RPC-910 / Discussion

This is the discussion related to the wiki page RPC-910.

Prototype_Toaster 05 Sep 2020 19:49

Crit thread here http://www.rpc-wiki.net/forum/t-10385888

Fishies 14 Oct 2020 02:54

Thanks proto

Almarduk 09 Jan 2021 23:28

Fun article with a fun concept, although harmed by minor flaws along the way. I'm not sure how this relates to Fail-Safe, though — I get that they became radioactive after the nuke, but that's all? Seems like a missed opportunity to turn the entire anomaly on its head.

+4

DoubleDenial 27 Feb 2022 16:39

I found the tone slightly off throughout the entire article. I'm not exactly sure how to put it into words, but I'll try.

+ Tone issues

An example of a sentence I found particularly off-putting was this:

All buyers of RPC-910 instances are individuals whose social life is lacking or individuals who have a feeling of isolation.

This is the kind of detail you could leave to be inferred by the rest of the article. Less significantly, who is the Authority to make claims about the social life of "all buyers"? Is it physically impossible for someone with a good social life to purchase this?

Here's another example:

RPC-910 instances will often arrive at buyers from European, North or South American countries before the instance would breach their packaging box. However, if an instance is being shipped to a buyer from Asia or Oceana countries, RPC-910 instances will often-times break out of their packaging due to their overgrown length.

The listing of examples feels weird. Something as simple as "if an instance of RPC-910 breaches its package before reaching its destination" would suffice. Even then, what does this paragraph really add to the article? Do I need to know any of this?

The last paragraph of the description has incredibly clunky wording, to the point that I don't think it's necessary to show an example.

These are minor on their own, of course, but I feel this kind of thing adds up throughout the entire article.

The actual narrative content of the article was pretty good. The interview log was particularly amusing. I thought the connection to the long Furby internet meme/community was stupid at first ("haha what if we made long furbies into an rpc"), but it didn't really end up bothering me that much.

I don't find the discovery section very believable. Why would the Authority care much about some random, unassuming loner? Am I supposed to believe that they constantly have multiple active plants in every police force around the US? That sounds absurd to me. Additionally, the last addendum seemed pointless to the narrative.

However, in spite of those complaints, I thought it was a good article. 4/5

+ Nitpicks

Any unauthorised personnel caught handling RPC-910 instances, outside of containment, are to be apprehended and questioned.

Unnecessary commas, literally unreadable

Right here is my little cuddly and fluffy friend, BonBon

MISSING PUNCTUATION, LITERALLY UNREADABLE

During the transfer of an RPC-910 instance, on-location security overestimated the time they needed for RPC-910 to be relocated to Site-014.

Judging by the context, shouldn't this be "underestimated"?

I guess it's up to personal taste, but the first addendum could easily be called a "Discovery" section and not be in a collapsible. Why is the interview in a separate addendum, as opposed to a collapsible inside the discovery?