SCP-2506 / Discussion

This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-2506.

page 1 of 212next »

psul 04 Nov 2015 13:06

There's quite a lot that I like about this SCP - Sophie is quite a well-drawn character, the anomaly is cute, and the interview shows a friendlier side to the Foundation (which I can get behind).

But I can't bring myself to upvote, for a collection of reasons:

• the function of the CSS isn't clarified, and to the extent that I can infer, it's just another type of Scranton Reality Anchor. As such, the new type of item is unnecessary - I wouldn't have had a problem with just using an SRA. Also, how is Sarah reacting to the fact that Niles can't get her things any more?
• referring to this particular type of anomaly as a "rare variation" of a class of reality manipulation suggests that (a) all reality benders present in similar ways (or in a range of classifiable ways); and (b) the Foundation has studied so many reality benders that it knows that this is rare in that context. Both of those things suggest too large a population of reality benders for my suspension of disbelief.
• how is this 9 year old a sufficiently capable engineer to design and build something that can travel at 700kph without death, injury or destruction? Is this anomalous? Is the Foundation interested?
• I think you're implying that Sarah's mother is dead, but how has her father (implied to be living: "Dad says…") reacted to the fact that his child has been kidnapped?
• The interview gives a bit of character, but doesn't reveal anything particularly new, meaning that the story doesn't have much of an ending. I would be tempted to suggest that the Foundation had *permanently* substituted the toy, if only for the ironic frisson that might generate.

Crayne 04 Nov 2015 14:34

Thanks for taking the time write all that. :)

+ show block

The function of the CSS isn't clarified, and to the extent that I can infer, it's just another type of Scranton Reality Anchor. As such, the new type of item is unnecessary - I wouldn't have had a problem with just using an SRA.

It breaks my suspension of disbelief to think that technology that should be familiar to those reading the document has to explained in the document. Aside from that, it's specifically named to give you an idea of what it does without requiring too much explanation (and that works, because you inferred correctly.) As for not using Scranton Reality Anchors, I just don't like the things, so I'm much happier to come up with something myself. That's really the only reason for not using them. I could include them if this specifically gets me downvotes, but I'd rather not.

Also, how is Sarah reacting to the fact that Niles can't get her things any more?

I'd say that's outside the scope for this document, but she can still use Niles, just not whenever she wants. I assume she and Niles would have a rough patch in their relationship (including throwing him in a corner and stomping around in a huff.)

referring to this particular type of anomaly as a "rare variation" of a class of reality manipulation suggests that (a) all reality benders present in similar ways (or in a range of classifiable ways); and (b) the Foundation has studied so many reality benders that it knows that this is rare in that context. Both of those things suggest too large a population of reality benders for my suspension of disbelief.

That's fine, it doesn't break mine in the least. However, it's also largely inconsequential, so I'll take out that phrasing.

how is this 9 year old a sufficiently capable engineer to design and build something that can travel at 700kph without death, injury or destruction? Is this anomalous? Is the Foundation interested?

It's not anomalous. She's a child prodigy, but I need to make that clearer.

I think you're implying that Sarah's mother is dead, but how has her father (implied to be living: "Dad says…") reacted to the fact that his child has been kidnapped?

He doesn't. He never had a daughter, standard protocol took care of that. However, if I need to specify every time that we made sure no one listed their child as missing by administering amnestics to the scip's parents, I'm just going through the motions and padding the article.

Also, her mother isn't dead. Zippy the mutt that died a year ago was though, and it never came when she asked Niles for it.

The interview gives a bit of character, but doesn't reveal anything particularly new, meaning that the story doesn't have much of an ending. I would be tempted to suggest that the Foundation had *permanently* substituted the toy, if only for the ironic frisson that might generate.

True, will edit.

Collapse'd. ~Zyn

Last edited on 04 Nov 2015 19:57 by Zyn Show more

sirpudding 04 Nov 2015 16:46

As for not using Scranton Reality Anchors, I just don't like the things.

I am guessing then that the CSS is a passive barrier rather than active suppression?

I really like that you don't use "reality bending" as a generic single power source here. This is much better than the Marvell-mutant version (often with SRAs presented as source-specific nullifiers) that seems to be the case elsewhere.

Last edited on 04 Nov 2015 16:47 by sirpudding Show more

psul 05 Nov 2015 13:35

Thanks for taking the time write all that. :)

You're welcome. And sorry, because I know it's a pain when the first comment up isn't wholly positive. I'm not intending to be on the attack, just sharing my reaction.

+ Some more thoughts

It breaks my suspension of disbelief to think that technology that should be familiar to those reading the document has to explained in the document.

I absolutely agree, and am definitely not asking for an explanation or footnote. I have a complicated relationship with SRAs, but my thought is that adding new types of devices that do much the same thing is adding to the problem, rather than helping it. Unless there's a different reason you don't like them.

The big issue with reality benders in a Foundation context is that because their powers tend to be limitless, it is very difficult to write sensible containment procedures. A limitless nullifier (SRAs and the like) is one solution, but is very convenient for the writer. Keeping the Type Green happy is another, but leads to accusations of hotels and Mary-Sues etc.

I think I would have enjoyed this article more if it was about how we contain a 9 year old magician using only mundane tech, because the answer becomes quite psychological (and therefore character-driven). How nice can the Foundation be to a kid in that situation, even if they want to? Should they take away Niles with the hope that she won't use her power without being able to ask him? Should they find a way to trick her into thinking that Niles doesn't want to get things for her any more? Should they remove her vocal cords to render her unable to ask?

enabling it to displace and transport any and all materials

"any and all" is immediately contradicted by the next sentence. Perhaps "a wide range of" or "any and all inorganic".

I'm just going through the motions and padding the article

I'm fine with that in theory, but the article already mentions amnesticizing the Spring Grove cops and counter-information in the Netherlands. I would have thought that the status of Sarah's parents would be more relevant - and as a reader, I got confused about whether they were alive, existed at all etc, because it seemed an important loose end.

Also, her mother isn't dead

The reason I took that implication is due to the placement of your first footnote. Because it sits after "deceased" and refers to the incident report (which mentions only Sarah's mother), I made the assumption. I wonder whether the footnote is necessary, as even if readers don't pick that up from the incident report, it's also covered in the interview.

I think that the few small changes have improved this. And I am a sucker for that ending - the "nice nice" Foundation still has no qualms about stealing a child's toy when she's asleep, and never giving it back.

Crayne 05 Nov 2015 14:47

And sorry, because I know it's a pain when the first comment up isn't wholly positive. I'm not intending to be on the attack, just sharing my reaction.

I didn't take it as such, and don't worry, it's all part of the deal when you coldpost. :)

+ show block

I absolutely agree, and am definitely not asking for an explanation or footnote. I have a complicated relationship with SRAs, but my thought is that adding new types of devices that do much the same thing is adding to the problem, rather than helping it. Unless there's a different reason you don't like them.

There is, it's completely irrational. There is absolutely no actual basis to defend my choice not to use everybody's favorite handwaving device and come up with my own. I think mine sound cooler though. ;)

The big issue with reality benders in a Foundation context is that because their powers tend to be limitless, it is very difficult to write sensible containment procedures. A limitless nullifier (SRAs and the like) is one solution, but is very convenient for the writer. Keeping the Type Green happy is another, but leads to accusations of hotels and Mary-Sues etc.

I think I would have enjoyed this article more if it was about how we contain a 9 year old magician using only mundane tech, because the answer becomes quite psychological (and therefore character-driven). How nice can the Foundation be to a kid in that situation, even if they want to? Should they take away Niles with the hope that she won't use her power without being able to ask him? Should they find a way to trick her into thinking that Niles doesn't want to get things for her any more? Should they remove her vocal cords to render her unable to ask?

I dislike any other option that including faux-tech that does what I want it to do, to be honest. Sure, we could operate on her so she could never speak again, but then there wouldn't be any opportunity for testing anymore either.

"any and all" is immediately contradicted by the next sentence. Perhaps "a wide range of" or "any and all inorganic".

Will edit.

I'm fine with that in theory, but the article already mentions amnesticizing the Spring Grove cops and counter-information in the Netherlands. I would have thought that the status of Sarah's parents would be more relevant - and as a reader, I got confused about whether they were alive, existed at all etc, because it seemed an important loose end.

I can certainly add something in, but it really isn't consequential to the article. They never had a daughter, and in time we'll probably provide daily amnestics to SCP-2506 to make her forget she has parents too.

The reason I took that implication is due to the placement of your first footnote. Because it sits after "deceased" and refers to the incident report (which mentions only Sarah's mother), I made the assumption. I wonder whether the footnote is necessary, as even if readers don't pick that up from the incident report, it's also covered in the interview.

You have a point there, and I can see how you'd arrive at the conclusion. I'll think about removing the footnote.

And I am a sucker for that ending - the "nice nice" Foundation still has no qualms about stealing a child's toy when she's asleep, and never giving it back.

It's an ending you provided, you know. But yeah, that was gold, thanks for that. A good sour note in the whole "we're decent to anomalies" thing.

Last edited on 05 Nov 2015 14:48 by Crayne Show more

Author Post

Crayne 04 Nov 2015 15:01

This one was inspired by a Dutch news story about the blatant theft of an aircraft engine. All I could think of was "How the actual fuck do you get away with something like that?"

Re: Author Post

Rokonuxa 09 Nov 2015 23:08

sounds like some clickbait article.
"Find out how this engine was stolen and nobody noticed:"
"An entire engine was stolen. What?"
"Top 10 most impossible thefts you wont believe!"

Needless to say, none of the articles would give any information about the topic of stolen engines.

Abettik 04 Nov 2015 15:50

+1

This is how reality altering people should be written. It is well-written enough that I upvoted it, with special points for characterization, for the Foundation able to at least appear "nice" when it suits them (too many people have the Foudnation as lol-Evil, even when its against their interests to be), for doing it with a difficult subject, and having it all believable in-universe.

My only problem is there's no real hook: no mystery, creep factor, or emotional connection. Something like that would make this a truly great article. I think that will be the primary reason you get downvotes, because beyond all the fancy writing, it's just a girl who can get things she wants.

Last edited on 04 Nov 2015 15:53 by Abettik Show more

hazakaza 04 Nov 2015 17:26

I agree 100%. Obviously they're not just gonna let her hold onto the damn crocodile if it might be the real SCP, but it's easier to just steal it & replace it while she sleeps and keep her friendly to them.

I also feel like I need more of a sense of what's going on behind the scenes. Why this particular little girl? Why this particular crocodile? Why does she like racing? I like that she is super normal and seems pretty well-adjusted (a refreshing change of pace from the endless parade of mutilated and / or traumatized kids you typically see on here) but I still think it needs more backstory to it, even if that backstory is just a few lines that you gesture toward in the actual text. Right now she's just another mutant at Professor X's School for Gifted Youngsters, a weird thing because we're on a site full of weird things and that's where she goes, and I'm kinda bored by that.

Crayne 05 Nov 2015 11:45

I purposefully tried to write something that just is. You read it, you enjoy it, that's it. There's no bigger implications, no earthshattering hidden concept, no hidden text, no puzzles, just this little girl who has a power she'll never know is able to cause massive disruptions to the reality status quo.

And Niles, can't forget about Niles.

sirpudding 04 Nov 2015 16:40

ultralight aircraft

I realize that the definition varies from country to country but generally these things have two-stroke piston propeller engines ( "lawnmower engines") not jet turbines.

I am not sure that this is different enough from other "reality benders with a psychological crutch" that we already have. I need to think about this.

Also, yay, now I am not the only one with an article that has both bibcites and footnotes.

Edit: On reflection upvoting this because I think it is better then all previous attempts at that theme.

ETA: Unless I did the math wrong, or this vehicle is significantly more aerodynamic than implied, "child prodigy" can't explain it, even the 1250 N model lacks the thrust to overcome drag force at 700 kph at sea level (by a factor of ~24).

Last edited on 04 Nov 2015 17:53 by sirpudding Show more

Crayne 05 Nov 2015 11:46

Have I previously mentioned that I suck at anything resembling hard science? If you have tips on fixing the scientific side of this, please contact me. I'd love to learn. :)

sirpudding 05 Nov 2015 17:17

I'm not an engineer (I don't even have a degree), but:

+ show block

If we assume the whole thing has a mass of 100 kg then rolling resistance is going to be:
F=(CRF)N
CRF is the coefficent of rolling force; which is like about 0.010 to 0.015 for a car on concrete. Lawn mower tires aren't made for speed though so it's probably on the high end. We'll say 0.020.
N is the normal force or 100kg(9.8 m/s²)=980N
F= 196 N

The formula for air drag is F_d=(1/2)pv²C_dA
p is air density; we can use 1.293 kg/m³ here.
C_d is the drag coefficient which is a dimensionless factor based on aerodynamics; we can use this chart: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/14ilf1l.svg/220px-14ilf1l.svg.png to estimate it. Riding lawnmowers aren't very streamlined, so it's probably closer to .8 for angled cube than .09 for a streamlined half-body (like a racing car). Looking at this table of cars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient#Typical_drag_coefficients, 0.35 seems reasonable, I think.
A is crossectional area. She's small and she probably built compact (plus lawnmower chassis) so 1 m² is probably a safe approximation.

So assuming the 1100 N standard model of the engine, the point in which all thrust is going to overcome drag is:
1100N-196N=(1/2)(1.293 kg/m³)v²(0.35)(1 m²)
Combining terms:
904N= 0.226275 kg/m (v²)
3995.138658711745 m²/s²=v²
Solving for v:
(4861.341288255441 m²/s²)^(1/2)=v=63.20710924185463 m/s
Rounding to 1 significant figure we get 60 m/s or 216 km/h.

There's also some lift; although we can maybe assume she put in airdams and spoilers and whatnot to minimize lift force and I think we can ignore it.

Last edited on 05 Nov 2015 17:22 by sirpudding Show more

Crayne 05 Nov 2015 17:28

Edited to 250 km/h. That wouldn't be totally balls to the wall insane from the looks of it, and it's still fast as fuck.

Last edited on 05 Nov 2015 17:29 by Crayne Show more

sirpudding 05 Nov 2015 17:37

That's a C_d of 0.29 so closer to a sports car or a hybrid. That's definitely possible, although you'd think she'd be making her own fiberglass panels at that point. It probably isn't what you get if you bolt a jet turbine to a lawnmower and don't change the shape much…

Last edited on 05 Nov 2015 17:37 by sirpudding Show more

Crayne 05 Nov 2015 18:01

Fine, 150 km/h then? ;)

sirpudding 05 Nov 2015 18:05

I got 216 km/h. 250 km/h is totally reasonable, I think, just I'd imagine you'd need to build a custom body at that point (which isn't really hard actually).

arnbobo 04 Nov 2015 17:21

I like this. There one issue I have is the insane engineering skill that a 9-year-old apparently possesses; maybe make that part of the anomaly instead of a natural skill. Even though this kinda breaks my suspension of disbelief, it's not bad enough to ruin the article. Otherwise, the style is amazing and it fits well into my headcanon about humanoid skips.

Also, I LOVELOVELOVELOVE the little fake bibliography. Makes it look so much more professional and I really like that.

+1

Last edited on 04 Nov 2015 17:23 by arnbobo Show more

A Random Day 04 Nov 2015 23:50

If you liked that fake bibliography, check this out.

Wils 04 Nov 2015 23:12

It's pleasant enough, tone is as you would expect, but it kinda comes and goes without really leaving a mark. Seems a little safe.

The trope of "small child with super powers" is well-worn and maybe, maybe if a newbie had written this there would be more downvotes and a slew of "this is just an x-man who can teleport things" comments - and I don't really see anything more than that. A kid with a superpower.

Neutral vote, mainly for the nice tone.

Crayne 05 Nov 2015 11:48

As I said above, I'm kind of tired of trying to come up with "WHAT A TWEEST" articles. This is mainly an attempt to build on what I started in SCP-2451, with the Foundation being less "you're an it, don't try to get cute with us, we don't give a fuck about your mom and dad." and more "let's see what we can learn when we treat people as actual people". Empathic world-building? Is that a thing? It should be.

TL333s 04 Nov 2015 23:18

I don't think there's anything about this that makes it stand out from your standard "this is what not to do" with humanoid skips. She's identified by name right off the bat and referred to as 'she' in the documentation. She's got X-Man powers and I think the "it's cute" angle is being leaned too heavily on. Not interesting, -1.

Crayne 05 Nov 2015 11:51

There literally isn't a "she" in the article, so I have no idea what you're talking about. :|

Being identified with a name isn't anything new, there are tons of articles that name their humanoid scips, even if there is an occasional expungement (which I've become less and less a fan of to be honest. What's the use to researchers to not know the given name of their subject?), so I have no idea why that gets your goat.

You're entitled to your vote and your opinion, but at least review your comment for accuracy.

TL333s 05 Nov 2015 23:53

Although SCP-2506 shows an aptitude for mechanical and electrical engineering uncharacteristically advanced for her age

Crayne 06 Nov 2015 08:30

Point taken, will fix. Next time, just quote that, because seriously, I spent almost 30 minutes picking across the text looking for 'she', determined to find what a simple search said wasn't there. ;)

Edited.

Professor P 05 Nov 2015 11:21

You wrote this in a decent way, the fact that this was inspirated by a news story is an interesting way of getting ideas and inspiration.
By the way, they mostly used KpH in 1933 not in 2015, we mainly use km/h or km*h^-1. But that is a small detail, It's still worth an upvote!

Edit: mostly

---

:D

Last edited on 05 Nov 2015 11:23 by Professor P Show more

Crayne 05 Nov 2015 11:53

Changing to km/h. Thanks. Seems KpH is alright when referring to it informally, but the official unit is indeed km/h.

Abrasaxtes 09 Nov 2015 17:18

I like the tone and the article as a whole, it's refreshingly straightforward.

It just bothers me a bit that this girl is not just a skip, but also an engineering genius (a 9 year old building a vehicle from scratch goes a bit beyond "an aptitude for mechanical and electrical engineering uncharacteristically advanced for its age").

A character with two incredibly remarkable yet apparently unrelated characteristics stretches my suspension of disbelief dangerously thin.

Still, +1.

LordSpy 01 Dec 2015 12:06

Those bastards at the Foundation kidnapped Niles and planted an impostor!!!

In all seriousness, this was much better than what I first expected when this claimed it was a reality bender right off the bat. It's a simple story, sure, but an endearing one.

page 1 of 212next »