Who wants to play with ROBIE?: Updated

Summary:

1st SCP. A child's robot causes an ethical dilemma

ROBIE

Joshsomus Prime 18 Sep 2019 08:56

My first SCP. Looking to trim it down as it seems unnecessarily long to me. Appreciate the feedback.

Greenlights: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-12547076/who-wants-to-play-with-robie

Sandbox: http://scp-sandbox-3.wikidot.com/joshsomusprime

A robot made by a child out of junk causes an ethical dilemma between the doctor, researcher and Ethics Committee. I use large gaps in time between entries to show lack of progress. Meant to cause questions that are left unanswered.

Edit as of 10/2/2019: Looking for further review. Changed quite a bit and is still a rather long read. Trying to determine if I have captured the dilemma I was trying to portray and how to trim it down. Not necessarily looking for grammar right now, but anything is appreciated.

+ Footnote Transcription:

FEC-242.15 - "Any SOE (subject, object, or entity) under neutralization consideration whose potential hazard to humanity, whether contained or not, is sufficient to merit Class B consideration and no known methods of improvement have been considered or theorized within a standard observation cycle is to be marked with a "pending" designation and resubmitted to Morality Commission-3 for further review. Moral Commission-3 is to determine neutralization protocol to ensure neutralization is efficient, effective, and effusive to personnel involved. Neutralization must also be as quick and painless to the SOE in question as is possible. This protocol is to then be resubmitted to the Ethics Committee for review. In the event neutralization requires a terminal resolution, unless SOE's hostility is of a level that it cannot adequately comprehend the procedure, SOE must understand procedures the foundation is undertaking prior to application of neutralization procedure.
FEC-574.65,a-d - "Containment procedures are to be considered unethical if any of the following criteria are met: (a) SOE containment has elapsed past a point of time relevant to the SOE as to be considered imprisonment rather than containment. (b) SOE is suffering severe negative physiological and/or psychological effects due to containment, that cannot be moderated by medication, amnestics, re-amplification, cognito- or physical therapy, or other unlisted specified therapies to the SOE. A rule of thumb - 'indifference, though unpleasant at least implicates understanding.' (c) Physical harm is conducted unnecessarily or at unnecessary intervals based on fear of SOE rather than proper known containment. Containment should inflict as minimal negative damage, of any kind, as is possible using as minimal amount of resources as possible. (d) Containment and subsequent testing pose an unnecessary risk to the SOE, foundation personnel or other SOEs.
FEC-1422,a-g "Any SOE with an established sentience and/or sapience of Level 2/3 respectively or higher, should be considered exempt from terminal neutralization provided at least four of the following seven criteria are met: (a) SOE displays a hostility level below 50. (b) Containment of SOE has proven effective. (c) Hazard level of SOE, whether voluntary or involuntary is below Class C. (d) SOE has shown measurable progress in the way of control, state, or decision making in regards to its potential risk. (e) SOE cooperates with and/or wants the assistance of the foundation in determining a resolution. (f) SOE has no recorded instance of voluntary harm, whether reflexive or intentional, perpetrated upon foundation personnel, property or other SOEs. (g) SOE does not deviate from specified observation or testing procedures despite hostility level.

Last edited on 09 Oct 2019 09:35 by Joshsomus Prime Show more

Re: Who wants to play with ROBIE

RockTeethMothEyes 25 Sep 2019 04:18

Allow me to preface this by saying that though I try to be thorough, if I catch myself repeating the same thing over and over, I will become less likely to comment on those recurring flaws. Keep this in mind as we go further.

Now, let us begin.

+[Line-by-Line Critique] Click to Access

The object is clearly sentient though sapience has proven difficult to determine

Comma after "sentient".

Despite being constructed of entirely of mechanical and computational components

Remove the first "of".

The satellite receiver appears to act as SCP-XXXX's method of sight and is directly linked with SCP-XXXX's discharge hereby referred to as SCP-XXXX-1.

Comma after "discharge".

SCP-XXXX-1 is a powerful beam of EIWO¹ light that extends to distances between 60 m and 150 m before collapsing on itself.

The footnote here is a bit long. You might be able to get away with just explaning the acronym and moving on, especially since you say "before collapsing on itself".

It emanates and is discharged via the computer monitor at an 87 degree angle to object's right track.

May want to elaborate a bit here when you say "object's right track".

This discharge seems involuntary but may be linked to SCP-XXXX's emotional state.

This sentence seems unnecessary. I think it'd be more effective implied than explicit like this.

SCP-XXXX has two modes which display on the computer monitor located behind the receiver.

State the two modes here to introduce them to the reader. It works better than saying "The second mode displayed is "PL@Y"." in the middle of the paragraph.

No instance of SCP-XXXX-1 has been documented while in this mode, even when metallic sheet is removed.

"the" before "metallic".

All tests and interactions are to be set up during "R3ST" and conducted during "PL@Y".

This is a containment procedure, as it pertains to when testing is most useful to be conducted.

This is when all previously mentioned behaviors have been recorded.

This would best worded differently. "All notable activity from SCP-XXXX has occurred while the "PL@Y" mode was engaged."

The foundation

The Foundation is the name of an organization, making it a proper noun, meaning it should be capitalized.

---

So this recovery log doesn't tell us much more than we have already gotten from the description. The reiteration here isn't doing wonders. Also, what did they expect? It's a laser beam and they know it can burn through things easily, so why would the approach it so carelessly?

I recommend removing the recovery log, or at least summarizing it. It doesn't seem to really do much more than what is already relayed in the description.

---

Interview was conducted by [REDACTED] with [REDACTED] (father of Billy, maker of SCP-XXXX).

How does the Foundation know that this is the creator? When did they detain him?

Not much, unfortunately. My boy made him (starts to break down and begins sobbing)

Seems a bit suddenly dramatic. If you've ever spoken with someone dealing with the grief of loss, they are typically well-composed, especially if its been a few days since the loss. That's not to say you can't have them break down, but you want to give it a little more time and a little more than mentioning the deceased.

Researcher: What about that saying?

Father: Oh that. (chuckles) That was their game.

This makes no sense to me. What do you mean by "saying"?

While the interview provides some origin backing, there needs to be some stuff to support it. All of the sudden we have this father and this boy, but not once have they come up in the article until now. I'm a bit unsure of the interview's place in the article. I could see it fitting in (maybe with some reworking of the father's composure here), but you'll want to be wary not to detract much from the primary focus of the article.

---

Similar feelings about the addendum here. Not sure if it has a place in this article. It's brief enough that I'm willing to overlook it. Ideally though, there should be a better illustration of what "progress" is here. I'm not sure what they are working towards in terms of a goal.

---

The entirety of Addendum XXXX.400R is pointless. I'll be transparent here and say that I did not read the footnotes, because I'm not going to subject myself to a wall of legal text. To read it all and then have the Ethics Committee bend to the opposition anyway chalks up to a waste of time. I see no use for having this communique.

---

+[Overall] Click to Access

I'm not into it. I feel as if these two researchers are working towards a goal, but I don't know why they would ever pursue that goal. If the goal is to introduce a modicum of intelligence to the robot, then it seems kind of a fruitless task, especially since they can't really release the thing into the public. What's going to happen if and when they are successful? Just keep it in the box and hope it doesn't discharge a laser?

I can't behind this. It doesn't add up to me in any meaningful way. I personally suggest reaching out to those who greenlit the concept to see what they think, but if this were on the main site as it is now, I'd likely downvote it.

Last edited on 26 Sep 2019 01:48 by RockTeethMothEyes Show more

Re: Who wants to play with ROBIE

Joshsomus Prime 26 Sep 2019 03:59

Thank you for the critique. I will begin reworking it. The progress they are trying to achieve is getting it back to a state where it is no longer a danger. Having it been with the family for five years without incident is meant to showcase that it's capable of such a thing. It's meant more to showcase the ethical dilemma produced by the thing, but obviously I failed in that regard. The primary thing I'm trying to get across is that this being is truly innocent but has immensely destructive capability it can't control and the way that would push the Foundation's cold, but not cruel ideology.

Again, thanks for the critique. I think I got burned out by the formatting (I am not very computer savvy and formatting took me a few days) and hastened my want to simply get it out there so I could get feedback.

The recovery log is meant to be from the viewpoint they don't know what they are dealing with yet or at least how it operates. I trimmed it down a lot at the advice of one of the green lighters that covered that more.

I was actually using a reference to my own family member for the interview with the father. While I agree, they are usually composed, there are certain triggers. Perhaps, I need to rework it or read more up on that. Appreciate you pointing it out though. I definitely have to figure out how the Foundation came to know about the father. In my head, since he was at the funeral, they questioned everyone after the event and that is where they discovered the connection. He would have been en route back to town. I suppose that is easier for me to infer than the reader. Thank you.

The saying is "Who wants to play with ROBIE? Who now? Who less?"

I thought sprinkling it in throughout the article would be enough.

Do you think there is anything here if it is reworked properly or is it better to scrap this and start over? Anyways, thanks again. This has been super helpful and I appreciate you taking the time.

Last edited on 05 Oct 2019 10:10 by Joshsomus Prime Show more

Re: Who wants to play with ROBIE?: Updated

tupacofficial 09 Oct 2019 18:58

+ show block

Line-by-line

An omnidirectional conveyor track to be installed over the entire floor area.

I think you missed an "is".

I feel that the archived containment procedures are a bit too specific, even though it's under a collapsible. If possible, I would advise you to eliminate specific dimensions and condense the containment procedures to its absolute minimal form.

The following parts have been identified and their functions provided

This is a nitpick, but I would put the following in bullet point format since it's simply more pleasing to the eye than a paragraph of text.

It emanates and is discharged via the computer monitor at an 87 degree angle to the object's right, rotary track

I'm not entirely sure this is grammatically correct, since "emanate" is usually used as "emanate from" instead of "via". Also, the last comma is unnecessary.

It feels weird referring to the interviewee as "Father" throughout the entire log. It's much more conventional to simply refer to him as "Mr. Waldress" or something like that.

Overall
I feel like you have the constituent parts of a solid article, but it's still not coming together as well as it could.

My main problem with the article is probably the length/pacing. I recommend you go over the entire piece and really consider what you could cut without sacrificing the overall narrative, or what you could restructure to create a better reading experience.

First of all, I think the information provided to the reader in the interview log would pack more of an emotional punch if conveyed in a much more subtle fashion. Maybe Mr. Waldress was killed by the SCP, and what information the Foundation knows about its past was gathered from its childlike ramblings? Try dropping some hints throughout the story instead of outright telling the reader right off the bat.

I think Addendum 254 would be more suited in the Description, where it would create a more natural pacing. You want to get all the tangential details about the anomaly, its behavior, etc. out of the way in the Description so you can develop an effectively escalating narrative in the remainder of the article.

I can't believe the Ethics Committee would decide to neutralize the thing in the first place. I'm sure you know the Foundation's motto is secure, contain, and protect, not destroy, destroy, destroy. If the reader isn't given a valid reason as to why the SCP should be neutralized in the first place, the whole ethical dilemma you're trying to set up here is essentially moot to them.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not sure why ROBIE statrs to deteriorate in Addendum 524. In addition, I feel like most of the article beyond this point is too sentimental and heavy-handed in emotion. I'm especially put off by Dr. Glass's reaction - I can't believe that an experienced Foundation researcher would develop such a strong attachment to a robot given the nature of his job.

As of right now, this article feels a bit too disjointed and aimless for me to enjoy it. The narrative pretty much boils down to the Foundation containing a robot, which does some weird stuff before dying. However, with a little more finesse in delivering pathos and a more focused "point" to the whole story, I think this article will be much stronger.

I hope this was helpful.

Last edited on 11 Oct 2019 03:24 by tupacofficial Show more

Re: Who wants to play with ROBIE?: Updated

Joshsomus Prime 11 Oct 2019 05:19

Thank you. And I'm sorry for the pacing and narrative. I've been adding and deleting so much per other reviews, I've kind of gotten lost. Thank you for pointing out the "Father" thing in the first interview. I originally had his name redacted, but someone pointed out, that would be irrelevant to the foundation records so I'll change that.

I'm having a lot of problems changing things without adding a bunch. I specifically picked Dr. Glass, because his personnel dossier says he is almost too empathetic. I may be inferring that compared to other foundation personnel. I'm trying to tell the story in cycles. Researcher maybe gets too attached, then neutralization is ordered and opposed successfully by doctor, who becomes too attached and then orders neutralization himself. I'm trying to portray the scip as "truly innocent" almost "ignorant" so the narrative focuses solely on the foundation. I originally had larger gaps in time and less SCP interaction with only the second to last interview being its only interaction to try and accomplish this, but the pacing was off.

Previously, I had more for their reasoning to neutralize, but in cutting stuff, I may have gotten rid of too much.

Your feedback is much appreciated, as I've hit a wall and am thinking of scrapping or shelving this for now, and trying something different, but I'll try tweaking some more. Thanks again.

Last edited on 11 Oct 2019 05:30 by Joshsomus Prime Show more