snipe
(account deleted) 10 Apr 2023 22:22
yes guys new contest im gonna participate in this one!!!
hi it is me aaron92
Phenomena Contest 2023 / Discussion
:root { --sidebar-width-on-desktop: calc(var(--base-font-size) * (266 / 15)); --body-width-on-desktop: 45.75rem; } @media only screen and (min-width: 56.25rem) { #content-wrap { display: flex; position: initial; flex-direction: row; flex-grow: 2; width: calc(100vw - (100vw - 100%)); max-width: inherit; height: auto; min-height: calc(100vh - var(--final-header-height-on-desktop, 10.125rem)); margin: 0 var(--sidebar-width-on-desktop, 13.6rem) 0 calc(var(--sidebar-width-on-desktop, 13.6rem) * -1 / 2); } #main-content { position: initial; width: var(--body-width-on-desktop, 45.75rem); max-width: var(--body-width-on-desktop, 45.75rem); max-height: 100%; margin: 0 auto; padding: 2rem 1rem; } #page-content { max-width: min(90vw, var(--body-width-on-desktop, 45.75rem)); } #side-bar { position: -webkit-sticky; position: sticky; top: 0; left: 0; grid-area: side-bar; width: var(--sidebar-width-on-desktop, 13.6rem) !important; min-width: var(--sidebar-width-on-desktop, 13.6rem) !important; max-height: 100vh; padding-right: 2.5rem; padding-left: 0.5rem; overflow-y: scroll; transition: translate 300ms cubic-bezier(0.4, 0.0, 0.2, 1), background-color 300ms cubic-bezier(0.4, 0.0, 0.2, 1), padding 300ms linear, margin 300ms linear; border: none; border-color: rgba(var(--swatch-tertiary-color, 170, 170, 170), 0.4); background-color: rgba(var(--sidebar-bg-color, 255, 255, 255), 0); translate: calc(var(--sidebar-width-on-desktop, 13.5rem) * -1 - 1rem); direction: rtl; scrollbar-width: thin; -ms-scroll-chaining: none; overscroll-behavior: contain; scrollbar-color: rgba(var(--swatch-primary-darker), 0.1) /* Thumb */ rgba(var(--swatch-tertiary-color), 0.05); /* Track */ } #side-bar::-webkit-scrollbar-track { background-color: rgba(var(--swatch-secondary-color, 244, 244, 244), 0.8); } #side-bar::-webkit-scrollbar, #side-bar::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb, #side-bar::-webkit-scrollbar-corner { width: 0.5rem; border-right-width: calc(100vw + 100vh); border-right-style: inset; border-color: inherit; background-color: rgba(var(--sidebar-bg-color, 255, 255, 255), 0); } #side-bar:is(:hover, :active, :focus-within) { margin-right: 2.25rem; padding-right: 0.25rem; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: auto; border-color: rgba(var(--swatch-primary-darker), 1); background-color: rgba(var(--sidebar-bg-color, 255, 255, 255), 1); translate: calc(var(--sidebar-width-on-desktop, 1rem) - var(--sidebar-width-on-desktop, 0)); scrollbar-color: rgba(170, 170, 170, 1) /* Thumb */ rgba(252, 252, 252, 1); /* Track */ scrollbar-color: rgb(var(--swatch-primary-darker, 170, 170, 170), 1) /* Thumb */ rgb(var(--swatch-menubg-color, 252, 252, 252), 1); /* Track */ } #main-content::after { content: " "; display: flex; position: fixed; top: 0; left: 1rem; align-items: center; justify-content: center; width: 1rem; height: 100%; max-height: 100%; transition: left 300ms cubic-bezier(0.4, 0.0, 0.2, 1), background-position 300ms cubic-bezier(0.4, 0.0, 0.2, 1), opacity 300ms cubic-bezier(0.4, 0.0, 0.2, 1); background: url("https://scp-wiki.wdfiles.com/local--files/component%3Acollapsible-sidebar/sidebar-tab.svg"); background-attachment: fixed; background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center left 1rem; background-size: 1rem 12.875rem; pointer-events: none; } #side-bar:is(:hover, :active, :focus-within) + #main-content::after { left: calc(var(--sidebar-width-on-desktop, 14.5rem) * -1); width: 0rem; transition: left 300ms cubic-bezier(0.4, 0.0, 0.2, 1), background-position 300ms cubic-bezier(0.4, 0.0, 0.2, 1), opacity 300ms cubic-bezier(0.4, 0.0, 0.2, 1); opacity: 0; background-position: center left calc(var(--sidebar-width-on-desktop, 14.5rem) * -1); font-size: 0em; } #main-content::before { content: " "; position: absolute; z-index: 9; top: var(--final-header-height-on-desktop, 0); left: 0; width: var(--sidebar-width-on-desktop, 14.5rem); height: calc(100% - var(--final-header-height-on-desktop, 0.688rem) - 2.313rem); margin-bottom: calc(var(--final-header-height-on-desktop, -2.313rem) * -1 - 2.313rem); transition: translate 300ms cubic-bezier(0.4, 0.0, 0.2, 1), opacity 300ms cubic-bezier(0.4, 0.0, 0.2, 1); opacity: 0.5; background-color: rgb(var(--swatch-alternate-color, 0, 0, 0)); pointer-events: none; translate: calc(var(--sidebar-width-on-desktop, 14.5rem) * -1 + 1rem); } #side-bar:is(:hover, :active, :focus-within) + #main-content::before { translate: 0; opacity: 0; } #side-bar .side-block { margin-top: 1em; padding-left: 0.25em; border-right-width: 0rem; border-left-width: 0rem; border-radius: 0; background-color: rgb(0, 0, 0, 0); direction: ltr; } #side-bar .scpnet-interwiki-wrapper { direction: ltr; } /* Print Friendly Formatting by Estrella */ body.print-body { --sidebar-width-on-desktop: 0; } body.print-body #main-content::before, body.print-body #main-content::after { display: none; } }
Forum
» Meta / Per page discussions
» Phenomena Contest 2023
This is the discussion related to the wiki page Phenomena Contest 2023.
(account deleted) 10 Apr 2023 22:22
are joke entries allowed vivamus? i had a joke phenomenon for partygoercon2023 but i want to use it this contest
hi it is me aaron92
nvm vivamous said i am able to make a joke phenomenon
hi it is me aaron92
I'm also making a joke article gl fellow joker
does anyone see these forum signatures, also why does this have more space than the description
no pls dont steal mine and win pls pls pls
hi it is me aaron92
I have no idea what yours is soo how can i steal?
does anyone see these forum signatures, also why does this have more space than the description
it was a joke
btw mine is about party goer (i thought that partygoercon2023 was real so i made a draft)
hi it is me aaron92
yeah, mine is just going to be a normal article with some comedy sorry for no contest
does anyone see these forum signatures, also why does this have more space than the description
It won't let me delete my own comment bc I just figured out that this is not partygoer-con =(
From Pyro AroAce, that one trans guy.
Yeah I'm not doing this one so best of luck to you.
Crazy? I was Crazy once… they locked me in a room… a rubber room… a rubber room with rats and rats make me crazy. Crazy? I was Crazy once… they locked me in a room… a rubber room… a rubber room with rats… and rats make me crazy. Crazy? I was Crazy once… they locked me in a room… a Backroom… and Backrooms make me crazy. Crazy? I was Crazy once…
Just to make sure. If an entry had begun being written before the writing period, does this mean that it is entirely and strictly forbidden for it to participate in the contest?
I'm massively unlucky cause I never knew a phenomenon contest was coming so I began writing my own entry, and then this happened…
Staff is currently discussing this, we'll get back to you as soon as we reach a consensus.
I have similiar question down below.
Just a high schooler who thinks he is good at writing. Likes working on a lot of stuff, ranging from writing for the Backrooms Wiki, to providing critique, and reading. ~ Pen.
"The truth is the truth. What changes is what we know about it and what we're willing to believe."
- Jonathan Maberry, Rot and Ruin
Staff has decided that an entry that began to be developed before the official announcement of the contest is allowed to participate. Thank you for bringing the matter up, the rules will be updated accordingly.
I thank the staff team for considering this! Now, let's have fun everyone. Let's give our all!
yay now i dont have to recycle my partygoercon2023 idea
hi it is me aaron92
new contest is always welcome
but i wonder where is the partygoer contest
The Partygoer Contest was just April Fools.
Please mind the Forest.
Huh. Not nearly as a good April fools joke as tofu
~🌱
tofu was a good one too
hi it is me aaron92
I'll be looking over these when I get the chance too.
~🌱
the plant that is weird is going to make a page???
hi it is me aaron92
I don't know quite yet. Phenomenons, when they were introduced, weren't my strongest suit.
~🌱
understandable
hi it is me aaron92
So I read the rules, and it said that I could not add an already posted article as a submission. I do have a draft that recieved critique but has not been posted. Can I use this as my entry or would I need to write a different article? I don't plan to make anymore edits to it.
Just wanted to make sure it wouldn't count as having an "unfair advantage".
Just a high schooler who thinks he is good at writing. Likes working on a lot of stuff, ranging from writing for the Backrooms Wiki, to providing critique, and reading. ~ Pen.
"The truth is the truth. What changes is what we know about it and what we're willing to believe."
- Jonathan Maberry, Rot and Ruin
The entire article has to have been made during the writing and posting periods, start to finish. Any writing from before is not allowed to be used, since the point of the writing period is so that everyone has the same amount of time to make an article for the contest.
So since you had this before the writing period, you should do something else. You can't just use an already completed draft as an entry, just as you cannot start with a half-finished draft.
Edit: I know this is not stated in the rules, but I thought it was a pretty obvious implication from the way the contest is formatted, as well as from some of the rules. It just doesn't feel fair to allow, as I explained below.
Hmm…going to have to think about this then…
Just a high schooler who thinks he is good at writing. Likes working on a lot of stuff, ranging from writing for the Backrooms Wiki, to providing critique, and reading. ~ Pen.
"The truth is the truth. What changes is what we know about it and what we're willing to believe."
- Jonathan Maberry, Rot and Ruin
well now i have to rewrite my draft. good thing i did not put a lot of effort into it because i thought that partygoercon2023 is real
also ever since i saw this page i thought "i must rewrite page"
also this is the draft im talking about:
https://sandbox-2.en.backrooms-wiki.ru/aaron92-partygoercon
hi it is me aaron92
hey pen vivamus said you can post your "radio waves of the past" for this contest
hi it is me aaron92
This is not clarified in the rules. I asked this exact question above, and was told that staff was evaluating the situation.
Like, if you read the rules, there is literally nowhere that says the writing period is the only time to write the entry. There is no explicit prohibition that says "one cannot bring works that began being written before the writing period". The page merely forbids "already published works".
The case here is if bringing a draft that was written previously counts as unfair advantage, which is in the rules. And again, that's up to staff to decide.
Personally, I don't think it is (none of us have gotten a greenlighter's stamp of approval yet). And besides, writers like me or PenOrSaber1 had no real evidence to show us that a phenomenon contest was going to come anytime soon. Was it really our fault that we wanted to contribute to liven an otherwise dead category? Once again, I feel like restricting us from participating would be a tad too extreme, and would yet again feel like we are being punished by unforeseeable rules. And imo, that is unfair.
Setting opinions aside, I reiterate: staff has basically confirmed me a few comments above that this rule you state is currently nonexistant, and is being discussed whether to implement it or not. So we just have to be patient for now; PenOrSaber1 and I still have a chance to participate with our entries.
This is one of those situations where it is heavily implied. A writing period implies that no other time allows for writing for the contest, before or after. And it is incredibly unfair to have writing before the contest begins, especially if the draft is a decent amount written already. Most people don't even start until the writing period begins, so anyone with a good amount written already has a huge advantage. Since unfair advantages are strictly prohibited, this should be implied from that rule as well. It seems pretty clear-cut. And to me, it seems like it should be common sense.
In the case of only a few sentences, maybe it's not that big of an advantage, but I still think it would be safer and easy to start over in that case. If you have a ton already and you want to use it on-site as-is, you should do a separate contest entry and finish that one as a non-entry.
Now, I do agree that they shouldn't give you the rules at the same time the contest begins, and they should announce that it's coming a good deal ahead of time, but for the sake of fairness, everyone should get the same amount of time to write, no more, no less. The issue here isn't so much that the rules are completely wrong, more the timing they were introduced along with the contest.
Setting opinions aside is hard to do, considering the rules are based on staff opinions, given that they are often voted on. Now, if you want to treat everyone with equality, fairness would be treating everyone's situations equally/everyone being given identical circumstances, this includes the time to write. So in terms of equality, it is not fair in that sense. My opinion falls in line with that, as I would hope anyone else's would too.
If staff did allow it, and I lost to someone who already had an incredible draft prior to the contest, I know it would not be a fault of my own, and I would be extremely upset about it. I waited for the contest to begin after all. With only 6 weeks, I'm limited in how much I can put on my page, with how much effort I can put into it. If they let someone bring in an earlier draft, they could have a year's worth of content on there, which is obviously not fair to people who inferred the writing period to be the only time we can write (and I know it's a much larger number than just me who infer that, as it's a reasonable inference).
Can you at least see where I'm coming from here? I feel that any other way of doing this is fundamentally flawed, since not everyone even could be treated with true equality and fairness in any other scenario.
So while yes, you are technically correct that there is no stated rule for that at present, there are many people who would take issue to allowing someone to just use an already worked-on draft. I know it isn't just me. We want a fun contest, but if there is no fairness, people will start to get upset over that. I don't feel that I'm being too presumptuous with this one. It would be a genuine issue.
I just wanted to speak my mind about this. I have never heard of a contest where you start working on the entry prior to the contest, have you?
Also, you can still contribute to the phenomena category outside the contest. Don't let arguments over the contest, or the contest itself, stop you from making a good article either way.
I see your point.
You see my point.
So we've come to a stalemate. On the one hand, you've got the possibility that people may bring 1 year+ drafts to the contest. On the other, you've got innocent writers that only began working on their normal entry on good faith not so much ago.
I would definitely side with you were not for the fact that they literally announced stuff the exact second it began. Heck, you agreed with me on this, it's plain as day where the main issue of this is coming from, and I hope this won't repeat again. Announce things with enough anticipation. So much months without a contest for a new category which was straight up dead have inevitably lead for this to happen; we though it just wasn't coming. And then BAM! out of the blue straight in the face.
I know the idea you come from is "for the sake of fairness". However, as I see it, fairness is, in essence, treating unfair situations in an unfair way. That's why certain laws are how they are: if every situation were to be trated equally no matter what, in the end the system collapses― well that's how I view the situation we are currently in.
You see, the whole thing was misshandled. We can at least agree on that. Now the thing is, what will the Staff team choose to prioritise? The possibility that someone may have the perfect phenomenon draft they've worked on since the origins of the wiki, or the good faith of people that, essentially, didn't do anything wrong and got unexpectedly cucked by unforeseeable rules by trying to contribute?
What I would do here is, simply, observe the teleological interpretation of the contest per se. Why does this contest even exist in the first place? It's very simple. The category is dead, straight up abandoned, rotting in the most profound pits of hell. Here I'm going to quote straight from the article, this whole ordeal was created "to motivate the posting of ideas on site".
So I now ask you: wouldn't it be essentially contradictory if we were bottlenecking entries just because they began being written a few weeks prior, without being informed at all and while they were acting in good faith all together? Heck, in my case, I have been waiting for what feels like an eternity to get crit without having success at all, and here we are lmfao. In my view, staff's main goal right now would be making a thorough ponderation of all the variables that compose this soup of pros and cons.
While it's true the chance that someone could be a dick and ruin the fun of everyone, you've also got people of good will like me or PenOrSaber1 that got caught by the misshandling. In fact, we don't even have any advantage over anyone! We've both been without writing anything to it for quite the amount of time (they don't even plan on adding anything to the entry). Then there's the equal treatment argument, and the unfairness should be treated unfairly argument, to what the main goal, encouraging people to finish their works and ideas, has to de added.
I side by my conclusionary thoughts, as in my opinion I'd elect the confirmed case (people of good faith, i.e. me and penorsaber1) than the hypothetical one (one person with the ultimate phenomenon draft of 1+ year of work resting in their sandbox, waiting for the moment to jump in), even the more when there was a big oversight with the contest reveal. I know you will keep true to your thoughts as well, but here, our situation as mere bystanders resembles that of two sides in a judicial procedure, the verdict of which cannot be chosen by other judge than the staff team. It is them, and only them who will take these arguments and form a final decision from it. That's why whatever it turns out to be, there's not much that can be done.
We can discuss what would the optimal course of action be. But in the end, you explained me your view, and I've just shown you mine. I understand your point, however, I still am in my situation, and have good reasons to oppose it. So I hope you understand my train of thought as well, and again, the last word is from staff, so waiting is the only thing that is left for us right now.
That is all, my friend-
Edit: the situation just resolved 3 minutes after I wrote this. I feel massively stupid now lmfao.
I honestly am not sure what you mean by "fairness here means treating unfair situations in an unfair way". Any contest of any kind I've known in the past has based their rules on giving everyone equal opportunity and making sure no one has any advantage, no matter how slight. I just can't see that view, as I believe that fairness is what keeps a system from collapsing into chaos, not the other way around.
Staff already made a decision, and as much as I disagree with it, I won't argue with them. I'll just have to hope nobody pulls out an article they've been working on for over a year.
I personally don't mind if someone has only written something a little before now, though if I were going by the rules of equality as I stated them, I'd have to disallow even that. It's the potential for big prior writing that would spur on that rule in the first place, and my real biggest concern. If you make a rule, exceptions normally cannot be made, which is what you would likely see as the downside here. If a compromise were to happen, I'd imagine it would be handled on a case-by-case basis by staff, but evidently they went right for allowing it, instead of adding an addendum/stipulation to it.
Why this felt really unfair to allow to me is because I know a bunch of people who waited until the contest to even begin. My grandfather started before, but unsure of whether he was allowed to start sooner than the start or not, outright scrapped what he had and started over the day it was announced to start. Of course, I don't think Robert in particular will have any trouble, knowing him, but anyone else in his position will have a major disadvantage, which is probably the bigger issue here. An advantage is one thing, but a major advantage paired with a major disadvantage for others makes it far from even and in many people's eyes (including me), far from fair.
If we were to have a legal argument over this philosophy in a court (for some reason), I know that law would favor my argument. That's just the way the system of law actually works. Unless there is a stated situation where something is allowed, breaking a law is illegal in all contexts, with no exceptions. Of course, the actual rules state otherwise now, so I'm not saying the argument would win with the rules, but with what is fair in the philosophies themselves. Your argument might be favored by many people, but at the end of the day, it is law (or staff in this case), who makes the final decision. If it were up to me, obviously I'd have made a different call, as I'm sure many others would have done, be it following my view, doing a compromise, or something else.
Jurisprudence makes exceptions to what should be the normal case of the law way more often than you may think. That's what I meant with treating unfair situations in an unfair way; in the end, it's the interpretation of what is stated in the law what truly matters. What is stated on paper isn't rock solid.
Here, what was the matter of the situation was if the lines "writing period" and "unfair advantage" meant prohibition of earlier drafts or not. Staff's interpretation of the rules simply leaned towards the latter.
It is common practice in courts to follow a procedure distinct of that which the law indicates. To reach this conclusion, a good judge will analise numerous factors relevant to the particular case, this is called "interpretation of the law": for example, here one of those factors would have been the misshandling of the announcement, but other variables could be, for instance, the legislator's goal at the time of making the rule. You get the point: being absolutely strict with what the law says can often collide with the intention it was created for. That's why sometimes, treating an unfair situation in an unfair way can often turn out as the most fair outcome.
I apologise, though. I'm studying a Law degree, and turned the conversation towards that field, which is of what I know most. I most definitely shouldn't have.
Regardless, you are right. We may have differing views of the situation, but it has been resolved already, so we should now enjoy the contest as much as we can. All good!
The staff team has decided that an entry that began development prior to the official announcement of the contest is eligible to participate. Good luck!
Not arguing with a staff decision, but I am curious. What was the staff argument in favor of it?
It came down to a few main points:
- The reuse of previous ideas has never really been forbidden. Many have submitted articles with ideas that they had discarded or pages based on drafts that contained a few lines in past contests, and this was never frowned upon. The new rule would simply be an extension of this.
- Everyone has known about the contest for a while now, it wasn't exactly a secret, so of course everyone was going to start conceptualizing and developing their ideas beforehand. It's a complicated situation, and obviously it would have been better to have it all clear from the beginning. We had to work with the circumstances at present, and we decided that this was the best course of action for a successful contest.
- Remember that this is all just for fun. While it's good to have some competitiveness, and it's true that starting a little before the official announcement could be seen as unfair, we must remember that we are here to have fun, and we shouldn't take it too seriously. (Past contests have taught us that doing so ends up generating bad experiences for everyone!).
After scrolling through about 10 different posts debating this, I'm glad to discover I can post the draft I have been working on.
But being quite honest, mine is a finished draft, and I have no plans of editing it during the writing period. I think the staff were probably worried about a user having more time to write over another.
Just a high schooler who thinks he is good at writing. Likes working on a lot of stuff, ranging from writing for the Backrooms Wiki, to providing critique, and reading. ~ Pen.
"The truth is the truth. What changes is what we know about it and what we're willing to believe."
- Jonathan Maberry, Rot and Ruin
That was my primary concern as well. If someone brought in a draft that has been in development for over a year, how is that any fair to someone who just started when the contest began? That is the largest thing that needed consideration here. Maybe the staff will consider that a case-by-case thing if it gets THAT extreme, but the possibility is there.
Well, noting that from starting out as a simple sentence in the idea forum to being a completed draft in the draft forum took about a month, I've of course recieved some critique on my writing. I've gotten critique from three different members, one being a greenlighter. But seeing that we'll be able to edit our articles after we've posted(Editing your articles after they are posted is allowed, if needed. ~ The Rules for the Contest), I don't really have an unfair advantage, as people will be recieving critique from members in the forum, and be able to edit based off of that. It does say that a greenlight is not required, but I'm sure if you wanted critique, you could get it.
Unless, of course, I majorly misinterpreted the rules, or the staff consider that to be an unfair advantage. I do have another phenomena draft I'm working on, and if I'm able to finish it, I'll use that instead of my developed draft.
Just a high schooler who thinks he is good at writing. Likes working on a lot of stuff, ranging from writing for the Backrooms Wiki, to providing critique, and reading. ~ Pen.
"The truth is the truth. What changes is what we know about it and what we're willing to believe."
- Jonathan Maberry, Rot and Ruin
Hope I can make a worthy entry to this contest, and I hope to see everyone else's entries too; see y'all at the finish line!
…since when did we have signatures?
cool stuff. (I'm pretty sure the phenomenon category was kinda overlooked but yeah, this should bring entries to it.)
From Pyro AroAce, that one trans guy.
/forum/t-15797382/phenomena-contest-2023#post-