<3
\ /
\ o ^ o /
\ ( ) /
____________(%%%%%%%)____________
( / / )%%%%%%%( \ \ )
(___/___/__/ \__\___\___)
( / /(%%%%%%%)\ \ )
(__/___/ (%%%%%%%) \___\__)
/( )\
/ (%%%%%) \
(%%%)
!
…that this guide was written by a single live bee?
I hear it was the same one they found in █████████'█ ██████
This guide is so fantastic I wish it had been published the day before I rewrote an entire series 2 SCP as opposed to the day after. +1, +more if I could.
It's great to have someone with such relevant expertise share their thoughts on this! Most of what's written is eminently sensible, but a fair portion does seem to be predicated on what would fit your own headcanon.
I'm mostly referring to your view that irl readers believe that the same in-universe audience stand-in is browsing every SCP article they themselves read. This doesn't feel right to me, given that many scips explicitly put the reader in the shoes of a named character with devices like "logging into the SCP database" under some specific username. SCP-2317 takes this trope to an extreme with six separate identities in the same article.
Thank you for the feedback!
I do wish to point out two things, however.
1. I made sure to mention 2317 in the prologue as an example of where this perspective isn't universal.
On the matter of security clearances. If a reader can survive the memetic kill agent in SCP-001 to read the information posted there, then they have the security clearance to read whatever document you have created. There are certain examples (SCP-2317, specifically) of articles where this has been circumvented, but it requires work to place it outside of the implied security clearance of the casual reader.
2. Please keep in mind that this guide was written primarily with new authors in mind. This represents a guideline of how redaction works and presents several different ways of using it. I expect many more experienced authors either agree with me wholesale, or will simply disregard my suggestions (as is their right).
However, new authors don't have the luxury of experience to showcase to them how to use all the various elements that go into making SCP articles & whatnot. This is an attempt to give a clear resource for these authors, to help make the creative experience easier for them to participate in.
Great article. I completely agree that redaction is overused and █ are very distracting.
One suggestion: You should mention [REDACTED] in the tldr, either in the █ section or in a separate bullet point. It can be useful in places and replacing all █ with [REDACTED] is probably a net win.
I would say most likely not, but I'll check with the author to be sure.
This is correct.
It is meant to link to 5790. I have tried to limit linking to series 1 wherever possible, as the method of writing skips has radically altered in the interim between then and now.
A series of straw man arguments fighting for a point that didn’t need to be made, feeding into the misguided notion that somehow the only thing holding people back from writing “correctly” is some nebulous thing called “proper clinical tone.”
How did the SCP Wiki, a creative writing site that celebrates a lack of defined canon, unquestioningly accept something that spits on this core value in favor of pedantry? There’s not a single word here that isn’t telling people how they’re allowed to think and nothing about how they can use an iconic SCP visual element in new, creative or interesting ways, instead urging them to not even consider the tool and to throw it directly in the trash.
We do not need to emulate any real-life institutional style guide because we are not them. They are real and have valid reasons to use rigid rules to govern their speech, we are a facsimile using our speech to make interesting fiction. So if that means defying the conventions of a field we’re not even participating in, what is wrong with that?
I know none of this was done intentionally, no honest writer wishes to limit how they or anyone else could use language. The guide accomplishes only that chilling effect.
Spoon!
I think your criticisms (the spirit of which I'm not unsympathetic toward) would probably have more pull without the outrage. Articles' verisimilitude stems to some degree from the emulation of institutional style, at least as understood by the layperson, so there's a use case for conveying how things work in the real world. Experienced authors know when to bend the rules in favor of the story they're telling, and many newer authors could probably use some additional restraint when using redactions anyway.
The amount of edits to this one post make me hesitant to reply. You've edited this over 10 times over the course of 2 hours, I was going to respond with a more thorough reply but it looks like any point I make will either cease to exist or be changed entirely.
Either or, this is incredibly harsh, to an almost hypocritical extent. This is a part of someone's canon. To decry that personal canon as controlling over others seems odd. You do indeed not need to emulate a real-life institute. This article is saying that too. It's a suggestion, an attempt to help. But again, whether or not you'll still be saying that in another half hour leaves it up in the air.
Edit: I realize that this may have come off as harsh myself. I also didn't realize this individual has been permanently banned. That's on me. Apologies.
Even though this user is banned, I have to say I completely agree.
I am going to be replying to the first revision, since I feel it's the truest of them all.
In my years of lurking, I have learned this is a community of free expression, and experimenting with new formats, and I am certainly not going to be happy when an author with "legal experience" tells me how to write, and having this be officially listed on the Guide Hub makes me even less happy.
I do see that this site is drifting from its history, but the drift should be towards creating a more inclusive community, not towards drilling it into new user's brains that a quintessential part of SCP lore shouldn't be used anymore. Hiding from the reader is one of the scariest and most effective tropes in the horror genre, and I'm not about to see it replaced by boring narrative and colorful CSS.
You can use or choose not to use anything you like. What matters is whether you can justify or properly execute whatever it is you do choose to do, and whether people will upvote or downvote it.
It's a guide — not a strict requirement.
Also — you do realize this guide already existed, right? This is just a rewrite of an old guide. Certainly, it was due for some updating.
This helps me a lot. I didn’t understand the reasoning and function of Redaction. With the redactions and black boxes tend to disrupt my reading experience due to my hard time reading big blocks of texts, I tend to see the cleanliness of the paragraphs. I also am not so keen on using redaction as I find it unnecessary. Though, I feel like using real-life justification could limit the person's ability to be creative. I understand this is for newbies on the site, but series one has used Black boxes to extinction, but they are successful to this day. I think, instead of making some rule limiting the use of black boxes, perhaps it could be cool to see the guide on how to use it more creatively.
However, the reason I say this is helpful is that there are some newbies out there that don’t know how to use redaction successfully and efficiently. And showing how this redaction works in real life can be helpful to those who are lost on how to do it. This is also coming off as a fun fact for those who don’t know what redaction are for (for example me).
Nevertheless, I think this essay, some way or another is helpful and useful +1
Fox 🦊