"Reverse Containment", 3rd Draft
I'm still more than happy to have a collaborator. I'm also willing to accept suggestions for items for any of the lists, as well as removals and replacements of existing items.
"Reverse Containment", 3rd Draft
Forum
» Writing Help / Help: Drafts Critique
» "Reverse Containment", 3rd Draft
Noting that this thread is just an update to http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-2015216/reverse-containment-2nd-draft
Still suffers from the same issues when I last saw it - there isn't actually an anomaly, and the concept suffers from some lore and logic issues where GoIs tend to not cooperate peacefully on matters, ever. Formatting's cleaned up a little bit, but I still don't think this really a concept suited to an SCP format. Maybe a tale or other official-looking document, but SCPs have to have something anomalous about them - just the nature of the format.
With some tweaks - this could be a useful way of containing a particular SCP, but blanketing it over existing ones just doesn't really work.
I realize this is pretty much a reiteration of what I said earlier, but not a lot has changed.
As the FAQ at the end implies, this is a single SCP only because the Foundation is somewhat lazy (or efficient) in this case: All of these objects have the same containment protocol, and that protocol involves handing them off to somebody at least theoretically outside Foundation control, so there's no reason to file them as unique SCPs.
One of the hidden implications I'm going for is "If this protocol didn't exist, it might be necessary to invent it for the sheer ability to conduct something resembling diplomacy" - one of the intended implications of the sequence of examples provided is that this classification has undergone some degree of Mission Creep - note how it goes from matching the description of SCP-XXXX Phenomena perfectly on the first, to "close enough" on the second and third (with the latter being much less "close enough" than the former), and the fourth is completely mundane. More examples might make this arc clearer, but I'm having a mildly hard time coming up with further examples of this that would be used as example fodder.
I think it's just a matter of lore issues, then. Groups of interest almost never play nicely together - at best they avoid each other, at worst they are mortal enemies.
Believe it or not, someone put together a bunch of polandball style comics detailing GoI interactions. They're not pleasant. It'd be nice to have a diagram where you can see who cooperates/attacks who, but I'm not sure one exists.
The problem lies in that:
a) Anomalies are contained for a reason. There's a lot that are actively dangerous, and some that groups that would disagree with how anomalies are used - only in rare occasions would the Foundation use anomalies for the their own ends, but MC&D would try to make as much money as possible, Church of the Broken God and the Fifthists have their own end goals, etc.
b) The Foundation has enough might to hold onto these anomalies. Give the risks of a) I think the Foundation would just defend its sites against incursions, rather than risk it.
c) Something like this would rely on trust between groups - trust that almost certainly doesn't exist. Groups hardly ever work together actively - there are only a handful of cases where even mostly aligned groups like GOC and the Foundation actively cooperate.
I think the issue is that interactions between these groups are just two adversarial to make something like this work. It'd be interesting tale fodder, but I don't see it working as an SCP.
I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning behind making an SCP rather than just an official document, but you also run into the issue that this does de facto rewrite the containment procedures for preexisting SCPs - I'm not sure what the rules regarding that are.
That's going into a question in the next draft.
I'm not sure a question in FAQs would suffice - it's a pretty fundamental flaw to the whole concept.
This might work with ONE particular SCP and maybe two or three groups, but as a blanket/default procedure for several just pushes it beyond what we've come to expect from these GoIs in the past.
Well, there's a new version, with what amounts to a punchline.
Well, I got to the punchline, and it does attempt to sidestep the aforementioned issues - but not well enough for me to support the concept. It does try to address c) above, but I'm still not sure why the Foundation, which has the firepower to hang onto these anomalies, would risk joint custody. It raises a whole slew of other issues in security, or what happens when one group double-crosses the others.
Also still unsure about the legality of de facto re-writing containment procedures for other SCPs - especially if you haven't written them.
/forum/t-2023515/reverse-containment-3rd-draft#post-
page revision: 3, last edited: 22 Sep 2018 03:57
