Some of the things under the "Further Findings on Triggering Statements" collapsible could use better phrasing, such as "If they communicate this to another person, that person will believe not that the original SCP-2330-1 instance's name is Alice but that they themselves are named Alice".
That feels like a run-on sentence, and a tad informal.
However, I'm glad to see it sparked a good amount of interest in the chat, and I feel comfortable upvoting it.
+1.
SCP-2330 / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» SCP-2330
This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-2330.
At first, I thought it was another item with an effect. And then, I read the log… which got me interested.
However, why would the Foundation try to find applications for this thing? And did it to the point they had infected the Foundation itself? Won't they be more careful with things like SCPs?
Neutral vote at the time of writing.
1) The mistake would have been years ago, in a more liberal time.
2) They didn't fully understand how it was spread, and likely were careless with amnestics.
Thank you for the feedback, though!
From a experimental POV, I would imagine that experiments involving this SCP would be highly controlled and full of failsafes to prevent things from going south.
I'm guessing it is so-called "Bowe Commission" that wants to weaponise SCPs. I personally do not approve of such, but it could make such a good story that it may redeem everything else if executed properly.
After over a month of editing and drafting, it is finally released!
Special thanks to:
Aurabek, whose extensive reviews were amazingly helpful throughout the entire process, from first draft to final draft.
MinMin and Jarbatalapus, who helped review in the final hours.
Gbroxey, who reviewed my first draft and opened my eyes to some of the unclear/cringey bits.
Thanks to everyone else who reviewed my draft and offered critique, on the subreddit, the forum, or in the chat!
EDIT: As the old image wasn't properly licensed, it has been replaced. Source
I'm on the fence about this one. On the one hand, I like that the Foundation is trying an alternative method to recontain something they accidentally released. On the other hand… I feel like there could be a bit more done with the idea to tweak it towards perfection. It feels almost… One dimensional? That may not be the proper phrase here, but I'd like to see a bit more focus on what this thing is actually doing to the general public at the moment. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I just don't feel the gravity of even vastly different worldwide beliefs about reality. And there remains a strong possibility that I'm just utterly missing the point, but for now I have to go neutral.
Ok, so. I think the addendum was rather cool, and I'm still trying to digest all of that. It's a good way to play around with the implications of such a powerful object.
For the object itself, I'm less impressed. It seems like you spend a large amount of space defining the specific attributes of what is ultimately a very straight-forward, not particularly interesting, incredibly powerful effect.
(The statement about immolation came somewhat out of left field, and left me more saddened than suggesting power/seriousness.)
So, for me, what you have is a very solid contemplation of the consequences of a not particularly interesting effect. Sort of the "What is <X> fought Superman?" question, if you're not a fan of Supes. I like the addendum, but it doesn't float the object for me, and I don't see that changing without significant cuts or a rewrite with more unique effects/narrative threads.
-1
I think you really nailed the tone of dread and hopelessness in the last collapsible. +1
Seconded; I am really digging the implications, the tone, and I really like the thoroughness of the memetic experimentation.
So I only read the first couple lines of the description, then was going to just no-vote and close the article, when I decided to take a flier on the collapsible and see if it was interesting.
It was.
+1, good stuff.
But the description could lose 80% of its length and this would work better, the object is just a prop to tell the interesting story in your last collapsible, I think a cut down would do wonders for this.
I'm really torn. It's a well-written article, but a fairly standard item with little 'wow' factor. The final addendum adds a lot to the article, but I feel like it goes OTT by the end. ("We thought we could control it" is a pretty clear indicator that things are about to get ridiculous.) I think a no vote is the safe option.
I like this one, but a minor nitpick: "immolate" means "to offer as a sacrifice"; not as popularly supposed "set on fire". I blame Gygax, personally.
My research says/said that it can mean both "sacrifice by fire" and "kill by fire". Some sources do disagree, though. Do you have any suggestions for clearer terms?
"doused in gasoline and incinerated"? Immolate though probably is fine. Words change meanings.
This awesome sandwich doesn't actually fill me with awe and this terrible soda doesn't actually frighten me. Even Gary Gygax can be permitted to trigger this shift, I just personally wish people wouldn't treat the DMG as a thesaurus, but I think I lost this fight in 1977. Carry on.
Just, please refrain from using "THACO" as synomnym for minute of angle or something. I am afraid that if that happens I shall go mad. :)
/forum/t-1178741/scp-2330#post-
page revision: 2, last edited: 15 Jan 2023 15:06
