Special thanks to Yossi, Prometheus, Nico, and Hawkguyy for looking at this before I posted.
Image credit here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cat_and_dog#/media/File:Great_dane_and_cat.jpg
SCP-5113 / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» SCP-5113
This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-5113.
Since my whole stance on object classes (which this article originally didn't have) is that they are meaningless and useless, it would be silly for me to leave one off after discovering how important they are to certain folk in the community.
I still think they don't mean anything useful to a reader, but hell: if it will get people to actually read the article instead of downvoting out of the box, I don't feel that strongly about it.
Wait till I finiosh my Orphanage and give it Keter…and it is literally a totally harmless orphanage, actually contains itself, would be thaumiel if the foundation were to cooperate with the staff in housing Juvanile SCp inside it, and were to just let the staff do their jobs. lol. But I keep fighting irl depression and stress so it's not done yet. Got a sandbox up with a aprtial entry though. and goggle doc with notes I am running through.
anyone who downvotes this for not having an object class is a monster.
You, yes you, whoever downvoted this for having no object class, you know who you are if that's your only reason then you've clearly never lost a pet before. When my last cat Smokey died? I cried so hard it hurt and held him until he was cold. You should think about the entire picture before you jump down someone's throat for not following the format. Cimmarian was capturing the brief but impactful lives of the creatures we take into our homes and treat like our own children, grief and friendship can't be captured in an object class.
And Cimm thanks for reading this on your channel. Sometimes my reading comprehension tanks, but not when I listen to something rather than read it. If you read more of your SCPs and tales I'm more likely to see them and come here to rate them up for being absolutely fantastic.
Listen, you obviously feel strongly about this, but you need to calm down.
This isn't the first time you've reacted with extreme vitriol in this thread.
No one is jumping down anyone's throat. No one is reacting particularly strongly about this other than you.
You've also roleplayed, crossed the don't be a dick line, and behaved generally below the expected maturity for a member of the site.
tl;dr Chill out and stop attacking people for their opinions.
This is a closed staff post. Do not respond to this post unless you are staff.
It does not have one.
so it just happens to be necessary in the last 5000 scp's…
EDIT: I mean, I would have expected this to be "safe" or even euclid for it's repeated escape attempts
EDIT 2: Nah, this is definitely euclid. A cat who can speak human language, is missing key body components and repeatedly tries to escape definitely would be classified as euclid.
im testing text sizes by the way, its fun
Friendship has no object class!!!!! T.T shame on you! *chases with rolled up newspaper*
"Because" is not a great justification for the lack of an object class.
I looked at the article, and couldn't justify the inclusion of one. I suppose I could do it "just because that's how it's always been" (with the exception of when I haven't used one in previous instances) but that also seems like a weak reasoning.
The object class for this item is easily Safe or Euclid. I'm sure there's an esoteric class between them, too.
I'll be crossing you in style, someday!
I think actually if we're using the normal definitions, given the escape frequency, this is between Euclid (which is sort of a baseline for anything sentient anyway) and Keter. But you know what's better than just saying "this is keter" or "this is euclid"?
Just saying what it is and letting the personnel reading it decide what needs to be done.
I have often thought about how in my version of the Foundation the object classes are purely vestigial bureaucratic nonsense that has no real world use.
The difference between one keter and another keter is so huge that the word imparts no real information. Same for safe and safe, or euclid and euclid.
There's been a drive recently to add more information to make the designations more tailored to the specific object, specifically the ACS system which I quite like. That's a valid solution to the problem as well.
But in my Foundation, they just gave up on trying to make it work and took it out. In universe, one should know what they need to do because they've read the documentation. Or someone who has read it tells 'em what to do instead.
Except that object classification and the various subclasses allow the viewer to understand the nature of the anomaly at a glance. It allows for the author to utilize the process to either live up to expectations or shatter them.
Downvote, incomplete.
I have often thought about how in my version of the Foundation the object classes are purely vestigial bureaucratic nonsense that has no real world use.
I'd go a step further and say that you can (and should) omit object classes if they add nothing to an article. Same goes with discovery logs, interviews, extraneous data like blood type and height, special containment procedures, and even the description.
The circumstances where the omission of those last two would be wise are exceedingly rare but my point stands. If it doesn't add to the article, ax it. Adhering to a template is incompatible with believing in "there is no canon", but the more important point is that you're literally writing literature and literature should not have standards imposed upon it.
I agree on omitting extraneous data, but disagree on everything else heavily. If you're going to omit something that I'm used to seeing in an article, it better have an actual reason for it. Articles that omit descriptions or containment procedures are interesting to me because it makes it feel like there's something wrong- it's the hook. But if the explanation is "I just didn't feel like doing it", then it makes me a little grumpy because it just makes it seem lazy and amateurish.
I'll be crossing you in style, someday!
I mean, there's a debate here about whether or not stories should be judged in a vacuum or judged in the context of other stories that are adjacent to them, and I guess the answer falls somewhere in the middle. That said, ascribing laziness to a deliberate authorial choice seems more like a reader problem, especially with the context of Cimmerian being as prolific as he is.1
As we all know, the 5K Con just ended, and we got a lot of entries. Out of curiosity, have you read SCP-5790? Same principle, really; why explain what the anomaly was, even in the abstract of "it was something that needed to be forgotten", when you could just expunge it?
Footnotes
1. I no longer stand by this.
That said, ascribing laziness to a deliberate authorial choice seems more like a reader problem, especially with the context of Cimmerian being as prolific as he is.
That's…wow. that's very arrogant of you. laziness is not mutually exclusive to authorial choice, since it is the author's own choice if they want to not do something—and therefore reaching the arbitrary standard of laziness from an observer. Ofc it is perfectly fine to not do something;an author is not bound to any obligation in this site, but it is also perfectly fine for a reader to judge an author to be lazy if they don't do what is expected of other authors in similar situation. The fact that the judgement is right or wrong is wholy separate to the question if the judgement is problematic.
Also, prolific doesn't mean infallible. a lot of prolific writers have had their works deleted in this wiki; there's no "tenure", the audience reserves the right to determine if a work is worthy of downvote or upvote. The amount of other works done by an author should not be part of criterion a reader judge a work with. "judging a work with its adjacent material" is acceptable if a work is part of a series or a canon, but doesn't apply to other works by the author that doesn't relate to it in any way other than the author.
That's…wow. that's very arrogant of you.
Thanks for that, honestly. I realized I wasn't being self-aware and took some time to think things through. I no longer stand by some of what I said and I apologize for being a jerk. Thanks for the clarity.
We do, in fact, have standards. They're imposed by the voting audience. Given the framing of the wiki as a whole, I think it's perfectly reasonable that someone would prefer that articles adhere to the standard format unless there's a clear justification for it. It's also reasonable that someone with that preference would vote accordingly.
I really don't like how this discussion is entirely focused on the absence of three words in an article and not talking about the article itself, so response collapsed below.
I'm very much aware of the site's voting structure and its ability to determine which articles survive and remain culturally relevant. I'm not entirely convinced that's a good thing, but that's another discussion entirely.
I am aware that a lot of readers think every article should adhere to a template unless there's some in-universe justification, and that they can vote accordingly. I also can disagree with the reasons behind their vote, and that's what I'm doing here.
I'm not indicating that I think people's votes are invalid or should be discounted or anything, just that I disagree with why they voted a particular way. I think it's equally reasonable for someone to think that authors should be unrestricted when they write articles, especially when it comes down to the presence or absence of three words.
I think it's equally reasonable for someone to think that authors should be unrestricted when they write articles, especially when it comes down to the presence or absence of three words.
Following this train of thought, I think people would have the exact same reaction from an author omitting "Item #: SCP-XXXX" from their articles because it's unnecessary. After all, it says the number right at the very top of the page, doesn't it?
It's just three words that ultimately carry no meaning for the story (unless they do), but they're integral to the format. Cutting them for reasons that are wholly unrelated to the story is a strange hill for an author to die on, in my opinion.
I don't agree they're integral to the format at all, but it's not something I feel *that* strongly about. Which is why I added it in.
I'm on the fence on your argument here. On one hand, it's not necessarily needed for people to understand it. On the other hand, though, it's also a narrative driver (for example in SCP-1730), letting you know that what happened, has already happened. I also believe it's a good thing to have in longer articles, since people can get a potentially better general idea of it in a shorter amount of time, which is of course convenient for people who have limited time/only want the basic idea of the SCP.
On another note, I love the SCP!
i would have told them to shove it and write their own article if they felt so strongly about it. my creation, my choice, and I owe them nothing. I may be new to the wiki but I've been writing fanfiction since I was 15, I'm 33. I've only ever had one hit fanfic and I still write them and shove them up on ff.net every so often. Why? Because I had a creative vision, and if only one person likes it, thats just fine.
It's a moot point now, of course, but I think it's worth pointing out how well this illustrates the way negative space impacts an article. Our format is so deeply established that deviations are going to be scrutinized regardless of whether it's an addition or omission. An SCP reader who's savvy to the various narrative tricks and meta screws employed around here will notice those deviations and it'll likely influence their expectations. If that deviation doesn't serve your narrative in some way, then it's just a needless distraction.
Sometimes the absence of a shark etc etc….
so because you broke your brain over object classes Cimmarian has to too? That's child logic dude. You just look at this and judge rather than consuming good stories as they're supposed to be and engage in logical suspension of disbelief. I almost cried when I heard the logs for this. I'm still on the edge of crying.
If all you see is a trigger, you're heartless and clearly have never lost a pet, or the point of the article went over your head "wooooosh" when you started reading and saw no object class. It wasn't a black box that covered your eyes, it was a red one.
so because you broke your brain over object classes Cimmarian has to too? That's child logic dude.
Hey so this is a pretty clear violation of Rule 0: Don't be a dick. Please don't do this again in future. While you are allowed to offer dissenting opinions to a commenter; personal attacks against them are not permitted.
This is a closed staff post. Do not respond unless you are staff.
disappointed at this discussion. it's not a SCP that particularly requires an object class for the story, so seems like the objection is purely due to hatred of change. even more disappointing that Cimm caved.
it's not a SCP that particularly requires an object class for the story,
You can argue this for other objects. Should they have their object class removed? If it's not required for the story, but it is required in-universe, it's better to add it.
so seems like the objection is purely due to hatred of change
No, it seems more like the absence of one is drawing attention because an SCP document almost always has one, especially in-universe, and the inconsistency is what most people point out. Believe it or not, not everyone is a jaded stick-in-the-mud that hate everything that's different. It could just be that the format inconsistency is getting noticed.
even more disappointing that Cimm caved.
He said that he didn't feel that strongly about it, so he added it. As McB said: It's just three words that ultimately carry no meaning for the story (usually anyway), but they're integral to the format. You're making a larger deal out of it than they are and Cimmerian is by using words like ''hatred of change'' and ''caved''.
I almost cried, and flashed back to when my previous cat, Smokey, died. There's a reason why a lot of vets and animal rescuers created the idea of the Rainbow Bridge, a zone of heaven where pets wait for their owners, young and whole again. Its because despite being small, the creatures in our lives have a lasting impact much larger than their own lives or their bodies. Small furball, big personality IMO.
(account deleted)Well, this was a wholesome skip! There aren’t many of these, so I’m glad such a good one was made! Now, about this thing of object classes, my opinion is that since this is a document emulating what you would find in a real Foundation’s database, having an object classification seems pertinent. I get, however, that everyone has a right to have their own cannon, and Cimmerian has every right to do whatever he wants, especially in his cannon. I should also say that, coming from the average reader, this has ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT on my enjoyment of this literary piece. In the end, I guess that the community itself and this page’s rating will tell what is correct in view of the majority of members in this site.
I actually quite liked this. I wasn't initially sold on the premise, the sudden jump from containment to end-of-life was a bit jarring, and it felt like it was going after my heart-strings a bit too ravenously. I mean, a talking dog and cat as best buddies, where the dog is lovably oafish and the cat is snide but caring? Come on Crim.
It's the final addendum that turned it around for me. That little reincarnation twist opens up a lot more depth in this story, and it left me with the right mix of emotions. I wasn't just sad, I was sad, intrigued, and a bit hopeful. If you can deliver that kind of cocktail, it's a +1.
*gross crying noises*
(+1)
/forum/t-13027087/scp-5113#post-
page revision: 1, last edited: 02 Apr 2021 15:16
