Love it! Very nice read
RPC-103 / Discussion
Forum
» Hidden / Per page discussions
» RPC-103
This is the discussion related to the wiki page RPC-103.
The concept is interesting and the execution mostly good. Overall I like it, but I could still give a few words of critique.
If I were to give the most general criticism, I'd say maybe too much about this RPC is explained, if that makes any sense? Even with black boxes, expungement, and redaction, the reader still mostly understands what 103 is by the end of the article. The specifics of it's motives are pretty loud & clear, and the sci-fi-science of it's properties are pretty extensive. Obviously there's plenty up in the air, but I just almost feel like I was given more than just enough. It doesn't matter if it's some alien or whatever weird creature origin, what matters is we know exactly what it wants & does. It could maybe do for a little bit less than exactly. But that's just me, don't take it as law.
Also I have some petty criticisms:
- The 2nd paragraph of the description isn't spaced from the 3rd.
- I'm not sure we use "executive" as a position in the Authority, but I won't rag on you much for it.
- The civilians are never referenced as E Class personnel, nor any explanation behind the deception used to lure them into the experiments.
- Subject 32's transcript is a bit weirdly structured. Transcript implies it was based off of actual recorded audio. So does 103 actually have audio, or is it's speech a hallucination? If it's a hallucination, I don't think it would be written down as though it weren't. It would be parenthesis or brackets explaining what the subject has claimed to have heard, since it's actually hallucinatory.
- If Subject 59 is homosexual, why would he have had a crush on a girl when younger? Or is his homosexuality also "self-identified", rather than empirically true, as with his gender? The answers don't have to be clear-cut, it just reads a bit strange is all.
- Subject 198 is referred to as 185 in his text for some reason. If this is intentional and supposed to be mysterious, it passed over my head.
- Subject 337 is also referred to as 247 in his text for some reason.
Those little things are all that's really preventing a +1 from me. The general criticism could be addressed, but arguably it's just personal taste.
Thank you. This sort of profound criticism is very valuable to me.
The thorough explanation of this anomaly was written to reflect what I felt should be the thoroughness of the Authority itself, who in my mind, rather than allow curiosities to sit around unchallenged, are prone to rigorous research and documentation of their anomalies. I'm very sorry that this was not to your liking. A problem that I had while writing this was maintaining a careful balance between the thoroughness of the research and the mystery of the anomaly. It's very difficult to craft something that's still mysterious even with science probes pointing at it from every direction. That, I feel, is the great challenge of writing at a place like this.
While asking for criticism in my first drafts, I paid mind to ask for ways that this article could potentially be abridged. I was concerned that the length would put off readers. Despite this, most readers informed me that the article was very well-paced, so I chose to cut very little. I am still open to the idea of abridging (potentially large) parts of this article, even obfuscating heavy amounts of information if need be. If you have any suggestions, do let me know.
In the meantime, I have composed a series of adjustments for your review:
(Excerpt from Addendum 103-A — The Identity of the Female Humanoid)
The varying rate at which subjects testify observing the female humanoid, as well as a statistical reduction of witnessing the humanoid clearly when the beholder is informed of RPC-103’s nature, suggests that the visual phenomenon is a form of optical trickery, an illusion created by the mind of the beholder, rather than a true image somehow being projected around the origin of the specimen itself.
Though this is one of the most fascinating passages in the article to me, I feel it adds too much of a known element to the visual anomaly. I am opting to delete it entirely. (The Anima Procedure never really indicates this property anyway.)
(Excerpt from Addendum 103-C — Incident of January 3, 20██)
Lockdown procedures were adequate in detaining RPC-103-A, and when RPC-103-A realized it was trapped, it began emitting high-pitched, distressed vocalizations and undergoing a process of [REDACTED]. As its body [DATA EXPUNGED], witnesses at the scene described a prismic light source emanating from RPC-103-A correlating with the visual phenomenon of RPC-103. MST Bravo-6 (Codename: "Knockin' on Heaven's Door") were promptly deployed on the scene and succeeded in containing RPC-103-A in a Mobile Biohazard Containment Unit without incident. By the time it was relocated to a Site-002 emergency containment chamber, the biomass of RPC-103-A had [DATA EXPUNGED] and re-materialized into RPC-103.
Previously, this passage detailed the gruesome molecular dissolution of the poor researcher's body. I feel it may add to the ambiguity of the anomaly if the details of his transformation into 103 are left completely to the reader's imagination.
(Excerpt from Addendum 103-C.2 — Hypothetical Optical Pathogen)
The widespread contamination of personnel by RPC-103 was a subject of rigorous inquiry upon its discovery. All standard procedures required to prevent RPC-103's biological material from contacting personnel had been met up to that point. Though RPC-103's biohazardous properties remain unknown, the following hypothesis has been presented by Site-187 researchers:
Hypothesis: The light that RPC-103 emits from its biomass is in fact a conduit for a particle-based telepathic pathogen RPC-103 uses to trigger a synaptic response within the brain of those who behold it. This pathogen enters through the optical nerve and settles within the hippocampus. These microbes then incubate within the host in their inert state and await [DATA EXPUNGED]. This is believed to be what happened to RPC-103-A.
Evidence: Those participating in the Anima Procedure with the longest exposure to RPC-103 also had the highest occurrence of RPC-103's microbial compound. RPC-103-A had recently been in a session with RPC-103 for over four hours.
I feel the original passage was a tad clumsily written anyway. As concurrent with the obfuscation of 103's self-replicating powers, this passage has been completely restructured.
(Excerpt from Description)
Though the soothing anomalous phenomena was initially thought to be a harmless curiosity, as of 1/3/20██, it is now believed to be a side effect of a hypothetical optical pathogen used by RPC-103 to [DATA EXPUNGED], as described in Addendum 103-C.
Same as previous.
All of these changes have been included in the article pending your perusal, or until I've changed my mind and decided that the old ones were fine.
As for your minor criticisms:
- Fixed.
- Lore syntax is not my strong suit. Will accept any alternatives to the word "executive" that you offer.
- The subjects in the Anima Procedure are identified by name when it is merely research personnel undertaking the test out of curiosity, and by designation ("26 year-old sociopathic woman") when the subject carries a specific set of attributes the Authority are testing for. Though it's not relevant as to who they are, I did intend for a handful of them to be civilians. I chose not to mention this because I am unfamiliar with the generally understood consensus on how the Authority deals with randoms. I can adjust the descriptions of these individuals to include their personnel designation if you feel this would improve the article. Until your reply, I am not convinced that this is the case and I'm going to keep it the same.
- This line before the test was included to clarify the issue you just addressed: "Note: auditory phenomena heard by Subject 32 were provided via transcript following the procedure." As I recently discovered this interview was not written according to the site-mandated interview format, I will make adjustments to it that will hopefully make this point more clear. EDIT: Upon rereading your statement I now understand your confusion. I have updated the line to read, "Note: Subject 32 provided a written transcript of auditory hallucinations encountered during the procedure."
- The case of Subject 59 was written according with the idea that our sexualities become developed as we get older. Make of that what you will.
- & 7. Those were errors carried over from an earlier draft when I was shuffling around the order of the Anima Procedure subjects. They have since been fixed. Thanks for pointing that out.
About addressing my original minor criticisms:
- Thumbs up
- As you use executives in the plural, I would think they seem equivalent to Department Heads or Research Heads. Even if Site 002 isn't devoted entirely to 103, I see no reason multiple Heads couldn't make collaborative decisions on individual RPCs, even if those RPCs are not the ones they each handle on the day-to-day normally. Also, you use "administration" at least once later in the article. Unless you mean to draw exact distinction between executives & administration, and if you feel "Head [Etc]" still doesn't fit, then I would suggest using "administration" for both because it's simultaneously official looking, but not as specific as "executives". If you feel I'm being pedantic, I will not complain if you don't want to change anything in this regard, lol.
- Well, as it says, Class E personnel are people who do tasks for the Authority without even being aware of it. Again, perhaps I'm being pedantic, but it would seem to me that they would refer to civilian test subjects whom are unaware as to the gravity of the experiments as Class-E/E-Class. My original intention of this minor criticism wasn't to get you to rewrite a bunch of IDs, but rather simply reference them as Class E, such as a single clause in a sentence mentioning the origin of the various test subjects. Ex.: "A total of ███ Authority personnel are confirmed to have undergone the Anima Procedure at some point in their employment, many of which being Class E." (Obviously, write this as you think appropriate, I'm not trying to assert my exact example on you) Something as simple as that looks more official and automatically explains who these nondescript test subjects are, and adds on as to why it was so incredibly dangerous in hindsight to have not considered long-term effects of 103 exposure (as you mention in literally the next sentence after the example). If you feel this is mere pedantry as well, that's fine. I greatly doubt it will stop me from +1'ing.
- 5. 6. & 7. Cheers.
About your excerpt revisions:
- I can't say I disagree with this removal, especially since the reader can infer this information from many of the article's other context clues. However inevitably that just makes it redundant rather than "TMI," so I wouldn't complain about keeping it in if you prefer it to stay.
- 100% agree with this change as well. In addition to the reader's consideration, it makes sense in-universe for the Authority to redact/expunge certain gruesome details that are unnecessary to the object description, so as to cause less alarm, if that makes any sense. Don't want those C & B Class to get too spooked by reading about copious amounts of offal (unless they are cleanup detail, obviously)
- & 4. So smooth I can't believe it's not butter.
All in all, my opinion of RPC-103:
.--------._
(`--' `-.
`.______ `.
___________`__ \
,-' `-.\ |
// \| |\
(` .'~~~~~---\ \' | |
`-' ) \ | |
,---------' - -. ` . '
,' `%`\` |
/ \ |
/ \-----. \ `
/| ,_/ '-._ |
(-' / / `
,`--< | \ \
\ | \ /%% `\
|/ \____---'--`% \ \
| ' ` \
|
`--.__
`---._______
`.
\+1
Upon review, I've decided to take your advice and include the following statement in the article:
The preferred subjects for use in the Anima Procedure are Class-D and -E personnel hosting attributes pertinent to understanding RPC-103's anomalous nature, though all Class-C and above personnel are permitted to partake in the procedure pending application.
Thank you again for the profound help. It means a lot to me.
Very interesting concept and it didn't go the way I thought it would.
/forum/t-6282099/rpc-103#post-