SCP-1848 / Discussion

This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-1848.

page 1 of 3123next »

New SCP

TroyL 07 Feb 2015 08:58

That title is a lie. This isn't new at all.

This idea originally started out as my SCP-1000 contest entry, but I could never make the draft work. It was really sad, serious, and "nature hugging" to a painfully sad degree. So instead, I decided to make it stop sucking and start being awesome. Add a little dash of lolfoundation (just a touch, for flavour) and some creative crosslinks, and then completely rewrite it, and it was ready.

That said: I'm looking to include some newer people's author avatars to the list of people who experienced the effect, so if you're feeling brave, toss a short paragraph my way. I'll add the first five (good) entries to the page.

Thanks for reading.

---

"WELL FOUNDATION. YOU MADE IT SO EASY. SO VERY VERY EASY." - dimensionpotato

Re: New SCP

TroyL 07 Feb 2015 09:52

And Decibelle sent me a good one super fast! Added Rose Labelle!
And Roget sent in Shirley Gillespie, who is added!
And VAE sent in Researcher Vladim Eisenberg, who is added!
And Cimmerian sent in Dr. Jeremiah Cimmerian!

There's a few people who sent me one, and I responded with comments. We'll see about adding more. If there's genuine interest, I can make a log page, and people can add at their own leisure.

---

"WELL FOUNDATION. YOU MADE IT SO EASY. SO VERY VERY EASY." - dimensionpotato

Last edited on 09 Feb 2015 06:39 by TroyL Show more

RhettSarlin 07 Feb 2015 15:01

Dag freaking nabbit Troy >=| I felt like this article was laughing at me the entire time I read it. Ending containment procedures are incredible. Troll SCP object, troll containment procedures, troll article, I dub thee TrolL. Upvoted.

Last edited on 07 Feb 2015 15:46 by RhettSarlin Show more

Cyclopian 07 Feb 2015 15:17

Downvoted for pointless lolFoundation and retconning -431's backstory into something incredibly stupid.

RhettSarlin 07 Feb 2015 15:49

This….is actually not lolFoundation. The article is FUNNY, but that in and of itself doesn't lolFoundation make. The researchers in this are treating the object entirely seriously. The object is a "prankster", and what it does is certainly amusing, but that doesn't mean the Foundation is being lolsy.

The value or lack thereof of retconning -431 I won't debate here, I'll just say I didn't have an issue with it.

Cyclopian 07 Feb 2015 16:22

The researchers in this are treating the object entirely seriously.

Oh really?

Appeared as an Arby's Roast Beef Sandwich. Dr. Clef was confused, and picked up the sandwich when asked. The sauce on the sandwich dripped free. Dr. Clef's shirt subsequently stained.

seven other individuals attempted to replicate the stunt, claiming they 'wanted a turn', all suffered mild to moderate injuries.

I mean, some of it can be explained by the effects of the SCP, but it isn't funny, just silly.

Last edited on 07 Feb 2015 16:23 by Cyclopian Show more

Logan Armstrong 07 Feb 2015 16:39

It's because it's not meant to be super-funny. Just weird, in a silly way. If it was meant to be extremely funny, it would be a joke article. And, honestly, the fact that it sounds extremely silly (and the fact that it involves author avatars) does not mean it is lolFoundation.

The thing is an abnormal object that acts as a prick by doing silly stuff.

Cyclopian 07 Feb 2015 17:47

It's because it's not meant to be super-funny. Just weird, in a silly way.

Well if it's not trying to be humourous, then it's just silly for the sake of silly. It's not even trying to confuse the reader, which would be a legitimate attempt to evoke emotion, and one other articles have done well, it's just an attempt to be lolrandom. This only reinforces my downvote in my mind.

If it was meant to be extremely funny, it would be a joke article.

Actually, there are plenty of funny non-joke SCPs. SCP-2107 is a good example.

thedeadlymoose 07 Feb 2015 23:04

To be honest, this is pretty bad feedback, right down to the attempt at psychoanalysis: "it's just an attempt to be lolrandom".

Well if it's not trying to be humourous, then it's just silly for the sake of silly.

No. This isn't how writing works. There's many more than those two options.

It's silly for the sake of being entertaining, and for characterizing the trickster (hell, the article outright says that, seriously). That is, in fact, valid, and it is a point.

If it's not to your tastes, it's not to your tastes. That's completely fine. But I dunno why you're trying to portray it as objective.

TroyL 07 Feb 2015 16:42

The second instance is me referencing a style of Native American myth which has the trickster let someone succeed (usually at something 'superhuman' or incredibly difficult), and then, delights in the failure of the next few. The really famous one that comes to mind is when Coyote told a tribe that he could raise their sons for them overnight. They were skeptical, but they gave him an orphan to try anyhow. He goes down to the frozen river, cuts a hole in the ice, wraps the baby up in cloth, and dunks him into the river. Leaves him there for a day, then comes back, tugs the rope, and out jumps a fully grown, handsome, smart warrior. All the women in the tribe rush to do the same thing, and they drown their babies.

This is sort of a really dark version, but nevertheless, it's the pattern I was seeking to emulate. Almost all of the instances of 'appearing to people' and 'causing trouble' are based on Native American trickster tales.

The only exception to that is Dr. Clef's entry, which I included to "undercut" the "really wacky hijinks!" that everyone expects Clef to have. Nope. Clef got his shirt stained. It's not a show down between two tricksters. Not a tale of Clef messing the guy up or outsmarting him. Nope. Clef… got his shirt stained.

---

"WELL FOUNDATION. YOU MADE IT SO EASY. SO VERY VERY EASY." - dimensionpotato

Last edited on 07 Feb 2015 16:43 by TroyL Show more

Mondegreen 07 Feb 2015 15:52

Admittedly I'm not entirely sure what the hell was going on here, which I'm guessing was the point :P But my take was that the retcon is a lie anyway…

Professor Will 07 Feb 2015 16:51

Sounds acceptable.

This seems like a good use of an otherwise dangerous object. Heartily approve.

Makes perfect sense. Good job.

This portion sorta feels like one of those staff threads on "O5 Command" after a staff member gets something done. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I guess it's a nice touch.

---

No-voting for now since this document is filled with

IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT

And a variety of other meaning less portions of text. I'll read it again a few more times before making my decision.

Edit: Oops didn't mean to reply
Edit-2: I will vote on this another time. Thanks for removing the importants.

Last edited on 07 Feb 2015 18:04 by Professor Will Show more

Djoric 07 Feb 2015 17:12

Nope. Not supporting this course of action.

e: I wanted to downvote for a variety of reasons (self insert usage, being another trickster, but it's written well enough for that particular act to weight heavy on my conscience. No vote.

Last edited on 07 Feb 2015 17:16 by Djoric Show more

Sound Chaser 07 Feb 2015 17:33

What.

What.

I admit, I was seriously confused at first, but having read the whole thing now, including the source code, I have no idea whether this is absolutely brilliant or fucking stupid. I'm no-voting for now, but I'll probably come to a firm decision eventually.

Although, please get rid of the "IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT" bits. It just looks bad. Great, thanks.

e: You know what, screw it, it's amusing and clever, so although I'm still not in love, and I'll probably regret it forevermore, upvote.

Last edited on 07 Feb 2015 17:57 by Sound Chaser Show more

TroyL 07 Feb 2015 17:40

Yanno, there have been enough complaints about that now. I'll kill them, sure.

---

"WELL FOUNDATION. YOU MADE IT SO EASY. SO VERY VERY EASY." - dimensionpotato

Mondegreen 07 Feb 2015 17:46

Huh, I actually liked that part… can't please everyone, I guess!

thedeadlymoose 07 Feb 2015 23:47

(I actually disliked them but totally forgot to mention that fact >_>;;)

Agent MacLeod 07 Feb 2015 18:27

One question: at the end of the day, who gets SCP-050?

TroyL 07 Feb 2015 18:54

He'd convince it that it won itself.

---

"WELL FOUNDATION. YOU MADE IT SO EASY. SO VERY VERY EASY." - dimensionpotato

thedeadlymoose 07 Feb 2015 22:39

Oh gods. You should add that.

djkaktus 07 Feb 2015 20:10

When reading this last night, I made the comment that people who think this is lolfoundation just don't get it, and aren't paying attention. After reading these comments, I stand by that statement. There's so much going on that if you think this is just lolfoundation, you're missing the point entirely.

The easiest +1 I've given since I've been here.

Cyclopian 07 Feb 2015 21:01

There's so much going on that if you think this is just lolfoundation, you're missing the point entirely.

So what is the point, then? It's just a lolrandom trickster that has also managed to trick the O5 council.

DrNietzsche 08 Feb 2015 01:01

It's the other way around. The O5 tricked him. We trolled the ur-Troll.

Decibelles 08 Feb 2015 01:33

Read the hidden footnotes. Page Source is lovely for that.

Mulciber 08 Feb 2015 00:26

This isn't especially helpful. I see this type of comment fairly often, and it doesn't qualify as criticism of the piece. It's criticism of how people are reading the piece. If you're going to tell people they're missing the point, provide some under-the-cut clarification of your viewpoint so we can have an actual discussion about it. This just smacks of "you're doing it wrong, people who downvoted".

I don't care for the tone here, I don't care for the over-extended list of hijinks, the requisite knowledge of staff characters in order to get the (in my opinion) rather bland jokes, and I feel the trickster mythos isn't treated with quite the level of complexity I would expect. That's why I downvoted, and that's my opinion. So if you're going to tell me I'm missing something integral, shed a little light on your own opinion why this rises above the interpretations of others, please.

Last edited on 08 Feb 2015 00:27 by Mulciber Show more

djkaktus 08 Feb 2015 06:35

I didn't care to explain to explain "what's going on" because I think the piece is worth more than that, and I still do.

Mulciber 08 Feb 2015 18:48

Great. You like the piece. I don't.

And yes, I do see the gimmick here. I respectfully disagree that it is particularly original or clever.

So as a counterpoint to what was apparently a perfectly reasonable comment to post on your part:

There's actually not that much going on. It's okay if you don't like it even if someone tells you you're missing something.

Dillinger PhD 07 Feb 2015 21:22

I get it, and I am a fan of mainlist humor, but this is still a neutral vote for me. The overall tone of the technical aspects feels off in a way that I can't quite place my finger on but may look at more thoroughly later. Kudos on an interesting idea and your bits of sneaky-sneaky though.

thedeadlymoose 07 Feb 2015 22:43

The overall tone of the technical aspects feels off in a way that I can't quite place my finger on but may look at more thoroughly later.

As far as I can tell (and I could be wrong) the tone is perfect.

I have to admit I suspect that this sort of reaction, while valid, is misdiagnosed: 'bad tone' is so very often used to mean 'this is different from what I'm used to, and similar to stuff that I've been repeatedly told is bad and taught to see as bad, and therefore it is not to my tastes.'

That's still valid. Tastes are valid. But that doesn't make it bad tone.

(Definitely doesn't necessarily apply to you, just your post made me think of it.)

Dillinger PhD 07 Feb 2015 23:18

Fair reply. A few specific lines where I feel this could be tightened up, to give a clearer perspective of where I'm coming from:

+ show block

It is to be heavily guarded

Usage of "heavily" here doesn't work for me. It's a relative word with no real context here and groks as not very clinical.

While basic amenities are allowed, these requests must be made through written statements, which are then carefully analyzed before being permitted.

This sentence is generally sort of weird and run-on-y. There are several spots where this multiple-comma sentence structure is used; if it's a stylistic choice then I guess we can agree to disagree but I'd say most of these instances would read with a more clinical tone if broken into smaller sentences. It feels unclear whether "basic" here is actual basic amenities or requests of more creature-comfort-y items. Saying the requests are "carefully analyzed" also seems unnecessary.

people hearing them are simply convinced

"Simply" is another case similar to "heavily" for me. Perhaps some in-universe argument about the document writer being under the skip's effect could be broached for this but I can't say that I'd buy it.

You are right, it is a matter of taste. I didn't think the tone was bad, just off; if I thought it was outright bad I would have likely downvoted. Part of this is certainly just different style preferences. 2107, already linked above by Cyclopian, is a good example of my fairly dry tone. But for me, such as the mentioned examples, it's a matter of straying too far away from what I would quantify as clinical-sounding word choices and sentence structures.

I actually don't have much/any problem with the crossreferences or other aspects outside the normal format. I quite like the line usage separating sections, for example, and have thought about playing with that myself.

thedeadlymoose 07 Feb 2015 23:41

Appreciated! TL;DR — yes, all those examples are stylistic choices, and acceptable tone.

Details under the cut

It's a relative word with no real context here and groks as not very clinical.

That's not correct. It's acceptable tone because the rest of the sentence explains what is meant by 'heavily'. (It WOULD be bad tone if the rest of the sentence wasn't there; as it stands, it's just style.)

if it's a stylistic choice then I guess we can agree to disagree but I'd say most of these instances would read with a more clinical tone if broken into smaller sentences.

That's just style. It's not clinical tone. Tone can't be exchanged with style.

It feels unclear whether "basic" here is actual basic amenities or requests of more creature-comfort-y items.

In this case it doesn't particularly matter, because it's a summary and conveying non-vital information (and therefore acceptable tone).

Saying the requests are "carefully analyzed" also seems unnecessary.

Sure, but again, this is a style thing.

"Simply" is another case similar to "heavily" for me.

No — because in this case, it means exactly what it says and doesn't require elaboration. That makes it style, not tone.

---

(Though once again, disliking stylistic choices is fine.)

Dillinger PhD 08 Feb 2015 00:26

That's just style. It's not clinical tone. Tone can't be exchanged with style.

Exchanged? No, not exactly, nor what I intended to imply. But style choices can push something beyond the parameters of clinical tone and these choices do so for me. We can debate the subjectivity of said parameters but that's turtles all the way down and might be a conversation better suited a writing help forum post.

thedeadlymoose 08 Feb 2015 07:29

We do need to use use 'style' and 'tone' to mean what they mean in the real world; otherwise the linguistic drift allows them to mean essentially anything the user wishes, which is confusing for writers who then have to decipher that feedback.

It's like the drift with our accidental redefinition of 'hook' to mean 'literally anything interesting or entertaining in a piece'. The actual meaning of 'hook' is 'something in the beginning of the piece that fascinates the reader and 'hooks' them in'.

I've seen endless confusion and hapless flailing on what people mean by "tone" or "style" or "hook" or all sorts of other words. That's what motivates me to point out the error here.

Tone is the work's attitude towards the subject and the audience. This is the meaning of the word.

Why is it important to talk about it here? Because this is precisely the kind of SCP that ends up getting the shaft because it's different from what we're used to. This page is absolute bait for taste-based critique framed as non-taste-based.

In this case, it won't get the shaft because Troy's an admin and a top writer. Another writer might not be so lucky.

Also, this is more aimed at others reading this page. We already know what you mean because you did clarify, so you're cool.

That said… at least one of those sentences is reasonable confusion. "It is to be heavily guarded" would definitely be bad tone by itself. As it stands, "It is to be heavily guarded, with no fewer than eight regularly rotating guards and a constantly shifting staff" is seriously awkward and should probably just be rephrased.

I probably shouldn't have been so picky when you called that particular sentence "bad tone" — to be honest, that's mostly me being a pedant.

EDIT: Also, a side note. The "tone" of this SCP does include the implied winks to the audience — unusual for a modern SCP article. So yeah there's definitely room to find the tone of the SCP offputting, even if not incorrect.

Last edited on 08 Feb 2015 07:43 by thedeadlymoose Show more

thedeadlymoose 07 Feb 2015 22:59

I really enjoy this, so an easy +1.

Two main issues for me, both of which I mentioned last night, but didn't have time to fully process or suggest anew:

#1: I'm not sure the O5 Council would be okay with this without better justification.

And I don't think justification is hard; something you said on IRC makes it hang together for me: "I like to think that it doesn't even want to really leave. It just gets bored. The Foundation is so serious and stodgy and boring… They need to learn to have fun." Just a bit more of a hint towards that should work.

Plus, most of the examples are pretty short term, and this is a bit of a long-term plan…

See… all the O5 Council needs to do is indicate that they have some reason to believe this SCP will stick around long term in his new role, and that the cost/benefit analysis comes out ahead. Even if they're wrong, that's justification.

It could be as simple as the fact that they were able to contain the SCP in the first place. Either they can re-contain him if necessary (because they've done it before), or they think that him staying on as an SCP was in and of itself a big joke, and if he wants to move on from SCP status, well… jeez, what can you do? Since he's still contained, maybe should call it a night here.

#2: This falls into the general cliche of "if you crosslink, make sure you crosslink exclusively to Series 1 SCPs, even though you're writing in Series 2/3". Might you consider adding some Series 2/3 links if people propose them to you?

EDIT: I see you added at least one! Woo. (Had missed that on first re-read.) Question above still stands, I suppose.

…And finally, a mostly irrelevant quibble: "Caucasian" is outmoded; you probably want "of European descent" or just "white". But you can get away with it if you like; it's still occasionally used in real-life scientific articles, and I don't downvote for such nitpicks.

(An irrelevant side note: This SCP is obviously Euclid if not Keter, but I'm guessing the "Safe" classification is a nod to the O5s' confidence and/or attempts to trick the trickster — so it doesn't bug me. I assume it's intentional, in fact, and the reader is meant to go through this thought process)

Whether you make changes or not, though, this SCP is highly entertaining, cleverly written, and entertainingly breaks a lot of writing taboos we've constructed for ourselves. On top of that, it's a seriously remarkable rewrite, of something I wasn't sure could be pulled off. And yet you did it. Awesome.

Last edited on 07 Feb 2015 23:12 by thedeadlymoose Show more

TroyL 07 Feb 2015 23:28

Well, I tried to hint a little bit at it, but I want to just go ahead and mention it outright: It should be assumed that he's heavily edited his own file. The notes, the changes in containment, the fact that the entire list of things he's done seems to just be the special gems he's personally enjoyed the most… I was trying to hint at that, but I think I didn't telegraph it strongly enough.

---

"WELL FOUNDATION. YOU MADE IT SO EASY. SO VERY VERY EASY." - dimensionpotato

thedeadlymoose 07 Feb 2015 23:31

Ahh. I understood that he'd annotated and changed his article, but I hadn't assumed it had been that extensive — too much precedent (hell, 231 alone) for the idea of 'when SCPs change things, it's usually just annotations!'

Decibelles 08 Feb 2015 00:09

As cool of a concept as that is, I gotta agree with Moose. All I got out of it were annotations. Not once did I really ever pick up that it was most of the article itself.

TroyL 08 Feb 2015 19:45

That's totally fine. It was one of the main ideas I kept as I was working on it, but I don't think it needs explicit statement in the article itself to make the concept work.

---

"WELL FOUNDATION. YOU MADE IT SO EASY. SO VERY VERY EASY." - dimensionpotato

DrNietzsche 08 Feb 2015 01:03

The O5 just out-trolled the ur-Troll. +1

Communism will win 08 Feb 2015 01:09

Or did they?

---

if your reading this your gay

dierubikdie 09 Feb 2015 14:12

Maybe not

Isn't it odd that the O5 Council is so readily agreeable when it comes to the SCP's new containment protocol? Remember what the object's effects are:

It never offers evidence to support these claims. Rather, people hearing them are simply convinced, usually through what they believe to be completely logical arguments.

Then check out the hidden footnotes.

Last edited on 09 Feb 2015 14:17 by dierubikdie Show more

page 1 of 3123next »