Object Classes Guide
http://scp-sigma-9.wikidot.com/object-classes
It seems to have been written up about as expected. Is there any reason why this has not been published?
- Clef
Object Classes Guide
Forum
» Media & Wiki Management / Content & Creation
» Object Classes Guide
Summary:
Is there any reason why this has not been published?
I haven't asked around in the last… I think week or so due to being sick (perhaps it's been two weeks? or less than a week? sorry, I've been out of it), but as far as I know the reason is that the following section is controversial:
What about other Object Classes?
It is highly recommended that objects use one of the standard Object Classes listed here. While some authors choose to introduce exceptions to these rules, they are only very rarely done and are considered a form of "format screw", and thus need to justify their existence and placement. Many site members will downvote for non-standard Object Classes if used without merit.
Because of the violence of the conversations that take place when the topic of non-standard Object Classes is brought up (including regarding suggestions of compromise or even the suggestion that there's a problem with X factor of the topic whatsoever, though which particular stance is claimed to be consensus and clearly correct varies depending on time of day and who's involved in the conversation), discussion on this has been put off with regularity.
Aelanna can correct me if I'm out of date on this.
Looks good to me, let's put it up.
Admin, SCP Wiki
I think it looks fine. For the problem with the non-standard object class section, I think it explains it pretty. People are able to use other classes if they really want, but they'll have to bear in mind how people will react to it.
I'm all for this. Let's post it!
Reply got eaten, this is try #2. Here is my perspective on this topic.
The section I quoted above is an issue for the following reasons:
- It implies an official site stance strongly discouraging non-standard object classes.
- It implies that people downvote for non-standard object classes by default, which is untrue. ("Without [special] merit" as opposed to "when poorly done".)
I think we should take one of the following courses of action:
- Officially decide that we will take the stance implied in the section.
- Officially decide to enforce SEK+.
- Officially decide on a compromise solution.
- An example of a compromise I've seen suggested: Tell people to stick to SEK+, introduce additions only with extreme care (ex: Thaumiel), require use of "Object Class" (which will fit into SEK+), but allow / don't discourage subcategories such as threat level or whatnot, with the warning that stuff that doesn't work or is silly will be downvoted.
- A variation of the above might include a hub page cataloguing user-created subcategory systems (potentially with staff maintanence/approval).
- Rewrite the section to make the language more neutral.
The last option there is almost certainly the easiest, though numbers 1-3 have the benefit of more resolution. Personally I prefer #3, but #4 would be my second choice.
EDIT: A side note on the other options. We have plenty of precedence for enforcing object classes. We basically did that with split classifications (which I think was the right move, but very few people cared about that for a very long time), and we have definitely enforced other format issues. This isn't something that's beyond the pale, even though I disfavor the more extreme versions.
Beyond that, I like this guide. If there are other issues with it, I'm not seeing them. I would want to do a final close reading on it before it goes live, but otherwise, it all looks good to me.
I don't think any problem would really be solved just by rewording it to be more neutral, though that would probably be the easiest solution. It would be better to just address the problem rather than trying to maintain an on-the-fence stance. Plus, to be fair, a lot of people will just downvote for nonstandard classes if there isn't a good reason behind it. That is to say, it doesn't just have to not be bad, it has to be good enough that the new class is justified.
I vote that we a) strongly support the SEK+ while still allowing for nonstandard classes where the class can be seen as some sort of format screw while b) explaining some of the major complaints with such classes. If a new class, such as Thaumiel, emerges from this, then let it emerge if enough people like it so that the articles including it stay afloat. If we get some number of objects that successfully use that designation (say, three or more articles at +30 or higher), then we can add it to the class system.
This. There are people who downvote articles for using a different object class for no reason other than not liking SEK+ (I count myself among them), and people who want to pursue that path should be aware of that eventuality.
As for expansion, I'd support any expansion that can justify its own existence.
Supporting 1 (although I would not mind 2 at all).
(account deleted)It implies an official site stance strongly discouraging non-standard object classes.
It doesn't seem much different from the stuff that we already have1 saying "it's a bad idea to try Ketersfor your first SCP, etc."
It implies that people downvote for non-standard object classes by default, which is untrue.
Except it is true. See: Jekeled's stuff and, to an extent, Djoric's more recent things as well. It's not something that everyone does, obviously, but the guide never says that it is ("Many site members…")
Speaking of Jekeled, part of the problem with that was, yeah, we don't really have a policy. As much as I like unbridled creative freedom, I'd rather not have another dust-up like that. So I support the first part of #3. The second part seems like it would be superfluous and a rarely-used resource with the potential to be a bit of a pain to keep up-to-date.
Also, I support posting the guide as it's currently written.
Footnotes
1. And that Aelanna has already witten (thanks, Ael!)
Pretty much this. I don't see the language in the guide as-written as being at all strong; it's hard to see how we'd make it more neutral. I vote for posting as written.
Concurring. I support posting as written.
Piffy is an SCP Foundation Moderator, Lv. 9001 Squishy Wizard, and Knight of the Red Pen.
I don't see the language in the guide as-written as being at all strong
It's not strong language, but it very clearly supports a specific position. I meant "neutral" as in "less clearly advocating for a certain position, unless we officially decide to take that position".
(I actually don't care about the 'many' issue if we do take that position because I expect it to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, ie if the guide takes that position, people will likely start downvoting for it more. Note that this may happen anyway, or the exact opposite may happen, regardless.)
Jekeled's case was outright throwing out object class entirely, which many people saw as actively bad, not just a few.
EDIT: I see a scant few people, for example, downvoting Djoric's articles. Some of those aren't even downvoting because of his addition of Threat Level, but for other reasons stated in their comments. I've seen the same thing occur with Scantron's articles, for instance. Yes, ProcyonLotor, you are apparently one of those scant few, I see your downvotes in there, but that doesn't make your opinion the majority.
So yeah, I'm sorry, but "many people will downvote you" is simply untrue.
I absolutely do not see any reason why we shouldn't be enforcing the standard template. We harp on newbies all the time about using the exact format as laid out in the guides, and we also continuously hammer into authors that "your SCP article should stand alone; assume at all times that this might be the first SCP that someone reads".
Changing the template or introducing subcategories serves no purpose other than to fluff the egos of the people who add them and introduce things that the guides do not cover and therefore confuses new readers. Even the authors themselves admit that subclasses and threat levels do not really matter in the long run, so the continued lack of consistency on this matter just boggles my mind.
Changing the template or introducing subcategories serves no purpose other than to fluff the egos of the people who add them
Look, this just isn't true. Some people enjoy making variations on the theme for other reasons than ego-fluffing, and frankly I can only think of one author where it seemed ego was involved whatsoever. Typically it's done because people like creatively messing around with things, and/or are not satisfied with the classification system on its own (a classification system that everyone admits is very silly regardless).
You may or may not be correct that allowing more variations will cause many problems (I'm uncertain, myself), particularly confusing new readers (though SEK+ is confusing already), but making it about specious personal motivation when calling for a crackdown is not the way to go.
I'm fine with variations on the theme, but there has to be a baseline for those variations to make sense. This guide is attempting to make SEK+ less confusing, and people have generally accepted that the remaining inherent vagueness of the system is good rather than harmful.
As for egos, I have a hard time believing otherwise. If those people were honestly interested in simply improving the system, then they would be involved in conversations and collaborative efforts to update the guides and/or site-wide content, not throwing caution to the wind and simply sticking up their own personal versions and seeing what sticks.
I also maintain that not enforcing the template is still a really bad experience for newbies. We need to either standardize SCP articles or push the ones that don't want to change into their own category. If you can think of a solution that improves our newbie experience while not restricting authors, then I'm all ears, but I have the feeling a lot of people have lost sight of the user experience while campaigning for author creative license.
For the record, supporting Aelanna's position here. I personally tend to skip over the object class when reading and thus not notice when someone screws with it, but that definitely wasn't the case when I was new to this site. Standardisation is good.
Piffy is an SCP Foundation Moderator, Lv. 9001 Squishy Wizard, and Knight of the Red Pen.
To clarify my rambling and poorly composed prior statements, supporting this.
If those people were honestly interested in simply improving the system, then they would be involved in conversations and collaborative efforts to update the guides and/or site-wide content, not throwing caution to the wind and simply sticking up their own personal versions and seeing what sticks.
Well, I'd continue arguing that this is unfair, but the fact that not one single other staff member has weighed in on the opposing side of this besides me kind of undercuts my argument, doesn't it?
Although I suppose a consensus of silence is still a consensus. I suppose this is what we're going to go with. I'd still like to hear from more staff members, but given that it's been two days, I expect this is as good as it's going to get.
I like that it says 'strongly recomended' and warns that people will downvote just because you don't use them… because it's true. But… I feel that leaves it open for people to try, if they want, just warns them what they'll face.
Admin, SCP Wiki
I support this guide.
One caveat, the Keter section states that reliable containment is not possible with our current knowledge/technology; I do not find this to be completely accurate, some Keter objects are this way, but many simply require extremely precise and stringent protocols to effectuate reliable containment. For instance,
736: No feasible method of containment.
106: Containment is unreliable.
871: Containment is reliable but a massive pain in the ass.
/forum/t-846284/object-classes-guide#post-