SCP Foundation - Creepypasta with roid rage - now ITT: SCP fans

AoS

with gusto
kiwifarms.net
They're baiting you, and they were probably hoping that someone would screenshot those messages. Of course they're going to tell a public server that it's no big deal to them. They don't want people to look at Kiwifarms or any similar hub of information and if they can convince the people around them that all the information and evidence in this thread is inaccurate, or an exaggeration, then it only gives them more power. Several things have been deleted since that list was posted. I wouldn't acknowledge anything these people say, if I were you. Kaktus lived in Indiana until 2017, and he was open about his move to the Atlanta area to several other authors. He's bluffing because he doesn't want a knock on his door asking him why he thought the 16-year-old was a little minx.
If your doxxed address was wrong, why would you admit that? Pure smugness? That’s like “correcting” a heat-seeking missile away from decoy flares. Either the addresses are correct, or they aren’t and these are some real dumb people.
:thinking:
 

JonRonsons2015Book

kiwifarms.net
The attached image contains exhaustive detail surrounding Z/Insurgency Moon's interactions with Randomini. Specifically, it provides concrete dates and locations of all in-person interactions, planned and actual, as well as an integrated point-by-point rebuttal of Z's claim. Randomini has only interacted with two SCP fans in-person.

Any claims about in-person meetings between Randomini and other SCP site users, besides those below, are fabricated.
Any claims about Randomini having inappropriate contact with anyone via the internet or otherwise are fabricated.

Z has access to unedited, datestamped Skype logs to verify the below claims. Site administrative staff have been provided with Skype logs and other evidence and concluded Randomini was not at fault. This outcome will not be publicly logged on 05 Command site, as per site policy on harassment cases; it would also further deanonymise Z. Logs will remain private unless Z elects to release them only partially or in edited fashion, in which case all will be posted from this account.

Randomini had no knowledge of proven claims in this thread while they were occurring, is not currently an active staff member, and has negligible control over the website.

ZExhaustiveRefutation.png
 

HIVidaBoheme

Luncheon meat connoisseur
kiwifarms.net
If your doxxed address was wrong, why would you admit that? Pure smugness? That’s like “correcting” a heat-seeking missile away from decoy flares. Either the addresses are correct, or they aren’t and these are some real dumb people.
:thinking:
Basically this:
2f7.jpg

Now what conversations must be going on in secret servers for the inner circle must be really fun.
 

and 127 others

kiwifarms.net
The attached image contains exhaustive detail surrounding Z/Insurgency Moon's interactions with Randomini. Specifically, it provides concrete dates and locations of all in-person interactions, planned and actual, as well as an integrated point-by-point rebuttal of Z's claim. Randomini has only interacted with two SCP fans in-person.

Any claims about in-person meetings between Randomini and other SCP site users, besides those below, are fabricated.
Any claims about Randomini having inappropriate contact with anyone via the internet or otherwise are fabricated.

Z has access to unedited, datestamped Skype logs to verify the below claims. Site administrative staff have been provided with Skype logs and other evidence and concluded Randomini was not at fault. This outcome will not be publicly logged on 05 Command site, as per site policy on harassment cases; it would also further deanonymise Z. Logs will remain private unless Z elects to release them only partially or in edited fashion, in which case all will be posted from this account.

Randomini had no knowledge of proven claims in this thread while they were occurring, is not currently an active staff member, and has negligible control over the website.

View attachment 1480129
Phew. You guys smell that? Smells like SCP staff up in here all of a sudden.
 

Lil' Misogynist

Uh oh, looks like someone needs to go in the water
kiwifarms.net
The attached image contains exhaustive detail surrounding Z/Insurgency Moon's interactions with Randomini. Specifically, it provides concrete dates and locations of all in-person interactions, planned and actual, as well as an integrated point-by-point rebuttal of Z's claim. Randomini has only interacted with two SCP fans in-person.

Any claims about in-person meetings between Randomini and other SCP site users, besides those below, are fabricated.
Any claims about Randomini having inappropriate contact with anyone via the internet or otherwise are fabricated.

Z has access to unedited, datestamped Skype logs to verify the below claims. Site administrative staff have been provided with Skype logs and other evidence and concluded Randomini was not at fault. This outcome will not be publicly logged on 05 Command site, as per site policy on harassment cases; it would also further deanonymise Z. Logs will remain private unless Z elects to release them only partially or in edited fashion, in which case all will be posted from this account.

Randomini had no knowledge of proven claims in this thread while they were occurring, is not currently an active staff member, and has negligible control over the website.

View attachment 1480129
You have provided no proof for anything in the attached image, not even censored screenshots of the alleged Skype messages or social media posts. As it stands, it is Randomini's word against Z's word. Here is what we do know: Z was inappropriately targeted by several members of the SCP community while underage. The current captain of the Anti-Harassment Team has lied in public before, something I proved. At the moment, there is no good reason as to why anyone reading this should believe what you have posted over Z's claim, like it or not. Would you like to tell us your Wikidot username, how you acquired this info/why you were asked to post here despite not being staff, and why we should believe what you have stated in your post? If you're going to come here to speak on the behalf of another person, you need screenshots.
 
Last edited:

JonRonsons2015Book

kiwifarms.net
At the moment, there is no good reason as to why anyone reading this should believe what you have posted over Z's claim, like it or not.
Randomini makes substantially more grounded claims than Z. If any given sub-claim within it was false, it should be relatively easy for Z to falsify; meanwhile, Z's claim is vague and functionally unfalsifiable. The sequence of events described is mostly compatible with Z's claim rather than directly contradicting it, only doing so relative to Z's percieved intentionality of interaction. As it is far easier to falsify Randomini's claim than Z's in the event of it being inaccurate, it should be considered the stronger evidence.

how you acquired this info/why you were asked to post here despite not being staff
Independent investigation + direct communication with Randomini. Figured disclosure was in the public interest here, Randomini agrees. Randomini will confirm agreement with these posts in response to any Wikidot PM asking about it, but will not provide any further information without Z's permission (see below).

If you're going to come here to speak on the behalf of another person, you need screenshots.
Screenshots of relevant public-facing social media posts make deanonymisation of Z relatively trivial. Censored screenshots of Skype logs would reveal identical textual information as provided above, but it can always be counter-claimed that "we don't know the other user is Z" or that they were wholesale fabricated. In the absence of further clarification or statement from Z, permission from Z to deanonymise her is provided, or both Randomini and Z both confirm the accuracy of publicly posted logs, no further information can be provided without either further compromising Z's identity, or doubt still remaining regarding the accuracy of any given claim.

Randomini is willing to go ahead with full public disclosure of Skype logs, dependent on Z signing off on it here via the Insurgency Moon account. If Z wants, they can even post those logs themselves and Randomini will either confirm their accuracy and completeness or, if Randomini claims they're wholesale fabricated, provide alternative exhaustive logs as already documented by him. If it's the former, there will be nothing to contradict Randomini's claim. If it's the latter and we end up with two exhaustive but contradictory sets of logs - well, one of them must have a lot of time on their hands.

Only after complete and mutually agreed upon public disclosure will either party have evidence for their claims. Until then, as you say, neither person has any proof - but it seems easier for Z to disprove any of Randomini's claims than it is for Randomini to disprove Z's. Until we see those logs, Randomini's remains the stronger claim.
 

Psyantroos

Cyantreuse / sexycontainmentprocedures
kiwifarms.net
Phew. You guys smell that? Smells like SCP staff up in here all of a sudden.
Site administrative staff have been provided with Skype logs and other evidence and concluded Randomini was not at fault. This outcome will not be publicly logged on 05 Command site, as per site policy on harassment cases; it would also further deanonymise Z. Logs will remain private unless Z elects to release them only partially or in edited fashion, in which case all will be posted from this account.
Screenshots of relevant public-facing social media posts make deanonymisation of Z relatively trivial. Censored screenshots of Skype logs would reveal identical textual information as provided above, but it can always be counter-claimed that "we don't know the other user is Z" or that they were wholesale fabricated. In the absence of further clarification or statement from Z, permission from Z to deanonymise her is provided, or both Randomini and Z both confirm the accuracy of publicly posted logs, no further information can be provided without either further compromising Z's identity, or doubt still remaining regarding the accuracy of any given claim.
Yeah, SCP staff talk a certain way like this person does. Super stiff and bureaucratic. This person is also going out of their way to talk in third person regarding site policy and staff actions (bolded above). The manner of speaking leaks into the overall culture too, but staff are the worst offenders for it. It's clear in how they all talk on O5command, but I've attached about 1.5 years' worth of #site17 logs for general reference.

I also recommend searching for key usernames, as well as keywords having to do with mental illness and social justice; these topics appear to be the cruxes of SCP Exceptionalism. The place is a miserable crab bucket of paranoid accusations, fear of your peers, and Hollywood-style performative leftism. And now, instead of admitting to all of their shit and actually trying to be better people, looks like they just spent hours editing together a massive, evidence-less document (chock-full of the same bureaucrap phrasing) to try and discredit one of the youngest grooming victims. Wow

P.S. Sorry to see that my IRCCloud account joined 17 in January 2020, Procy! I have shit cell service and intended to log in but not connect, because I was just on there to download these logs of y'all's insanity

Edit: Nice username.
 

Attachments

JonRonsons2015Book

kiwifarms.net
looks like they just spent hours editing together a massive, evidence-less document (chock-full of the same bureaucrap phrasing)
If only we knew an ex-staff member who has a vested interest in exhaustively and definitively refuting this claim.

You can publicly verify at least one of Randomini's claims: check the activity drop-off from early 2018 at http://www.wikidot.com/user:info/randomini, with only 3 maintenance edits within 2018 after the date he gives as cutting contact, and 11 in 2019, relative to the much more frequent activity before then. Would gladly provide other links but you really can identify Z from them with only marginal sleuthing. If Z signs off here on de-anonymising being acceptable, I'll gladly link to the public-facing social media examples Randomini has as further supporting evidence. They're timestamped at the times claimed so could not have been tampered with after the fact.

Unfortunately, that really is the extent of what can be provided that's both externally verifiable to everyone here and doesn't have a non-negligible risk to further de-anonymise Z.
 

Lil' Misogynist

Uh oh, looks like someone needs to go in the water
kiwifarms.net
If only we knew an ex-staff member who has a vested interest in exhaustively and definitively refuting this claim.

You can publicly verify at least one of Randomini's claims: check the activity drop-off from early 2018 at http://www.wikidot.com/user:info/randomini, with only 3 maintenance edits within 2018 after the date he gives as cutting contact, and 11 in 2019, relative to the much more frequent activity before then. Would gladly provide other links but you really can identify Z from them with only marginal sleuthing. If Z signs off here on de-anonymising being acceptable, I'll gladly link to the public-facing social media examples Randomini has as further supporting evidence. They're timestamped at the times claimed so could not have been tampered with after the fact.

Unfortunately, that really is the extent of what can be provided that's both externally verifiable to everyone here and doesn't have a non-negligible risk to further de-anonymise Z.
You can post proof or get out of the thread. It’s not that hard. You haven’t “refuted” Z’s claims, you’ve only caused unnecessary confusion by posting here. Don’t come back until you have Skype screenshots. This thread is full of screenshots with names censored for privacy and it hasn’t been an issue until you tried to make it one.
 

Mexican_Wizard_711

kiwifarms.net
If only we knew an ex-staff member who has a vested interest in exhaustively and definitively refuting this claim.

You can publicly verify at least one of Randomini's claims: check the activity drop-off from early 2018 at http://www.wikidot.com/user:info/randomini, with only 3 maintenance edits within 2018 after the date he gives as cutting contact, and 11 in 2019, relative to the much more frequent activity before then. Would gladly provide other links but you really can identify Z from them with only marginal sleuthing. If Z signs off here on de-anonymising being acceptable, I'll gladly link to the public-facing social media examples Randomini has as further supporting evidence. They're timestamped at the times claimed so could not have been tampered with after the fact.

Unfortunately, that really is the extent of what can be provided that's both externally verifiable to everyone here and doesn't have a non-negligible risk to further de-anonymise Z.
You only provided one attachment and that's it, @Lil' Misogynist meanwhile has presented several screenshots and a couple of archives that gives a clearer picture on the situation.

Yeah, SCP staff talk a certain way like this person does. Super stiff and bureaucratic. This person is also going out of their way to talk in third person regarding site policy and staff actions (bolded above). The manner of speaking leaks into the overall culture too, but staff are the worst offenders for it. It's clear in how they all talk on O5command, but I've attached about 1.5 years' worth of #site17 logs for general reference.
Don't these guys ever get tired of acting like this? I get that the site is about a Secret Organization that catches weird things. But this Role-Playing and LARPing as government secret agents comes off as corny and goofy, it reminds of the time when Creepypasta was more popular and how multiple kids in the comment section of Slenderman videos would beg for slenderman to take them so they can be his proxies or when fan girls thought Jeff the Killer was cute.

Anyway, this talk of the site's staff and culture makes me think up this video. it's funny how most online communities despite being about different things, all act the same.

 

AoS

with gusto
kiwifarms.net
The attached image contains exhaustive detail surrounding Z/Insurgency Moon's interactions with Randomini. Specifically, it provides concrete dates and locations of all in-person interactions, planned and actual, as well as an integrated point-by-point rebuttal of Z's claim. Randomini has only interacted with two SCP fans in-person.

Any claims about in-person meetings between Randomini and other SCP site users, besides those below, are fabricated.
Any claims about Randomini having inappropriate contact with anyone via the internet or otherwise are fabricated.

Z has access to unedited, datestamped Skype logs to verify the below claims. Site administrative staff have been provided with Skype logs and other evidence and concluded Randomini was not at fault. This outcome will not be publicly logged on 05 Command site, as per site policy on harassment cases; it would also further deanonymise Z. Logs will remain private unless Z elects to release them only partially or in edited fashion, in which case all will be posted from this account.

Randomini had no knowledge of proven claims in this thread while they were occurring, is not currently an active staff member, and has negligible control over the website.

View attachment 1480129
There are certainly two sides to every story. On the one hand, I am readily available to think of Randomini as a misunderstood, conflicted, and hesitant participant in this drama. Fair enough to want to clear his name. But hiding behind a new proxy KF farm account (you just a big fan of his or something?) comes off as being a scared, dishonest wuss. Contrast that to Psyantroos, or Z herself, and other ex SCP who showed some spine by coming here themselves.

I’d rather Randomini be cleared in a way, because after listening to his work on the kaktuskast, specifically his audio production and humor (pronouncing djkwaktus’s name in several variations in a dry speed run through all author page names had me holding my sides), I held Randomini in a very positive light, prior to his involvement here.

But this KF account sits off with me. Comes off as untrustworthy and a trying-too-hard intellectual. No one here is a #MeToo believe all women loon. But there are spots in this would-be total exoneration that are pretty unbelievable to me, and I’m inclined to take Z more at her word. Why?
Any claims about Randomini having inappropriate contact with anyone via the internet or otherwise are fabricated.
lol what? This isnt kids making rules up on a playground here, doesn’t work like that. Are we supposed to just say “Oh! oh okay.” to this? As others have said, this isn’t proof or even evidence. It’s a nice timeline. Skype logs won’t prove all the claims here, like Randomini was frustrated that Z bought tickets to an event that she only got to see half of, apparently pissed off that she was going for him and not for the event. That’s a crazy reason to get mad at someone, comes off as fake as hell, and good for Randomini’s psychological profile, it’s probably false. That’s like how Eric Cartmen would cast his own actions in his side of a story.

The original post sanitizes Randomini in full. There is zero give regarding any wrongdoing, ulterior or parallel motives, any alternative intentionality aside from angelic and extraordinarily circumspect behavior. “Sure we can hang out together again and again and I know you revere me highly and maybe I have an idea of how you have interacted with other SCP authors but nooooo don’t hug me nooooo, love my interests and not meeeee” Uh huh. Recall the rule SCP had to put up to its elite; don’t leverage your reputation. A novel lesson to this bunch.

Randomini being totally oblivious to the manner in which other staff had been interacting with Z (Eskobar, Jade) in a community that is chatty with gossip to the core, I find hard to believe, assuming the dates work. If he knew about it, why put himself out there? To be a “true friend” or play the rescuer role? Uh huh. We know he was/is in a circle of some really repellant individuals, on a site that is saturated in a sex and hook-up culture. He enjoyed the clout of the inner circle and now he doesn’t enjoy the connotations, but that’s the price.

Also, yes this account is steaming with SCP autism. Like Psy said, the tone has the sort of pseudo-bureaucratic importance and LARPing that exists in the 05 threads (“per the Almighty policy”), the table formatting is pretty odd except in the context of familiarity with Wikidot code, it’s delivered with the same kind of pomp. Feels like an adolescent trying to play lawyer. The author of it asserts things only Randomini could possibly know (“Randomini has only interacted with two SCP fans in-person,” “Randomini had no knowledge of proven claims in this thread while they were occurring”); so if we take it seriously, we can only ultimately believe that it’s either Randomini himself or this person is discrediting themselves in their over-reaching to clear his name.

The account was made 12 hrs prior to the first post. Definitely an obtuse, very motivated interjection imo. Sticks out like a sore thumb.

“Exhaustive detail”? Informative yeah but it’s no more exhaustive than typing “refuted” or “refuted totally” is convincing. It’s very leftist-esque. Like the hilarious “detracting!” rhetorical stamp that’s thrown on an opponent’s successful counter-arguments that leftists just want to handwave. “Point by point rebuttal”? Don’t talk something up that it isn’t. Bad salesmanship and it works against anyone taking you seriously.
Would have been a better strategy to lean into the softer claims and let the independent minds here pick up any slack. Until any grippable evidence is presented, you have thrown your believability out the window in just a few posts.
 

Lil' Misogynist

Uh oh, looks like someone needs to go in the water
kiwifarms.net
There are certainly two sides to every story. On the one hand, I am readily available to think of Randomini as a misunderstood, conflicted, and hesitant participant in this drama. Fair enough to want to clear his name. But hiding behind a new proxy KF farm account (you just a big fan of his or something?) comes off as being a scared, dishonest wuss. Contrast that to Psyantroos, or Z herself, and other ex SCP who showed some spine by coming here themselves.

I’d rather Randomini be cleared in a way, because after listening to his work on the kaktuskast, specifically his audio production and humor (pronouncing djkwaktus’s name in several variations in a dry speed run through all author page names had me holding my sides), I held Randomini in a very positive light, prior to his involvement here.

But this KF account sits off with me. Comes off as untrustworthy and a trying-too-hard intellectual. No one here is a #MeToo believe all women loon. But there are spots in this would-be total exoneration that are pretty unbelievable to me, and I’m inclined to take Z more at her word. Why?


lol what? This isnt kids making rules up on a playground here, doesn’t work like that. Are we supposed to just say “Oh! oh okay.” to this? As others have said, this isn’t proof or even evidence. It’s a nice timeline. Skype logs won’t prove all the claims here, like Randomini was frustrated that Z bought tickets to an event that she only got to see half of, apparently pissed off that she was going for him and not for the event. That’s a crazy reason to get mad at someone, comes off as fake as hell, and good for Randomini’s psychological profile, it’s probably false. That’s like how Eric Cartmen would cast his own actions in his side of a story.

The original post sanitizes Randomini in full. There is zero give regarding any wrongdoing, ulterior or parallel motives, any alternative intentionality aside from angelic and extraordinarily circumspect behavior. “Sure we can hang out together again and again and I know you revere me highly and maybe I have an idea of how you have interacted with other SCP authors but nooooo don’t hug me nooooo, love my interests and not meeeee” Uh huh. Recall the rule SCP had to put up to its elite; don’t leverage your reputation. A novel lesson to this bunch.

Randomini being totally oblivious to the manner in which other staff had been interacting with Z (Eskobar, Jade) in a community that is chatty with gossip to the core, I find hard to believe, assuming the dates work. If he knew about it, why put himself out there? To be a “true friend” or play the rescuer role? Uh huh. We know he was/is in a circle of some really repellant individuals, on a site that is saturated in a sex and hook-up culture. He enjoyed the clout of the inner circle and now he doesn’t enjoy the connotations, but that’s the price.

Also, yes this account is steaming with SCP autism. Like Psy said, the tone has the sort of pseudo-bureaucratic importance and LARPing that exists in the 05 threads (“per the Almighty policy”), the table formatting is pretty odd except in the context of familiarity with Wikidot code, it’s delivered with the same kind of pomp. Feels like an adolescent trying to play lawyer. The author of it asserts things only Randomini could possibly know (“Randomini has only interacted with two SCP fans in-person,” “Randomini had no knowledge of proven claims in this thread while they were occurring”); so if we take it seriously, we can only ultimately believe that it’s either Randomini himself or this person is discrediting themselves in their over-reaching to clear his name.

The account was made 12 hrs prior to the first post. Definitely an obtuse, very motivated interjection imo. Sticks out like a sore thumb.

“Exhaustive detail”? Informative yeah but it’s no more exhaustive than typing “refuted” or “refuted totally” is convincing. It’s very leftist-esque. Like the hilarious “detracting!” rhetorical stamp that’s thrown on an opponent’s successful counter-arguments that leftists just want to handwave. “Point by point rebuttal”? Don’t talk something up that it isn’t. Bad salesmanship and it works against anyone taking you seriously.
Would have been a better strategy to lean into the softer claims and let the independent minds here pick up any slack. Until any grippable evidence is presented, you have thrown your believability out the window in just a few posts.
This is a really good analyis, but I also want to point out something that I didn't really comprehend last night, which is that this post employs two strategies that abusers use. The first is that the poster claims that Z was "touch starved" and repeatedly made physical contact that made Randomini uncomfortable. This detail is actually a huge red flag for me. Abusers will very often lie that their victims were actually the ones who were creepy/abusive/manipulative/etc. to create confusion and hostility towards the victim. Despite the seriousness of this accusation, it ultimately depicts Z as a deeply troubled individual, a move made to make readers doubt her mental state while painting Randomini as a responsible adult, something that the poster repeatedly emphasizes. It strikes me as manipulative. Another problem in my eyes is the way this poster claims to not be willing to present screenshot evidence unless Z herself shows up to give permission. While this is presented as a charitable action to protect her anonymity, I think it's actually an attempt to intimidate her. For example, this seems eerily similar to the way that abusive people will sometimes use the court system in a malicious way to gain control over their victims. It's incredibly suspicious. I think you're right, I think this post was made by Randomini himself.

It's clear in how they all talk on O5command, but I've attached about 1.5 years' worth of #site17 logs for general reference.
Also, not to sidetrack, but you all should take a look at this attachment if you have time. It's literally a huge text file with 1.5 years worth of logs from Site17, the public staff channel.
 

Psyantroos

Cyantreuse / sexycontainmentprocedures
kiwifarms.net
It's incredibly suspicious. I think you're right, I think this post was made by Randomini himself.
ruh_roh.png


Yeah, it seems like @JonRonsons2015Book was either Randomini trying to sound like a staff member or staff trying to focus attention on Randomini since he's (allegedly) not in a position of power with them anymore. Staff were already fine with eventually acknowledging controversy in order to save their public image, like when they banned Gabriel Jade and Eskobar only after the proof was public. It wouldn't surprise me if their newest tactic will be to show up in unofficial locations to give Official Statements defending their own, since more people are starting to see through the old tactics. It's wild, there are so many simpler ends to this situation, none of which involve continuing to cover up the truth like this. (Also, semi-related, I'm attaching a couple of Bright's pics that I'd been meaning to edit for a while.)
 

Attachments

Tags
None