No need to mistake bluntness for personal attacks on you. Nobody's upset or mad about the proposal, we just don't see a need for it.
What in the absolute shitting hell.
So this starts with an inversion of the standard duck call->dog flushes ducks out->hunter shoots cycle, and ends with dogs being dragged into the Hawaiian underworld. I can dig it. I'm particularly impressed that this is a non-human meme.
Don't worry about it. It's happened to the best of us.
Didn't mean to start a war. It was a proposal. I feel like I've been shot in the face here.
We've got a few, check Expert Witnesses.
Is anybody here a doctor? Not necessarily a medical doctor, but has a PhD or a Doctorate?
Oh no that's totally fine! I was thinking of changing this from a series of notes to a narrative actually, so that there's more context and we know whats going on aside from what the kid is writing down.
ha ha… no.
Articles like this encourage people to make more bad skips.
It's interesting, it's fun, I like it. More seasoned hands may have issues with it. I did notice one or two little things, but alas, I have not the time to delve into them at this moment my lord.
If I had known you were going to write a decomm for it, I'd have told you not to when you messaged me instead of the author.
I am clearly a terrible person, because despite this being the paragon example of Stuff the Site Does Not Do Anymore, I have read this several times and can never manage to do without laughing. I'm sorry1.
I've heard good things about Metro 2033 by Dmitry Glukhovsky.
I really don't think the site needs this. Decomms are long history; we don't need to send the message that writing bad articles results in immortalization of the idea by other authors. Furthermore, was the original author even contacted about this at all?
The movie could have been titled Brad Pitt Zombie Movie for all it had to do with the book. I liked it, but I drew only a few connections between the two.
I don't think this is a nice thing to do.
I can't speak for anyone else on the wiki. All I can say is that I find permanent memorials to bad articles to be petty and mean-spirited. I also don't like smirking meta-commentary, nor do I care for this notion that the article in question was somehow anything more than a bad article to be handled like all the other bad articles through the established deletion process.
While I'm speaking personally, let me also say that I respect the original author of SCP-2203 far more than any of the flood of newbies that rushed in as fast as they could to kick him when he was down. At least he attempted to contribute something to the site, bad as it was. And for the inevitable "but he troll u" rejoinder, please let me know how you obtained your long distance mind-reading powers, because I could definitely put them to better use.
As for this article? If you're going to springboard off of a bad article, you should take care not to write a subpar one yourself, because all I see here is a mixture of mockery, narmy "the horror, the horror" ruminations, OTT gore, and the standard Foundation Agent variant of D-Class Swearing Syndrome.
I'm overall unimpressed. I get what you were going for stylistically, but it feels… off. It just doesn't feel like it's working for me, sorry to say. Plus, the story itself just wasn't engaging for me. Maybe focus more on the actual storyline here instead of the style, as I think it's kind of getting in the way and making the tale drag on.
A collective of "art terrorists", the members of Are We Cool Yet?…
Straight from the GOI page. I'm not going to try arguing it, as I suppose terrorists are explicitly trying to cause terror, and AWCY? is trying to provoke a lot of things. They just happen to be complete dicks about it. But the GOI page says it. I know the GOI page sucks, but it says it.
Huh. Well, I see where you were going with this, and it turned out better than I would have expected. I mean, considering the meager material you were working with. Going to upvote.
EDIT: Wait, so this was a jab at the author? It seems more like a compliment.