It's boring.
SCP-436 / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» SCP-436
This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-436.
Does the boringness come from poor writing, or is the effect itself just uninteresting?
Also, insta-delete if it reaches -5, if you wish.
I very much like the core concept of this one. No, it's not pants-shittingly terrifying, but as has been discussed previously, a sufficiently well-done article doesn't have to be scary, as long as it's strange enough.
That said, it does lack a certain "zing" as currently written. The part about throwing off the actual dimensions of objects currently feels a bit incongruous with the rest of the article - I'd suggest maybe expanding on that, and explaining why that aspect of the effect doesn't immediately cause fatal glitches in human bodies (maybe something that's already assembled is treated as a single object?). Also, adding some sort of effect of long-term exposure could punch it up a bit. I can just imagine someone removing the locket for testing, and finding that the legs of the table it had been resting on have been left permanently uneven. There's also the part about trying to measure affected measurements producing errors, regardless of location - is that an isolated effect, or is an area around the attempt temporarily caught in the effect?
I'm no longer trying for "terrifying", because that inevitably fails.
Alright, I'll try what you suggested. Now to rewrite this thing…
I think it's improved enough for an upvote, but I still think it could use more
Hmm…I'm not feeling it. While the bits about not being able to be measured could work, the bit at the end makes it seem like it's just a locket that is suprisingly easy to loose. If that's the case, half my worldly possesions are SCP items.
It's not bad.
Piffy is an SCP Foundation Moderator, Lv. 9001 Squishy Wizard, and Knight of the Red Pen.
I think it's great. I agree more should be done with it, but that is mostly because I want to read more about it.
I do take issue with the phrase "Average out to a standard deviation," as that simply doesn't make sense. The standard deviation is the square root of the sum of squared deviations from the mean divided by the number of observations; the average is the sum of the observations divided by the number.
Further, it is fundamentally true that the mean of a sample approaches the estimated value as sample size approaches infinity. I imagine there is some explanation behind that Data Redacted, but a breakdown of one of the core probabilistic assumptions would be more interesting to the Foundation than a locket that de-calibrates scales and watches.
But again, my opinion is very positive. It is just that I also got my degree in statistics, so those couple lines rubbed me wrong. I do think you should expand on them rather than omit them entirely, and I look forward to reading what you come up with.
The way I view this is that looking at the object constitutes a measurement: a collection of apparent dimensions and light wavelengths. So it's interesting that the object seems to have a consistent appearance. For all we know, it's actually something completely different — possibly even something that constantly changes form — and the errors are a side-effect of its 'perception filter'.
Or maybe I'm overthinking it and the object is simply immune to itself. Never know with reality warpers ; )
/forum/t-260169/scp-436#post-
page revision: 2, last edited: 15 Jan 2023 15:06
