The Bright List Has Been Deleted
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 авг 2024
- And then it got reposted. It's complicated let's talk about it.
Video explaining the situation surrounding the author: • We need to talk about ...
Link to the discussion on the Bright list: scp-wiki.wikid...
Buy my stuff here: scpstore.org/c...
Support me via Patreon here: / dcimmerian
Check out the community discord here: / discord
Check me out on the tweeters: / dcimmerian
This work is licensed creative commons 4.0 attribution/share alike.
All SCP wiki works are licensed creative commons 3.0 attribution/share alike.
The image of Doctor Cimmerian was created by Perelka_L.
Channel art was created by TheVolgun
"Dr Bright is no longer allowed to groom minors at site 19."
Probably shouldn’t have laughed as loud as I did reading that
Wait so it was allowed to begin with? 💀💀💀
(I forgor to explain that this was supposed to be a joke.)
@@see4881 The general theme of the "List of things X Character is No Longer Allowed to do" is that they were _never_ actually allowed to do them, but there wasn't a rule in place because it should be basic common sense.
Lets add that to the list...
@@see4881 I mean those rules could have been set prior to dr bright even wanting to do those things
Oh god, now Dr Bright is allowed to do whatever he wants!
We should just do 'dr.[redacted by 05-council]'
Makes it a hell of a lot funnier-
Except for "Existing in any canon"
we are experiencing a multiversal scenario involving in the erasure of dr bright
@@technicalsupport95 Dr Shaw has undergone a pan-universal narrative restructuring event of unknown consequence and magnitude.
So he can turn shoes into pasta and use it for cannon rounds at 682?
The wiki must have almost as much bureaucracy as its namesake.
Reality imitating fiction
Meta
Gotta love Bureaucracy. When good work needs to be done good work is halted, but when one guy knows enough people they slip right through.
I hope the in universe scp isn’t as corrupt or cringe those folk running that place now are “interesting”
The wiki's moderation has been killing the fandom for years. There's been like 3 or 4 different exoduses since 2016 because of how horribly it's been moderated. Apart from a few of the O5 and some scant few big names that turned the site/fandom into their lives/livelihoods there's basically nobody left from the early days.
i'm with kaktus on this one. Bright is an immensely popular character, so removing him completely would result in massive backlash from both the onsite and offsite communities. renaming him to Dr. Elias Shaw lets us keep this beloved character without him being associated with that guy. so yeah, i'll drink to Dr. Shaw and his long career at the Foundation.
Calling it special needs doesn't change the fact someone's still retarded.
I won't
Yeah... This is a pretty good outcome
@@SRWOtaku why not? genuinely interested if you have a different idea or if you have a different take
@@masquerading18 because... even if you replace the name of a fictional character because of what another person with the same name did, you are still going to remember them by their original name. And it takes away their identity.
Maybe having 99% of popular characters be self inserts wasn't the best idea.
🤯🤯🤯🤯
You don't say... it's nearly as if that whole thing as started as a project by fans of one legendary creepy pasta and was never 'planned' :D
Not a self insert, it's an author avatar.
"What's the difference?" The latter is published.
This implies SCPs are also self inserts. I'm tagging myself as the sloth that hates colour blind people.
*believing that it was the right idea to NOT put my persona on the SCP wiki*
I can accept Dr. Shaw, so long as the Foundation still has it’s Wacky/Depressed immortal scientist I’m satisfied.
Same plus the name change might make people more comfortable with writing for them since it seems like people have been hesitant to use the character since the controversy/ban at least on the Wiki that is.
💀
Personally, I think they should've gone with a name like glow or shine so some of the puns still kinda worked
@@thisisspeledwrong193 Wright Bulb?
Revisionism isn't good because it will eventually lead to editing by busybodies, religious morality police, politically "correct" ideologues, pearl clutchers, assorted Karens, and others who care less about art and more about their brand of inquisition.
As a casual fan I didn’t even know Bright was a self insert for a real person.
Me neither
But you do now thanks to them renaming him, what a great idea.
Same
This is why Im always skeptical of Avatars/Self inserts. Its always important to separate the art from the artist. Otherwise you get scenarios like this where an innocent fictional character who is loved by many has to be taken down, along with the author. It just sucks man. But the reality is that Avatars/Self inserts, are designed to reflect the author in some way. Leading to outcomes like this to be sometimes unavoidable.
yeah. From the start self-inserts have always been the cringiest thing about the wiki, and I've been reading since the lolfoundation days. Solely as a reader, never part of the community beyond voting. Thankfully most of the authors who did it have come around and treat what were once self-inserts as characters in their own right, and some never fell into the self-insert trap beyond sharing their online handle with their favorite creation. But if they do share the name, even if that's the extent of it, it becomes impossible to truly claim the character for the community and separate the character from the author's crimes without renaming that character. Renaming the character is the best choice in a situation with no perfect choices.
@@nerodia many authors still have their author avatars (Jean Karlyle Aktus and Director House are examples), but you’re right tbh
@@AmbroseArietes Yeah, and honestly most of them are fine character-wise and have been for years. The creators matured and added the nuance those wacky characters needed, and other writers contributed their own takes. Clef's my favorite example.
@@nerodia Honestly im not against it ether, Dr. Cimmerian is a very good example of how to make an SCP Avatar character. Plus its just a neat idea to have an Avatar that itself is connected with a fascinating world filled with lore. But one has to be responsible about it.
I also think that there needs to be a proper protocol for any more "Bright Incidents" as ive nicknamed it. Like an author having a public document on how there character should be renamed if they where to commit a Bright Incident.
However this protocol must be the result of a community decision. We can't have any more rogue moderators at this point. It just causes more damage than its worth.
But as someone who isn't part of the SCP community I would also like to hear your 2-cents on this topic.
@@nerodia I love modern clef.
Hopefully kaktus will do well with the new guy Elias Shaw. 0963 incoming!
Damm, the list was one of the funniest articles in the wiki. I remember laughing aloud to it years ago.
Did you read SCP-4444? I feel like it was meant to explain item 34 on that list
I grew up reading the Bright list alongside the other top rated pages when I was a little kid, its honestly surreal to see this entire thing play out like this. I hope this sort of thing is also addressed on The Backrooms Wiki- two major characters of the three the M.E.G. admins, are named after a banned member (that has been accused of SH) and his sister, and so far I haven't seen any real uproar about that sort of thing.
What’s SH?
@@strangelf sexual harassment
@@strangelf sexual harassment
IS THAT PARTYGOER WOMAN
brother what are characters
I mean i get the real person did bad things with the name and should be punished for such. But such classic works like the list should be preserved. The difficulty comes from the fact that Dr. Bright is a very popular character in scp probably the most well known character in scp. And his name is used quite frequently in both stories, tales, and more. He's a very classic and beloved character that every scp fan is familiar with so just writing him out or erasing him is no simple thing and will be quite controversial.
and that's why there'll probably not be a general mandate to do so
still, if some authors decide to do it to their own articles, that's their choice I'd say
Yes! Thank you!
Separate the ART from the ARTIST!!!
I didn't even know bright was a real guys name
@@wingedfish1175 I don't think it is its just his account name. Idk his real name
@@wingedfish1175 the community still hasn't a clue tbh, because if you EVER asked the dude, he'd give you the uniformal answer of "get a yoga ball and a didlo" and... Well... You can probably guess... :)
I still believe in art =/= author, but I really enjoy the idea of renaming him at the bare minimum. I hope the list stays to prevent any precedents and erasure of history, but it feels like I'm in the minority here..
I personally agree and hope to make this clear in all of my work
@@DrNightingale based
No renaming is needed, some people need to learn to see the difference between an article which is fiction and person who has done dogdy things.
Eh Dr Bright has become a meme erase him and so worse to the real one
Art should be separate from author imo as well but when the character is a self-insert of an awful person, then is there really a separation here?
The list is even more important now, though. Quote: “Dr. Bright must never come into contact with anyone under the age of 18. Just because it is a learning experience, does not mean anyone needs to come into contact with Bright.”
I still think jack bright is a great/funny character and I don’t think the Character bright should be removed. Just the author. They’re not the same. And it be a shame to see such a good character disappear- I’m not protecting the author as for as fair I know it gross. But the character is great.
Sorry if my English is bad.
It does occur to me that it’s rather a dark irony that a character from a horror fiction project is getting renamed because his namesake was “creepy.”
Guess it got a bit too real.
We need a new term for this form of creepy
@@MadDoodles indeed. But it still carries a degree of irony, particularly when the conceit of SCP is that it’s a peek behind the veil into the fantastical reality that exists in the shadows of our fabricated normality.
@@llewelynshingler2173 'icky' maybe
Well - yes. Because one is a fictional multiverse of horror stories - and the other one is a real life criminal.
@@robertnett9793 there are any number of fictional characters named after (or who paid homage to) real famous and infamous people.
In this case it’s more like a real criminal (or at least a morally repugnant individual) came up with a character for a massive group writing project and used that character’s name and reputation to harass and groom people online.
There is something dark and macabre about this entire thing that kinda plays right into the horror setting of the SCP universe.
I can understand writers wanting to sanitise and expunge it for the benefit of the victims, but the dark irony persists when we consider the nature of the SCP foundation.
Trying to replace Dr. Bright's name with a different character is like trying to put a small bandaid on a great white shark bite.
Yeah like I really can't see myself calling him anything else and just thinking about the hundred videos whith his name is really not worth it
It's the McCree to Cassidy solution. When a character is beloved but they Have the name of a butthole, the name is varnished off and replaced.
All the creative writing of other folk stays true but the butthole loses all clout.
Dr Bright is no longer allowed to change his name.
It's almost too amusing how much of a coincidence it is, that in DC there's a character named Doctor Light who basically did an unspeakable act that basically caused the Justice League to mindwipe him and everyone else about it ever happening and practically trying to bury the character forever due to it. And it causing a giant mess over time as well because eventually they couldn't hide what he did from the world and all but left any attempt at his return connected to it forever.
Bold of the SCP community to pretend it was only Dr. Bright behaving this way. When I and a group of friends caught wind of the situation we looked into it and found that while Dr. Bright was the worst of the lot, such activity was a lot more common in SCP communities than people think (I still have screenshots of such conversations between SCP community moderators and minors).
SCP tries to scapegoat everything onto Dr. Bright as he was the highest profile person involved but it was a more widespread problem than most people think and I do not feel that the issue was ever fully addressed.
What about proof?
If you have that, you should probably show and tell the responsible members of staff or moderation.
After all, if you see something, SAY something.
@@victoralexandervinkenes9193 We did, several times. *But at the time Dr. Bright was still the head moderator in charge of reporting abuse.* This was about 6 months prior to the Dr. bright debacle becoming public knowledge. We were accused of trolling, our small community was raided into oblivion, then a while later when more and more groups like ours started making too much noise to ignore SCP pinned everything on Dr. Bright and declared everything solved.
The reality is that SCP as a community is a series of personality cults, and a LOT of unsavory behavior goes on behind the scenes. If you try to report the wrong person to the wrong person, or the person you are reporting is wildly popular, your reports just make you a target. You get accused of trolling and brigading, then get harassed out of the community.
@@nonyabeeznuss304 Then I would suggest reporting that to someone OUTSIDE of the community, someone who can be trusted and will be taken seriously BY the community.
I'd like proof but it wouldn't surprise me given the kind of people the admins are
stuff shouldnt be deleted, it should be archived
But is the Bright list really worth archiving?
@@mailmanwilly I think everything should be archived, even the most fucked up things
@@abe-danger I agree
@@mailmanwilly it’s hilarious so yeah
@@mailmanwillyyes
Why can’t we have nice things and just *not* do terrible things to other people? I’ve been in the community for years and it’s sad to see the author of such a (previously??) beloved character do this kinda stuff.
I’m gonna stay loyal for now but if these people keep this stuff up imma dip.
This is difficult for me, since I hold the preservation of artistic integrity and canon to be near mandates. While I understand that IRL Bright's actions were very hurtful and cast the community in a bad light, I also think it is bad to make drastic changes to the entire project because a small number of people might be upset by this character existing. It is essentially sacrificing everyone's enjoyment because of a few people. That's not something I would generally consider an acceptable trade, and I wouldn't expect it to be done even if it were on my own behalf. Consideration to a victim should never be a blank check.
Another problem is the sheer scale of the content that is already out there. All of the youtube videos, comics, etc. As popular as the character of Dr. Bright was, you can't realistically expect every reference to him to be scrubbed away. That makes it inevitable that one of the victims will stumble across one of those references eventually.
I'm sure a lot of people will disagree with me here, but at least take into consideration what I'm saying. It's easy to react to situations like this emotionally, but those kind of knee-jerk reactions can cause a great deal of harm in the long run. In a way, the staff being slow to react might be a blessing in that regard, as frustrating as I'm sure it is.
I agree with you, tbh. Of course I condemn the author’s actions because… *duh,* but the victim does deserves better than just a character having their name changed.
The scale of Bright is too big for an immediate change. I’ve already separated the character from the author because I’ve done the same with every other character of the SCP Foundation *years* ago.
Just because I like a character of any form of media doesn’t mean I like the author, y’know?
Very much agreed.
Yeah like l can't see myself calling Dr Brigth anything else just because the author did something wrong and I agree it's impossible for all of the contents and videos there eventually one of the victims will probably stumble upon one of them so why bother even changing it??
The community was already in a bad light.
@@AmazinglyMuggyYup, I love Lovecraftian stuff, doesn't mean I like Lovecraft as a person.
Should we remove all fiction based on his works because he was a racist?
> A man is "creepy."
> Better completely erase one of the most well known SCP characters.
Yeah, probably should, son. Character was named after an online predator.
@@Gigas0101 most people didn't even know he was a real person, just keep the character and move past it.
I think people need to learn how to separate the art from the author. Ofc, I don't appreciate his behavior, but tbh Dr Bright is a completly different characher for me. This guys is precious and his lore and stories are amazing, so some people just can't so simply forget about the original Bright. Most of classic writers were awful people, but despite of that their works are wonderful. @@Gigas0101
It was stupid when they did it with McCree, and it's stupid now.
Okay but now what of all the mentions of Jack Bright the character in previous SCPs and entire canons that interlink and span hundreds of articles? Surely they’re not gonna go replace Bright with Shaw in however many scips he was involved in?
I think that's gonna be the bug issue. Ita going to be really hard to retcon his name out of existence.
Now i want an scp randomly namedropping Dr bright or scp 166 ( before the rewrite) and the staff is Like : wtf who ?
They're shortsighted so they didn't think about all the off-site material using the Bright name. They can keep destroying the wiki but the second you leave they're powerless
@@mrbooboostankReal i think you may be being a little dramatic
There's actually a script for that.
I think there should be a tale which tell how Dr. Bright is fired from SCP Foundation and his medal is sealed in Keter Class Containment.
Or have Dr. Bright legally change his name to Elias Shaw after breaking through the fourth wall and discovering what AdminBright did, just to give the creep an even bigger middle finger.
@@lonestarwolfentertainment7184 that would be so fucking cool
There should just be like a scp hell for all the controversial scp characters such as scp 166
How about making that amulet non-canon as well?
@@lonestarwolfentertainment7184 honestly this is 100% in-character for him
Sad that a lot of the most popular articles included that character and have to be deleted and changed
They doesn’t have to be deleted or changed.
@@emil1842 a lot of them have
While I can understand WHY the name change is happening, djkaktus ALSO has allegations against him, so him being the one renaming the character won’t actually FIX the issue.
Would be so funny for the name to change twice
This just kinda feels like the whole McCree situation again. I don't people started calling him Cole and I doubt everyone will change here either. People like what they're used to and that will never change.
There's also the preexisting media on and off-site that will continue using the Bright name. The change is really to polarize people between the old and new name. Makes it easy for the admins to single out who shouldn't get to talk
Man what is it with internet personalities turning out to be groomers all the time?
For the most part I agree with ya'll's actions, BUT I do think you should've gone with a name like glow or shine so the puns still kinda worked.
Also, don't forget about the bright family, it'll be confusing to have this huge extremely important family with a son who seemingly just stopped existing
I think that, while I don't want to see Dr. Bright the character go completely, rebranding him in this way is the best solution, to preserve the fan-favorite character while also distance it from the real nasty guy behind it. To be honest, its a pretty smart solution, and I kinda wish other canon-less communities/fandoms were more open to a solution like that (*ahem ahem* the creepypasta fandom and the Ticci Toby and Laughing Jack controversies *ahem*)
"Huh, been awhile since I've been on the wiki, who is Dr. Shaw? Oh he was Dr. Bright! I've heard of him! He's probably the most famous SCP character! Weird, why would they rename Dr. Bright? Oh, he was based on a real person? What's the deal with renaming him? Oh, so the SCP Wiki had a sex pest on the mod team!?"
Dr. Shaw will never be a true replacement for Dr. Bright until he gets his own list of things he’s not allowed to do at the foundation
Do you think we should keep the character of dr. Bright or rename him? Because I’m really on the fence about renaming characters. And, I’d be surprised if “bright” was that creep’s real name.
It wouldn't just be Dr Bright getting renamed but several characters related to him. The two most prominent I can think of being Adam Bright and Mikell Bright. Sure they would only need their last names changed, probably.
I believe the names should just be kept
Split the baby. Kill Bright off in continuity and begin again with this Shaw guy. Keep Bright's historical record around with explicit disclaimers that the out-of-character persona of him is _persona non grata_ within the community, and in-universe, declare that the O-5 Council decided Bright had gone too far, and found a way to cast the "RESET" button on SCP-963, with the current Bright terminated.. along with his supposed family, finding out they weren't family, but all Bright clones made by SCP-963.
@@calanon534 but that goes against both sides arguments...
@@TinNguyen-rl2xr Exactly. That's why it's called "split the baby." It's not a perfect solution, but it's one that:
1) Preserves the history of the character Dr. Bright
2) Recognizes the controversy of the personage of Dr. Bright
3) Removes the entire Bright line from the story
4) Maintains a sense of continuity within the universe.
If you really want to go deeper, lore-wise, restrict access to the Bright Files to registered website/forum members and do some old school HTML tricks so you have a pop-up/on-screen panel warning that accessing the Bright Files is done only with O-5 clearance to do so, and Amestics will be administered immediately afterwards. An in-universe rule denying his having ever existed and anyone claiming so needing amnestics would further add to the Lore. Hell, go as far as redacting his name in SCP fashion from the public content going forwards, make it a big ol' conspiracy. That's Lore-Respecting.
Personally I disagree with the idea of renaming the character. Despite the negative connotations, characters are who they are, and suddenly changing the names has just as many drawbacks as not doing it. For one, pre-existing audio and tales already mention the character. The character has existed so long that total erasure is practically impossible. It causes confusion, and only serves to draw more attention toward the namesake. The author is a bad person, on this I believe we should all agree, but enough creative liberties have been taken that the character is more than just what the author made him. I simply will never be able to accept "Elias Shaw" as anything more than a seperate character. Because that's what he is. He's a replacement, not a name change. Either find a way to get rid of the character and replace them with someone with largely the same role, or put disclaimers on works including the character. Those seem like the best solutions.
Yup, erasure's impossible like you said due to existing media. All the change will do is further polarize people into those who use the old name vs the new
Honestly good. When self-insert characters and other reddit-tier goofiness were implemented into the overall SCP lore it was the beginning of the end.
SCP used to a creepy mysterious thing. Now it's just a joke.
Reddit is complete trash
@@johnroyal4054 yessir
And this is why the list should have been called Scippy's List (it was inspired by Skippy's List, look it up) and been a list of things everyone is not allowed to do, so you could have had funny things D-Class could do, funny things SCPs could do, funny things O5s could do, etc., not just funny things a researcher would be in a position to do!
i personally believe that it is time to axe the connection between author and character entirely, and put disclaimers at the start of all articles containing the character making that chrystal clear to readers, however, authors, can still replace the character entirely, as it is their choice
The entire SCP Foundation: * screaming in absolute terror because Dr. Bright is now truly free *
Friendship ended with Bright list. Now Shaw list is my best friend.
hopefully such a list is created
Wouldn't it be better to redact the name Bright until someone comes along to take the mantle up?
Like some random dumbass comes along and takes the amulet
that actually sounds like the best idea or they just keep it REDACTED, hell we could literally have a Dr. REDACTED
@@wapandaforever242 Yaya someone likes my idea :D
@@lusharaafton1081 seems like at the moment 49 other people do :D
@@wapandaforever242 yaaaaaay
Rename him to "Dr. D1ldo" to make fun of the author (Replace the "1" with "i")
I knew about dr Bright, dr Cleff, and dr Cimmerian long before I got into the foundation, so the list was supposed to be amended to say :Dr Bright is no longer allowed to use his power to get favours from staff due to his rank
I do hope that the wiki adopts Yossi's suggestion on the O5 Mirror discussion page. Not only is it the best solution (in my opinion), but it'll also allow us to get rid of an extremely unfunny article.
And what's a suggestion?
I assume you're asking for Yossi's suggestion and not what the word suggestion means.
Yossi's plan:
" * The List should be deleted following staff and community votes on a policy that specifically designates this case as an exception to staff processes and should not be used as precedent.
* A replacement List - whether about a specific other character, a group of other characters, or a general "you cannot do this" - should be created and opened up to contributions, whilst being very carefully moderated by the MAST Collaboration Log Curation Subteam.
* A warning in the form of an infobox should be placed at the top of the new List, explaining what happened to the old List (along with all appropriate context, including the Bright AHT ban and actions taken by the former Admin) and possibly linking this thread.
The old List's URL should redirect to the new List.
I believe this strikes a balance between removing the List from the site and also providing an adequate replacement for the off-site and content creators to work with. Having it be open to contributions is an essential part of making sure it goes smoothly, as it fosters collaboration and allows for the creation of "new" entries to "the List". "
Hoping Shaw is as well received. The list is one of the best articles, hoping to see a remade version later.
2:01 It's called Skippy's list. The dude made his list independently from Welsh, and neither knew about it. When they met in a convention it turned out they knew eachother. Hapoy coincidence
Dr. Light sounds better.
Why can’t we just call him Dr. Back Jright
I personally think we should do a Kanye with this one. I still listen to his music even though he's a horribly racist artist. Picasso also did some questionable things when he was alive. That doesn't restrict people from seeing his art. We need to learn to seperate the ART from the ARTIST.
1 year later and lets not even mention how incredibly racist HP Lovecraft
I did not even know that Dr Bright had a real life namesake. I would not be surprised if a lot of people were unaware that he had a real life namesake.
It's kind of chilling to me to see all of this high-profile content being changed like this. Even though it's being done for a good cause, it's bizarre to think that the history of these works is being erased.
I know this is an absurd comparison, but it reminds me of rewriting Huckleberry Finn to remove the offensive language. It is what it is, and there's value in coming to terms with that.
As long as I get to keep my chaotic depressed boi, I’m willing to go along with any artistic changes, just let me keep the character 🥺
Agreed.
Keeping the character, even changing his name in the process, seems like the better move. There are innumerable people throughout history who were awful human beings that just happened to create an interesting work of fiction; the work itself deserves to live on, in spite of their awful creator. I am of the opinion that Dr. Bright, the character, might be considered the Frankenstein's Monster of Dr. Bright, the author. Keep his "monster" and put him in literary jail.
Should have just changed his name, like what blizzard did.
No reason to purge the character.
And changing his backstory is so bad, oh and his SCP aspect.
Keep the element of the amulet, his chaotic nature, etc.
As long as we still have chainsaw cannons, I'm happy
Not Canon anymore 😶
Some things from the early days of the SCP wiki are best left behind, but Dr.Bright as a character is way too popular and liked to outright get rid of him.
I'm with DJ Kaktus on this one- we should disassociate the character of Dr. Bright from the real person, rename him, but otherwise keep him as he is.
I absolutely get why the wiki at large wants to distance itself from Bright, but getting rid of one of the most popular characters of the SCP Universe is gonna result in a lot of backlash.
It was only a question of when not if the self insert characters are going to be a problem, and now the wiki staff has to deal with this particular problem and hopefully they don't mess up.
If Dr Bright list is gone then we’re all goofed
SCP-963 should've been neutralised instead of replaced by Elias Shaw
Or not recognize 963 as part of Canon anymore
Personally i think its stupid to replace Dr.Bright because of the author. You have to separate the artist from the art. If you dont think so then you have to never read H.p Lovecraft and many others again. People are horrible but art is art and cant hurt a person.
the difference is that dr. bright of a character was somewhat of a self insert. not entirely, but still an issue. i get what you mean, though.
The problem with this is that the author had used the character itself as a point of power and control to their victims, and even on tiktok until recently was using Dr. Bright as a lure to prey on their fans and audience because the character in itself is a self insert. The victims have often suffered because the author and their usage of said character to directly abuse them and their position
i personally agree, as I can name multiple authors who are awful people, yet I still read their works because they are good, and while the character may have been somewhat of a self insert, I believe that it is time to axe the connection between author and character entirely.
@@c_alam1ty he wasn’t a self insert. yes, he had the bright name, but the character was a public character owned by the community. the creator even tried to distance himself from the character.
@@emotionalentropy6849 he wasn’t a self insert. yes, he had the bright name, but the character was a public character owned by the community. the creator even tried to distance himself from the character.
Damn, this has been a rough few months for the SCP community as a whole.
It’s been years since I was very active, but SCP’s had a place in my heart for years. I made a removed post, made several grammatical/typo edits, heck I even had a Draft get reviewed by Cimmerian back in the day.
I also like the idea of Dr Shaw.
I get a feeling that this is the "calm before the storm" and we're nearing its end. Perhaps it won't become such a controversy and even if it does maybe the scp fanbase is resilient enough to stay together. Or perhaps I'm being quite dumb, but I'm still leaving this comment to look back to after or as things unfold.
After surviving the hell that was June 2018, I'm sure the SCP Wiki will live through this.
@@valoregal What happened in 2018?
@@grizzlyowlbear3538I also want to know
@@grizzlyowlbear3538 no one talks about June...
@@grizzlyowlbear3538 ever...
I love the lore implications that he changed his name to Dr. Shaw, so the list of things he can't do no longer apply to him.
This might be a good reason to revise the rating system too. If the list would get deleted immediately nowadays, but past votes would keep it up, maybe that's a problem. Maybe this is happening with other articles too. I'm not saying for sure that it's a problem, nor do I know a solution. It just might be worth thinking about.
I literally don't care about what happened I just wanna have fun with the characters
Whoever this rogue moderator is, s/he has no right to do that. Not without a full consensus.
Take down that mod!
They should not be abusing that much power/responsibility.
I feel sorry for those who wrote wikis and co tributed time, effort, and dedication to create the wiki(s).
Will Dr Shaw become Scp 963, and 4465 (I think) or what is going to happen to the Amulet and the Plurality of Jack Bright
The article is now called The Plurality of Elias Shaw. The original 963 still has Bright, but Kaktus is working on his own version of 963 that he plans to post to the Wiki for Elias Shaw.
rename him Dr.Dark
This is what I always say don't blame the character just because of the creator actions. The character had nothing to do with that, but this is what people would do it just to save their image. Even though everyone involved didn't do anything to begin with.
I've been working on a scp game for a bit, slowly building it up. The main character was going to be Bright. But switching the name to Shaw isn't a hard ship, just adds some time to do seaches and checks to make sure I change the names properly. I actually just thinking about this after your last video, about what to rename him or what to do moving forwards because the idea of the chracter is interesting. The stuff going on would have been in my mind going forward and I'm kinda glad for the seperation of author and character slowly.
This situation with the list is why when I find a page / article I ike I save it, so I can reference it, because people delete stuff or stuff goes down too often.
I think you instead should put a content warning or something in every article that uses Dr Bright instead of changing the name. I see a few issues with changing the name. For one, the confusion. All videos on platforms such as YT that were made before this happened will still have Bright in them. Second, what about things that are named after Bright in universe, such as one of the gods in the Bellerverse cannon? Are that going to be changed to? If not, it will no longer make sense to in universe to name him Abert or what ever he Was called. Third, what about tales that have Brights name in the title? If you change that, you will make all current links to it invalid. I wish we could keep things that happens IRL out of fiction.
Immersion whiners and Content Farms aren't worth catering to.
@@SodaPopBarbecue it isn’t the content farms I thought about. Genuine scp youtubers also have videos about DB.
The content warning thing has some merit to it, I like this idea
Agreed
Personally, I think that's the best solution. It's a lot simpler and doesn't cause any confusion.
Changing the character's name is just shitting into the lore at large, especially while the average joe doesn't even know the character is a self insert of the author. Keep the name, make first mention of every relevant article into a clickable link that says something along the lines of "the author of this character is a sex pest, we got rid of him, fuck that guy, have a nice day" and be done with it. Given the character is not contained to the guy's articles, but spanning n amount of articles, you can consider it no longer belonging to the guy but the whole of the SCP community. From all the simple methods of doing it, you pick the ones that will cause the most confusion.
Now to create an scp that cannonicly changed dr bright name in every article and in talks, similar to me (the scp that turns everything that talks about me into me)
I think Bright the character and the person are two diff people… No reason to mess with the character because the author is creepy… we love the character… not the author.
There was never a "Dr. Bright" in the SCP universe, perhaps you are confused? A relaxing trip to Lake Laogai will do wonders, The Earth King himself extends an invitation.
Do NOT joke like that....
There is no Dr. Bright in Site 19.
Here you are safe, here, you are free.
@@ChlorinatedPond no, the fictional character to me is real. And no Lake Laogai BS is going to tell me otherwise.
Dude you good?
Oh, well, that's a coincidence. I'm sure there's no Dr. Bright in Ba Sing Se too, and the Earth King extends his warm regards from Lake Laogai.
There's no Dr. Bright in Ba Sing Se
1:55 One of my favorites is Things Involving Shipgirls That Are No Longer Allowed... And because of the nature of what fandom it's in and the MSSB and MSAB that is associated with the fanworks and fandom itself it gets wild.
Let's rename him Dr. Light instead lol
But seriously, while keeping the original name would also keep the association with the irl person, changing it (as we see with Jesse Mcree to Cole Cassidy) also loses a lot of that original touch. I'm not in favor of entirely changing the name as it just sounds weird in my head, but just enough to where a lot of voiced stuff can stand with a minor phonetic difference.
1) cannot be near any black books that start with "death" and "note"
Dr. Light sounds better.
I support your decision, I don’t have a perfect solution to the issue but I think this is a good one. All these amazing stories should not be tainted by the namesake of a predator.
So Dr. Elias Shaw is SCP-963 now?
I would rather have 963 no longer recognised as part of Canon due to the association with the previous character iteration.
I think artist should be looked at independent of the artist. Just because someone is a terrible person doesn’t mean they can’t make cool stuff
Finally, we can see doctor Bright make the chainsaw cannon
Dr. Bright is no longer allowed to be dr. Bright.
Maybe i might of misheard but I just find it rather inconvenient that a mod or admin on the wiki can just up and delete content and their username, time and date a reason for the deletion isn’t recorded and kept stored separately. So one person just doesn’t go on personal gatekeeping tirade without good reason. Personally I’d advise that members not link their personal selves to any created character for obvious reasons with all the allegations against Bright it’s certainly tarnishes the community.
So wait we’re all okay with attacking and punishing an imaginary character instead of the actual person? That makes no sense.
I understand the real bright is doing some bad things, and people don't like it, but bright, the character, has already been made, and is fine, I do not think people should be deleting bright.
Just look at H. P. Lovecraft and his things.
Where’s our torches and pitchforks?
Damn... This is really going to affect the scp light novel series
I swear that people nowadays are 100% incapable of not taking things too far. Every single time anything happens, people overreact. The Dr. Bright character did nothing wrong, so why erase him?
To be fair, Dr. Bright has done a LOT of things wrong.
Bingo
Frankly the SCP Foundation has really been a huge shit for quite a long time. I still remember the SCPLGBT controversy and the constant changing of the logo. All hobbies have a tendency to backslide into hell.
Too many rainbows at Site-19
Nevrr followed the wiki, didn't know Bright was a self insert, condemn the man, keep the character.
This seems like the McCree change all over again.
the list is probably what got me into SCP in the first place, so to click on it whilst browsing joke SCPs a few nights ago and find an apology letter in its place was a huge shock and definitely made the following sleep difficult
Dude, you browse scp wiki at night? How are you getting sleep in the first place??
mr bright is not suposed to see the list
There is a problem the change name come in too late, people like me knows the original character as Dr Jack Bright, if someone tells me Elias i would be very confuse but that's not the case here because i saw this video, not to mention that there are others channels that use the name Dr Bright and have old videos with this name. I don't like the author who wrote Dr Bright because of the things they did, but it makes me sad that the original character has to "suffer" so much, this character is important for the SCP Universe just like Dr Clef or any other doctors, i enjoy reading about them, knowing their stories, all the stuff it got me into the SCP thing (fandom) they are like 30% of it, of course there are the SCPs anomalies, the stories from the Foundation, the others GOI the relationship between them, the Administrator and so on...
Getting rid of this original character would be a bad move, i did not seen the whole list of things Dr Elias isn't allowed to do at the SCP foundation, but as long as it's not +18 (explained and other things like racist) i'm good with the list, maybe some things on the list might be delete if it has uncomfortable mentions but it should have not be deleted, i won't forgive that ex mod for doing this, no matter how much of a mod he/she was!
I dislike how a person can ruin a character by being a bad actor that then basically steals that character's name or more from it. As much as I like the idea of managing to keep the character by replacing it's name, I hate that it lost its name because of external garbage association outside of itself. Doctor Bright the real person doing things =/= Doctor Bright in the SCP foundation lore.
This is wrong on so many levels. Separating art from the artist really is impossible these days. What he did was reprehensible but still. That list was a part of history for the fandom and I really enjoyed it.
I feel like this exact situation is going to become the Elton John Farewell Tour of the SCP community.
Anybody remember Dr Steel? He got memoryholed really early
One question though, was he the write in for the entire bright family or just jack?
So Dr. Bright started Acting like Dr. Bright...
This feels like the McCree/Cole Cassidy situation with OW/OW2. While I agree that a change must be done, I hope that the character gets to stay in some form that let's the character be separated from the individual.
I hope that if they go with the rename path, I hope they make some in universe explanation to the name change, so it doesn't feel as forced as how Blizzard did it.
Gonna be honest, I thought Dr. Bright was just a fictional character, not an author, so this surprised me. I do like how the staff did handle this though. It's gonna feel weird to have a name change, but I'm sure we'll get used to it.
Good. It was just a plagiarism of the Mr. Welsh list anyway.
I don't care about a name change, so long as the character himself is not deleted or changed.
I'm renaming him to Dr. Dark. Nobody can tell me otherwise.
Are you gonna change anything else
👍
Hell yes