I'm not sure if I like or dislike this article, withholding vote for now.
SCP-1093 / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» SCP-1093
This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-1093.
Fairly good for most of it, except for the events involving the doctor. Suspension of disbelief was broken when he barricaded himself in a room for six days, in which time no security team came to deal with the obvious screaming, and then was apparently allowed to just walk into an SCP containment unit.
That entire section feels tacked-on to make the SCP dangerous. It doesn't need to be more dangerous.
Yeah, I was definitely on the fence about adding that part. I felt like the SCP-1093 was a little too mundane, but I do agree that I may have gone considerably over-the-top on that section. I feel like I should remove it entirely.
EDIT: And so I did. Whether or not this benefits the article is up to you. I think it does.
The Doctor's decent into the clutches of the SCP can still be saved, I think, but would require some serious re-write to not break the sense of belief. Otherwise, this has been upvoted. Good read.
Sorry, I had to downvote, because I'm just … not digging it.
There seem to be two concepts at work which are entirely separate from each other … the form that the SCP takes and the effect it has, with no obvious connection between the two. Frankly I found the idea of a guy with a light-bulb for a head and a lightswitch on his back a bit too comical, and the hallucinations that it causes a bit too vague to be scary. It causes hallucinations which make people hear ringing and drilling, which seem to drive people nuts. I think it needs more creep-factor when it comes to that.
I'd suggest re-writing it as a Safe rather than an Euclid, and playing up the more sinister creep rather than the "it is dangerous and it can most definitely kill you" stuff. That part feels a little forced. Good potential SCP though.
I agree about adding more creepiness than danger. I removed the ending section solely for that reason, being skeptical of adding it to begin with. I may add more concerning the auditory hallucinations, and will reclassify it as Safe. It was only classified as Euclid due to the late Document 7031H-1093, anyways.
Thanks for the feedback
too much information for something that does very little and would be effectively contained by sticking it in a lead closet with the switch mechanically held in the "off" position
not that this is a terrible object, just your article could be half this length and still be more than enough information.
What would you suggest I cut from the article? Any information provided that strikes you as particularly pointless?
Measurements should not be enumerated; it's "168 cm", not "one hundred sixty eight (168) cm". Also, I'm pretty sure that in SI it would be 1.68 meters anyways.
Why is this not mentioned in the guide? several of the older articles also feature enumerated measurements. Not to mention that no one mentions this (aside from yourself, from what I've seen).
Probably because this is something you learn in high school science class, and isn't something that needs to be mentioned in a site dominated by college-level authors.
It wears a standard white button-up dress shirt, black kaki pants, and brown Oxford dress shoes.
All the time? Did the Foundation's wardrobe budget get cut this quarter? Do we not have a bathrobe we can give him on laundry day?
Joking aside, what i'm trying to say is that, if the SCP is a physical entity in our custody, describing what it wears makes it sound like it's a cartoon character that only has one outfit because that's all the animators can be bothered to draw. If it's an ethereal being, or something the Foundation hasn't contained yet, or its clothes are part of its body, then describing its wardrobe makes sense. In this case, it's just fluff.
The description should explicitly note that the on/off state doesn't affect the radiation.
I'm almost surprised this isn't a Little Mister, though I don't think there's a space on the list for him. The autopsy report was really intriguing and I +1'd for that.
One question: he's inert when switched on, and his upper body (just the upper body?) goes limp when he's switched off. So does he ever do anything on his own?
He's completely stationary all the time. He's quite literally a "Lamp Man" as his only feasible function is to be a human being that operates like a lamp, but hints of there being something more to him are left in several of his unexplained features.
Okay. It just seemed odd that it was specified his upper body went limp when in fact, he was never moving at all.
He stands upright when activated, but his upper body goes limp when he's deactivated. Imagine a person with their legs straightened and hanging their torso limply in front of them facing the floor.
I'm curious… It may just be a wording issue, but the description implies that there's exactly one of this thing. But then in the autopsy report, you describe "a (de)activated 1093 specimen". Are/were there multiples of this thing, and there's only one left? If not I think it should be written as "As of the writing of this report, no surgery on SCP-1093 has been performed during its active state".
Also: autopsy is usually reserved for something that's dead and being taken completely apart. Would you mean exploratory surgery or like that?
I wasn't intending to imply that there was ever more than one. I'll rephrase that to clarify any confusion.
I can see where you're coming from when it comes to calling it an autopsy. Though, one could argue that SCP-1093 isn't technically alive when it's deactivated. If it's enough of an issue, I'm fine with renaming it to a "Surgical Report" or something like that.
/forum/t-464547/scp-1093#post-
page revision: 2, last edited: 15 Jan 2023 15:06
