All information about this downvote must be kept in auditory form.
SCP-1159 / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» SCP-1159
This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-1159.
he can't tell you why he downvoted, because this forum is text-only.
I like what you're trying to do here, but the only way this would work is if the recording was really high quality. It's not. Not even if you apologize on the page for the informality of it.
High quality how? Bearing in mind that the person recording would have to go from memory.
High quality as in: produced. A sound file that sounds like a guy in a laboratory environment, or even an office, using high-end equipment to log the containment file for a skip. An auditory containment file that comes across as clinical and professional as would be needed to adhere to Foundation archival and administration standards.
Clinical and professional audio files, like those you might find in an audio police report, sound a lot like this, actually. And those use notes. Again, this researcher would not be able to use notes.
Also, I am using high-end equipment. The fact that I'm an audiophile with a thousand-dollar broadcasting setup is part of what inspired this SCP.
Then I guess this just doesn't do it for me. High-end or not, it doesn't come across to me as a researcher logging a containment file.
I felt for a few moments as if someone was literally shitting in my ears.
Military Consultant, SCP Wiki
So, why exactly isn't this person banned, again?
Because we don't retroactively police posts and at the time of posting the criticism policy had not yet been developed, let alone enforced.
Ironically, I'm going to ask you to stop necroshitposting on this thread. Your comment adds nothing to the discussion.
Additionally, Echo was in fact spoken to about just this exact sort of bad critique, even though it wasn't against the rules at the time (and for a long time was in fact encouraged).
After discussion with other staff, Echo spent the next few months after this (mid-to-late-2012) becoming one of the best critiquers on the site.
So there you have it.
"The fact that I'm an audiophile with a thousand-dollar broadcasting setup is part of what inspired this SCP."
thousand-dollar setup
Is that a thousand MEXICAN dollars?
Military Consultant, SCP Wiki
(account deleted)more like 1000 zimbabwean dollars.
What equipment are you using? I have a Shure PG27, GarageBand, and a dinky little Lexicon Lambda interface, and it typically sounds better than this (although usually quieter, for some weird reason).
this is because your recordings would likely be more dynamic and more detailed
as it gets 'louder' you lose audio quality due to clipping, so high quality audio is 'quiet'
please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war for more details
this has been your Syka InfoBreak(TM)
i like that idea a lot, great work
No signatures, thanks.
Admin, SCP Wiki
Hurr dee frickin' durr. I don't care how much money you foolishly blew on a recording setup, if you don't know how to master audio, you're fucked no matter how good your mic is. Cut out the noise frequencies, whether it's your computer or just background mess, filter or smooth that out. Also, EQ your own voice so it doesn't sound so muddy. Don't be afraid to put some atmosphere around yourself either. [In other words, fill in the empty space between your words with something pleasant.]
Your voice itself is not putting on a good performance. Your tone is not serious, and your reading style is, um, unprofessional. Write your shit down, and read it back. The police are, for the most part, bumbling idiots (no offense). The police also do not face mass casualties and end-of-the-world scenarios if they fuck up or someone misunderstands them.
Also, the dry dial tone expungement during the interview scared the shit out of me. Fix that to something else or at least keep it from jumping the fuck out of everything else.
Even a recording from memory could be rehearsed, re-recorded, or edited. Once you've done the relevant information four or five times from memory, you should be able to do it a lot faster and smoother than this.
It's a nice, novel spin on the format, so points for that, but you're asking for more time from the "reader" than the usual SCP takes, so you need to use it productively. I personally only got about 2/3 of the way through before I got frustrated with how long it was taking and stopped. (Also the redactions were loud, compared to the rest of the recording, and startled me: I partly quit listening early because I didn't want to be startled like that again.)
As it's a creative idea, I'll go with no vote for now.
(To address the above "real files do sound like this" statement: no doubt, but real audio files typically get transcribed into text, do they not? Considering that writing takes longer than speaking, usually, and that this isn't the usual way SCPs are documented, I don't really see a problem with the idea that the researcher could use the best take out of several, recorded one after another, and still produce the file in the same amount of time that a typical file would take to type up.)
Oh well. When you have time to finish all five minutes of the damn thing…
And by the way, it only bleeps twice. Both in quick succession. Not that you'd know that, but still.
Well, is there some enormous payoff in the last couple minutes that makes it worth listening to, or is it just more of the same? I've already spent about twice as long "reading" this one as I'd spend on a typical SCP; it was promising, but not entertaining; and reading SCPs is something I do for fun, not because it's my job to.
Even a recording from memory could be rehearsed, re-recorded, or edited. Once you've done the relevant information four or five times from memory, you should be able to do it a lot faster and smoother than this.
all five minutes of the damn thing…
Interesting idea, but I agree the execution needs some work. I agree with those who state this goes on longer than it needs to. This is not a reflection on its actual length, but in how long it "feels".
If I, as a Foundation researcher, had to document an SCP whose anomalous quality was related information could only be stored in audio form, then I'd go through and do basic processing and editing on my audio notes. I stutter. I say "um", "uh", and "er" as much as the next fellow. When I record audio, I go back and take all that out, along with taking out any unnecessary repetitions and pauses. It's just as usual a step in the process as normalizing, or cutting out digital clipping. What you've posted sounds like a rough cut of the audio, with no processing - at least, not of the content.
Also, I am using high-end equipment. The fact that I'm an audiophile with a thousand-dollar broadcasting setup is part of what inspired this SCP.
That's nice. But if I make a rough pencil sketch with high quality artist's pencils, it's still a rough pencil sketch. I've done a lot of sound engineering. While the technical end of what you've created sounds fine, the execution of the content is too rough. The error is between the chair and the computer, as it were.
I think the idea is salvageable, but I'd recommend re-working the execution.
As cool as this idea is, is there a way we can listen without downloading mp3's?
Living the dream, or dreaming the life?
I think there's a way to have it play directly in the page, but I don't know the coding for that.
Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.
If you figure it out, please let me know. That was my original intent, anyway.
This *should* do it…
[[html]]
<embed width="500" height="52" quality="best" src="http://www.google.com/reader/ui/3523697345-audio-player.swf" flashvars="audioUrl=http://www.scp-wiki.net/local--files/scp-1159/1159.mp3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash">
[[/html]]
Edit: never mind, you already figured out another way. :)
I like the idea. The execution could be better, but I really like the idea of an SCP that can't be written about.
Piffy is an SCP Foundation Moderator, Lv. 9001 Squishy Wizard, and Knight of the Red Pen.
All information kept on this SCP must be in auditory form.
How were they able to write that down?
It's worth noting that simply writing the words "SCP-1159" does not produce that effect…
Because it's that level of specific detail, being just a semi-generic infohazard warning.
EDIT: Oh alright. Nevermind.
That's about 3 minutes longer than I feel like spending on listening to an SCP.
So you've downvoted without finishing a work that's literally less than five minutes long.
Italics makes my point more valid.
But fine, fine, you're free to downvote for whatever reason you do.
Uhh, I would downvote a written article that wasn't interesting enough for me to read the whole way through. If something can't hold my attention for its entirety, it's not good writing.
How much attention you pay to something isn't neccesarily a reflection of its quality.
But let's not get into this argument.
Lack of attention to detail
Loss of clarity
Increased likelihood of fucking something up
Increased time to completion
Increased chance of missing something you already fucked up
HOLY SHIT LYCAN. YOU'RE RIGHT. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.
Military Consultant, SCP Wiki
I didn't say nothing. I said "doesn't neccessarily", as in "I don't have enough information to make an assertion" and "there are other factors at play".
AHEM.
necessarily
Single C. Double S.
Fair enough, I suppose. It may have to do with the fact that I saw a text version of this and thought he had a soothing voice, but eh. I should probably stop commenting on this.
With the new version of the recording, I broke the addendums off into separate recordings.
The redactions really, REALLY need to be an electronic buzzer or censor noise, not "blah-blah". I was almost OK with this until the "blah-blah".
Fuck, which one and where, I thought I had fixed them all.
From an in-universe standpoint, it makes sense that the speaker wouldn't be able to use notes. In terms of dramatic presentation, though, the umms and ahhs just make it difficult to listen to. Maybe i'll give it another listen after work, but it just doesn't hold my interest.
I think everyone is too distracted by the format to notice that the concept itself is bad.
If there was a skip that couldn't be described in an auditory form and the Foundation had to use (gasp!) written text to store documentation about it, I would've downvoted it for being a stupid and boring idea. I am downvoting this for the same reasons.
Also, fuck probability manipulators, seriously. They've been done more times than I can remember, and most of those were thankfully deleted. I don't want to see any more of them.
And in the end it kills the D-class, because that pencil we gave him was so badass that even skips couldn't do anything about it. We should go kill 682 with that pencil. And surely killing a man is much more easier than, I don't know, making the paper wet or something. And we are now supposed to be scared because this skip can kill D-class and thus is a serious business.
I think everyone is too distracted by the format to notice that the concept itself is bad.
Are you kidding? How often have you come up with a new spin on the format? That's an accomplishment worth praising right there, whatever the qualities of the object being described.
So, I should go write a skip whose description must be written on a jigsaw puzzle now?
And each piece must contain no more than one letter.
And all pieces must be the same shape.
So, I should go write a skip whose description must be written on a jigsaw puzzle now?
And each piece must contain no more than one letter.
And all pieces must be the same shape.
sure. If you can pull it off, make it interesting and believable1 and have strong hook, I'll upvote.
Footnotes
1. by SCP standards
…wait, WHAT
So, now the quality of the work doesn't matter? Only a new twist to the format?
Bullshit. I could make Jester only describable via pantomime which would have to be shown in a video. That would be a new twist to the format.
Would it be good, though?
I really want this to exist as a seperate thing from that new pantomime article coming out. With this definition of pantomime. Imagine it. Panto-Jester.
IT'S BEHIND YOU!
Something marvelous, something beautiful, something mad, something incredible, something perfect, something horrendous, something pure, something red, something cold, something disgusting, something corrupt, something great, something wrong, something joyous, something unholy, but above all something new. This is what you have begun Jekeled, this is what you cannot end, you have given genesis to something beyond your wildest imaginings and now it comes. And let the stars rejoice and tremble at its approach.
Well damn then.
Time to get the pitchforks and torches.
Nobody said the quality of the work doesn't matter. I said that managing a unique spin on the format is praiseworthy. I've also, if you'll remember, said that the actual content was too boring for me to finish listening to it. One doesn't negate the other.
I disagree, format twists are some of the laziest SCPs I can remember, sure they're nifty but past that gimmick they're just boring and in the end I refuse to praise a cheap gimmick that dresses up an otherwise forgettable piece of fiction as if it was actually good..
Once more, with feeling: Nobody said the quality of the work doesn't matter.
Did I say it doesn't matter? Did I reference that at some point? No, I didn't, I said it was a cheap gimmick.
When you say, "I refuse to praise a cheap gimmick that dresses up an otherwise forgettable piece of fiction as if it was actually good," there's a clear indication that you think other people are praising a cheap gimmick that dresses up an otherwise forgettable piece of fiction as if it was actually good.
I don't believe that anybody is doing this.1 I think what people are doing is along the lines of when somebody writes a blah SCP with very good, clinical, Foundation-like tone, and then commenters come along to say that the tone was well-done but the concept for the object wasn't. Praising aspects of a work != praising the work as a whole.
Some people have upvoted this one. I disagree with those people too.
Footnotes
1. TL333s (+1): "The article itself isn't mindblowing"
GG Chrono (0): "Solid (if not exceptional) concept"
fooloftime (+1): "The SCP itself could be more scary/interesting"
Hornby (0): "I agree the execution needs some work"
Pig_catapult (+1): "The execution could be better"
Crayne (0): "the article itself still does nothing for me"
GG Chrono (0): "Solid (if not exceptional) concept"
fooloftime (+1): "The SCP itself could be more scary/interesting"
Hornby (0): "I agree the execution needs some work"
Pig_catapult (+1): "The execution could be better"
Crayne (0): "the article itself still does nothing for me"
You did. When you say that the article is literally so boring you couldn't even finish it, you're describing the poor quality. But you upvoted neutral voted solely for a format twist.
EDIT: I am a derping derper who derps.
Yeah, but ultimately I'm unconcerned with how novel the gimmick is if the SCP itself is bad. I mean, by all means try new things, but if there isn't a good concept to go along with the presentation then it just fizzles out like this one.
You think that the quality of the work doesn't matter as long as there's a neat gimmick to justify it.
And we don't think that. Downvoted.
/forum/t-510068/scp-1159#post-
page revision: 2, last edited: 15 Jan 2023 15:06
