Disclaimer
This essay is geared towards people who have recently gained Greenlighting privileges and are looking to use said privilege.
Additionally, this essay uses an existing article as a point of dissection, whereas your average person seeking a greenlight will not have a sandbox ready to go.
You've done it. You've written three pages that are above +10 rating and holding firm, or maybe you've been Spotlighted, or perhaps you even completed a Crit Flight. Point is, you have Greenlight privileges, and you want to use them. Since you couldn't greenlight ideas before, you've probably been looking at drafts, so let's pretend you don't know much in the way of idea crit. How does one tackle this most mystifying subject?
Stick with me, we're about to dive into real world learning science, or as Pedagon and his ilk call it, "androgogy".
What is idea crit?
Idea crit is the process during which one pares down their idea; finding the diamond in the rough, sculpting the statue out of marble, so on, so forth. Idea crit is also helping new authors understand how to think about their idea, and how to talk about it intelligently.
This is an important part of the writing process, for beginners and experienced authors alike. Even if it doesn't happen in the forums/Discord/IRC, it can be just tossing an idea around with friends, this plays a key part in any article's life cycle. The reason this is so important is because it helps us see different ways of improving our base concept and finding new ways of executing on it, and makes sure that we are communicating our article's core themes/ideas to the audience effectively.
But how can we make sure we are effectively communicating our ideas?
Androgogy and you!
This essay's sister essay goes into the topic briefly, but the easiest way to get people onboard with your concept/idea is to practice Feynman technique. What is Feynman technique? It is a technique named after Richard Feynman, which posits that in order for someone to be able to properly teach something, they must be able to explain it to someone who doesn't know anything about the topic in terms they could understand.
Here is a chart for our visual learners!
But how do I apply Feynman technique to my SCP idea/concept?
The answer is simple; reduce your idea to its bare essentials. For example, let's take a look at one of the most (in)famous SCPs of the olden days, SCP-005. Here is the Description.
In appearance, SCP-005 resembles an ornate key, displaying the characteristics of a typical mass produced key used in the 1920s. The key was discovered when a civilian used it to infiltrate a high security facility. SCP-005 seems to have the unique ability to open any and all forms of lock (See Appendix A), be they mechanical or digital, with relative ease. The origin of this ability has yet to be determined.
What does this tell us about SCP-005? A few things, namely:
- SCP-005 is a key;
- SCP-005 was found when someone was caught trying to infiltrate a Foundation Site;
- SCP-005 can open most forms of locks, including digital, however, this effect may be limited due to further evidence in Appendix A, which we haven't read yet.
These are probably the most important points to keep in mind as we proceed. Why? Let's analyze:
- The fact that it is a key that is important to help the reader visualize what it is we are discussing.
- The fact that it was found on someone attempting to infiltrate a Foundation Site hints at a larger world, where people perhaps oppose the Foundation or are trying to steal from it.
- The fact that it can even open digital locks tells us that this is in fact, a skeleton key, meaning that the key in question is capable of opening most locks in the modern world. However, this what we know for sure about this key may be challenged further down the article.
Keep these points in mind as we proceed toward Appendix A.
While SCP-005 has been shown to be effective in removing almost any form of locking device, further experiments have shown that efforts to disguise the purpose or identity of a lock have proven at least somewhat successful in defeating SCP-005's ability. In approximately 50% of cases where a volunteer was not able to identify a locking device as such, SCP-005 was not successful in deactivating the device. Due to these results, SCP-005 has been tentatively classified as 'sentient' and further tests are being run to determine its cognitive abilities. However, there are no results that show any traits that prevent it from being able to identify any particular locking device, only that the aforementioned device has been heavily concealed and disguised.
Here is where the "twist" of the article comes in. To anyone who says that Series I articles don't have twists, even SCP-005 has one, so they're wrong.
Anyway, here we learn that SCP-005 might be sentient because sometimes it can't identify a lock as such if the person using it can't either. It's small, but it's something, and it gives a small, self-contained narrative to what would otherwise just be an (even more boring) object. How does this apply to Feynman technique? Let's break down the basics of this article to someone as if they have never heard of the concept of a skeleton key before.1
Here goes:
SCP-005 is a 1920's style key. It can open any lock, both mechanical and digital. However, if one cannot tell what lock they are trying to open, there is a chance it won't work.
This is SCP-005 pared down to its most essential factors, and should be universally understandable by anyone who is fortunate enough to have access to a computer and be able to read this. If an author can demonstrate their ability to do this with their idea, they probably have a good enough handle on their idea.
However, not all ideas are created equal.
Would I greenlight SCP-005? Hell no. It's a trope played straight with a mild spooky "ooooh maybe its sentient!!!!!!1111one!!!!" side dish that, frankly, sucks. Modern articles require more than a trope played straight. Subversion, commentary, parody, logical extremes, etc., are all good mediums by which to take a trope and make a story out of it that could fit the modern wiki.
Rubber duckin' It
The practice of Rubber ducking, or Plastic platypus learning, is the process of explaining a concept to an inanimate object2 in order to help one understand said concept.
My rubber duck of choice. She may not be rubber, a duck, or a rubber duck, but she's got as much as brains as one.
This one is pretty simple.
Just take your idea/concept, and read it out loud. This helps because it allows one to really think about the moving pieces of their concept as they read it, and therefore, allow one to better understand their own idea. This method can lead new authors to overthinking and therefore doubting themselves, so if you are self-critiquing, be mindful, and be kind.
If it sounds silly/bad, it probably is. A lot of the time we write without thinking, leading to unfortunate circumstances.
Obviously, this particular method isn't foolproof. If you're going to be writing about dark themes or comedy, it may not be too effective, but hearing it out loud can still help with understanding what you are doing. This is called "production effect" and its a real thing!
So how does this work with SCP-005? Let's take a look at how someone could have written their idea pitch for this article, should the Greenlight System had been around way back in the 4chan days.
Seeking Greenlights: Yes
Page Type: SCP Article
Elevator Pitch: SCP-005 is an old school style key that can open any lock, including digital ones.
Central Narrative: The idea of this object being mismanaged is introduced via a mention of requiring a Level 4 Personnel to be present when SCP-005 is used as a replacement for a lost security pass. Also, there will be an addendum that mentions that if one can't identify the lock, SCP-005 won't be able to unlock it.
Obviously, this idea wouldn't get greenlit today, especially after you read it to yourself out loud and compare it to what is being posted today.
But how could we help it along? Well, what can we draw creatively from the fact that personnel are only allowed to use SCP-005 as a replacement for lost security clearances under supervision? What incident led to that? How can you portray it in the article?
Let's say the author isn't interested in writing a serious article and wants to instead focus on the comedy aspect. You can focus on the aspect of SCP-005 being used as a means to open vending machines, and staff shenanigans. Mind you, I personally wouldn't enjoy this type of article, but we as greenlighters must often push past what we would prefer and help authors write what they want.
We are not tastemakers.
Valley Girl Socratic
Valley Girl Socratic, as named by Queerious, is the process of asking one "Okay, but like, why?" in the style of a valley girl straight out of Los Angeles.
Like, OMG! Like, what? Like, totally! Like, why?
This is a useful tool in any greenlighter's arsenal because it places the author in the position of having to defend their idea. I don't mean this in a "ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK!" type way, I mean it in a "You should be able to defend your artistic decisions" type way. There is a great essay on the topic, written by the excellent and talented DrEverettMann titled Conservation Of WTF, or Why Does the Rabbit Need Two Brains? which, when summarized, states that every artistic decision must make sense.
A lot of authors sometimes add random properties to their SCP objects that make no thematic sense for it to have just for the sake of upping the "wow" factor. This hardly ever works, and in 99% of cases, detracts from the article.
So let's apply this theory to SCP-005 and see what we can afford to cut, if anything, and look at the Note attached to the article.
SCP-005 may be used as a replacement for lost security passes, but only under the supervision of at least one (1) Level 4 personnel. SCP-005 may not be used for vending machine repairs, opening lockers, or for any personnel's spare home key. Removal of the object from the compound will result in immediate termination.
There is only one part of merit here; specifically, the part where it is specified that SCP-005 can only be used as a replacement for lost security passes but only under direct supervision. This particular bit of information should have probably been in the Special Containment Procedures, especially considering the sheer scope of what SCP-005 can do.
So this brings us to the eternal query of the valley girl: like, why?
All the rest of this note establishes is a lolFoundation-esque setting where researchers and PhDs are abusing the power they are meant to be keeping in check to avoid paying a buck or calling a locksmith. Why include it? It makes the Foundation look stupid. It would be more forgivable if this were a comedy oriented article, but this doesn't appear to be the case, especially considering the Foundation does not allow people removing SCP-005 from its primary location.
To summarize:
- What is the narrative purpose of including the note about not allowing people to use it to open vending machines or their homes?
- What is the narrative purpose of only allowing people to use this as a security pass under supervision?
The second question is the more important one here, as this is what I would be asking an author seeking to get this idea greenlit since it is the one that lends itself easiest to telling a story. Story, or "narrative" as we often call it here on the wiki, is often what is lacking from a lot of new author's articles, so this is a good avenue for writing one. What happened to lead to these circumstances?
What if this isn't working?
Hitting walls during idea crit is a common problem people face. Sometimes people don't want to change their idea, in which case, I personally do not engage with those types. It's one thing to be confident in your idea, but it's another to completely refuse to engage with the crit process and demand greenlights. Sometimes you and an author aren't seeing eye to eye creatively.
What do you do in these situations?
Something I and fellow moth/butterfly OriTiefling like to do is ask the author for an outline of their article. Ask them how they envision it to look in simple terms, so let's take a look at how an outline for SCP-005 would look like.
- Special Containment Procedures go here. Mention of a Level 4 personnel being required to move SCP-005 from its containment area.
- Description goes here. Introduce the key and introduce the fact that someone was caught trying to sneak into a Foundation Site. Also, introduce the fact that the key can open digital locks as well. Reference its mysterious origins.
- Additional Note goes here. Introduce that SCP-005 may be used as a replacement for lost security passes, but only under the supervision of at least one (1) Level 4 personnel. Bring up the fact that people aren't allowed to use it for personal use.
- Appendix A goes here. Introduce the fact that SCP-005 might be sentient by stating that it can fail at unlocking a lock if the person trying to open a lock cannot tell that it is indeed a lock.
What blood can we draw from this stone?
As previously established in the other sections, we have a few possible paths here. We can:
- From the Special Containment Procedures, we can take point on the fact that Level 4 personnel are required to move SCP-005 from its containment area. Why is that? What happened to cause that?
- From the Description, we can take point on the fact that someone was trying to break into a Foundation Site. Why? Who are they?
- Also from the Description, we can try out the mysterious origins of the key. Who made it? Why? Did the aforementioned person who was trying to break into the Foundation Site make it? What did they want from the Site?
- From the Additional Note, you can go into the incident that required Level 4 Personnel being present for the use of SCP-005 as a replacement for lost security passes. What happened?
- From Appendix A, you can try introducing a testing log of escalating absurdity, severity, etc. in relation to the possibility of the key being sentient.
No idea is truly unworkable, unless they are hateful.
A Note on SCP-005
I know I ragged a lot on SCP-005 today.
Look, I'll be honest; I don't care for it. It's a thing that does a thing with barely anything else attached. It's a pop-cultural thing that does a thing! The only two interesting things it does narratively is imply that there are adversarial forces to the Foundation in-universe and imply that it might be sentient.
However.
I recognize that this type of article is important to the wiki. We need to have basic things that do a thing, even if they are as basic as could be. These are articles that facilitate other stories, like how SCP-682 is a dragon, SCP-006 is a literal fountain of youth, and SCP-008 is literally just zombies.
We wouldn't be here today without these articles, no matter how outdated they may seem, and for that, I am grateful.
That's All, Folks!
That's all for this essay! Stay tuned for the next essay in which I write abo— wait. Wrong essay series.
And that's all I wrote.
.jpg){kind=link}
