Recent Forum Posts
From categories:
page »

And today, on the prank war SCP log:

I wish to make two posts, one where Church puts a high amount of feces in Light's seat and quarters, then either Bright or Light could simply scare him with a mask.

Re: Non-Disc Record - Church313 by ZynZyn, 21 Oct 2017 04:40

BioglasBioglas recently posted a draft thread asking for feedback:

This is my first SCP that I've ever written. I used some help from SCP-008, and SCP-273 for formatting and building the document. Any help at all would be appreciated!

Of note, nearly all of their draft is plagiarized content from the articles they've mentioned. Sample comparison:

Two staff members have addressed the issue in the forum, but how are we going to proceed here? Short ban?

Disciplinary - Bioglas by ZynZyn, 20 Oct 2017 02:45

New site member RyuTheDragonKMRyuTheDragonKM (account age and site membership 14 days) has recently been posting some problematic feedback in the forums: (on a draft that was almost entirely plagiarized text from another article)

For your first SCP I really like it!

There is one nitpick of mine and it's the spacing of your addendum.

Other than that it is really good!

However you might need to get feedback from professionals, which is something I'm not.

I would upvote (corrected by dankaar)

[…] You don't need this sentence. It's a giant tonal error.
You don't explain why entry into his chamber is forbidden, you need to elaborate why entry is forbidden.

Keep an eye on.

Non-Disc Record - RyuTheDragonKM by ZynZyn, 20 Oct 2017 02:40

Noting that they're back as Dr WestingDr Westing, with several coldposts:

Revoked membership and sent PM telling them to slow down, listen to other people, and reread the site rules.

ETA: Also, they have two comments that seem to indicate maybe a sockpuppet? The user mentioned, LordMMTLordMMT, is an account that is currently 2 hours old.

Really funny lordmmt.

I,Dr.westing,Hearby,On this day of 10/19/17, Allow the user lordMMT to have full access to editing this scp.

Probably underage. Keep an eye on.

9:42 AM <MacLeod> I DO
9:43 AM <MacLeod> I need to focus. Can I ask for a temp-ban until Monday night?
9:43 AM <%Taffeta> Last I recall tempbans have to last at least a week
9:43 AM <MacLeod> fine by me.
9:44 AM <MacLeod> Give me a moment to say goodbye.

Ban on *!*@3C60F8F4.D4CC6962.6467B935.IP until 2017-10-27.

Backseat modding here.

Your SCP uses lines ripped straight out of SCP-008. This is plagiarism and against the rules.

*100% infectiousness.
*100% lethality.
*Transmission through mucous and blood-to-blood contact.
*Not airborne.
*Able to survive in dirty water for up to four (4) weeks.

This is from your document^

008 document:

*100% infectiousness.
*100% lethality.
*Transmission through exposed mucous membranes and all bodily fluids.
*Not airborne or waterborne.

You've blatantly stolen material from 008, which besides breaking the rules, is frowned upon by members, including myself.

The idea itself is poorly built, it's a bacteria that infests your white blood cells and makes them attack everything, how is it distinguished from some other immune disease, like multiple sclerosis or arthritis? Also, factual error, it's impossible to reach the temperature of absolute zero because you'd need > to extract an infinite amount of heat and energy from the substance in question.

All in all, you may have an idea with great potential, but due to the theft, the lack of detail about the actual SCP, and the rules it breaks, your SCP draft > currently wouldn't survive. You need to write the SCP, not copy and paste from other SCPs and hope nobody catches on.



Do not backseat mod. If you find evidence of plagiarism, alert a staff member, and we will investigate the issue.

Do not respond to this post unless you are staff. This is a CLOSED staff post.

Problematic feedback today:

I give you props for giving good, specific detail that's not hard to read, along with to-the-point addenda that aren't annoyingly carried out, but…

The biggest issue here (for me, at least) is that it's a thing that does a thing. It's simply bath bombs that eat people when used. A good SCP shouldn't be able to be explained in only a mere few words.

An idea to spice it up would maybe make a log about a Foundation worker trying to sell it to an outside buyer who wants to weaponize it.

There's not much else I can really criticize since it's well described, just too basic where it's currently at.

Keep an eye on.

Re: Disciplinary - Synyster ZackyV by ZynZyn, 19 Oct 2017 05:36
Re: Roget
ProcyonLotorProcyonLotor 18 Oct 2017 17:36
in discussion SCP Chat / Users » Roget

I think it's worth pointing out that even if the primary thrust of the complaint is "derailing", that's… really not actionable grounds for anything.

To my knowledge, there's no rule, guideline, standard, or unofficial consensus against us introducing relevant material in the course of a thread (and I don't believe the idea that perceptions of Cyan's behavior were irrelevant to a complaint largely about Cyan's conflict with another user to be even worth entertaining). If I'm correct there, any complaint on such grounds is meritless from the start.

Re: Roget by ProcyonLotorProcyonLotor, 18 Oct 2017 17:36
Re: Roget
QuikngruvnQuikngruvn 18 Oct 2017 17:19
in discussion SCP Chat / Users » Roget

That's a valid question, but luckily we don't have to address only one or the other possible foci.

If the primary concern is "Roget derailed the thread about Soulless and turned it into a thread about Cyan", that's been discussed already (per WJS' original post, first question).

If, however, the primary concern is "Roget expressed his concerns that Cyan's behavior could be considered abusive", then, um, I don't quite know what to say without devolving way outside decorum and professionalism. Again, Roget offered his informed opinion and, when challenged, provided logical reasoning for his declaration. If Staff cannot express reservations about a user's behavior, any user's behavior, especially one who is up for promotion, then how are we to effectively discuss any user's situation?

I don't believe these are the only options for interpreting the complaint. However, further explanation would risk turning this from a thread about Roget's behavior into a thread about Cyan's behavior.

For the same of completeness, though, I will add further information about the original complaint, posted by Cyan in 17 that fateful night:

10:58:05 PM C<Cyantreuse> WrongJohnSilver: My other aspect of the compplaint against roget is "18:18:44 <Cyantreuse> What is the content of whatever it was that you saw. 18:18:58 That prevented my promotion. Procy says it was "logs." 18:19:25 <Roget> You behaving terribly towards other people"

No further clarification was given by Cyan. For context, the relevant portion of the PM discussion between Cyan and Roget, which Cyan provided for that other thread:

Re: Roget by QuikngruvnQuikngruvn, 18 Oct 2017 17:19

Thank you Zyn! Happy to be here!

Noting that they responded to a comment regarding the removal of their gross creepy log:

Eh, I was bored.

They've also added the tag "ethics-committee" to SCP-3097. The edit was reverted.

Re: Non-Disc Record - Church313 by ZynZyn, 18 Oct 2017 07:25

Adding fieldstonefieldstone to Forum Crit. /sprinkles confetti

Re: Junior Staff Appointments by ZynZyn, 18 Oct 2017 05:42

Dr_AndrewwDr_Andreww has recently left the following comment on SCP-3993:


It goes on for a while. It has been collapsed for the time being. Not disc, but I'd say just keep an eye on for now.

Edited a bit to not mess with mobile screens as much. ~Zyn

Non-Disc Record - Dr_Andreww by Sly161Sly161, 17 Oct 2017 23:13

ChaoSeraChaoSera has been promoted to op (only like a month after initial considerations).

[added:] Also renamed the thread to something more clear and meaningful.

Re: Promotions III by QuikngruvnQuikngruvn, 17 Oct 2017 21:15
Re: Roget
SoullessSingularitySoullessSingularity 17 Oct 2017 20:45
in discussion SCP Chat / Users » Roget

Note: The listed thread related to this complaint involves me, therefore I may be biased. Please take that into account.

I am confused what the focus of the concern is. Is the concern Roget's potential involvement in thread derailment or Roget expressing his beliefs that a user behaved abusively?

Living the dream, or dreaming the life?

Re: Roget by SoullessSingularitySoullessSingularity, 17 Oct 2017 20:45
Re: Roget
DexanoteDexanote 17 Oct 2017 20:28
in discussion SCP Chat / Users » Roget

Did Roget turn the thread about Soulless into being about Cyan acting in an abusive manner?

No, I do not believe so.

Were Roget's responses inappropriate for a staff member to make?

No. Roget was perfectly within his purview and the capacity of the conversation in my eyes, though I absolutely see how and where people may have seen a flag.

Noting that no action was recommended during the lodging of the complaint, should any action be taken?

I do not believe any further action should or will be taken at this time.

Re: Roget by DexanoteDexanote, 17 Oct 2017 20:28
Re: Roget
QuikngruvnQuikngruvn 17 Oct 2017 12:37
in discussion SCP Chat / Users » Roget

1. No, Roget did not turn the thread into "Cyan acts in an abusive manner". That conversation dominated a sub-thread, sure, but not the whole discussion. Further, objectively, to really turn the thread into all about Cyan's behavior would have entailed further elaboration with specific examples and (preferably) logs, not simply an observation with additional reasoning.

2. No, Roget called it like he saw it, and when challenged about his statement and choice of terminology, he immediately provided his reasoning in his next post. If Staff cannot call it like we see it, then what the hell are we supposed to do, pussyfoot around the issue ('cos that always works out for the best)?

3. No, the complaint is without merit. Besides, what behavior would be the basis for action against Roget? "Don't speak honestly about users' behavior"? Gods, no, that way lies madness.

And also a quizzical glance at why this thread even exists.

Because an official complaint was made by a user against another user, specifically a wiki admin/chat op. Not logging and addressing such claims will only invite mistrust and worse among the userbase for staff.

Re: Roget by QuikngruvnQuikngruvn, 17 Oct 2017 12:37

I agree that we can change it to [UNTITLED].

Re: SCP-3993 by WrongJohnSilverWrongJohnSilver, 17 Oct 2017 11:12
Re: SCP-3993
subtleteasubtletea 17 Oct 2017 04:35
in discussion SCP Wiki / Main SCP Listing » SCP-3993

Could put a note in the discussion if people getting confused is an issue.

Re: SCP-3993 by subtleteasubtletea, 17 Oct 2017 04:35
page »
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License