Writing Guidelines

Introduction

Preamble

So, I see you've stumbled upon the RPC Database. This place is filled with numerous anomalies that are dangerous or outright disturbing, and you found them fascinating? Well, this is definitely the right place to come if you want to learn how to write one! This writing guide is here to ensure that your idea becomes a reality (though, hopefully not physically).

Now, please remember, we highly encourage you to read through a good chunk of the articles to have a clear understanding how things are done around here. Without further delay, let's get to it.

Considering Some Things Before Beginning

Before we actually get onto the concept, there are a few things that one has to consider:

• Is the concept interesting?

• Is the anomaly's containment class and threat indicator appropriate?

• Are the containment protocols appropriate and rational?

• Is the anomaly well described?

It's highly necessary and recommended for writers to follow these four pillars to allow the reader to have a sense of understanding of how the anomaly functions as an article. One should endeavor to draw the reader in, not push them away with needless clearance restrictions or how the reader should stay away from the article due to the dangerous properties that the anomaly exhibits.

It's quite understandable that articles, like yours, would not exactly be successful due to the writer having issues with execution or simple lack of experience. Regardless, your first article may either be a success or a dismal failure. Remember, don't take the article as a reason to give up; use it to fix your mistakes and not repeat them.

Now, to avoid your idea getting thrown to the hounds, ask for feedback on the idea from the community in either the Forums section or in the Discord server. Remember, don't ignore feedback even if the person's comments aren't very detailed. Being told "It's boring" can sometimes help improve an article to the point that "It's fascinating."

Lastly, if someone is a bit… harsh on your concept, please don't hesitate to contact a Curator or a Moderator if this behavior is continual.

Expanding Your Idea

Gathering Thoughts To Feed The Idea Itself

Please keep in mind that the idea is your catalyst to establish your RPC article, and it may develop as you go on. Here are some few tips on settling the theme of your article:

• Writing Contagion RPCs: Think of a biological organism (or maybe something that isn't even living!) that turns an organism into something abnormal or has a deadly effect that may cause suffering, mutation, or erratic change of behavior upon them being exposed. Please do not toss out something like: "once being exposed, death will occur immediately," as it's inherently cliche. The simple fact of death occurring doesn't do much to draw in the reader. Death should be a last resort.

• Writing Cryptid RPCs: Okay, let's get this straight, when writing a cryptid that has some significance to almost everyone (i.e the Rake, Skinwalkers, the Mothman), add your own personal details to make it distinct and unique enough to be interesting to those familiar with them.

• Writing Extradimensional RPCs: This is probably one of the most complex RPCs to explain or to be written. Since these types of entities originate outside of the known physical reality of the universe, these types have to be intricately explained in terms of its origin, how it functions, and how it affects our current reality. Remember, keep the information very basic and easy to understand.

• Writing Extraterrestrial RPCs: Unlike the extradimensional types, extraterrestrial entities originate outside of our atmosphere and can either be explained thoroughly or not at all due to lack of understanding. Don't always write an RPC that involves a space craft that belongs to a hierarchy species that once roamed the Earth, but instead, think outside that box. Create something that would be a more alien, disturbing extraterrestrial visitor.

Generating an Idea

Now, sometimes coming up with an idea can seem hard. But nothing is insurmountable! All you need to do is plan things out in a detailed way and put a good degree of effort into your premise. Whether it's an RPC article or a piece of Site Lore, here are some methods that may be able to help you out:

• Write what you fear the most, give it a form, then give it a purpose.

• Write something innocent or awful, and then write how it got there. Invert it. Is one more interesting?

• Write something that you are not aware or know about, and speculate about it as conspiratorily as possible.

• Write something that is based off an image, object, or related historical events.

Additional Information

• Strike Through - Context = Confused Readers: I've seen a majority of RPC articles striking through bits of information that have some past importance to the anomaly. The issue lies in the fact that many failed to add the importance of clarification. If you have struck through some parts of the Description, or even changed the Object Class itself, always provide an explanation to as why you did it. Without it, you're gonna leave some people mystified.

• Clear and Understanding: A lot of people tend to put more information in an RPC article to either make it seem more professional or have it be more interesting, but at the same time, it is liable to get confusing. Remember, always ensure that the article you're writing isn't sloppy or messy and the information that you're giving to readers is going to be understood. If very complicated information is necessary to the total understanding of your RPC article, don't be afraid to add a footnote to explain the information therein. It's better to err on the side of caution and be corrected than write something that no one can understand.

• Dangerous + Complex Protocols = Overreaction: I've seen a lot of authors write very elaborate and overly complex protocols due to the extreme dangers that the entity exhibits. It's something to be avoided in an RPC article. The RPC Authority is not one to overreact and meet complicated objects with overwhelming, blind force. Always keep it simple, understandable, and manageable. There are other ways to showcase an object's danger beyond detailing numerous armed guards and tossing D-Class as it like we're giving it a feast.

• Gore + Blood + Details = No: For the sake of writing dangerous anomalies, don't write or describe in full intricate detail what happens to the person being affected or attacked by an anomaly that ends in the person being blown up to pieces, the anomaly eating the person by opening their stomach, and pulling out their entrails. Or really, anything like that. Please, just write in [DATA EXPUNGED] or go for something less subtle. For that matter, the article is about the anomaly being documented by hardened scientists. They see this stuff every day, so try to avoid sensationalized wording and descriptions

Containment ≠ Luxury

This is a Facility, not a Hotel

Okay. I have seen some articles that may or may not have treated the anomaly as though it were staying in a resort at the Bahamas. Let me be clear, Containment Protocols should be as logical as possible and equally as understandable. While some RPC anomalies that are often classed as Orange to Black require extensive amounts of resources, they should not be treated like the aforementioned hote, and are to only be provided with necessary resources. You have to be reasonable. If you really want to go overboard on luxuries for an object, you have the burden of convincing the reader that any of it is necessary.

Remember, Containment Protocols are not the same as Description. Only place necessary and vital information into the Containment Protocols. If the anomaly requires dietary needs then add them. If the anomaly requires ultraviolet light in order to perform photosynthesis then tell us. And so on.

We're the Research Protection Containment Authority. How would the Authority research it, if it even researches it at all? How would the Authority protect us from it or it from us, if protection is needed? How would the Authority put it in a box, if it even needs to be put in a box?

Containment protocols should, first and foremost, have some sort of limit. The Authority has a very, very limited amount of resources. For every penny spent on containing a non-hostile ship that's alive is a penny not spent on a star that's pissed at humanity. So, your protocols should accomplish these goals with the minimum resources necessary. More often than not, putting something in a locker is enough. Not everything needs hundreds of guards and titanium containers.

Furthermore, only write what's necessary. The method that I use is to imagine that the anomaly has just broken containment, and your article is now being read by someone who knows nothing about it. What would this unfortunate individual need to know? How to contain it as easily and quickly as possible!

For example, would the exploding alarm clock not be contained if the container that our subject put it in is off by 50 centimeters? If not, don't bother writing the specific size of the container. This goes both ways, however. We can't just tell our subject to put the alarm clock in any box if we needed a special Thermal Insulated box to contain it. On a related note, dangerous anomalies don't directly correlate to a lot of containment protocols or Gamma status. If the Giant Death Robot can start the apocalypse with uranium, then don't give the Giant Death Robot uranium.

Also, don't forget that the Authority wants to be acutely aware of how the anomaly functions but also has no desire to completely endanger its researchers and field agents. This is not to say that the Authority is soft. Doing so would be a simple waste of resources.. Devise reasonable protection methods when exploring these. And trust me, the Authority will want to explore them. It's literally one-third of the namesake.

The objective here is to create a believable and viable containment protocol. Have plans to test it that keep people safe, protect it from us, and figure out a way to put it in a box without either bankrupting us or putting a huge amount of resources onto it.

Containment Classification

The Authority currently has seven types of containment classification. Each of these classifications are used to describe the anomaly's containment difficulty. Each RPC has to be assigned with one of the containment classifications. The most common are as follows:

• Alpha: Alpha-classed RPCs are easily and safely contained. This is due to the fact that the Authority has understood the anomaly as a whole or that the object requires a specific and conscious activation or trigger to become dangerous. Additionally, this doesn't mean they're harmless, but rather, they can easily be placed in containment.

• Beta: Beta-classed RPCs are moderately difficult to contain, or require more resources to contain completely. Largely, these anomalies are insufficiently understood or inherently unpredictable. Often, this classification is assigned towards sapient and sentient entities. This doesn't mean they're dangerous, but rather difficult to be placed in containment.

• Gamma: Gamma-classed RPCs are exceedingly difficult to contain consistently or reliably, with containment protocols often being complex or extensive. The Authority cannot often contain these objects due to the lack of understanding of these anomalies, or the lacking of technological advancements to properly contain or counteract them. This doesn't necessarily mean they exhibit a threat to the populace, but rather extremely difficult to be placed in containment.

While I mentioned there are seven types of classification, you can easily find and read them here.

Additionally, some writers may see room to establish their own containment classification. You are allowed to do so with permission from the administration.

Threat Classification:

The introduction of threat levels, what is officially known as lethality rating, allows writers to indicate the dangerous hazards of an anomaly towards personnel. Threat levels are indicated by the color of the containment classification which are listed as follows:

• White: White-classed RPCs are understood to have no indication of dangerous hazards towards personnel and may possibly be beneficial.

• Yellow: Yellow-classed RPCs are understood to be easily avoidable and may indicate some circumstantial dangerous hazards. Often designated to RPC non-entities.

• Orange: Orange-classed RPCs are understood to be capable of being dangerous towards personnel but may not [often] display their behavior. Often designated to RPC entities.

• Red: Red-classed RPCs are understood to be actively dangerous and aggressive to personnel.

• Purple: Purple-classed RPCs are understood to be extremely dangerous and have the capability to wipe out an entire populations.

• Black: Black-classed RPCs are understood to cause an apocalyptic scenario or cause an extinction level event.

Redaction

Reading the Unreadable

You are likely to have stumbled upon words like [REDACTED], [DATA EXPUNGED], or even ██████████. So, what do they mean? Quite simple, these are known as redactions which represent attempts to obfuscated or otherwise censor information. Like real-world governments, specifically foreign intelligence agencies, the Authority uses this system to keep unauthorized readers from reading details that aren't cleared to know.

Like real life, this information is often hidden behind Security Clearances. However, in terms of writing, we do it for the purpose of keeping information vague and mystery from a reader. And this is not necessarily a bad thing if done correctly. Often, it can add some spice and mystery to an RPC article

Here are the following things that to keep in mind:

Do

• Keep information unknown to the reader: Okay, you may think this is the easiest part, right? Not true at all. A lot of people will use the redaction as an excuse for incomplete work, either from laziness or an inability to complete it. Remember, only redact information that may raise the reader's eyebrow on your article, and only keep information open that is essential to your article. A good rule of thumb is to always have an idea about what is behind the redactions, as a writer.

Don't

• Redact Information in Containment Protocols: Alright, let's set an example here. If you decided to create a very-dangerous werewolf and you've decided to redact how it should be contained, will you be expect to see it safely in its containment cell, or would you maybe expect to find a few corpses as you pass through its chamber? Do not ever redact anything in the Containment Protocols.

• Place them in unfinished sentences: As aforementioned, I clearly stated that one should not be using redaction for the purpose of filling in unfinished work. Dates, names, places, or even references can be redacted— but, it is mostly up to the writer what information is too important to be redacted.

• Redact a paragraph, or all of it: Okay, while I did say to only use redaction for the purpose of keeping the readers curious, I also did not say to excessively abuse it. I have witnessed articles where they use redaction too much. And you may argue 'what is even considered too much redaction?' and while you may have a point, I would argue that 50% of the article being redacted would be considered an overkill. Keep your article clean and less messy as possible, and try not to leave the article with a cliffhanger.

Writing Style

Viewing It as a Profession

Articles need to look professional. In-universe, it was written up as someone's job. Not only that, but an academic job. This means that RPC articles should not only appear as a research document but have the same clinical tone. If you're scratching your head about the word clinical, then we need to have a discussion about your submission.

When you're working on reports, aka your article, it needs to have a clinical tone to make it sound like a research document. What does that mean? Big and complicated words? Most certainly not. Clinical tone needs precision.

Precision is using the word, or phrase, that suits the current situation and is at least likely to be misinterpreted. The words you use should, at best, be only associated with the exact and appropriate thing that you wish to describe.

Example: You should not write it as: (without clinical tone)

"RPC-016 is a giant bug that looks to be the size of a dog. It doesn't look dangerous unless messing with it."

Instead, you should write it as: (with clinical tone)

RPC-016 appears to be a specimen of the Opodiphthera eucalypti that measures 65cm in diameter. While RPC-016 does not exhibit hostility towards onsite personnel, it is advised to not intimidate RPC-016 when in close proximity."

Here's other examples:

Non-clinical	Clinical
Spaceship in space	Partially-completed spacecraft currently in orbit about the L4 Lagrangian point
It's really big, measuring 16 miles in length and 4 miles wide	in its current state, the object is 25.3km long and 6km across at its widest point
Coated in a material that makes it invisible	Coated with a series of retractable graphene plates with an albedo of 0.03, apparently serving as an anti-detection measure

• Sample 1: The non-clinical version gives a vague location of the anomaly. This might be enough for the average person, but it is nowhere near useful for someone actually trying to get to the anomaly. The clinical version gives a more tangible location of the anomaly.

• Sample 2: The non-clinical version says "it's really big". How so? Furthermore, it uses imperial units. And never use imperial. Meanwhile, the clinical version states the size of the ship cleanly. It also implies that the ship is not a perfect rectangle, as well as constantly changing.

• Sample 3: The non-clinical version says that it's invisible. However, invisible is not a particularly clinical tone, especially when you'd think that the scientists probably have developed a spectrum for invisibility. The clinical version makes it clear on what's going on with the anomaly's invisibility for someone working on the anomaly.

Additional Information

• Refer from third person, not first: Remember, when you're referring an anomaly, you refer them as "RPC" or as "it". However, I've seen some people use the term "he" and "she" when referencing an RPC that is humanoid. Think of it from the perspective of the Authority. These are no longer individual people. Their genders do not matter. They are anomalies to be researched and contained.

• Note: This does not however include subjects, field agents, or researchers. You refer them by their name, position, and their appropriate gender.

• Make it appear professional, no mediocrity!: Some articles posted within the main database appear to have sloppy bits of crossed out or redundant bolding of paragraphs or sentences. Please, for the sake of quality and presentation, keep your article tidy along with keeping paragraphs readable by not making them into 20 sentences.

• Specifications are viable, but they are optional: With many articles placing too much specifications on the containment protocols (should've placed this in the Containment Section), it is recommended that you do not specify the containment box or chamber through numbers. Simply just say a "small" or "large" containment box, and may be add a little feature details. Remember, this is optional, your writing style is different from everyone else's.

• Act on it; don't ignore it: To plausibly save the curators, or even the critiques from looking over your page constantly, try proofreading your article by re-reading it once you're done making the final touches. This saves everyone's time, and will help you identify any punctuation, spelling, and grammar. Just, don't keep poking them to fix your mistakes. Sometimes, it even helps to read the article out loud to yourself. That way, you might pick up on issues in wording that you've gone blind to by staring at the piece for so long.

• International. Metrics. Period.: Okay, simple: We use the Metric System.