Normally, I don't like inter-SCP references. But it is very clear what this is referring to, and I like it.
"Under no circumstances are personnel who have participated in any part of Procedure ███-███████ to be allowed to use SCP-1978. -O5-██."
SCP-1978 / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» SCP-1978
This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-1978.
Note: Under no circumstances are personnel who have participated in any part of Procedure ███-███████ to be allowed to use SCP-1978. -O5-██
I wonder what that could be, maybe it's 110-Montauk.
As for the SCP itself, I found it rather boring, reading it was more of a chore than anything else. It really dragged on and on with all the little details regarding data archives while the main effect is rather simple ("A shower what washes away X" in this case X is guilt/sin.)
The issue is the secondary effects. If it were just that the shower washes away guilt/sin, that would be one thing. This is a complete erasure of the guilt, and all evidence of the guilt. The gravity of the implications of this to an organization obsessed with information management like the Foundation are what drives the containment procedures.
This is actually well-written and a good idea, yet, somehow, you messed up the title and have redaction in the containment procedures.
I'm not voting on this.
Can you tell me where I messed up the title?
I will remove the redaction to the range contained in the procedures.
When you first posted it, you had "Scp 1978" instead of "SCP-1978". I fixed it. And if you do that, I'll probably upvote, because the idea is interesting.
By the way, good job. I take this is your first article?
Yes, first article. Got some help in chat while working it up. By the way, removed the redaction on the range. Did not remove the redaction on the date from the updated procedures, because it's kind of extraneous. Someone reviewing the procedures doesn't need to know when they changed, just what they changed to, at least in my opinion. If this is profoundly off, I will change that as well.
How do we know what this does if it changes both the memories and records of everyone involved?
Withholding my vote for now.
Because its only up to a specific range. Outside of the range, it doesn't change anything.
Living the dream, or dreaming the life?
Well, apparently, this wasn't as done as I had hoped. Had not intended to publish an unfinished article, but the comments I'm receiving make it clear I should have hacked on this more.
I've removed the censorship on the effective radius throughout the article (excepting where it would help identify █████ International Airport; the exact distance between the original location and the airport was actually determined to be outside the effective radius).
I've removed the censorship around 110-Montauk; hope that doesn't lose me votes, but I tend to agree with others who say it is silly to do.
I've moved the data for the initial acquisition by the Foundation to its own Addendum.
I will be adding a testing log sometime in the next week or so.
(account deleted)True, and contained, it is kinda boring. It makes me wonder about who has had it in the past and what they've washed away, whether deliberately or not.
Think of it like this: This COULD have caused chaos on the same level as 668, only with the caveat that the chaos would have essentially been erased from history with nobody the wiser. In fact…. that would make a good addendum, some discovered message sent during some lunatic's murder spree, maybe a text or video message somebody sent during the slaughter, and it landed in some server or some… where, far outside of the range of effect. And the note that no such event has been documented as transpiring, ever (EDIT: Other than the "anomalous" video clip/message/whatever).
Am I the only one who wants to see them stick 682 in this thing?
Have fun trying to get 682 in a 4 m3 volume.
Even if you could get 682 under the water flow, he has no guilt. Hmmm. I haven't written in what I think happens to subjects who both have no guilt and have a verifiable record of violence… Sounds like test log fodder.
Long and short of it is, it ain't pretty, and even if 682 were wiped out, is it cost effective (in terms of the consequences of cleansing that much whatever it is that 1978 removes in the absence of guilt)?
/forum/t-553162/scp-1978#post-
page revision: 5, last edited: 18 May 2020 23:10
