http://rpcsandbox.wikidot.com/minutemen:switch
Wanted to make a concise RPC and thought I'd join in on the contest.
I'm on the fence for whether or not I should omit the final note that I wrote to hammer down the theme of misfortune.
Edited! Conciseness dropped. Idea explored further. Please reread and tell me what you think.
Site-[REDACTED]
No need to redact site numbers.
The box at the time was already known to be anomalous by its spontaneous materialization. One of two scenarios is true:
The engraving on the box is lying and RPC-XXX has no destructive effects.
The engraving on the box is true and RPC-XXX will obliterate the universe via an Infinite Energy Splash Event.
While I don't dislike the idea you're going for here, you're giving it a very shallow depth. Why not elaborate on the reaction the Authority had? I imagine there were debates regarding what to do with the box, and those would be interesting to read. What logic led the Authority to never try to test the box? All of these would make a considerably better article to read, either concise or extensive.
In general — I'm asking you to talk about the history of the object a little bit more. Describe how the Authority reacted to it, either by simply putting it in the description, or maybe making debate logs about people in the Protocol Laboratory or Anomaly Experimentation Team wondering what the fuck to do with it, or whatever occurs to you.
I think the note is pretty good, but in its current state it feels really undeserved. It would work significantly better as a stinger if the severity of the anomaly was played up via the reaction the Authority had to it. If you told me, for example, that it was a really long and grueling process to decide what to do, the note would punch way harder.
Overall — exceptional concept, the kind of which makes an article memorable and unique if played with the right hand, but not too effective execution.
Great suggestion, I'm going to do exactly that.
It's so short, I'm forgoing my standard crit format.
This is a decent idea. The cliche of a thing that's so (((dangerous it needs to be locked at all costs, look at me breathe from my mouth))) is subverted by the fact that it could be a bluff, and I think there's a lot of potential for "guesswork", as in making people guess whether it's actually a bluff.
However, it's a bit shallow. I don't think this is an exceptionally bad problem (the article revels in conciseness), but I think there could be a smidge more content here. Maybe show that a lot of people consider this current form a joke, or at least overkill, like SCP-2006.
Reference Material:
http://www.scpwiki.com/scp-2006
Reluctant 4 now. Easy 5 of the 2006 fixes are implemented.
I'll take your advice. Also, SCP-2006 is a great read.
5cm thick 0.5m by 0.5m
You should just say "50cm x 50cm" keep it consistent
This is to be stored in the deepest part of Site-[REDACTED], only accessible via a remote passage.
Never redact a Site name or I WILL smash you head open like a watermelon. Also you should reword as such: Said cube is to be stored in a secluded locker in Section-XZ4 (or idk, whatever) of Site-XXX. This section is to be only accesible via a remote passge*
The containment chamber is to be soundproofed as much as possible, and speakers are to be installed with back up generators to continuously play lethal auditory memetic agents. Neither RPC-XXX, nor its containment chamber, are to be accessed by any sentient being.
The containment chamber is to be completely soundproof. Speakers are to be installed with back up generators are to continuously play lethal auditory memetic agents inside the chamber at all times. Neither RPC-XXX, nor its containment chamber, are to be accessed by any sentient being.*
If the scenario occurs such that the Authority Site-██ obtains the knowledge and ability to open RPC-███, efforts will be made to extract its contents and replace it with RPC-XXX.
What now??? Also redaction bad, very
I really don't get the second part of the contianment with how much redaction there is, also, this clearly isn't Alpha, I've seen Gammas with much simpler containment protocols
Description:
On 10/09/2020…
Why do you this? Just put the text after the description, not below
Site-44
Site-044
On 10/09/2020, a 6cm by 6cm by 4cm metal box with a light switch on one side was found in the conference room of Site-44.
Does this site just not have cameras of any kind? (Explaine dlater but you should clarify it "apparently mainfested" in the room
Hello. This switch will release a Carbon atom with a force value of infinity. Let's see how long it takes for you to call my bluff.
What does even "Infinite force value" mean here? What is the equation used to reach that infinte result? Does this mean the entire laws of physics became poop? Because that would need to happen for something to be able to make something with infinite energy. And if Authority personnel could see inside it with no problem, they could easily replicate it and figure out what it is, or ask any friendlu GoI like Nucorp for reverse-enggeniering anomalies
[Recording starts mid-sentence.]
Bold or Telepyte this kinds of stuff, also leave a space before the next line
If you've ever been to Anomalous Indexing instead of the fancy office you spend too much time in you'd know that we get more faux-anomalous objects than we do real ones.
But uhhhh, aren't Sire Directors researchers too? And have worked as them before raching their current position?
You should put [Actions] on their own lines
After 5 seconds, the room's volume dies down.]
Missed a [
[The conference room, now concentrated on the projector's screen, falls silent.
Missed a ]
6 minutes pass amid hushed murmuring.
Missed both [ and ]. The next one also is missing [. You miss a lot lore after that too
Two weeks following containment, 3 researchers plotted and attempted to get past the guards and turn on RPC-XXX with intent to prove that it is harmless. The two guards were made incapacitated and the researchers entered the containment unit.
Did some researchers just knock out 2 guys from ASF???? How does this happen and who in their right mind would think this is a good idea regardless of what they were trying to do. Same with the other one, seems like a very stupid thing to do
2-3/5 Its eh
I still think there are a million ways this could have been solved, like I explained earlier.
Also no footnotes, nothing bad at all with that, just kinda grim thou…
Site-██
Triple-digit designations
If the scenario occurs such that the Authority Site-██ obtains the knowledge
Suggest Change: In the event that…
I like how you merged the discovery and description and made it compact, but it became less clinical.
neither you, nor I, nor anyone in this damned room or the people next to it know
knows
Rodrys: And what about the rest of the anomalies that make superstitious claims? Do we put those in containment too? Waste our site space on a jack-in-the-box with instructions claiming it will take the soul of whoever winds it up?
What about the fissure in the linoleum floor of an attic with paper lying around claiming that if you step on the crack you'll literally break your mother's back?
Missing spacing.
I.. don't.. know..
…
control on
over
Short and compact, it's a great entry. I think only the Containment Protocol didn't worked for me. The fact that you dedicated so much to an unknown anomaly, when the same procedures could just be applied to another complex lock.
I appreciate it, I will take your advice.
