Current consensus on the Keter class?

Summary:

what is a modern Keter?

Current consensus on the Keter class?

qptain Nemo 26 Feb 2016 23:56

So, in the chat I accidentally got into a discussion about Keter classification and I realized that the definition of Keter that is posted on the Object Class page might differ from the current consensus about it and I was offered a range of opinions which I felt didn't give me a clear enough picture.

At the time of writing the definition on the object class page states: "Keter-class objects are anomalies that pose an inimical threat to the safety of Foundation personnel and the rest of mankind and either require extensive and complex procedures to contain or cannot be fully contained by the Foundation's current technology and knowledge." So to me it clearly implies that associated danger that doesn't necessarily result in more difficult containment is a separate significant factor for Keter classification. And indeed, in the past we've had SCP-505 that would illustrate that line of thought. However, some users argued that nowadays Keter classification is mostly or even entirely about difficult nontrivial containment. So I'd very much like to gauge how the community currently feels about this and adjust my understanding of the subject accordingly.

Last edited on 27 Feb 2016 00:03 by qptain Nemo Show more

Re: Current consensus on the Keter class?

Boogey_Man23 28 Feb 2016 06:16

Well…According to the Object Classes guide:

The class assigned to an object is generally determined by a number of factors, but most importantly by a combination of its difficulty to contain as well as the danger posed to Foundation personnel and humanity at large.

and

Keter-class objects are anomalies that pose an inherently serious threat to the safety of Foundation personnel and the rest of mankind and either require extensive and complex procedures to contain or cannot be fully contained by the Foundation's current technology and knowledge.

So I guess the questions to consider are:

1. If something is very dangerous, but easily containable, is that Keter?
2. If something is not dangerous at all, but impossible to contain, is that Keter?

In my _(limited) experience, something fitting #1 would be Safe class, or maybe Euclid (as per the 'Locked Box Test'). And something fitting conditions of #2 would be Keter.

So I should think the 'difficulty of containment' factor trumps the 'dangerousness' aspect when it comes to classification.

Re: Current consensus on the Keter class?

Anborough 28 Feb 2016 07:12

The problem is, people have started putting way too much emphasis on the locked box test, when it was meant to be a very shorthand explanation and not a comprehensive detailing of the object classes.

Object classes are a cumulative thing, counting both containment difficulty and danger. Some sapient objects are still Safe class, because they're either harmless or predictable, even though by virtue of being sapient, it qualifies as Euclid, if you're only using the locked box test to determine object class. Some objects that are very difficult to contain (including many, many objects in space) are still Euclid, because they're just not dangerous. Your object doesn't need to have negligible containment procedures to be Safe class, and it doesn't become Keter simply by being hard to contain.

As a Keter object, it must have a substantial sense of danger, in some form, and simply posing risk to the Foundation's masquerade isn't enough. There are tons of Euclid (and even Safe) objects which pose that kind of risk, like the objects in space, as I mentioned before. Any SCP object, by virtue of existing, poses a risk to the Foundation's masquerade.

So in summary, Keter (and the rest of the classes) should maintain two sets of criteria: difficulty of containment and threat to humanity. The Foundation's motto is "Secure, Contain, Protect," after all; they protect humanity from anomalous threats, and threat level should remain an important part of their classification criteria.

Last edited on 28 Feb 2016 07:13 by Anborough Show more

Re: Current consensus on the Keter class?

drsciants 28 Feb 2016 21:40

I never really followed the "box" test. keter (I pronounced it "kelter" for some reason) for me can be from the following:
1.It hurts people even if you don't fuck with it.
2.If you fuck with it it ends the world or foundation.
3.It cannot be contained. (Or is just really hard to contain.)
4.If it needs to be destroyed/neutralized.

Last edited on 28 Feb 2016 21:42 by drsciants Show more

Re: Current consensus on the Keter class?

Petrograd 29 Feb 2016 23:51

So, containment can't be the only criteria. I've written five mainlist SCPs. Not a single one is fully containable (I think 2177 might be close), and not a single one is Keter. (They're all Euclid.) They're all broad phenomena that just don't present any existential threat to reality/normality/humanity outside of potential discovery.

I tend to think of things in the following terms:
- It's possible to have an object capable of substantial destruction that is Safe, provided that there are strong assurances that, say, it doesn't operate under its own will out the will of outside influences, and has some kind of stable, safe state. We're talking your hydrogen bombs and big red buttons (containment: don't push it) here.

- An object can be Keter if it's difficult to contain (e.g., prone to breaches or harming personnel), and is capable of causing an existential threat to mankind (K-class scenario) or at least capable of civilian casualties.

- An anomaly that is uncontained or uncontainable can be Euclid (or even Safe) if it doesn't present a significant threat.

- An uncontained/uncontainable anomaly can be considered Keter on the same basis as above (damage to personnel, substantial threat), but there are expanded variables. How much havoc has it wreaked on attempts to contain it? How much damage can it cause WHILE/BECAUSE it is uncontained? (Here, I've sometimes seen Keter used as a sense of urgency. Rather than, "This thing is difficult/a menace!", more, "We'd better contain this thing damn quick!")

Re: Current consensus on the Keter class?

drsciants 01 Mar 2016 03:38

some keters ARE easy to contain, just it's really REALLY bad if it gets out.
.

Re: Current consensus on the Keter class?

Scorpion451 01 Mar 2016 04:47

For me its sort of a pseudo-equation:
Containment factor = K= complexity of procedures, error sensitivity, effectiveness, etc
Enmity factor = hostility, unpredictability, intelligence, passive/involuntary threat potential…
Threat factor = T = risk to masquerade, potential for mass casualties, risk to foundation…
Recontainment factor = R = Difficulty of recontainment and damage control after a breach, potential duration of breaches…

K*E*T*R= Keter score

If you use a scale of 0-5 for each component, a score around 100-ish or higher might be a good candidate for keter. I clock 682, for instance, at 2-5-4-3, for a score of 120. The maximum possible score is 625. That would be an Apollyon class.

Last edited on 01 Mar 2016 04:48 by Scorpion451 Show more

Re: Current consensus on the Keter class?

sirpudding 01 Mar 2016 05:08

My SCP-2631 has to score high on all those indices.

Containment is almost wholly ineffective, but still intensive and expensive; it is a postsapient alien intelligence; it could literally blow up the planet, and recontainment is basically meaningless.

Last edited on 01 Mar 2016 05:09 by sirpudding Show more

Re: Current consensus on the Keter class?

Scorpion451 01 Mar 2016 15:08

Very high- I'd put it's K, T, and R at 5, but give it a 3 for enmity- it doesn't seem to want to destroy the planet unless it has to, its motives make logical sense, and it's demonstrated it is willing and able to change its mind in the middle of the process. For me, that gives a score of 375.

Kind of shows what I like about the idea of this sort of rubric; all four factors are important and make a huge difference in threat level:

• a predictable non-sentient passive threat like SCP-871 scores an E=1, but a total of 125 because it has strict, error-intolerant containment procedures, cannot be recontained after a breach (the new instance just has to be contained as well), and poses a universal threat should containment ever fail completely. If it lacked any one of the other three scores, it wouldn't be as much of a problem.
• On the other hand, passing the box test gets an automatic K=0 and total of zero no matter what its other scores are.

The ones with a mix of 2's,3's, 4's, and 5's are where the in-universe debates would come in- the K=2 I gave 682 could spike to a 3 if it were to start developing resistance to its acid bath, so that it would also require regular "pruning" to keep it below threshold. Then its 120 immediately jumps to 180.

Last edited on 01 Mar 2016 15:46 by Scorpion451 Show more