Article says you can order it to stay as long as you use a calm, pleasant tone of voice. But then the document claims that if there are fewer than 20 personnel worshiping it, the SCP will break containment. This appears to be a contradiction.
Date: 08 Oct 2008 19:08
Number of posts: 76
RSS: New posts
Hmm… Bring a member of the broken god in and use a memory stealing SCP to determine what the result of combination of the broken god SCPs.
- Broken God member
- Memory stealing SCP
I'm thinking that's two too many cross-pollinations…
Maybe just the Broken god member and 13.
Or… you could just interrogate the Broken God member. There's nothing to suggest the sphere shows anything accurate. Indeed, it would be very difficult for this to be true, given the number of contradictory faith systems. The description seems more to suggest that it shows what the person believes their deity would look like. So, why not just cut out the middle man and ask the cult member what the god's going to look like? You'll get just as good an answer.
I have to admit I've always liked this one. Yes, even though it's a sphere. I do think it could use some work, which is why I have yet to upvote it, but I don't know if that's ever forthcoming (unless, I guess, ten people swoop in here and downvote it from +5 to -5). It isn't amazing, but I like that it's pliable so long as it has enough worshipers, and I particularly like the central concept of this weird object showing you whatever you need to see to have worshipful feelings and is only really deadly if you talk back to it.
Gah, insert something witty about how short it is and how poorly written it is. I don't care enough to do it myself.
What the fuck did I just read.
I'm really impressed now. This was +8 2 1/2 hours ago.
That's the first time I've ever led a bandwagon that went anywhere.
Hopping on the Bandwagon to Hell.
SCP Wiki Senior Citizen Staff | Thank you for testing my new memetic Forum sig
Fighting the bandwagon. I have always liked this one. What specifically are your objections?
I know that this SCP was around long before many of the current guides and well before most of the current members were here to judge it, but when I read an SCP, I try to approach it as if it was just posted today. I appreciate the historical value of a piece this old (and I'd be reticent to come so strongly against it if the author were still around), but the things that caught me immediately were:
1. Pretty huge use of D-class personnel for an object so otherwise inert. I know 20 D-class aren't going to break the bank, but it seems really excessive to me.
2. Use of expungement to get rid of squick. Or whatever 013 does if you aren't nice to it. In general, the sentence "in such an event [DATA EXPUNGED] until deceased" is just something I find grating.
3. I don't mind the fact that it's short, in that I tend to prefer shorter articles anyway. But it bothers me that it's this short—and yet the last sentence is unspeakably unnecessary. "This SCP cuts holes in walls through our facility, a facility that uses walls to contain things that need containing. When this SCP cuts holes in walls, we will fix the walls." For the record, I give it credit for not using Telekill, which impressed me.
4. I don't specifically mind that it's a sphere. I mind the fact that the description describes a shape rather than an object. Moreover, the last sentence of the description says that it is a metal sphere; why not just say that?
5. It makes different people see different things, none of which reflect what the object really is. But the researchers refuse to go farther than "being led to believe" that the images are psychic. I tend not to like timidity in assertions, especially when describing an object that somehow otherwise seems to just defy analysis. What things we can say with certainty, let's just go ahead and say them already.
6. The polite command thing. I don't have anything to add to that.
7. Minor formatting things, like having a one-line addendum followed by another addendum that isn't labeled as an addendum. Also, the containment protocols mostly are the worship protocols; either take the details of the worship procedure out of the containment procedures and put it in the worship addendum, or just make the worship addendum be the containment procedures. One or the other.
I don't feel particular anger towards the article, I just feel like it's something we wouldn't tolerate today, and thus is something we should at least consider jettisoning. Or -D'ing, but that's not for me to decide.
1. That actually doesn't feel particularly excessive to me, especially when it is found to be the only effective method of containment. Just because it takes a lot of d-class doesn't mean the foundation is going to say oh well and let it run free.
2. Valid. Lots of articles do it but I've never cared for that either.
3. It's not THAT short….personally I see no issues with the holes in walls bit.
4. I find "generally spherical in shape" rather descriptive, ie not actually a perfect sphere necessarily, and may even change or appear to change shape, but generally spherical with a diameter of 1m. Meanwhile cameras only record a metal sphere regardless of what is observed? Sounds good.
5. Valid. Passive statements are tiresome in these.
6. This is confusing to me personally as that's one of the things I like most about it. This thing isn't actually contained, it really CAN leave…..but being polite and pandering to its ego imprisons it as strongly as if it were able to be chained down. It showed the foundations creativity in containment I felt.
7. There are a few formatting issues, yes.
My liking for it has nothing to do with it being old and/or established, but because I find it intensely interesting and fairly well written. It's not one of my alltime favorites, but I definitely feel its worth keeping.
I do like how it's very easily controlled as long as we're polite to it.
"Bad SCP. Bad."
I'm also a fan of this one. It has surprisingly strong personality, for a sphere.
Note that if this gets revised, I'd really rather people not just make it much more dangerous. That's overdone and doesn't actually make articles better written. I think the general sense of neediness would be lost if this thing crazified or murdered people, and that's part of the key to this article.
You know, I have a certain fondness for this one. But I don't think it's really good enough for an upvote. I'd prefer to see it cleaned up or -ARCed than be deleted entirely, though.
I like that it's just this stupid quirky metal ball that floats there as long as people pay attention to it, and that it's extremely easy to contain as long as you're polite and have enough people available. That interests me. The data expungement is clumsy but I was never going to be horrified by this thing (except maybe by the thought of what it might do in a K-class scenario) so it doesn't really bother me.
EDIT: Heh, I didn't realize I'd already commented on this above. Oh, well.