Disciplinary - Superblobby

Summary:

Spamming, incoherence, low-quality content, poor feedback

Superblobby

Drewbear 25 Nov 2014 15:26

Superblobby posted an article titled "94" and tagged for the Dystopia contest, which content was, in full, the following:

Scp-94 is a diseased looking man and upon inspection, has no pulse or heart beat, it shows extreme contrast of scp-49 as, upon contact the host will experience super strength and an overabundance if white blood cells. Though, that all changes, after about 9 minutes the host will start to have all the white blood cells die off, along with all the other cells, this, leaving a decaying rotting corpse.

I checked the history, and the original text was:

Scp-94 is a diseased looking man and upon inspection, has no pulse or heart beat, it shows extreme contrast of scp-49 as, upon contact the host will experience super strength and an overabundance if white blood cells.

The first version had an edit/version comment of "This is a terrible scp" and the second had a comment of "I can't even".

I started an immediate summary deletion vote. Whether this is a troll article or just someone who deeply doesn't get what this site is about is debateable. But either way, this is indicative of someone who almost certainly didn't read/retain the Newbie Guide.

EDIT: Aaaaand it was self-deleted within 3 minutes of me starting the deletion vote. On the site for less than 10 minutes. Impressive.

Added link. :[ - Zyn

---

Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.

Last edited on 08 Dec 2014 22:46 by Zyn Show more

Re: Superblobby

Adam Smascher 25 Nov 2014 15:44

Great work. Keep it up.

Re: Superblobby

Rejekyll 25 Nov 2014 15:43

I think we found our winner.

Re: Superblobby

(account deleted) 04 Dec 2014 12:29

Posted in SCP-3467-J

LOL
Chicken

Posted in SCP-106

Well, bye
Who needed earth anyways

Posted in SCP-2189

Well
I guess you could say they underestimated an apple.

Posted in SCP-1545

What?
This is soooooooo weird, but that's what makes Scp's cool :3

And all of this in less than fifteen minutes. I told them to knock it off here. For the record, I don't think it's malicious, just dumb.

Last edited on 04 Dec 2014 12:31 by (account deleted) Show more

Re: Superblobby

LurkD 04 Dec 2014 13:13

Age is probably a questionable topic after reading some of his other recent posts.

Re: Superblobby

Zyn 08 Dec 2014 22:53

They've been giving poor feedback in forums. First few times it went relatively unnoticed:

11 Nov 2014: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1051842/the-tragic-pianist#post-2154403

Add in an interview to make it longer

Lately it's become more noticeable:

4 Dec 2014: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1060804/my-scp-idea#post-2172577

Move it to the sandbox and your descriptions are short, add an addendum If necessary

Today (8 Dec): http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1062027/feedback-on-new-idea#post-2175002

It's a bat with flaws, Make it a super bat, like 682, strong, but not that strong, and try making it an obscure bat species

I made a closed staff post telling them to stop giving feedback until they've got something successful on the site. If they keep giving bad feedback, then move to official warning (both on site and PM) and if they keep it up, ban.

Re: Superblobby

Accelerando 09 Dec 2014 22:05

They did it again.

So it's a probe that affects a chunk of space, that's a cool idea. Just elaborate some more

Staff-Posted, have yet to send a PM.

Re: Superblobby

Zyn 16 Dec 2014 20:25

And again, a few times. Most recent and staffposted is here: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1065314/a-scp-idea#post-2181978

Their advice was:

I don't know, it's not really interestng maybe you should expand on it, like, how does it get the answers, who has been tested on it. Some testing would be interesting, my opinion though.

The idea being reviewed was "Im thinking of creating a SCP that gives you answers to a test or answer to a question within a 4 ft radius around this SCP."

Revoke.

Re: Superblobby

Crayne 16 Dec 2014 20:28

Nah, I'd say we're past revocation at this point. Advocating 24 hours.

Re: Superblobby

djkaktus 16 Dec 2014 20:33

I'd also advocate a 24. Feels like we're coming back here to talk about this at least once a day.

Re: Superblobby

ProcyonLotor 16 Dec 2014 20:46

Ditto.

Re: Superblobby

(account deleted) 16 Dec 2014 20:50

Concurring.

Re: Superblobby

(account deleted) 17 Dec 2014 02:39

Yus.

Re: Superblobby

thedeadlymoose 16 Dec 2014 22:49

I support a 24.

Revoking is not a punishment. Revoking is for "you didn't read the guides".

They should've been revoked before, but that's neither here nor there. Revocation is not part of the disciplinary acceleration process.

You told them:

This is not the first time you've given unhelpful feedback. Please refrain from posting critique until you have a successful piece on the site.

— and they ignored it. That's worth a ban, as far as I can tell.

(edit: replied to wrong post, not that it matters~)

Last edited on 16 Dec 2014 22:49 by thedeadlymoose Show more

Re: Superblobby

Zyn 17 Dec 2014 03:07

Given that I wasn't entirely sure that they were sent a PM at all when the first cease-and-desist staffpost went up, I thought that they might not have seen that one.

That said, they have replied to people's responses in forums, so I'm pretty sure they stick around to read responses at least part of the time.

Supporting 24. Can we can an admin to enact?

Re: Superblobby

thedeadlymoose 17 Dec 2014 04:15

PM sent:

Display PM

---

Hello,

You have received a twenty-four hour ban from The SCP Foundation wiki. Your account has been removed from the site, and you have been blocked. This block will be removed in twenty-four hours, at which time, you will have to reapply to the site.

The reason for this is: disregarding repeated staff requests to cease giving bad feedback.

If you have any questions, feel free to reply to this message.

Regards,
thedeadlymoose
SCP Foundation Administration

---

A note, however: while the Site Rules do tell users that they need to comply with what they're told to do in staff posts, this is sort of hidden in the Banning Policy section. I think it would be better if clarified in the "Behavior" (or "Interacting With Staff") section.

Not sure if we should make a separate thread for this or not.

Re: Superblobby

Crayne 17 Dec 2014 08:15

How about we just edit the Site Rules and don't have a discussion about it? ;) Increasing the clarity of required reading is always a good thing.

Re: Superblobby

Crayne 17 Dec 2014 08:13

Given that I wasn't entirely sure that they were sent a PM at all when the first cease-and-desist staffpost went up, I thought that they might not have seen that one.

That said, they have replied to people's responses in forums, so I'm pretty sure they stick around to read responses at least part of the time.

Honestly, I'd say that whether or not someone reads the replies to their posts is irrelevant. The fora are not fire-and-forget. It's a member's responsibility to keep track of their conversations, not ours.

Re: Superblobby

thedeadlymoose 17 Dec 2014 10:34

It's a member's responsibility to keep track of their conversations, not ours.

Something about this attitude rubs me the wrong way. But… then again, this has been our policy since… I think, ever. It's not that it's not valid, but… hm.

How about we just edit the Site Rules and don't have a discussion about it? ;) Increasing the clarity of required reading is always a good thing.

It's because it's a bit of a gray area. But I'll go ahead and edit it in for now.

My edit:

• Staff Requests: If a staff member asks you to change something about your behavior, or to temporarily stop making certain kinds of posts, please do so.

Please feel free to weigh in with any disagreements or tweaks.

Link again for convenience: http://www.scp-wiki.wikidot.com/site-rules

Re: Superblobby

Crayne 17 Dec 2014 11:09

Something about this attitude rubs me the wrong way. But… then again, this has been our policy since… I think, ever. It's not that it's not valid, but… hm.

It's not so much a policy-related question: staff-posting is a useless tool if we do not expect members to check up on their post history. Apart from that, I'm kind of confused as to what "this attitude" is exactly. All I'm stating is a de facto situation. The act of staff-posting (without also firing off a PM) implicitly puts the responsibility for reading it with the member.

I'd love it if naming a user in a post sent off a ping to that user alerting them, but the fact of the matter is that this not something Wikidot does for you (and I don't think is prevalent in other forum software either.)

The only alternative, if you have a problem with putting the responsibility for reading staff posts where it lies at the moment, is to agree to always follow up a staff-post with a PM to the user, alerting them to the staff post. Which I'm fine with, for the record.

Re: addition to the Site Rules - Looks fine to me.

Last edited on 17 Dec 2014 11:12 by Crayne Show more

Re: Superblobby

thedeadlymoose 18 Dec 2014 01:21

Apart from that, I'm kind of confused as to what "this attitude" is exactly.

Just placing the responsibility on the members themselves.

Apart from that:

staff-posting is a useless tool if we do not expect members to check up on their post history.

This is correct. I'm conflicted about this, but I'm not sure I should. The ping thing would be ideal — and is pretty standard on forums that aren't Wikidot or otherwise similarly shit. At least, that's my general impression.

Re: follow-ups: this is viable, but I hesitate given the amount of extra work that it represents. Tends to make more things slip through cracks and then bans get invalidated pointlessly.

Re: Superblobby

Eskobar 17 Dec 2014 13:59

For the record, if we are formally affirming the policy that users are responsible for checking on their past forum posts to see for responses, including Staff Posts, the phrase "it is considered the user's responsibility to…" and then a summary of those expectations should be included. Just so that users understand they they will be held to this standard, and that "whoops, I didn't know/notice" will not br considered an adequate excuse.

Re: Superblobby

(account deleted) 17 Dec 2014 19:02

I agree with Eskobar

Re: Superblobby

thedeadlymoose 18 Dec 2014 01:22

I'm good with this. Wanna add, Eskobar? Assuming there's no objections, of course. (I'll tweak language for consistency if necessary.)

Re: Superblobby

Eskobar 18 Dec 2014 01:42

I can do so.

Re: Superblobby

thedeadlymoose 18 Dec 2014 01:25

Received PM:

Show

Superblobby
To: thedeadlymoose
edited post
17 Dec 2014, 06:56

Hello there, what happened was that I was looking at the post and I saw that the person had the post in the summary, I told him that it is supposed to be switched, I also told one of the staff members and one of them commented on it so my post was deemed useless, so I changed it. Thus, my ban, just in case you were unclear about why I commented

From, Superblobby

---

It seems they have not been paying attention.

I have not yet replied, in part because I have difficulty parsing their post right now.

Last edited on 18 Dec 2014 01:25 by thedeadlymoose Show more

Re: Superblobby

Zyn 18 Dec 2014 21:45

Got a PM:

I have had my ban for more than 24 hours, may I please have it removed now

Thanks, blobby

My reply:

Only an administrator can remove a site ban. I will contact the admins for you.

And then I went to chat.

Re: Superblobby

thedeadlymoose 18 Dec 2014 22:18

I'd do it, but the link to the control panel has been removed and I don't have the link on mobile.

---

EDIT: Back on friend's computer. I've added a link to the scp admin control panel to the O5 sidebar. However, superblobby has already been unbanned.

Last edited on 18 Dec 2014 22:57 by thedeadlymoose Show more

Re: Superblobby

(account deleted) 18 Dec 2014 23:01

Bright actually did it a bit before Zyn jumped into chat

Re: Disciplinary - Superblobby

Zyn 26 Nov 2016 23:00

Got a PM today:

Sorry for being immature 2 years ago. I was younger and didn't understand the terms of service. But now I do, just wanna apologize because I never really said so after I got back from the ban

'tis the season, I guess?

Last edited on 26 Nov 2016 23:01 by Zyn Show more