SCP Proposal: Rotting Fog
Wrote up a new SCP in the sandbox, Rotting Fog: http://scpsandboxwiki.wikidot.com/rotting-fog
Looking for feedback and ideas, thanks.
SCP Proposal: Rotting Fog
Forum
» Forum Discussion / Help: Advice and Ideas
» SCP Proposal: Rotting Fog
Thought that was entitled 'Rotting Frog' for a moment there. You might want to alter the name so that it isn't confused with SCP-352, which is in fact called 'Frog Rot'.
Also, the distance from the containment perimeter and the fog is really quite small in the image, which I found rather off-putting when reading the article. It looks like containment would be lost in the event of a slight breeze.
It's well-written, although at times I felt a few things would be worth moving around. For example, the containment procedures mention needing to destroy the fog but don't explain how that is supposed to be done. I had to trawl through the description to find it out, and it made me feel like the containment procedures are incomplete.
Good point on the name, and the image is something I slapped up in a few minutes, I can easily make a better one.
And I'll see what I can do to update the containment proceedures. This is a work in progress, after all.
I don't think it trying to spread itself counts as a sign of sentience. Plenty of diseases cause symptoms that facilitate their spread.
EDIT: I really should have read further before commenting, but I don't think the trying to spread itself counts as a sign of possible sentience on its own.
How about specifically altering its direction against airflow in order to target signs of life? And if not "sentience", then what word shoul I use instead. Intelligence, maybe?
Does it have to necessarily be sentient? The fact it moves against airflow could just be an unusual property of the gas which attracts it to living organisms. Perhaps leave the implication but don't make it directly concrete fact: 'Researchers are currently divided as to whether SCP-XXXX's demonstrated behaviour indicates signs of intelligence', or something like that.
That's still possibly something it could do completely mindlessly (like, for example, a rock can roll down a hill because of gravity, but it does not intend to, because rocks aren't capable of making decisions in response to stimuli). So, the question here is whether the mist's behaviour is purposeful or not, i.e., whether it is attracted to living things because it wants to or because that's just how it works.
I see problems with containment procedures, i.e.
'fans situated 1 mile apart.'
There are 7 standard qualities of a living organism. One is that it needs to eat, and another is that it responds to stimuli. It does not need brains to be hungry and pursue food.
/forum/t-442335/scp-proposal:rotting-fog#post-
