RPC-XXX Punishment at its finest
RPC-XXX Punishment at its finest
Forum
» Writing & Drafts / Archived Drafts
» RPC-XXX Punishment at its finest
Summary:
Criticisms on this draft are welcome and are encouraged.
all experiments conducted must be done in this containment chamber.
is to be kept in an approved storage container, rectangular in shape when not in use for experimentation.
I think you need to solidify the concept here, it feels unfinished to me. And you're missing some detail
it says they keep the face intact, but not that it changes size or shape
you spelled trophy wrong, there's no need to capitalize bill after dollar in your chart
Also in the final paragraph keep in mind that these are clinically written articles, they're not opinionated
"RPC-XXX's date and place of creation remain unknown, but there is a theory that could help us solve this mystery."
The author should not have this kind of perspective IMO, it changes the tone of the article.
So my current critique is doing a bit of grammar fixing using grammarly or getting opinions from another crit, and to work on the tone of the article since it seems to shift between purely objective and opinionated. So far I'd give this a 3/5, since the concept is alright and the writing is good other than the errors.
Heya Oplexitie! Let's begin.
Since Agent Star has already addressed the concept of this article, I'm going to go through and use my magical grammar comb and comb through all the grammatical errors :v
On first glance, article formatting is proper in terms of bolding, paragraphing, images, etc., so nice on that front. Slight nitpick though: bolding of long phrases such as "Transformation classification based of the seven deadly sins" and "Before/After the experiment" and putting them at equal importance to the "Description" and "Containment Protocols" seems a little odd. Transformation classification describes the anomaly, therefore it could just be grouped with the description section. And so on. That's just me though, nothing 1-star-worthy here!
1. First up, the following sentence:
Contained in a 10 x 10 x 4 meter room, RPC-XXX is to be kept in a small box when not in use.
It's cool to be fancy and all with wording, I get that. When it comes to clinical tone though, it's important to be absolutely deliberate. Rearrangement of the sentence like this only leads to confusion. Once the sentence is deliberate, that's when you can focus on using the deliberate-ness to have a nice flow. Does that make sense?
TL;DR, this:
RPC-XXX is to be kept within a small box in a 10 x 10 x 4 m room when not in use.
would suffice, I believe.
2. Next up:
Following experimentation with RPC-XXX, all XXX-1 instances must be transported out to another site, that's at least 500 meters away from XXX's containment, for extermination, dissection, then incineration.
Further issues with deliberate-ness and simplicity. Watch and learn:
Following experimentation, all XXX-1 instances must be transported to another site at least 500 m from XXX's containment for extermination, dissection, and incineration.
It is also of note that contractions should be avoided at all cost. Either find another simpler way to word it, or even just spell it out un-abbreviated. Contractions are frowned upon as nonclinical, sadly.
3. I noticed a few "XXX"'s hanging around the entire article. I recommend that you always use the entire term, RPC-XXX, instead of simplifying. Remember: deliberate-ness!
4.
Has said before RPC-XXX-1 can take many forms, such has being an animal, a fruit or an object.
"Has" to "As", I believe.
Another nitpick: throughout the entire article, you tend to talk casually to the reader about the anomaly. While this isn't necessarily bad - I understood the anomaly as I read along - clinical environment implies clinical tone. I recommend (if you haven't already) reading some of the higher-rated articles on the site to get a feel for the kind of word style that's preferred around here. See how objects are referred to, how certain characteristics are discussed; things like that.
5. Uhh…
Actually, that's about it! Just address what me and Agent Star said and you should be all good. Good luck! Contact me if you have any further questions about grammar.
Overall:
This is a terrible concept, mainly because it is a thing that effectively kills you. Your article hinges on the idea that the authority would needlessly spend personnel on something that has been demonstrated to kill you. The concept itself, even if it was in SCP, is also very, very boring. You break clinical numerous times to add your sin idea. This entire concept doesn't work at all.
Reccommended: Complete rewrite/rework.
RPC-XXX is a golden chain necklace with a ruby pendant. An engraving of a pentagram can be found at the back of the pendant. The golden chain is measured at 50 centimeters long, while the ruby measures at 6 x 4 millimeters and weighs 126 milligrams. RPC-XXX does not have any anomalies in its material compound compared to an ordinary ruby necklace.
Needlessly specific. Something like
RPC-XXX is a gold chain necklace with a large ruby of high quality make. Materially, the object appears non-anomalous.
Would honestly suffice.
When worn, the wearer of RPC-XXX will slowly transform into an object, fruit or animal while still keeping their face intact.
This wording is a little wacky. This is definitely a tricky thing to get through clinical, so i definitely understand - frankly, i'm not sure how to say it exactly either. A way you could try remedying this is rewriting the entire paragraph so that it's a "process". For example, try like
When worn, the wearer of RPC-XXX will begin to undergo an anomalous effect. First, the subject will fall unconscious. Attempts at waking the subject at this stage or removing RPC-XXX from its neck have all failed; the former appears impossible while the latter causes the brain death of the subject. Yad yada yada yada filll the next part in if you want to go this route.
If you don't want to, i'll just give crit on the paragraph but you definitely need to do something about that.
This procedure starts just after the subject puts RPC-XXX around their neck, where they first fall unconscious, then the subject starts his transformation throughout 15 minutes.
Really unclear wording. Never use human pronouns. The last 2 segments read especially unclearly, recommendation is just to break up the sentence. Saying "first fall unconscious" makes it really sound like the subject will fall unconscious another time; you shoudl find a different way to word it.
Attempts to wake up victims of RPC-XXX are futile, and attempts of removing RPC-XXX from the subject's neck during the transformation will result in the subject dying from ██████.
This is a completely useless redaction that gives us literally nothing. Fill it in with something.
Experimentation shows that the anomalous effects demonstrated by RPC-XXX only affect homo sapiens wearing RPC-XXX around their neck, these effects only affect the wearer, meaning anything worn by the subject like clothes or RPC-XXX itself are not affected.
Why "experimentation shows" here? Again with the putting sentences together that shouldn't. "Homo sapiens" is a stupid way to refer to human. Again, split sentences up, the flow is bad.
You also don't specify where the face goes - if there isn't a specific place, say it as such, if there is then specify it.
Once the transformation is complete RPC-XXX will detach itself from the wearer, and subjects will be considered RPC-XXX-1 instances.
How? Also, commas. First fragment runs on.
As soon as an RPC-XXX-1 instance wakes up, it will then proceed to continuously ramble incoherent nonsense using its previous form's vocabulary while remaining completely immobile.
Clinical tone, man. How long does it take for it to wake up? If it's an animal or an object, how are they able to speak?
Current RPC-XXX-1 instances seem to lack any sense of pain, and cannot be killed through traditional means such has crushing, poisoning, stabbing and shooting.
Just say traditional means. Also, comma is not needed here. Why the "current" at the beginning? What does it add?
Lowering RPC-XXX-1 instances body temperatures to 10C or bellow seems to be the only effective way to silence them, without the use of another RPC.
Why would the authority spend so much time trying to kill these things? It has a budget, there's no reason why this specific instance would happen, especially considering how harmless the -1s are. And why on earth would the authority encourage crosstesting on this really useless harmless anomaly? Also, typo
RPC-XXX-1 instances that have recovered their usual body temperatures will start to ramble again has if nothing happened.
Just fuse this into the last sentence if you really want to keep it.
While dissecting RPC-XXX-1 can be done immediately after the transformation, it's preferable to do so while it's silenced.
Why? Honestly, everything up to "dissection" should just be erased on this paragraph, it adds
nothing.
When dissecting all instances of RPC-XXX-1, the nonfacial areas of the objects and/or animals are identical to their ordinary counterpart.
Not very clinical. Reads bad. Clumsy.
While the facial area is a blend of half human and half of the primary material composing the RPC-XXX-1 instance. Meaning that if the subject turned into a kettle, the facial area would be a blend of human skin, flesh, tissue, but also metal.
Not only is the second segment a fragment, this is a terrible description, unclinical, what the hell does this even mean.
Even though RPC-XXX-1 instances still keep the face of the subjects, XXX-1 instances do not keep any memories belonging to the subjects has seen in TESTMEM-001-1.
If -1 instances can only ramble incoherently how was this achieved
As previously stated, RPC-XXX-1 instances can take many forms, such as being an animal, a fruit or an object. These transformations are not entirely random and follow a pattern. Most transformations seem to be affiliated to the seven deadly sins, with the main sin related to the subject being the main factor of which deadly sin is chosen for the outcome of an RPC-XXX-1 instance. People that are not a clear cut for any of the seven deadly sins will transform into random objects but will still inherit typical RPC-XXX-1 behaviors.
THIS IS STUPID. THIS IS STUPID. THIS IS STUPID. THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF CLINICAL. If you want to describe transformations literally just list them, though i wouldn't recommend that, as it adds literally nothing.
Also, this implies that the authority has done enough csd experiments(at least 7, probably more) for them to have """discovered""" these 7 categories. The Authority doesn't have infinite budget, dude! The authority doesn't have an infinite number of personnel, and there's still ethics to be considered. Why the fuck would they waste personnel on a necklace that, for all intents and purposes, just kills them? This is so fucking stupid. The most you'd have would be 1 test and then this thing would be put away for good.
Transformation classification:
Sins Animal Transformations Object Transformations
Pride Bald eagle Trophy
Greed Chipmunk Dollar bill
Lust Rabbit Rose
Envy Ugly Duckling Picture expressing the subjects jealousy
Gluttony Pig Meat, Raisins
Wrath Silverback Gorilla Kettle
Sloth Sloth Pillow
Please get rid of this. Seriously, please get rid of this. This is terrible.
RPC-XXX was found by the Authority in the basement of an abandoned house in ██████ while looking for RPC-███.
"the Authority" should be replaced by personnel. Why redact the location? Why mention RPC-[REDACTED(I DIDNT ACTUALLY WANT TO COMMIT TO THE CONNECTION)] if it isn't even connected to any other rpc? Just say it was discovered by demolition workers in a house surrounded by -1 instances or something.
No one was aware of the existence of the basement, or of RPC-XXX's presence.
This is unnecessary.
RPC-XXX was found on the ground surrounded by five instances of RPC-XXX-1.
Fuse this into the first sentence.
When an Authority member first encountered an RPC-XXX-1 instance of a Silverback Gorilla, he panicked and shot this instance of RPC-XXX-1, which died soon after.
Authority "Member"? What?
Also, you literally stated that you can't kill -1 instances.
Once members discovered that RPC-XXX-1 instances stay immobile, smaller RPC-XXX-1 instances were transported out alive, while the larger ones were shot.
Can't kill -1s. Also, please take into account my recommendations for the discovery.
The recovered RPC-XXX-1 instances were later identified has missing individuals, four men, █████ ███████, ████ ████, █████ ████ and ███ ██████, and one woman, ████ ███████, all of them missing and declared has dead since ████.
"has missing individuals"? "has dead"?
You don't need to be so specific, just say
The faces on the recovered RPC-XXX-1 instances were found to correspond to those of five missing individuals, all of whom were missing and declared dead prior to RPC-XXX's discovery.
After the recovery of RPC-XXX, it was soon discovered that later RPC-XXX-1 instances were immune to gun shots.
Why? Why make it so the thing changes properties? Why say the authority tests this stuff? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
After multiple experiments, researchers concluded that RPC-XXX has the capability of creating new resistances for future RPC-XXX-1 instances, while in the proximity of an RPC-XXX-1 instance dying. Which would mean that RPC-XXX-1 instances could potentialy become invulnerable under the right the circumstance. To prevent this, futur silencings, experiments, dissections, and exterminations of RPC-XXX-1 instances will be done in a 500 meter distance from the containment of RPC-XXX.
Not only is this stupid, it's grammatically incorrect and has a typo. What does this add? What does this add? Literally just keep the anomaly consistent.
testmem
This is terrible. Shoddily written, terrible execution, terrible concept. What the fuck does the testmem tell us? Literally just say that they don't know if they have their memories in the description, this addendum tells us nothing. Nothing at all.
Please rework this entirely.
Why did you crit a draft that is three years old?
RPC-XXX is a gold chain necklace with a large high quality cut ruby. Materially, the object appears non-anomalous.
I recommend you elaborate on what "high quality" means. There's different kinds of high quality ruby, in terms of weight, purity and origin. This is probably the most common criticism you'll be given in RPC — to be more precise and descriptive.
The effects of RPC-XXX manifest themselves when worn around the neck of a living organism, where RPC-XXX will proceed to destroy itself within a second by collapsing into itself, effectively decapitating the wearer in the process. RPC-XXX will then recreate itself using materials identical to its own, at the nearest location where these materials are present. To date, RPC-XXX's recreation reach has yet to be determined, with the current record set under Authority testing at 2.1 km. When this procedure occurs, melting and movement of the matter needed to recreate RPC-XXX will take place, followed by the material molding itself into RPC-XXX over a period of 10 minutes. It should be noted that RPC-XXX's effects can also be triggered when damaging it or obstructing it during its reconstruction process. Thus far RPC-XXX's behaviour has been reactive, and if left untouched, will not display any abnormal properties.
[…] "where RPC-XXX will proceed to self-destruct by instantaneously collapsing its chain into the pendant portion of the item, effectively decapitating its wearer immediately."
Describe how exactly this process works, it's hard to visualize. Does the chain just accelerate to the pendant so fast it destroys it? I'm not sure exactly what's happening there.
The description of the "recreation" property should be before its reach is established. This applies for most things you introduce: they should be described before you add anything else.
Also strongly recommend you
add
some
spacing to this block of text.
Overall, I think this is an OK start to the article. It's far too simple right now, but it's got a lot of directions it can go — in general, I suggest asking yourself questions. Why does it do that? Did someone make it? Are there any cool stories I could tell featuring this object?
Use those as primers to think of things you could do with this to make a fun experience for a reader. There's absolutely plenty of stuff you can do — like, what if its tendency to kill rich people is intentional and the item was made for that purpose exactly? Maybe it's trying to kill a certain person?
/forum/t-7794010/rpc-xxx-punishment-at-its-finest#post-