I posit that most SCP articles are long, complex pieces of fiction, which may not reveal their true interest value to a casual inspection. For this reason, when I get my Discussion thread posts edited by mods with "please collapse long posts as a courtesy to our mobile users" (which I don't know how to do, and I'd be likely to forget if you explained it to me), my reaction to this message is "maybe we should stop trying to cater to mobile readers; anybody who can't handle long-form text should probably not be reading this wiki". Maybe there could be a specific "laconic" version of the wiki created for the benefit of mobile readers, who just want short stories they can quickly read, but cannot be part of the forum discussion? I would also suggest that maybe they shouldn't be able to -1 posts that they read for 5 seconds and lose interest in, and would further suggest that the "deletion at -10" policy should possibly be revised to a much lower number, to account for the fact that a huge number of people can read the wiki very quickly, and failing to make a positive impression on the first 10 random people who see your piece within a day should *maybe* not mean that your piece disappears within 24 hours, preventing any possibility that it might gradually grow upon the people who take the time to read it through a few extra times. I certainly know that there are several SCPs I've changed my mind on over time; if they disappeared when a lot of people lost interest in them, many individuals would never get the chance to reconsider that opinion, perhaps years later, when they've matured or otherwise changed their perspective quite a great deal.
It's not about catering, it's about courtesy. We have elements on the site to look through series of posts across the site ("New Forum Posts" on the sidebar), and it'd be annoying to have to scroll through an unnecessarily verbose comment or critique one's not interested in just to get to the next post.
The Wiki Syntax Page outlines how to insert a collapsible. It's one of the most basic features of the site/wikidot.
[[collapsible show="+ Open" hide="- Close"]]
Collapsed text here
[[/collapsible]]
I'm not going to go through the rest of the rant, but that should help.
"I'm not going to go through the rest of the rant"
So you are yourself pulling a TL;DR on my post…and yet you expect me to somehow remember all that wikitext every single time I write a long forum post. Normal words, the ones I talk in every day, are easy to deal with, even in large quantity; computer code is not. Not for me at least, and I suspect not for most people.
I was doing what I could to solve your problem. The page containing the code is in a dropdown on top of the website for an easy copy-paste, and tbh the more one uses these features the more they're committed to memory. If you actually aspire to write here, it's in your best interest to be familiar with the tools you need to operate, which are all freely accessible.
Alright, that's fair. But the extremely cold and uncaring tone taken *out of character* by this website's "old guard" means that the "if you actually aspire to write here" is looking pretty unlikely at this point. I failed twice before, and gave up for months each time; the third try was a mild success, and I tried to follow it up, thinking I might have found my voice, but this current reception is inclining me back toward the belief that I shouldn't even try with this community, and should perhaps write for one of its competitors instead.
At the end of the day it's just a writing site and a writing community, and really you should try to find the writing community that helps you grow as a writer best. What competing communities are you considering?
I've heard good things about the RPC Authority, which has the advantage of being under MediaWiki as well, so I don't need a new login account. I also might try the Backrooms, though that seems to have more specificity to it, and doesn't have anywhere near the same breadth and diversity of ideas.
But the extremely cold and uncaring tone taken *out of character* by this website's "old guard" means that the "if you actually aspire to write here" is looking pretty unlikely at this point.
Can we stop it with this already? It is no longer the "old guard", nor is there only one Foundation. Honestly, I've dropped the whole idea of a 'cold and ultra-clinical' Foundation.
I failed twice before, and gave up for months each time; the third try was a mild success, and I tried to follow it up, thinking I might have found my voice, but this current reception is inclining me back toward the belief that I shouldn't even try with this community, and should perhaps write for one of its competitors instead.
I'm actually going to say something that will make me the John Wick in the circle of guns (if you know what I'm talking about).
Writing for this site is honestly not as hard as people make it out to be. Most people here (including me), are not elite authors, and sees this as 90% a hobby, and 10% as a way of improving ones writing (at least that is how it is for me). If you posted an article and it failed, that means you likely completely missed a standard. In other words, you missed likely something important that is expected from an SCP or tale, or anything else.
I shouldn't even try with this community, and should perhaps write for one of its competitors instead.
Competitors? Since when were we in competition with our neighboring spaces. Yeah, some of them may be more questionable than others, but still. I wouldn't call it competition.
where we landing? not tilted! ッ
*I'm actually going to say something that will make me the John Wick in the circle of guns (if you know what I'm talking about).*
Not really, but okay.
*Writing for this site is honestly not as hard as people make it out to be.*
I'm describing how hard it is for ME specifically.
*If you posted an article and it failed, that means you likely completely missed a standard.*
If there's no single Foundation, then why is there a single non-negotiable set of standards?
*In other words, you missed likely something important that is expected from an SCP or tale, or anything else.*
Expected by who? Why should I be held to everyone else's expectations? If someone doesn't like my stuff, that's fine, but them getting to deny everyone else the opportunity to make the same decision, that's kind of a dick move on their part. I get that server space is finite, but I think this wiki could stand to be a LOT more lax about purging its unpopular.
I'm describing how hard it is for ME specifically.
Then get help. We have the idea and draft critique forums and the IRC for a reason, to help people. If writing for the wiki is difficult, then get help from other, more experienced authors.
If there's no single Foundation, then why is there a single non-negotiable set of standards?
There isn't a single set of standards, but people have specific things they expect from an SCP in terms of structure and content. It's why format screws are difficult to write, they need to justify their existence to the reader in a way that the standard SCP format doesn't.
Expected by who? Why should I be held to everyone else's expectations?
Because this is a writing website. You're writing articles for other people to read and vote on.
It's pretty hard for me to "get help" when the only reaction that my requests ever get is "go read 15 pages of our rules".
Please read the rules here. The relevant section for getting critique is only 340 words.
You pasted the entirety of your tale in the forum. You're only supposed to put a link to your sandbox with a rough wordcount and a list of the things you're most worried about in the draft.
So if I follow these rules, will I actually receive helpful feedback, allowing me to repost the tale with the resulting changes, and the result not be downvoted into oblivion? Or will people just invent some other excuse to find fault? I'm not going to bother jumping through your hoops if it's still going to end with a tough crowd booing me off the stage.
So if I follow these rules, will I actually receive helpful feedback, allowing me to repost the tale with the resulting changes, and the result not be downvoted into oblivion?
Yes. Absolutely. Doing everything in your power to do your due diligence and improve a work through feedback is not a surefire guarantee that something will stave off downvotes because it still has to be good or entertaining enough for the community at large (or at least, has to be enjoyed by more people than the number that dislike it).
And that's fine. At the end of the day, we're writing for an audience, and that audience, more than any guide or amount of criticism, is what determines what stays on site.
Everyone has misses. Even with a breakout success behind me, I've still produced stories that were panned, deleted, or ignored, and that's just how it is.
Sometimes you need to accept the L and forge on.
Everyone has misses. Even with a breakout success behind me, I've still produced stories that were panned, deleted, or ignored, and that's just how it is.
This is the case for most authors. If you ask most writers on this site (except for some people like djkaktus who I believe deletes much of their poor-performing work), they will likely tell you that they have articles that were either deleted or are not doing well in votes.
where we landing? not tilted! ッ
If there's no single Foundation, then why is there a single non-negotiable set of standards?
Expected by who? Why should I be held to everyone else's expectations? If someone doesn't like my stuff, that's fine, but them getting to deny everyone else the opportunity to make the same decision, that's kind of a dick move on their part.
Basically, if you've tried and failed to write for the site, that means you are likely missing something important. That could be a story accompanying an SCP, or critique for kinking out plot holes.
where we landing? not tilted! ッ
What exactly do you mean by the story "accompanying" an SCP? My latest tale was directly and explicitly about SCP-343 and SCP-4000, while my original one namechecked the Leviathan (whose number I forget offhand, since this was back in November). In the case of the one that's about to be deleted, I even put the SCP numbers in the tags, although they were removed somehow. Given that the whole point of the piece was about how 4000 and anything in its presence can't be safely named, I don't see how I could have been any more explicit in connecting my work to its relevant skips.
What exactly do you mean by the story "accompanying" an SCP?
An SCP put simply, is a story in, well, an SCP format.
My latest tale was directly and explicitly about SCP-343 and SCP-4000, while my original one namechecked the Leviathan (whose number I forget offhand, since this was back in November).
Given that the whole point of the piece was about how 4000 and anything in its presence can't be safely named, I don't see how I could have been any more explicit in connecting my work to its relevant skips.
This sounds like you were trying to capitalize off of the success of other works on the site, which really isn't a good way of crosslinking. I suggest trying to start somewhere original, and if you feel another work is worth crosslinking because it makes sense in your article, do that! However, don't just namedrop SCPs in hope that they will get you upvotes. That never works. Don't either write a tale just about a skip without any twists or original takes. In the case of your 4000 tale, yes, we get it. Names and 4000 are a bad combination; we have countless articles that say that.
where we landing? not tilted! ッ
The originality is in this combination. Are there any tales about 4000 *plus 343 specifically*? If not, then I thought there should be. If so, then I still suspect my take is probably a little different. How many tales have tried to get into the head of 343, while also fully acknowledging him as omnipotent and omniscient, but still giving him a problem that he can't easily solve? Maybe the fact that he doesn't solve it at all in this piece is a problem; I was planning on sequels, but if part 1 is gone and thus I can't link part 2 to it, then maybe I should just publish part 1 and part 2 as a single work.
SCP is all about taking existing works and building off of them; that's not plagiarism or anything, it's about taking a five-mile-high tower and adding another mile of height on top of it (ignoring questions of how architecturally sound that would be, although frankly the metaphor probably works somewhat well even with those extra details; SCP is definitely starting to feel a bit overburdened at this point, which is part of why I've been picking and choosing which articles I actually regard as canon). I'm again not sure exactly what you mean by "crosslinking", but if I were going to write a story that had NO connection to ANY SCP on the wiki, then I wouldn't put that story on the wiki.
The general concept of an organization *like* the Foundation can exist anywhere; the only reason to write anything here is because you're trying to build upon the existing lore and expand it. I take two existing skips, and use them to introduce a couple of characters that will later have further interactions with those and other skips, and eventually even some GOIs if the story took off. Since that didn't happen quite yet, I'll need to revise my approach, but I do not accept that the general concept of "343+4000" is a bad starting point for a story, as long as I don't just *stop* there and add nothing whatsoever innovative.
If my story was just "God gives the fairies back their names, and both are no longer contained", that would be a bad story (unless the writing was exceptionally florid and poignant and otherwise well-crafted). But I think my take was original enough to be well worth exploring; I just need to try a little harder (and not step on any sexism landmines).
G'day
How many tales have tried to get into the head of 343, while also fully acknowledging him as omnipotent and omniscient, but still giving him a problem that he can't easily solve?
Google defines omnipotent as:
(of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything.
SCP is all about taking existing works and building off of them;…
Other than certain format choices, I see no derivations between Peanut and Big man in tree.
I'm again not sure exactly what you mean by "crosslinking", but if I were going to write a story that had NO connection to ANY SCP on the wiki, then I wouldn't put that story on the wiki.
Crosslinking is using a bit of code in order to give respect to the work you are deriving from. Not everyone has read Avalon, but if you are deriving from a concept that a reader would be interested in continuing, just describing the concept isn't always good enough to help the user find Avalon.
The code btw is [[[SCP-####|TEXT]]]
Also, are you afraid of originality? Just because your story has no connections to previous stories doesn't mean it's bad, in fact, I'd argue that makes it better since the person reading doesn't have to read the work that yours is based on and doesn't create an overarching narrative that would take time and effort into completing.
The general concept of an organization *like* the Foundation can exist anywhere; the only reason to write anything here is because you're trying to build upon the existing lore and expand it.
That's a pretty bold statement and, I believe it's incorrect! I myself have aspirations to create my own narratives, rather than expanding on SCPs that already have way too much attention, like God or Taboo. There is no inarguable lore of the SCP Foundation that people must expand on. It's about contribution. If you write here, you have some level of passion in your works. You want to write here, no one is holding a gun to your head demanding it.
I take two existing skips, and use them to introduce a couple of characters that will later have further interactions with those and other skips, and eventually even some GOIs if the story took off.
Having read that article (the original version, didn't read the "revised" version), I saw very little characterization in the "characters". They were both archetypes of characters that had everything told, not shown. Don't explain their person in words, explain them in actions and reactions.
One of them was an old badass guy that's seen some shit and is a patient mentor and all that, and the other just gets impatient over nothing.
If you wanted to set up a character, I'd suggest using a character study narrative, using these characters, giving them an antagonistic force of some kind, and how they react to it/overcome it, rather than two archetypes that went unnamed and could be easily be replaced by any other unnamed agents and nothing would change.
^Echoing this.
where we landing? not tilted! ッ
I think the reason you failed is because you were completely unwilling to listen to the critique and feedback other people provided. If you want to begin writing a good piece of content, you need to know what you are doing wrong first. Coldposting is hard when you talk about your first article.
That's why I say, if you want to post a successful work, you gotta persevere to get the critique that tells you what to improve.
General reminder to please remember to keep discussion here civil, and try to avoid making personal remarks.
Apologies. My bad.
Reading the original version of what he posted, I was in no way offended. He's right, I do barely know how to operate this software; all those buttons above the posting window are completely incomprehensible to me, with only the exceptions of BIUS. This software is definitely not designed to be highly user-friendly to people with minimal technology knowledge; there's nothing "uncivil" about acknowledging that I am such an individual. :)
@ Abrethe: You were one of those who downvoted the original version, so you KNOW that isn't true at all. One poster said it was sexist, and my response was to go "oh, whoops, sorry, didn't intend that at all", and revise the article immediately to remove anything even remotely sexist-looking about it. The only other piece of feedback I got was the "nothing really happens", which I did acknowledge and said was intentional, but even that isn't being "completely unwilling to listen", it's just choosing not to change after listening. So a 50% rate of doing what people tell me I should, and a 100% rate of acknowledging the criticisms even if I didn't agree with them, is hardly me refusing to take criticism.
If somebody tells you nothing really happens, they are justifying their downvote. If your narrative isn't compelling or attractive to the readers, one among them will step in and tell you what you could improve.
And here's what I mean with you being unwilling to listen: People are pointing out your article's most important errata, but you refuse to fix it. You pay attention, but you don't put effort into fixing your work's errors.
Sure, it's fine if you fix stuff like sexism because it's a sensitive topic and people can get pretty offended by it. But refusing to fix something as essential as the narrative is just like dooming your article.
G'day
So I presume that I am the person referenced in the line:
…only other piece of feedback I got was the "nothing really happens"…
While yes, I could've been more clear and more in-depth with my opinions, I feel like both of your retorts were [I cannot think of the most proper term for this so I'll use something similar] improper, given the source material.
Your first response was:
That is intentional; the primary point of this piece is to introduce concepts and discuss philosophy.
To which I must ask, what concepts were introduced? What philosophy was argued? (From my original reading of the article) it was mixing two very different concepts together, that being god and the Fae's strange manipulation of nomenclature, and did just about nothing with either. As put by A quite certain agent from the article:
"Okay, well thanks for completely wasting our time. We'll be in touch,"
A simple summarization of the article would be as follows:
Pondering some aspects of a deity, two agents walk in, deity refuses to give any actual information, good days, end.
The deity refuses to give any information, and the article ends before anything begins. Do you see my problem?
A lack of characterization, a lack of information given, a lack of content. Intentional does not = good unless it benefits the work in some way. I understand that not all stories have to be great big adventures overflowing with explosions and events, however, having your article completely devoid of, well anything, makes me question why I just read like 10 paragraphs that barely even delivered a concept.
Good day.
So, your summary is accurate as far as it goes, but that's like saying that Lord of the Rings is just "a hobbit throws a ring in a volcano, the end". The point of this is to explore, in fairly significant detail, the thought process of an all-powerful, all-knowing deity as he *avoids knowing something*. Yes, it doesn't really add anything to the lore, but it explores an aspect of the lore which, to my knowledge, hasn't been previously investigated or detailed. Did everyone else besides me also think about what would happen between these two specific anomalies? I haven't seen anyone else talking about it.
"please collapse long posts as a courtesy to our mobile users" (which I don't know how to do, and I'd be likely to forget if you explained it to me), my reaction to this message is "maybe we should stop trying to cater to mobile readers; anybody who can't handle long-form text should probably not be reading this wiki".
You're misinterpreting this, it is a matter of layout usability, not principles, and this only applies to forum posts, not articles (Even then, no one is asking you to condense your text.)
failing to make a positive impression on the first 10 random people who see your piece within a day should *maybe* not mean that your piece disappears within 24 hours
Overall, if 10 random people have read your piece and all 10 fails to be positively impacted, chances are your writing did not compel people on the whole, and they free to vote as they think.
preventing any possibility that it might gradually grow upon the people who take the time to read it through a few extra times. I certainly know that there are several SCPs I've changed my mind on over time;
This is survivorship bias; if a piece lasted long enough for someone who originally downvoted to eventually come around, it tells me that the work was already strong enough to survive on its own merit, and positively viewed by a non-minority number of people.
From my experience, this usually does not apply to quickly-downvoted works.
It seems this thread has veered greatly off-topic from its original intention, and steered towards discussion regarding a now-deleted work and feedback regarding this article. Note that such discussion should occur within the writing help sub-forum or via Wikidot PMs/other media.
As a mobile user, long texts or scps don’t really bother me, but if it bothers you, you should try http://scpexplained.wikidot.com/, where scps are very short.
𝖂𝖔𝖜 𝖋𝖆𝖓𝖈𝖞 𝖑𝖊𝖙𝖙𝖊𝖗𝖘
