To me, anything targeted at the Foundation itself has to be fantastic, otherwise it runs the risk of turning into self-referential navel-gazing. A high bar for this sort of thing also prevents the Foundation from turning into "Contain everything sent to us to break containment".
SCP-2533 / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» SCP-2533
This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-2533.
Why are we exposing emotionally harmful material to the same researcher repeatedly? It seems kind of asshole behavior. I wouldn't want to come to work either.
Living the dream, or dreaming the life?
He volunteered. It says that explicitly in the testing report. He thought he could handle it, and it turns out he couldn't. In retrospect, yeah, that turned out to be a bad idea. And one more thing: he didn't get arrested for just not showing up to work.
Yeah, but if something was memetic and driving people to strangle each other, I'd deny his request of a second viewing. As a scientist, I'd also surveil him to see how he responded to his wife.
I just don't think the Foundation would be so careless. It's like ten people in a row pointing themselves in the eye with a stick to see if it's pointy.
Fair enough, that does make sense seeing as violence has been the end result of more than half of the tests so far. I'm envisioning Sengupta as a super friendly guy who's always smiling and never seems to let anything bother him. In this event he was smiling to keep himself from screaming but no one noticed the difference.
I'm kind of on the fence here. On the one hand, this is definitely good writing and an interesting setup, from decent object to the Foundation's careful work to flesh out proper testing procedures. On the other, we already have an SCP that was deliberately made and sent to the Foundation specifically to screw with us… Maybe I'm being overly cautious, and I admit I can't remember the number of the other SCP in question, but it might be wise to look over that one too and make sure this hasn't ended up retreading old ground.
I haven't run across it, but I haven't read everything; I'll try to find it. Thank you for the tip and the praise.
That said, I intend this is as only part of a much longer game. Ayers was wrong in supposing it's an attack on the Foundation, and there's a reason that it ended up on his desk in particular.
This is pretty well-written, but there's enough bothering me to not upvote. My main issue is that testing something potentially compromising on non-class D's doesn't seem like something the foundation would do.
I keep thinking about the foundation putting up "remember to confirm the legitimacy of all documentation" posters in the hallways, given all the SCP's that screw with their files these days.
The conclusion of Sengupta's story was excellent; the matter-of-fact transition from "his faith in his wife is unshakable" to "he couldn't come in to work today; he's in police custody after flipping out" made me laugh out loud for most of a minute. Upvoted.
I think the most unique thing about this article, though, is the statement that the Foundation knows they could record all past contents of SCP-2533 but chooses not to (and that that decision isn't based on any infohazardous properties but simply the fact that the information is deliberately useless). In most articles where the state of an object changes over time, there's at least some reference to the Foundation keeping a record of past states. Here, though, they've been smart enough to realize that being able to identify the incorrect beliefs of an affected subject isn't worth the risk posed by more people sharing those beliefs, anomalously or otherwise. That's unusually self-aware of them; I like it.
There are a few little holes like having the same person going for testing. Even with volunteering an intervention would be expected/demanded quicker, but these are minor niggles. Overall this is a nicely balanced SCP entry. Enough detail to get the facts of the matter, not so much as it proves to be falling into the deadly TL;DR area.
The biggest plus for me, it the way things are described around the effect of the SCP. Dealing with the outcome of getting affected, rather than going into details about the SCPs effect.
Huh, hadn't noticed this one before. The subject matter is particularly personal for me (and it treats that subject matter decently), and the interview is pretty well-written, but the main problem is that the effects from the Description are elaborated upon, but never really expanded. I could think of a bunch of experiments or interesting things that could happen with this, but it never went anywhere unexpected.
No vote, because I was entertained, but I still think this could have been better.
if your reading this your gay
/forum/t-1058428/scp-2533#post-
page revision: 2, last edited: 15 Jan 2023 15:06
