To meet the demand of the Discord Critique Team's needs, we are restructuring internally through the creation of vice captains for the team. This page details the responsibilities, purview, and structural changes to the team, based on initial discussions had.

Definitions

To assist with critique policy, we would like to establish the following definitions for specific words used in Discord Critique Policy:

• Codify/Codification: To codify a process is to record a process in writing, in an official capacity, within Deer College, Critcord, Crit-Box or other venues and locations. These 'codified' policies are not officially policy until voted on by the team, but may be structured and presented as such, excluding information that is directly communicated to the average wiki user.

Discord Critique Team Vice Captains

To assist with the sheer amount of responsibilities, labor and moderation required by the Discord Critique Sub-Team, it is not longer tenable to operate with only one Captain. To that end, we have created the position of Vice Captain within the Discord Critique Subteam. A vice captain is assigned a specific general area of responsibilities. At the present time, those focuses are:

• Vice Captain for Moderation
• Vice Captain for Documentation

The next sections outline the roles and responsibilities of Vice Captains, on a general level, as well as on the specific level for each distinct area.

Discord Critique Vice Captain Definition, Responsibilities and Purview

Discord Critique Vice Captains are a position that is appointed by the Captain of the Discord Critique team.

The general duties of Discord Critique Vice Captains are as follows:¹

1. Work in tandem with the Discord Critique Captain to maintain a culture of collaboration and creativity within Deer College;
2. Observe and moderate internal Discord Critique staff discussions in the place of the Captain, serving as an alternative form of internal team accountability;
3. Vice Captains' votes towards daily Discord Critique actions do not hold any greater value than another member of the Discord Critique team;
   1. However, in situations that are tied, or otherwise split, Vice Captains work alongside the Captain to serve as tie breakers;
4. Supports communication between the team and the Discord Critique Captain, in both directions;
5. Vice Captains do not hold the power to make formal, final decisions on changes towards policy. That power remains with the subteam Captain;
   1. However, in the context of the Vice Captain's specific assigned area of responsibility, in situations such as ambiguous wordings, or tied discussions, they hold the ability to determine the best course of action, or to revisit previously made decisions, within reason. This power exists to support a culture of collaboration and accountability throughout the Discord Critique Team.

Vice Captains also have specific duties related to their areas of responsibility. Those are as follows:

Vice Captain of Moderation

The Vice Captain of Moderation is expected to observe, focus and serve as a first point of deliberation on all topics related to moderation and day-to-day management of the Deer College Discord Channels. These responsibilities include:

1. Review and audit Discord Critique Actions, such as critkicks, critbans etc., for the purposes of ensuring that all actions are taken in accordance with the rules of Deer College;
2. Auditing the validity of all critique actions, and coordinating internal reviews;
3. Stay informed and aware of all channels within Deer College, and is expected to be a trusted voice regarding decisions around critique actions, especially those that are following an established precedent;
4. Serves as a point of contact for issues around critique actions for the Discord Critique Team, and is responsible for ensuring the following:
   1. Any concerns around moderation decisions are raised to the Discord Critique Team Captain;
   2. Concerns from other staff teams are communicated to both the Discord Critique Team Captain, as well as the critique team;
   3. Ensuring that any user appeals are properly communicated to and discussed by the team, and the Discord Critique Team Captain, in a timely manner.

Vice Captain of Documentation

The Vice Captain of Documentation is expected to maintain an understanding of the internal policy that governs the Discord Critique Subteam, and, where applicable, is responsible for the documentation and codification of policy. They are also responsible for maintaining the systems of logging, tracking and internal team accountability. These responsibilities include:

1. Documenting and codifying any and all policies that govern Discord Critique team decisions, operations and more;
   1. The Vice Captain of Documentation does not have the ability to make decisions regarding the creation of new policy, as any new policy requires the signoff of Discord Critique Team Captain. However, they are able to codify policy in advance of said approval, as a part of their regular duties;
2. Ensuring that critique accountability logging is done correctly, promptly, and in the correct venues. They are not the individual who must do the logging, but they ensure that it is done. This includes:
   1. The 'Users to Watch' log, recording warnings and patterns of behavior;
   2. Logging critique actions on the official critique staff discord;
   3. Logging critique actions on the O5 wiki;
3. Tracking, defining and coordinating voting on policy proposals, discord critique action appeal decisions, Moth Squad Roster applications and Discord Critique Staff additions;
4. Responsible for ensuring the creation, maintenance and updating of any guides, resources, reference pages, posts or threads that deal with both internal and external Discord Critique policy, processes or other related systems. Any Discord Critique Staff team member may propose the changes or creation of documentation, however, the Vice Captain of Documentation should be informed, as they are accountable for ensuring that the work is accurate.

Proposed Changes

To accommodate the restructure of the Discord Critique Team, we request the following item(s):

• As determined by Pedagon, the following Discord Critique Staff Team members are to be selected as Vice Captains, with the following areas of focus:
  • AstersQuill, as Vice Captain of Moderation
  • Queerious, as Vice Captain of Documentation.

GlitchSCP

Subject: Application for Membership: SCP Foundation Dear SCP Foundation Membership Committee, I am writing to express my keen interest in becoming a member of the SCP Foundation community. As an avid enthusiast of the paranormal, supernatural, and speculative fiction, I have long admired the dedication and creativity exhibited by the SCP Foundation and its members in exploring the depths of the anomalous. I believe that my background and skills make me a suitable candidate for membership in the SCP Foundation community. Here are some reasons why I am eager to contribute: Passion for Creative Writing: I have a strong passion for creative writing, particularly in the genres of horror, science fiction, and fantasy. I have honed my writing skills through various projects, and I am excited about the opportunity to contribute to the collaborative storytelling environment of the SCP Foundation. Research and Analytical Skills: I possess excellent research and analytical skills, which I believe are essential for crafting compelling SCP entries. I enjoy delving into lore, mythology, and scientific concepts to develop rich and plausible narratives for anomalous objects and entities. Collaborative Spirit: I value collaboration and teamwork, and I am eager to collaborate with fellow Foundation members to brainstorm ideas, provide constructive feedback, and refine SCP entries to ensure quality and consistency within the SCP Foundation universe. Respect for Canon: I understand the importance of adhering to the established canon and guidelines of the SCP Foundation community. I am committed to upholding the integrity of the SCP universe and contributing responsibly to its ongoing development. Contribution to Community Growth: I am enthusiastic about contributing to the growth and expansion of the SCP Foundation community. Whether through writing SCP entries, participating in discussions, or engaging with fellow members, I am eager to play an active role in fostering a welcoming and creative environment for all members. I am confident that my passion, skills, and dedication make me a valuable addition to the SCP Foundation community. I am excited about the prospect of collaborating with like-minded individuals and contributing to the continued success and evolution of the SCP Foundation universe. Thank you for considering my application. I look forward to the opportunity to become a member of the SCP Foundation community and contribute to its ongoing legacy of creativity and imagination. Sincerely,

07/09/24 - krinzun

Version 1: I am interested in joining the platform as I have a strong desire to write an SCP. I have thoroughly reviewed the rules and am committed to adhering to them.

The complaint consisted of the stated belief that the decision by staff to mandate edits to the Third Law canon hub to ensure compliance with site rules was entirely based on hypothetical situations that never came to pass, was based on an overly vague rule that was not applicable to the wording in the canon hub, and unfairly singled out Third Law compared to other ‘restrictive’ canons such as Unfounded and Aces and Eights. They claimed that the canon is not restrictive and that the motivation behind the wording was to ensure new contributions engaged with the previous material before they are posted.

The discussion began with staff pointing out that all canons are subject to the site rules and if there are other canons that violate the rule regarding open contribution, they will also need to make changes to maintain their canon statues. Just because it never came up as an issue doesn’t mean their hub is compliant with established canon rules, and also the Third Law canon was only the first to need to make edits.

It was mentioned that a potential reason for no complaints being made against the canon guidelines is that users have admitted in the past they would prefer to simply steer clear of Third Law altogether and not even attempt to contribute in order to avoid conflict. A staff member agreed, citing their own experience with being gatekept from the canon by its creator some years prior.

It was also mentioned that the issue of Third Law’s canon hub being noncompliant with site exclusivity rules had been previously brought up among the MAST team. The disposition of the MAST team at that time was to have a requirement to get greenlighting by established canon authors changed in the canon hub to a recommendation.

The conversation then turned to the validity of comparing Third Law’s restrictions to the other canons mentioned in the complaint, Unfounded and Aces and Eights. It was ultimately agreed upon that the cited restrictions in Unfounded and Aces and Eights were integral components of the canon’s setting and did not restrict new writers from contributing. Having specific themes be incorporated into the setting of a canon is not the same as, for example, requiring greenlights. Similar to how SCPs follow a format, the thematic setting of a work is simply how canons function.

Discussion continued with some dissent about whether recommending a greenlight is exclusive, with an alternative proposal of allowing Third Law to change its status to a more exclusive tale series put forwards. It is at this time that psychicProgrammer was asked to recuse himself from the conversation as an active contributor to the Third Law canon in order to maintain impartiality.

The final disposition of the staff discussing the topic was that the Third Law canon did violate site rules regarding exclusivity and canons by recommending a greenlight process before posting, with the implication that an article posted without such a process would not survive in the canon. It is understandable that the complainants would feel upset by what is perceived as singling out and staff telling them how to run their canon, but that does not change whether Third Law is in compliance with site rules. Other non-compliant canons have or are expected to recieve similar messages regarding edits to their hubs in the near future. Therefore, the previous request to change the wording of their canon will stand.

Before somebody else says it yes there is an absolute fuckton of political context involving Ukrainian national identity and Russian holdovers. However as this is the spelling used by most governments I think it's a SPAG issue.

No names saying you're official website staff (like 'admin', 'administrator', or 'moderator').

and had used up their 2 account name changes. Initial consensus was to require them to make a new account, before an administrator offered to contact Wikidot to ask the user's name changes be reset. Initial confusion as to why this user was being given preferred treatment was quickly clarified by the admin: requesting Wikidot to reset name changes for users who had used their two was relatively common practice several years ago on the site, as changing accounts was very difficult due to the lack of infrastructure for authorship credit and reattribution and things. This only stopped when Wikidot stopped responding to such requests, but recently they responded in similar cases.

The admin has contacted Wikidot inquiring as to how users wishing to request username resets can submit such a request. As such, going forward, any user with a username changed in violation of site rules who has run out of name changes will be given this information. If their changes are reset, they will be asked to change their username into something acceptable to remain on the site. If they are not reset, they decline to seek it out, or if Wikidot simply never gives us the information, their account's membership will be revoked and they will be asked to create a new account, as was previous policy.

In-line with these changes, we are transitioning enforcement through a stepwise escalation that will be brought into line with standard disciplinary escalation as we shift staff culture. This escalation will consist of the following steps should behavior continue:

- 1st offense: Logging of Rule 0 violation/Issuance of an informal Warning.
- 2nd offense: Issuance of an Official Disc Warning.
- 3 or more offenses: Censure Vote
- Continued misconduct past Censure: Demotion

If you don't have any issues, feel free to let me know if you've read any good issues of Highlights lately or something.

S D Locke

After some discussion in SSSC it was decided the conversation should continue on 05 to better solicit opinions about what, if anything, should staff response be.

EDIT: Upon inquiry for clarification, this is a non-disc thread as disc staff haven't decided upon any related action upon the incident. There was merely significant discussion regarding the incident and therefore it was at minimum decided the discussion should be moved to 05. As such, non-disc may post in this non-disc thread.

Two users, one of whom was a member of staff and the other a former member of staff, were discovered to have exchanged nsfw messages with a minor. Both have been removed from the site and permanently banned.

There are rumors that Anti-Harassment were aware of this situation and attempted to cover it up. This is entirely false. We received a rumor about the incident near the beginning of this year, but in an initial interview with the case’s victim they claimed at the time that nothing inappropriate had occurred and that they did not desire us to investigate this incident further. We believed the victim’s account and acceded to their wishes.

This is not to say we are without blame. As members of staff were involved, we should have investigated more closely. We understand that victims in cases like this may feel reluctant to provide information to Anti-Harassment Team for various reasons, including a desire not to be involved or a lack of trust in our investigators, so we should have interviewed all parties and more thoroughly sought after any possible evidence.

To that end, we are enacting policy changes in how we are handling Anti-Harassment cases, including special provisions in cases where a staff member is an alleged perpetrator.

In addition, we are looking into other steps to make the site safer for users. We are currently looking into the possibility of raising the site age limit, as well as guidelines prohibiting staff members from participating in any off-site nsfw SCP sub-communities.

It is going to take some work to find the best solutions and enact them. But our site has grown by leaps and bounds, and things that worked in 2015 don't necessarily make sense now. We cannot go back to business as usual after this wake up call without making changes.

I am confident in our team's ability to work through this difficult time, and in our community's ability to adapt to the new changes. We will get through this, and when we do, our site will be a better, safer place than ever.

Please inform me if anyone has any concerns against this. I'll be doing this approximately within the next week.

Discussion thread indicates that the general consensus is that it's rather mean-spirited and doesn't need to stay on the site (so -ARCing is out).

Could someone please generate a copy of the original text and screenshots of the discussion thread (especially this, please)? Then I believe we can move forward with deletion of the page, per staff consensus?

Of course, discussion is open to all staff who would like to weigh in on the matter.

ETA: thanks to TSAT for also archiving. http://scp-sandbox-3.wikidot.com/arc:test-log-scp-926-1

• http://www.scp-wiki.net/things-what-do-a-thing-an-essay-on-things
• http://www.scp-wiki.net/your-very-first-scp
• http://www.scp-wiki.net/zyn-s-crit-tips-i
• http://www.scp-wiki.net/zyn-s-crit-tips-ii

As well as at least two others in the works (if I recall correctly, Captain Kirby's essay on reviewing tales and Shanor's essay on responding to ideas threads)

I'd like to create a new section in the Guide Hub: http://www.scp-wiki.net/guide-hub for these essays on reviewing/writing, written by members of the site who have spent a lot of time honing these skills. Thoughts on a title? "Butterfly Squad Basics"? d:

I think I might have asked someone to compile a list of Forum Crit Team essays to be placed in this section. Your name escapes me at the moment, so please remind me if I did ask someone!

Also, if there's an interest, I'd like to encourage other Forum Criticism Team members to write up their own personal "how to's" when it comes to your approach to reviewing. Not everyone responds to works the same way, so it can be good to have a wide variety of mentor perspectives available for newer members looking to contribute to the site and figuring out which critique style works for them.

Anyway, tl;dr I'm making a new section in the Guide Hub for Butterfly Squad essays. I would like consensus on a title (also a sub-heading/summary), as well as a list of pages to include in that section.

Here is the link to the mainsite discussion;

http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-6240030/protected-status-pages-what-and-why#post-3850967

The basics of it are that Protected pages have ratings disabled and are otherwise locked by administration. We're doing this currently on 2721 because of the recent Events; a majority of people can look and see this is an outside-influenced influx of negative attention that has otherwise not affected other articles on the site.

An actual rules-bound statement and general policy is forthcoming. Most administrators are fine with "Rare, in response to massive outside voting influence, administrative purview", and in my personal opinion it's impossible to have a rigid set of rules for this because it won't happen like this again any time soon. But a general statement for the main wiki rules or admin rules won't hurt.

ChaoSera walked me through how to redirect these pages and set up the lock specifically and was generally OK with it on a tech side.

I will repeat, this will not be used often. This is a rare tool we will use only sparingly.

Edited a few times for correctness

• Bad Usernames
  • No names with "SCP" or "Class D" or an SCP number.
  • No names with a Foundation character that isn't yours (like Dr. Bright, Dr. Sophia Light, Able, or Alto Clef).
  • No names saying you're official website staff (like 'admin', 'administrator', or 'moderator').
  • No names saying you're in charge at the fictional Foundation, or other fictional groups on our website (like Senior [anything], MTF Leader, O5, Director, Executive, or Overseer).
  • No names with profanity (swear words) or offensive content.
• If you have one of these names, we may remove your account. Please change that name.
  • To change your name: Go here and click on Edit next to your username. You can only change your account's username twice, so be careful.
• You can have names like "Doctor", "Researcher", and "Agent", because these names don't say you're in charge at the Foundation. If you're not sure, ask a staff member.

Making a new thread for this, because attempting to keep a record here: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-1800465/regarding-usernames is crazy confusing.

08/23 - Admin Sam. Troy revoked, I sent PM. ETA: changed their username to iBelieve. I received a PM about it.

09/02 - SCP2897Recontained. Dr_Mann revoked and sent PM.

09/02 - scp-173fan. They coldposted an article, Quik revoked and I think there was a PM sent, but they returned?

01/31 - Maybe_a_Spinosaurus. Likely this troll—they have a sarcastic comment on the Markiplier SCP-RU video about themselves being banned.

02/01 - -SpinyLizard-, same reason as above, icon is a dinosaur too which matches the troll above.

Jan 07 18:56:42 <USER> Essentially, I am /really/ iffy on what you did with Smapti. Yes, Smapti is a horrible, obnoxious, odious and offensive person. Won't deny that. But I cannot help but feel some rather unpleasant vibes from this ie: those who share Smapti's position on certain topics are shoved in the "Oh look at the primitives" boat, because of course, they're all like Smapti, eh? Now, I am mostly okay with…
Jan 07 18:56:43 <USER> …keeping my mouth shut about my opinions on the matter (save that last time), but this in turn becomes an issue - I withhold my opinion because were I to actually speak it, I would effectively be blackmailed, mothballed, and shamed into submission by everyone and their counsin all screaming "well you're just transphobic!" This is not a comfortable thing, especially as the topic crops up…
Jan 07 18:56:45 <USER> …annoyingly often. TLDR I feel that your action in this instance, and the general site culture at large, is shifting towards a setup where it's obey the party line, or be shamed. And I ain't cool with that.
Jan 07 18:57:24 <USER> TLDR x2 I think gender identity politics is bullshit, but can't actually express it without you and moose jumping down my throat
Jan 07 18:57:37 <USER> which is 9 times more trouble than it's worth
Jan 07 18:58:51 <Soulless> Okay
Jan 07 18:58:57 <USER> and to be completely honest, I've been waffling on bringing this topic up for some time now
Jan 07 18:59:36 <USER> Tried ignoring it and trundling along as best as I could for a while
Jan 07 18:59:43 * Soulless nods
Jan 07 19:00:20 <USER> but it really feels that the increased politicization of the site in this manner makes it more difficult to ignore

I personally find it disconcerting that users feel they are being considered primitive, mocked, or otherwise disrespected for having opinions against "the party line" and believe this is at least worthy enough to have an open discussion about it. The Smapti issue referenced can be seen here.

Previously, the text of the "Voting" rule stated:

Voting: You may vote for any reason you like, so long as your reasons are based on the content of the article. Do not downvote/upvote based on your opinion of the author, an effort to manipulate averages, or trying to win contests through attrition. This is considered malicious voting.

The text now reads:

Voting: You may vote for any reason you like, so long as your reasons are based solely on the content of the article. Do not downvote/upvote based on your opinion of the author, an effort to manipulate averages, or trying to win contests through attrition, as this is considered malicious voting. Advocating for voting on an article for reasons other than content is strictly against the rules.

It was always intended for "an effort to manipulate averages" to include "vote brigading", but it hasn't been interpreted as so, and several staff members — including Kaktus, Kalinin, Silber, Light, Crayne, and even Burns — have made convincing arguments that clarification was needed. I have updated the rule already to keep there from being issues, but everyone is more than welcome to weigh in if they feel that there's an issue with the current wording.

Visual Records:

Ask Roget or Accelerando for the password.

This is now outdated as it's open registration. Also fixed an is/are.

Can I kill SCP-XXX? Of course you can. In a story, not in an article. Anything can happen in your stories, because there is no canon.

Changed "Story" to "Tale" for the sake of standardizing the jargon.

What happens when I write a SCP article/story/creepypasta that people don't like? Once it hits -10, a member of senior staff will call for a deletion on the article's discussion page. If they can get three other members of Senior staff to agree to it, the page is deleted. If there is discussion, and someone thinks it can be saved, we go from there. See the Deletions Guide for more information.

Removed "senior" as all staff have this ability including junior staff, moderators and administrators.

Man, I really want to delete my own article. Can I do it myself, or do I have to wait for it to hit -10 and for the four senior staff members to agree to delete it?

Removed "senior", same reasoning.

In the Chat Guide, you tell us to avoid talking about politics and religion and firearms and My Little Pony. Why?

Removing MLP as it's no longer in the Chat Guide.

Staff Etiquette:

Who are the Senior Staff?

Giving this a bit of a rewrite in light of the new position, and explained as well as I can. If anything I did needs adjusting, this is probably it, so take a look. There's a lot of mention of Operational Staff these days but i'm still not clear on who qualifies for that so I've omitted any mention of it for now. Also clarified a bit on who handles what.

No mods are around! Who are some people to ask for help? It might actually be better if you just waited until a member of Senior Staff was around.

Staff.

When a mod says "Stop" they mean, "Talk louder and more stupid", right? Were you dropped on your head a lot as a child, while eating paint chips, underneath powerlines? If a member of the Senior Staff tells you to stop, you stop, then and there.

Staff.

What is a -ARC? An archived SCP. One that might not be real good, but is kept around because either the Senior Staff like it, or it has been used in other stories.

Staff, I'm aware this is going away but just keeping it consistent.

So I have this great idea to make an article better, I can just dive in and change whatever I want, right? Absolutely not. While this is a wiki, we're a little bit more strict on who can edit what than most wikis. Spelling is generally okay. Grammar… if it's something that doesn't change intent, it's okay, but not everyone has perfect grammar. Adding, taking away, or otherwise altering any article is not okay without consent from the author, or from senior staff if the author is missing.

Changing senior staff to rewrite team and linking to the team on 05.

All I got for now.