Non-Disc Record - Dr. Edward and SCP-1240 http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-470911/non-disc-record-dr-edward-and-scp-1240 Posts in the discussion thread "Non-Disc Record - Dr. Edward and SCP-1240" - Possible plagiarism Sun, 13 Sep 2026 08:24:05 +0000 http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-470911#post-1460514 Re: Dr. Edward and SCP-1240 http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-470911/non-disc-record-dr-edward-and-scp-1240#post-1460514 Fri, 25 May 2012 21:22:53 +0000 Akumeoy 617958 I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt here. I know from experience that it's very easy to get ideas and find out that they've already been done, here or elsewhere. Now if he lifts something a bit more esoteric straight from another piece of media, I'd be less sympathetic, but I'm pretty much cool with this.

]]> http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-470911#post-1460272 Re: Dr. Edward and SCP-1240 http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-470911/non-disc-record-dr-edward-and-scp-1240#post-1460272 Fri, 25 May 2012 17:37:22 +0000 Sorts 323478 I think the downvotes and deletion will be warning enough, I doubt he'd ever double down on that particular behavior after it blows up in his face here.

]]> http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-470911#post-1460158 Dr. Edward and SCP-1240 http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-470911/non-disc-record-dr-edward-and-scp-1240#post-1460158 Fri, 25 May 2012 16:55:41 +0000 Photosynthetic 361873 Within a bare few minutes of its posting, site members recognized SCP-1240 as being extremely similar to an object from a Goosebumps story. That wouldn't be a problem in and of itself — the idea's not totally out of left field, and definitely could've been invented independently. What is a mite disturbing is the original revision of the author's first post:

Dr Edward 25 May 2012, 17:04 GMT+01

If you think this idea was stolen, send me a PM explaining it. Thanks :D
Constructive criticism appreciated.

That, and the fact that when called out on the Goosebumps thing four minutes later, he quadruple-posted in his rush to refute it, then edited the refutation into his first post.

VAE brought these facts to my attention, and I agree with him that they look awfully fishy. Is this deliberate plagiarism, or just an "oh god oops" reaction from a slightly paranoid newbie? I'm not sure whether the kid needs a warning, a summary deletion, or an outright ban, though I tend to lean towards a combination of the first and second options.

]]>