SCP Foundation

yeah, that's legitimate. I wonder if any higher-ups would comment on it though. there are a lot of cases where something's lethality is met, and then research is halted. I dunno. either way, the brutality of it adds to the chill factor.

Anyone who uses it dies horribly (so far, anyway). I don't see any negative consequences to decommissioning it. And I don't see any positive consequences to retaining it, other than indulging Dr. Randall's bloodlust.

It's not safe (well, it's not Euclid or Keter, but you know what I mean), it's not useful (we're not learning anything new from it), and it's not indestructible. So why are we keeping it around?

Because our motto is 'Secure, Contain, Protect' not destroy destroy destroy. It has the potential to be useful, eventually. And even if it doesn't, there's nothing wrong with sticking it in a box and holding onto it, 'just in case.' If you haven't noticed, we're a bunch of pack rats.

It doesn't need feeding, it doesn't need to be satisfied with Class D souls, it doesn't even need a steady supply of air. It could be contained in a shoebox. There's no reason to destroy it.

Iiiiiiiiiii suppose.

pfah

We do have to do something about Dr. Randall, though. We're not learning anything new about the SCP's functioning parameters, and Randall is being outright wasteful of D-class personnel. Remember, they don't grow on trees. I recommend disciplinary action; at the very least, his operational budget should be drastically reduced.

As I said before, you can win creepy-points if you discipline him for his waste of resources instead of, you know, his utter psychopathy.

SCP-038.

They can indeed grow on trees.

Also, our D-class supply is limitless, and the tests are proving the limitations of this SCP.

The Foundation's pockets are in practice bottomless, but at the very least lip service should be paid to limited budgets. There has never been any mention of using SCP-038 to clone expendable personnel and I rather think the practice would be avoided given that the beings produced are not truly human.

And if you take a look at the log there are some plainly needless fatalities in there.

"And if you take a look at the log there are some plainly needless fatalities in there."

Yes. This is the point. For goodness sake, look at the last one! Randall ripped off somebody's head and played with her corpse for half an hour! Read between the lines of the test log, this is a sadist using Foundation resources to torture and kill Class-D's — and predominantly female Class-D's, if you pay attention to the pronouns.

This SCP isn't about a birchwood doll. This SCP is about how easy it is for somebody like Randall to thrive within the Foundation.

Also, hint: There was no inbuilt safety function in the gauntlets.

In that case, this needs much more of a rewrite. The SCP articles are supposed to be about the SCPs, not about your researcher and how much of a sadist he is. The main list is NOT the place to tell a story. Clean this up, now.

I suppose something interestingly horrible could happen to Dr. Randall.

NO, you do not understand. The article needs to be about the SCP, not the sadism of a researcher. That is what stories are for.

Sigh.

This is not what I was expecting.

SCP-841, in my opinion, stands perfectly well on its own as an interesting SCP. That is how this started in my mind, and that is how I wrote it.

Two days ago, I figured, "why don't I add a few experiments to highlight this creepy doctor."

There is no story to this. No beginning, no middle or end. It's just a doll, and, if you want to read more into it, somebody who likes to kill people. The last bit can be ignored if you want to see this as I intended when I first wrote it, as an SCP. The researcher is a bonus.

And, as i stated, highlighting the doctor, should be done in a story, not in an SCP article. Please alter it.

GAH.

Before I mentioned this, people were totally fine with 841 as an SCP. I don't feel like I should alter it because of a few posts I made on the discussion page.

THERE IS NO STORY. This is it. There is an SCP, it has a Classification, Containment Procedure, Description and Experiment Log. Boom. Done. For those who read closely, there's also a bit about a twisted researcher in the experiment logs. I don't feel any need to change this, or any desire to expand this into a story.

This SCP isn't about a birchwood doll. This SCP is about how easy it is for somebody like Randall to thrive within the Foundation.

Well, you said it yourself. I personally don't mind SCPs being used to shed light on the Foundation itself. I think it's something that should be done. I just feel that someone would take notice and put a stop to such a tremendous waste of life. Perhaps that's just a moral impulse kicking in?

Fixed the issue.

Um… I thought authors were supposed to be at least consulted about major changes to their work? I feel like I should just delete this one now. I know that this has blown up into an unnecessarily contentious issue (much of which is my fault) but in the end this is my article…

Also, MrUnimport — my idea is that it's unlikely that anyone in Oversight, or indeed any of the high level researchers, would have such a moral impulse kicking in. What's one more requisition form for a half-dozen Class-D personnel? Compared to many other SCP's, this is a very tiny waste of life.

Using up D-class personnel like kleenex while testing or containing a Keter-class SCP = okay (remember, some containment protocols include a 'terminate everyone directly involved' contingency).

Using up D-class personnel like kleenex while testing a Euclid-class SCP = well, okay. If it's necessary.

Using up D-class personnel like kleenex while testing a Safe-class SCP = please try to be more careful.

Using up D-class personnel like kleenex so that Dr. Randall can jerk off while testing a Safe-class SCP = we're going to have to do something about Dr. Randall's misuse of Foundation resources. If he's willing to do this with one SCP, he might do it with others.

Either Dr. Randall needs to be reprimanded, disciplined and/or reassigned, or this thing induces horrific levels of sexual sadism and needs to be reclassified as Euclid.

Bleh. Way too much drama about this already. Generally, yes, you're supposed to consult the author. Unless you're a staff member, and you want to make something better. I think you're painting an overly blase image of Foundation top brass, too. Sure, you have to get used to signing away human lives, but you need some sort of justification to keep on living with yourself, don't you?

I removed the un-needed aspects of the article, returning it to an actually good state.

1. Kabu, stop whining.

2 Nifar, wrong. The place to explore a researcher is in the Foundation tales, not in the SCCP articles.

3. I'm also getting a little sick of people trying to expose 'the seedy underbelly' of the Foundation in articles. Some other douche tried to make an SCP, that was basically just there so he could reveal that an O5 was abusing said SCP. These ideas do not a good SCP make. An SCP article should be about <gasp, shocjk!> the SCP.

Experiment Log B was deleted — you can use the "history" link at the bottom of the page to view it.

Bright, I don't see my response as "whining." I deferred to your seniority, have left the page as is, and noted that I would have liked for you to tell me about your impending edit.

What, my repeatedly ignored requests to change it back were not warning enough? Then you need help.

You're right, and I apologize. I just got overly attached to my idea.

So! with that problem solved, a question. Kabu, I have a few images of a similar sort of doll that I found while searching for a pic for this. would it be possible to add an image and adjust the description accordingly, or would you prefer to leave it to the imagination?

Hm. PM me the image of the doll first. I kind of have a specific look in my head for this one but I wouldn't mind a revision if it's a cool pic.

In response to Bright: Ah, sorry. I figured the supplemental stuff, that only linked to the SCP articles, and weren't actually part of the articles themselves were okay for that sort of thing. I apologize.