Disciplinary - Soultear

Summary:

Vehemence/violating crit policy

Disciplinary - Soultear

Zyn 22 Sep 2017 05:09

Soultear recently left this post on an article's discussion page:

http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-730942/scp-2005#post-3596815

There's so much going on here, I hate it. It's a big pile of undefined something, set on fire.

Downvoted.

They also made a post a few months ago that got three responses today: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-520399/scp-1673#post-2844655

I wanted to say the writing is bad, but it isn't bad, it's worse than bad: The writing of this article sucks. It sucks so much that I won't even bother pointing out each specific mistake. This needs a total makeover, if only to correct the awful mistakes (It could also endure some brushing up, it feels outdated, like if the general quality of the site got better and better with time and this scip was just left behind). Downvoted

Of note, they've left similar comments before:

• http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-553162/scp-1978#post-3581776 "You explain the hook in so much detail that it loses all strenght before collapsing completely on a feeble punch. Downvoted."
• http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-470131/scp-1966#post-3580896 "The tone could be better, and the object itself is not really interesting. So I'll downvote."
• http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-731711/scp-1953#post-3578558 "So boring, so terribly boring. Downvoted."
• http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-555394/scp-1868#post-3570491 "The writing is just bad, not terrible, just bad. Enough to downvote."

Given their history, dropping official warning. Ban on next offense.

Re: Disciplinary - Soultear

DrEverettMann 22 Sep 2017 05:34

The comments under "Of note" are honestly fine. They're not terribly in-depth, but they don't need to be. "I don't like it" is a perfectly valid post on an article. The other two, however, are pretty bad.

Your post on SCP-2005 was unhelpful. On review, we've found this isn't the first time. This is an official warning. The point of giving criticism is to help the author do better. In the future, if you're going to go more in-depth than "I don't like it," be specific. Give examples. Give advice for how to improve. If you feel there's too much going on, give suggestions on what to cut. If you feel there are more errors than you want to go over individually, pick some examples. Don't be vague. Don't use hyperbolic statements like "set it on fire." The point of criticism isn't to vent your spleen, it's to get people to write better the next time.

Here is our Criticism Policy. If you do not improve, the next step will be a short-term ban.

Re: Disciplinary - Soultear

Decibelles 09 Oct 2017 18:56

He's done did it again, this time on SCP-2076!

Re: Disciplinary - Soultear

Zyn 09 Oct 2017 23:13

Would that be a 24-hour ban, then? They've gotten an official warning for this.

Re: Disciplinary - Soultear

RJB_R 09 Oct 2017 23:18

In favor of a ban.

---

Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!

Re: Disciplinary - Soultear

AdminBright 10 Oct 2017 01:23

Agreed.

---

Admin, SCP Wiki

Re: Disciplinary - Soultear

Zyn 01 Oct 2018 07:36

Noting that they're back with questionable, overly vehement responses:

http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1109636/scp-2516#post-4009445 (note, this seems to be a call out on a post by Decibelles:
http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1109636/scp-2516#post-2231431)

I don't get people that say "I see what you were trying to make me feel but I didn't feel it so the skip is bad". You saw what he was trying to make you feel? Really? How do you know? Your subjective perception about the supposed intentions of the author shouldn't taint your appreciation of the piece, in my humble opinion. For me, this sounded like The Terminal, with Tom Hanks, but a thousand times worse, and that idea gave me the creeps. Upvoted

http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-2262703/scp-2514#post-4009401

Don't pay attention to those who say that this piece is all over the place with disjointed stuff. It's not true. Having said that, I don't think I catched the gist of the thing, but I liked what I read. Upvoted

http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1376314/scp-2503#post-4006235 (for the record, the piece is at +55)

The English in this one is terrible. It may actually be the worse writing I have ever seen in a skip in the four years or more that I've been reading them. I don't intend to sound disrespectful or rude, I just want you to understand just how much I disliked the writing itself, so sorry if you feel hurt or offended by what I said. You should really re-check the whole thing and correct the many many weird collocations, bad grammar, unnatural uses and downright surreal sentences that fill up this piece. If you are interested I can re-read it and highlight every iffy thing I find for you. Just let me know.

Downvoted

Keep an eye on, I guess. It's been almost a year since they were almost banned.

Last edited on 01 Oct 2018 07:42 by Zyn Show more

Re: Disciplinary - Soultear

Zyn 29 Jan 2020 05:40

And they're back today with an accusatory post: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-12355473/classification-committee-memo#post-4482408

Most of the dislikes seem to stem from old-timers with a knee-jerk response to reject anything new. Kudos to all of you for daring to try and create something new for the Foundation! Upvoted with confidence.

ETA: and also more encouraging authors not to listen to feedback
http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-2033810/scp-2809#post-4481860

The author doesn't have to listen to criticism. If they like the article the way it is, then it's ok. I don't find trying to change every little thing in a skip to please everyone to be a worthy or even dignified thing to do for a writer, specially if they have sound or stylistic reasons for every detail in their text. I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm antagonizing you, but I just wanted to point out that those "faults" you mention are really nothing more than subjective disagreements with the author's vision.

Last edited on 29 Jan 2020 05:46 by Zyn Show more

Re: Disciplinary - Soultear

Zyn 29 Jan 2020 15:49

Got a PM:

+ show block

Hi Zyn, I would like to begin by letting you know I'm sorry if my comment was out of place. I thought that as long as I didn't mention anyone by name it was OK to express my opinion or to disagree with the way other people judge a piece, now I see that is not the case.

I just learned of the Admin Post some minutes ago because someone sent me a private message regarding the matter. I don't think Wikidot lets you know in any way if someone commented on your comment, so now I fear I missed any other warnings you or someone else from staff sent my way in the past. I thought I was doing fine because I hadn't been officially warned since 2017, when I commented really harshly on a skip I disliked. I've mellowed my responses since and, even if I really don't like something, I try to express my distaste in a non-inflammatory way.

Could you point me to any comment of mine that was also flagged? So that I can check it and see what I'm doing wrong.

Again, I'm sorry if I caused any trouble, that was not my intention.

Regards anyone by name it was OK to express my opinion or to disagree with the way other people judge a piece, now I see that is not the case.

I just learned of the Admin Post some minutes ago because someone sent me a private message regarding the matter. I don't think Wikidot lets you know in any way if someone commented on your comment, so now I fear I missed any other warnings you or someone else from staff sent my way in the past. I thought I was doing fine because I hadn't been officially warned since 2017, when I commented really harshly on a skip I disliked. I've mellowed my responses since and, even if I really don't like something, I try to express my distaste in a non-inflammatory way.

Could you point me to any comment of mine that was also flagged? So that I can check it and see what I'm doing wrong.

Again, I'm sorry if I caused any trouble, that was not my intention.

Regards

I sent them a link to this record, and also noted that they are responsible for checking up on replies to the posts they have made, rather than asking staff to notify them every time.

Their reply:

+ show block

Thank you, that's actually really useful.

I agree that in some of those comments that were flagged I was going against other commenters. Sometimes I see people bashing on a particular piece and don't agree with the hate so I try to stand up for the author, or to let them know that you shouldn't necessarily change every single thing in a skip so that everyone likes it because that's never going to happen. In the last case, I really didn't think my answer was vehement, it was just what I thought after reading many comments that followed the same "new = bad" lines. But I guess that knowing the way I acted in the past, it would be reasonable to see it that way.

I'll keep an eye on that disciplinary record and try to do better.

Regards

Sent back:

It looks like you're misattributing negativity to readers who are suggesting ways to improve an article's quality out of a desire to see the author become successful. Just because you're not in agreement with a critique does not automatically mean that the reviewer is being hateful.

Last edited on 29 Jan 2020 18:47 by Zyn Show more