boop
nice class of 76 connection
I sing of arms and the man
Storm-tossed by Hera's jealousy
SCP-2316 / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» SCP-2316
This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-2316.
Many thanks to Decibelle and EldritchCyanide, both of whom helped hash this out in chat.
I hope you enjoy it. Thank you!
Not sure how I feel about this one. Very well written but I'm not sure if the concept is enough to grab me. Tentative +1 no vote.
EDIT: Having gone to look at the page source I'm actually less enthused. Up vote changed to no vote for now.
Haven't felt chills from reading something on this site in a while. Jeeeez.
I'm gonna put this in a collapsible so I can discuss this without risking spoiling people who go to discussions first.
I'm not sure if this grabs me the way it should. But, at the same time, I'm not sure if that was just me being a butt or if it's a failing of the article. It kinda… hit all the standard notes for me?
Like, the descent into madness mantra was something I expected. Even the use of the username gimmick was very expected, when normally it catches me off guard and makes me feel uncomfortable for a second. It's also one of those skips where as soon as I'm finished reading it, I go straight to the page source (mostly because the existence of whitetext early on indicated there was more to it) and through that I found the interview, where the username gag is better but… even that still didn't grab me too well. It feels sorta like that creepypasta about how sometimes people in a coma get coded messages in their dreams to tell them to wake up, and then the creepypasta is interspersed with hidden "WAKE UP"s. Like, it's playing on the same sense of "is it playing with me or is it serious".
So… yeah, I want to like it, but I couldn't get into it. And while, yeah, I probably would get into it a lot more if I weren't so jaded to this stuff, because it's very competent, but at the same time I'm not sure if it's a strike against me or the article. As it stands now, I'll novote and wait for further reflection.
EDIT: I want to clarify, I don't think it's "scpping by the numbers" at all. I just think that, for whatever reason, I was unsurprised by the plot developments, and now that I think about it that's more a result of my mindset than of the piece itself.
EDIT 2: Upon my further reflection and the removal of some of the gaggier gags, I'm going to upvote, liable to further contemplation.
I personally had to downvote. The article seems to hinge quite strongly on the username revelation part, which I have encountered a few times before, so bumping into it was less of a "oh wow this is aimed at me" and more of a "oh it's just that again." Without that the article wasn't particularly interesting.
Where is it using the Listuser module? I see it in the source (in the invisible collapsible) but not when I open that collapsible. At any rate this works for me and I seem to be missing that part.
I was having the same issue, until I figured out how to open the second hidden collapsible. (There are two).
I don't know about a second collapsible, but if you highlight the blackboxes in the interview…
Yeah, I don't think that is really necessary and honestly I never would of looked for it if I hadn't seen it mentioned here. I think this works without it.
Also I was only a year old in 1976 so it is totally implausible.
ETA: Found the second collapsible, these aren't easily found on mobile by the way. Yeah, that listUsers isn't doing anything for me. I graduated High School in '93; I was born in '75. There's no way this could possibly be addressed to me. I think this would benefit better without it (not enough to change my vote, though). Isn't most of the readership younger than me? How is this supposed to work?
Not everything the article tells you is true. If facts aren't lining up, is that a cognitohazard, or a mistake in your own perception?
Yes, I though it might just be representative of the cogitohazardous effect on me as I read it, but that still doesn't really have any impact and I think actively lessons the impact that is there. I know I wasn't swimming in any lakes in the summer of 1975 (my activities in 1975 consisted of being in the womb for 30 days, being born, and then 335 days of crying, sleeping, suckling, eliminating wastes, and growing), and so when it breaks the fourth wall it is incredibly easy to dismiss, and only ends up reminding me the fourth wall is present. Unlike the constant refrain of "you do not recognize the bodies in the water" which does unsettle me. Then you put in the ListUsers and I think, "Oh look a ListUsers module. Of course, I don't recognize the bodies in the water, I was an infant in 1975 and they are fictional besides". I think this would be stronger without it.
Yeah but the article explicitly states that it's not the kids from the class of '76 that you'll see in the lake; it's people you know. Friends and colleagues that you know. And it's not like it's forcing you to go; they'll only cry for help repeatedly. Make you recognize them. Not the class of '76; but people you know. That's how they draw people into the lake again and again.
The names in the third footnote aren't familiar to me and then there's this:
It's your friends, your classmates. You took the trip to the lake in the fall of '75, together, when you were young. Don't you remember?
So my read is that I am either supposed to assume the role of a reader who is a character whom this applies to, or that of a reader who is being convinced this applies to though the cognitive hazard. However this is hard, when the article then reminds me who I actually am, and therefore just reaffirms that this can't possibly apply to me, undermining the impact, IMO.
Faces. My friends. Faces I recognized, some I didn't, but they became more familiar as I saw them. I'd known them my whole life, but there was something wrong with them.
The way to interpret this can be either A) it's wholly the Class of '76 and the hazard is making the person see them as friends, B) it's partly people you recognize and partly the Class of '76 or C) wholly your friends. But they look wrong and weird, because of course you'd know your friends, and they're dead suddenly? But it's so real and they're talking to you and crying out for help…
The first time I read this reviewing and nitpicking it as a draft, I saw it as C right away; after all, I logically know I'm not gonna recognize supposed classmates before I was born, but if they're crying for help, and they look like people who I know and am friends with… well, they're my friends, and they're in the lake. I gotta save them!
The names in the third footnote aren't familiar to me
Because that's supposed to be them trying to get someone to recognize them, that's part of the cry for help. When that doesn't work, well, they'll resort to looking like your friends.
Well it seems moot now that katkus has kulled the karacters but:
I think for me, the rest of that gets negated by "Don't you remember?". Of course I don't remember, I was an infant, therefore I don't recognize the bodies in the water. Therefore I am immune to the cogitohazard, and I can say that I don't recognize the bodies in the water with total confidence and should pass the last test. :p
Out-of-universe, yeah. Though I think this is where the difference is between us as readers, and why this line of conversation seems a bit frustrating to me. I'm putting myself in the shoes of the researcher who's reading this, in-universe, and imagining said researcher being washed over by the cognitohazard, unsure of what's happening and unable to just ignore what they're reading or hearing or seeing. That's what makes this suitably frightening for me, and why I get shivers down my spine every time I read this. I imagine each article I read as if I'm the one who's reading this in-universe, because that's my enjoyment of the site and the article. It's fiction, and I'm able to immerse myself in the fiction and pretend it's happening and I'm a part of it all (provided the article is good, of course).
I don't like nitpicking stuff to the degree I am right now and analyzing every single minute detail under a microscope to enjoy an SCP article. I like being part of this larger world and experiencing things, and if it's sufficiently engrossing, I like to engross myself. That's why I'm not bothered by the fact that I was born in 1995 when the article implies I know these people from 1976 personally; because I'm able to reconcile that by just imagining being in the shoes of the person reading this, and being creeped the fuck out and drawn into this. That's why I love the site so much and read it a lot.
I too like to assume the role of whatever reader the author has in mind, and for me ListUsers tends to break that, because I doubt that "sirpudding" is a Foundation employee's name, and all it does is remind me that I am not actually the assumed reader after all, losing willing suspension of disbelief and dropping me out of it and back to reality. Especially in this article it seemed counterproductive.
This was my experience as well.
My handle is the title of a Black Sabbath album; throwing it into a Foundation document in a place where you'd expect them to put an actual name or official designation doesn't work :'p
The listusers thing isn't working for me. Where is it? I've found both collapsibles and found all the white text.
Hmm, I think I liked it more before I found the second invisible collapsible, but this is still rather good. As far as former libraries go, I would rather not recognise the bodies in the water - it's a phrase with quite a bit of power even in repetition.
/forum/t-1568544/scp-2316#post-
page revision: 2, last edited: 15 Jan 2023 15:06
.jpg){kind=link}