SCP-3077 / Discussion

This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-3077.

Rewrite - No more Cotton Candy

DrChandra 15 Jun 2017 04:14

So I have rewritten this SCP to remove any and all references to SCP-1921.

If that was your primary reason for downvoting then I kindly request you review the SCP in its current form and possibly reconsider.

Thank you, and have a disquieting day.

Last edited on 16 Jun 2017 07:15 by DrChandra Show more

Re: Made with the Blessing of PeppersGhost

ratking666 15 Jun 2017 04:51

please remove the tags, the tag team will add tags to your posts for you later.

---

pastarasta1 is quick-talking and often scheming

Re: Made with the Blessing of PeppersGhost

DrChandra 15 Jun 2017 05:12

Done. Sorry.

Re: Made with the Blessing of PeppersGhost

ratking666 15 Jun 2017 05:12

it's alright, common mistake.

---

pastarasta1 is quick-talking and often scheming

Re: Made with the Blessing of PeppersGhost

Shaggydredlocks 15 Jun 2017 18:41

Reference? Half the article is 1921, but with some different traits and less well-written - with a story stapled to the end. This probably would have been better as a Tale.

Re: Made with the Blessing of PeppersGhost

DrChandra 15 Jun 2017 23:39

I openly admit I'm better at writing tales. SCPs are hard, for me at least, because they're such an odd beast. They have to be believable as clinical documents but still be interesting and unique and avoid all the cliches. If there is a story it has to be presented in a very specific fashion to keep with the Foundation's premise.

I just wrote this one to tie in with my tale series, and I have no immediate plans to write another one. This was a lot of work for a relatively little payoff.

Trust me, I'm going to stick with tales as much as possible.

Flawed 15 Jun 2017 05:42

Oh fuck I completely forgot about this

Well, I've finished reading this now, and +1'ed.

Rigen 16 Jun 2017 12:31

The article is much better in my opinion, but there are minor tone issues that I'd have to address

SCP-3077's primary anomalous property is that it is animate,

you could simply write it as "SCP-3077 is animate,"….

and control them in a jerky, puppet-like manner.

I feel this is, hmm, more like "stiff" manner? Eh this one's not really that bad,you could probably left it.

However, she does not appear to possess any ability to control either

More like, "However, PoI-3077-1 has not demonstrated ability to control these instances" or something?

Again, these advice are completely optional and the skip is good enough as is. Best of luck.

Feyascia 28 Aug 2017 03:05

Awww. I actually felt bad for the little monsters. +1

Captain Raptin 17 Oct 2017 11:24

Damn. Loved the story this told, and that the document says that the creator can't be trusted, raising the question to leave us with. Take a solid upvote from me, my friend. +1

PeppersGhost 10 Jan 2018 10:04

My first time reading over the revised version. I think the 1921 connection works better implicit rather than explicit, and the phrase "thaumaturgical treacle" is a gem.