I miss my old safety blanket :'(
SCP-1597 / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» SCP-1597
This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-1597.
Man, I love childhoods and children. I love them even more when they're portrayed in the SCP Foundation! +1
EDIT: Although I think the whole "mommy and daddy and scary doctors" story was really dumb and took away from the article rather than added to it. I mean, the whole 'Zoey' thing was pushing it already since we already understood whatever. I also don't know why the SCP needs to be told that its researcher/agent are dead. I like the idea but I really don't care for certain aspects of it. I'm pretty sure that if it wasn't so strongly imbedded into its childishness that I greatly enjoy, I would downvote for the interview log and the subsequent "let's just tell it that its people are dead, so we can torture it after it predictably doesn't react positively to the fact ITS PEOPLE ARE DEAD".
Living the dream, or dreaming the life?
- Trimmed that part down a little, will do more later if it gets brought up again
- The thing is liable to notice when the only two personnel it really interacts with suddenly stop showing up, and the Foundation lets it slip
"Doctor, where is Mister Andrews today?"
"He's on… vacation."
vs.
"He got eaten by a huge flying squid."
For a 'person' (for all intents and purposes) as immature and unstable as SCP-1597, why the hell would they spring for the second dialogue option?
Well I understand it may not necessarily believe foundational personnel after some time, but that doesn't give the foundation a reason to tell it the truth. Also, "lets it slip" sounds like a bit of a cop out.
Living the dream, or dreaming the life?
I take this as an unbelievable compliment. Thank you.
If soul and heart shattering was what you were going for, then great job. Never have I read a skip that was treated as cruel as this. After they tell it they aren't coming back, they start testing on it. At least there's the small laugh when I pictured an agent saying, "Eh, just throw some water and paper weights on it" when it tries to escape.
Yeah, this is just mean for the sake of being mean. Try to be a bit more subtle with your manipulations next time.
(account deleted)Meh.
I'm going to break down why this really doesn't work for me (and I'm the sort of person who sobs at the end of Toy Story 3, so it isn't that I'm insensible to the premise):
When personnel successfully manage to start conversation with the object, they are to utilize casual tone. Research is currently underway to discover methods by which SCP-1597 can be forced into its active state.
Even the use of the word "forced" sounds unscientific and starts the article off feeling manipulative— but that is a comparative nitpick.
If the object resists interaction, testing, or attempts to escape, it is to be doused with water. Paperweights have been placed directly outside of the object's containment area in order to immobilize it during testing.
I've read the whole article and I still don't understand why this is in the containment procedures. There's a note and recorded proof that the thing is emotional and is LESS likely to be responsive if abused. Why dump water on it? And why "chain it up", as it were, if it's a little floating blanket? You've given no indication that an "escape" attempt would be any kind of real risk. Following this procedure, the article seems to imply, would just result in researchers having a little soggy sobbing blanket on their hands— not any real information gathered from the "active state".
For the purposes of coaxing the object into conversation, the aforementioned personnel are allowed to refer to the object with its stated name, Zoey, as well as maintaining a slightly more casual tone when addressing it.
The "stated name" bit comes in a little awkwardly— and is "allowed" really necessary? Can't that be worked into the log? Eh. Nitpick.
Due to the low likelihood of regaining SCP-1597’s trust, testing has hereon been approved for the purposes of forcing SCP-1597 into an active state
Who is this dumbfuck. If it wasn't working before, why would they think it'd work now? Yes, the Nice Employees died, so sad— but any pathos I might have felt is undercut by the Disney villain cartoonishness of this whole containment set-up. I know there are people in the world who beat dead horses, but (speaking as someone pretty tolerant of Foundaiton lulz, too) this is just silly incompetence.
I've read the whole article and I still don't understand why this is in the containment procedures.
Containment procedures are where I usually also include testing protocols.
There's a note and recorded proof that the thing is emotional and is LESS likely to be responsive if abused. Why dump water on it? And why "chain it up", as it were, if it's a little floating blanket?
Punishment in order to hopefully make it stop resisting. You also seem to assume that it went straight from two weeks of crying to immediately "let's make the thing do what we want it to do." It could have been weeks, probably even months, maybe even years of trying to coax it back into letting the Foundation personnel talk with it regularly.
You've given no indication that an "escape" attempt would be any kind of real risk.
The Foundation typically tries to contain anomalous things and not let them escape, dangerous or otherwise.
Who is this dumbfuck. If it wasn't working before, why would they think it'd work now?
See the above response about the probable time lapse.
Containment procedures are where I usually also include testing protocols.
Sorry— was critiquing content, not placement of content.
The Foundation typically tries to contain anomalous things and not let them escape, dangerous or otherwise.
…… yes. My point was not "why don't they let it go freeee" but "why are paperweights a necessary part of this procedure?" It just feels narmy.
Punishment in order to hopefully make it stop resisting. You also seem to assume that it went straight from two weeks of crying to immediately "let's make the thing do what we want it to do." It could have been weeks, probably even months, maybe even years of trying to coax it back into letting the Foundation personnel talk with it regularly.
I assume that because it's how you've framed the story in the article. As it is a story, one with an emotional arc, my primary criticism is that I didn't find it effective— not that you couldn't provide reasons for the plausibility of any given action.
It's a baby blanket that gets waterboarded, and the narmy dialogue coupled with the sloppy research methods just don't mesh for me— no matter how much time elapses. I mean, even if a lot of time HAS passed, it was the irrational decision to tell the blanket "your only friends are dead" that started the whole cycle in the first place.
edit: just to be clear— why didn't they start with a lie? a parents-lying-about-dead-pet lie? A drawn-out deception would be even more pragmatic (and chilling) than more direct forms of abuse.
Changed the addendum in which they informed the object of Agent/Doctor ██████████
Reread and the changes are an improvement (I don't care if the Foundation is cruel, I care that it makes sense for the Foundation to be cruel). Neutralized my downvote— but I still just find the dialogue way too narmy to upvote.
While this isn't bad at all, unfortunately I feel like it was a bit blatant in attempting to tug at my heart strings, and as such failed to do so.
No vote from me.
I feel like this does a good job of capturing the Foundation's attitude towards these kinds of objects. +1, would refer people to if I feel it's relevant.
if your reading this your gay
I dunno… Maybe the Foundation could have kept it's trust better by having them tell it the truth right off the bat (or as much of the truth as it could handle) and having another couple people bond with it. Preferably in a large group, so that they could rotate a single one of that group off-site on a monthly basis, in such a way that even if all the others were gone, there would still remain one individual whom it trusted, and who could introduce it to more such individuals. Hmm.
Either way, I upvoted, but still, don't make the foundation so pointlessly stupid. The guy who is putting this new "torture" policy into place should obviously have read this document and inferred that the best way to make it active is to gain it's trust. You'll get a lot farther with a carrot than with a stick, as they say, and you'll get even further with both (good cop bad cop).
It's not like they didn't try, man. They really did try to coax it out in a variety of ways; couples, singles, families, etc. It just refused to bond with anyone else because it was so attached to them and expects them to come back one day. I mean, you really can't force something to trust if it doesn't want to. The trying to force it into activity came about because it became clear after a while that going the easy route to try to study it was not going to work.
/forum/t-628427/scp-1597#post-
page revision: 2, last edited: 15 Jan 2023 15:06
