SCP-2962 / Discussion

This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-2962.

page 1 of 212next »

Revised scip...

Wils 16 Aug 2015 12:43

Feedback duly noted from first attempt.

Photo is creative commons - credited to Author Nigel Aspdin

+ cc details

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Piece_of_vitrified_brick_found_in_Brick-Kiln_Covert_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1801642.jpg,

Fig2 details:

"Buchite clinker (Wasatch Formation, Lower Eocene; coal fire metamorphism at 19 ka, Late Pleistocene; roadcut along west-bound Interstate 90's exit to Rt. 16, eastern side of Buffalo, Powder River Basin, northern Wyoming, USA) 5" by James St. John is licensed with CC BY 2.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

I've removed the "It's going to destroy everything and there's nothing we can do" element of the first version and concentrated more on the house where it was first found (i.e. made it smaller scale, more "intimate" if that's the right word)…

If you like it, great. If you don't… I still luvs ya.

EDIT: just want to say, thanks for any and all feedback received here. I appreciate it all, and if any suggestions sound decent I'll maybe work them in.

Last edited on 30 Sep 2021 18:23 by Wils Show more

Scorpion451 16 Aug 2015 14:43

Scaling it back a little makes all the difference; that bit with the photo is a nice touch as well.

Wils 16 Aug 2015 16:45

Thanks. This was the original feel of the scip before I thought, "Hang on, I know what people will like!" and changed it to something that garnered less upvotes than downvotes….

That'll learn me

Guilliman 16 Aug 2015 16:39

I can't find a "Tollbell Road" in Bedford, UK

Wils 16 Aug 2015 16:43

Err… Exactly!

Decibelles 16 Aug 2015 16:51

So uh, what is 2962? You never describe it, just state where it was located and what it did and what it can do, sort of. That's one of my biggest pet peeves, so downvoted.

Wils 16 Aug 2015 17:10

And I quote:

the Foundation subsequently diagnosed the property with malignant inorganic para-neoplasm (hereby designated SCP-2962), a super-aggressive form of carcinoma

Hopefully that might change your down- to an up-vote. If not, it's cool.

Decibelles 16 Aug 2015 17:21

Given that it's mentioned after the logs and not in the first paragraph, and easily missable where it is, it doesn't. Sorry.

Wils 16 Aug 2015 17:23

No worries!

Mulciber 16 Aug 2015 20:36

Edit noted and vote altered accordingly.

Last edited on 17 Aug 2015 22:22 by Mulciber Show more

Scorpion451 16 Aug 2015 21:01

Didn't bother me enough to affect my upvote, but this bit from the paragraph after the exploration log would be a good thing to lead with:

aggressive form of carcinoma, characterized by a metastasial process which allows transference to external systems, both organic and inorganic.

Says just enough to get the general idea across, with a nice little "wait, what was that last bit?" at the end.

Wils 16 Aug 2015 21:20

I'm looking at incorporating that change as per yourself and Decibelles. I need to do it so in a way that doesnt interupt the flow though….

edit: now moved that bit to the first line of the description.

Thanks folks.

Last edited on 16 Aug 2015 21:33 by Wils Show more

TL333s 16 Aug 2015 22:38

Building cancer. This is some classic SCP stuff and I love it. I also love the informal asides in the exploration log and the vagina house. XD

Wils 16 Aug 2015 22:48

also love the informal asides in the exploration log and the vagina house. XD

Watch this space.

Glad you like the article. Seems to be ticking more boxes than version 1, anyway.

Last edited on 16 Aug 2015 22:49 by Wils Show more

Petrograd 17 Aug 2015 00:00

Thoughts on the new one!

+ show block

After last attempt, pros:
- I like that you kept the live test.
- I like the people in the log. I like their discussion, the previous anomaly, and all that.
- I like the photograph as the source, and them trying to track down the body and camera. That's a neat, intimate detail, as you say, and it's narratively a lot more more interesting than trying to blast it into space.

Cons:
- The picture's kinda cheesy.
- Still chock full of technical jargon. The containment procedures, for instance, sound good, but I have no direct idea what they mean. I can get "Put the bad stuff in special bins, etc" from context, but it just seems to run long.
- The log droned on and on. There were very interesting parts (the banter, the blood vessel comparison) but my eyes glazed over for a lot of it. It's realistic on the level of what a full, unedited log would sound like, but as a reader a lot of it is extraneous.

Bonus point: I might have had some benefit in understanding it from reading the previous version, so I would listen to others on clarity issues.

Ultimately, no vote. This is much closer to an article I could get behind, but it could use some careful editing. I'm not saying take a machete to it haphazardly, but you can take a step back and figure out what needs to be there to get info to your readers and what doesn't communicate or is too couched in jargon to help.

Michael Atreus 17 Aug 2015 00:43

Great galloping crud, I liked this. The section between the two collapsibles seems to play fast and loose with the words "instances" and "host" and the transition from "we're talking about buildings" to "now we're talking about people". I'm okay with the ambiguity as a literary device in this context, but I could also see how it could annoy some folks who think it does a disservice to clinical tone - so beware of that if it wasn't intentional. Personally, I support the subversion of any convention so long as it supports the story and delivers the horror. So, upsies.

Wils 17 Aug 2015 01:04

I have another full log of the exploration, day 2 when they send a d-class in. That's the "missing link" I suppose. I didn't include it as I thought it would extend the logs to unacceptable levels… Dunno. I might dig it out and include it in this thread, see if folks like it, or include it in an additional tale.

Ikonovich 17 Aug 2015 04:26

I for one would like to see it. I'm almost quite curious about the fate of the site.. But I'm thinking that the only way to be sure is to activate the failsafe. Maybe Tianjin was just a site with an out of control SCP..

Last edited on 17 Aug 2015 04:28 by Ikonovich Show more

Agent MacLeod 17 Aug 2015 04:46

I would've sworn we had another article just like this. This is reminiscent of pretty much every structure-affecting skip we have that I can think of offhand.

I'm really not sure how to feel about this. It was competently written, but I'm unmoved. No vote for now, I might come back later.

Wils 17 Aug 2015 05:26

I would've sworn we had another article just like this.

We did. This one. I self-deleted. General consensus was it was too "end of the world with no way out."

I believe you up-voted it. :)

Last edited on 17 Aug 2015 05:26 by Wils Show more

Agent MacLeod 17 Aug 2015 05:28

No, I read that one and I remember it. I would've sworn building cancer was another article we had somewhere.

Wils 17 Aug 2015 06:08

I had a search before I started this, couldn't see one similar.

(Takes Agent MacLeod to one side.. Slips fiver into pocket… You ain't seen nuffink, right?)

WrongJohnSilver 17 Aug 2015 18:22

There's Structural Cancer, SCP-836. I believe this entry is different enough to warrant its own entry. No reason why we can't have two cancers.

The other one has more of a teratoma feel, anyway.

Wils 17 Aug 2015 19:04

Yeah you mentioned that scip when this was at Iteration 1. Must say I hadnt seen that one before but I love it. From what I can tell it isn't a cancer as such, it just replicates walls etc and creates weird structures (I.e. doors and windows where they shouldn't be, for example).

As a matter of fact, if I haven't up-voted that one already, I'm just off to do that now.

TL333s 17 Aug 2015 23:15

Oh yeah! The main difference is the structures are the cancer in that one, rather than being afflicted with it. Two very different anomalies.

Thomas Dman 19 Aug 2015 19:06

Very well done!
Thank you for this excellent entry.

I really liked you telephone SCP a few months ago and you continiue to keep the good articles coming.

You have quite mastered the difficult task of "Telling a story as an SCP", which I love.

Wils 23 Aug 2015 09:25

That's very kind of you to say so, although this did take 4 months work and a rewrite!

Anywho glad you like it.

katiekawaii 19 Aug 2015 19:12

I found it all very readable, but there was one thing that stood out to me as soon as I read it: Every time this cancer spreads, it explicitly distorts and overtakes structures to the point of near unrecognizability, and yet the photo that it started from is still so intact and in shape that we can see who is in it and what they're doing? No one else has mentioned this, so if I just missed something, let me know. Maybe this is just one of those things for which you hope your readers will suspend disbelief, and if so, that's fair, but maybe it will be useful for you just to know that it stood out to me. :)

Wils 19 Aug 2015 20:33

That's a fair point and one I've thought about quite a bit. For the story, it was necessary that there be a catalyst, and this was the best way I could see of doing that. In my mind, the "cross-transfer" cancer started off at the photo and then spread outwards, getting stronger as it did so.

There is an upcoming tale with a few extra bits and pieces re the exploration log which hopefully will explain it. Can't say much more than that without spoiling the reveal! I couldn't figure out a way of adding it into the scip without spoiling the clinical tone.

katiekawaii 25 Aug 2015 06:03

Yeah, I can buy "getting stronger as it spread." I look forward to that tale. :)

page 1 of 212next »