SCP-5321 / Discussion

This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-5321.

page 1 of 3123next »

GrimmCreeper 21 Jan 2020 01:12

Thanks to Cerastes, delta444, TheBlueHour, TheHouseOfBalloons, and Uncannyon and for critique!

Requested spots are, in approximate order of preference: 5005, 5432, 5500, 5321, 5711.

This was a fun one to write! I wanted to do something that involved the concept of mystery more than a normal scip, and this is what I came up with.

Feel free to leave any critique/suggestions! I unfortunately didn’t get that many people to look at the draft since I started writing it after posting opened.

Edit: Image credits:
Original image by I, Jonathan Zander, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2605388
Adapted by me, released under the same license.

Non-binary Pride Logo from Pride Highlighter by Woedenaz

Terminal screen from Option 3 of the SCP Style Resource

Last edited on 21 Jan 2020 09:01 by GrimmCreeper Show more

ManyMeats 21 Jan 2020 01:17

A novel concept but the way this turns into nothing but chunks of very casual prose fails to make me feel like I am in an article at all.

There's something worth fixing here, but this just isn't executed to the level of an SCP.

Site Criticism Team - Staff Review

TheMightyMcB 21 Jan 2020 02:24

It wasn’t so much that we wanted ignorance, but that we wanted mystery.

Beat me half to death with your message, why don't you? Let this be a lesson in sublety, because this article has none of it. At every turn, your narrator is there to explain exactly what happened, how, and why. This approach directly contradicts what is often the most impressive and exciting aspects of the SCP format, in that the format uniquely allows authors to disguise information about their world as little factoids of information in a clinical document.

Subverting this so obviously both doesn't work for me and is far less interesting, hence my strong downvote.

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this review do not reflect the opinions of SCP Wiki staff as a whole. Please respond to TheMightyMcB or contact the captain of the Site Criticism Team, SoullessSingularity, for any questions or concerns relating to this review.

Custodian Funderful 21 Jan 2020 04:33

Nice. No complaints aside from the lack of clinical SCPy documentation, but I doubt it could have been written much differently.

Tenthyr 21 Jan 2020 08:36

I like this, I don't think it'll win, and I like other ones more, but the central idea is an interesting one in contrast. It's not a NEW concept, omniscience sucking, but yeah. It was fun.

Argost1 21 Jan 2020 10:54

This was a fun read. I like how it’s left ambiguous on when this takes place, but doesn’t the line

Any derivative consciousnesses would gain omniscience upon creation

contradict what the narrator explains to us or am I misunderstanding something, but didn’t they say that even after the event took place someone who wasn’t omniscient could still become one if they were in the home universe where the event took place but then it’s said unconscious people who awoke after the event won’t become omniscient. Other that that +1

GrimmCreeper 21 Jan 2020 16:36

Sorta, it’s not the full story at least. As long as someone was still around who gained omniscience from the scip, any consciousnesses who wake up would become omniscient.

Furthermore, any consciousnesses that are created due to actions taken by omniscient beings would also become omniscient.

That’s why the omnisciences couldn’t set in motion the creation of a conscious; they had to wait until one would awaken on its own. Then this new consciousness could create consciousnesses that weren’t omniscient.

So, it’s not the entire truth, but as long as the scip isn’t neutralized, it holds.

Argost1 22 Jan 2020 15:26

So they had to wait for a consciousness to be created naturally without their involvement, right?
So are you saying that their message had been received by a newly evolved intelligent creature or by (a) human(s) who were asleep (unconscious?) for a while?

GrimmCreeper 23 Jan 2020 02:42

Well, in this case, humans who were asleep/in a coma were still considered to be an active consciousness. But instead of waiting for a newly-evolved intelligence, they just had to wait until the AIC of the story reactivated, which would happen without them influencing it.

Argost1 23 Jan 2020 08:18

Oooooh now I feel stupid of skimming the beginning through. So I guess they hinted that the sic would use scp-2000 since it’s (in my knowledge) the only big life restart thing.

Raptie 21 Jan 2020 11:03

I really like the concept, execution, and even the potential twist at the end.

I personally hit upvote once I saw that the reader was the only consciousness left in the entire universe. Good stuff!

WonkoTheSane 21 Jan 2020 18:18

Tumbling down, tumbling down, tumbling down…

Btw, no vote. I like the concept and the content, but I think this needs some "polish". Everything is too straightforward and doesn't trasmit any feeling (the chills come solely from the idea of omniscence). Even if the doctor narratively feels like that, you could change the tone a bit to make the aic know things little by little, because that would produce the best outcome.

Deadcanons 23 Jan 2020 05:43

I really like this concept and I want to upvote it, but as other people have expressed it's just a little too simple for me. I want more before the addendum; more to show us that we're 'playing' as an AIC and that it's machine-learning as it wakes up for the first time. There's definitely a great skip here, I just think it needs a little more meat.

TL333s 25 Jan 2020 02:07

Weeeeeeird…

I guess it didn't quite feel like I was reading something written by an omniscient being. That, and this reminded me a lot of the End of Death scenario for some reason.

page 1 of 3123next »