SCP-2411 / Discussion

This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-2411.

page 1 of 212next »

First SCP

Erazm 26 Aug 2016 16:12

Hi all, I hope that this entertains some people. Thank you to Humanmale, Shaggydredlocks, Voct, and Blackfluid for reading the draft and providing feedback. Given this is my first attempt at a SCP, don't hesitate to let me know if I got anything technical wrong! Thanks in advance.

A Random Day 26 Aug 2016 16:24

Neutral voting for now.

I wholeheartedly approve of the legal and ethical ramifications explored by the Foundation, but I strongly dislike the doctor's note in the second collapsible. The point comes across damn well without it; it's like you don't trust your own writing to convey the message or the readers to understand it.

The second collapsible… I'm not sure how I feel about it. At first glance it's near-identical to the 'hidden' documentation in SCP-2950 (especially because 11 was also the O5 in 2950) or SCP-1173, but I also kind of like the idea of the Foundation actively enabling defectors for the eventual usage of 2411 as a contingency plan.

Last edited on 26 Aug 2016 16:44 by A Random Day Show more

Ambiguous Anti 26 Aug 2016 16:56

I can't say I agree with ARD, but I will say that that type of thing has been done before. Whether it's been done better is relative, but the way you stated it was satisfactory in my opinion, though the whole article could thrive even without it. As for what I think- I think you did a fine job with this. I like the concept and anomalous properties of the item, I like the thought of the Foundation attempting to hold a trump card against future adversaries, and frankly it was interesting to read all the while too. I'd give this a +1 any day of the week.

Kalinin 26 Aug 2016 18:13

Repeated fake out documentation is not really something I enjoy very much, so part of my downvote is attributable to taste. In this case, though, I find it to be way over the top for what's essentially a magic item. I also don't like how the implications of this thing are explained directly at the reader at multiple points in the article. It makes the narrative feel artless and clumsy to me.

I also don't care for the Dumb Foundation interpretation on display here. Does a competent organization really need to specifically tell people to not throw bodies at stuff without thinking? And who in their right mind would think that preserving this thing is a good idea? How would you possibly deploy this without something approaching perfect organizational knowledge? That's something that sophisticated intelligence organizations struggle with, and just up and killing a bunch of unknown people with completely unpredictable consequences does not look like a reliable option for any circumstance. Certainly not enough to justify keeping something around that is just as likely to be turned against the Foundation.

The delivery of the narrative isn't really very satisfying, but the narrative itself isn't something for which I can even begin to suspend disbelief.

DrMagnus 26 Aug 2016 18:54

I like a significant part of this.

I like the story it tells, and the way it's given.

I like that there's multiple versions of this.

That being said, I think the concept itself is weak, and it has tone issues in a few places.

I can't quite get past the "Gun what kills everyone in a company" thing, to give it an upvote, but for now, Neutral vote.

SamHoo 26 Aug 2016 19:46

This is literally my first comment anywhere on any article and I am terrified so if I am wrong please don't kill me with a magic gun.

So, ok, I am going to have to read this again at night (that's when these articles are best!) So far I am neutral on it. I will say, however, that I love how the gun says "internal use only." It seems so cheeky and morbid. That is definitely a plus for me so whatever happens keep that part please.

CirclesAndSquares 26 Aug 2016 21:07

I loved this. I exclaimed, "Ooooh," while eating my cereal, which necessitated an explanation to my daughter about your skip. She said, "Oooh," too.

I very much like how the story unfolded, your tone is excellent, and I find the entire article very believable in the Foundation universe. Well done.

jjone 26 Aug 2016 21:26

I like this. It takes an incredibly simple concept and explores it engagingly. It's well-paced and handles the dilemma such a scip presents pretty well. Though I do feel that the involvement of the entire O5 Council is a little over the top. I also don't see this as something that would ever be keter; it can be thrown in a box and forgotten about, and nothing would happen. This simply serves to unnecessarily hype up the danger of the scip even though the implications of a containment breach on the Foundation do the job well enough.

Last edited on 26 Aug 2016 21:28 by jjone Show more

TL333s 26 Aug 2016 23:09

This is actually really good for a first skip. I don't know how much feedback you got, it's not perfect, but between the concept and a lot of the ramifications, there's some good stuff here.

The Procure, Certain, and Suspect Foundation

This is hilarious, and maybe too off-tone, but something you should keep around for later.

If anything, I'd say you get a little too detailed in the middle. That, and the 'outer' documentation wasn't exactly gripping.

MrWrong 27 Aug 2016 01:20

I will bite… but is the first half (the supposed 'fake' document) even necessary in the long run? There is no reason why the entire article can't start from the Level 4 stuff onwards, is there?

Last edited on 27 Aug 2016 01:21 by MrWrong Show more

CirclesAndSquares 27 Aug 2016 06:33

I liked peeling off the layers. I knew every time it would get closer to the truth, and i think the rule of threes works nicely here. Otherwise it would be too "It isn't. But it Is!"

MrWrong 27 Aug 2016 15:55

You may like it, but I would like to question on the strength of how it is used here. As a whole, it seems to be a simplistic cover that is clearly not the full story. It does not necessarily have a real reason to be there. I would regard the cover story to be on par with the low-level iterations of SCP-2317, which is blatantly an exercise in escalating clearance levels.

This article here does not do much with its cover. Hence, I do not feel that much would be lost if the cover is not known in the article. Perhaps that is indeed a Level 1 version, for people who don't know… but this layer has little relevance and I feel that the hook is not optimised by having pushed into a collapsible.

Overall, brevity is the soul of wit. I guess the excess is a garnish that is ultimately artificial since most readers of SCPs can garner that "There is a collapsible noting high clearance levels; that should be the real meat of the article."

CirclesAndSquares 28 Aug 2016 18:36

After rereading, I can see your point. Maybe only one collapsible is necessary. But I found the multiple layers of security made sense in the context of the potential uses of the object. Perhaps the entire article could be in a collapsible that is something like

Staff with a Loyalty Index less than blah blah blah are forbidden from reading this report.

Then the article could just be the level four and five reports.

page 1 of 212next »