Recent Forum Posts
From categories:
page 1123...next »

Okay. I'm nothing if not supportive of my public.

Re: Personnel Mugshots by VivaxVivax, 18 Sep 2014 15:38

I would comment, but you summed up my thoughts perfectly. Anything more would be redundant.

by MerleBluesMerleBlues, 18 Sep 2014 15:35
Re: Staff Post - Deletion Vote by VivaxVivax, 18 Sep 2014 15:32

3th


Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.

Wilhelm_Messerschmit: That's not a problem in this article. This is not helpful critique. Be more substantial next time.

Staff post by VivaxVivax, 18 Sep 2014 15:30
VivaxVivax 18 Sep 2014 15:28
in discussion Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions » SCP-2046

It's not a good idea to take a well-known phenomena and treat it as a straight SCP without any kind of twist or interesting take. -1

by VivaxVivax, 18 Sep 2014 15:28
Re: Staff Post - Deletion Vote by VivaxVivax, 18 Sep 2014 15:25

Fieldwork: An SCP Foundation Journal

Focusing on field operations, information relevant to Local Mobile Task forces, and Groups of Interest.


Theography: An SCP Foundation Journal

Focusing on the study of Gods, holy books, holy sites, and anomalous religious practice.


Terminal: An SCP Foundation Journal

Focusing on the study of computer science, programming, and anomalous software and computers.


Observer: An SCP Foundation Journal

Focusing on physics, quantum mechanics, and the study of extranormal temporal-spacial events and phenomena.

SCP Foundation Journals by Kate McTirissKate McTiriss, 18 Sep 2014 15:22

Beginning early deletion vote at -32.

Anyone wanting to ask for the opportunity to rewrite may respond to this post. Do not 'vote' if you are not staff.
Staff Post - Deletion Vote by BryxBryx, 18 Sep 2014 15:21

There's a lot of potential here, but something just feels…off. I'm not sure. Neutral vote for now; I like the idea of someone dying and coming back piecemeal, though.

by MerleBluesMerleBlues, 18 Sep 2014 15:15
rnddudernddude 18 Sep 2014 14:56
in discussion Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions » SCP-2043

I don't know, it's not bad but it's not great either. My interest never piqued and this isn't my type of SCP. I have a few things you could fix but this needs more substance.

by rnddudernddude, 18 Sep 2014 14:56

Didn't you have another SCP?

by TagliafierroTagliafierro, 18 Sep 2014 14:47

Wasn't Right (the character) pregnant once? I remember reading a reference to that on tvtropes once.

The Foundation's interest in using SCP-939 for synthesizing amnestics would provide support for the original method of making them very expensive. Though it's also possible that the lower grade amnestics where you just fudge their memory a bit and provide a plausible cover are far cheaper than what you'd need to explain away the portal openning up.

by McBeardlyMcBeardly, 18 Sep 2014 14:45

Poor Lombard. To get with the discussion, it's like the radioisotope said: it's all headcanon, but, for me, at least, it's also about involvement. For example, a desk clerk who doesn't ever see SCPs probably can have a family, but in-too-deep researchers and agents like the above linked Lombardi or Dr. Clef don't even exist anymore. I have a tale in my sandbox wherein an Army veteran who was recruited by the Foundation sends his death letter to his parents ("Dear Mom and Dad, if you're reading this, I'm not coming home," etc.) because the Foundation faked his death in order to recruit him.
As far as pregnant women are concerned, there are SCPs that straight-up destroy fetuses, and pregnancy usually inhibits one's ability to do physical work, so I'd think they get maternity leave, with the very involved ones either having their tubes tied to prevent the issue or having to give up the kid, probably with amnestics issued to prevent them being all sad and shit.
But, again, it's all how you decide to interpret it.

I can't remember the numbers off-hand, but I know that there are several SCPs that specifically note that pregnant women are not allowed within the radius of effect. So I assume that they're allowed to work there, just not hands-on.

My personal headcanon is that inter-personnel relationships are discouraged, but not forbidden. Same thing w/ kids: you're not allowed to work on projects that have effects on fertility/pregnancy/kids.

As for the secrecy thing, my headcanon is that all researchers with public lives work for Foundation fronts and aren't allowed to discuss it with non-Foundation employees. And even then, they're strongly encouraged to sever ties to the outside world


Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.

I'll be honest, the photo caught my eye and originally I thought this would be at least decent. But this is WAY too short for it to hold my attention, if you were to put much more detail into the description and maybe actually telling us what it did instead of black boxing it would make people interested in the SCP, if you were trying to make it mysterious then black boxing what it can do just makes it's boring, instead try black boxing or [REDACTED] on events that would've happened after say it found and attack prey.

Example (New member but this is just some advice based off some other articles)
SCP-2075 goes into it's hunting state when it senses prey (hence referred to as SCP-2075-1), SCP-2075 will lunge at the SCP-2075-1 and proceed to [REDACTED]. The husk of SCP-2075-1 is left, husk have no anomalous properties other then [REDACTED].

Though I'm sure this isn't the best example, [Redacted] vs black box are used for different things, black box is generally used for censoring names, places, or dates. [REDACTED] is more for information that isn't technically required to be known about the SCP, it leaves a bit of mystery for the reader, this is just my 2 cents.


The sky is naught but dying stars

by Dallas Parker NormanDallas Parker Norman, 18 Sep 2014 14:33
KutraelKutrael 18 Sep 2014 14:23
in discussion Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions » SCP-2450

First time I've logged on to comment and upvote in ages. Must say it's almost entirely because of the 'how it was discovered bit' and that you pulled that off very well in my opinion.

by KutraelKutrael, 18 Sep 2014 14:23
rnddudernddude 18 Sep 2014 14:12
in discussion Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions » SCP-2075

Summary: That was uninteresting. Below are some specific points that bugged me but other than that this failed to arouse any interest in me whatsoever.

by rnddudernddude, 18 Sep 2014 14:12
page 1123...next »
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License