The last paragraph made me think: is the Foundation really worried someone is going to test this on an ostrich?
SCP-829 / Discussion
Forum
» Hidden / Per page discussions
» SCP-829
This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-829.
Yep. Or someone already has, and got a 9-foot-tall, 300-pound, uncontrollably bloodthirsty bird that can run 45 mph.
Actually, they tested it on the kiwi. Crazy little thing.
So, I just downvoted this. Specifically because I think it's sexy as hell (well, except for the killing bit), and that is not the effect an SCP article should have.
…Does that make me gay?
Don't answer that.
Um, thank you. And DAMN YOU! [shakes fist]
I wasn't actually trying to write erotic fiction— this evolved from a simpler Wolverinesque item that was rightly criticized in chat as just a thing what makes you fight good. A Fat Ghost had some advice: make it Creepy and Fresh. And going from "Oh yeah baby!" to "Oh my god that's my stomach!" ranks very high on my creepy scale. I can only hope for Fresh, though.
And it does not.
Seconded. It's kinda … fetishy.
It might be because it's so long. Trimming to a more concise length might help get rid of the lovingly-described feel.
I love this idea. I want to upvote it, badly. But as it stands the article is too long, please trim it back.
Thanks for the feedback, y'all. I have to quit letting Completeness win out over Brevity…. I'll work on trimming it over the next couple of days. I may go with an idea I toyed with earlier and make a separate case study page for the more, um, detailed parts.
Having the history on its own page should help, but my main concern is whether I trimmed enough out of the description. 'Course, it doesn't help that I added a couple of lines as well….
So: short enough, or needs more work?
It's better, but I think it's still a bit on the long side. Not to a dangerous extent, though, just longer than I personally care for.
The description still needs a lot of condensing. Too much unnecessary detail.
OK. Dammit. But ok. I'll have to let this percolate for a bit before I take a stab at another revision.
Admins, if y'all think this is stinking up the place, go ahead and delete, and I'll post a new version when (if) I can get the description sufficiently distilled.
Better? (I hope so, 'cos I have other SCPs I want to work on!)
Much better. Downvote removed.
This is one SCP that really irks me, because I love the concept, but it just doesn't work for me in SCP format. There's nothing wrong with the article that I can point out specifically, but there's something…
Hmm… after a bit of thought, you might remove the "sharpen her fingernails at will" bit, and let us take it for granted that they're sharp.
Hmm. I feel like I should point out the new effect, since it is rather significant, but maybe reword that phrase, or the whole bullet point. Maybe:
- When SCP-829 has received enough blood, the subject can make her fingernails sharp enough to shred fabrics and easily slice through flesh, while having little effect on metals or stones harder than bronze.
I dunno, it may take more than a change of phrasing to improve the feel of it. You're not the first person to be unable to describe why you didn't like the article, or something about it. LBD commented on my other SCP that there wasn't enough "[DATA EXPUNGED]". That may help this one as well, but I'll have to sleep on it. (Plus I gotta keep remembering, if I try to please everyone, I end up pleasing no one.)
In any case, Yoric, thanks for the second chance! And thanks, Dr. Bright, for pushing me back up to zero!
I reckon the Mass Edit's going to reach the 800s sooner or later, and I'm wondering if I should be concerned for 829's safety, between its rating and, um, other issues. (Really I'm just concerned about it being deleted outright. I highly, highly doubt that it would, but since this is my first SCP, it holds a special place in my paranoia.) Anyway, I trimmed a bit more of it, and I'm always looking for constructive criticism. [/shameless self-promotion]
If case you don't know what Addendum 1 is talking about and don't care to look them up:
Carnivora: most carnivorous and omnivorous mammals, including dogs, cats, bears, badgers, skunks, raccoons, seals, and walruses
Chiroptera: bats
Crocodilia: alligators and crocodiles
Falconiformes: falcons, eagles, and hawks
Piciformes: woodpeckers
Primates: apes and monkeys
Proboscidea: elephants
Strigiformes: owls
Struthioniformes: ostriches, emus, and kiwis
And remember, there's a reason this list was made.
This entry has been reviewed and slated for editing. If you are the original author, please review this entry and comments, and see what changes could be made. Other users may edit ONLY:
1.If the original author cannot be found/contacted
2.If the original author gives permission
If no editing has been done on this entry after a period of two weeks, this entry will come under review for deletion. If you have any questions, please contact a mod or admin.
Start Date: 12/06/09
End Date: 12/20/09
/forum/t-164715/scp-829#post-
