The reason that I downvoted is that the pictures in the attached log and the description do not match up, which shattered my suspension of disbelief. I don't really like how many of those pieces there are, and none of them pieces are even made up of the same material. More importantly is the extremely public nature of a lot of the sculptures shown, which is implausible at the least. I do think that this article probably needs pictures to work, but with the current pictures, it doesn't. If you fix those pictures, though, I think an upvote would be in order.
SCP-1898 / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» SCP-1898
This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-1898.
Small sets able to build shapes up to 30cm high
Meaning they can be smaller, the medium ones can go up to 10 metres and the large ones don't have a size limit.
The contents of each set vary in materials and shapes.
They're made from loads of different things really.
I personally just don't like the absence of a size limit on the large ones. As for varying in materials and shapes, I feel like a recovery log might put my suspension of disbelief back. Right now, it just seems like the Foundation STEALS STATUES AND OMG THEY'RE ANOMALOUS.
I like this, but I'm confused. There are multiple sets of different sizes, made by a company which doesn't exist. Where did all these people get them from, especially the large sets? Someone had to deliver the parts, in some cases using heavy machinery.
SCP-1898-C-3 (the jumbled up house) doesn't seem to have any non-euclidean properties, it's just jumbled up and weird looking. And while SCP-1898-C-8 certainly looks weird, I can't identify anything non-euclidean about it either.
I was very hesitant about how to vote on this.
On one hand, it's quite good. Just a safe simple object that makes your mind twist in attempts to understand how it works, and 1898-A-4 picture suits it perfectly.
On the other hand, it could be so much more. It reminds me, strongly, of Mimsy Were the Borogoves, because of the way it treats non-Euclidean constructs as something not anomalous, but inherited in our universe, just out of our sight. And so I expected some mind-imploding conclusion that would've been at least as good as one used in MWtB, and it never came.
Then I remembered that we already have 996, and it does "safe mind twisting object" angle perfectly.
So, I am downvoting for the time being, but I really hope you add something to it so I could upvote.
And I downvoted attached photographs, too, because some of them ruin my suspension of disbelief, particularly B-12 and C-14, because they are too public, and don't look as something assembled from pieces.
Curses, forgot about 996, I must've read that one ages ago.
B-12 and C-14 could be made out of pieces, they probably just fit together really well so you can't tell unless you look really closely. But really it's because it wasn't easy to find exactly what I was looking for, this was the best I could do.
If I think of anything else to add that will make this better I will. I didn't want to make this another thing that brutally killed/maimed or drove people crazy. We've got too many of them as it is.
Ah, what the hell, I upvoted worse things.
/me goes to change his vote
That said, I still wish that there was some final twist to it. Not anything blunt like dead people or craziness, but something more elegant. Kudos to you if you come up with something. If not - well, you'll have to live with my most uncertain upvote.
Personally, I think it's different enough from 996 to get an upvote. Also, the houses look bananas because that's what the outside of a non-euclidean house looks like with round rooms inside a square frame and stairs that let you high-five yourself as you walk up and down them at the same time.
I like this and I had upvoted it until I saw the words "simply fiddled with it" and then I canceled my upvote. This needs more technical language, and I'm not a big fan of the large sets.
Yeah I'm not happy about that either. But I couldn't think of a scientific term for it.
Any ideas?
Edit: Hang on, the fiddling part was quoting what people had said while watching them. Those don't need to be scientific do they?
Foundation observers seem to be the least likely people to say something like "fiddled with it," but that's mostly a thing of my own interpretation. I mean, guys observing experiments would be guys like Dr. Gears. Dr. Gears does not fiddle with it.
Maybe something like "no abnormal behavior could be observed, despite the anomalous result"
Alright, changed the sentence of the fiddling bit to:
Viewers watching the subject did not observe any abnormal behaviour, despite the anomalous result.
Better?
This does not require a technical term as it is in dialogue.
I'm torn here. The writing and tone of the core article aren't great, and addendum 3 comes off as lawlfoundation. At the same time, the experiment log is very well done, and the ammount of time spent gathering photos is obvious. Tenuous upvote.
I agree with some of the other comments about the large sets. It breaks my suspension of disbelief that so many construction workers would be involved (especially the one with the pillars) and the locations so public, and no one notices.
That, and the perpetual fall down the stairs at the end completely breaks the tone. (And seriously, a fall down the stairs for a half hour? He'd be dead.)
That assumes that I wouldn't downvote/abstain from voting on another entry for the exact same reason.
I think there's also a difference between something occurring in a public area briefly, and something being constructed and then staying there for a while.
I did remove my downvote since the last addendum is gone though.
/forum/t-436795/scp-1898#post-
page revision: 2, last edited: 15 Jan 2023 15:06
