I dont think we have any "Neutralized" objects right now. We need more. By the way there was a discussion about world/universe scale dangerous objects and whether we should add a new class for them.
Date: 29 Jul 2008 07:32
Number of posts: 25
RSS: New posts
I added a Neutralized object, SCP-178. It still needs some work, in my opinion, but I hope to further explore this new category.
what do we do if an object is not Euclid or an emeediat threat but still possesses powers that make it dangerous.
how do we classify that
Euclid. Forget the "extradimensional" part. It's Euclid.
If the object can harm you, but is perfectly safe if handled properly, it's Safe.
Euclid isn't an intermediate between Safe and Keter.
Which object were you wondering about Wilson? Just in general?
If it's in general, I'd keep in mind what MrUnimport said — an object can be very, very dangerous, but if it can be easily and completely contained, then the object class is Safe.
Something I've always wondered: why is it that Euclid is the term for stuff we don't understand?
I mean, Non-Euclidean geometry is the weird stuff isn't it?
One of the people from the previous site(Gears/Bright/Clef) MIGHT be able to answer it, but I expect it's been lost on where it comes from. The definition has also changed over time, so it might not even make sense now.
Take it to mean that, just like Euclid's life, "This is something we should understand but we don't. Huge pieces are missing from the story and are waiting to be discovered. And we WILL figure it out, because that is part of what we do. (Provided it doesn't kill us first.)"
Or maybe it's based on Euclid_of_Megara who would argue just to argue.
I should also point out that, despite HP Lovecraft's neuroses, there's nothing inherently 'weird' or 'wrong' about non-Euclidean geometry.
As mathematical constructs they're fine, sure, but living with "Three 90 degree angles can make a triangle" (spherical) might make you insane. (I've NO understanding of the other two types, but hyperbolic geometry make me ill just thinking of mapping a flat map on something like this.
I'd like to propose an update to this, if that's all ok. This is my understanding of the classes, feel free to edit. In fact, please do, I'm not the best writer by a long shot.
SAFE: Safe class objects are reliably containable. Of all the anomalous objects collected by the Foundation, Safe class objects usually require the least security and are the most likely to be utilised by the Foundation. "Safe" class does not mean the object is actually safe to handle; objects such as nuclear bombs and hand grenades would be considered Safe by this criteria. However, consistently following instructions will keep this object contained. An example of a Safe class SCP is SCP-504: as long as no bad jokes are told near it, it is not dangerous.
EUCLID: Euclid class objects are generally unpredictable, and much harder to contain than Safe objects. While not as purposefully hostile as Keter class objects, Euclids can still circumvent containment procedures and must be constantly observed. An example of a Euclid SCP is SCP-087: While it should be easy to contain by simply it off, SCP 087-1 seems to be actively trying to attract attention to itself, and seems to make a point of (messing with) D-Class sent in to gather information.
KETER: Keter class objects are extremely hostile, actively try to breach containment and are capable of causing extreme damage if they do. Because of this, Keter class objects are extremely difficult to contain. Some Keter class objects are kept because they are interesting to study, others are actually indestructible. However, the Foundation is more likely to try and destroy a Keter class object than any other, due to the difficulty of keeping them safely contained. Usually, Keter class objects can only be handled by expendable D-Class personnel.
Someone comes around and proposes a change in the object classifications every few months…
We leave the classifications deliberately vague. It's the general opinion of staff, or was as of last time this came up, that a less rigid classification system leaves authors more wiggle room for creative writing. We've convened and reviewed the SEK system a lot over the years, and are always happy with it as it is.
Thanks for the response.
I know that rewrites are proposed every few months, I'm sure it's a bit of an in-joke for the older members and I have no clue what it was like beforehand. But at this point, they don't seem vague so much as misleading at times.
Keter objects fall into one of two categories: those that are of immense strategic value once controlled, or those that have been deemed impossible to destroy due to the nature of the artifact. In either case, the artifact is to be kept until its use has been ascertained and replicated in a more controlled environment, or until a method of ensuring the objects' permanent destruction is determined.
682 falls into this category, but I'm sure there's plenty of destructible Keters that are still lying around despite not doing much of benefit for humanity. I'm not saying that we should destroy those items, but just a simple rephrase here and there could make a difference. Still, that passage is really the main thing that bugs me, the rest is actually fine when I think about it. Perhaps I should have thought about it before posting.
I'd like to propose the inclusion of links to the Neutralized and Decommissioned classes, and the addition of Joke, which although not technically a class… I just feel it should be included.
Unless of course there's a reason this wasn't done, but I don't know why off the top of my head. It can be separated from the main five groups, but it'd be nice as a contrast.
Joke isn't a "class" per se. In fact, most jokes include a LACK of class.
The other two… make some sense. But that's for Senior Staff to decide. Which I'm not.
Any SCP object classified as Safe can be interacted with by any member of staff, regardless of security clearance.
Are you serious? Because it means that even a damn janitor could gain access to SCP-006 or SCP-500. Perhaps there should be "Some SCP objects…"
"Can" ≠ "is allowed to."
I can break into my neighbor's house and steal things from there. Obviously, I am not actually allowed to do this.
I see your point, but the phrase itself a little confusing. I think, it can be changed for more definiteness.
You're forgetting each item has it's own set of containment procedures that override basic doctrine:
SCP-500 is only allowed to be accessed by personnel with level 4 security clearance to prevent misapplication.
They may be allowed to - except they're not.
If at any time personnel come into contact with SCP-006 or liquid from SCP-006, they are to be confined and terminated after sufficient studies are done.
They are allowed - except it could kill you.
(SCP-529) No special precautions have yet proven necessary.
So you ARE allowed to interact. And give skritchies.
Maybe it could be clearer that specific procedures are more important then general ones, but I (personally) tend to think it's implied.
Ah, but this is also dumb because unauthorized staff should never be allowed to randomly grab an SCP. What if everyone was like "oh, let's all go have a party and bring SCP-884"? In my headcanon at least, personnel only have access to the files about things they work on. Everything is on a need-to-know basis.