This is mentioned in several of the guides, most notably the How to Write an SCP guide. Did you not read that before posting?
The worms are different but yes, the larger entity inferred in 2191 is meant to be Lovataar.
Not trying to sound snobby, but this advise would be great.. if I hadn't posted this already.
I have issues with the first interview. The doctor stammering instead of coming up with an immediate response is just unprofessional-sounding, along with the interview cutting off because he wanted a promise his family wouldn't be told is unnecessary. They were already given fake ashes, and even if they weren't given them, why would the Foundation ever let them know about what really happened? There's no real issue here, it's just a needless cutoff for drama.
The critique forum is the better place to go for in-depth feedback.
What really bothers me is that it "cannot be improved".
Seconded for rewrite/removal.
I saw this post and it actually brings up an interesting question: if an SCP is obviously a twist in an existing real world tale, but serious, is that still a Joke SCP or merely a "Crossover" kind of SCP?
I'm curious because I'm 90% done with one in the Sandbox but if it sones across as cheesy I might call it off.
Either way, it's really weird to put in "genus" instead of "species", especially since they're implying that differences between genus of fish aren't important for feeding purposes.
If they wanted to include all fish, it might have been simpler to say "members of the Superclass Osteichthyes", which is the superclass on the Scientific Classification thatmost bony fish belong to. But that might be more obtuse than what the readership is used to, and doesn't provide any more useful information than just saying "any type of fish".
Anyway… Author, it seems like this might be a case of you attemting to be clinical. The point of writing clinically isn't to use fancy words, but to say things as clear and concise as possible without using slang.
For instance, I can say "inflated oblate spheroid made of nitrile butadine rubber covered in the tanned hide of Bos taurus and constructed in accordance with the regulations set forth by the National Football League of the United States of America", or I can say "standard NFL regulation football". The former is technically correct, but is needlessly complex and precise, and may require readers several minutes and a few google searches to work through it before they can go "Oh. It's a football". Outside of certain research papers, you would almost never see such detail used to describe something. The latter is clearer, but specifies that we're talking about a typical football, rather than, say, a Nerf football or a soccer ball, since simply saying "football" can cover both types of balls. I didn't say "pigskin" because, while it's far more concise than "standard NFL regulation football", that's technically slang, and could still be used to refer to a Nerf football under certain situations.
I've been listening to a loooot of Animal Collective and Boards of Canada recently, specifically the albums Merriweather Post Pavilion and Geogaddi.
So this can be summed up as a cyborg with a bloodlust for people of a certain blood type. This can be ridden off as a case of generic monster. The site already has a significant number of cyborg SCPs, all the way from Series I. This article feels like it is passing off a cyborg as anomalous, which won't bite it for readers. The anomalous (I think) awareness that someone is of a certain blood type can be interesting, but you have reduced it to a rage state routine, where the SCP is reduced to a killing thing.
I would urge you to strongly revise your article. Look at the pitfalls (cyborg, rage state) and see if they are truly needed. There is no shame in removing parts of your article, if the overall product is improved.
It's not clear whether any control is possible on the plant (i.e. What if you get a massive area full of roses, which do very poorly in tropical climates?), plus the result are essentially monocultures which would seem to be a bad idea.
My computer cannot handle the chat. It always crashes. This SCP draft post must not have gone through or something (although I did get good feedback..)
You get easily frustrated many trivial things in an almost anime-esque fashion
as with many Kawaii profile pictures, you are so Adorable.
Nice. Those a both awesome interpretations.
You know why it is confusing, too, aren't you?
I know why that sentence is confusing. Correct grammar aligns the "You know" with "don't you?" and not "aren't you?"
No, it really is important to spell it out. After all, the author wrote it that way in the first place; we have no reason to believe that it confuses the author. This is, in fact, the main reason we look for crit in the forums in the first place. Different people means different perspectives and different interpretations of the same writing. This is key.
It is very much possible that something you write will not be seen the same way by others. What will other people think? We don't know until we ask. So, if you think something the author wrote is confusing, that's fine, but if you don't tell the author what makes it confusing and what would make it less confusing, what can the author do with it?
Because, just as we can't see into the author's mind, the author can't see into ours.
Give that advice, like I did in the first sentence.
ETA: And I see you have. Good, that helps! Thank you!
I think you're missing a large part of what AidenEldritch was trying to get tell you.
#1, things like:
Mist's Note- Note to self DO NOT KEEP YOUR HOUSE NEAR A SCP!
that make the Foundation sound like a bunch of idiotic cartoon characters rather than a competent, professional organization are what you call "lolFoundation". Downvotes will ensue.
#2 - The whole thing reads like the mad science goo from a cartoon the writers pull out when they want to hand-wave some random event or throw in an explosion or two. There's nothing grounding this in reality or providing narrative, or making the reader care in any way about what's being said.
Both of these things are huge, fundamental problems, and this article will not survive posting until they are properly addressed.
While I am not rumetzen, I believe he is trying to correct the flaws in your article's critique. Whether he has read the draft or not, simply telling another user to change X without context or reasoning does not really convince one to make adjustments.
That's because you really want to get your advice when it's in your sandbox.
You asked for advice with your "Hypnotic Game" draft. I'm surprised you didn't look for feedback in the Drafts Forum for this one, too. Did you also try chat?