This is my entry to the D-Class Contest. The scip is called "What We Did, What We Were."
"Potissimi" is Latin, and here it means "the highest concern."
SCP-2959 / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» SCP-2959
This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-2959.
This SCP is very on-the-nose. It feels like a kind of meta-commentary while also explaining in-universe why D-Class are subjected to terrible things. It’s also a neat explanation and handwave for people who don’t LIKE D-Class as an element to be able to point towards and say "Hey, this is where D-Class come from", and combining all the older D-Class stereotypes into one place to basically make everyone win.
The Foundation, the O5s, the people who 'become' D-Class, researchers who need them, everyone.
I mean… well, it’s an overarching, deeply ingrained 'infection' creating test subjects, but eh. Silver linings.
In a way it’s a perfect entry for the contest.
Downvote for non-standard object class without reason.
There's a very clear reason here. This is, currently, the highest concern to the Foundation. This is something that is the most important thing they have on their plate right now, or at least the people who know it.
Also, the addition of a Latin suffix is not without precedence on the site. I'm referring of course to the works of "Communism will win."
Yes, and when Scantron did it it was a) also without reason b) added after the skips had already been up for many months to try and avoid c) also attracted multiple downvotes.
The fact of the matter is that this is intentionally breaking from format for on good reason. If this was better written, I might neutral vote. As it is, it isn't nearly good enough to get away with baseless format breaking.
By that logic, it shouldn't be that big of a deal to remove it then.
Single adjective or not, it's a format break. We have a format for a reason, and breaking from it needs to be justified.
I just really don't understand the issue. I laid out why it would be there. It's like marking an object with a "priority" button. All Keter entails is that the object is quite hard to reliably contain. The addition of the adjectives add unique information to that object class, at a glance, that confers it as high priority. It's like a big red stamp. If you're not into it, it's fine, but please don't act as though I just put the thing in there for funsies.
b) added after the skips had already been up for many months to try and avoid c) also attracted multiple downvotes.
You don't have to like the alt object classes, but that wasn't my motive at all and you don't have a good reason for asserting it. I didn't have the idea to do Latin object classes until quite a while after those articles were posted anyways.
If you have some issue with me, I recommend finding a method of settling it other than misrepresenting me publicly. If that's not the case, I recommend proceeding with more caution when accusing someone of subterfuge.
if your reading this your gay
The fact of the matter is that you made a significant change to your articles months after they had been posted, a change that could be expected to have drawn downvotes on a newly created article. There is no universe where that doesn't look like tying to circumvent the normal voting process. If that wasn't your intent, then I'm sorry for misrepresenting it, but you have to understand what this kind of thing looks like from an outside perspective.
I want a retraction, and I want some assurance that you'll give more of a shit about the truth before trash-talking people publicly.
An apology buried underneath a paragraph of baseless assumptions about my motivations (which I explained on a few occasions when the object classes were questioned) is completely worthless.
if your reading this your gay
Can I just point out one thing?
You're flipping right the hell out over wanting a rigid enforcement of a single characteristic of the object categories, and seem to be placing yourself in a position of false authority regarding their use.
There are almost no hard rules. They are like a dictionary; the "rules" are really just a taxonomy of the most common conventions of the site (excepting things like anti-abuse or anti-spam rules, obviously).
There's little that's more annoying than people that decide that they have to tell a well-rated article how to "do it right". By definition, they already have. Focus on the ones that are struggling or need some spit and polish to live up to their potential, not ones that are doing quite well; that just makes you look foolish.
TL;DR: If people like it and stuff what has it gets upvotes, then the site accepts its use. If you disagree, downvote and move on.
So I haven't read this article yet, as I'm yet to go through the contest entries, but I didn't feel like letting some of the stuff in here stand unchallenged.
You're flipping right the hell out
No he's not. He's making an argument. You might find it fallacious, and that's fine. Stick to the facts of the matter. Don't characterize your opponents as hysterical because you don't like what they're saying.
There's little that's more annoying than people that decide that they have to tell a well-rated article how to "do it right". By definition, they already have.
If people like it and stuff what has it gets upvotes, then the site accepts its use. If you disagree, downvote and move on.
No. Absolutely not. Something being "well-rated" does not mean that it is by definition flawless and that anyone with something critical to say should shut up. Nothing is perfect. Nothing is so good that it couldn't benefit from any sort of commentary aside from "wow man you're awesome." This site is about writing the best stuff that we can, and going with this idea that once you've made it to the point where you can write something that sticks, you're now immune from any sort of criticism is counterproductive in the extreme.
If there's been a breach of conduct beyond the merits of an argument, staff will handle it. Until that point, it's not up to you to silence stuff because you don't like hearing it. "Positively rated" does not equal "perfection," and I will continue to approach the site in that manner.
If you disagree, downvote and move on.That's exactly what he was doing before he got jumped on for having an opinion contrary to the status quo.
This has a lot in common with SCP-2130, "Office Furniture", which isn't really a bad thing as I consider that to be criminally underrated. I like the story you have here, although I feel the O5 note at the end is going slightly too far into cliche and could be better phrased in a different format.
That said, still worth my +1.
I don't know… the idea feels like a decent -J that tries to confront the D-class issue in its entirety. As a mainlister, I think it needs more work as to why the Foundation would justify the practice of going along with this practice (especially if you have subsumed the very usage of D-class personnel as an anomaly).
How is this in any way funny?
Edit: actually, the doc thing is kinda funny, so nvm.
You made the D-Class cliches horrifying.
+1 so hard
This is problematic.
On one hand this is a rather good and well established skip. The story went all right, and the overall article was worth to read. My only issues is that this is the safe option. I mean, turning D-class system into a skip is the closest thing to a safe shot in this contest. And while I honestly enjoyed it, the premise is somehow plain.
I have no problem upvoting it, but I'll do it later.
Seconding this, and adding that on a higher level it also steals quite a bit of the horror if the D-class aren't "real people". If they aren't even clones capable of long term survival, well, aside from the demotions thing… why do we care? It would totally eliminate the ethical issues, honestly.
Still undecided about my own vote…neutral for now, but leaning toward downvote.
Yeah, downvote. Not because it's badly written, because it isn't. It's just the more I think about it, the more problems it raises. Taken straight, it takes all of the drama out of the D-class and replaces it with a stock "the Foundation is infected by a thing and doesn't know it" anomaly. Even if taken as a thing that twists some individuals to see the D-class as pod people and their fellow Foundation members as insane, it still reduces the situation to the same old moral hand wringing rather than doing anything innovative with it.
Most of these things still have lives. They are sapient in every way. The five percent are just kind of… fucks up, factory missteps, even. Their anomalous nature doesn't change the cruelty being engendered in the Foundation and the cruelty of harming these people, imo.
That's the thing, though. What you've got here is a black and white caricature that doesn't even consider the possibility that the D-class system could be anything other than a parade of sadism, and ignores the many modern portrayals of a D-class system without monthly terminations and inhumane treatment. That is to say, it ignores the idea that the Foundation is cold, not cruel.
I don't think there is any way to use people for scientific experimentation in the way the Foundation does and not be evil. To me, it very much is an issue of black and white.
Good thing they have magically appearing copies of people so they don't have to use real people, then.
IT still engenders cruelty. And just because they keep getting these people doesn't somehow make it okay to use them for things like this.
Edit: Being a copy doesn't mean they're not fully sapient people.
Don't disagree with you about clones/copies being worthy of humane treatment. Where the problem comes in… ever read the short story "Think like a Dinosaur"? Deals with a certain problem regarding teleporters, and ethical implications thereof. It's like that. One of a person is one thing. Two of the same person…things get grey for a number of reasons.
It's by James Patrick Kelly. Really, really cool story.
Edit: Dang it, Ninja'd. One of these days I'll learn to hit refresh before replying to comments on pages I've had open all night.
Any good work of fiction should make the audience question themselves. "What are my values?" "Would I act this way in this situation?" "What differentiates me from this character?"
This work does a very good job of that. It talks about prison labor, violence, peer pressure, the worth of a human life, and a lot more things, in what is not that many words.
I don't mind the Latin prefixes, I actually wish more people would use them. The object class is a VERY stale part of SCPs, especially nowadays, so some variety would be nice.
The weakest part of this skip by far is the last memo. It's just a bit much; trim it down a bit, maybe make it a bit more clinical in tone. This skip has brevity going for it, and you should run with that.
Anyway, this deserves my +1 a thousand times over. Great job!
I agree with the other comments WRT the last memo, but that might just be personal preferences - I tend to go for skips where the horror comes from contrast of the clinical tone with whatever horrific thing is going on. It would have had that feel for me if you had cut it off after the interview log. I do understand the need to make it clear that O5s have been infected, though…maybe a higher security clearance over the whole document?
I also agree that Keter-potissimi is a little unnecessary tbqh but like….Does It Really Matter. [edit: i dont speak latin good so i had to look up what potissimus meant lmao.] [EDIT you put that at the top of the comments section oh man I need to read more carefully.] It's still a good article, and a concept so good it really should have been done by now. And honestly, I love the whole "they just materialize out of nowhere and nothing you tell anyone can convince them of that" biz. +1.
This is a concept that I originally wanted to do, but scrapped due to my lack of brains/talent. This is far better than anything I even imagined doing for this contest. It is executed wonderfully, and the final note is blissful icing on the cake. +1
Most experiments offer little scientific merit and achieve no greater understanding of the SCP object.
ETA: I literally squee'd here.
/forum/t-1886202/scp-2959#post-
page revision: 2, last edited: 15 Jan 2023 15:06
