Sounds like the Ways from the WL
Guards might be members of the Serpents Hand
I thought that they might actually be the SCP Foundation… he referred to them as "You guys. The guards."
I didn't think about that, but now I'm sure you're right. There's *decades* between containment and the interview, the captured kids were given Amnesiacs (it says so! In the article!), and there were reports of a youth wandering through the fields wearing a mask (Which he eventually lost).
The guards are the foundation.
I like this. And yet, after a conversation with Roget, I am downvoting.
We talked about the interview log. I'd corrected what I thought was an obvious spelling mistake -"roots" should have been "routes". He said, no, that was deliberate. And that's a problem.
I'll grant that, okay, the guy did mean "roots" as in "tree roots" or "square roots" or whatever. But this is supposed to be a transcript prepared by the Foundation. Wen yew here someone vocalize a homophone - particularly a heterographic homophone - ewe decide witch meaning is intended, based awn context. Aisle grant that their are people hew pronounce "route" to rime with "out" instead of with "boot", but the too pronunciations are common enough that, wen used in a context of space-warping and hidden paths, the obvious interpretation four a transcriber two yews is "route".
Their May bee anomalies and inexplicable weirdness, butt the Foundation tries to dew things logically. This is won of the important differences between SCP phials and Foundation Tails: the phials are a form of constrained writing with a limited viewpoint. An SCP file should only have the information that the Foundation can logically know. And there is no reason provided for the Foundation interview transcriber to think that Subject 1967-A meant 'root' instead of 'route'.
Roget disagrees strongly.
For this reason, and only for this reason, I am downvoting this SCP (and only this SCP; I bear no general grudge against him).
(account deleted)Now, I've heard stupid reasons to downvote an SCP, and I've heard nitpicky reasons to downvote an SCP, but this has to be the stupidest, most nitpicky reason of them all. I honestly can't think of any response that would be appropriate to something like this without being insulting, so I'll just ask this:
Did this post seem like a good idea to you when you wrote it?
How do you know they didn't request clarification afterwards?
I mean, I know he disappeared afterwards but "shortly" is not the same as "immediately." For all you know, it could be standard Foundation procedure to have all interviewees review their transcripts to catch little things like this one.
Y wood they? Wen theirs a contextually-obvious meaning, its the won that gets used. Wood yew take the thyme too Czech something sew obvious?
I'm calling a halt to this. Voct, no more homophonic responses. Everyone else, stop baiting Voct. Roget apparently wants it spelled "roots", whatever your opinion on that may be, so drop it.
Edit: That second sentence applies to everyone, not just Voct.
Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.
While it doesn't bother me nearly enough to downvote, learning that it was intentional is a bit grating. I very nearly "corrected" the term to be polite before I saw this in the discussion, and I guarantee that sooner or later others will make that same mistake. If it's going to stay as-is, there really ought to be something in the article making it clear that "roots" is intentional.
You are responding to a year old post, which would have been fine if you were adding to discussion. But you're not, because you're responding with something that's already been said.
Not only are you necroposting, but there is a Mod Post right above us that's saying "Stop responding to this post."
Please avoid doing this in the future.
Do not respond to this post.
I thought this was pretty straightforward until I read that log. They… They found this place, started containing it, noticed the kids who knew about it too, chased them out, becoming legendary 'guards' in the process, and whatever 'mask' this guy has still works. Yes? No?
I… I don't understand the "quotes" around the "blackboxes."
So, if it went inactive when the subject lost the mask, then later on became active once more, that means someone else must have found and still be using the mask.
+1
I'm gonna take a stab at this and say that it really has nothing to do with the mask. I see the mask as just a random object he wore so that no one saw his face. It became inactive when no one was using it, because he went off to college and everyone else had been given amnesiacs.
Edit: After reading over the log again I realized I had misread. It might actually be the mask.
Aw man, nostalgia hitting me like 500 tonnes of bricks right here. There used to be a spot just like this when I was young a less reclusive. I never played with any of the other kids, it was just nice to sit and read since none of the other kids found out.
Damn, such memories of happier and somewhat more disconnected times. I need a tissue.
Living the dream, or dreaming the life?
Huh. This is the second time I had to fix the spelling. The word is 'routes' no matter how it is pronounced. That said, this article is hard to parse. There's secret entrances to the area behind the houses? Okay, how is that abnormal? And then there's this kid who can somehow outwit the entirety of the Foundation, and then grows up to escape Foundation custody? It plays way too mcuh into the 'Haha, the Foundation can't do anything right!' that I despise.
Admin, SCP Wiki
I had this discussion with Roget yesterday. He said he wants it to be spelled "roots" here.
Then roget needs to post that here, and tell us WHY the Foundation would purposefully spell the word wrong.
Admin, SCP Wiki
Because I want it to be that way in the article.
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
Why? What is the point of misspelling a word? Seriously, it makes absolutely no sense to use the wrong word.
Admin, SCP Wiki
Look at what Djoric posted later in this thread for an eloquent answer for your inquiry
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
It still doesn't make sense to spell it like that. Maybe if it was something that the kid had written down, but in a document typed by the foundation, there is no sense to it. It's like you're trying to add meaning, i get it, but the way yer adding it just doesn't work in the context. Maybe if the kids had put up sides in this back area that read 'Back Roots' it would make sense for it to be typed that way, but as it stands, there's nothing that gives any reason for it to be that way.
Admin, SCP Wiki
Here's the thing, cause I was thinking about it today at work. You need SOME explanation for why. Whats given on the next page is fine, except there is absolutely nothing in the article itself that leads one to this decision. There is nothing in the article itself, just the explanation in the discussion. You NEED to have something to explain why the Foundation is using erroneous language.
Admin, SCP Wiki
The reason is already implied: they know what he's talking about.
We really just need something more in the article to plant the idea of the implication. Hell, just placing a footnote on the first occurrence saying that it's an assumption that the interviewee is referring to [REDACTED] would be enough to stop the quibbling. (or at least it'd be enough for me.)
The reason is already implied: they know what he's talking about.
Trouble is, what's alternatively being implied is that the article is being written from 3rd person omniscient POV (and I shouldn't have to explain the problems with using an omniscient POV in an SCP article), or the author just didn't know how to spell "Routes".
I don't see that implication ANYWHERE in the article.
Admin, SCP Wiki
But there is nothing else that says that, anywhere. It doesn't fit.
Admin, SCP Wiki
The article should make it clear that that's what the author knows, then. As is, there's no reason for the reader to see that and assume "Oh, so it's actually a metaphysical tree that binds the multiverse together" rather than "Oh, so the Foundation hires researchers who are bad at words."
Well I think we've gotten to the root of the problem here.
