SCP by Series
SCP Tales by Series
SCP Library
Discover Content
SCP Community
User Resources
The cross-references are not necessary.
I would have laughed if someone told me a plot summary about the vigilante detective reality-warping ghost of Tupac, but you made it work somehow. The lyrics emulate his style pretty well. One thing I didn't like was the "117,000 times", which came across as pretty cheesy to me. Overall cool work.
Thank you for commenting!
I put them in there because I thought it made sense that the Foundation would want desperately to find a way to subvert this thing, and therefore be searching for a connection in superficially similar SCPs.
As a side note, it's not that you can't use references, but that the way in which you did it wasn't interesting. See the "Crosslinks" section of How To Write An SCP.
And while I haven't checked the other two, 105 and 343 are definitely not superficially similar to this SCP.
I changed my mind about this article So Many Times. Author, you have made me dizzy.
Firstly, "The Suge Knights" is hilarious. I love that. It's almost enough for an instant upvote.
For the most part the tone is good, though I noticed it wobbled a couple times. And example would be the phrase, "the manner in which SCP-2137-1 instances are copied onto SCP-2137 is still a complete mystery." I would recommend something along the lines of "is currently not understood." or "has yet to be ascertained."
Strike outs and cross references are usually enough to earn a downvote. I would advise that you find a way to have your article rely on them far less. SCP-██ conveys the idea of cross referencing without standing on another article to add validity to yours. Remember, the Foundation is all about secrecy. Researchers on one SCP might not even know the others that exist. As for the strike-outs, these files are on computers. I recommend using collapsibles entitled something like "Former Containment Procedures."
At first I was prepared to greatly dislike the concept. However, all of it, raps included, are fairly well written. And I enjoyed the story.
The cross-references at the end weaken your article. If I follow those links, not only am I going to compare your article against some that are going to be exemplary, I will forget the nuances of what you have to offer simply because I have been overloaded with information.
I have to chew on this one a bit. I am hesitantly leaning toward the positive.
I didn't know the thing about strike-outs, but in the How To Write An SCP they heavily encouraged crossreferences, and I thought it would be neat. Do you really think people will respond badly? Because they're more spice than meat (meaning I can happily lose them).
I'm gonna address your tonal notes on the next pass! Thank you for commenting, I appreciate it.
It's been a long while since I read the guides, but I know from being fairly active on the site that most people discourage cross-referencing. There are exceptions, bit for the most part, it tends to be distracting from the article. I can't speak for anyone else, but I always perceive it as a weakness of the work if it requires other successful articles to "hold it up."
My comments about the strike-outs is pure personal preference. And every now and then I think it works to use them.
I like that you're actively responding to critique though. It shows that you're invested in this and are open to dialogue about how to make this article the best it can be.
It's been a long while since I read the guides, but I know from being fairly active on the site that most people discourage cross-referencing. There are exceptions, bit for the most part, it tends to be distracting from the article. I can't speak for anyone else, but I always perceive it as a weakness of the work if it requires other successful articles to "hold it up."
No, this is wrong. What happened is that for several years we backlashed against a very popular and crosslink-happy author who had all his shit deleted (along with being sick of everything linking to such skips as 682, 231, 076, 343, 105, etc). Staff went around for ages forbidding crosslinks. We later realized that was a poor artistic decision. There is a reason the How To Write An SCP Guide encourages this.
The 'cross-references take away all on their own' is a mostly just meme that keeps replicating itself.
Which SCP # is the replicating crosslink meme?
I took my Crosslinks out, because they weren't strictly necessary; I just had them in near the end to show that the Foundation was actively working for a way not to be fucked over by "Tupac."
It's not an SCP, it's a normal idea that keeps coming up around here (reading solely from what moose just said).
I suggest using regular incident number, or at least renaming it "XK Scenario" incident, after the album name.
Otherwise it sounds silly since no actual XK scenario was involved.
I disagree with the above on strikeouts, as that is the way I do these sorts of things myself.
Seconding the crossreference… I like them when done well ,but here all you do is mention them in one line with nothing to it. It's almost like if you had a line at the bottom that went. "Dr Clef agreed with the assessment above."
EDIT: I'm also disappointed the crime patterns and ultimately the silly way in which it uses its agency weren't investigated further in story, beyond the one line mention.
Ultimately, a hesitant upvote.
People don't like the crossreferencing?
POOF! All but one are gone. But I like the idea that they found the talking rocks this way, so I'm leaving it.
That's an OK one. Pointless namesdropping was the bad thing.
I was thinking of adding a testing log to this, but don't know if it's necessary. I just thought it would be funny/fun for people to be able to write their own rap excerpts/summary of action reports of various instances of SCP-2137-1.
Is that a good idea? I don't even really know where it would go, but I think it's fun, right?
Maybe. You can definitely try, and perhaps write a few more of them to seed the log.. .at worst, it'll just stay a one-author thing like the log to my 566 but maybe people will catch on.
I myself probably won't as I'm not a fan of rap music, but there's plenty peeps who are.. hell, Reject once wrote a pretty neat SCP rap battle.
in the How To Write An SCP they heavily encouraged crossreferences
Can you point out the part that says this? The guide isn't supposed to heavily encourage crosslinks; that doesn't mean you can't cross-link things, but you should do so only when it benefits the piece's narrative and readability.
You can read this section of the Pitfalls essay for a little more about crosslinks.
http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/how-to-write-an-scp
click "crosslinking"
Oops. Zyn was operating on outdated information. The essay Zyn linked represents the prior dominant viewpoint on crosslinks, that we previously endorsed as staff, as referenced in my above posts. Sorry for the confusion!
Echoing the sentimens on the cross referencing. I also find it a bit improbable that the Foundation could suppress public knowledge of the release of an entire Beyoncé album successfully. Upvote anyway, because the idea of a vigilante Tupac is both amusing and mildly unsettling.
And if the whole world is crashing down… fall through space out of mind with me.
Wait what. Screenwriter Max Landis?
If so, you might just have won Wikipedia with that picture on your article…
'Suge Knights' is mos def gonna earn you some easy upvotes.
However, you've set a high bar for yourself by ghostwriting lyrics for a very famous artist. Without the benefit of music to contextualize them - I have to say I'm not buying it, rhythmically or stylistically. As much as I like the rest of the article, I think its success rides on whether or not you can bust authentically.
I'm gonna hafta go Grooveshark some Tupac now while I reread your lyrics and decide if you pulled it off or not. Then I'll feel ready to vote.
Feel free to recommend some tracks.
mos def gonna
Please tell me that was intentional
And if the whole world is crashing down… fall through space out of mind with me.
Even if it wasn't, Michael, lie and say it was.
Stylistically, the rhyme scheme is very similar to later Tupac Shakur work.
Here are some great references:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9uEtplq6CI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay9BWM8lwOA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKmBMwsCnVY
I spent a long time studying his lyrics; the only element I didn't intentionally ape was his habit of indirect rhyming by using the melody of his flow, because I didn't think that would translate to people who aren't familiar with his work. Hope this helps you.
Block-quoting is unnecessary for the description of SCP-2137-2 and for the initial recovery log.
Yeah, I was wondering about that; I just wanted to break up the blocks. It was a stylistic choice; did I fuck it up?
"Personnel who wish to examine or attempt to interact with SCP-2137 must ask Kivowitz for authorization beforehand, which will then pend O5 clearance."
Kivowitz?
Since I think the nitpicks have been addressed and I'm not seeing anything glaring in tone, I want to talk about the article overall. Which is to say, I like it. Certain elements have been done before, but not combined in this way. The big thing, to me, is threatening the Foundation not with death or bodily harm, but where it really hurts: Their secrecy. I can't think of too many that did it that directly. It's a very direct, "oh shit" moment. I like that a lot. The Foundation has shown to be amazingly resilient to casualties, so why go there?
Congrats on your first SCP to stay up, thanks for talking with me at @scpwiki and hope you stay around.
I like it, but there is one thing that's nagging at me.
If they were worried that the Foundation interacting with investigations could risk exposure, why not just pass it off to the UIU? Sure the Foundation wouldn’t like handing over an SCP to a GOI, but it would be safer for a branch of the FBI to be working with law enforcement and they could get the job done too.
My bullshit, thought of it right now answer to that is "because it had led to the recovery of SCPs."
I won't deny it, I'm a straight writah, you don't want to fuck with me…
This is very good, and I don't only say that because I've always wanted to write a rap-themed SCP and this is much better than what I would've come up with. The second-to-last rap is nice and creepy, and secured my upvote. That said, I was a little confused as to why Beyonce posted "XK Scenario". It just seems a little random. However, if there were one thing I could change, I'd include Nas in the collaborations. C'mon son.
the SCP posted the album to Beyonce's iTunes store, to show the Foundation just how much damage it could to do if it really wanted.
it's the Spectre as a Tupac CD. I like it.
Right, but why Beyonce? Why not use another artist, or even a label? Good SCPs should adhere to Chekhov's gun, so I wonder if there's a reason Beyonce was specifically chosen.
Beyonce is estimated to be, even now, one of the most discussed musical artist on earth, and her hip hop associations make it even more likely that an album by Tupac featuring new exclusive material would find the eyes that would want to share it.
Honestly, this is the only thing that rang false for me in this whole fantastic skip. I think it might seem more legit for Kanye to drop it? And honestly, Pac himself is one of the highest selling artists of all time—he still has a presence on iTunes, and could release a new album under his own account.
I think I'd like it better as being released under Kanye's name, honestly. For one thing, that helps with the plausible deniability - Kanye's got some issues, and this could be more easily swept under the rug if any remaining copies were explained away as another of Kanye's experimental moments.
I'm still bugged by the MTF departing from standard nomenclature, that is a Greek letter and a two-digit number - "MTF Delta-16" or some such, rather than "MTF-339". Perhaps the number is of significance in Tupac's work, but if it is I for one certainly wouldn't know.
YES.
I would have never thought to put it that way, but "Spectre as a Tupac CD" is PERFECT
You are one hundred percent right. Nas needs to be there.
If I added a testing log would you contribute?
Probably, but I'm not sure that you need a testing log either way. How much would it actually add? Would it make the article better or just longer? Personally, I think this SCP is good as-is, but if you really want a testing log I doubt it'll actively detract from the article as a whole.
You completely avoided pitfalls a lot of recent articles don't avoid. This is well-written, but some things, most of them already pointed out by others, but also some of them so far unmentioned (I think I saw a coding syntax fail, but I'm not sure, and I don't like some of the formatting or word choices), make this a novote from me. I mostly like it, but the aforementioned flaws put me on the fence about this. I might be more specific in a future edit when I'm on a desktop computer instead of my cell phone. Still, based on its reception so far, I think this will do fine. Good job.
