Hello SoulessSingularity.

I'm JerryJohn, an active member and contributor on the website RPC Authority. I came across the thread about how the mods of the SCP Wiki where considering a twenty-four hour to permanent ban of CFOperator, the administrator and master admin of RPCA. I am writing to you to explain why I believe that the criticisms have little merit. Before I begin however, I want to make it clear that the RPCA does not condone harassment and raiding of the SCP wiki. And while you may encounter users that claim to represent CFOperator in their attempt to maliciously down vote certain articles, they do not represent the ideology of the RPC wiki as a whole, and they definitely do not reflect the goals of CFOperator. I understand that you likely can't remove your ban against CFO, but I wish to make my peace nonetheless. I also want to make it clear that I do not want any bad blood between RPC and SCP.

The post that started the thread stated that CFO was attempting to instigate mass down votes against an article that he believed was low-quality. After reading what CFO posted, I have to admit that I can't understand how this is in any way attempting to start a "down-vote brigade". The post in question made by CFO is little more than an invitation to invite other users on the RPC Discord server to come and view the article and judge it for themselves. CFO never entices anyone to down-vote the article, nor does he tell people to harass the author. And while you may feel as though that was his intention, CFO himself has expressed that he wishes to make RPC as distant from SCP as possible, so he doesn't make sense for him to try and tarnish his reputation and be in deeper trouble with the SCP mods. What adds to the absurdity of the accusation, is the fact that the screenshot was posted from the private RPC Discord, which is an entirely separate entity from the SCP Wiki. CFO should be allowed to make any type of criticism he wants as long as it's off-platform. The existence of this screenshot tempts me to make an accusation against the SCP mods themselves, in the fact that they hound the RPC Discord in an attempt to garner reasons for why they should act out against members of RPC. And even with this, the RPCA wiki has been the target of said "down-vote brigades" for over two and a half weeks now. If you look at the ratings for most of the articles, many users who name appears as "(account deleted)" are visible making many down-votes on all RPC articles. The attempts made by the SCP wiki to stop this brigading has been quite minimal. However this does not mean that we don't appreciate the effort.

As for your most recent piece of "evidence", I have to say that It is one of the most absurd things I have seen in my life. You bring up a single comment. made by a single user and attempt to use it as a justification for why CFO deserves a permanent ban. Never once do you consider that this is just a single RPC user with a dislike toward SCP, who is in no way connected to CFOperator. Another possibility is that this account was created to try and tarnish CFO's name by making it seem like he sent him to explicitly down-vote the article. Which, if this is the case, worked.

The rest of the "evidence" that is brought against CFOperator vary between respectful conversations between him and other members, in which he never lashes out at other people to supposed harassment against the user named "kinchtheknifeblade". In some cases, the other members are the ones who lash out at him, i;e djkaktus. As for the allegations of harassment, no evidence is presented aside from some private messages from the user who claims that he was the target of harassment. This should have no weight to it since it is incredibly easy for anyone to claim that they are a "victim" and lie about being a target.

By me writing this message, I hope you know that I wish nothing against the SCP mods and administrators. This is simply my reasoning for why I think a ban against our site administrator was undeserved and unwarranted. I hope we can come to an agreement soon. Please respond if you can.

<CFOperator>: Hold for one second
<CFOperator>: "Downvoted a la @CFOperator" correct?
<Soulless>: Among the contextual evidence provided beforehand.
<CFOperator>: I see. Contextual. Can you please explain how expressing an opinion off-site is considered raiding? In addition, can you please provide proof that I ordered the above user to downvote an article. If you do not believe I sincerely dislike Destiny, Manifested, I am including a link to a review containing my thoughts on the matter https://www.mediafire.com/file
<MrAnakinSpecter>: Your link got cut-off, I think.
<CFOperator>: SCP-4000+Review.pdfView next to chat
<Soulless>: Firstly
<Soulless>: I'm not going to download any links from you
<Soulless>: And I would recommend no one else does either
<Soulless>: Now,
<Soulless>: Yes, in particular, as an administrator of another site created explicitly with the desire not to be involved with the SCP Foundation, linking to our articles with the explicit desire of showing some negative thing, to an official channel for which you have authority and social push, is a basic social dynamic that contextually encourages the people around you to also view something negatively.
<Soulless>: I'm unaware if you are unaware of how people function in groups, so that is the explaination.
<Soulless>: If you would like more clarification of how people function in groups, I can link you wikipedia on social dynamics.
<Levi>: I downloaded it, it does describe the nature of their personal dislike for the article. I asked specifically for a review of it over wikidot PM out of genuine curiosity. Not sure if that's relevant or not, but thought it prudent to lay that down on the table.
<CFOperator>: It is unfortunate that you cannot take my actions in good faith. I am including a link directly to my google docs, which you may view https://docs.google.com/document/d/18zh4HG7wuz6Vt0nbr0SZ3Djv5-FMC-uC5L0h44rhxxc/edit?usp=sharing
<Soulless>: Levi, thanks, can you upload it to a pastebin or somewhere publically linkable without downloading?
<MrAnakinSpecter>: Maybe make a pastebin instead?
<Levi>: sure.
<MrAnakinSpecter>: Yeah what soulless said.
<Soulless>: CFOperator, thanks, nah it's just standard policy not to download things from people you don't know.
<Levi>: making it now
<Levi>: https://pastebin.com/MDtqywrm
<CFOperator>: I understand. But a knowledge of social dynamics is irrelevant in this case. All the evidence presented against me is purely circumstantial. If you are unaware with the process of judging and assessing evidence, I can provide you with wikipedia links on the issue
<Quikngruvn>: Soul, may I interject?
<Levi>: I disagree with most of it, but I asked for an opinion and thoughts and I got it.
<Levi>: anyway i'll leave now
<MrAnakinSpecter>: Thank you Levi.
<Soulless>: Alright
<Soulless>: Because I'm the person that inacted the ban, I shouldn't be addressing this appeal
<Soulless>: Would you like to handle this, Quikngruvn?
<Quikngruvn>: Soul, technically, this isn't an appeal, yet.
<Soulless>: Okay, sure
<Soulless>: Feel free to interject then
<Quikngruvn>: But since I'm here, I reckon I could.
<Quikngruvn>: Anywhich:
<Quikngruvn>: There is a categorical difference between "y'all check out this article" and "y'all check out this piece of shit article", especially when the statement is made by a person in authority, as that gives greater influence to that statement.
<Soulless>: CFOperator, a knowledge of social dynamics is absolutely necessary in the process of judging and assessing evidence that includes social interactions. Please let me know if there are other questions or concerns about social dynamics and how to evaluate social situations. Unfortunately, there is no circumstantial evidence here; that implies that the evidence produced could only have been related to you by circumstance. This makes
<Soulless>: no sense, because the evidence has been produced /by/ you or other RPC Authority members.
<Soulless>: I hope this clarifies.
<Soulless>: Please let me know if there are other questions or concerns.
<CFOperator>: Yes. One is a statement and the other is a statement of opinion. Additionally, that is not the definition of circumstantial evidence, this is: Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly
<CFOperator>: Here is a wikipedia article on the issue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
<Soulless>: BBL - I have to deal with something IRL. If another staff member could take for me, I'd appreciate that.
<MrAnakinSpecter>: I'll do it if I'm qualified.
<Quikngruvn>: So this is actually *direct* evidence then. Terminology aside, it still leads to the same conclusion.
<AbsentmindedNihilist>: maybe we should get off the definition of circ. evidence and onto the relevant topic
<Quikngruvn>: Y'all, I got it, thanks.
<CFOperator>: No, because all the evidence against me does not directly tie me to any rule breaking
<CFOperator>: If I had said "go downvote this article" it would be clear as day
<CFOperator>: But I didn't
<CFOperator>: And now, when someone simply mentions me in discussion, I am banned instantly, despite no proof that I gave an order to downvote
<Quikngruvn>: In your opinion, perhaps. But, given your animus toward the author and her other works, the intent is, as you say, clear as day.
<CFOperator>: I have included an article above explaining why I did not like the article. Did you read my emails between the author and myself?
<ARD>: you were not banned for disliking the article yourself
<CFOperator>: Having an opinion is in fact explicitly protected by the rules of the SCP wiki
<Quikngruvn>: You know what's *not* protected? Stirring up shit.
<Quikngruvn>: Lemme ask this, CFO: why do you want to be a member of the SCP Wiki?
<CFOperator>: That is irrelevant and you know it. The topic is the ban, so let's keep it on track please.
<Quikngruvn>: I'm sorry, you don't get to guide the conversation there.
<Quikngruvn>: *here
<CFOperator>: Joining the wiki is not a rule breaking action
<CFOperator>: In fact, Roget personally approved my application
<Quikngruvn>: Yes. And?
<CFOperator>: If you suspected malicious intent, why not decline my application?
<Quikngruvn>: I cannot speak for Roget.
<CFOperator>: It would be against SCP policy, yes?
<Quikngruvn>: I mean, I could make some guesses, but that's not my place.
<CFOperator>: I am curious as well as to which specific rule I broke, if I committed a crime at all, as the SCP rules do not make any explicit mention to raiding
<Quikngruvn>: In any case, judging from your behavior on the wiki thus far, it appears your intent in joining the wiki is "to stir shit up".
<CFOperator>: What was I banned for? The first email I received was horrendously vague.
<CFOperator>: Not in any case, one of your mods himself that is not a bannable offense.
<Quikngruvn>: …that made no sense. Care to try that sentence again?
<Quikngruvn>: Just for the record, how old are you anyway?
<CFOperator>: A member of the SCP staff has argued against banning people based on intent alone. If you cannot remain impartial and without condescension I would like another staff member to speak with me.
<Quikngruvn>: Ah, but there's more than intent here. There's actual follow-through.
<Quikngruvn>: It's not "Imma go stir some shit up", it's "I've stirred some shit up".
<CFOperator>: As stated above, I need proof. Once again, if you cannot remain impartial and without condescension I would like another staff member to speak with me.
<Quikngruvn>: Also, you didn't answer my question.
<Quikngruvn>: Just for the record, how old are you anyway?
<CFOperator>: Is that relevant to this conversation?
<Quikngruvn>: Yes. Yes it is.
<CFOperator>: Was I banned for being underage?
<CFOperator>: It seems you're preparing for an ad hominem attack
<Quikngruvn>: Dude. Chill. I'm trying to cover all bases here.

ChanServ has given admin to Zyn

ChanServ has given op to Zyn

ChanServ has given halfop to Joreth

<CFOperator>: Considering the numerous screenshots staff have of my server, I would assume they would have seen my posted age. I would appreciate if you took this seriously, please.
<Quikngruvn>: CFO, I am taking this as seriously as a heart attack. And you shouldn't assume anything.
<CFOperator>: I will not answer that question; it is irrelevant and serves no purpose other than to attack my character, rather than my actions.
<CFOperator>: I would prefer to speak to someone more impartial, please.
<Quikngruvn>: Ah. Well. If you refuse to answer the question, then I will have no choice but to believe that you are underage, and that you would be banned regardless of whatever argument you come up with.
<CFOperator>: That is untrue and exactly what I predicted you would say. If you cannot take this matter seriously I would like to speak to someone more impartial/
<Soulless>: I'm unsure how the conversation went to age, but could you clarify what you are confused about re: the current evidence regarding your encouragement of negative views?
<Quikngruvn>: So let me get this straight. Just because someone does not capitulate to your demands, then they cannot be impartial?
<MrAnakinSpecter>: Soulless: He said he wants proof.
<Soulless>: MrAnakinSpecter, the proof is in the evidence provided.
<Tuomey>: Point of order: We ask literally everyone their age
<Soulless>: If he is unsatisfied, or confused, we may answer their questions.
<MrAnakinSpecter>: I agre.
<MrAnakinSpecter>: agree*
<Soulless>: If they are ultimately unsatisfied with that evidence, they may appeal.
<CFOperator>: Yes, do you have direct evidence that ties me to downvote brigaiding? Such that it states that I explicitly called for downvotes?
<CFOperator>: That is the only matter of concern coloring this conversation, yes?
<AbsentmindedNihilist>: unfortunately, permaban appeals take place only after a year has elapsed.
<CFOperator>: As it is the subject of my ban
<Soulless>: CFOperator, as mentioned before, due to fundamental social dynamics, when a person of authority encourages other in the place they have authority to view something in a negative light, they will do so.
<Quikngruvn>: Guys, too many people trying to speak.

ChanServ has given halfop to Bleepandroid

<CFOperator>: Is there a rule against speaking on Twitter as well?
<CFOperator>: Where is authority considered in the rules?
<Soulless>: (BTW: I am only here for 4 more minutes, ans I have to then attend a meeting.)
<MrAnakinSpecter>: Soulless: Quik is handling it after you leave I think.
<Soulless>: Well, please let me repeat myself.
mlrAFK is now known as mlister
<Soulless>: CFOperator, as mentioned before, due to fundamental social dynamics, when a person of authority encourages other *in the place they have authority* to view something in a negative light, they will do so.
<CFOperator>: Where is this listed in the official SCP rules?
<Quikngruvn>: CFO, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that a downvote brigade has to explicitly say "go downvote this" when, in reality, it does not.
<Soulless>: It is listed where we do not allow brigading.
<CFOperator>: Must I have a psychology degree to express my opinion?
<ProcyonLotor>: If you're gonna play at lead admin of something, we can expect you to have a fair understanding of the dynamics that entails.
<CFOperator>: Brigaiding is not mentioned once in the SCP rules
<Soulless>: Oh, okay
<CFOperator>: May I once again ask what I was banned for?
<Zyn>: Soulless: they're in the chat rules.
<Soulless>: Zyn, oh, okay.
<CFOperator>: In chat rules
<CFOperator>: Which I assume specifically regulates chat on site
<CFOperator>: And not general conduct
<Zyn>: It was never an issue on the mainsite before now.
<Zyn>: Now it is.
<Quikngruvn>: You know what *is* in the Site Rules?
<Soulless>: CFOperator, Advocating for voting on an article for reasons other than content is strictly against the rules. In this case, by using yourself as a person of authority encouraging others to vote, you are violating these rules.
<Zyn>: I believe the rules will be adjusted to address it, as has been the case for the rest of the wiki's history.
<CFOperator>: Yes, I have read them. Please show me where I explicity called for downvotes.
<Quikngruvn>: To reiterate:
<Soulless>: CFOperator, I have clarified where you called for negative reviews given basic analysis of group psychology.
<Quikngruvn>: CFO, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that a downvote brigade has to explicitly say "go downvote this" when, in reality, it does not.
<Soulless>: CFOperator, are you confused about anything else?
<CFOperator>: You still have not shown me why I was banned. Was it for expressing an opinion?
<Soulless>: I have linked you to why you were banned.
<Soulless>: Are you confused about anything else?
<CFOperator>: Nowhere in the site rules prevents me from sharing links to articles
<Soulless>: I have cited the specific rule in question.
<Soulless>: Is there anything else?
<CFOperator>: Neither does it prevent me from sharing them off site with negative opinions
<Soulless>: I have explained the situation based on fundamental group psychology.
<Soulless>: Is there anything else?
<CFOperator>: That is not in the rules.
<Soulless>: I have explained the explicit rule.
<Soulless>: Is there anything else?
<CFOperator>: No you have not
<Soulless>: Ok.
<Quikngruvn>: Soul, go to your meeting.
<Soulless>: Ok
<Zyn>: ^
<Soulless>: o7
<MrAnakinSpecter>: Bye, Soulless.
<Soulless>: I will leave this to the trusty hands of the other administrators. If you are confused about anything else, you are open to
<CFOperator>: I would like clarification please as to what rule I broke.
<Quikngruvn>: "Advocating for voting on an article for reasons other than content is strictly against the rules."
<CFOperator>: Can you prove that I did that?
<Soulless>: PM me, CFOperator, and I will respond when I have returned, if the other admins did not already address your concerns. Thank you for your time. Scifi + Fantasy friday nights! Woohoo!
Soulless is now known as Soulless|SocializingLikeAPerso
<MrAnakinSpecter>: haha
Soulless|SocializingLikeAPerso is now known as Soulless|SocializingLikePeople
<CFOperator>: I would like evidence that proves I called for downvotes
<ProcyonLotor>: <&Quikngruvn> CFO, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that a downvote brigade has to explicitly say "go downvote this" when, in reality, it does not.
<Quikngruvn>: CFO, your animus against the author is established.
<CFOperator>: Please refer to my emails with her
<CFOperator>: I believe I sent them to you
<CFOperator>: As well as a review
<Zyn>: There is a concern that this conversation has already wasted enough time with the repetition.
<CFOperator>: And when does opinion become downvote brigaiding? Is this not simple way to ban users whom express their opinion?
<Zyn>: Clearly both sides will not state anything differently.
<Quikngruvn>: You mean the PMs where you ignored evidence that a member of your site harassed her.
<CFOperator>: I still have no proof that I called for downvotes.
<Zyn>: We still have no proof that you will contribute positively to the mainsite.
<Quikngruvn>: CFO, let me put it this way.
<Quikngruvn>: You are a shit-stirrer.
<CFOperator>: You have no rule that says I cannot be a member, nor that I have to prove intent in my application
<CFOperator>: That is why Roget accpeted it
<Zyn>: No, actually.
<Quikngruvn>: You have not provided one iota of meaningful, positive anything at all to the site.
<Zyn>: There was a staff discussion to give you the benefit of the doub.t
<Zyn>: Seeing as you were the master admin of a site dedicated to being better than ours.
<CFOperator>: Did you contact me to give my side? Or was this a closed discussion?
<Zyn>: What do you think?
<CFOperator>: That is not much benifit
<Zyn>: If we asked you
<Zyn>: then likely no one would have supported letting you in
<Zyn>: given the current situation.
<CFOperator>: If you gave me the benefit of the doubt, you would not have banned me before listening to my testimont
<Zyn>: Your testimony hasn't presented any positive inclination.
<CFOperator>: Cannot a person on trial be called up to the stand?
<AbsentmindedNihilist>: this isn't court.
<ProcyonLotor>: This isn't a court of law.
<Zyn>: You're not on trial.
<Zyn>: And this isn't a court.
<ChaoSera>: CFOperator: We don't need to have a literal rule against every possible thing a user can do. That is both impossible and impractical, and we are not a court of law. At some point we rely on reasonable judgement and we have very clearly reached that point. Your attempt at getting out of the ban on the basis that you think we need everything written down will get you nowhere
<MrAnakinSpecter>: AbsentmindedNihilist: Allow the admins to handle it.
<ProcyonLotor>: (and, as someone who works in the court, conviction on circumstantial evidence is a thing)
<Zyn>: May I have the floor, everyone?
<MrAnakinSpecter>: You already have it.
<Zyn>: Much obliged.
<Zyn>: CFOperator: The last… hour or so? of conversation has not changed staff minds. If you continue, it sets back opinion of you as a leader.
<Zyn>: Why are you here arguing for your own place on the mainsite instead of building up your own site?
<Zyn>: If you consider that reasoning irrelevant, then that affects perspective of you and your site, and your place on your site.
<Zyn>: We believe your willingness to contribute to your own site is relevant.
<Zyn>: Most of the quiet majority are hoping something good comes out of RPC besides the hate and the downvotes and the suspicion of RPC staff like you.
<Zyn>: That's not happening here.
<CFOperator>: You should not be concerned with how I run my site, as I already have rules in place to protect SCP already. In fact, the SCPD and RPC had a pleasant chat that resulted in rule changes in both sides. The simple fact is that SCP rules are old and vague, and that you are using them to ban me when I have done nothing wrong.
<Zyn>: Most of the quiet majority are hoping something good comes out of RPC besides the hate and the downvotes and the suspicion of RPC staff like you.
<Zyn>: That's not happening here.
<CFOperator>: Please do not be repetitive, it contributes nothing to the conversation, especially after you have warned against that already
<Zyn>: In that case, I believe we're finished here.
<CFOperator>: In fact, it is the SCP staff that have so far refused communication with RPC
<Zyn>: CFOperator: not at all.
<CFOperator>: I ask again, please provide proof of rule breaking
<Zyn>: We reply again, we have provided it.
<Zyn>: You may want to double-check your forums
<Zyn>: at least one of your site members has contacted me
<Zyn>: and received a long reply
<Zyn>: as well as a civil conversation.

ChanServ has given op to Bouncl

<Zyn>: They noted some concerns about mainsite members to me, and I asked them to provide details so I can investigate them.
<Zyn>: I have not received a reply since, but I believe we are on fairly good terms.
<CFOperator>: And why has a line of communication not been opened. This whole drama could have been avoided had you contaced me first. Instead, you allowed a rouge user to besmirch my character which resulted in a permanent ban
<Zyn>: Maybe consider following their lead. I respect them.
<Zyn>: The rogue user would not have been an issue had you not behaved the way you did.
<Zyn>: Blaming others is not a good leadership quality.
<CFOperator>: That is impossible to prove.
<Quikngruvn>: Zyn, may I interject?
<Zyn>: We hope that you'll be better in the future, for both your sake and your site's.
—- Zyn has banned *!*@synIRC-22BE74D.lightspeed.snantx.sbcglobal.net
*** CFOperator was kicked by Zyn (Zyn)

[14:40:31] <Varaxous> Hi, would you be able to take a complaint on CFO operator? Mainly as a sort of clarifier and sort of extension of Leveritas' post (http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-6319479/disciplinary-cfoperator#post-3862927)
[15:08:31] <Quikngruvn> Sure, what's up?
[15:10:43] <Varaxous> I mostly want to provide some context to the screen caps CFO provided. Mainly, the fact that they are disingenuous and the fact that the conflict had been pretty much resolved prior to the PMs sent/received by Leveritas
[15:11:09] <Varaxous> This behavior of screen capping the other discord and commenting on it was not limited to just the SCPD discord
[15:11:44] <Quikngruvn> Shocking.
[15:11:48] <Varaxous> The RPC discord was also doing it with the same intentions and malice as they are blaming the SCPD discord for
[15:11:53] <Varaxous> (yeah I know right)
[15:12:33] <Varaxous> Furthermore, we both came to the agreement to just stop posting screencaps of the other discords, both in the RPC discord and the SCPD discord
[15:13:24] <Varaxous> So despite the fact that the situation had been more or less resolved, CFO seems to want to continue to escalate the situation
[15:16:01] <Quikngruvn> That… seems to be a recurring pattern of behavior.
[15:16:40] <Quikngruvn> Did you want me to add this to their Disc thread? More context can't hurt, I don't think.
[15:17:53] <Varaxous> https://i.imgur.com/PiJE3vA.png?1
[15:17:54] <Varaxous> https://i.imgur.com/96IXHLK.png?1
[15:18:05] <Varaxous> Just to have some proof of what I said
[15:18:44] <Varaxous> But yes, I would be unopposed to having this be posted to the disc thread
[15:19:19] <Quikngruvn> Aight, will do. Thanks for providing this, Varax.
[15:20:48] <Varaxous> Yeah of course, thanks for taking the complaint!
[15:21:00] <Quikngruvn> You're welcome!

[11:46:14] <kinch> you are you here
[11:46:35] <Quikngruvn> Sort of. What's up?
[11:47:47] <kinch> yo! i just want it like, on the record for the cfoperator thing. he's mentioning that he's like getting rid of his problem users and we're not doing enough or something
[11:48:23] <kinch> but it should be noted one of his users directly messaged scans to call me a t-slur and the dude refused to ban him because you need to send multiple messages for it to count as harassment
[11:48:37] <kinch> multiple messages w/in a short amount of time
[11:48:57] <Quikngruvn> Gods.
[11:49:53] <kinch> i just think that should definitely be mentioned because he's acting like he's the disciplinarian here
[11:50:32] <Quikngruvn> OK. Would you like me to post this in one of the 05 threads going on?
[11:50:33] <kinch> he basically kept moving goalposts and then demanded i try to "work something out" with the dude who called me a slur, whatever that means
[11:51:03] <kinch> idk if thats like supr important to note in the thread but i think it should be
[11:51:07] <kinch> yes
[11:51:14] <kinch> i didnt see that you had spoke again lmao
[11:51:21] <Quikngruvn> Oh, no problem.
[11:51:53] <kinch> i think staff needs to factor in the fact that his users are being basically set by him against me and he refuses to do anything about it
[11:54:06] <Quikngruvn> Aight. I'll add this to the CFO Disciplinary thread.
[11:54:22] <kinch> do you think its worth factoring in
[11:54:28] <kinch> i DID just wake up so i could be thinking fuzzy
[11:55:34] <Quikngruvn> If not for the current disciplinary action, then certainly as additional context for any future disciplinary action.
[11:56:23] <kinch> nice. well, ty. gnna go do stuff have a good one.

Please contact me immediately. I am being ignored by the site staff and I have proof of multiple users inciting raids against my site. You can contact me through wikidot, or preferably, my discord CFOperator #8736. Please get back to me as soon as you see this message.

I should remind you that I'm not disciplinary, but what would you like me to help with?

First of all thank you for responding. I know you aren't disciplinary, but I feel I am being ignored by the staff.

As you know, the RPC Authority is under intense and unwanted scrutiny from many sources. One of these sources is the SCP Declassified server. While this is not an official server, it is host to many established authors and influential members of the SCP community.

Here is djkaktus threatening my site and trying to force us to ban a user
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/457433333102542851/463792645584715776/image.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/457433333102542851/463792652605980693/image.png

Here is djkaktus publicly posting a private chat between me and him:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/458399164926263316/464111511661445120/Screenshot_31.png

Here are multiple users, including established authors and Floppy Phoenix herself, calling for or endorsing raids raids on my site:
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/458399164926263316/464121985463615489/Screenshot_35.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/458399164926263316/464121988294770698/Screenshot_37.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/458399164926263316/464121989712445440/Screenshot_38.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/458399164926263316/464121991050559498/Screenshot_41.png
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/458399164926263316/464121992854110208/Screenshot_43.png
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/458399164926263316/464121994951262208/Screenshot_45.png

If you could just…I don't know, forward these to someone in charge of this I would honestly appreciate it so much. This has been really stressful for me and I'd prefer no ill will between RPC and SCP. Thanks for at least taking the time, I really mean it.

I get that you're stressed, but I have to say that I don't think those are actual calls to raids. They're not nice, but they're comments about the site itself. This isn't the same thing as saying: ''Let's all make accounts and downvote because we can.''

I get that it's hurtful to have your site insulted like that, but in the future, I recommend to change the tone you used when posting on the SCP wiki. If you're the master administrator, you have a certain obligation to represent your community and be a rolemodel. This:

Oh look at me, I'm flattered at all the attention I'm getting. But in all seriousness, RPC has no interest in being a GOI on this site and never will. If you have questions about it, message me.¹

Makes you look petty and egocentrical, not the leader of a Site that's only concerned with fiction. If you're insulted, be the better person and don't fall for the bait, essentially.

If you could just…I don't know, forward these to someone in charge of this I would honestly appreciate it so much. This has been really stressful for me and I'd prefer no ill will between RPC and SCP. Thanks for at least taking the time, I really mean it.

Try to keep a clear head and see a few people for what they are, a few people. Take a look at the thread made here: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-6314817/preventing-downvote-bombing-on-rpc-authority

We have it covered, don't worry.

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/458399164926263316/464121988294770698/Screenshot_37.png
"I'm going to go join RPC and feed them my shit articles to lower their quality"

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/458399164926263316/464121989712445440/Screenshot_38.png
"Someone port 952 to RPC and see if they eat it up."

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/458399164926263316/464121994271653901/Screenshot_44.png
"To showcase how low RPCs, I've coldposted two articles their, and I got upvoted for it"

So not only are people trying to lower the quality of my site, but they even admit to breaking the rules. You said , "have to say that I don't think those are actual calls to raid" but that's blatantly false. You accuse me of being egocentric right after you finish lying to me. I won't tell you how to do your job, but don't play me for a fool. If your team had it covered, you'd be just as angry as I am about these posts. I'll use your own words "Lately, members of our site as well as the offshoot site have been involved in frankly embarrassingly petty squabbles and ad hominem insults". You should know that your personal bias should not interfere with your staff duties. I ban my users when they raid your site. In fact, I just banned one today, because that's the right thing to do. Reciprocation would be appreciated.

So not only are people trying to lower the quality of my site, but they even admit to breaking the rules. You said , "have to say that I don't think those are actual calls to raid" but that's blatantly false. You accuse me of being egocentric right after you finish lying to me.

If you want someone to help you, in and outside of staff capacity, don't antagonise them.

You should know that your personal bias should not interfere with your staff duties.

Note that I'm calling people out from both sides.

You accuse me of being egocentric right after you finish lying to me. I won't tell you how to do your job, but don't play me for a fool.

I'm trying to calm you down, because I can tell that it's stressful to you. If you then turn around and say things like that, talk to disc staff or an administrator, because I was trying to meet you halfway, even though this is technically a disciplinary issue.