LO-067 Experiment Log / Discussion

This is the discussion related to the wiki page LO-067 Experiment Log.

JimmyBoyHaha 09 Apr 2019 09:36

We don't need an entire experiment log for one lesser anomalous object.

---

blabbo

Gearhart 11 Apr 2019 16:11

Hey, a lesser anomaly is just something with a concept too linear to build an RPC article around. And I plan on connecting it to an RPC later (making an RPC out of the two affected CSDs)

JimmyBoyHaha 15 Apr 2019 06:40

If you want to have a test log, make it an RPC. We seriously do not need an entire experiment log for one single anomalous object. Besides, I don't really think this is too "linear" at all. You actually have a pretty nice idea here. Try and write it up as an RPC and see how that goes.

---

blabbo

Gearhart 16 Apr 2019 06:45

but take away the experiment logs, and you're left with a very simple concept: a telescope that, instead of making things seem closer, actually takes you that close. And the whole point of this was to use the division pages.

Gearhart 16 Apr 2019 12:34

I have recently reworked this entire log to add in a new element: LO-067 was being tested to determine whether registering it as a researchable phenomenon would be worthwhile. Due to mixed results and a failure to deliver on promises, registering it for further research was deemed to not be worthwhile. Hopefully, this new element explains why there's an experiment log for a Lesser anomalous Object

0ktober 24 Apr 2019 14:44

The concept is promising and I like the idea of experiment logs with lesser anomalies, and the dynamic of the registered phenomena code being something they determine to be needed.

A lot of the article was worded a bit awkwardly, and the ending was very anti-climactic. It doesn't make sense that the Authority wouldn't spend the resources to build a big piece of glass when the potential reward is so high. Also, they could just fucking kill the CSD if it becomes aggressive. There's no issue there.

Gearhart 03 May 2019 21:14

I revised the ending a bit to try and justify their position a bit more, basically stating that if either the current giant CSD or the proposed new one were to revolt post-containment, they could potentially cause a much larger containment breach before they could be dealt with. I also opened the possibility of their decision changing in the future.

Also, could you be a bit more specific about where and how it was worded awkwardly?

0ktober 04 May 2019 14:22

Gave some feedback on the discord

Somewhere between nothing happening and something happening

DoubleDenial 27 Feb 2024 02:11

This document is not uneventful, but not very purposeful either. Its only trick is literal disappointment, and not a gut-wrenching or serious kind, but more like being promised a lollipop and then forgotten about. I figure the ending is supposed to be disappointing, but why? I don't know what I gained from reading this. Though that's an abstract complaint on its own, it's clear that this particular document scarcely attempts to go anywhere at all. It starts and ends in the same place, with only a small mess left over.

The CSD subjects are the only valuable asset this article has, but their potential is unrealized. CSD-0748 has half a line of dialogue, and CSD-2243 is just a prop. I would care to read about the future misadventures of the tiny man and the (urgh) "giantess", and this document would probably be best used to set up such a story, but alas, it never came.

Besides, it's a researcher's job to design creative experiments and uncover useful properties. Why is Sullivan adamant on throwing in the towel after two experiments are inconclusive? It's bizarre that a site director would be so disinterested in science. The assertion that the Authority can't afford to do these experiments makes them seem weak and uninteresting. RPC-125 had a similar conflict about anomaly utilization, but executed it much more effectively, albeit relying basically on comedy to work. I reviewed that article years ago and didn't have the most shining praise for it, but in hindsight it offered more to RPC's world than this document did.

This is probably still among the collaborative pages' better offspring. The lesser anomaly pages have a lot of cruft and are infested with pieces that wouldn't survive anywhere susceptible to deletion, so for this one to go the extra mile and attach itself to a full document is admirable. If it opens the door for better utilization of lesser anomalies by future authors, it might be worthwhile for that alone. It's still mid, though. 3/5