I liked it in the chat, and I like it here. Nice take on a reality warper. +1.
SCP-2096 / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» SCP-2096
This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-2096.
The SCP Foundation site has so many cliché stories of reality benders and superhumans floating about I was quite skeptical when reading this article. However, I liked what I saw in the article, good flow, not too cliché (Superman) and it brings up the Ethics Committee which I don't see that often in SCP stories. A few things stood out to me though, when reading the story, such as commas and other punctuation in areas that seemed out of place. This is one of the better worded article startups I've read so keep up the work and this could be an exception to the horde of cliché SCP articles out there.
A reality-bender with dementia who turns other people stupid to match her own mental state? Me likey! Upvoted :)
Eh, sorry, but I can't buy into this at all. I'll start from the top and work my way down.
The use of outdated containment procedures in a file is something I notice has been popping up more lately, and more and more I see them to be tenuous at best, and distracting and detracting from the article at worst. They should only be used when you're trying to tell a coherent story or narrative with them. In-universe they have these kind of things, but it doesn't make for good reading outside of it. It makes for boring reading and doesn't provide anything new that I need or want to know.
And while I get all the need for these footnotes, it seems like you're piling on too many just for the sake of referencing in-universe material or references. Again, makes sense in-universe but it's not that good when you're reading the article. Referencing in-universe documentation should be used sparingly, because the more you reference in-universe documentation, the more the article has to rely on those for a good understanding of it, and since the reader can't access those it hurts the quality overall.
I feel like you bury the effects of what SCP-2096 actually does so deeply in the description that people will get tired of reaching that point and give up before they realize what it does. I know it happened to me my first couple readthroughs.
Finally, the additional casefile information seems tacky and a bit jarring in comparison to the rest of the article. I like the Ethics Committee and seeing them used, but I can't buy their inclusion here since the use here seems to be a justification for including previous containment procedures and multiple footnotes. Plus, there are lines like this:
Dr. Emsworth's complaint and appeal have been duly noted.
Not the place for a pissing contest. This is a live file and an active review.
We are the Foundation. We have dedicated our lives to three simple tenets being carried out in complex ways.
that make it feel like this isn't serious. It's not just what the lines are, but how they're used.
Fair points.
1. I generally agree that containment revisions are mostly unnecessary/used improperly, but I used it here explicitly help develop a narrative; in this case it's the narrative of the subject's treatment at the Foundation as opposed to their origins or motivations. It also is an attempt to create some foreshadowing of things having gone astray for this skip.
2. I love footnotes and have a bias towards them. I think they are a great way to worldbuild, add to the clinical tone, and provide unexpected moments of horror or humor. In this skip I reference three in-universe documents in the footnotes but I think there is enough explicit information in the skip and the footnotes themselves that the article doesn't rely on these documents at all. I do concede that the Event Log could be a good supplement to actually write instead of obliquely referencing, but the rest of the references could be entirely removed and the information contained in this skip would stand alone sufficiently. They are there because of my personal style and desire to worldbuild with them.
3. You're correct, I could/may move the effects of 2096 higher up in the description. It was originally written this way as I felt it flowed better to discuss the dementia before discussing the effect given the dementia's (presumed) alteration of her reality bending powers. Even just switching the order of the two main paragraphs of the Description would achieve this but I'll consider larger alterations before proceeding.
4. The only footnote related to the E.C. stuff is the Palmer Protocol one so I don't think it's totally fair to call them the justification for shoehorning footnotes. I attempted to flesh out a behind the scene's narrative with the decisions I made: the previous containment procedures showing the increased dementia which would lead to more events, the footnote on the P.P. which notes this invocation of it as slightly unusual by stating when it's commonly invoked, and the personalities hinted at in the personnel notes. If the story isn't telling itself as clearly as intended than I've still got work to do but I'm not disappointed with how this turned out.
Regardless of your take on this I appreciate the thorough comment!
1. I feel like I can only say that I have to disagree here. I know it's supposed to be contributing to the document of some kind, but it never comes across as needed. There's not much I can say other than that since we both see it differently.
2. Here's the thing with your footnotes, though. I love worldbuilding. I encourage it whenever possible… so long as it doesn't detract from the work where you're doing the worldbuilding. Obviously, citing books and documents is a good way to do this, to show that the Foundation isn't limited to a single document on a skip, but rather a reference of material and precedence from where they do their work. But your footnotes are long enough in these cases that, due to the use of them, finding a way to cut down on them can be tricky.
The first one doesn't need to be removed. The second one is one that seems borderline ridiculous in needing to explain, but sure, there's justification. The third is entirely unnecessary as the reader isn't going to reflect on the fact that this could be a Class 4 or 5. It won't even enter their mind until you use that footnote, at which point it DOES detract from the article and takes focus away from your skip. You can condense the fourth and fifth ones into an event log to write up. And the sixth one… there have been articles where a procedure/protocol is brought up and not mentioned in relation to something and leaves the reader to try and guess what it is. You leave enough context clues with the addendum and the EC dialog to let the reader figure out what's going on. At that point, the footnote only seems to serve as a way to reference a material in-universe and detracts from the focus of the object itself, instead of being a supplement to it. So either condense it by a lot or ax it.
3. It makes sense to discuss the dementia before the effect of the reality-bender, but switching the two paragraphs, or whatever method you go with, will give you the benefit of A) quickly letting your reader know what SCP-2096 does B) give them questions as to their dementia and the relation to their powers and C) give you a lead-in to answer these questions.
4. The EC dialog reads like a Saturday Morning Cartoon at times (mainly with the stuff I quoted) so in that regard of narrative, it fails and feels tacky. The dialog could probably be written better or the approach you take could be different, but as-is it seems weird and only appears to serve as justification for mentioning previous containment procedures (I'll give you the Palmer Protocol stuff, but see my complaints above for that).
Minus #1, I think you're mostly right about the rest actually. Thank you. I'm probably going to really rework this one, hopefully sooner than later.
I think an issue for me in regards to writing skips is that, as intended to be shown with the (believe it or not, deliberately) hokey dialogue in the notes, I'm trying to worldbuild in ways that aren't intuitive. For me it makes perfect sense that Rumsey responds the way she does; she takes the job (and herself) a little too seriously and is willing to tow the company line pretty hard regardless of personal beliefs. This doesn't come across how I want it to in such brief snippets. I can't build the world in every direction at once and the way it's written is mostly ineffective without Tales or other skips to pull more of these characters from.
This feels like you wrote the SCP as an excuse to write up the documents mentioned. This, in combination with what Decibelles said, gets a -1 from me. This idea has potential though.
This isn't badly written, but it really feels like its retreading old ground. I know that we have another SCP that's based on dementia/forgetfulness, which I feel handled this subject better. (Ironically, I can't remember its name/number right now.) The Ethics Commitee stuff doesn't feel tacked on, per se, but does feel extraneous.
Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.
I haven't seen another skip that treads similar ground of anomaly + dementia but I'm still fairly new around here so alas. There was a tale, last month or so, that involved a person with Alzheimer's but I don't believe they were anomalous from what I recall. I tried to make the E.C. section feel important to the overall document but, judging by responses, I did not succeed quite as well as I would have liked and may have to consider some changes.
Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.
Ah, so it's at least a similar 'bender case in-universe albeit much different in context of what he mentioned in The Leak. Thanks for finding it.
(account deleted)If the point of this is to present the reader with a story of the Foundation's supposedly poor treatment of a humanoid anomaly in need of intensive medical intervention, the piece breaks down on two specific points:
- A common problem here is attributing to anomalous activity that which is more adequately and horrifically occurring in the real world. In this case, the reader is intended to be taken aback by the treatment of the skip, but if you're looking to move me with poor care of an elderly Alzheimer's patient, you're going to have a tall order in matching what goes on in the real world. Nursing homes and care facilities are frequently the scenes of degradation and abuse that make an involuntary coma seem pretty tame in comparison.
- There was an opportunity to examine the issues that were dealt with by the Ethics Committee that was completely missed. The skip is a clearly dangerous phenomenon that is by its nature unpredictable and capable of inflicting grievous harm on personnel. Logically speaking, there's a case for euthanizing this skip, especially if we're talking about suffering and quality of life as metrics. The Ethics Committee has a point too, but there's no weighing of the various factors, no real justification of the decision they reached. Just a "don't be evil" admonition with some overly abstract business about protecting humanity and so forth. The reference to an unabridged version of the decision was especially frustrating, then, because it references a conversation that really should have been in the body of the article itself.
Also, I'll take this opportunity to once more bang on the "we need a better term for these guys than 'reality bender'" drum.
- My intentions regarding reader response are not coming across as I desired, it seems, and will be addressed.
- I considered euthanasia initially but felt it was too soon after Goat, to be frank. This is obviously out-of-world concerns impacting in-world decisions and not the best thing but it's the choice I made. As I said above in response to Decibelles, I'm intending some rewrites and this aspect is under consideration. I don't know about putting the unabridged decision/report into this as it would just be too damn dry but I can think on it, at the least.
Also, I'll take this opportunity to once more bang on the "we need a better term for these guys than 'reality bender'" drum.
I'm pretty with you on this one. Have there been any other terms thrown around, excluding Bixby?
Only sort of relevant but is this — Containment Subterfuge Protocol 002 ("Conventional Medical Facility") — a common site wide thing? And if not, can I borrow it for an idea I have floating around?
Shouldn't it be Subterfuge Containment Protocal though? XD
Many people have made up their own classifications of a variety of different protocols; I made up some Acquisition Protocols in 2107 for example. Feel free to borrow mine (let me know if you do, PM me a link when it's up, etc.) or create your own if you get into that sorta background info.
I think "Containment Subterfuge" is more accurate than "Subterfuge Containment" here.
Just updated to a revision/partial rewrite for this one. Attempted to address some of the comments made. Enjoy!
/forum/t-1082654/scp-2096#post-
page revision: 7, last edited: 17 Nov 2020 06:16
