Greenlight Proposal: It's About Power

Summary:

A story about the rules we take for granted

Greenlight Proposal: It's About Power

PhStr1228 02 Jun 2021 03:46

Seeking Greenlights: Yes

Page Type: SCP Article

Genre: Horror

Page Layout: Standard

Elevator Pitch: A new researcher gets tasked with the containment of a humanoid SCP. As a result, he comes directly into conflict with the brunt of the Foundation's institutional apathy, and loses.

Central Narrative: The narrative begins when a new research doctor is assigned to a humanoid SCP after the old doctor has moved to another project. The position is more or less a maintenance position with the exception that the containment procedures for this SCP are unreasonably brutal. This however is justified because the consequences of not performing the procedure regularly are dire, according to notes left behind by the old doctor.

+ Open

The new doctor decides to do some tests to determine if there is any way to make containment safer for the SCP. It turns out that this SCP is indistinguishable from a normal human. The new doctor decides to briefly stop the containment procedures on the SCP, and the promised negative effects of the SCP don't come. The old doctor on the project appears to have completely made up the anomalous effects of the humanoid SCP.

The new doctor petitions for the SCP to be decommissioned and meets resistance. The old doctor who designed these containment procedures is a respected figure in the realm of anomalous science and humanoid containment, and the newcomer does not have the power to overturn his research even though it is blatantly false. The new doctor escalates to the Ethics Committee, who finds that the blatant disregard for safety in his decision to stop containment of the SCP constitutes grounds for removal from the project. The Committee declines to do a review of the SCP's containment procedures without 'sufficient evidence'.

The new doctor is cleaning his office to leave and finds a booklet left behind by the old doctor, which shows the new doctor that the old doctor has worked on dozens of containment procedures, all for humanoid SCPs.

Hook/Attention-Grabber: The SCP is a commentary on the role of respect and organizational personal capital in science and institutions like it. The old doctor is a person who delights in the torment of his test subjects, unchallenged because he is effectively tenured. Because of the conservative, "if it ain't broke don't fix it" structure of the Foundation, people in places of power are completely protected by institutional inertia.

Re: Greenlight Proposal: It's About Power

Dr Langley 02 Jun 2021 05:26

I don't have much time to write, but I really like this idea. My only potential issue is how you will tell this narrative effectively? I can't really find much issue right now other than that, be sure to contact some of the folks at the butterfly squad to get more in-depth critique and potential greenlights. If you respond to this please PM me.

---

Dr Langley

Re: Greenlight Proposal: It's About Power

PhStr1228 02 Jun 2021 06:22

My plans for the structure of the SCP are as follows:

Class/Procedure/Description goes at the top, as usual. Of note, the containment procedures are sufficiently vague as to allow the old doctor a lot of leeway in how much 'fun' he is allowed to have with the humanoid SCP.

In the addenda:

+ Section 1: An Interview

I will probably put an interview between the new doctor and the 'SCP' right at the top which establishes some basic things (the humanoid 'SCP' is sentient and sapient, the doctor is new and the old doctor has only recently left).

+ Section 2: Testing Commences

This will be followed by a brief series of tests, possibly a table. Hume measurements, alleged anomalous effect related measurements. Finally, in an attempt to really pin down the anomaly, after the new researcher is confident that they have not seen anything anomalous to this point, the new researcher stops containing the 'SCP'. There is no observed effect. The humanoid 'SCP' is entirely mundane. It should be established in this section that the new researcher is at no point acting in desperation or in the dark. They are entirely 'scientifically' in control, if you will. The new doctor is the rational one.

+ Section 3: A Reasoned Appeal

The new doctor submits a series of requests (as documents in the addenda) to overturn the containment of the 'SCP' to increasingly higher people in the Foundation. First maybe a section director, then a site director, then perhaps a regional director, and then finally an appeal is made directly to the ethics committee. All the way up the chain, the people who deny the new doctor may add in anecdotes about how pleasant a person the old doctor was to work with, or about how effective a researcher he is; clouding their judgement of the situation with anecdotes and rationalizing their decision using the new doctor's inexperience. Finally, the ethics committee becomes aware that the 'SCP' is not being contained currently and there is a final addenda in this section which states that the new doctor is being removed from the project immediately following a 'containment breach' which he engineered, and further disciplinary action will be considered.

+ Section 4: The Realization

This is the trickiest section. I may have an additional new doctor see the notebook detailing the many exploits of the old doctor placed neatly on the newly cleaned desk. I may go full Montauk Manor and just break the article and put things in there that could never possibly be in the article. It is the least concrete bit.

Re: Greenlight Proposal: It's About Power

Dr Langley 02 Jun 2021 06:57

I'm pretty much sold on the idea, you've got a very solid infrastructure. I can't provide much more beyond:
1: make sure that you specify that the researcher doesn't completely cease SCP containment, I'd assume they still be kept in their cell but without the extra measures.
2: I personally find it will be a reasonably difficult task to find a way to convey the "realisation" portion of your article.

That's all I can do, I hope to see this in the drafting stage. Best of luck getting greenlit ^_^

---

Dr Langley

Re: Greenlight Proposal: It's About Power

PhStr1228 02 Jun 2021 22:10

Of course on that first point, and I'll have to workshop the second point.

Thank you very much. Have a nice evening.

Re: Greenlight Proposal: It's About Power

TheyCallMeTim 02 Jun 2021 23:30

After our conversation #thecritters, it seems like you've got enough of an understanding with this, where I'm confident you can make this work. Take your time with it, this can go very wrong if rushed.

I think you know exactly what story to tell, and how to tell it. Calling it closer to Kafka horror makes sense to me.

My main concern for how this can go wrong is that the Foundation comes across as enabling this. Yes, the doctor's respected, but this is some serious violation of ethics and Foundation principle that should merit some kind of investigation, rather than the claims being dismissed. I feel how this is addressed is important.

Still, have a GREENLIGHT, and best of luck getting the second.

Re: Greenlight Proposal: It's About Power

cybersqyd 07 Jun 2021 08:15

[+] Some thoughts

The new doctor petitions for the SCP to be decommissioned and meets resistance.

This is a very minor note but I would probably not use 'decommissioned' for this in the article because it's generally used as a euphemism for 'killed' in relation to SCPs and I'm uh not sure that's what you're uh aiming for here. If that is what you're aiming for, I think it's a misstep, and you'd be better angling for them being released or something that feels, less cruel.

---

I'm not entirely sold on this specifically as a SCP article: the narrative is very focussed on what the doctor does in relation to the SCP, and, like, I'm not necessarily sure that things like having ConProcs/a Description add to this narrative. Equally, the final plot beat of the booklet being found, just, doesn't really land right in a SCP article. If this was a tale, you could likely circumvent a lot of these issues by just, describing them happen in prose. You'd still be able to include e.g. the doctors research notes or w/e too this way, though you could have flexibility to focus on them less and just have the doctor note that e.g. they done hume measurements instead of having to spend 30-200 words on that measurement?

I'm a little iffy about the Ethics Committees response here; like, I totally get why they'd say that there's a blatant disregard for safety when he stopped containment, but it feels, jarring a little that they're being this resistant here; and I think you may have to be real careful around this section to make sure you nail them not doing anything in a way that feels right.

… IMO none of these concerns are particularly major and it'll be easiest to tell whether you've managed to nail this via a draft, so I'm willing to greenlight this.