The SCP Foundation Megathread - "To Secure, Contain, Protect"

[Swat 3]

There is a blackhole SCP.

Why don't they drop SCP-682 into it?

owaittheywanttokepitelive

[Ad Bot]

[Malleo100]

SCP 999-J

[KelBlock]

I think it's time for a bump.

[Gojira]

http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-10101-j
best one
do not question

[KelBlock]

http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-10101-j
best one
do not question

2cool4me

[Mariofan1701]

There is a blackhole SCP.

Why don't they drop SCP-682 into it?

owaittheywanttokepitelive

drop 106 into it we dont need him

[Lego lad]

drop 106 into it we dont need him

you will hurt 106's feelings.

[KelBlock]

There is a blackhole SCP.

Why don't they drop SCP-682 into it?

owaittheywanttokepitelive

Actually they were going to drop SCP-682 into SCP-123 at one point, but canceled the test because of this; "The potential issues arising from SCP-682 gaining control of SCP-123 are too great at this time...". And they are attempting to destroy it, as written on it's Special Containment Procedures.
Our Bellmaker, Our Radiant Skies

[KelBlock]

Bump.

[Swat 3]

Guys should we RP?
ye

[Rockinboy2000]

I guess ill revive this thread or something


http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-024

[Mr Man]

They're doing a vote for SCP-2000

[MegaScientifical]

I guess ill revive this thread or something


http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-024

Not only is the concept cliché, the writing is unfitting. "win fabulous prizes" would have been reworded to a fashion like "be rewarded." They would call "play-through" as "instance of entry" or something.

But it could be fixable. One thing about SCP is trying to explain clichés in interesting ways, so if the wording is fixed, it'd just be a matter of adjusting the details to be more unique while giving the same conceptual feel.

[KelBlock]

I remember one the entries for the time contest.

[KelBlock]

Bump.