Will add more to the authorpost if it stays up.
Thanks to Deadly Bread, my Girlfriend 4ducklings, Yossipossi, and Tyumen for crit.
Preferred Number:
6994
Lowest remaining number
SCP-6994 / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» SCP-6994
This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-6994.
Beginning deletion vote at -11.
Edit: Article's rating has risen above deletion threshold. Deletion vote cancelled.
If you are not the author and you want to rewrite this article, you may reply to this post asking for the opportunity to do so. Please obtain permission from the author (or the Rewrite Team if this article is older than 6 months) and make sure you copy the page source to your sandbox. Please do not reply to this post for any other reason unless you are staff.
Second Senior Staff vote in favor for the deletion of this article.
Article has fallen out of deletion range.
Hexick, SCP Wiki Operational Staff, Community Outreach/MAST/Licensing/Site Crit
Personal site: http://hexhouse.wikidot.com/
Feel free to forward any concerns or inquiries to my Wikidot inbox.
I'm actually just going to novote this. The original idea presented here- that being anomalous sapient isopods with some weird anatomy and spider features- is actually really intriguing to me and with the right narrative could make for a really good SCP. My problem with this article is that the narrative, in my honest opinion, goes the exact opposite direction that it should.
I get what you're going for here. Someone loses someone they care about in an accident related to the anomaly, and as a result tries to make the anomaly seem scarier than it actually is. The problem is that the documentation present here really doesn't support that escalation (i.e. we don't really see any reports that appear falsified enough to raise questions, we don't see reports related to that specific accident, etc.). Likewise that narrative just…isn't as interesting as the proposed anomaly is. I'd much rather hear about these isopods than people trying to fake data on them.
I hope you come back to this with a new direction, even if this gets deleted. I want to see more from this idea.
If I understand correctly, Foundation wanted to make sure that SCP-6000 evolved naturally but I fail to see why vivisection was necessary to determine that, especially that they already knew SCP-6000 are sentient and sapient beings.
There's a diamond in the rough here. If you decide to rework it, I would suggest a few things:
1. As mentioned in other posts, vivisection is unneccessary when dissection of deceased specimens is much more humane and provides similar if not identical information.
2. You mentioned sapience and a language, which is cool. Make use of it! This is a significant part of what makes the anomaly interesting. Put in some interview logs, maybe show the doctor interacting with them and use it to introduce the exposition about his daughter more naturally.
3. I seriously doubt the Foundation of all things would just accept sapient aquatic bugs and append an -ex to them. Probably not keter, but definitely at least a euclid level thing.
4. Add some details about their society, if they have one. They're bugs with human level intelligence and a demonstrated language, so their social lives would absolutely be of interest here.
Don't shelve it yet, this one has a lot of promise. No vote for now
The main complaint I have is how the foundation could believe this creature evolved human like intelligence via natural selection.
I'm not a marine biologist but my basic understanding is for a major change in a species there needs to be some driving force that creates a situation where said change would lead to survival.
It took a crazy amount of environmental changes for humans to develop larger more powerful brains. In addition, higher brain power requires more calories to function. In most situations human level intelligence is a liability rather than a benefit.
The foundation would have to question how they obtained sapience, because natural selection seems unlikely.
My suggestion is to remove the Sapience part. language, revenge etc.
-1
I want to like this. I really do. It's not a bad idea; it's a rather good one, actually. However, the execution is quite lackluster, if even that. There's a description, an occurrence and an ending-piece, but they barely feel like they connect; this article feels like a concept in the middle of writing still, the major pieces are there but there's nothing else but it.
I'll downvote mainly because as an article, it's severely lacking, past that of one I'd novote, but there's promise here. A rewrite of this same idea could definitely yield a really good skip.
/forum/t-14110718/scp-6994#post-
page revision: 2, last edited: 15 Jan 2023 15:06
