Date: 26 Apr 2017 17:32
Number of posts: 44
rss icon RSS: New posts
So, after posting my 3k proposal as a mainlist SCP, I changed the object class from Keter to Hiemal.
In terms of the locked box test, I'd describe it as such: "You contained the box for something else. Oops."
In essence, this class would be used for anomalies which, themselves, combat or suppress the effects of another anomaly. Containing or neutralizing the Hiemal class object results in that other anomaly surfacing.
It wouldn't be common, but it could be used to put the Foundation in interesting dilemmas, and force them to come to interesting solutions.
But yeah. Anyone think of any other articles on the site that might fit this tag? Can you see this becoming an accepted class?
I've recently uploaded an SCP that I've written near-impossible to contain as many different instances exist and originate from an unknown location. It's currently classified as safe, since it is, however, I recently discovered this classification. I'm wondering if SCP-4253 fits this description and if an object class change should be made.
αbhοrreŋtτν
I've written near-impossible to contain as many different instances exist and originate from an unknown location. It's currently classified as safe, since it is
That would not be Safe, that would be Keter. Remember, the classifications have nothing to do with how dangerous it is, just how hard it is to contain. In the future, I'd try and refer to the object classes page before going through with submitting an SCP…
In terms of the locked box test, I'd describe it as such: "You contained the box for something else. Oops."
…that doesn't sound like description of an object class and more of the Foundation's "we fail" note.
Not exactly. Read SCP-3240 for context - the 3240 behavior is wiped out, upon which a new anomaly starts occurring. The prevalence of the behavior kept this other anomaly from activating.
Practically I do not quite understand how this is not a specific application of Thaumiel.
It's kinda like how the things in Roget's Keter Duty aren't Thaumiel.
3240 was dangerous on its own and needed to contained. But you cannot contain it without triggering another anomaly. Thaumiel implies actual containment. In this case it's difficult if not nigh improbable.
This is ''Thaumiel-lite''. Do you need a nuke to take out a single tank? No? Do you need SCP-2000 to restart humanity over animals attempting to mummify themselves? No.
There are several articles where the Foundation created an anomaly when they tried to contain a different one, you might want to search the Foundation-made tab.
In the case of SCP-3240, I think it is unnecessary to have a new object class. Instead you could either make the Verdant thing at the end a subdesignation of the same Keter anomaly, or Neutralize SCP-3240 and specify that the plant growth thing is another SCP (which probably requires that you eventually write it but in the meantime you can just lampshade with "pending classification")
Wow, ninja horde.
See, the two phenomena are so clearly different in nature, that they're not the same thing, but are also clearly linked.,
Well the linkage is basically "We stopped one thing a GOI was doing, which allowed an opposed GOI to do their thing". In this case it makes a lot more sense to me for the plant growth thing to have its own SCPs, since the SCPs of 3240 don't really apply. The GOI related linkage isn't any different from that of any other set of articles linked by GOI activities.
I do like the idea but I think there needs to be a distinction between whether the original anomaly was contained or not. Ie, could you release Anomaly 1 to have it re-contain anomaly 2. If the first was completely neutralised, I suspect not.
The anomaly is contained, and it is reclassified as Hiemal upon learning of its interactions with another phenomenon.
Hmm… I feel like you've successfully produced a rich, complex narrative, and now you're trying to put a label on that. You've got a story about the Foundation pulling one string and discovering that the world is a rich tapestry beyond their previous scope, which they've potentially seriously fucked up. That's cool. I can think of maybe a couple existing articles like that.
But, in terms of impact:
- Would having this word actually encourage people to write more stories like this?
- What narrative purpose can letting your readers know at the outset "Herein resides the story of the Foundation's hubris and what the containment of an anomaly did show them" serve?
I doubt the first, and I really don't see how revealing that to the reader is going to add anything. Euclid and Keter build expectations that something is going to be weird or dangerous, respectively. Heimal just sounds like "this is going to be a narratively complex one" or maybe presaging the entire specific story frame you mention, to the reader, up front. Why?
I'd like to amend the definition of Hiemal, actually, as it's going to be more effective as used in this way: it's in essence a system of two or more distinct but related anomalies that keep each other in check.
3240 is this, as is 3700. These are distinct from Thaumiel as they in essence serve as their OWN containment - they can't be applied to other SCPs to contain them, and attempts to contain one with traditional methods will result in issues with the other participants. There may be a need for concealment, as with 3700, or disinformation campaigns to hide their existence from the public, but they should not have a net anomalous effect.
2339 would not be Hiemal, as the two creatures involved weren't found together and weren't related. The objects in Roget's proposal, however, would be.
I still don't see how Thaumiel wouldn't apply.
Thaumiel-class objects are highly classified and extremely rare anomalies that are utilized by the Foundation to contain or counteract the effects of other highly dangerous anomalies, especially Keter-class objects.
What you're proposing seems to be nothing more than a glorified version of SCP-2932 or Roget's Proposal. If one anomaly is containing the other, then both together could be considered as Thaumiel - or, at worst, Keter-Thaumiel. "Hiemal" doesn't do anything that Thaumiel doesn't already.
Thaumiel, to me, denotes an active usage by the Foundation to their own benefit. Hiemal is an interaction pattern that has already existed, sans Foundation involvement.
Why not just give the objects appropriate classes? That they interact isn't really part of containment but should be part of the descriptions for both objects. Neither of these two articles have the interaction under the Foundation's control.
I like this idea, but I don't see it becoming very prevalent or accepted outside of contests or special events. I might try to use it though.
It definitely shouldn't be a common object class. Less common than Thaumiel, moreso than Apollyon.
Question: Would this class apply to two anomalous species in a predator-prey relationship?
Depends. It's not just about containing each other's populations, it's about controlling their effect on reality.
Alright, since I might actually use this classification, just to clarify:
If you contained the box instead of the item, it's hiemal.
Do I have this correct?
Not quite. Hiemal is more like "I think they're each other's boxes."
Perhaps we should create an scp with this object class to clarify exactly what the class is. I really like this idea, it has sooo much potential.