Too Stupid to be Stupid: SkipIRC Owner Kufat is a Political Pawn

NEWS/OPINIONThe controversial owner of SkipIRC (chat) posts tyrannical rules with the numb cock-sureness of a dictator… but was this his idea?

The answer: none of the above.

I’m going to Tarantino the article here:

It is my opinion, informed by the data and facts herein, that the transfer of power from bluesoul to Kufat of the SkipIRC chat was a premeditated chess move to specifically enact and increase political censorship of the SCP Wiki Staff’s critics. Kufat was recruited out of retirement specifically to command these new and increased censorship tactics in the SkipIRC. He was discussing such things in August, which I believe caught the eye and memory of SCP Staff who needed to plug a leak and band-aid their bleeding political reputation.

It is my strong inference and personal conclusion that Kufat was wooed back into SCP authority (technically SCP IRC Chat Staff and not SCP Wiki Staff, but the two are within spitting distance of one another) specifically for this enforcement, and that Staff as well as Kufat downplayed their planned intentions — saying it was only maintenance, “age policy” changes at the most — while fully aware that they would make sweeping policy changes, and as soon as possible. The objections from astute and concerned SCP Wiki users due to this dishonesty — both at the outset, in anticipation of more dishonesty, and in reaction to it—were belittled and gaslit, not because they were wrong, but because they, like the initial leakers and critics, were directly over the target.

In the October 2021 Recap post, I declined to comment on a portion of it, saying that I would cover it more fully at a later time. That time is now.

We were observing the SCP Staff’s reaction to djkaktus leaking chat logs that took place in October and the preceding months. There was a general hesitation by Staff to call him out for the actual chat leaks (we’ve seen how egregious they truly believe them to be in cases such as the second disciplinary thread of The Cerastes Incident, their reaction to it telling you how important it is). Their accusations instead bent towards the safer, more politically lubricated, and more practiced assertion — one that is scantly thought through in a critical fashion — harassment.

We can cross-reference and juxtapose this hesitancy with a sudden, notable transfer of power with the SCP IRC chat, which was to the dissatisfaction of SCP Wiki users who had been promised more transparency. This was knowingly dishonest by Staff (almost to the point of not announcing it), and was specifically called out by the very critics that were leaking their chats. Next, a topic-specific and highly concerning attitude bloomed on SkipIRC in the fiat declaration of the new and sinecure owner of the chat, Kufat (covered in part by the Recap team in October 2021). These changes were direct responses to the critics and leaks, and included the outlawing of any shared chat logs wherein those involved (all involved) have not consented, and the criminalization of triggering someone, intentionally or not.


In these above statements of remarkable unawareness by Kufat in regards to how much and how easily these new rules can be monstrously abused, the un-elected and previously-dropout Staff member awards himself the power to determine what constitutes “attempts”, and what constitutes “harm”. Not just physical harm, but mental harm as well. Thus the potential territory of purview and judicial application here is enormous. If someone is upset, say by someone screen-capping a damning statement and if the person is so fragile as to go into their closet to shriek into a pillow for half an hour or so, is there any wonder whether or not that could be interpreted as “attempting to cause mental harm” by Kufat’s policy? What about this pronouncement isn’t dependent upon a limitless sensitivity and capacity to be offended by the individual, whether genuine or histrionic? How can this system be saved from being gamed by individuals who just want others to stop criticizing them or calling them out? We have an entire disciplinary structure predicated upon the unverifiable and subjective statements of distress of, at any given time, one individual. This cannot be functional; it cannot be fair.

This system is an abuser’s paradise.

Is it apparent enough without me going more into it that the person who defines the terms will also use them as an impenetrable armor against due criticism or whistle-blowing? (I can hear Kufat calling this post so far “attempts at mental violence against him”, “harassment”.) We see in the sanction of such a law that there are no criteria for what will or won’t be considered “attempts” or “mental harm”. A blank check is thus written by one hand and cashed by the other, free reign for malevolent enforcement of the dominant zealot’s opinion. (And I bet someone at the blunt end of this power abuse won’t get the benefit of being considered mentally hurt!)

More importantly, Kufat boasts the claim that this is being done for the safety of others. In truth, it asphyxiates safety deep into the mud.

Consider the example of an individual who is sexually harassed. Let’s make this individual a minor, to hit home with SCP’s skeletons. If this individual took screencaps of DMs with the abuser, and attempted to share them with someone to get help, that could be considered a violation of the no-consent rule. The abused is further abused by this system that explicitly favors and protects hidden abusers. The definitive proof of such a harassment — chat logs — are blanketed as unacceptable and immoral. This leaves such a victim with the only other recourse in seeking help, which is statements and claims.

However, those too have been criminalized, given that they could potentially stress the abuser. If the abuser can claim — whether quicker or with more pull, or both — that they are being harassed by critical statements about them from this victim, or are triggered, then Kufat’s rules again explicitly favor the silencing of the abused by the abuser’s continued manipulation of them. Under this regime, any abuser is given omnipotence and infallibility, and the abused is perpetually placed at the whip’s tail end of it. And who gets to determine which is which? Kufat.

Kufat has in a few words created a heaven for unmitigated abuse by promoting increased censorship in the SkipIRC. This is after the numerous and highly-damaging episodes of blatant emotional and sexual abuse in such areas and in recent years at SCP; the lessons and morals of which Kufat is either snuffing, or catastrophically ignorant of.

Kufat regards the decision to draft and implement the new “anti”-harassment rules as sound because he hasn’t received any criticism in response to it. He considers the vote of IRC “netopers” to be definitive, which is an appeal to authority, and also a dangerously small sample size of 5. We can start to see how twisted and damaging the issue of denying criticism is, when Kufat is here flattering himself that there wasn’t any directed at him, and over an incredibly debatable change.


In actuality, Kufat experienced disagreement and highly negative feedback regarding some of these new rules own his own Twitter:

In response to this, Kufat wants to make an artificial distinction:

He also agrees with the anti-whistle-blower aspects, but “hadn’t thought of that”:

He also “didn’t expect the level of controversy that announcement generated”:

To check this for us; this user had to be reminded and guided like a blind man to the utter destruction that such a policy guarantees. He was completely oblivious to the more detrimental and toxic permissions such a stance created and protected. A reminder: all this was done in the name to “protect” things.


In response to the invocation of law as a metric to gauge Kufat’s insanity and unreason, Kufat decides that the realm of increased sanity doesn’t strictly need to apply to his playroom:

That’s just for the chat logs rule. Kufat seems to think the harassment changes are unanimously approved of, but we see an entire section of the October 2021 Recaps where Staff are uncomfortable with these changes:

So much for that. (This is why sample sizes are so important.) It is now Kufat’s network to ruin, and no grief from me, as I — along with an increasing number of individuals close to the SCP Wiki community including Staff — wouldn’t be caught dead in Kufat’s utopia. And yet, contrary to the idea that I could get onto his IRC chat and criticize him for his actions and decisions, Kufat says:


Not if you decide to think it’s harassment, Kufat. Not if you claim to be triggered by it.

Kufat is eventually swayed by the logic pointing out his severe lack of insight, and includes the exception in the proposed rules for the SkipIRC, which he maintains on Miraheze:


However, as the astute critic in the Twitter caps says above, there is no rubric by which this can reliably be used for harassment; it will come down to Kufat’s discrimination. Including the exception for harassment cases sounds great, but in practice, nothing has changed.

We’ve covered numerous times on this blog how Kufat downplays his ability to dox individuals at will, with the “trust me” smile usually reserved for politicians and car salesmen:

Kufat has demonstrated clearly why we should not trust his discernment or capabilities to adequately anticipate or handle potentially sensitive data; he just enacted a pro-abuser policy without realizing it.

We’ve talked about how by design no notice whatsoever is given to participants of this chat that their personal data — their IP address and emails — are harvested without consent. At the same time, he makes rules about everyone else having to have consent in order for any messages sent by them to be shared:


We’ve talked about how Kufat will report trolls to their internet providers on numerous occasions in hopes of them receiving further political discrimination, this being insane on two counts; that he did it, and that he thinks, somewhere, that this will do anything.


We see an alarming trend of self-excuse and fiat immunity in Kufat; a startling pattern of any and all hypocrisy packed firmly into a perpetual blind spot. Kufat has zero problem with pledging the harshest policies and punishments for non-consensual observation of what should-be private data, and then is the epitome of that in action.

He has no clue or care that he fails his own moral test. A guy who is constantly getting the un-consented IP addresses and legitimate emails of all users who go onto the SkipIRC chat and who aren’t being told this outright is also telling you that people have to consent for public statements to be repeated. That IP address and email are supposed to be private, and yet he weaponizes it against political enemies when he and he alone feels personally and subjectively that they merit abuse of his post. He will also claim the utmost professionalism with the sensitive details.

Why does the same rules for public pieces of data not apply to the private ones he can see? The philosophical justification seems to be his own authority, proclivities, biases, and sadomasochistic fancies.

Attempting to escape this auto-dox is illegal. (source)

We haven’t yet talked about how Kufat was spooked by the potential age limit of the SCP Wiki being re-lowered below 18. In an impressive ignorance of law, Kufat felt that this somehow made him legally liable for anyone on the chat who was underage. Kufat is in no way — not in some lawmaker’s wildest dreams, not in the most harshest interpretation of existing law — responsible for ensuring age verification of everyone who participates in the IRC chat. He goes to great lengths to explain how this is very bothersome to him, and even went as far as to research liability insurance. He doesn’t know what Section 230 is.

This is a bit of a read-through, but it is necessary to capture the insanity here. These are excerpts from the O5 Command thread Age Unraising Proposal (deep link below quote as “source”):

[2021–09–25 16:16:48] <Kufat> But seriously, I’m only here briefly but wanted to pop in and communicate the SkipIRC age policy and its reasoning, in the interest of transparency and such
[2021–09–25 16:16:57] — Limey nods
[2021–09–25 16:17:13] <CuteGirl> Kufat: this would be a valuable insight from someone smarter than me

[2021–09–25 16:18:51] <Kufat> Allowing minors onto this network puts a big target on my back. Me, personally. That would be true of any internet chat allowing minors, but there are two things that make SCP particularly vulnerable to frivolous suits
[2021–09–25 16:19:33] <OptimisticLucio> Preemptively — if it’s “exposing minors to NSFW content,” that cannot get you sued, atleast in US jurisdiction
[2021–09–25 16:22:22] <DrGolden> If that /could/ get you sued nearly every social media website would have tons of lawsuits
[2021–09–25 16:22:46] <Kufat> One is the horror element. Most of the people here are too young to remember the whole Satanic Panic. I’d encourage you to read up on it, and to remember that it resulted in a number of court cases based on flimsy or totally fake evidence that nevertheless made it to trial. Winning in court is much better than losing in court, but not being sued is much better still.

[2021–09–25 16:23:44] <CuteGirl> But kuf is citing it as a possibility. If he was forced into court, even if the trial was fruitless, hed have defence costs

[2021–09–25 16:24:12] <CuteGirl> Kufat: how would that liability change if we were ever to move chat, for example? And does it carry over to the wiki itself?

[2021–09–25 16:24:25] <stormfallen> Just look at how much money we needed to raise for the Russia case, which theoretically should be an open-and-shut win.

[2021–09–25 16:26:37] <CuteGirl> Seems like we do need to discuss liability more, dora was right lol
[2021–09–25 16:26:51] <Kufat> The other is that we’re so LGBTQ friendly. This is something I agree with wholeheartedly, but it puts us in a bad spot with rich, litigious parents. “SATANIC HORROR SITE MADE MY BABY (teenager) TRANS” would get a lot of play in some parts of the country. And, let’s be honest, plenty of trial level judges would turn a blind eye to a lack of legal merit.

[2021–09–25 16:28:23] <Kufat> OptimisticLucio: all kidding aside, more than one person has realized that they’re trans because of interaction with other gender nonconforming people in the SCP community

[2021–09–25 16:29:31] <Kufat> I had a phone meeting scheduled earlier this week to discuss the purchase of additional liability insurance. I never got the call, but it is something I’m actively looking into. I’d be willing to consider allowing minors on the network if the community was willing to help out with the annual premium for the insurance.

[2021–09–25 16:30:10] <CuteGirl> Kufat: cant wait to watch donations team ponder insurance premiums
[2021–09–25 16:30:13] <Limey> kufat: ballpark for how much that would cost?
[2021–09–25 16:30:28] <Kufat> This is all very preliminary, and I didn’t plan on discussing it until after I had more information.
[2021–09–25 16:31:18] <Limey> are we talking like 10 pounds a year or a thousand pounds a year though?
[2021–09–25 16:31:23] <CuteGirl> Kufat: I appreciate you coming to us with it a bit sooner given its relevance to the current conversation
[2021–09–25 16:31:27] <Limey> ^^
[2021–09–25 16:31:30] <Limey> very mcuh so

[2021–09–25 16:35:50] <Kufat> Could we please keep it on topic for the moment? I only have a limited amount of time and I want to be able to answer any questions

[2021–09–25 16:36:06] <Hex> Kufat: May I ask (and this may have been noted in the upscroll, but I’m busy rn): is this hypothetical liability insurance for the site as a whole, or you as the owner of this network?
[2021–09–25 16:36:54] <Kufat> Hex: haven’t gotten that far yet. If it’s a policy for me as a whole I would expect to pay for perhaps half of it out of my pocket

[2021–09–25 16:37:35] <Kufat> There are other angles as well, including potentially forming an LLC, etc

[2021–09–25 16:39:38] <DrMagnus> They could sue you for “influencing their children against their religious beliefs” and sue for “damages”, sure. It would 99.9% get thrown out, but you need to spend money defending yourself, even in a SLAPP case.

[2021–09–25 16:43:41] <DrGolden> I never would have thought that simply lowering the age limit on poopy peanut fanfic website would bring up legal problems
[2021–09–25 16:44:09] <Limey> It does feel like a strikingly rare contingency to plan for, especially if there’s zero precedent to this ever happening before
[2021–09–25 16:44:13] <Kufat> If you wanted to look into that a bit and get back to me with what you find, it would be most helpful and I’d appreciate it

[2021–09–25 16:46:00] <DrGolden> Would /not/ lowering the age limit save us from these suits?

[2021–09–25 16:46:05] <Limey> no

[2021–09–25 16:46:34] <DrGolden> Then why is this relevant
[2021–09–25 16:46:38] <CuteGirl> DrGolden: it would cause less liability

[2021–09–25 16:47:10] <Kufat> DrGolden: no, but reducing the number of minors would reduce the odds of such a suit occurring and make me more likely to win a motion to dismiss

[2021–09–25 16:48:55] <Kufat> It may be that my concerns are exaggerated. As I said, I’m still looking into things and wasn’t near the point of making an announcement yet

[2021–09–25 16:56:41] <Athenodora> I’m wondering there’d be lessened probability of us being sued in those cases where a minor lied to us & gained site membership that way
[2021–09–25 16:57:13] <Athenodora> insofar as the minor’s internet safety should be the responsibility of their legal guardians

[2021–09–25 16:58:05] <Kufat> Athenodora: it might help dissuade lawyers from taking the case and might help get it dismissed more quickly. It wouldn’t stop the hypothetical individual from wanting to sue

[2021–09–25 17:06:33] <Kufat> But yeah. To be perfectly clear and unambiguous, this is a network that I own in my personal capacity. I make it available to the SCP Foundation and other interested users, including the general public subject to some limits, who operate individual channels here.


We don’t have to exert ourselves much to see why Kufat never got that call back from the insurance consultant. To speak on CuteGirl for a second, it’s nice to have someone smarter than you talk, but what if that person is completely off his rocker or intellectually unfit for the leadership role? What if everyone around him takes his every fleck of paranoia showering off his obsessively scratched scalp as the sky falling?

The insanity lies in the taking of this potential age lowering as an indication that Kufat personally is going to be sued. Ignoring the paranoia on display (which I guess according to Kufat’s judicial circus, the person proposing the change on O5 could be disciplined over for triggering some post-Duksin PTSD), the crux of the concern essentially boils down to “anyone can sue anyone over anything, technically” and so nothing has really changed from anything prior to this discussion. This is like somebody who thinks that you have to go the exact speed limit listed on the sign, not a mph more or less, or you will get an irrational but expensive ticket. Imagine that person then attempting to solicit ticket insurance from others, asking them to pay for “at least half” of it… a fool will swiftly part with his money. That’s not the kind of person I’d want driving.

We see from a Tweet much later, two months actually, that he is no longer freaking out about this:


But this wasn't because of any reclaimed sanity on Kufat’s part. Strictly speaking, it is because the age lowering proposal failed; not because Kufat did any more research into how unhinged his worries were, but by happenstance as far as he is concerned. After all that, the situation and anxiety is moot. Kufat is pleased:


Lastly, and most insane of all, Kufat seems to have a selective memory over things he has said, and that are documented for him on his own Twitter. As referenced, and rightfully so, several individuals on the SCP Wiki were outraged at the transfer of power to Kufat & Co:

We can see that LilyFlower, who was part of the staff change, gives this impression while staying rather ambiguous about upcoming changes:

There is a disconnect between the first highlighted sentence and the last. (source)

Contrary to the lock-step political messaging, it seems as though in retrospect that Kufat was brought on explicitly to deal with the issues surrounding the djkaktus leaks. Is it no coincidence that one of the leaks itself has to do with the behind-the-scenes discussion of this very transfer of power? The Staff present are highly cognizant of how politically suicidal it is to do something so carelessly and callously, and who can’t believe the userbase will be expected to just swallow this:

ChaoSara (red lines), a member of SCP Chat staff and reserve SCP Wiki moderator (sources: 1, 2), shows that this was preconceived. DrBleep (red line), current SCP Wiki Administrator and SCP Chat staff liaison (sources: 1, 2), doesn’t know Kufat’s history. Captain Kirby thinks this is ineligible to be a “huge deal” because “it has already happened”.

This looks decreasingly like a poorly-communicated and sudden fiat power exchange, and more increasingly like a long-play; an intended goal for SCP Wiki Staff when it comes to dealing with their political enemies. This change and planning occurs at the time that djkaktus’ leaks were in full-swing (with the SCP Staff Chat Leaks Twitter going live on Oct 4). Kufat expresses solutions on his Twitter in August for just the occasion, making the potential that Staff approached him solely with these changes in focus unavoidable.

Kufat allays concerns that he will not become a dictator with the new power, not changing the rules and day-to-day functions of the SkipIRC based on what he feels should happen. It should be noted that the inclusion of the pronoun bot is, intentionally or not, a dangled set of jingling keys that will gloss over the eyes of many children who might otherwise be wary of the invasive and highly dishonest procedure occurring under their noses. Without correction from more level-headed individuals who are capable of average vision, Kufat reserves more punishment for abuse of bot pronouns than abuse of a person:


When the time comes to face the watchful eyes that have been anticipating his dictator motions, he denies ever having said he wouldn’t enact them:

We may remember sirslash was the one who immediately protested the snuck-in-through-the-back change of IRC ownership from blusoul to Kufat. It indeed was then promised that no changes would be made to the average user. That promise lasted about a week and a half.

Here is the same conversation weeks earlier in September:

We can see someone who is paying attention, Waxwing-One, refer to a staff member, CheoSara, who is present in the above image from the SCP Staff Chat Leaks Twitter post, and identify that it is deceptive to fit these policy changes into the phrases “I have some plans for anti-trolling enhancements as well” and “The handover will allow for the better determent of trolls and abusive users on the network”. (Tyranny will always advance trying to convince you it is for your own good.)

Despite the denial and delayed-recognition of his own hypocrisy, Kufat may have conceded the point after all, because the current SkipIRC rules do not mention any disciplinary behavior or impossible omni-consent for chat leaks. They are instead on the proposed rules page, quite fleshed out I might add. SCP Staff is not happy about this, surely; it was one of the initial reasons, I think, that they brought him on.

At least he is consistent in this…

Kufat is the sort who will listen to CNN when they tell them that reading leaked emails is illegal, and CNN and only CNN has the authority to distribute information about leaked emails to them. So proud, so strong.

except that he reports people to their ISPs with the stolen IP address he rips from them without consent:

The “very professional with sensitive information” Kufat.
I guess we can trust you just because you ask us to.

In a stroke of maleficent elegance, the failure to criminalize chat leaks wholesale and nominally is OK because leaking chats against someone’s will can easily be construed as “attempting to cause mental harm”, which is in the rules.

In November and again in December, Kufat reflects fondly on his brief time as SkipIRC dictator. He makes effort to steer the political deception back towards the initially-given impression that not much will change, and claims that not much has. He “didn’t have to change the age requirement… like I thought I might”, which was the only thing he stated with specificity in regards to impending changes.

He collapses the sweeping change of the “attempted harm” policy into the disingenuous statement “Trolls are being dealt with much more promptly and efficiently.” He claims that the “day-to-day operations of #site19 have been completely unchanged”, though rules for the greater SkipIRC, which #site19 is a part of, have changed. “Staff members who aren’t also chanops haven’t attempted to exercise authority there,” indicating that the only reason they haven’t is self-restraint, or the desire to attempt this; not a very promising stop-gap if I understand this statement correctly, which admittedly, is a little tough to parse.

Kufat repeatedly aims to remind people that little has changed in the few short months of his tenure. He seems very intent on doing this; whether trying to fool himself or responding to detected ire, maybe both. The change that was promised wouldn’t happen is justified by an appeal to authority, and by virtue of being in an echo chamber (“uniformly positive feedback… among netopers”).

To review, in Kufat we have an individual who:

1. quits Staff when the idea of his words in Staffchat might be made public, and then re-joins as SkipIRC owner in order to stop such invasions of privacy on behalf of a politically embattled and privately troubled SCP Wiki Staff (again, Kufat being able to see private data of SkipIRC individuals in doing so)

2. believes unanimous agreement with like-minded people (“a 5–0 vote among active netopers and higher”) justifies dangerous ideas that apply to hundreds, maybe thousands of people.

3. states (in political lock-step with SCP Staff) that he will not implement any major changes, implements major changes, and claims he never said he wouldn’t.

4. contacts a lawyer and considers asking the community to purchase personal liability insurance prior for him, despite not understanding the fundamentals of the situation… something he “wasn’t near the point of making an announcement yet” but does, fear porn style.

5. believes it is his responsibility to police the ages and statements of individuals on a Section 230 internet communications platform, and that someone will sue him for turning their kid LGBTQ+.

6. believes that the SCP Wiki is still a horror site. (!!)

7. had to be hit in the face with the dystopian elements of his policies prior to seeing them himself.

8. if not challenged by the sort of critique and transparency he is actively blocking, would have created a sanctuary that privileges and protects abusers, sexual groomers, etc; a place where secrecy is championed and justice is impossible.

Let me again suggest a way to do what Kufat can’t seem to guarantee healthfully; don’t say anything on the internet that you wouldn’t want repeated. Assume it is already public. Artificially designating a chat room as “public” or “private” will not solve this. Certainly not legally. Simply take personal responsibility. It’s simple.

Abuse is more complex. You unfortunately cannot prevent abuse. Attempting to take care of it proactively in such a virtue-signaling fashion is only going to make matters worse, as demonstrated here, or as seen at SCP Wiki. The correct response should be judicious discernment regarding such cases; a discernment that is absent in someone who without great aid can’t identify the spiraling authoritarianism of their own attempt to be a Marvel superhero. I personally have zero faith in Kufat’s discernment, particularly with sensitive information, particularly regarding harassment cases (which he would by definition be the de facto head and eyes of here), and I believe I’ve justified that reasonably.

When I say that things like “the SCP Wiki has architectural flaws that lead to failure”, things like this set of policy proposals are what I mean; a system ignorant by design and equally dismissive of how it incentivizes others and their actions, sometimes the worst of those others and actions.

Something tells me — maybe it’s his history of fleeing when scrutiny is applied in equal and opposite reaction (to him for a change) — that Kufat’s grip on SkipIRC is not long for this world. Some of the changes he is making there are concerning even mainline users, even SCP Staff members. The extra-legal, para-rational weaponization seen from him and highlighted in this essay is something straight out of China, a place Kufat doesn’t seem to mind making his controlled spaces more like.

These policies and others like it, whether from Chat Staff or the Wiki Staff, like to claim it is for the protection of others, and with a very very thin, almost transparent facade of being nice or sensitive. The truth is that they are nearly all informed by a desire to avoid scandal. It doesn’t even have to be malevolent, it’s just a matter of architecture, as here; because these people are dependent upon the social phenomenon of SCP and its proximal spaces for their social capital. The cheese in the trap is free for a reason.

There are, in the minds of Kufat and at the heart of the SCP Wiki Staff generally, such evils, such great forces of scandal that any publicity multiplies their dangers and infections. A strict quarantine is merited for these insults and offenses, but even more so the heretics who speak them; their public assassination more moral levity venting the wings of these self-adorned rulers. The potential for insult must be confined, like an anomaly. The SCP Wiki Staff — Kufat included, don’t be fooled — are doing “good” work, because those evils would otherwise be multiplied infinitely. Oddly, when you have throttling control over information in a space, only oblivion can suppress them.

The crux is clear; we are asked to believe that Staff have a problem with djkaktus’ commentary on the leaks, and not the leaks themselves. Elsewhere, they have sent complaint-brigades and cancel culture to others who have leaked chat logs, such as myself (many others), on this very platform, and others. (See this blog post for a more thorough account.)

Meanwhile, the move of SkipIRC ownership from bluesoul to Kufat was done at the height of Staff chat leaks, with retrospectively crystal-clear intention to tighten their informational control in their own spaces and elsewhere. The episode is an exercise in ring-fencing and gatekeeping, part of a new tier of information control from SCP. Why and how would someone who just quit Staff due to strong moral principles against what was going on suddenly rejoin with zero explanation?

So back to the opening meme; which is it? Neither. It’s not a dichotomy of stupid or insane after all, this representing a misshapen sort of relief for me in trying to answer that. The inability for Kufat and SCP Wiki Staff to understand that they have been dishonest and contradicted themselves betrays the fore-knowledge of a lie. The entire chess move was to position the rules and set a chilling effect on gossip; gossip regarding the SCP Staff specifically.

It’s just someone who’s been hired for the job…


… and a perfect fit for the part.




Separation of confic and state. The SCP Foundation Wiki’s most dedicated and hated critic. Co-founder @ Confic Magazine LLC.

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.

Recommended from Medium

This is something great that is about to happen in DeFi protocol has it has always been happened…

Libera Fair Launch Contest Giveaway $2000 USD in $LIBERA

Expanding Your Cyber Network on LinkedIn Improves Your Job Search

Lack of rate limit leading to account take over

Look into VPN protocols: WireGuard, OpenVPN and IPSec

What is Certificate Transparency?

Crypto Webinars | SINEGY Bytes

ProofID — W3C DID Spec

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Lack of Lepers

Lack of Lepers

Separation of confic and state. The SCP Foundation Wiki’s most dedicated and hated critic. Co-founder @ Confic Magazine LLC.

More from Medium

“ CALL ME LIFE -a portray of an entire life.”

My Reflections

Crisis: a definition

The Real Causes Of Type 2 Diabetes You Need To Know