More on the locked box tests

Summary:

The locked box tests applied to new esoteric classes

More on the locked box tests

Kenoma 29 Oct 2019 03:54

I recently realized that even esoteric classes can fit the locked box tests. But others like Embla (which 914 can be updated into btw) and Eparch can't because they're kind of not being contained.

• If you can lock it in a box, and nothing bad will happen, then it's probably Safe.
• If you can lock it in a box, and you're not entirely sure what will happen, then it's probably Euclid.
• If you can lock it in a box, and it easily escapes, then it's probably Keter.
• If you can lock it in a box, but it's better that you don't, then it's probably Archon.
• If you can lock it in a box, but locking it requires risks or sacrifices, then it's probably Cernnunos.
• If you can lock it in a box, but it's not needed, then it's probably Ticonderoga.
• If you can use it as a box, then it's probably Thaumiel.
• If you can use it as a box to lock other boxes, then it's probably Hiemal.
• If you can use it as a box, and not using it as a box anymore will have consequences, then it's probably Yesod.
• If you can't lock it in a box, and it can likely end the world, then it's probably Apollyon.
• If you must lock it in multiple boxes separately, then it's probably Maksur.
• If you must lock it in a box, and destroy the box while it's in it, then it's probably Tiamat.
• If you should never lock it in a box, then it's probably Kušum.
• If you don't have to lock it or it has been permanently locked in a box, then it's probably Neutralized.

---

𝕎𝕙𝕖𝕟 𝕨𝕒𝕝𝕜𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕒𝕝𝕠𝕟𝕖 𝕚𝕟 𝕒 𝕛𝕦𝕟𝕘𝕝𝕖 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕣𝕦𝕖 𝕕𝕒𝕣𝕜𝕟𝕖𝕤𝕤, 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕥𝕙𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕥𝕙𝕚𝕟𝕘𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕔𝕒𝕟 𝕤𝕙𝕠𝕨 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕨𝕒𝕪: 𝕚𝕟𝕤𝕥𝕚𝕟𝕔𝕥 𝕥𝕠 𝕤𝕦𝕣𝕧𝕚𝕧𝕖, 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕜𝕟𝕠𝕨𝕝𝕖𝕕𝕘𝕖 𝕠𝕗 𝕟𝕒𝕧𝕚𝕘𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟, 𝕔𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕧𝕖 𝕚𝕞𝕒𝕘𝕚𝕟𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟. 𝕎𝕚𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕦𝕥 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕞, 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕝𝕠𝕤𝕥.

Last edited on 29 Oct 2019 07:52 by Kenoma Show more

Re: More on the locked box tests

Nagiros 29 Oct 2019 11:47

But others like Embla (which 914 can be updated into btw)

Embla is one of those narrativistic classes that only works in Mann's Proposal, and probably shouldn't spread for fear of making a unique part of the Proposal into something standard.

Eparch can't because they're kind of not being contained

How about this? You need to put it in a box, because it suggests something that also needs to be in a box.

Re: More on the locked box tests

Kenoma 29 Oct 2019 12:36

Embla is one of those narrativistic classes that only works in Mann's Proposal, and probably shouldn't spread for fear of making a unique part of the Proposal into something standard.

I couldn't agree more. Still, like Yesod, somebody may one day try to use it. And it's gonna be a cascade.

How about this? You need to put it in a box, because it suggests something that also needs to be in a box.

Neatly phrased! :D

---

𝕎𝕙𝕖𝕟 𝕨𝕒𝕝𝕜𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕒𝕝𝕠𝕟𝕖 𝕚𝕟 𝕒 𝕛𝕦𝕟𝕘𝕝𝕖 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕣𝕦𝕖 𝕕𝕒𝕣𝕜𝕟𝕖𝕤𝕤, 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕥𝕙𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕥𝕙𝕚𝕟𝕘𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕔𝕒𝕟 𝕤𝕙𝕠𝕨 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕨𝕒𝕪: 𝕚𝕟𝕤𝕥𝕚𝕟𝕔𝕥 𝕥𝕠 𝕤𝕦𝕣𝕧𝕚𝕧𝕖, 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕜𝕟𝕠𝕨𝕝𝕖𝕕𝕘𝕖 𝕠𝕗 𝕟𝕒𝕧𝕚𝕘𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟, 𝕔𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕧𝕖 𝕚𝕞𝕒𝕘𝕚𝕟𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟. 𝕎𝕚𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕦𝕥 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕞, 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕝𝕠𝕤𝕥.

Re: More on the locked box tests

Leveritas 29 Oct 2019 12:08

If you can lock it in a box, but locking it requires risks or sacrifices, then it's probably Cernnunos.

So in other words, ''anomalies that are exceedingly difficult to contain consistently or reliably, with containment procedures often being extensive and complex.'' So Keter.

If you can lock it in a box, but it's not needed, then it's probably Ticonderoga.

You don't technically ''need'' to lock Safe items in boxes either, but the Foundation does it anyway, since it's 'Secure, Contain, Protect'.

If you must lock it in a box, and destroy the box while it's in it, then it's probably Tiamat.

Again, this sounds like the box is part of Keter, since it's an extra step, AKA ''containment procedures often being extensive and complex''.

If you should never lock it in a box, then it's probably Kušum.

This is

- A): Way easier to do in the containment procedures by saying: ''Don't lock it in a box'', and save everyone the reader and the in-universe personnel the lingo.

- B): Very easily abused for edge points by writing ''Don't lock my OC in a box or it'll get very angry and kill you.''

I have no problem with unique skips having esoteric classes, but I don't think that categorising them in the Object Classes page helps anyone. It communicates that there's an inherent need for more of them, in a way. And if you're new enough to need the object classes page, you shouldn't be encouraged to do esoteric classes on your first go, since it will probably fall flat on its face. Someone might disagree on that last point and say: ''Why not, they'll learn/you shouldn't dictate that'', and I'm not doing that. I just recommend against it.

Note: The responses are to the locked box test, not to the actual skips using these classes, since these are usually way more nuanced and written well enough to justify them.

Re: More on the locked box tests

Kenoma 29 Oct 2019 12:31

I have no problem with unique skips having esoteric classes, but I don't think that categorising them in the Object Classes page helps anyone. It communicates that there's an inherent need for more of them, in a way.

I definitely agree. That's why I didn't even try to write and play around other established esoteric classes because most of them really just fall off on the S/E/K/T system. Even the esoteric class here can be narrowed down:

• Archon, Cernnunos, Ticonderoga, and Kušum is pretty much the same, just different reasons as to why putting it in a box are not needed, and either feels like hybrids of the S/E/K/T system.
• Apollyon and Tiamat is also just kind of the same (at least for me), just like upgraded Keter.
• While Hiemal is just Thaumiel 2.0. Maksur, though, feels unique, but still technically is like Keter.

Anyway, I just liked the locked box analogy so much. It simplifies the Foundation, despite the complexity of its universe. And especially when used on skips.

---

𝕎𝕙𝕖𝕟 𝕨𝕒𝕝𝕜𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕒𝕝𝕠𝕟𝕖 𝕚𝕟 𝕒 𝕛𝕦𝕟𝕘𝕝𝕖 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕣𝕦𝕖 𝕕𝕒𝕣𝕜𝕟𝕖𝕤𝕤, 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕥𝕙𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕥𝕙𝕚𝕟𝕘𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕔𝕒𝕟 𝕤𝕙𝕠𝕨 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕨𝕒𝕪: 𝕚𝕟𝕤𝕥𝕚𝕟𝕔𝕥 𝕥𝕠 𝕤𝕦𝕣𝕧𝕚𝕧𝕖, 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕜𝕟𝕠𝕨𝕝𝕖𝕕𝕘𝕖 𝕠𝕗 𝕟𝕒𝕧𝕚𝕘𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟, 𝕔𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕧𝕖 𝕚𝕞𝕒𝕘𝕚𝕟𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟. 𝕎𝕚𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕦𝕥 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕞, 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕝𝕠𝕤𝕥.

Last edited on 29 Oct 2019 12:34 by Kenoma Show more

Re: More on the locked box tests

Nagiros 29 Oct 2019 12:56

Most of your complaints come from the oversimplifications and misunderstandings inherent to the Locked Box analog. LB is only useful in explaining SEKTEN to newbies, and a few of the classes in Kenoma's post were poorly communicated.

For the record these would be better definitions for the classes you listed:

If there's a way to lock it in a box, but you can't find the key or need to perform unacceptably immoral activity to acquire it, then it's probably Cernnunos.

If you can never lock it in a box, but that's not currently needed, then it's probably Ticonderoga.

If you must destroy the box and thereby alert everyone to the existence of everything else in boxes, then it's probably Tiamat.

The analogy starts breaking down right here. :/

If keeping it locked in the box has been abandoned, it's probably Kušum.

Last edited on 29 Oct 2019 13:10 by Nagiros Show more

Re: More on the locked box tests

Kenoma 29 Oct 2019 13:10

If there's a way to lock it in a box, but you can't find the key or need to perform unacceptably immoral activity to acquire it, then it's probably Cernnunos.

I personally feel this is just the complicated version of what I've I already did.

If you can never lock it in a box, but that's not currently needed, then it's probably Ticonderoga.

How is this any different from my sentence above?

If you must destroy the box and thereby alert everyone to the existence of the anomalous, then it's probably Tiamat.

This is a nice touch. I didn't really address that "Veil-breaking operations" is a factor for the Tiamat-class.

---

𝕎𝕙𝕖𝕟 𝕨𝕒𝕝𝕜𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕒𝕝𝕠𝕟𝕖 𝕚𝕟 𝕒 𝕛𝕦𝕟𝕘𝕝𝕖 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕣𝕦𝕖 𝕕𝕒𝕣𝕜𝕟𝕖𝕤𝕤, 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕥𝕙𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕥𝕙𝕚𝕟𝕘𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕔𝕒𝕟 𝕤𝕙𝕠𝕨 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕨𝕒𝕪: 𝕚𝕟𝕤𝕥𝕚𝕟𝕔𝕥 𝕥𝕠 𝕤𝕦𝕣𝕧𝕚𝕧𝕖, 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕜𝕟𝕠𝕨𝕝𝕖𝕕𝕘𝕖 𝕠𝕗 𝕟𝕒𝕧𝕚𝕘𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟, 𝕔𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕧𝕖 𝕚𝕞𝕒𝕘𝕚𝕟𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟. 𝕎𝕚𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕦𝕥 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕞, 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕝𝕠𝕤𝕥.

Re: More on the locked box tests

Nagiros 29 Oct 2019 13:19

I didn't really want this to be an argument over semantics, sorry. :/

I personally feel this is just the complicated version of what I've I already did.

I feel like my definition clarifies that the risks and sacrifices involved are unacceptable, as opposed to just a matter of course. Most Keters require some form of risk and sacrifice. Also, you didn't mention the logistics angle.

How is this any different from my sentence above?

Your Ticonderoga definition said that the anomaly can be contained, which is not the case.

This is a nice touch.

Yeah, I edited that definition to be box-centric, but you ninja-ed me with your reply. 😅

Re: More on the locked box tests

wishun 29 Oct 2019 14:41

This perfectly illustrates why esoteric classes are a bad idea in-universe.

Three levels is easy to learn and keep in mind so everyone can react in a generally appropriate way instantly. Ten to fifteen subtly different categories is not so easily managed, and time spent sorting it out could kill people.

Re: More on the locked box tests

Nagiros 29 Oct 2019 17:14

If we're talking in-universe mechanics, it's unreasonable to suggest the Foundation could even still operate with 4998 non-joke SCPs in containment without something to explain it like Swann's Proposal. I generally tend to assume that not every SCP exists in the same universe, because the money required to keep the Foundation operational otherwise would be astronomical. I guess the same could apply to esoteric classes? That would be especially true in articles like Mann's Proposal that create really big implications about the Foundation's past, or articles where the SCP ends the world in some way.

Re: More on the locked box tests

wishun 29 Oct 2019 19:14

Most skips require less effort to keep locked up than a real world convict; and the US prison system keeps millions of those secured on a long term basis with far fewer "containment breaches" and fewer resources.

Because the Foundation has functionally infinite resources.

Off the top of my head they have: a machine dispenses pure gold by the cup on demand; an otherwise normal owl that barfs pellets made of precious metals; a butler that will bring you (very nearly) anything you ask; and an ostensibly omniscient kindly old man who would probably pop all the miracles they asked for nicely; and at least three methods of time travel to reboot whenever Charlie really dances the foxtrot.

The only limit is how much materiel they can bring to bear in a given timeframe without breaching secrecy. And when you can cropdust amnestics across whole cities, that really isnt' much of a limit at all.

Re: More on the locked box tests

AgentAX 29 Oct 2019 19:23

It all depends on one's headcanon… so one may choose to believe that they don't have all those things.
Also, the esoteric containment classes do not relate to those easy-to-contain skips, but to some real containment nightmares;I doubt the US prison system could deal with them better than the Foundation would (except if they would just neutralize them, which, again, is not an option with most of the esoteric ones).

an ostensibly omniscient kindly old man who would probably pop all the miracles they asked for nicely

Also what's up with that?

Re: More on the locked box tests

wishun 29 Oct 2019 20:05

Omniscient grandpa is 343; although I meant to say "omnipotent" and he technically isn't omni-anything.

But back on thread topic; a system is made for the majority of cases, not for the outliers.
If you try to make a system that covers absolutely everything in detail, then you have lost all the benefits of having a high-level classification in the first place.

The closest real world equivalent is the "hazard diamond". At a glance anyone familiar with the system can tell you if what's in that bottle is explosive, flammable, or corrosive; along with at least the first steps towards handling it safely.
But that quick-glance data means that there is no room to tell the difference between hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acid, even though mixing those up will get you badly maimed. You need to read the (hopefully right next to it) detailed materials data sheet to get that.

Similarly, a Foudnation researcher can glance at a containment box for Safe-Euclid-Keter and instantly know whether he needs to evacuate the room, the building, or the country because the lid is open. Once at that minimum safe distance, he can read the full mainlist post to see how long till the world blows up and if he needs silver, a tin foil hat, virgin's blood, and/or Keanu Reeves to unscrew the pooch.

Pausing to recite a mnemonic poem and recall if it was "Thaumiel" or "Tiamat" that goes with "T is for Trustworthy" means they get eaten by a dragon and never get to the extra reading portion of the day.

Re: More on the locked box tests

Nagiros 29 Oct 2019 20:08

You're suggesting the Foundation regularly used anomalies for economic and political benefit? That's something I'd certainly expect to happen, but not something I've seen much evidence of. Sure, Thaumiels exist, but even then, it's generally never to help the Foundation with money problems.

From what I remember, the Foundation's donors have been shadowy billionaires who sympathize with the cause and/or every major world government. Even then, I can't believe amnestics and reality anchors and interdimensional travel could be facilitated by all the money in the world, all while upholding the Veil Protocol and establishing 200+ sites and areas for containment.

I mean, SCP-4051 is a mass generator that they attempted to reverse-engineer for their benefit, but that's the only explicit reference to anomalous exploitation I can remember.

And when I refer to the containment difficulty of 4998 objects, I'm alluding to the extreme Keters; the DEER, SCP-4998, and the rest that require massive expenditure to contain. We don't have hard numbers, but the cost must be astronomical, to the point where:

• Some of the SCPs aren't real, for whatever reason.
• The Foundation covertly uses anomalies (despite their mission statements) and doesn't officially say that in the anomalies' documentation.
• Not every SCP exists in the same timeline.

I think I just prefer the last headcanon because the first is totally unfounded and the second seems to fly in the face of established Foundation attitudes to the anomalous. I'm totally down with the Overseers being hypocrites and opportunistically exploiting the anomalous, but I don't think there's compelling evidence that it happens regularly.

Re: More on the locked box tests

wishun 30 Oct 2019 14:08

We're getting off topic, but…

Signs of anomaly exploitation are peppered throughout the mainlist. Granted, it was far more common in series 1 than the more recent entries. That could be interpreted as a shift in policy over time, or that The Foundation prefers to make use of the older and relatively better understood skips over the more recent acquisitions.

500 and 999 spring to mind as examples being explicitly used with the blessing of the powers that be, and not for any Thaumiel-like containment purposes either.