Writing Guidelines

Introduction

Preamble

So, I see you've stumbled upon the RPC Database that is filled with numerous anomalies that are dangerous or outright disturbing, and you found them fascinating? Well, you came into the right place on how to write one! This writing guide is here to ensure you that your idea becomes a reality—well, not physically since this is a fictional website dedicated to horror writing after all.

Now, please remember, we highly encourage you to read through some of the articles to have a clear understanding how writing an article works. But of course, if you had forgotten what we just talked about here; then we recommend to read it through again. Without further delay, let's get to it.

Considering Somethings 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 difficult to maintain?

• Is the containment protocols appropriate and rational?

• Is the anomaly well described?

It's highly necessary and recommended for writers to have these four pillars to allow the reader to have a sense of understanding of how the anomaly functions. Have the reader drawn in, not have them drawn out because of 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 to have issues with executing the idea, or they don't really have that kind 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 a feedback even if the person comments it as "It's boring", always take it as a feedback so that you can improve it from "It's boring" to "It's fascinating!"

Lastly, if someone is a bit .. harsh onto your concept, please don't hesitate to contact a Curator or a Moderator regarding the person if they continue to exhibit that kind of behavior towards you

Expanding Your Idea

Gathering Thoughts Onto The Idea Itself

Please keep in mind that the idea is your catalyst to establish your RPC article, and 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 effect that turns an organism into something in the most abnormal way, or having a deadly effect that may cause suffering, mutation, or erratic change of behavior upon them being exposed. Please do not go something like; "once being exposed, death will occur immediately" as it doesn't sound interesting to the reader if it's all about death occurring, so, I'd recommend keeping "instantaneous death" as 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), 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 either be explained in intricate details of its origin, how it functions, and importantly how does it affect 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 cannot be explained due to the lack of understanding. Don't always write an RPC that involves a space craft that belongs to a hierarchy species that once roam the Earth, but instead, think of something that would normally be disturbing to think off that came out of space.

Additional Information

• Striking Through = Clarification: I've seen a majority of RPC articles striking through bits of information that have some past importance to the anomaly— however, 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, well, you're gonna leave some people mystified.

• Clear and Understanding: A lot of people tend to put more information on an RPC article to either make it seem professional or having it more interesting, but at the same time it will 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 are going to be understood. However, if there are some sentences that have importance, but are complex to change, always add a footnote to ensure you clarify what you mean by that.

• Dangerous + Complex Protocols = Overreaction: I've seen a lot of authors write a very elaborate, and yet complex protocols due to the extreme dangers that the entity exhibits. It's really bad when the author does that, and it's frustrating. We don't want everyone to assume that the organization is overreacting on how it deals with its Containment Protocols of an RPC. Always keep it simple, understandable, and manageable. Not increasing security personnel, stationing MSF personnel, and continuously dumping D-Class personnel as if we're giving luxury to an entity.

• Gore + Blood + Details = No: For the sake of writing dangerous anomalies, don't write, nor 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, or the anomaly eating the person by opening their stomach, and pulling out their entrails. Please, just write in [DATA EXPUNGED] or go for something less subtle. 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

• Write it like a Scientific Report, not a play: Now, a lot of newcomers would not exactly write their RPC article in a style like a scientific report.

For Example: You should not write it as:

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

Instead, you should write it as:

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

Containment ≠ Luxury

This is a Facility, not a Hotel

Okay. I have seen some articles that may or may not have given the anomaly in question to be provided with some things as if they were in a luxury hotel in the Bahamas. Let me be clear, Containment Protocols should be logical as possible and very understandable. While some RPC anomalies that are often classed as Orange - Black requiring extensive amounts of resources, they should not be treated like the aforementioned hotel, and is to only be provided with necessary resources not more what they need. You have to be reasonable, if you're trying to explain the readers why it is vital that this anomaly should have amounts of containment protocols— then, convince them!

Remember, Containment Protocols is not the same as Description, only place necessary and vital information into the Containment Protocols regarding the anomaly. If the anomaly requires dietary needs then add what it is. If the anomaly requires lighting in order to do photosynthesis then add what it is. You get the gist of it.

Even though we're the Research Protection Containment Authority, we have to distance ourselves from anomalies in order to not get attached from them— hence, we have to be non-sympathetic for them. However, with that in mind, that doesn't necessarily mean we leave them in their containment chambers to have chronological depressed RPCs. Therefore, one can assume that basic provision is given but is heavily dependable on the anomaly's containment and dangerous levels.

Altogether, the containment protocols are, again, to be logical and reasonable. While this website is dedicated to horror fiction collaborative, that does not mean we can make giant laser weapons or shouldered mounted tactical warheads as a means to defend against anomalies. Containment should be in the current modern and up to date technology, but some may slip through the crack with some reasoning. With that in mind, please do not break into the Site Director's office and initiate a nuclear warhead.

Object Classification

The Authority has currently seven types of object classification, each of these classifications are used to describe the anomaly's containment difficulty. Each RPC has to be assigned with one of the several classifications, here are the main three object classifications that are widely used:

• Alpha: Alpha-classed RPCs are easily and safely to contain. 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 would be inclined to establish their own object classification, which there are no rules preventing you and others from doing so, but it must be thoroughly and reasonably explained otherwise you may receive negative rating.

Threat Classification:

The introduction of threat levels, or 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 object classification which are listed as follows:

• White: White-classed RPCs are designated to have no indication of dangerous hazards towards personnel, and may possibly [not] be beneficial.

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

• Orange: Orange-classed RPCs are designated 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 designated to be actively dangerous and aggressive to personnel.

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

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

Redaction

Reading the Unreadable

You may have likely stumbled upon words such as, [REDACTED], [DATA EXPUNGED], or even ██████████. So, what are they? Quite simple, these are known as redactions which is basically censoring or obscuring information for security purposes. Like real-world governments, specifically foreign intelligence agencies, they use this system to keep unauthorized readers from reading details that aren't cleared to know.

Since we're a fictional intergovernmental organization that is basically non-existent we redact information by the basis of one's security clearance. However, in terms of writing, we do it for the purpose of keeping information vague and mystery from a reader. So as long as they do it correctly.

Here are the following things that you should do, while you should not do:

Do

• Keep information unknown to the reader: Okay, you may think this is the easiest part, right? No. Mostly, a lot of people will use the redaction method by either using it as an excuse for incomplete work, for the sake of laziness or are simply just not bothered to finish 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.

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 on the how it should be contained, will you be expecting it to be properly contained .. or find a few body bags as you pass through its chamber? Regardless, do not ever redact anything in the Containment Protocols if the place or date has nothing to do with the anomaly.

• 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 not leave the article with a cliffhanger.