SCP Foundation

However, I’m not sure that this fixes the most glaring narrative issue that led myself and others to find the parent article lacking; the casting of the O5 Council as inexcusably uncharacteristic, particularly with respect to their lack of leadership and logic that is routinely demanded of their positions.

To pick up where a previous conversation left off, the author once wrote:

Look at it this way. If you saw someone you know acting in a way that seemed remarkably out of character, you'd wonder why he was acting that way, right? You wouldn't just say "ah fuck that guy for acting strange" and then go about your business. By the same token, if you read about a group of individuals acting in direct opposition to nearly everything they stand for, wouldn't you be interested in knowing whether or not there's something else going on instead of directly jumping to "welp, they're acting like morons."

You're certainly free to think about it however you'd like, but I'd ask for the benefit of the doubt. I wasn't going to spam the wiki with every contest page I've got ready (or those of the rest of my teammates!) so yes, the context is delayed. I don't think I've done anything that would make people think I wouldn't deliver, though.

I would never boast of my reading comprehension, but I’m struggling to find that contextualization so far. I see that O5-9 is a meta-mouth meant to voice the issues, but to me this only goes so far as to acknowledge them, not fix them.

One angle that I like from this article is that it is clear the surviving O5’s were the ones who wrote the parent article. As they say, history is written by the victors. But it actually raises another problem; who were they writing this for? It’s apparent that all of the O5‘s are going to die by the hand of SCP-001, and the whole of the Foundation is going to be dissolved.

As an aside and personal opinion, any contextualizing material that is necessary to avoid glaring issues with an article should be included in the article, or positioned as an offset (as I see the author has done in his third 001 proposal), especially if the author’s got it ready. Saying that something hasn’t been contextualized yet is a euphemism. It also puts the reader in an inconsiderate position to give the (albeit historically successful) author the benefit of the doubt, when this is not something that would be extended to anyone else on the site.