SCP by Series
Other SCP
Feed
Stories
Discovery
Random
You need to add the
"[[>]]
[[module Rate]]
[[/>]]"
Alas, it'd appear someone already did it for me. I'll try and remember next time. I even looked at the template in the guide to see if I didn't miss anything, and I guess "oh, I missed the SCP # itself" made me think "okay, I'm done" after I added it…
Fixed the rating module for you.
It's magenta as a shape. Fairly simple, but I find it interesting enough to give it an upvote. I especially like it given the fact that magenta doesn't really exist, but is an illusion formed by your brain when it sees red and violet in the same spot.
One nitpick though:
Affected Foundation personnel refers to SCP-2364 as SCP-2364.
Is this necessary?
No, it's an attempt at humor. I'll cut that part, although it is an example of how abstract names can be used to refer to it.
EDIT: well, I'll cut it eventually. It's 3 AM over here and I've had a headache all day, I'll respond to feedback after I've slept.
Odd. Odd, and sufficiently so as to merit a place without having a story behind it.
But I'd suggest expanding on it, author. Nevertheless, both wording and tone are beautifully spot-on. For the time being, upvote; I will re-read it later. Good job!
Affected Foundation personnel refers to SCP-2364 as SCP-2364.
…Duh?
Being affected by SCP-2364 has not yet proven itself to be detrimental. Nevertheless, personnel is forbidden from purposefully seeking exposure to SCP-2364.
This is just dumb (and has errors). Regardless of whether it's detrimental or not, personnel aren't going to be purposely seeking to get affect by anomalies.
Overall it's moderately interesting, but at as long that issue is there I'm downvoting.
^ Not duh. I had the thought that an SCP designation could potentially be considered an attempt to define the thing, and thus be affected by its effect. This is one of those where it makes sense to state the ordinarily obvious stuff.
Implying that there's some underlying natural unity between completely disparate phenomena is the sort of thing-with-implications that I like to see. +1.
Must be a real experience interacting with this thing.
if your reading this your gay
Why not just show the cast to someone who hadn't seen the real thing? Shouldn't they be immune to the effect?
Anyhow, I like it. I had a thought, though: wouldn't calling it "the object" be describing it the same way "2364" is? So wouldn't it be worthy of note that "the object" is also unaffected?
I very much like this. Reading it, the idea seems impossible, yet makes perfect sense, which is a nice feeling. I like to imagine this is an AWCY thing, with them creating a piece of art which is literally indescribable. Great job.
+1
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.
As a fairly low-key object, the thing holding this back is a few formatting errors, like the random return in the middle of a paragraph. (The line after that could probably be a footnote, but it isn't necessary that it is.) This won't wow anyone, but stuff like this is the bread and butter this site was built on and I think it's got a place here, if it's just cleaned up and tightened.
There are a few grammar problems, nothing terribly egregious, mostly just simple problems with subject verb agreement. Overall it's a moderately interesting object written well enough to be a quite satisfactory experience. It feels like someone discovered the Magenta of the Forms, so +1