The concept is present, but unexplored so I am skeptical whether it was initially intentional - the fact that the guilt upon activation was added AFTER the article's initial publication is further proof. Which mind you, it's not that much of a problem by itself but it's difficult for readers to agree what the quality of the article is as it keeps changing with each comment.

Of course I could certainly stand to come back and give it some improvements. Despite your… Enthusiasm, I'll certainly take your critique into mind for a few changes.

EDIT: I'll admit you were definitely right, this was pretty poorly written and I'll give it a rewrite to spruce it up a bit.

The anomaly described in this article is simply baffling to me. There are so many layers that don't seem to gel cohesively with one another. I think this is partially to blame for the scatterbrained feel of the article. There's also arbitrary censorship, which is never fun. Of the four redactions in the article, two of them are used to cover up details which I can only presume the author couldn't be assed to think about. Then there's this one:

This creates a loud noise described by Class-E personnel as [REDACTED].

I have no idea why you would redact this; it changes nothing and just makes the article feel lazier. This article also invokes the unfortunate "unnecessary discovery log", with a small dose of "amnesiacs" for good measure. (Why do I keep seeing that in old articles? This is 2018 RPC, not 2008 SCP, right?)

I find the general idea somewhat interesting, and the intriguingly horrific death details at the end hint that there's a competent, enjoyable article hidden inside. But make no mistake, this article is incredibly subpar in its current state. 2/5

Am I funny yet?