wowwwww… interesting. is the word "orifice" in the addendum supposed to be "office"? that would make more sense…
EDIT: /facepalm. Duh.
SCP-586 / Discussion
Forum
» Hidden / Per page discussions
» SCP-586
This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-586.
This makes no sense at all. Please go read the How To Write An SCP page.
Object Class: Scarf
I fucking lol'd. Seriously, this is BRILLIANT. Don't delete it until you actually READ the detect and unbutton it.
lol.
Man I was a silly littly fucksicle back in the day, wasn't I? Kulzn's post up there, though, remains possibly the single funniest thing on the site.
Makes perfect sense. The, uh, the thing, causes typographical errors in documents written with regards to it and interferes with verbal communication in relation to it. It's sort of an automatic censor field. The report is a bit unprofessional, though; perhaps we could get around this with a double-blind typing pool?
I think this is hilarious. Keep it. If too unserious, change to a joke SCP.
The basic concept might still be salvaged. I'll elaborate on my previous suggestion:
A description of the item might be encoded in such a way so as to avoid directly dealing with the object; this set of clues would then be handed to someone with no experience with SCP-586. This person would then be asked to assemble the description in especially vague language ("any object with the ability to", "might take the form of a cylinder" ). Special care would have to be taken to make sure the researcher taking part in this did not know that such an object existed. Finally, this output would then be handed to a third person, again with no knowledge of SCP-586, who would be asked to compile it into a full-fledged, proper, professional report, perhaps under the pretence of a test or practice for writing other reports.
Well, I think that would be enough to slip under the object's radar, so to speak. Chaining the process of writing through people who don't know the object exists, without ever referring to the object itself, might be able to bypass this verbal interference. Perhaps a report could be written "using" this method, which would be described in the article? The old report could be given joke status or archived as an example of 586's effect.
Original author here. I have no objection to the idea of making it a professional-looking report, and archiving the original report. I'm new here, not sure how to make a secondary page, but if that would help feel free to do so.
Yoric, do you have anything substantial to say? I've been taking a look at your comments, and you've made something like ten thousand comments today, 90% of which are things that come down to, "I AGREE!" or "NO, I DISAGREE!". The most asinine of which are simply three letters: "lol."
I've recieved a couple of complaints, and I'd like to hear your side on this one.
Should be a joke SCP.
I like the idea, but it's still a joke.
I took me a moment to figure out why there's a picture of the Pope tinted green on here.
Then I looked at the history, figured it out, and had a hearty LOL. I prefer the picture of the pipe, but I really want to find a way to preserve the "green pope" joke.
Actually, I still don't get the green pope.
English is not my native langauge. Am I missing out an obvious pun there?
Well, SCP-586 is actually shaped like a green pipe.
/forum/t-142558/scp-586#post-
