Age/Maturity Record - Doctor Vulgar

Summary:

Questionable PMs.

Age/Maturity Record - Doctor Vulgar

Zyn 25 Apr 2021 05:04

Noting that as of 2 days ago Doctor Vulgar (account age 2 days) has been sending me some PMs. The conversation overall does not seem to indicate that this user is willing to read the rules or take the site guidelines in good faith (brace yourself, long logs):

+ show block

Dear Zyn,

I never in my entire life seen anything more complicated than writing an SCP article. There is level of convoluted I can't even begin to comprehend. I'm a first time writer and they won't allow me to "introduce myself," "put something in the sandbox," or do anything to contribute. Could you talk to your fellow writers about easing down a little on these rules? Just maybe having a button on the front page saying "Write your article here." Could you give me advice on how to write an article? Also, my email is [email removed] if you want to reach me.

Thank you,
[real name removed]

P.S. Seriously, I work in Law and I find this process incredibly more complicated. You all should work on this.
P.S.S. Would the fact that I'm using a Chromebook make any difference.

---

Zyn's reply:

+ show block

I'm a first time writer and they won't allow me to "introduce myself," "put something in the sandbox," or do anything to contribute.

Site membership to the SCP wiki is required before you can interact with the site. If you would like to join the site, please read this page: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/system:join

Could you talk to your fellow writers about easing down a little on these rules?

The current iterations of the writing guides and forum guidelines are in place after years of revisions and feedback from authors of various ages. If there's a significant and widespread community call for the high standards to be lowered, staff may consider updating the guides.

If you're not interested in reading the guidelines for SCP article submission, there are plenty of offshoot sites and fan communities where you can write for the SCP universe with much fewer restrictions.

Just maybe having a button on the front page saying "Write your article here."

This is the page we do have: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/contribute

Could you give me advice on how to write an article?

I typically don't give feedback in wikidot messages, since I get a lot of requests for assistance every week and it's much more efficient for me to follow a forum thread. I recommend joining the site first, so you can make use of the forums as a resource rather than just having one source of information. That said, have you read any of the writing guides?

You all should work on this.

Do you have any specific recommendations for what to address?

---

+ show block

Dear Zyn,

You asked me- "what your site needed to address". Well, if you want new writers making the process of signing up simpler would be wise. Putting on your front page-"Sign up here," and then "Submit Story here," in two big buttons would be easier. Also, your initiation process is cold. Basically, the people that started the website and their friends get to choose what stories make the cut. Why don't you let the people decide? Isn't that more democratic? Shouldn't they vote what stories make the main cut or not? You all are saying that the people aren't smart enough to make these decisions and your close knit group is. That's sad and not logical. I hope you change your initiation policy in the future. Your fans are smarter than you think. Indeed, it's proven scientifically a group of people make decisions better than experts proof here-https://millionaire.fandom.com/wiki/Ask_the_Audience

Sincerely,
Niccarrus Vulgar

P.S. All this green lighting and having staff look over these things takes away what the wiki supposed to be. About allowing everyone a say in what makes an SCP story! Again, just have a forum where people tell stories and allow the up votes to decide what is allowed. Making this so complicated achieves nothing and won't give you great tales. What are you trying to do act tough and official? Please…simplicity is the true path to success.

---

Zyn's reply:

+ show block

Well, if you want new writers making the process of signing up simpler would be wise. Putting on your front page-"Sign up here," and then "Submit Story here," in two big buttons would be easier.

As far as I know, the SCP wiki isn't hurting for more articles or writers—hundreds of new pages are posted every month. Additionally, not everyone who joins the site only does so because they want to write for the site. While making the Join the Site page more prominent is something that I believe our Tech Team is looking into, there's no immediate push to make it seem like only writers will/should seek to be members of the wiki.

Basically, the people that started the website and their friends get to choose what stories make the cut. Why don't you let the people decide? Isn't that more democratic? Shouldn't they vote what stories make the main cut or not?

I'm a little confused here—people do vote on mainlisted works. Each SCP article, tale, GoI format document, and so on has a rating module.

Indeed, it's proven scientifically a group of people make decisions better than experts proof here

The link provided was to a fandom wiki, not a peer-reviewed study. Did you mean to use a different link?

All this green lighting and having staff look over these things takes away what the wiki supposed to be. About allowing everyone a say in what makes an SCP story!

Greenlighting is not a requirement to posting material to the mainsite, nor is seeking critique. That said, most articles posted without seeking feedback first tend to be downvoted by the audience and deleted from the site.

Again, just have a forum where people tell stories and allow the up votes to decide what is allowed.

The Fan Works forum exist for people to share their writing without a rating module. The rest of the site pages use the rating module.

Making this so complicated achieves nothing and won't give you great tales. What are you trying to do act tough and official? Please…simplicity is the true path to success.

The current system exists because before greenlighting was implemented, staff constantly received complaints about the low quality of material submitted to the site, as well as reviewers constantly burning out trying to assist writers who either gave up on their work if it wasn't immediately positively received, or simply ignored the feedback altogether. We were seeing double to triple the number of mainsite deletions due to low page ratings. With regards to suggesting a simple approach to handling this, what would you recommend that the site do?

---

+ show block

Dear Wyn,

Thanks for responding to my messages! I'm really confused why the SCP site has chosen to operate this way and you're clearing things up. You seem nice. Allow me to answer a few questions you had about my second email. First, the link was right. The article about "Who Wants to be a Millionaire," discusses the scientific accuracy of using an audience to solve problems. Here another link which further proofs this point-http://www.freestak.com/blogposts/who-wants-to-ask-the-audience-the-benefits-and-pitfalls-of-social-media/
I can send you more if you want. There's a lot of evidence large groups of people figure out things better than a small number.
Second, if you want a better system well the answers easy. Do what Youtube does! Make people sign in and then press the upload button. Seems to have worked for them, hasn't it? They're the most popular site in the world. If people complain about the quality dip fine. Go to the most popular articles and review them. Choose only the one's that follow your rules (I don't know why you don't let the people decide what's good or not and ignore the frivolous complainers but whatever). Still, it's not right to have made this process so confusing! I'm also sure I'm not the only one who's complained have I?

Again Thanks for Your Time,
Niccarrus Vulgar

P.S. Yes, I know upvoting is part of the process of making an SCP but what I don't get is why it's not the only process of making one?
P.S.S. Yeah a lot of people are making articles but imagine how much creativity you'd have if you made the process simpler. Right now your just allowing people who can figure out a hundred rules.
P.S.S.S. There's no reason you shouldn't be able to do the same thing Youtube does. Many sites have and reached astounding success. Not even hard to think of a few "Twitter," "Facebook," any videos sharing or article making site in existence.

---

Zyn's reply:

+ show block

First, the link was right. The article about "Who Wants to be a Millionaire," discusses the scientific accuracy of using an audience to solve problems. Here another link which further proofs this point

Neither of these sources seem to reference actual scientific studies—a game show meant for entertainment is not held to the same standards of quality and data collection/analysis as a set of specially designed experimental trials. The first source states, "While this lifeline is notorious for its near-accuracy, this typically applies only to the first 10 questions; this lifeline is usually no longer useful after question 10, because the last 5 questions are typically the hardest and most obscurely trivial in nature." and the second mentions that the "ask the audience" portion of the game is "a rather unscientific demonstration of the power of the crowd". As such, neither of these sources would be taken seriously if presented as reasoning to change the SCP wiki's current setup.

I can send you more if you want. There's a lot of evidence large groups of people figure out things better than a small number.

Given that the SCP wiki already uses a voting system, and both of the sources you've sent me have no scientific rigor, I'm not sure this is necessary.

Do what Youtube does! Make people sign in and then press the upload button.

The SCP wiki already does this—only site members can vote on pages and edit material on the site.

Still, it's not right to have made this process so confusing! I'm also sure I'm not the only one who's complained have I?

Again, the current process exists because of changes made over the course of the SCP wiki's existence. The large majority of people who complained about the current setup were children and preteens who did not meet the minimum age limit to join the site.

Yes, I know upvoting is part of the process of making an SCP but what I don't get is why it's not the only process of making one?

Given that the SCP wiki now has over 5000 articles, it is increasingly more and more difficult to impress the community audience with unique material. Writing successfully for the site is not easy, and the reviewing process is intended to give authors both a clear perspective of the high quality standards and what they could potentially expect if they submit their material to the mainsite. Furthermore, while dozens of prospective new authors join the site every week, there aren't nearly as many people interested in giving reviews to help those authors become successful (or, in some cases, learn the basics of clinical portrayal and professional-level scientific tone). If we had more reviewers than we did authors, the current feedback system would not be as necessary.

Yeah a lot of people are making articles but imagine how much creativity you'd have if you made the process simpler. Right now your just allowing people who can figure out a hundred rules.

Again, the review process isn't a requirement to post material to the site, and the SCP wiki isn't hurting for more creativity. There are a lot of articles that are posted that the community deems not good enough to make the cut; most of these articles are from writers who take the easy approach to the system and just post material without getting feedback on it. If you like, you can look through the public archives of deletions that have occurred:

(most recent thread): http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14045677

• http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-13990214
• http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-13891349
• http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-13796938
• http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-13597515
• etc. Again, if you go back further, there are clear indications of many more daily deletions occurring before the current feedback policies were established.

There's no reason you shouldn't be able to do the same thing Youtube does. Many sites have and reached astounding success. Not even hard to think of a few "Twitter," "Facebook," any videos sharing or article making site in existence.

The SCP wiki is run entirely by unpaid volunteers in their spare time, and we do not own our hosting service (Wikidot).

---

PM subject: "Thanks so Much! A Few More Questions I still can't get in!"

+ show block

Dear Zyn,

READ LIST BELOW IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT I'M STILL CONFUSED ABOUT.

Thanks so much for your time! You were right the "Who Wants to be Millionaire," article wasn't the best to explain why groups make better decisions than individuals. I should have been more official with my sources. I guess I see this as common sense. Almost every country in the world operates by a voting system of the people. What's more I don't see how this idea is different in any field. It's just the way most countries operate but if you're still skeptical the same applies to a website…umm…I don't know how to proof it to you expect "Youtube," "Facebook," and pretty much every site in existence except yours operates this way. I'll leave some more links in the P.S. below.

LIST. So, let me get how this SITE works:
1. YOU LOG INTO THE SCP SITE. Fair enough you want your members. I can understand that Youtube does the same thing.
2. THERE's A BAR WITH A HUNDRED DIFFERENT THINGS YOU HAVE TO DO. CONTRIBUTE,SANDBOX, and HOW TO WRITE AN SCP are all things your supposed to look at. Umm…a little confusing but I'm still on board.
3. UPON CLICKING CONTRIBUTE THERE ARE FOUR THINGS YOU NEED TO DO. Not only that, but you have to go to the SANDBOX now? What was the point of going to contribute? CAN YOU NOT SEE HOW THIS IS CONFUSING.
4. Now, you go to the join the site page. Enter username. Nope. You can't get in because you're not allowed. What?
5. Finally, figure it out I need to get my idea GREEN LIGHTED first? Says it on the side of the error page. Something about feedback thread. I'm starting to worry about you all now.
6. I go to IDEA CRITIQUE to CREATE A NEW THREAD. PRESS THIS. Nope not allowed. I'm a 100% sure I'm a member of the site and am on Wikidots. I mean even you can see that I am from how I message you.
7. Go to IRC CHATROOM. Hitting my head against keyboard. Something about IRC notepads. Honestly, not sure what it has to do with anything.
8. No idea where to go. A Reddit page? What if that doesn't work? Is there some other page I could go to. Why should I have too?

Now, can you honestly sit there and tell me you don't think this process is unnecessarily confusing? What is this site trying to accomplish by doing it this way? If there's a simpler way why not put it right there on the contribute page? Do you see where I'm coming from? I'm not trying to be rude I'm losing my mind.

Thanks again you've been a lot of help,
Niccarruss Vulgar

P.S. Fun fact that is my real name. Long story.
P.S.S. Here's a few more links:

https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/articles_papers_reports/why-democracy-is-the-best-weve-gothttps://opentextbc.ca/socialpsychology/chapter/group-process-the-pluses-and-minuses-of-working-together/https://open.lib.umn.edu/principlesmanagement/chapter/11-5-decision-making-in-groups/#:~:text=Group%20decision%20making%20has%20the,could%20have%20done%20as%20individuals.

Again, it's a common system that's proven effective in everything from law, politics, war, problem solving, and more.

(Of note: the user has previously submitted an application, "I would like to apply to the SCP Foundation. My name is Niccarrus Vulgar. I've a lot of idea's for the organization which I would like to share." which was declined for not meeting criteria.)

---

Zyn's reply:

+ show block

Almost every country in the world operates by a voting system of the people. What's more I don't see how this idea is different in any field. It's just the way most countries operate but if you're still skeptical the same applies to a website…umm…I don't know how to proof it to you expect "Youtube," "Facebook," and pretty much every site in existence except yours operates this way.

The SCP wiki is a collaborative writing site maintained by a team of unpaid volunteers. We are neither a country nor a social media platform with paid staff.

1. YOU LOG INTO THE SCP SITE. Fair enough you want your members. I can understand that Youtube does the same thing.

This doesn't seem to be a question?

2. THERE's A BAR WITH A HUNDRED DIFFERENT THINGS YOU HAVE TO DO. CONTRIBUTE,SANDBOX, and HOW TO WRITE AN SCP are all things your supposed to look at. Umm…a little confusing but I'm still on board.

Again, writing for the site isn't mandatory. We have plenty of readers, voters, and artwork producers who join the site and never bother with any of the writing process.

3. UPON CLICKING CONTRIBUTE THERE ARE FOUR THINGS YOU NEED TO DO. Not only that, but you have to go to the SANDBOX now? What was the point of going to contribute? CAN YOU NOT SEE HOW THIS IS CONFUSING.

The sandbox is an optional step that's part of the feedback process. The contribute page provides a single location for the creation of multiple different kinds of pages.

4. Now, you go to the join the site page. Enter username. Nope. You can't get in because you're not allowed. What?

The Join the Site page explains how to apply for site membership. Again, we do not own our hosting service (Wikidot). Having a wikidot account is not the same as having membership to the SCP wiki.

5. Finally, figure it out I need to get my idea GREEN LIGHTED first? Says it on the side of the error page. Something about feedback thread. I'm starting to worry about you all now.

Again, the greenlighting process is entirely optional.

6. I go to IDEA CRITIQUE to CREATE A NEW THREAD. PRESS THIS. Nope not allowed. I'm a 100% sure I'm a member of the site and am on Wikidots. I mean even you can see that I am from how I message you.

Again, we do not own our hosting service (Wikidot). Having a wikidot account is not the same as having membership to the SCP wiki.

7. Go to IRC CHATROOM. Hitting my head against keyboard. Something about IRC notepads. Honestly, not sure what it has to do with anything.

The chatroom is where the majority of our active authors and reviewers seek and give feedback. There are also casual chatrooms and a help chatroom there too. The Chat Guide has more information on this.

8. No idea where to go. A Reddit page? What if that doesn't work? Is there some other page I could go to. Why should I have too?

The How to Write an SCP Guide has a step-by-step list of the writing process. The Comprehensive Guide Hub also has multiple walkthroughs for authors to you.

Now, can you honestly sit there and tell me you don't think this process is unnecessarily confusing?

Provided that the guides are read and remembered, there shouldn't be any difficulty.

What is this site trying to accomplish by doing it this way?

There are a lot of different reasons, but the main reasoning is to ensure that trolls, spammers, and underage individuals do not join the site.

If there's a simpler way why not put it right there on the contribute page? Do you see where I'm coming from? I'm not trying to be rude I'm losing my mind.

Again, the "simple way" exists, but overwhelmingly results in submitted pages being deleted. Authors tend to not want to see their work immediately downvoted and quickly removed from the site, hence the provision of various writing assistance resources. Authors are always welcome to submit their work directly to the mainsite without going through any review or preliminary guide reading processes; however, pretty much none of those authors' work remains on the site for more than a day.

P.S.S. Here's a few more links:

Your post-postscript here is an entire link/one url.

---

During the course of the first two or so messages, staff I informed of the conversation mentioned that it did not seem worthwhile to continue replying, and there were some concerns about whether the user is of age/mature enough to join the site proper. As of now, I feel that I am in agreement with them, though given the user's typing it seems that English may not be their first language.

I admit that I'm unsure of whether we should consider a maturity ban given that the user's insistence on refusing to read the guides would likely prevent them from joining; however, after four similar messages I do feel like they wouldn't be contributing positively to the community.

Re: Age/Maturity Record - Doctor Vulgar

TheMightyMcB 25 Apr 2021 05:18

Supporting a yearlong maturity ban.

Re: Age/Maturity Record - Doctor Vulgar

ManyMeats 25 Apr 2021 11:49

Seconding. I have no problem with the questions being asked or the manner in which they've been asked, but they've been given multiple, thorough replies and they just keep asking the same things over and over again with no effort to investigate or comply beyond trying to prove their own already inaccurate points.

Re: Age/Maturity Record - Doctor Vulgar

DrEverettMann 25 Apr 2021 12:05

Thirding. If they're still not getting it after that much explanation, there's not really much we can do for them.

Re: Age/Maturity Record - Doctor Vulgar

TheMightyMcB 26 Apr 2021 05:51

Ban implemented and PM sent.

E: PM contents below, as they've apparently become relevant.

+ show block

Doctor Vulgar,

This is a notification from the SCP Foundation wiki. Due to your recent behavior as noted here: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14074437 you have been banned from the site for one year. If you want to appeal for the ban to be shortened or lifted, you may do so in the #site17 help chatroom. Do not continue to pester staff in private messages.

TheMightyMcB
SCP Wiki Disciplinary Team

Last edited on 28 Apr 2021 05:00 by TheMightyMcB Show more

Re: Age/Maturity Record - Doctor Vulgar

Zyn 26 Apr 2021 05:06

Noting contents of most recent message:

+ show block

Dear Zyn,

I think I might be able to help the SCP out. The main problem is you're not clear about what your users need to do while navigating through the site. In fact, some of your directions are straight up lies. For instance, your four directions on the CONTRIBUTE PAGE say "you have to do these steps." In your response to me, however, you said that at least the SANDBOX was optional. So, say it's optional on the contribute page. Also, you seem to be telling me the contribute page is not where you write an article. So, why is it called the contribute page? Shouldn't the contribute page be where you contribute? Wouldn't anyone looking to write an article go there? If there's somewhere else you need to go why don't you put that down in the contribute page? I doubt doing any of these things would be difficult or unnecessary.

Now, advice on making navigation simpler. Before I begin, I should say that I signed up for the SCP with my email [email removed]. I received an email from them confirming I was a member. I then signed in to Wikidots to be safe. I'm using the Chromebook if that makes a difference. Now, I tried to do what was mentioned in the "When you get in," section of the "Join,"page. I tried to introduce myself in a thread. It wouldn't let me. Says, I have to be an administrator or moderator. Yet, that's what's stated your supposed to do if you join? What? Also, if this is an optional step why doesn't it say that on the "Join," page? For that matter why isn't it stated that "greenlighting," is optional? If there's some other joining process I need why doesn't it say that? I've no idea what I'm doing wrong.

Look if you can't operate on up votes alone fine. If the only way is for people to submit their articles through this convoluted process then fine. I don't understand but fine. Still, if the main site has another option for writing articles then it should state that on the contribute page. Even if that way only leads to the writer being deleted. I'd take those chances.

Thanks for your time,
Niccarrus Vulgar

P.S. I'll admit I don't know many popular sites in this industry that operate the way your does. I understand you have a small staff but I can't understand who designed your webpage and why they wouldn't make it easier to navigate. I hope that you could use this advice to make the website a better place for everybody.

I have not responded. Of note, after the ban was implemented, they sent me yet another PM:

+ show block

Dear Zyn,

I wanted to apologize if it seemed as if I was pestering you. I in no way meant it like that. I thought you genuinely were asking for help. If you wanted me to stop all you had to do was ask. I thought it was a lively and intelligent discussion. I won't deny I think your actions were uncalled for. Again, all you had to do was say politely-"please not interested in any huge changes to SCP site." I will not contact you again.

Sincerely,
Niccarrus Vulgar

P.S. I do feel hurt. I really was enjoying our discussions on computers. I'm new to this stuff so yeah there were things I was confused about. Still, it doesn't mean I'm dumb I'm sure everyone has things they don't understand.
P.S.S. Next time just be honest and say you don't want to talk to them. Give them a warning. Be polite.

Also, noting that a bit later, I received a PM from Airplane611: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-926528 with a near-identical subject heading:

I would like to apologize for being immature. I’m sorry for the things that I’ve done in the past and wasting everyone’s time.

I’m 17 now and I’m going to be responsible for my actions.

Last edited on 28 Apr 2021 05:05 by Zyn Show more

Re: Age/Maturity Record - Doctor Vulgar

TheMightyMcB 28 Apr 2021 04:53

I got two PMs and Meats got one, despite the user being told to appeal their ban in chat and not continue sending PMs to staff.

+ Show PM 1 +

Dear O5 Command,

Pester? I apologize if that's the way you take it but I certainly didn't intend it that way. I was trying to give advice to Zyn and the SCP site on how to improve. Look, if he wanted me to stop sending him messages he could have asked me. I would gladly have stopped. I thought he was enjoying our conversations and was asking for advice. I admit that maybe I was confused on certain aspects of what he was explaining but that's no reason to ban me. I'm new to these computer things and the discussions were complicated to me. I also promise I'm over eighteen. I feel this has gotten carried away.

Respectfully,
Niccarrus Vulgar

+ Show PM 2 +

Dear TheMightyMcB,

I apologize if I was pestering Zyn. I had no idea. I thought he was genuinely interested in our discussion. If he had warned me that this was the case I would have been glad to stop.

Sincerely,
Niccarrus Vulgar

Evidently, they have continued to send PMs to staff rather than appealing in chat as they were told.