We should send in robots. With cameras. Totally should.
Piffy is an SCP Foundation Moderator, Lv. 9001 Squishy Wizard, and Knight of the Red Pen.
New Member Info
We should send in robots. With cameras. Totally should.
Piffy is an SCP Foundation Moderator, Lv. 9001 Squishy Wizard, and Knight of the Red Pen.
I'm willing to bet that robotic exploration would reveal the inside of a typical derelict ship with no abnormalities.
This and the exploration log for The Architect are arguably the two creepiest things I've read on this site. Fantastic job.
I'm uncertain about this one. It's well written and interesting, but the tone used by HQ is jarringly unprofessional, and a far cry from the cold, sterile manner the Foundation likes to adopt. Deviating from that "ideal" is to be expected with teams that are in stressful situations, but HQ functions as a detached observer, and evidence of a few spatial anomalies is nothing that should make Foundation personnel outside the danger zone nervous to the point of profanity and panicked outcries.
My issue isn't that HQ is unprofessional, it's a stressful situation, emotions are running high, etc. It's with the really stupid phrases that pepper the dialogue.
"T2L, where the flying fist fuck have you been?"
"What the flaming shit"
and the fucking granddaddy of them all: "sweet Dapper Jesus of the Gentlemen's Club"
They sound like something a person who's only ever been on the internet would say. They're so out of place and "wacky" that they absolutely murder any immersion the rest of the piece created.
There's also the lack of formatting in the earlier audio transcripts that also really hurts the whole endeavor. Like
Baker, listen closely. I want you, and whoever is left, to get topside immediately. We are dispatching a rescue team to—
..BAKER?! Come in?! What the fuck is going on over there?!
It's so jarringly unprofessional that it kind of physically pains me, and definitely hurts the piece. Actual transcripts of audio or video records tend to have small, terse inserts to update the reader on actions not apparent due to the transcription, so like the above would look something more like
HQ: Baker, listen closely. I want you, and whoever is left, to get topside immediately. We are dispatching a rescue team to—
[Transmission momentarily interrupted by gunfire consistent with Team 2's standard equipment. Gunfire continues throughout.]
HQ: Baker?! Baker, come in! What the fuck is going on over there!
It's little things like those that hurt an otherwise fantastic piece.
I completely agree with you, radio etiquette was not followed throughout this page at all. If the radio traffic were revised, the effect of this page would be so much better.
Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely. I'm glad that I'm not the only one who feels this way. Can we get permission to modify this appropriately? The SCP is fantastic, otherwise.
Can we get permission to modify this appropriately?
PM NekoChris. See what he says.
After asking an admin, I've done some formatting corrections and some problems with grammar along with content. Originally, the second team was 10 members but by the end of it had a count of 9 total units. Also, when the third team was found apparently everyone but Erik was back, even though two people were apparently missing beforehand. It also doesn't specify if Erik was one of those two people. The odd colloquialisms have been removed, but I kept the conversation informal for the most part due to the stress of the individuals involved. Most likely I'll, or certainly someone else, will change it later to better suit the flow of the story; preferably decreasing in formality as the situation becomes more fucked up. I also removed things like "over" in the radio; I probably shouldn't have given normal radio procedure but it seemed too stereotypical to me and besides, you can only use a word so often before it gets repetitive. There were 11 overs, and for some reason, I suppose stress, they all together stopped appearing so for consistency's sake they've been removed for the time being. Anyone have any problems with that? Any critiques? This is my first editing of a SCP article.
Did you ask NekoChris first?
Admin, SCP Wiki
The history log says that he apparently got permission from Waxx, seeing as how NekoChris hasn't been seen in about seven months. I'm still suspicious, and would have liked to actually see some proof of that before he started editing a highly-rated article.
Edit: Ah, I see now. Patrick went behind the admins' backs to get permission. Oh dear.
Before you asked Waxx for permission, you asked me to review these edits, and — after consulting with several other staff members — I told you that they were too substantive. Yes, you got Staff permission (as is required to edit someone else's article, especially a highly-rated one like this), but you did it by asking Dad when Mom said no. I reverted your previous edits, and have now re-reverted them. Please don't try to go over my head again.
SCP Wiki Administrator | Earth: We're all in this together.
Just a question, but why is it a bad thing to ask another mod/admin after the first one says no?
You can appeal to another admin. That is, you can say, "Admin X said this. Is this accurate? I don't think it should be that way, because of Y." But you have to give all the relevant facts to the new admin. And don't expect the new admin to just go ahead and overrule the other admin. It'll likely end up as a discussion between multiple admins. We're not infallible, but if it's important enough to overrule one of us, it's important enough to get some more heads in on the decision.
Going to a new admin and just going ahead and asking, without mentioning the other admin… Look, at this point, you've been given an answer. You don't get a mulligan on it. If you think it's unfair, that's fine, but you can't just try and cut the first admin entirely out of the loop. Otherwise, we'll just have people going from admin to admin until they get a yes. It's an attempt to undercut our authority. Ain't gonna make you any friends.
I'm honestly a little disappointed I have to explain this to you.
I see your point but isn't that more about details than the act itself? It seems the only thing that Patrick did wrong here is that he didn't tell 'Dad' that 'Mom' said no. But why didn't 'Mom' tell 'Dad' that she said no? I thought there was an admin chat you guys used to talk to each other, which means that either 'Dad' didn't pay attention or 'Mom' didn't say what her decision was.
That could just be a "perfect world ideal" scenario but if that little blurb had happened then this wouldn't have.
Thank you for your answer Mann.
Photosynthetic, you told me that if I had asked I would have likely been given permission. You never said that I was completely barred from editing in the first place, you just told me that I took it too far considering I had forgotten to ask in the first place, and you said the grammar and such was fine. So I went and asked Waxx, the only active admin on the time and coincidentally the one I'm Steam friends with (was for a long time, unrelating to this site) and he said it was fine. I didn't realize I needed all the admins to approve; it only said on the guide that I should ask an admin or moderator for advice. So that's what I did; wasn't going around anyone's back. How could I have gone around anyone's back anyway?! I was the one who brought up my mistake in the chat!!! I just didn't want to message a bunch of people I didn't know at 1:00 am, especially if I was told that it would have been allowed in the first place.
Also, how is +32 a highly rated article? Sure, that's a good amount of people, but it's not like we're talking about messing with the Mona Lisa here. Multiple people were complaining about the content in this, besides the errors that I brought up before that are now back in again. Neko had two years to do these edits, after they were brought up on this discussion page. His last edit on this was three years ago. I took the time to actually maintain a consistent radio format, as it inexplicably starts without any radio identification and then it sprouts up out of nowhere. If you want someone else to do these edits, then fine by me, but leaving the page as it is is a total waste of potential.
Please don't interpret anything I did as sneaky and intentional; honestly, I was just lazy at the wee end of the morning and I wasn't even sure if you were still on, Photo. I suppose this is a classic example that the easy route is not always the best one.
By the way, when people say "highly-rated", they're likely referring to the main article, which you also edited, which is at +82. That's notable. Also, +32 is pretty good for a supplementary log, separate from the main article. Those are always voted upon much less.
I accept that you were trying to help fix the errors (which I would like to see fixed myself), and that's good. We're just twitchy about new members messing with well-liked articles. There are plenty of more obscure things whose authors have since left that could do with some help.
All I did on the main article change the name of this page, which is considered an experiment somehow even though it's honestly just another exploration in the same vein as Dr Gear's article, and very slightly edited Dr Gear's page name to establish consistency like I've seen on other scp articles, where things are organized chronologically. Why would the Foundation have different names for things when they're extremely similar; it doesn't make sense. I also added a "-" before the designation that says that this is the third log; this is how it is on Dr Gear's page. He himself has calls it "Exploration Log Record 455 – 3" and not Exploration Log Record 455 3", which is what is on the main article. I didn't touch a single thing on Gear's actual log; that would be heresy. These designations also set up the potential for a secondary exploration story, when you notice that the article has a Exploration Log 1 and an Exploration Log 3.
Oh, and I included an arbitrary horizontal line. Whoops.
As it stands now, it honestly (at least to me) looks like shit. It isn't professional at all to have things be separately named when on every other article they have a form of consistency. One has a description, the other starts with a "-"; again, inconsistent. This log ends with a suggested robotic exploration; the other is again about manned exploration. This is also inconsistent, which is why a proposed second log would be fitting. I suppose a better solution would be to change this to "Exploration Log Record 455-1". Again, it was late at night and I hadn't gotten much sleep the day before.
And you're right, I'm sure there are other obscure things that need edits. But one step at a time.
The point here, Patrick, is that you were told that the grammar edits were fine, but the other changes were too substantial.
So then you went and did more than grammar changes again, and asked a different Admin for permission to justify it.
If you wanted to do changes, you should have done your grammar changes, which were ok'd. THEN, your other changes you should have done a Sandbox or Pastebin for so we could review them before you just went and put them up, seeing as your previous edits were deemed to be too much. Did you tell Waxx that Photo had said it was too much before? Or simply ask for his ok? If you ask Mom if Dad says no, but you make sure to tell Mom that Dad DID say no, and Mom still says yes, then it's between Mom and Dad(or the Admins in this case). If not, then you crossed the line again, and it's not just a matter of laziness.
I like how Waxx is the mother and Photo is the dad in your extended metaphor.
Yes, and then I was told that if I had asked for permission originally everything would have been fine. You also seem to portray me as doing things and then asking afterward, even though that happened only once and I was the one who made up for it; I asked Waxx for permission beforehand, telling him that the problem was I hadn't asked before I did the edits, which is what I was told, and after he gave the permission, I did so.
I didn't ask for justification for what I did. These insinuations are starting to get on my nerves. You make it seem like I'm trying to hijack this page, when I'm only trying to fix things brought up before that were never dealt with, and also glaring errors.
I asked Waxx for permission beforehand, telling him that the problem was I hadn't asked before I did the edits, which is what I was told, and after he gave the permission, I did so.
Except that that does NOT address the question of your edits having been considered too SUBSTANTIAL by another admin. You asking permission before doing them doesn't suddenly negate that you were already told that what you had been doing was going too far.
Even though I've had to explain this multiple times, the insinuation that the edits were too substantial was given alongside the fact that I hadn't asked. I will state this only one more time: I was told that this would have been all fine if I had asked prior to doing the edit.
Certainly. But the situation as it is now is that you were told that your edits were too substantial. Suddenly you can't go back in time to before you made them and ask permission to do them. Suddenly you have to get your edits ok'd first, preferably by those who were telling you you went too far.
It's true that if you had asked permission before doing ANYTHING, then we likely would not have reacted this way. But you don't get to consider these separate incidents anymore. It is no longer about you doing the edits, it is about having been told not to do edits as extensive as you did, EVEN THOUGH if you had asked before doing them we might have said yes.
Here's the real kicker: even though Photo said that it would have been ok if you got permission first….what that MEANS is, that it would have been ok if, when you asked, Staff had decided that it was ok for you to do it. That doesn't mean you were automatically going to get permission to do it just because you asked.
If you had asked then we might have considered the fact that you're BRAND NEW and have NO decently rated materials and thus have not proven yourself at ALL, and told you that no, no, that's ok, you get to stick around a while and show your worth before you get to edit other people's material.
And now that you were told no by one Admin, a yes by another doesn't give you carte blanche.
In response to DrBright: First off, I didn't "go" to another admin, as if I had leapt off away from Photo after the dialogue and clung to Waxx's leg like a child. I'm getting really insulted by being compared to one in these metaphors, although admittedly you weren't the one to bring it up. I already was talking with Waxx at the time and then brought up the edits.
Second off, I closed the conversation with Photo, and she wasn't talking at all in chat, so I assumed she was busy/away. As described in the senior staff article: "She's hard to catch in chat". And as I'll have to repeat myself again for whatever reason, I was being lazy at one in the morning. Why crucify me for that?
You're right: There's nothing to be gained. But you did lose something in all of this; someone that was legitimately trying to help you guys out by doing something that other people were literally asking for, yet no one was supplying. Instead, you guys threw me under the bus and treated me like a retarded child who was having mommy and daddy issues. I'm a human being, just like you all hopefully, and my join date should have nothing to do with it. If you really want to promote creativity and improvement, don't stifle all forms of change.
But you guys win, I won't be doing any edits since I'm clearly unable to be trusted with anything. I also won't be investing any of my time elsewhere on this site as it appears I was wrong about this place. If an error-laden article with a score of +32 is really above my worth, then nothing I can add will be of any value to you all.
Why do you act like that has any effect on me? Like I said, I'm done with the site. Great reading by the way. It's like you guys just gloss over what I say.
Y'know, I was just writing a PM trying to convince you not to leave permanently, and to just sit back a bit and learn why we do things the way we do. Well, that's wasted work. In case you're still reading this, however, here's where you fucked up.
We do have these procedures here for a reason. We've been doing this for a while, and there are reasons we don't let just anyone edit any article. We also have checks for getting rid of bad articles (or even fixing them). A single downvote won't, but talking in the discussion thread and convincing other people will. Or you can track down the original author (Gears or NekoChris, the former of whom can be reached quite easily) and convince them to let you make the edits.
The problem is, you didn't stop learn how we do things here. When we said you did something wrong, you got pissy about it. You immediately decided the way we did things was stupid without ever learning our actual procedure, let alone why that procedure's in place.
I mean, I'll admit we fucked up here a bit too. We didn't communicate with each other as well as we could have, and there was some confusion as to who the proper author was. But that could have been dealt with easily if you'd dealt with us in good faith. But you didn't. And now you're out of here. Because you couldn't imagine that we might have reasons for doing things the way we do.
Please accept my apology, sir. At the time, I did not realize it was a closed discussion. I do not mean to break any rules. Please accept my humble apology, and know that I won't do anything like that again.
hahaha it's cool, you don't need to self-flagellate, just pay more attention next time XD
Copying this because I'm gonna delete the thread it's in.
Everyone: Don't feed the trolls.
Just let this guy fart around til the admins wake up and he's inevitably banned again.
Feel free to take this to PMs, but don't reply any longer to this thread, and please don't start another one on this topic. That goes for anyone else too. No more bashing of our resident ban evader. Do that in IRC or in PMs, not in this thread. Further conversation in this thread should be about the experiment log only. Thanks!
(Also, don't reply to this thread either.)