scp-wiki.wikidot.com
If you are a half-decent writer you evitably can. That's what the stuff in the OP pretty much proves. If you can mention vsbattles lingo this explicitely and get away with it, then you can absolutely also creature whatever powerful characters you want if you have a minimum amount of skill and the patience to maybe write more than a single article to establish everything.
Marvel and DC try to have a canon and fail. SCP doesn't even try to have a singular canon.
The author incorporates the OCs in his story in his own way, not just copy them in. And then he himself, alone, selects who gets in. It's not like anyone with some skill could get a character into the story. The author took the ideas he liked.
Throughout this thread you have provided little to no insight, and have dropped multiple inflammatory and downright useless comments. This is behavior unbecoming of a regular user, let alone a staff member.
Okay, I'm sorry for getting carried away. I feel a bit sick now anyway, so I'll show myself out for a few days.
I think that'd only make the problem worse. Ideally, the VSB and SCP Foundation wikis have nothing to do with each other besides VSB having SCPs on the wiki. If we go to them trying to deal with these issues, we only formalize the problematic relationship that has developed and that has stood for years. Deleting the SCPs from the wiki would honestly do more for the SCP Foundation's issues with this than talking to their staff - without the validation that the wiki provides, a lot of people will simply lose interest in barfing out tierwank SCPs.
Incredibly well said
I believe some of them have, please don't make such sweeping accusations.
This entire thread involves people hearing those points out.
I literally suggested it in my first post, back when the "don't delete" view had more votes. I brought it up again because it wasn't mentioned in the OP, and received almost zero discussion from others.
There is! Are you familiar with how many new writings they delete?
Again, there aren't a shitton of tier 0 characters because they were all written with tiershit. The vast majority of that stuff are just entities which have a feat of affecting the "noosphere" or a "narrative". It's just scaling to cosmological constructs which are high-tiered for other reasons.
Again, those pages linked in the OP haven't made any characters strong. Either being irrelevant to any actual scaling, or not reaching enough votes to be considered as canon by us.
I feel obligated to say that Weekly has always maintained that such messages were posted by a troll trying to get him in trouble. Despite the fact that it wasn't brought to our attention by anyone suspicious, but by me noticing that the account had voted on a tale, and tracking down other contributions it had made, which were year-old comments.
You could quite literally write a manuscript inspired by a ton of VS debating lingo, send it to a publisher, and get it published. Or create a video that goes viral, game that gets popular, or apply to work at a large media company.
You’ll have to be more specific. Nobody here has spread any lies to advocate for SCP’s deletion. Even if you wanna call my hypothetical example a stretch, we literally have approved SCP pages that use VSBW lingo right down to the tier names. Not just Tier 0 or High 1-A. You’ll see Tier 10 and 9-B on some other pages
While I could find one thing (which I'll quote below), looking back I think I connected stuff that wasn't explicitly connected.
Even here it's hard to say it counts; Ant does say "basically", but there aren't cases of pages on the SCP wiki being rewritten to more qualify for our terminology. All the examples given are newly-written, and most of them are mere name-drops or mocking instead of trying to accurately qualify for our statistics.
We already deal with the fact that article canon references other stuff; we just ignore those references. As this page says, we only consider "original canon" to be stuff written by the same author, as part of a canon/series/collab, or in cases where both authors have written their own pieces establishing a crossover. Everything else is just treated as if the links go nowhere.
Maybe? We already had that with the bar being +10, and that used to be enough to cover everything, but now Chaoskampf's sitting at +24. It kinda feels unsatisfying to just keep pushing that bar higher and higher.
Yeah, but, as mentioned by Bambu and I forget ngl back on page 1, such a thing was brought up as evidence for why retaining main canon wouldn't be feasible.
I’m just gonna assume I can still post to a limited degree, hopefully this doesn’t get deleted
Being someone who gave votes to the opposition even I have to say this is a massive false equivalency. If you actually read the WoGs, Wildbow's mindset towards battleboarding is far different from ours, as well as most people's. Most of the WoGs we get from him in those threads are also based on in-story moments, with some elaboration given. Wildbow is just an author who pays special attention to his powers, lol
I think it's feasible, a bunch of pages do it, it just doesn't address some issues some people have.
Only bureaus can give permission for multiple posts at once, but I'd have approved this response anyway. Just ask another staff member before any others.
I think SCP as a whole easily clears the notability criteria, and clearly doesn't primarily focus on powerscaling purely for battleboarding purposes.
This was discussed (briefly) on Discord where I mentioned the tier 1 rule in passing to Agnaa. Strictly speaking, SCP has a lot more wrong with it than this, which this thread details- including the ease of contribution and open nature of said contributions.
I think the tier 1 rule, re-quoted here:
Isn't meant to be piecemeal. I think the other one is clearly meant to be piecemeal by being a different point, but that this one includes two qualities ("being tier 1/0" and "primarily focusing on powerscaling") right next to each other, without any intervening clauses like "or", indicating that both must be met to disqualify a series.
The provided instances of SCP lore are suggested to be both, either way, with the writer of A Journey Through The Afterlife having confirmed it. As I said on Discord, I don't think this is the place to discuss the changing of these rules to clarify one way or the other, but even under this interpretation you present, SCP would be in violation.
As what should (hopefully) be a final point of clarification, I view "primarily focusing on powerscaling" to be about the verse as a whole. You could not take that one page of Thor talking about powerscaling to say that Marvel primarily focuses on powerscaling, even though that one page definitely is.
I believe that the "staff being spread thin" stuff is more about collaborative logs.
You do realize the examples that Bambu have brought up would by default make SCP as a whole be at risk of being banned from the website with your own standard right? Especially with how the tiering system is being used and versus battle words like nonexistent physiology, something rarely if ever said in countless fictional works that describes someone that doesn't exist.
This was already addressed by Promestein since SCP wiki stuff is their own thing and the vs wiki stuff is our own thing, trying to demand some form of change for them on another website that has none of our or FANDOM's jurisdiction would be a massive waste of time and just be endless headaches for both sides for nothing. Plus even if we went down the route of making a letter about using non versus debating focused SCPs onto the wiki would just lead to more constant monitoring for this one specific franchise that staff members and supporters in general would have to moderate in order to figure out which one isn't written with versus debating in mind, which is a lot of unneeded work for one simple internet series. The simpler solution would just be to get rid of SCP from the site and just move it somewhere else.
I mean one of the alternate options we can try to do if possible is to move it to another wiki that has some semblance of powerscaling to it, FC/OC is off the tables due to their strict policies on tier 1/0 verses and jokes battle wiki was already checked off the list. Any other website that can have the SCPs moved in that's viable would be something I believe lots of folks would be open minded about.
That's not really the problem as folks have already brought up other verses with some semblance of reference to versus debating as a whole and addressed the argument. The issue is that SCP articles/writers as a whole is just plagued with many examples of versus battle lingo and just constantly describing them in our standards of power levels that it's violating the standards for what series is considered valid to use on the wiki as a whole. Plus it leads to an issue of if we have to keep the verse while also funneling through many articles and SCPs in general on what's valid to use on the site or not, it becomes a massive headache to juggle for both us on site and the SCP folks, especially if we go down the route of nagging at them for what article doesn't have these terminologies thrown left and right.
I think this is a terrible idea. We shouldn't be so entitled so as to ask them to operate differently.
This is a ludicrous exaggeration.
The idea of holding our own profiles hostage in order to stop people from interfering with our profiles is hilarious and I support it because it's the funniest outcome and as such it's objectively the best. I'll do it right now and issue this threat OFFICIALLY on behalf of the collective consciousness of Versus Battles Wiki which is legally binding by the code of the sovereign citizen.
I asked one of the SCP proponents and was told he wouldn’t be responding, so I think proceeding with the migration would be best.
I also would have preferred Saikou to speak here, if only to understand that we heard his thoughts on the matter. Still, as far as I can tell, he's been fairly active on Discord talking about this, and given he hasn't replied, I'm not hopeful.
This is a lot but it also doesn't insist upon debate-lording back and forth, really: it's a reasonably well-realized position, just one I don't agree with in its totality (although bits and pieces I consider to be true). Your position has been added the OP as an alternative alongside Everything12's.
This is being discussed in private among the supporters.
For the purposes of the thread, would you be willing to shed some light on their feelings regarding it? It is the general opinion of the thread, I think, that we're interested in the archival of the work you guys have done. We would not be content to begin finalizing this until we knew of some sort of plan.
