Leveritas Staff posts/feedback

You're not supposed to be here =]



Your formatting is incorrect. A template can be found [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/how-to-write-an-scp |here.]]]

Let's take a look at this, author.

[[collapsible show="+ Line-by-line" hide="- Close"]]


[[collapsible show="+ Concept" hide="- Close"]]


Feedback over, good luck!

Since the Foundation is an international organisation, we use the metric system. Use metres, centimetres and kilometres.

Avoid naming specific personnel. If you name someone specifically but they are unavailable in-universe, personnel won't know who to address instead. This is especially true if you //then// proceed to blackbar it anyway, because we won't know who to talk to.

I feel like this crosslink is a little hamfisted. Avoid crosslinking to popular articles unless it makes the narrative better, because otherwise people are going to feel that you're trying to use the popularity of the well-known article to boost your own.

Don't say 'the creature' or 'the subject'. Designate it 'SCP-XXXX' or 'it'.

So you know, compulsion as an approach isn't particularly interesting on its own anymore, given how many times SCPs with that effect have been written. Take a look at the articles [http://www.scp-wiki.net/system:page-tags/tag/compulsion#pages tagged with "compulsion"].

Furthermore, the SCP's effect //forcing// someone to do something tends to be a bit of a lame narrative, since things are more interesting if there's a struggle involved, and/or if the people instead do terrible things //of their own volition//. Consider reading through the further discussion on the narrative issues of [http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1526851/critiquing-compulsion-addiction-effects compulsion and addiction effects].

I'm going to recommend reading [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/zen-and-the-art-of-data-expunged | Zen And The Art Of DATA EXPUNGED ]]], because this looks removed for the wrong reasons. Censoring on the site is used as a narrative device. It makes the reader wonder what was horrible enough to be removed like that. That is, if you give them the right clues. If you remove it without proper context or hints to what something might mean, it instead looks like you didn't know what to write here.

Humanoids are actually among the most difficult types of articles to write successfully; if you're //really// set on writing one, then first take a look at [http://www.scp-wiki.net/so-you-want-to-write-a-humanoid-scp-object the humanoid writing guide] if you haven't yet.

That's a bit excessive. 05 makes Foundation-wide decisions, right now it's like you have to ask the CEO of a company permission to use the copy machine. Use a senior researcher or maybe the site director at best.

Don't censor information in the Special Containment Procedures. Think about it: In-universe, this doesn't make sense because if I'm supposed to learn how to contain something successfully, I need to have complete information.

You don't have to CAPITALISE for emphasis. This is a professional document, people are expected to follow it to the letter.

Do not redact anything in the Containment Procedures. Think about it: In-universe personnel has to know everything here to properly contain the SCP. Redacting the information is extremely dangerous because people will be working with incomplete information.

Part of the challenge of an SCP is that while out of universe you're writing a story for your readers, in-universe you're writing for the researcher tapping their foot while skimming the description to see whether this will explode if they move it to a storage locker next to SCP-9876.

The level of acceptance that it's not containable here doesn't feel right. The Foundation contains [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-2000 |reality reset buttons, ]]] deals with [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-1730 |unknown Foundation sites]]] and [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-3000/comments/show |gigantic aquatic amnestic-producing eels]]]. Even if you want to go that way, you need to convey to your reader that the Foundation will do anything they can to keep it contained. Right now, it feels like they shrug and say 'well, can't be helped.'

Keep in mind that as the author, you know the entire story, but the Foundation needs to have discovered what it knows about the SCP object through observation and experimentation. You'll need to convince your reader that
someone with no prior knowledge whatsoever of the anomaly managed to somehow figure out (not magically know!) all the information you've got in the article.

Saying that something should be monitored at all times means that you have some poor bastard keep their eyes on an object 24 hours a day, maybe in shifts with other people if they're lucky. Think about how many man-hours that would take. If the Foundation does its job properly, it shouldn't be able to break out of the containment chamber, and the constant monitoring wouldn't be necessary.

This doesn't really matter for the containment procedures. You can place this in the description if you want, but keep in mind that the Containment Procedures are ONLY what is necessary to keep it contained. Speculation on what it does when we leave it to its own devices or anything like that is for the description or addenda.

In general, declaring an SCP to be uncontainable is [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/doing-the-safety-dance |viewed as lack of imagination]]] on the side of the author, and unless the rest is finger lickin' awesome, it'll get judged as such.

@@Here's an example of the opposite: SCP-3008. On the most basic level, it's a portal to another dimension. We have tons of those, so why does it work anyway?

It works because it uses the 'portal to another dimension' as a catalyst for the story. It revolves around the people responding to the object, the exploration of the object. The SCP enables a story to be told.

The author could have described what it was really well and left it at that, but I think that it wouldn't have been as interesting if that were the case.

While the number (#) notation saw a lot of use in the past, it's not something that really needs to be used unless there's a strong need for the number to be read accurately (drug dosages, for instance.) Otherwise it's just taking up space.

In the containment procedures, you don't actually have to mention why a containment procedure is in place. Most of the time, the reason is obvious. Example:

//''SCP-XXXX's containment chamber remains sealed to prevent it from escaping.''//

We get that we lock the room so the SCP can't escape, you don't have to add that.

I come across this a lot, but don't use 'seems to' or 'appears to be' unless the effect or object actually **//isn't//** what it seems like.

Measurements shouldn't be included unless they are essential to containment. E.g., it's okay to say 'standard' and you don't need to include the measurements at all, as that can actually cause more trouble and questions more often than not.


So, rather than writing an object like an encyclopedia entry for its own sake, think of the story that you're telling with the document. Give the reader a sense of immersion, of what happened when recovering and containing it. Give them a taste of what happened behind the procedures, if you will. Make them emotionally invested as they read and continue reading. Give your reader a reason to think about the bigger picture, what's going on behind the scenes.

Your containment procedures are kind of random and seem unnecessarily specific for reasons not apparently related to the object itself. I recommend reading [http://www.scp-wiki.net/mackenzie-containment this guide on containment] to get a feel for how to write more logical, resource-conserving procedures.

These ideas usually don't work because there's not a strong story element, and since magic/deadly/monstrous items have been done hundreds of times on the wiki, a new one has to be ridiculously unique to work.

Right now, you have an object with a clearly defined activation and function, with no context or backstory, essentially a [http://www.scp-wiki.net/mackenzie-pitfalls#toc2 generic magic object]. I recommend adding some more to this, because at this point the idea seems to be more of an entry on the [http://www.scp-wiki.net/log-of-anomalous-items log of anomalous items] than an SCP object that would merit special Foundation containment.

Alright, but where do you want to go with that? What story do you want to tell your reader? What do you want them to feel?

Get away from "type of object" or "sort of creature" and instead start thinking about stories you want to tell. Here you have an anomalous object, but no direction to form a narrative yet. The majority of the modern successful SCPs have the object as a medium to tell a story, not the other way around.

To quote the excellent [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/mackenzie-pitfalls |essay on SCP Pitfalls:]]]

//''The problem with magic items is that they're universally boring. The Foundation is, to me, fundamentally an exploration of the human response to the existence of the supernatural and paranormal; simply having an object that exists without any in-depth emotional response does not fit that description.''//

The largest concern I have with this is that it's just dangerous, and nothing else. There's no real room for narrative development or opportunity to tell a story.

I would say that the largest problem your draft is currently facing is that it's not delivering a narrative to the reader. In general, people expect 3000-series entries to be more than a pure documentation of an anomalous thing, but to also tell a story through the SCP document format. This is often done by including interviews, testing logs, recovery logs, and other addenda, but those are by no means the only ways to go about it. Even if you want to keep story minimal, what you do need is a hook, something to grab the reader and make them care about the SCP. A narrative is one way to do this, but it's not the only way. With 'hook' I mean a good origin, an interesting reaction to it from Foundation personnel, things like that.

Firstly, this object sounds like a compulsion object. The problem with compulsion object is it has been done [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/system:page-tags/tag/compulsion |to death]]] by this point. It doesn't mean it can be never done again, but it's generally considered much more scary the things people //choose// to do, not the things they're //forced// to do.

Secondly, although I appreciate you have a narrative going on here and that's more than some ideas, it seems like you've chosen to write this SCP to primarily be the most dangerous object it can possibly be, which overtakes the narrative with 'look how dangerous this thing is!'. Personally, after skim-reading your draft and reading your idea here, I still only get the feeling - as a reader, not necessarily someone giving critique - that you're just trying to create a dangerous object, not a scip with an interesting narrative. All the failed containment procedures and details of how it's allowed to interact with other SCPs overtakes any narrative you're trying to give us.

Here you have an anomalous object, but no direction to form a narrative yet. We have a lot of anomalous objects, so adding a new one requires it to be very unique or have a very good hook. With 'hook' I mean a good backstory, an interesting reaction to it from Foundation personnel, things like that.

Spooky monsters were a common trope back in series 1, but the site has evolved significantly since then. If you want to continue, I suggest you pick one anomalous aspect to focus on and discard the others. Focus on characterising the entity and building a narrative around it through backstory, interactions with Foundation staff, etc. You may want to try a different concept though, as writing a humanoid monster is difficult for even veteran writers due to the need for a novel twist and execution.

Whilst it's all fun and good making an ultra-powerful dude, it ultimately doesn't make for an interesting character. SCP articles are short stories told through professional documents. A story needs some kind of conflict in order to engage a reader. How can you present a relatable and intriguing conflict when your main character is so ridiculously overpowered that nothing can touch him?

Why does this thing exist? Why does it have these properties? What makes it different story-wise from any other monster already on the mainlist?

You have some issues with clinical tone. I recommend reading [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/clinical-tone-declassified |Clinical Tone: Declassified]]] to get a better understanding on the style of writing we look for in SCP articles.

So the idea is interesting, but it stops rather abruptly. I was interested to see the origin or circumstances for the anomaly, but it stops very suddenly and doesn't go anywhere in a narrative sense.

Some aspects people like to add into the SCP to give the reader more to think about include answers to questions like

- Did this object ever have a greater significance before it was contained?
- How was it initially discovered?
- Why does it exist? Does it have a purpose?
- What might the intentions of the creator have been?
- Why does it act the way it does?

Keep in mind that you don't need to give a full answer for these questions, just enough information to give your reader something to contemplate. Give them enough information to make them care, but not enough to ''spoil'' it, so to speak.