NEWS/OPINION — SCP Staff Curate 6K Contest Votes, Further Role as Vote-Police
Staff’s habitual over-reach has quietly invaded the territory of user voting rights in a way never before seen; your upvote only counts if staff says it does.
SCP has a way of taking bait that they shouldn’t. They feel, compulsively, as though the world needs their reply. This often makes matters worse for them and compounds their woes. — pixelatedHarmony, the author and SCP Admin formerly known as Roget
The 6k contest is over. Rounderhouse won and I think the site got it right (but just barely). Site adrenaline is as high as the dopamine making its way through the winners’ freshly-edited author pages. A whole new series of beautiful, pure, unadulterated and open slots have again presented themselves like naive, nubile SCP members to AdminBright, who remains unbanned and active, both on the site and in the community.
The real story of the 6K contest is not the sus votes (defined as an upvote or downvote breaking years of relative or absolute inactivity on the Wiki; up to three years of inactivity to vote once for a 6k entry in some cases), the number of articles heavily featuring trees (14), the number of shout-outs in green text to (read: “hands on the coattails of”) SCP-4000, the number of custom CSS themes (27), that this contest’s winner broke the trend of an increasing number of upvotes than previous winning ones, that the number of entries were just too damn high, or that the contest was a de facto popularity contest.
It’s that the 6K marks the moment in site history where staff first took it upon themselves to curate users’ votes in a major contest to abide arbitrary criteria they set. It’s first major stage where the staff’s ever-expanding need for creating regulatory power for themselves caught up with the last bastion of user rights and guarantees. The justification rests on the hurt feelings of a cadre of influential authors (whose skin I would assume would be thicker than what is apparent).
It won’t be the last — neither the last big stage, nor the last right infringed upon.
Staff have long infused their judgement of perceived intent into their adjudications. The site rules mention brigading, and while tactfully no definitive criteria exist to determine what that is or why, the tacit suggestion in lieu of a solid guideline is to “not try to push a group of people to vote the same as you.” While not explicit in the site rules, the primary form of staff’s intent-deciphering can be seen in their determinations of “malicious downvoting”. The staff has a long history of disciplining users who they believe have voted for a reason outside of an article’s content and quality (although in un-manipulated circumstances, such votes might be conceived of as a natural counterweight to upvotes that are surely not based on an article’s content and quality). The criteria for deciding this is more or less up to the staff who investigate and their view of the person being investigated. They have been correct before, and have also have gotten it wrong. Very wrong.
Staff’s reading into the intent of a member goes beyond voting. Take ARD’s “bad taste” of using a mirrored-swastika as an example; a joke they wouldn’t give most users the benefit of the doubt over. We’ve been over that enough. Or, contrast staff’s reactions to, say, someone like myself harshly criticizing a non-specific swath of the site, and the justification they give to the same as a non-issue when one of their own does it, and under less honest and less-direct circumstances.
So it’s refreshing in a way, a needed breath of clarity from staff, to see ostensible criteria for determining what constitutes unacceptable downvoting. It’s a twisted sort of refreshing. Like a really sour beer.
The drama here surrounded one entry, “Inevitable”, a continuation of the Superteam, trust-style collective of contest entries introduced in the 5k contest, this one involving some of the same authors. Whether or not these represent muscular and lean stories of exceptional literary synergy, or an impossibly convoluted, poorly coagulated monstrosity… too many cooks in the kitchen… is for the reader to decide. It’s their right, just as it is the authors’ right to team-up, and users technically don’t have to explain themselves to anyone if they don’t want to. (As of now…)
A glance through the comments section shows the authors very proud of their product, which is somewhere between 40,000 words and December in length; just a ridiculous thing to ask of anyone who likes the site for the amateur, relative flash fiction it is known for, if you ask me. (Maybe the pot calling the kettle here.) Personally, this reminds me of a D&D session that sort of sputters across the finish line in terms of plot when all is said and done. The authors have a lot to say, patting themselves on the back. There certainly is something to be said of the enterprise-scale of the thing, and the coordination it must have taken to get it ready. It is a cornucopia of artistry and talent. The question is whether or not it is woven together well — an ornate rug of complex but complementary patterns, or a patchwork quilt where every square is a different color — but that’s neither here nor there.
One user comments that they are looking forward to avatar character creation in the 8K entry, and a small piece of my soul that I know lives in the old guards to the site snaps like worn nylon strings, making a pathetic and whimpering attempt at a music… I know they and the authors who egg on this idea are only half-joking. They swear that this is not a hub for a bunch of author works disguised as a 6K entry meant to pool upvotes and so the likelihood of winning… but I know they know that’s only a half-truth... just enough of a truth to ride.
An odd thing happens when you have a hive of authors in the same contest entry; when someone says something good about the article, a representative author will thank them and revel in the praise, sickeningly at times, the self-satisfaction fitting of a spoiled child. When something critical is said, a lot more of the authors come out to defend the piece and argue the point down. Such dog-piling might raise questions of a mob sort of opposition that might discourage genuine critical analysis of the piece — something the site is supposedly known for, and that cut its teeth reputationally on — but that doesn’t seem to be a concern to staff. This is a free market of quality valuation after all. Right?
That the new arbitrary rules for voting invalidation happened on one of the most complex and lengthy articles in site history is no coincidence. The authors put so much time into this, that the simple reasoning of “doesn’t fit the 6000 slot” was just too insensitive to tolerate. It is guaranteed in my bet that authors of this article ran to staff to deal with this. This was likely given some momentum for precedent after the last K contest, where a similar dramatic episode occurred regarding this downvote rationale.
What we see is a new all-time-high of author sensitivity and inability to accept the sovereignty of their audience as arbiters of their reception. In a site with a recent history of over-catering to individuals whose feelings might be hurt, and who have via staff sanctioned the protection of certain politically-charged positions over others, it should not come as a surprise that it has nearly inverted the initial intent of being harsh for the sake of the quality and brand.
This is how and why you get responses to valid criticism like this:
“I am so ideologically opposed to everything you’ve written that I can’t help but take it as a personal attack.” — HarryBlank, co-author
What happened to the “Harsh? Yes? Rule breaking? No.” justification given when a staff member called the entire userbase bitches in a leaked, otherwise private staff chat log? Well, we see now the new rules that have capitulated to the demand to protect meaningful authors’ fee-fees.
From the 6K contest page:
“Voting should be based on the merits of the article alone, not whether or not you believe it deserves to win the contest. Theme-related disqualification is determined by the contest marshals. Voting on a piece based on your desire to see it win or lose the contest is grounds for disqualification.” — Official 6k Rules
Who decided this? The first sentence seems like a philosophical stance that has a lot of variety and potential disagreement in the community. Yet, there was no consultation of the userbase for this — something we see that staff only utilize right away in other circumstances, namely when it helps cushion them from the brunt of their own responsibilities. The opinion is now made law by fiat.
Interesting to note that this was not included in the original rules for the contest. It is an addendum that staff added after the participants of the contest complained enough.
The onslaught of retorts from the incumbent authors’ point of view from the criticism was so intense that staff placed a stop order on the “discussion”. But none of the authors were warned or criticized for being “a dick”, only the initial commenter, by those authors. Despite this and staff’s penchant for hypocritically having a low threshold for Rule Zero violations when it comes to a user, this commenter was not warned or disciplined for this comment. How “dickish” could it possibly be? The ultimate effect was that the commenter’s vote was negated by staff’s newfound power, and discarded from the final tally:
“Results Decided: July 1st, 2021, 12:01 AM Eastern [struck-through]
Results for the 6k contest will be delayed to ensure that the contest team is able to accurately reflect the voting outcome of all entries. This includes, but is not limited to, adjusting for last minute vote changes and malicious voting. Although we do not yet have an official estimate for how long this delay will be, we can confidently guarantee that results will be released no later than a day after voting has ended.” — 6K Staff
… along with others who took the time to rationalize their negative rating, as a favor to the authors. (Correction: I stand corrected, in that upvotes were reportedly removed as well, for users who verbalized their approval of an article because they felt it would be a good fit for the SCP-6000 slot.)
Thus the authors, in their expectation of glowing praise and their hyper-sensitivity to criticism, inspire a spineless staff to blur the lines of Rule Zero and successfully construe valid criticism via policy as a de facto personal attack. One wonders whether or not the offense taken to the comment, and those like it, was due to it being too correct for the authors to tolerate. This is the new-age inability of the author to accept the risk and responsibility of putting themselves out there. This is what authors do. This is what audiences do. The inevitable mechanics of creativity and sharing it with a group of people has itself started to break down at SCP, because of the culture of limelight-intoxication + staff’s habitual over-reach in misbelieving that they are helping their brand.
This is the epitome of author frailty and weakness. Now staff approved.
It should be added that the curation votes, as far as we know, didn’t affect the outcomes of the 6K contest. It certainly didn’t matter in this article’s case. But that’s sorta the whole point, isn’t it?
It should also be added that staff give themselves the right to remove a contest entry if they think it doesn’t fit the theme of the contest.
“All Contest Marshals have the ability to disqualify entries for violations of the above-listed rules, egregiously poor sportsmanship not otherwise enumerated, or failure to fit the theme. All decisions are appealable to ProcyonLotor and/or taylor_itkin.” — 6K Contest page
Staff prohibits users from voting based upon whether or not an entry fits as the winner of the contest, but staff are able to disqualify an entry from the contest entirely if they believe it doesn’t fit the theme. (The last sentence about an appeals process might as well be removed.) Wouldn’t/shouldn’t that be something the voters would take care of themselves? A strange delegation.
The bottom line is that if you as an author put something out there, implicit in that is the expectation that anyone can dislike it for any reason. You are not guaranteed any protections from your public; there is no part of your decision to express yourself that is insured. This is a risky business and one that splays the heart and soul of an author bare for strangers to flay. This has always been the case, immemorial.
Except at SCP. At SCP, authors and staff are so hyper-fixated on creating a “safe space” for their egos that they will berate their audience for their incorrect reaction, as opposed to rightfully laying the responsibility on the author, or the nature of the art itself. Reality is padded. This sort of behavior only makes sense if we assume that the site has transformed completely from a place that values quality writing, to a place where the product of e-fame and reception is paramount. It is not about the “quiet whisper” into a new reality of fiction, seen in reputationally-circumspect and moving founders like FritzWillie, aka the Administrator, but is about shouting the loudest to get the most attention on a stage now elevated meters with excrement.
Staff and authors are cheapening their own credentials and legacies. You got a nice reception at SCP? That’s cute. How many people are afraid to say what they think so don’t? How many people’s opinions are they going to decide are illegitimate because others’ don’t rise to their own? This is the highest-stake, most competitive contest the site has to offer for crying out loud. If not now, when are they going to leave the bubble?
This might beg a few questions:
- How do cases of malicious downvoting come to staff’s attention? (The authors complain because their feelings are hurt. The authors and staff scour the user’s SCPPer profile in a zealous irritation, praying and preying with desperation to find evidences of ill-intent, so that a petty retribution can be theirs.)
- Why are user votes disqualified on political grounds when articles are allowed to feature political content? (Shouldn’t you get one with the other? Does the author’s risk of putting themselves out there magically stop at their political beliefs or how strongly they believe their article is really good? Why there?)
- Who gets to decide what is malicious and why? (It looks like the staff and cohorts of popular authors. The ongoing debate as to the appropriateness of the new rule from staff continues in the 6K Contest hub’s page comments, indicating very clearly that staff made this call on behalf of the users prematurely.)
- Where is the line between a downvote for an author’s article, and a downvote for an author? (Hint: There isn’t one and there never has been. A person’s work is inseparable from their heart and soul, at least true for a proper author. This false distinction created by SCP in order to protect potential new recruits’ feelings has swollen like a mammary in pregnancy, and now the “elite” of the site are suckling from it to keep themselves full of an acquired taste.)
- What recourse is there for a user whose votes have been misnomered as “malicious”? (Spoiler: There isn’t one. Warnings. Perhaps a ban or two.)
The implications of this are mild as it stands now, but haunting.
In a close race, staff have the power to change the outcome. Would staff, petty as we know them to be, be above applying this rule to prevent someone they dislike from, say, taking the SCP-6000 slot? Would they use the opportunity to give the userbase the outcome they believe will help them and be instrumental in, say, quelling outrage? Who is going to double-check their work? How but blind trust can we be assured they did what they said they did? Why isn’t this an opportunity for transparency? Maybe this vote or that vote ackshually wasn’t omitted, but the point is how do we really know?
The haunting is also seen in the gradual but creeping changes to the culture of SCP, which more and more prioritizes the extension of a sugary projection of sensitivity as a stand-in for morals. Compare the stance of today’s authors and staff to the idea of not voting for a K-contest entry due to it not being fit for the slot, and the reaction of a old-school SCP author:
04:28:05: <thewalkindude368> Clef: I love your piece, but hate it as 4000
04:29:00: <Clef> that’s fine
The political and optics opportunity presented by the 6K being smack dab in the middle of the greatest internal heat that staff has felt from their own users perhaps in site history was a gift presented to staff on a silver platter. Staff still potentially squandered it. All they had to do was sit back and not touch anything, let the users do all the work. But they can’t. That’s the original problem, one that is ongoing and exacerbating with time. It is clear that staff are incapable of anything different; most of all, they’re incapable of taking the lessons and messages from their town halls to heart. Their reaction, promises, concerns, and pleas were, surprise, fake.
No one in SCP will notice this or care.
Staff saw something that is a right of a user, and decided that they didn’t want them to have it, because they know best. “It is not best for the brand for you to vote in this way.” Suddenly, the only truly democratic sovereignty of those who aren’t staff, their participatory power, is challenged and defeated in one motion, all of it — rules, reasons, and result — granted and guaranteed by staff, to staff, based on the frail bleating of childish, expectant authors, whose emotional palate only includes the self-satisfaction delivered by the glowing comments they anticipate from their readers.
This is a sad state of affairs. Also hilarious.
The unfortunate effect of this is that users will be less incentivized to comment and explain their vote. Again, to staff’s total ignorance, you can’t control this or prevent downvoting due to _____ from happening. This is not something you can attempt to amputate. This typifies the slippery futility of over-reaching and hyper-regulation that staff cannot seem to grasp. Emotional children — the authors that can’t accept the ramifications of their craft, and the over-bearing staff that turn them into spoiled brats — they feel better, though.
This is a subtle but significant moment in the history of SCP. The zeitgeist of the culture is eating away the bones of the site, and staff are paying for the meal. The larger realization is that they’ve been doing this — authors and staff alike — for a long and quiet time.
I opened this article with a quote from former Admin Roget, now pH, and so I’ll close with ones from the same that are just as relevant here. This was posted to the SCP Wiki forms back when pH was Roget and still an active Admin. It was titled “A Call to Arms”, and urged the culture to rediscover its reputation for constructive criticism. It in my opinion, has always been a shining beacon of a post, even back when I was highly antagonistic to Roget. I included a reference to it in my so-called “manifesto” (others’ words, never mine; it was a rant & ragequit), just to make the point clear, and so I still believe it deserves to be quoted nearly in full:
“Recently I left a highly critical post on a new SCP. The author was appreciative, but also shocked that they had received more than half a dozen positive reviews from other critters. It got me thinking about a trend I’ve been noticing, fewer critical reviews and less discussion in general on articles.
The SCP Wiki’s reputedly harsh criticism is slipping away. We’ve lost that critical edge. I’m not saying it’s become a circlejerk, but it’s more than a little soft.
When I first joined the Wiki, a lot of harsh criticism was also dripping with personal attacks on the author. We made an effort to stop this; personal attacks aren’t acceptable. We attack the work, not the author. So personal venom is no longer the case, but in taking out the venom we’ve lost our critical bite.
There are those of you out there who upvote the content of your friends without really providing critical thoughts, or felt intimidated knowing an author had a big-time reputation and didn’t want to go too far in critique. This is understandable but it doesn’t help the Wiki grow.
The time for such timidity is over. I have a call to all members of the SCP Foundation: You have but one life to live, and one vote to give. Don’t just give away upvotes. Make sure every single one is earned. Be especially harsh on your friends and established authors. If you have their best interest at heart, you want to make them the best author possible, nitpick the hell out of their page.
Downvote a poorly constructed tale. Wreak havoc on an underdeveloped SCP. Develop your own criteria for what you find acceptable and stick to it.
Critique does not mean ‘find problems for the sake of problems’. People post to the Wiki with an understanding that their stuff will be analyzed, broken down, and appreciated by people who want this site to be the best it can be. Letting less than amazing stuff slide because you wanted to spare the feelings of the author hurts the Wiki.
Dear reader, you can probably think of a few critics you expect to see downvote your works and thrill to see the rare upvote. You can count yourself among their ranks very easily if you hold everything you read to high and consistent standards. This isn’t snobbery, it’s high standards.
[…]
If you want the wiki to be the best it can be, you must lose all restraint and hesitation when considering whether you vote up or down. The author I mentioned in the opening here was shocked by the harshness, but also grateful. If you can bring back the bite without becoming toxic, I urge you to do so. The fate of the community depends on it.”
This was in 2019. This appeal was not taken to heart, it fell on deaf ears. The site has moved in this worrisome direction, faster. Now, the vilification of criticism is complete, staff-sanctioned, all because of the leaderless prioritization of bad fee-fees in the ruffled minds of weak authors who just want to throw confetti at idolized images of themselves, and only post works to the site with that expectation met.
This extends for this post. It will be complained about. The authors will wonder if they should stand for it. They miss that being publicly and harshly criticized comes with the territory of their success. But they don’t want the heat. They don’t want to sweat. They want to become morbidly obese on upvotes.
I guess you could say all this was… Inevitable.
(Each of the co-authors of the article “Inevitable” who responded abrasively to a valid criticism of their article, seen here, has been PM’d with a blurb and a link to this article. It was also sent to staffer Naepic, who is listed as one of the “Contest Marshals” who curated the votes for the 6K. Taylor_itkin is spared from a PM, because I believe he is in well over his head, and doesn’t seem to be on sturdy mental footing. ProcyonLotor is not sent a PM because I have a post specific to him that I’ll try sending at a later date. Any reply from any of these will be added in full.)
(Replies:)
© Lack of Lepers, 2021
