nvm
not posting
[MinCon2023] RPC-XXX: Un-Crack
Forum
» Writing & Drafts / Archived Drafts
» [MinCon2023] RPC-XXX: Un-Crack
Summary:
A rude piece of paper. (~130 words)
2/5 stars. While the article is competently written and its only structural flaws present themselves upon thorough examination, I think there is such a thing as "too minimalistic." Contests are temporary, but the mainlist is forever. Your article should be able to stand on its own after the fact, and I don't believe this one does.
That's not to say this is a bad concept - I thought it was pretty funny, and it would make a great LO entry with a bit of tweaking. There just isn't enough here for an RPC.
RPC-XXX is held in a storage locker at Site-016.
- Change "is" (present perfect tense) to "is to be" (future perfect tense). The containment protocols are there to outline how the object should be contained, not necessarily how it's currently contained.
- Change "held" to "stored." Holding implies short-term containment, while storage implies long-term containment.
- Change "in" to "within." As a preposition, "within" refers to something that is specifically located inside of a bound space - for example, compare "the squirrel lives in the tree" to "the squirrel lives within the tree."
- In my opinion, "storage locker" is too vague. I'm rather fond of using "standard Alpha-class containment locker" for anomalies that just need to be put inside a box, as each part of that phrase says a lot about how it's contained in just a few words:
- "standard" signifies that there's no need for custom specifications, that it refers to a specific model of containment locker, and that it's widely used by the Authority.
- "Alpha-class" denotes both what type of containment locker it is, and what type of anomaly it's meant to contain.
- "containment" specifies the purpose of the locker - something that "storage" doesn't communicate as effectively.
- "locker" specifies that it's secure, can be locked, and gives you an idea of what it looks like - while "container" is used in some articles and essentially means the same thing, it doesn't carry the inherent connotations that "locker" does.
- In addition, we already said "stored" in this sentence (assuming that you've been applying the crit for this sentence, that is).
- Change "at Site-016" to "inside the low-risk containment wing of Site-016." This specifies which section of Site-016 it should be held inside of, and indirectly tells the reader that it poses a minimal security risk.
Access is restricted to personnel of Level 3 clearance or higher.
I would change this whole sentence to "Requisition of RPC-XXX from storage is restricted to personnel with Level 3/XXX clearance or higher."
- "Access" in this context presumably means removing it from storage. "Requisition of RPC-XXX from storage" specifies this, and "requisition" also implies that you need to formally request access to it and get approval from Site-016 administration before removing it from storage.
- "Of" has been changed to "with," since the sentence refers to personnel that possess the proper security clearance for RPC-XXX.
- "Level 3/XXX" specifies that you need to have Level 3 clearance for RPC-XXX, since clearances for specific RPCs are given on a need-to-know basis.
Your containment protocols after these changes are applied would look like this:
Containment Protocols: RPC-XXX is to be held within a standard Alpha-class containment locker inside the low-risk containment wing of Site-016. Requisition of RPC-XXX from storage is restricted to personnel with Level 3/XXX clearance or higher.
RPC-XXX is a 6x2 cm strip of paper similar in design to paper "fortunes" distributed by Chinese restaurants in areas such as the US and Canada.
Changed to:
RPC-XXX is a small strip of paper which bears a strong visual resemblance to the paper fortunes found within "fortune cookies," a dessert item traditionally served by Chinese-American restaurants at the end of a meal.
Reasons for changes:
- The measurements aren't really necessary and disrupt the flow of the sentence, so I got rid of them.
- Added information about fortune cookies, as they're what's given by the Chinese restaurants, not the paper fortunes by themselves.
- Changed "distributed by" to "served by," since the subject is now fortune cookies.
- Got rid of the reference to Canada - fortune cookies are Chinese-American in origin.
When touched by a human subject,
I don't see why the anomaly would strictly affect humans - monkeys have knuckles too. Change to "When physically handled by a human subject a member of the infraorder Simiiformes" to imply successful animal testing. You could also add a footnote clarifying that testing has been done on rhesus macaques (a species of a monkey commonly used in lab research), but it's a MinCon entry and footnotes are penalized, so I'd get it if you don't want to.
RPC-XXX transmits a permanent physical effect that eliminates the buildup of cavitation bubbles within the synovial fluid of the subject's finger joints.
Change to: "RPC-XXX will permanently prevent the buildup of cavitation bubbles within the synovial fluid of the subject's metacarpophalangeal (MCP) finger joints through unknown anomalous means."
This effect will persist until the subject expires or both hands are amputated.
This sentence is superfluous, as you already said the effect was permanent. Get rid of it.
Your description after these changes are applied would look like this:
Description: RPC-XXX is a small strip of paper which bears a strong visual resemblance to the paper fortunes found within "fortune cookies," a dessert item traditionally served by Chinese-American restaurants at the end of a meal. When physically handled by a human subject a member of the infraorder Simiiformes, RPC-XXX will permanently prevent the buildup of cavitation bubbles within the synovial fluid of the subject's metacarpophalangeal (MCP) finger joints through unknown anomalous means.
The message printed on RPC-XXX reads as follows:
The fortune cookie message doesn't really jive with me for a couple of reasons. The first is that "un-crack" should be dehyphenated. The second is more complicated.
"Go ahead, call the police. They can't un-crack your knuckles" implies that your knuckles just got cracked by RPC-XXX. However, RPC-XXX doesn't crack your knuckles. While it would be more accurate to say either:
- "…[t]hey can't crack your knuckles," as the police would be rendered incapable of cracking your knuckles, or;
- "…[t]hey can't un-uncrack your knuckles," which makes "uncrack" a neologism for RPC-XXX's anomalous effect and affixes an "-un" prefix to the beginning of said neologism to signify the concept of undoing said anomalous effect;
the problem which then arises is that both examples sacrifice the ominous humor of the original message to maintain continuity with RPC-XXX's anomalous property, and consequently jive with me even less.
My proposed solution is to alter RPC-XXX's anomalous property so that the message can remain unchanged - just make it so that when someone touches RPC-XXX, it cracks all of their knuckles.
I think it would be kino if you made the ending message look like a fortune cookie strip. This is the best I can do with my rudimentary CSS skills - feel free to use it if you want.
Go ahead, call the police. They can't uncrack your knuckles.
Lucky Numbers: 59, 8, 75, 24, 29
(account deleted)yea use that cookie css bro
¶ indicates a need for a paragraph break
C4C? http://rpcauthority.wikidot.com/forum/t-15580396/anomalous-materials-page or http://rpcauthority.wikidot.com/forum/t-15567784/patent:mk4-multi-mission-vtol-aircraft-williwaw#post-5884713
Conprocs/Hazards
Description
Final Thoughts
I know it's a minicon entry, but it's a little too short. I feel like it'd be more suited as a -J or a LO because of how brief it is. What does the elimination of the bubbles cause? Can they still use their hands? Talk about it more. IDK.
/forum/t-15575139/mincon2023-rpc-xxx:un-crack#post-
