Maybe it's an unpopular opinion, but I actually liked this one. It's well written for the most part, and the object itself is pretty interesting. I don't know, maybe I'm just a minority here.
SCP-2435 / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» SCP-2435
This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-2435.
(account deleted)It's nice and creepy. But next time, split the paragraphs
Yeah, I don't know what the issues with this are, maybe I'm in a charitable mood, but this one was sufficiently weird and creepy to get me onboard.
The tone and grammar are fine, and I don't mind the idea. However, I think the containment procedures read a little awkwardly for me. It's not that they're extremely outlandish by any means, but I think everything being sealed within a seal sounds a bit repetitive to read. However, that's a pretty petty complaint on my end.
I liked the idea but feel it could be tightened up a little. Also I'm not a fan of -3, since we really don't hear anything about it. I think it should be cut or explained- perhaps it's expanding far slower than the others but is currently uncontainable? Whatever the deal is with it, you give us too little to be intriguing.
Tentative +1
I dug it quite a bit myself. +1!
late edit: I do agree that the over-redaction of -3 is annoying, but the stuff with -1 and -2 was interesting and unique enough for an upvote.
So, I am rather torn on this one.
On one hand, I dig the effects of -1 and -2. They are simple, yet creepy, and remind me of some old school SCP articles.
On the other hand, you really hit a lot of my personal peeves in this with all the redaction and black boxing you do. -3 might not as well be mentioned, since we know so little about it other than the fact that it may or may not be spooky that including it at all seems like an excuse to use the phrase [REDACTED]. You also go overboard with the black boxing here. Why not include the names of the agents, doctors, containment site, dates of the incident? There doesn't really seem to be a whole lot gained by the narrative by censoring that information. Again, you just seem to be censoring information for the sake of censoring information.
I'm going to no vote this for now. I really dig -1 and -2. But man, this article has some issues to sort out before it gets close to +1 for me.
Seconding this. The core concept is solid, but the use of censoring is boring - the third addendum could be pretty much anything, for instance. With some editing to tighten it up, I'm fairly confident this would warrant an update.
Hi, Sapes!
I worked on this with you in draft form, but yeah, I didn't give you enough on the second go-around. However, yes, there's enough that it's now intriguing, but let's see if we can make it even better. Since you're the author, you can modify this as you see fit without problem.
As everyone else has said, the stuff with -1 and -2 is great. It takes something that looks like an impartial physics anomaly, and turns it into a threat with an apparent intelligence behind it. That's great. You've done a good job with that, and any tightening should keep that narrative.
As for -3, you've got two options: either tell us more about it, or remove it entirely. Honestly, either way works, because the narrative around -1 and -2 is strong enough on its own.
As for the redactions, removing names and dates are fine. The greatest problems are around -3, which means either talk more or remove it altogether (the more I think about it, the more removal sounds like the better option). Then there's this sentence:
Agent ██████ [DATA EXPUNGED].
That's no good. It doesn't work because either they're annihilated by the space (in which case, we know it does that, no need to expunge it) or they only dips their hand in it or whatever (in which case, we have no clue that they did it, and the expungement harms comprehension). I'd say spell this out, and then think about how that affects everything else. For example, if the agent is sucked into the space, presumably the agent has been deposited somewhere, but perhaps the Foundation doesn't know where.
In any case, the votes indicate you're definitely on to a good SCP. Cleanup is all it needs.
Overall, the SCP is pretty interesting and a little bit creepy too, but there were a few points where I had to stop reading in confusion. Namely, I had to go back a few times to check which SCP was which, and by the end I wasn't entirely sure why you chose copper and silver as the elements that aren't consumed.
As for the universe consumption, as far as I know, we don't know how large the universe is. Predictably infinite. So to say it will consume all of the universe in a number of years doesn't sound like a scientific hypothesis, especially considering it would be a lot more helpful to know how fast this is on a planetary scale. Maybe say it would consume the Earth in a number of months, or the known universe in a number of years?
As a final note, I second the above comments about redaction. The redactions should be toned down a little bit, especially if others are complaining about it too.
First off, thank you to everybody who provided info about what they didn't like, or what seemed unnecessary to them! It helped greatly with how to smooth out the rough edges on this so far!
As to what I've done to update, I went ahead and removed -3 entirely from the article. It did seem tacked on upon thinking of it further. In its place I added in a few more tiny clues as to their origin/what these are. I believe the new sentences are in tone and have proper grammar but if there's minor issues please let me know.
I kept some of the black box redactions, but did remove all but two minor Redacted/Data expunged's.
Although it creates a feeling of the unknown, if you put too much black boxes, it'll get annoying.
/forum/t-1666975/scp-2435#post-
page revision: 2, last edited: 15 Jan 2023 15:06
