that he hasn't really changed much as a person since he joined the wiki in 2008. In his early days, he was sort of viewed as the wiki's creepy old uncle, a reputation he happily embraced. As we've seen in this thread, he had no problem talking about BDSM conventions in public announcements on a website with a minimum age of 15, and that incident really embodied his general behavior during this time. I can't find this for the life of me so feel free to dismiss it, but I also remember seeing an old post ages ago where apparently Bright's Wikidot profile picture was a dildo for a period of time. He clarified this in a thread because a user asked him what it was. Said user was a 15 year old girl, and upon expressing being uncomfortable with that, she was basically told that she could leave if the subjects discussed on the wiki were too much for her, which is ironic given how many pains they take to keep minors away from that sort of thing now.

I've just realized that I'm rambling, but the point is that this complete disregard of Bright being a little too open about his sexuality around minors, among other things, as just who he was ended up enabling his creepy and predatory behavior, and they're probably quite eager to sweep that under the rug now.
 
The thing with Bright is that he hasn't really changed much as a person since he joined the wiki in 2008. In his early days, he was sort of viewed as the wiki's creepy old uncle, a reputation he happily embraced. As we've seen in this thread, he had no problem talking about BDSM conventions in public announcements on a website with a minimum age of 15, and that incident really embodied his general behavior during this time. I can't find this for the life of me so feel free to dismiss it, but I also remember seeing an old post ages ago where apparently Bright's Wikidot profile picture was a dildo for a period of time. He clarified this in a thread because a user asked him what it was. Said user was a 15 year old girl, and upon expressing being uncomfortable with that, she was basically told that she could leave if the subjects discussed on the wiki were too much for her, which is ironic given how many pains they take to keep minors away from that sort of thing now.

I've just realized that I'm rambling, but the point is that this complete disregard of Bright being a little too open about his sexuality around minors, among other things, as just who he was ended up enabling his creepy and predatory behavior, and they're probably quite eager to sweep that under the rug now.
Bright's reputation as a kiddy diddler isn't going anywhere no matter how hard they try. Calling him predatory and creepy is a major understatement. He's a pedophile, and not in the overused "pedostaff" meme fashion. Just a good ol' pedophile.
 
Last edited:
He’s an alright artist at surface level, but sooner or later you’ll realize he’s not really putting in any effort at all and constantly recycles his formula ad nauseum because it takes ten minutes. His artwork has objectively gotten worse and more lazy. IMO he’s arguably way too close to PTSD radio and doesn’t have much of his own identity besides following that mangas’ unique formula of shocking ghost images with short stories.

I hate using this term because it’s really overused, but he is genuinely the quintessential stereotypical soy boy on social media as well.

sometimes he’s surprising and puts in enough effort to make nice looking, unique ideas though. Don’t listen to me and make your own judgement. You could like his stuff.
Looked through his Instagram and it really is just "ahhhh I'm going insane" faces and blur filters. Reddit must love him.
 
The problem isn't that staff broke the law or their own rules or anything, it's that they broke an unspoken agreement upheld with no lapses (that i know of) since the beginning of the wiki: what you write belongs to you.
Technically this is always true. You don't ever need to apply for a copyright, what you write is your IP. This is so you can't just go stealing someone's work and publish it yourself if they had no intention of doing so.

The problem lies in that you're posting on a wiki that can be edited. But yes, breaking that rule basically kills the project. Because then no one will write for you if it can be edited or adjusted. You'll just end up with a circle jerk of the same shit and the stuff that popularized your website will end it. A lot of writing projects end this way because the people managing it get fucking arrogant and think that it 'belongs' to them when there are dozens or sometimes hundreds of writers involved.

Then they force these writers to adhere to more and more stringent shit, before out and out editing their work down. Before you know it, everyone talented is gone and just writing what they want and posting it on writing websites or blogs and you only have an untalented pool of shills and yes-men and soyboys who can't write worth a fuck and the project dies.

Its a miracle SCP lasted this long in the first place.

As for @pixelatedharmony deleting things that were under Creative Commons, that depends on the agreement. Creative Commons isn't just a blanket license and it is true it is non-revocable. However, there are six types of creative common's licenses:

Attribution
CC BY

This license lets others distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered. Recommended for maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials.
View License Deed | View Legal Code

Attribution-ShareAlike
CC BY-SA

This license lets others remix, adapt, and build upon your work even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. This license is often compared to “copyleft” free and open source software licenses. All new works based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also allow commercial use. This is the license used by Wikipedia, and is recommended for materials that would benefit from incorporating content from Wikipedia and similarly licensed projects.
View License Deed | View Legal Code

Attribution-NoDerivs
CC BY-ND

This license lets others reuse the work for any purpose, including commercially; however, it cannot be shared with others in adapted form, and credit must be provided to you.
View License Deed | View Legal Code

Attribution-NonCommercial
CC BY-NC

This license lets others remix, adapt, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.
View License Deed | View Legal Code

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
CC BY-NC-SA

This license lets others remix, adapt, and build upon your work non-commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms.
View License Deed | View Legal Code

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
CC BY-NC-ND

This license is the most restrictive of our six main licenses, only allowing others to download your works and share them with others as long as they credit you, but they can’t change them in any way or use them commercially.
View License Deed | View Legal Code

As a creator, if you do Creative Commons, you have to be VERY VERY FUCKING CAREFUL at what you put on it. You are essentially giving up ALL rights, including monetary. The only way you could revoke the license is if: 1) They removed your credit from your work. Then they violated the license agreement or 2) You licensed it under the 6th license, meaning if someone touches them or edits them, the license is revoked.

CC is a legal standard, and it isn't to be used lightly. If I write an original story on Kiwi Farms, that is my IP. Obviously, if I post it here myself, I'm permitting users to read it. But unless I give permission, nobody can monetize it, share it anywhere else, or do anything to it. I know this is a ridiculous case as I'd only write horrifying shit here that would never get published. But it still stands.

When you do a CC license, you are essentially giving up every single right you have, except for credit. A CC license, if not specified, is assumed to be the broadest. There's no 'unspoken agreements', its you voluntarily giving up your right to do what you want with your material. You couldn't even revoke it if they went: "This was by the stupid faggot @pixelatedharmony, may the fucking cunt burn." You're credited. Not flatteringly, but it doesn't violate CC.

I mean, technically people could sue you if you deleted the content unlawfully (because it is no longer yours). And that's something to remember. If you license under CC, it is no longer yours. I can take anything you write and make a million dollars off of it and as long as I credit you, I don't owe you shit. That's why you have to be EXTREMELY careful with your IP rights as a writer. This is why a LOT of shady writing 'contests' have it in their fine print anything you submit is owned by them and by submitting you're giving up your IP. Even on fanfic websites. Or wherever you post original fiction that can be publishable. Read the fucking TOS. The whole website could be creative commons and if you write something that takes off, you're fucked. Or the website states anything posted there is owned by the website. People are always looking for easy ways to poach writing, just like art.

Creative commons licenses are typically mainly used for two purposes: Community Software Projects and Open Science Articles. If you use it for anything else, watch what you use it for. Pick which license you want, and understand it. Otherwise if you just say 'Creative Commons', it defaults to giving up all of your rights. Don't ever fucking use it because you want to be seen as 'nice', 'liberal' or 'open'. It is a serious legal contract.

Just like everything you write is yours, if you slap CC on something, then its everyone's. And if you did general creative commons that made the website popular, tough. Your rights are long gone and you honestly don't have a legal right to delete them. I mean, the likelihood of someone taking legal action is laughable. But still, its something to keep in mind. Unless they take your name off it, then they violated it. But that's the only way it can be legally deleted.

EDIT:
Look at it like this: Anything you write, anywhere is automatically copyrighted and you can sue anyone who monetizes/abuses it/copies it, without doing anything yourself. It automatically falls under copyright. No lawyers, no copyright office. If you use CC, you automatically give up all your rights, and people can do anything, as long as they write your name somewhere giving you credit. Just as copyright works automatically with no lawyers and copyright office, so does CC. It legally means something and is not just an internet thing.

EDIT 2:
If you're doing a community project, always put CC number 6. That allows the work to be shared and downloaded, but not monetized or edited. The second some soyboy faggot seeks to edit your shit or 'transform it', the license is null and void and you delete it and say go fuck yourself. And then you get to sell it, because the rights go back to you. Though I'd never do a writing project where anyone has control over what I write or could be edited or with people I didn't trust. Because while it may be illegal to lock you out, you still need to pay a lawyer if they lock you out. Though I would because I'm a spiteful cocksucker, I wouldn't just stop at one part. I'd have the lawyer go through everything I wrote and if some nigger changed my grammar I'd get that shit pulled from the project even if they weren't making it more 'progressive'. Change an 'a', it goes the fuck away.

I'm a bit too passionate about my fiction writing.
 
Last edited:
EDIT 2:
If you're doing a community project, always put CC number 6. That allows the work to be shared and downloaded, but not monetized or edited. The second some soyboy faggot seeks to edit your shit or 'transform it', the license is null and void and you delete it and say go fuck yourself. And then you get to sell it, because the rights go back to you. Though I'd never do a writing project where anyone has control over what I write or could be edited or with people I didn't trust. Because while it may be illegal to lock you out, you still need to pay a lawyer if they lock you out. Though I would because I'm a spiteful cocksucker, I wouldn't just stop at one part. I'd have the lawyer go through everything I wrote and if some nigger changed my grammar I'd get that shit pulled from the project even if they weren't making it more 'progressive'. Change an 'a', it goes the fuck away.
If I remember this right, SCP uses CC2.0, would that affect anything?
 
If I remember this right, SCP uses CC2.0, would that affect anything?
Nope, that is the basic, all encompassing Creative Commons.

Which means you have no rights whatsoever to whatever you put on there. The license is only revoked if:

Under the following terms:​

  • Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits

That's it, really. So you're totally and utterly fucked. The admins can make your cosmic horror a little buttboy bitch as long as they attribute you and make it accessible to everyone. And there's fuck all you can do about it.

So like I said, watch where you publish your shit. But to be fair, if the entire wiki is under CC 2.0, you are basically allowed to compile it into a book and sell it. And they can't do shit about it either. That's the double edged sword of CC 2.0 for websites. SCP itself is creative commons, so that's why people can make games about it on Steam and charge money. There's nothing to license because its everyone's.

You'd only run into problems if they had copyrighted images, as you can't just make someone else's work a CC license. But if they were made by the user under that license...fair game.

Now that I think about it...that's actually a great fucking idea. Go through the SCP wiki, take all the good ideas from it, get an independent artist to do some real kick ass art, and release it as a fucking monster manual. You can even edit people's SCP's enough, add your own lore....that's the best way to get revenge, really. Just take all their shit. That's why Creative Commons is a double edged sword. Yeah, you can make something and have a project where you get to dictate changes, however, someone else can profit off of it.

Hilariously, if you credit everyone who wrote it and then you release it JUST as a book, you aren't in violation of 'No Additional Restrictions' because a published book isn't a technical measure. Just don't offer a PDF. Or if you do, just don't DRM it.

Holy shit, what a hilarious clusterfuck. You could make a SCP physical book and they couldn't do fucking shit about it.

This is why Creative Commons is more for software than for fiction. I just completely got around a license restriction just by not offering a PDF file. If you write, don't. use. creative. commons.

Let this experience be a lesson to all you writers out there. Don't give up your fucking rights. Ever.
 
Last edited:
If I remember this right, SCP uses CC2.0, would that affect anything?
Their’s is CC BY-SA 3.0. ShareAlike by attribution. There is no serious legal recourse for Harmony. All that will be gotten out of this is that SCP are a bunch of pussies with no reliable morality.

The best thing she could have achieved is to force the SCP to choose between outright deleting her works or perpetually deadnaming her; thereby explicitly showing that their high-brow morality that they essentially split the community over is just virtue signaling that will be gladly dropped when inconvenient.

If they keep it under her old name (Roget, or RDR_J or something), then, they are broadcasting that the staff actually don’t give a shit about what they say they do. They take deadnaming VERY seriously there. What they berate others for as an ultimate transgression would be just grandstanding to brow beat people they want to feel better than.

But they are just going to dodge this by changing the attribution to another name on the wiki, like “SCPCommunity”.

I’m not sure of the legal ramifications of this as far as attribution goes. Probably not much.

SCP is looking pretty hypocritical to achieve the contortion though.
 
Now that I think about it...that's actually a great fucking idea. Go through the SCP wiki, take all the good ideas from it, get an independent artist to do some real kick ass art, and release it as a fucking monster manual. You can even edit people's SCP's enough, add your own lore....that's the best way to get revenge, really. Just take all their shit. That's why Creative Commons is a double edged sword. Yeah, you can make something and have a project where you get to dictate changes, however, someone else can profit off of it.
Sorry to double-post. This already happened. But on that note, Audrey Duksin, the entrepreneur, sold the rights of those badass illustrations in August 2020 to these guys. They opened an IndieGoGo in December to raise funds for the English versions of the books (originally in Russian). It’s raised $1,571,138 since December 2020. The set of 3 books is $160.

Based on those numbers, Duskin probably made off like a bandit.
 
Their’s is CC BY-SA 3.0. ShareAlike by attribution. There is no serious legal recourse for Harmony. All that will be gotten out of this is that SCP are a bunch of pussies with no reliable morality.

The best thing she could have achieved is to force the SCP to choose between outright deleting her works or perpetually deadnaming her; thereby explicitly showing that their high-brow morality that they essentially split the community over is just virtue signaling that will be gladly dropped when inconvenient.

If they keep it under her old name (Roget, or RDR_J or something), then, they are broadcasting that the staff actually don’t give a shit about what they say they do. They take deadnaming VERY seriously there. What they berate others for as an ultimate transgression would be just grandstanding to brow beat people they want to feel better than.

But they are just going to dodge this by changing the attribution to another name on the wiki, like “SCPCommunity”.

I’m not sure of the legal ramifications of this as far as attribution goes. Probably not much.

SCP is looking pretty hypocritical to achieve the contortion though.
They don't even need to deadname, they could just do X who was formerly Y, see link. And not even mention it and it would count as an attribution. I mean, its really fucking easy to give attribution. Fuck, they could put it in 8 point font on the lowest part of the article and it would still count. As long as it is there, that's all that matters.
Sorry to double-post. This already happened. But on that note, Audrey Duksin, the entrepreneur, sold the rights of those badass illustrations in August 2020 to these guys. They opened an IndieGoGo in December to raise funds for the English versions of the books (originally in Russian). It’s raised $1,571,138 since December 2020. The set of 3 books is $160.

Based on those numbers, Duskin probably made off like a bandit.
Its just too obvious. Yeah, he could get away with it because those artworks were 'inspired' by SCP, so he could sell them off to others. And then they take all the good SCPs and make nice pretty books out of them.

Don't. Fucking. Use. Creative. Commons. For. Fiction.

Jesus. To not copyright SCP once it took off, to maybe hold back on rushing the CC license (Or use the strictest one, since only you would be able to make money off it), absolutely crazy. No wonder the Russians were able to take it over. Because they're legally allowed to as CC is international.

What a bunch of dumb bastards, hahahahahaha.

Fuck this drama, someone made over a million dollars on this shit and people are doing edit wars like its fucking wikipedia, fighting for their petty kingdom when its already been fucking sacked, raped and burned to the ground.

All you people are fighting for is who is going to be king of the ash pile. Shit is done.

Who gives a shit? What are you going to do with it? I never got this retardation. There was money to be made here for a long fucking time and no one took the initiative or forethought to do it. They only cared about their petty little power struggles and who does what and what's progressive and what isn't. What's canon what the edit rules are, what's this and what's that...

Who gives a fuck. Someone took all of your ideas and made $1.5 million. And there was absolutely nothing you could do about it because it was completely fucking legal. There is nothing more utterly humiliating than that. Though if anyone had a sense of shame, they'd have shut it down the moment someone made a million and a half off of their back. Jesus.

I can't even imagine more pointless bullshit over fiction content. The chance for money and influence is gone. That's over. The Russians who made the money have all of that now. They've established a brand and popularity. Now they get to dictate what is what with SCP, because they have the capital, clout and just plain look better. Whatever it is you're fighting over, its worthless. Pointless. Time to just admit its all a waste of time and move on, because the wiki is not going to be the arbiter of anything. Just petty power struggles over jack shit while the IP is developed by better writers and artists who've monetized it.

And when all is said and done, the people who monetized it and made that money off of it will be viewed as the authorities on SCP, not anyone on the wiki. Not anymore. The war is over, battle's lost. All that's left are pointless, idiotic struggles that are ultimately meaningless. I'd just say cut your losses and move on. Because SCP is over and the wiki will not be relevant again.

EDIT:
What you're seeing is only the start of their monetization. Its only been one year and already 1.5 million. They are going to mine the fuck out of it. Looking that art, there can be PnP systems developed, fiction novels...what the people on the wiki are fighting over, just cut your losses. Honestly, when all is said and done, if they manage to popularize the brand, the wiki will be a footnote and it certainly won't be CC anymore. It will have evolved far beyond that.

So my recommendation: Stop fighting with people who are irrelevant. The wiki no longer leads the idea. The project is dead, because someone took the idea and just made it, to be fair, look pretty fucking good. Its time to recognize that its a sunk cost fallacy and these people have functionally lost whatever power or influence over the idea they may have had.
 
Last edited:
I don't agree with Harmony's descion either but that is Olympics levels of crazy. Way to be the better people here.
The sheer hypocrisy is off the charts.

I can grasp that to them, this must seem like a horrifying betrayal by a trusted person.

They should just admit that though and that they're breaking one of their own rules instead of fobbing it off onto a fake, obviously manipulated vote. Not even Fishmongler got treated like this.
Apparently the new Harmony=SCP-682 tale is being shot down faster than an unauthorized rocket launch outside of a military base.
In a way, being compared to 682 is an amazing compliment.
 
Technically this is always true. You don't ever need to apply for a copyright, what you write is your IP. This is so you can't just go stealing someone's work and publish it yourself if they had no intention of doing so.

The problem lies in that you're posting on a wiki that can be edited. But yes, breaking that rule basically kills the project. Because then no one will write for you if it can be edited or adjusted. You'll just end up with a circle jerk of the same shit and the stuff that popularized your website will end it. A lot of writing projects end this way because the people managing it get fucking arrogant and think that it 'belongs' to them when there are dozens or sometimes hundreds of writers involved.

Then they force these writers to adhere to more and more stringent shit, before out and out editing their work down. Before you know it, everyone talented is gone and just writing what they want and posting it on writing websites or blogs and you only have an untalented pool of shills and yes-men and soyboys who can't write worth a fuck and the project dies.

Its a miracle SCP lasted this long in the first place.

As for @pixelatedharmony deleting things that were under Creative Commons, that depends on the agreement. Creative Commons isn't just a blanket license and it is true it is non-revocable. However, there are six types of creative common's licenses:



As a creator, if you do Creative Commons, you have to be VERY VERY FUCKING CAREFUL at what you put on it. You are essentially giving up ALL rights, including monetary. The only way you could revoke the license is if: 1) They removed your credit from your work. Then they violated the license agreement or 2) You licensed it under the 6th license, meaning if someone touches them or edits them, the license is revoked.

CC is a legal standard, and it isn't to be used lightly. If I write an original story on Kiwi Farms, that is my IP. Obviously, if I post it here myself, I'm permitting users to read it. But unless I give permission, nobody can monetize it, share it anywhere else, or do anything to it. I know this is a ridiculous case as I'd only write horrifying shit here that would never get published. But it still stands.

When you do a CC license, you are essentially giving up every single right you have, except for credit. A CC license, if not specified, is assumed to be the broadest. There's no 'unspoken agreements', its you voluntarily giving up your right to do what you want with your material. You couldn't even revoke it if they went: "This was by the stupid faggot @pixelatedharmony, may the fucking cunt burn." You're credited. Not flatteringly, but it doesn't violate CC.

I mean, technically people could sue you if you deleted the content unlawfully (because it is no longer yours). And that's something to remember. If you license under CC, it is no longer yours. I can take anything you write and make a million dollars off of it and as long as I credit you, I don't owe you shit. That's why you have to be EXTREMELY careful with your IP rights as a writer. This is why a LOT of shady writing 'contests' have it in their fine print anything you submit is owned by them and by submitting you're giving up your IP. Even on fanfic websites. Or wherever you post original fiction that can be publishable. Read the fucking TOS. The whole website could be creative commons and if you write something that takes off, you're fucked. Or the website states anything posted there is owned by the website. People are always looking for easy ways to poach writing, just like art.

Creative commons licenses are typically mainly used for two purposes: Community Software Projects and Open Science Articles. If you use it for anything else, watch what you use it for. Pick which license you want, and understand it. Otherwise if you just say 'Creative Commons', it defaults to giving up all of your rights. Don't ever fucking use it because you want to be seen as 'nice', 'liberal' or 'open'. It is a serious legal contract.

Just like everything you write is yours, if you slap CC on something, then its everyone's. And if you did general creative commons that made the website popular, tough. Your rights are long gone and you honestly don't have a legal right to delete them. I mean, the likelihood of someone taking legal action is laughable. But still, its something to keep in mind. Unless they take your name off it, then they violated it. But that's the only way it can be legally deleted.

EDIT:
Look at it like this: Anything you write, anywhere is automatically copyrighted and you can sue anyone who monetizes/abuses it/copies it, without doing anything yourself. It automatically falls under copyright. No lawyers, no copyright office. If you use CC, you automatically give up all your rights, and people can do anything, as long as they write your name somewhere giving you credit. Just as copyright works automatically with no lawyers and copyright office, so does CC. It legally means something and is not just an internet thing.

EDIT 2:
If you're doing a community project, always put CC number 6. That allows the work to be shared and downloaded, but not monetized or edited. The second some soyboy faggot seeks to edit your shit or 'transform it', the license is null and void and you delete it and say go fuck yourself. And then you get to sell it, because the rights go back to you. Though I'd never do a writing project where anyone has control over what I write or could be edited or with people I didn't trust. Because while it may be illegal to lock you out, you still need to pay a lawyer if they lock you out. Though I would because I'm a spiteful cocksucker, I wouldn't just stop at one part. I'd have the lawyer go through everything I wrote and if some nigger changed my grammar I'd get that shit pulled from the project even if they weren't making it more 'progressive'. Change an 'a', it goes the fuck away.

I'm a bit too passionate about my fiction writing.
I actually read about CC before starting to write -- I don't mind it, I don't think a lot of people that write for SCP do, but this is not necessarily about CC, more about the rules and morality of SCP as a writing website. Up until this point, they'd respect requests to delete work and get rid of reposts of stuff deleted by request, even when CC compliant. Eventhough legal, a refusal to delete Pix's work flies completely in the face of the morality SCP staff have stood by for a decade.
 
Eventhough legal, a refusal to delete Pix's work flies completely in the face of the morality SCP staff have stood by for a decade.
There are plenty of things you can do that while they're legal, you're still a scumbag. SCP is well on the side of scumbag at this point.
 
I actually read about CC before starting to write -- I don't mind it, I don't think a lot of people that write for SCP do, but this is not necessarily about CC, more about the rules and morality of SCP as a writing website. Up until this point, they'd respect requests to delete work and get rid of reposts of stuff deleted by request, even when CC compliant. Eventhough legal, a refusal to delete Pix's work flies completely in the face of the morality SCP staff have stood by for a decade.
My problem isn't with CC. Its with people. You have to know them. And people change. So while it was nice and rules were understood and everything was hunky dory, shit changes. People change or people sometimes rotate out of the project and you get cunts running it. That's where the problem comes in. That's why if you're doing a collab, you make everything CC-5 or 6, lock that shit down and have pow-wows when things need to be edited. You need a bit of stick to it. Because there's always that threat there in the back of everyone's mind. That if you fuck over a good creator, the project collapses. Without a stick, you get shit like this. CC basic is just too hippy dippy free love faggotry that has the potential to turn a collaborative project into a nightmare. Which it has.

So now you have this clash of basically what is courtesy, but not binding and then they decide 'whoops, we don't want to, its our legal right' and then hide behind CC-1. If the wiki was CC BY-NC-ND, it wouldn't have been a courtesy. They would have had to do it. And if they'd want to edit someone's work, they'd have to have a chat with them. And if that person didn't want the work to be edited, they'd have to delete it. No matter if it was one of their most famous ones or not. You see, that's how you manage a writing project that you want to be open. No one can profit from it, no one can fuck with anyone's shit without permission. You're forced to talk to each other and communicate. Its hard to develop little cliques and groups, because each individual writer has power. They go "WE'RE PROGRESSIVE NOW, FUCK YOU ALT-RIGHTERS" then you go, "Welp, I'm just deleting all my shit and taking it with me." Without that iron rod, shit like this happens.

I just don't trust people at all. Because common courtesy is fine when it works in their favor, but when they don't want to, they'll just hide behind the law. I'm not saying they're not trash. They are. I just don't see the point because its all going to be irrelevant anyway. I guess I'm just not invested enough. The thing is the wiki is going to bleed influence out to the bigger stick, which is the Russians. So its not going to matter in the long run. I mean, I'm all in favor of making these retards bleed out faster by deleting @pixelatedharmony's entries. But I wouldn't let it raise my cortisol levels. They're just not worth it as a bunch of cunts. I actually did want to write for SCP a loonnggg time ago, but again, I'm always leery of someone fucking with my work without my permission, so I never did.

Revel in the fact that they'll never be in control again and that whatever shit they write or edit will be irrelevant.

EDIT:
Of course, the drawback to CC BY-NC-ND is that any writer can fuck right off at any time and take their stuff and cripple the project (though they can only profit off their own work, not the project's). There's also the consequence that one person becomes the overlord with most of the content and then can boss the group around. Though if everyone contributes, its not possible for this to happen. But then you can have 2 major content creators in a power struggle as well. So, you have to pick your poison. I'd rather have the iron rod, because even if there is a big content creator bossing people around, everyone can just leave and they have no recourse. Here, you don't have a choice. If you leave or disagree with the direction they're moving in with the basic CC, you don't have any say in the matter.
There are plenty of things you can do that while they're legal, you're still a scumbag. SCP is well on the side of scumbag at this point.
Absolutely. Legal does not mean moral.

The people who run SCP are fucking trash and the fact that they soon will not even be the arbiters of their own IP serves them right.
 
Last edited:
Most infuriating thing about this fiasco is seeing people say “ah no it’s going to leave holes in the site :’( there will be things that aren’t explained :’(“

Bear in mind this all started with SCP-173, which universally got a reaction other than “hey this makes no sense, where’s 1 through 172???”
 
Back