First off, fantastic concept. Just enough is said to make this really well done. That being said, there are a number of stylistic issues; Foundation is always capitalized when used as a proper noun, and "they" is NEVER appropriate when referring to a single person. If you insist on gender neutral, you have "it".
SCP-977 / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» SCP-977
This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-977.
The use of "they" to refer to the doctor in the last incident log took me right out of the story. Please decide whether the doctor is male or female, then replace each instance of "they" with "he" or "she" (as appropriate).
Other than that, quite intriguing. I am certain that one of these days, when there's an MTF or some cooperative D-class to spare, more explorations will be undertaken…
Alright, these things have been corrected now, by me or someone else. The 'they' thing was intentional; I figured if the foundation was obscuring names it would probably be obscuring genders too, but I agree it sounds strange. That last section may need some rewriting.
Also, there's a good chance that I might add some exploration logs to this in the near future. I have a few ideas for what might be hidden within the complex, but nothing rock solid yet.
Actually, no, it's the other way around. If you do not know someone's gender or preferred pronouns, the correct form is to use singular "they".
But thanks for promoting language that perpetuates erasure of my gender identity. I really don't get enough of that in real life.
Piffy is an SCP Foundation Moderator, Lv. 9001 Squishy Wizard, and Knight of the Red Pen.
I cannot speak to your personal preferences, but the English language has no neuter case third-person-singular pronoun that is considered properly to refer to a human or other sapient being. We don't call people "it". "They" is third person plural, not singular. There seems to be a "slangy" tendency to use "they" as a neuter first person singular, but I don't hold with that any more than I hold with spelling "through" as "thru", or "bouquet" as "bokay". Such slang terms should certainly not be used in official documentation of a group like the Foundation…
Dude, you're wrong. If you don't believe me, would you believe Jane Austen? How about a holy book of Abrahamic faith?
Singular use of they and their has been established for a long, long time, man. While people still argue over if it's acceptable, they are the same people who have the time to argue over split infinitives. Please, just chill and enjoy the article.
"WELL FOUNDATION. YOU MADE IT SO EASY. SO VERY VERY EASY." - dimensionpotato
Yeah, very much what Pig, Spike, and Troy said. "They" as a neuter case third-person-singular pronoun is almost always accepted usage.
The only thing most of us are worried about is when "they" in combination with all those black boxes causes confusion as to what is actually going on, by the principle of 'clarity trumps all'. (I see that the author ultimately chose 'he' for the doctor, but they (!) didn't have to.)
That's really more a weakness of the English language than anything else. There really ought to be a pronoun for that.
This is a very good version of this. You did a good job pruning the extraneous stuff without entirely removing the mystery. My one complaint is that the final thing, with the researcher running around the facility, seems a bit over-long.
I agree whole heartedly. Overall a cool story, just could stand to have the researcher's journey be described more succinctly.
Also, yeah, pick a gender. I spent a full minute trying to figure out who "they" was referring to.
First off, as stated above, "Foundation" should be capitalized. Second, did you bother to preview before posting? That would have caught the fact that you failed to bold several things. Third, you've put discovery information at the start of the containment procedures; it belongs in either the description or an addendum.
Fix these things and I'll read past the first paragraph.
First off, as stated above, "Foundation" should be capitalized. Second, did you bother to preview before posting? That would have caught the fact that you failed to bold several things. Third, you've put discovery information at the start of the containment procedures; it belongs in either the description or an addendum.
All of this.
This is intriguing, but kind of confusing, which is a downside. But the main problem is that this article is pretty difficult to read. Consider the order in which you are presenting information. And… try cutting down.
As a general rule, the use of "they" instead of he/she doesn't bother me when it's unambiguous what it's referring to, but it does get confusing very quickly in the incident log. It keeps sounding like multiple people were involved. If you're trying to be extra careful to disguise the subject's identity, figure out another way - "[he/she]" might work. Or try a combination of replacing "he"/"she" with "Dr. ██████" or "the doctor", and rephrasing. Examples:
This:
Dr. ██████ reported realising they had left the known parts of the site shortly after having taken a wrong turn.
becomes this:
Dr. ██████ reported being unaware of having left the known parts of the site until shortly after having taken a wrong turn.
This:
They immediately attempted to retrace their steps, but found themselves unable to recognise any landmarks. They report having wandered for several hours in an effort to return to the known site, during which they experienced periods of intense paranoia. When asked how long they had wandered, Dr. ██████ was unable to give an accurate estimate.
Becomes this:
Dr. ██████ was unable to recognise any landmarks when attempting to retrace steps, and wandered for several hours in an effort to return to the known site, experiencing periods of intense paranoia. Dr. ██████ was unable to give an accurate estimate of length of time spent wandering.
(That may be a bit abbreviated - anyone else feel free to chime in with alternate examples.)
I'm not entirely clear as to the nature of this place. What does it do? I may have read the page too quickly, but as far as I know, it keeps people in stasis? Huh?
Writing this was an experiment for me, seeing how much I could leave up to the reader's imagination. I have an idea of what's going on in the warehouse, but I want to leave the story open to possibilities. I do agree though that the warehouse wouldn't immediately be recognised as a SCP, maybe not even until after incident log 977-I-1. I can post an explanation here if that would help with critique (although it'll probably ruin the mystery), but I was trying to hint that (spoiler) the foundation staff were being watched as much as they were watching.
Another alternative to "they" would be to just say "the doctor". I was ok with the plural usage at first, but once the other two doctors show up it just becomes confusing.
Downvoted at least until ya fix the formatting issues. This looks like a hot mess.
Admin, SCP Wiki
This isn't a SCP; it's an apparatus for observing an as-yet uncontained phenomenon that could qualify for SCP status.
Several minor edits have been made. I've rephrased the incident log, getting rid of the 'they's, but decided to maintain gender neutrality (for the sake of keeping identities classified).
Out of curiosity, would anyone be interested in seeing some exploration logs added here, or should I leave the article's conclusion as is?
This reminds me too much of SCP-461 (which is much better than this) for me to like.
if your reading this your gay
/forum/t-374977/scp-977#post-
page revision: 2, last edited: 15 Jan 2023 15:06
