[Seeking Greenlight] Chastise

Summary:

A predictive technology is misused by Foundation personnel

[Seeking Greenlight] Chastise

antiempress 02 Jan 2023 06:55

A predictive technology is misused by Foundation personnel and results in erroneous classification, as well as a great deal of unwarranted punishment

I moved and trimmed your thread summary, since it was taking up extra space in the main forum screen. Try to keep thread descriptions (the text in the little box under the thread title) and titles short so you don't crowd out other authors in the forum listing. ~Zyn

Seeking Greenlights: Yes

Page Type: SCP Article

Genre (Optional): Horror, Mystery, History

Page Layout (Optional): The main article will be, at first glance, a brief and concise explanation of an explained SCP. Under it, collapsible addendums will reveal the meat of the article - previous iterations of the entry and other pertinent documents arranged in a table.

Elevator Pitch: The SCP in question is a predictive technology to asses future events. Its misuse results in internal conflict among the Foundation, producing cruel and unusual punishments.

Central Narrative: The story aims to discuss the topics of institutional responsibility, personal responsibility, and confirmation biases. As such, I want to write a narrative that centers around the slow and arduous process of rectifying an SCP as explained rather than anomalous. The Foundation will misidentify their own oversights as anomalous behavior, and attribute it to this SCP. The narrative will revolve around the internal struggles and failures to properly address the device in question.

+ show block

Hook/Attention-Grabber (Optional): This article may initially appear to work off the same premise as The Great Hippo's proposal, and I will emphatically say that it's a huge inspiration. However, after reading The Rabbit Hole (SCP-5520) I realized I could use a similar concept as The Great Hippo but still make a narrative centered around the Foundation's failures to protect their own members. As such, the article centers much more around the sufferings of characters who have aided the Foundation tremendously, at the hands of the Foundation. More distinctly from the Rabbit Hole, I want to emphasize the part played by institutional responsibility. Hopefully, by the end of the article the reader's left with the sense that individuals have been deeply wronged by system power, instead of having been wronged by other individual persons in a system.

Additional Notes: The general SCP concept also has heavy thematic influence from works such as Metagnostic (SCP-6659), Why? (SCP-5000), Anomalous Theorem (SCP-3141), The Missing Number (SCP-033), and the Antimemetics Division Hub. Stylistically, I'm trying to take after works like Ethics Committee Inquest (SCP-5326) and Placeholder McD, albeit more minimal. Inspiration from other explained SCPs like Preconceptions II (SCP-5218) and Fermi's Last Theorem (SCP-6077) are have been taken as well. I've got a good chunk ready in my sandbox, though I'm still polishing it. You can glance over it if you're inclined, nevertheless, I'm well aware I need to get a greenlight before posting to the draft forum. Thanks in advance for any criticisms to the story's overall concept and goals.

As a courtesy to our readers on mobile devices, please collapse long posts. ~Zyn

Last edited on 02 Jan 2023 08:00 by Zyn Show more

Re: [Seeking Greenlight] Chastise

OriTiefling 02 Jan 2023 23:11

Right now you haven't actually explained what your central narrative actually is. You've talked about themes and such, but you haven't said anything about how those themes are explored in the article. What actually happens in your story? How are these themes highlighted?

Re: [Seeking Greenlight] Chastise

antiempress 02 Jan 2023 23:43

Silly me. The central narrative revolves around two main characters, the one who primarily developed the technology, and another who was a participating researcher. As a predictive tech, it's original use was to mitigate the effects of large scale calamities and containment breaches, by allowing the Foundation to estimate their dates. By it's nature, it is only able to produce dates for high-likelihood events. However, it comes to light that the main developer makes an unauthorized use of the tech to predict the deaths of Foundation personnel. From there, the story evolves into infighting as the tech is discovered to instigate deaths itself by use of memetic hazards.

The event is put under wraps and most researchers are amnesticised, with causalities resultant from the predicted deaths of Foundation personell. However, the remaining potential of the device to be useful to the Foundation is considered. One researcher receives a bargain: She is not receive disciplinary action for aiding the tech's developer, though she must continue researching the tech in quarantine (to avoid the dissemination of the infohazard). Over time, total quarantine begins to degrade her psyche, especially as she in unable to produce further advancements on the tech. Nevertheless, she also realizes she in the unique position to use the tech vengefully against the Foundation.

+ show block

The final file reveals that the researcher is killed by the Foundation, and that she was never going to be able advance the development of the tech in any regard, because the only anomalous portion of the tech was its instruments, not its mode of functioning. As a predictive technology, its nature was to put a date on events that were already very likely to occur. This act in itself could cause the events to occur, since the people who understood the machine's operation understood that if a date was produced, it is nearly certain to occur.

The claim of memetic hazards, then, was false, and the original developer of the tech was actually trying to help the Foundation. He had not caused any deaths, in fact, it was the Foundation itself which had primed the circumstances which produced the deaths of their own personnel. Although, by the time the Foundation's upper command caught wind of this, they had already applied retributive action against their own personnel, and the Ethics Committee also got themselves involved. If the situation was rectified, punishment would have to be brought against a multiple of other departments and commanders.

In an effort to avoid this, the researcher who was placed in quarantine had her quarantine grossly extended. She comes to understand that the Foundation is unwilling to admit that there is no anomaly, and, as previously stated, uses the anomaly against them.

It's a summary, so I apologize if it's confusing. Hopefully the outline is clear enough.

As a courtesy to our readers on mobile devices, please collapse long posts. ~Zyn

Last edited on 13 Jan 2023 08:28 by Zyn Show more

Re: [Seeking Greenlight] Chastise

OriTiefling 06 Jan 2023 00:46

Wait, so I do have to ask who you consider to be the protagonist of this story. Right now I can't tell if it's the quarantined researcher, or the one who is killed by the Foundation. The focus feels split between the two and I can't completely tell how their two stories here connect.

Sorry if I'm missing obvious things, this feels like one of those more high concept ideas that isn't quite my bread and butter haha

Re: [Seeking Greenlight] Chastise

antiempress 06 Jan 2023 06:47

Maybe I was unclear. The quarantined researcher is the one killed by the Foundation. The one who originally developed the tech exits the story early on. In the literal sense of the word "protagonist", the quarantined researcher is the leading character of the story. However, that doesn't make her a necessarily good or moral person. Her actions are supposed to be viewed as generally sympathetic, even if reprehensible.

Sorry for the feeling that this is a high concept idea. I took a lot of inspiration from SCP-5000 and Project Admonition, so made an effort to add lots of twists and turns to the story. It's in my taste. Besides, a quick summary will always make the article feel more confusing than it is. Thanks reading so far.

Re: [Seeking Greenlight] Chastise

caspian2 12 Jan 2023 03:47

Summoned by PM:

In sum, Foundation destroys itself via a self-fulfilling prophecy, is this right?

May I know how you're planning to tell this story? You list down "collapsible addendums", "previous iterations" and "pertinent documents" but I don't know what these are. Give us a rough breakdown (in bullet points, please) of how your article will be structured. You have the conprocs, description, and then what?

Keep in mind Tiefling's question as well because who the protagonist is structures the presentation of these materials. If we are allowed to "follow" a main character from beginning to end, how do we show her voice coming through, then?

Please PM me again if you decide to revise / respond. best of luck!

Re: [Seeking Greenlight] Chastise

antiempress 12 Jan 2023 10:00

I've got the conprocs, the description, and an addendum with two emails.

• One is addressed to a director, and inquiring for further information about the short article.
• In turn, the director says she will append digitizations of pertinent archives to the file.

Then, there are six archived documents appended to the current to the SCP file:

• The first is a memorandum to the O5 council. It's main purpose explain the major occurrences of the incident regarding the tech's original developer. Namely, why he used the device to estimate the death-times of high ranking personnel. The memo summarizes the event and includes interviews with pertinent staff members, including the protagonist, a participating researcher. This document is framed as mostly an informative measure for disciplinary action to be taken, and is dated only a few days after the incident itself.
• The second is a brief article detailing the SCP. It is erroneously categorized as having memetic properties. Notably, it reveals the SCP has a single individual tasked with its research.

+ show block

• The third is an Ethics Committee Inquest. This document is structured as an informative investigation requested to advise an Ethics Committee resolution. The resolution in question is revealed to be a revision to a previously made Ethics Committee resolution, which was to protect the life of the quarantined researcher. As such, it pries into the recorded audio journal entries she has made while in containment. From these journal entries, her actions, personality, mental health, and motivations are largely made clear. In the same stroke of breath, she also takes action against the Foundation through these recordings, which, in turn, prompt the inquest itself. This document is the largest portion of the whole article.
• The fourth is a short email from an Overseer's secretary to a Site Director. It mostly works to allude to the Foundation's response to the previous document, with some characterization given to the secretary. Strangely, it is made clear that despite the Ethics Committee overturning their resolution to safeguard the protagonist, the Foundation will not yet go forward with neutralizing her.
• The fifth is another iteration of the SCP file, incorrectly redrafted to identity the SCP as an infovore controlled by the anomaly. This is also a brief article, but includes an incident log which display how the threats made by the researcher ended up proving themselves. It is dated many years later, demonstrating the researcher is still being kept in quarantine.
• The last is another email, concerning the neutralization of the SCP, year later. It is written by the secretary from the previous email, now having been promoted to director. She describes in detail how the researcher was killed, and the reasons for her death. She displays clear sympathy for the quarantined researcher and sheds light on the situation as a whole.

And thanks for all the input so far! I'm really excited to work on this more. There's lots of rough edges I want to polish, and even just summarizing my work helps me make the decision to cut content or add context. I appreciate it a lot!

As a courtesy to our readers on mobile devices, please collapse long posts. ~Zyn

Last edited on 13 Jan 2023 08:28 by Zyn Show more

Re: [Seeking Greenlight] Chastise

OriTiefling 12 Jan 2023 15:08

You've been amazingly receptive to feedback, and this layout seems to work. At this point your best bet is to move it to a draft proper, any further questions would be best answered with one. Greenlight

Re: [Seeking Greenlight] Chastise

caspian2 13 Jan 2023 05:25

Thanks for outlining the contents of the article. Hmm. A couple of main issues you might still run into while drafting this:

(1) I don't see the footprint of the main protagonist too much. Right now, I'm conflating the main anomaly (a "she") with your main protagonist (the "participating researcher"). Ideally, the latter should be involved in every step of the story, and be reacting and/or taking action to resolve/investigate the anomaly. Instead, there's a lot of high-level correspondence that bypasses your protagonist completely. I would revise some of these angles so that your protagonist is more involved with the scp. To do this, this should be made clear, especially what her motivations are:

From these journal entries, her actions, personality, mental health, and motivations are largely made clear.

(2) There are significant jumps in the narrative, for e.g. Step 2 to 3. Perhaps it's just the nature of summarising an ambitious article, but do be mindful about how the complexities of the scp can be best digested by a reader unfamiliar with your concept. Do we need to involve a Site Director, Ethics Committee, and then Overseer's secretary, for example? Having too many characters might muddy the narrative and cause confusion for readers.

(3) I'm still hesitant on the tired trope of page iteration after page iteration. The best articles that utilise this mechanic are intrinsically tied to the anomaly (having a memetic effect that forces a page revision, for e.g.). Too often, new writers want to have big reveals or major shifts in our understanding of the scp, but these can be achieved as well by single-page layouts or having text strikethroughs or alternate colours to indicate revisions as well. All I'm saying is: consider other options to reduce the amount of text that readers will have to scroll through.

Regardless, I'm happy with the overall flow of the narrative, and the potential of the concept. I hope you'll manage to work out these structural details during the drafting stage. Here's your second greenlight.