SCP-1077 / Discussion

This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-1077.

page 1 of 3123next »

Rioghail 27 Mar 2012 21:22

This is a little more ambitious than my past projects, and so I half expect it to get shot down. I was going for trying to create more of a running narrative with this one, I guess. The text quoted under 'Prior containment procedures' is much closer to how this item would have looked when I started out writing this, and I had an idea halfway through writing which completely changed the item midway through development.

One other thing: I was trying to get the quoted text to work right, but I can't seem to work in the line breaks without splitting up the quoteblock. So if anybody knows how to do that, some help would be greatly appreciated.

ChazzK 27 Mar 2012 21:30

I actually kind of like the way this one plays out, although there's a few things I think you need to go back and double-check on what you meant; for instance you have it listed as "Euclid Keter", but further down you say that the upgrade to Keter was denied, and then after THAT it was "upgraded to Euclid".

As far as the line breaks, make sure when putting in the line between paragraphs there's a "> " there, space included. Trust me, that one took me a while to figure out how I was screwing it up the first time, too!

Dexanote 27 Mar 2012 21:34

I don't love it. Kinda reminds me of the Brainworm. Though this might be the fact that I love Brainworm and hate fungi.

I'll come back a bit later, you probably have my upvote.

Last edited on 27 Mar 2012 21:34 by Dexanote Show more

SoullessSingularity 27 Mar 2012 21:38

All subsequent SCP-1077 infections have attempted to

CANDLEJACK HAS STRUCK AGAI

Seriously, did you mean that or was it a mistake? Either way, it bugs me. Other than that, I like the effect, but I think a lot of it could be cut out. Also, Incident A is never mentioned, even thought it seems like a significant document. Is there a reason for that?

---

Living the dream, or dreaming the life?

Rioghail 28 Mar 2012 15:05

This was an accident caused by imperfect proofreading on my part. I moved the relevant information further down and forgot to cut the original sentence in its entirety. Should be fixed now.

Incident A is mentioned. It's the containment breach which led to the Foundation reorganising the containment procedures. The one where they manipulated the Agent into writing the fake containment procedures.

Adam Smascher 27 Mar 2012 22:27

The room is hermetically-sealed to prevent contamination, and air cycled into the room via the ventilation system must be filtered before it can be allowed to enter the rest of the ventilation system. Those entering the room must wear gas masks and are not allowed to remove them while in the containment area.

You could simplify a lot of this by simply saying it's to be contained at BSL-3 or -4. Given it's Keter, probably 4. Further, BSL-4 facilities don't link ventilation systems from the hotlabs to the rest of the facility. These sections are totally isolated, for obvious reasons.

Instances of SCP-1077 found in the wild are to be destroyed immediately using fungicide…

Rather unspecific. Does every fungicide known to man work on this? A specific compound or fungicides containing a specific compound would be best, but it could also be babbled away with something like 'Compound-82a'.

Staff at Bio Site-95 are required to undergo regular tests for SCP-1077 infection in spite of stringent containment procedures.

Minor thing, but the "in spite of" bit is totally superfluous.

Should SCP-1077 infectees appear outside of Foundation custody, they are to be immediately taken into custody or terminated. SCP-1077 infectees not affiliated with the Foundation that are currently in Foundation custody are to be terminated and incinerated at the first opportunity.

So kill them, or arrest them and then kill them, despite the fact that the infection appears to be treatable? What?

SCP-1077 infectees are to be considered biohazards and must be treated or transported in accordance to biohazard protocol. Staff handling infectees must wear gas masks while in contact with infectees.

As above, there are several levels of biohazards. These sound like a comfortable 4, so specifying that and saying they're to be treated accordingly makes that entire second sentence redundant.

Now, with regards to the first addendum, why the hell is the fact that it tries to get people to kill the host stricken from the current version? That's a pretty important detail, and should be included.

Regarding the second addendum:

Closing Statement: Mrs. Church was terminated as per standard procedure and her body incinerated following this interview. All subsequent SCP-1077 infections have attempted to

That cuts off.

Since Incident 1077-B, instances of SCP-1077 infection have occurred, of which led to an attempted breach of secrecy.

You seem to have omitted numbers here.

The aforementioned issues with it being listed as Keter, but noting an upgrade to Euclid remain.

Additionally:

Mission of Mobile Task Force Upsilon-7 has been modified to include attempted eradication of SCP-1077 from its environment, although at this point it is not considered feasible.

Infeasible how? It's apparently susceptible to conventional fungicides, has a small range, and is isolated from human populations. A little deforestation under the guise of an industrial chemical transportation accident or wildfire, or one causing the other, is a beautifully elegant cover story that does a fine job of assuring eradication. It's not very difficult to wipe out with the way you have it written, and that is not a bad thing.

DrKens 27 Mar 2012 22:42

There's a lot of good criticism here, and you would do well to address most of them. That said, I like the basic concept, and how it's written. Not everything has to be containable. Just make sure there's a good reason for it not to be.

Rioghail 28 Mar 2012 18:05

I've gone through and altered all the problems mentioned, as well as the others voiced on this page. Hopefully the article is a little less stupid now.

Seriously, thanks a lot for the criticism Smascher.

Adam Smascher 29 Mar 2012 02:58

No problem. Downvote withdrawn.

Khym Chanur 28 Mar 2012 05:53

We live to spread. Let us spread, or suffer the consequences.

Not very smart, is it. "We want to take over the world. Cease your attempts to stop us from taking over the world, or suffer the consequences".

Doktori 28 Mar 2012 09:25

They never said they were smart, just that they were fungis.

ChazzK 28 Mar 2012 14:53

…. That's such a good point it should be canonical.

Rioghail 28 Mar 2012 18:08

Indeed.

Edited in an explanation that the instances differ in intelligence, given that the one in containment is clearly quite clever while the others are somewhat stupid. Also added a note saying that not all of the fungi think that it's a good idea.

Goodwill 28 Mar 2012 11:14

I like the concept, but there are a good number of issues that need to be addressed, mentioned above. Things like an incomplete interview log and saying it was reclassified as Euclid when the object class says it's Keter are big enough problems for me to downvote for now.

Edit: Retracted my downvote as I see that the above mentioned issues have been addressed. I'll give it a total reread later to see if I want to go further and upvote.

Last edited on 28 Mar 2012 19:21 by Goodwill Show more

TL333s 28 Mar 2012 18:13

What I like most about this (aside from the Keter mushroom) is that they don't actually take control of the host, just their vocal chords, and thus nothing happens unless the person is trying to speak. I did feel like overall the article was a bit lengthy, the containment procedures especially. I mean, they're very thorough, but… they're very thorough. There are a few bobbles here and there, and I definitely think you should classify hosts as SCP-1077-1. It got a little confusing toward the end for lack of this. The hook is good enough that I'm upvoting now though.

Anaxagoras 28 Mar 2012 18:34

This is pretty good, but I've been noticing a bit much in the way of things being Keter not because they're dangerous to people, but because they affect the secrecy of the Foundation. Not sure if I like that at all.

Rioghail 29 Mar 2012 20:34

Having thought back over this, I'll admit it probably doesn't qualify for Keter. I've dropped the class to Euclid in reflection of this, although the failed attempt to upgrade it to Keter is still in there.

(account deleted) 29 Mar 2012 05:24

A lot better after the rewrite! +1

Khym Chanur 29 Mar 2012 08:37

So the infections of animals are sapient, but what about the mushroom form of the fungus? Are they the non-sapient portion of the fungus' life-cycle?

page 1 of 3123next »