SCP by Series
SCP Tales by Series
SCP Library
Discover Content
SCP Community
User Resources
Just wow. That's a really great (and actually quite sad) idea for a SCP.
+1
I'm not a fan of the huge amount of technobabble, though, and this and constant references to other documents makes it really hard to follow at some times.
EDIT : although in this case, the constant technobabble and references gives the skip a particular style I can't really describe, it feels different from other skips, and I like it.
Thanks!
All the technobabble related to physics actually has meaning, although it might describe impossible things but I tried to make it scientifically accurate (as long as you accept there can be structure within quarks, which I think doesn't violate any laws of physics as long as the patterns "cancel out" so the quark flavour stays the same). The maths is not arbitrary either, the 'Monster Group' is a fascinating real thing.
The containment procedures are somewhat random though I have to admit, especially the part about the protective tiling. I just like the idea of a readily available supply of cheap 'multipurpose' deflection panels that includes a bunch of protective features, just for anomalies that are not completely figured out yet, and it seemed like a good way to drive the point home that resources are primarily allocated to dangerous items, leaving the harmless items a bit neglected.
I might have overused precise numerical values though (I felt like giving the number of bits in the message and the durations was something you would find in a technical description, but of course it glosses over many other stuff that could have numerical values so maybe I could ditch a few more specific numbers).
The document references are meant to show how the two competing schools of thought try to make their revisions hard to reject, and to avoid giving the impression that the Foundation would allow revisions that are not supported by facts… But I see how it can be annoying to read. That's how real-life scientists fight each other though as far as I know!
Images used in posted articles must comply with the site's image policy. A source must be provided on the discussion page and the source must be compatible with the site's license. The author will be notified after this posting via Wikidot PM and will have 48 hours to properly source the image before it is edited out of the page. If the images are not wholly your own, please post the image's source as a link (or links) in reply to this post and edit it into your first post in this discussion thread.
Timer expired.
I made both images, the second one entirely from scratch. The first one is a picture I took of a rock, photoshopped over a background photo which I admit is not mine, I can't find the source but it's the ceiling of the USS Truman hangar deck. I think the background is mostly hidden and all in all the picture is "transformative"/unrecognizable enough not to be infringement. But I can understand if you're not convinced or don't want to take the risk. If needed I can find a background I'm sure I'm free to use, or just keep the extremely altered bottom part with the "X-ray" effect.
For safety's sake, use something you know is compliant. It's always the best choice.
Done! I used this image as the background, which is under CC0 license (I can modify it and use it for any purpose without asking for permission, it's completely public domain).
I really like the idea for a work in progress SCP document and the font thing is particularly clever, but the description collapsible and some tonal issues are holding it back. I also think some additional development would serve this SCP well. I also noticed a few capitalization errors. -1 for now but I think this has potential.
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
Thank you!
I was really torn about whether to include the collapsible note from Director Jones or not… But in the feedback I got on an earlier draft someone pointed out that the personnel directly editing SCP containment procedures felt really wrong, and there must be a strict review system with the higher ups having the final say. The whole thing also seemed a bit too subtle without a very clear explanation that you're getting two opposing points of view mashed into a document that's meant to stay "neutral". I wanted to tone down the impression that the very clusterfucky feeling was unintentional, you're meant to experience the conflict through the leftover subjective parts that managed to stay neutral and well-referenced enough to get approved. But in this version I flat out explain that there are revisions right at the beginning, so maybe it gets a bit redundant.
By tonal issues do you mean the bits of comic relief with the pettiness of the two head researchers/the most passive-aggressive footnotes? I can see how they might feel wrong and not really funny.
About development, I'm afraid that the Foundation having figured out too much about the message and the entities' intents would weaken the story… An important part of the story is the sense that the message is important but fading away and very difficult to figure out because it's from extremely advanced beings. Giving too much away would deter from the feeling that the item is still worth preserving and make the budget-conscious side clearly in the right, making the whole conflict pointless. But maybe you're right, there's probably room for a bit more information without crossing that line, just one piece of information still missing could be enough to warrant the conflict.
I'm of the opinion that you have to slap the reader in the face with your point in order for them to get it. It doesn't have to be in the whole article, but at some point, if you want people to understand, the reader must be able to see something behind the curtain.
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
The technobabble is completely impenetrable, but I at least get a sense of "civilization of tiny, two-dimensional things trying to contact higher dimensions in the most complicated way possible" as the implication.
I'm taking this mostly as an interesting experiment in tone. The way this is written is wholly unique, slightly frustrating, but quite charming. +1 in the hopes this sticks around and gets better.
And all the Whos down in Whoville let out a radio death cry as their universe crumbled…
Really liked the passive-aggressive back and forth between the researchers in the notes.
There's a lot going on, I'm not sure what exactly you don't get so I'll try to restate the main points a bit more clearly and with less technical jargon:
I like the premise you describe here, but I see no compelling reason to bog the article down and make it even harder to access the already-obscure concept by introducing a narrative about scientific controversy that has such a heavy effect on the article.
The factual, scientific core of the article is really cool, but the puzzle of piecing it together through all the pollution is far more difficult than it is rewarding. I'd say, save that concept for an easier-to-understand article.
if your reading this your gay
Thanks!
In retrospect I agree I might have got carried away with a few ideas and tried too hard to make them work together. The whole "edit wars" thing is not that important, but it started organically and I got attached to it :
So this whole process made me way too attached to the "edit wars" aspect, maybe I should strongly reduce it and keep it aside for another entry. I'll think about it!
You skippified Whoville…as a SCIENCE! article no less.
I love it.
+1
Is this…. is this a debate? Are… what? The people at the Foundation really don't think, with all the unexpected anomalies in the world, that the death of a fucking universe inside another universe won't cause negative consequences?
Well the rock contains trillions of parallel instances of this universe (and as far as they know most atoms in all kinds of matter contain similar structures), and they've been dying one by one since the twenties through natural causes. This item has no interaction with occult stuff or property you wouldn't expect from any rock… My idea is that pretty much every quark contains a universe, so it was probable that at some point, one would develop through completely natural means, just like life on Earth did, a civilisation so advanced it managed to send a signal at our scale, but (but of course that implies acting within its universe without breaking the laws of physics by basically getting it to vibrate in a preset pattern, destroying all life within it in the process. They can't "get outside" any more than we can get outside our universe). And the Foundation has done decades of research since its discovery to confirm all of this. Nothing about that makes it a potential threat. And on top of that, the bulk of the message has already been recorded twice. So the case that that this item could be abandoned without consequences seems strong to me!
Alright, I thought of a reason why they would want to destroy the thing. What if it has potentially dangerous SCPs like 2317 that would release unless the destroyed the universes?
Anyway, I get it better now. Thank you! Although the points I made (about something anomalously bad happening when destroyed/something anomalously bad happening when living) should maybe be considered if you're ever going to do changes to this thing.
I fucking love this. Does an excellent job of making the Foundation a bit more realistic, in that resources are scarce, bureaucracy is hell, and pedantic arguments are inevitable when you bring very smart people with large egos together. The object itself is not all that interesting but the backstory of the two researchers and the second-hand aspects of containment are phenomenal.
