EN SCP-3948 rewrite

Pagesources were too large for a single sandbox (!); here is a pastebin, and I also have it saved in a word document on my hard drive for now.

Apoplexic: We can discuss this openly like this as we each see fit; I want to include everyone as much as possible in the rewrite of this.
My first notes are that, in the style we use now, the supplement pages should be formatted as offset pages; this keeps the rating module consistent throughout, and shows that it's all the same story, whereas the supplements each require their own votes and are supposed to be considered separate from the main article. This is tricky, but I'll figure out how to set that up with the group of authors on this side that frequently use those

DrSee:Don’t worry about offset, I have used it before at one of my scp. I will figure out how to make some offsets. Thank you for your kindness.

[[module ListPages category="fragment" parent="." limit="1" order="created_at" offset="@URL|0"]]
%%content%%
[[/module]]

This should be put in main page.And all next pages should be named as “fragment:scp-3948-1/-2/-3…” their parentpage should link to the main page and their tag should be “段落” at Chinese(I don’t know what’s it’s English name).All the pages you created can be used like normal ones , but if you want to link it to another offsets the link name should also be like”[ [[fragment:scp-xxxx-1/-2/-3] ]]”

Idokoe: I just looked at some offset pages on the English site, and believe that the tag should be "fragment" in English.

I was talking with DrSee, and he wanted me to inform you that he does not have internet access from Mondays to Saturdays, and probably can only access the internet on Sundays.

Apoplexic: Time is okay, it takes me a while to do much anyway.

So, what I took from this is…convoluted, and difficult to explain. One way I see it is this:

  • What the article says is true; the Foundation found a way to eliminate the idea of a containment breach, so that every object they have would never again break containment, and by reading this, you (the reader, who is also immersive in-universe researcher), you have brought the idea back and things will now break out again.

Is that far off from what was originally intended?

Idokoe: I believe your interpretation is correct. I think the original idea was that in order to completely prevent containment breach, no more than two people in the Foundation can know about containment breach at the same time.

Only 2 personnel can have knowledge of this object simultaneously, or else it will result in [DATA EXPUNGED].

I interpreted this as two people, including the narrator, currently know about containment breach, and the reader became the third one since he/she somehow found and read this document, just like the narrator did in The 1st Edition.

Yet, that day finally came. And on that day, maybe a dull afternoon? I opened this document. I don’t know why a document with level 5 clearance was on my computer, not to let alone how I opened it. When I saw the concept that once vanished in my brain….

But one problem is that in the object's description, it says

When this document is accessed by any a specific personnel with clearance below level 5, the object’s containment will be breached.

This suggest that there is a "special" person (the reader) who will lead to containment breach if he/she accessed this document.

I am not sure which interpretation is more accurate, and will probably have to ask DrSee, but I think we all can discuss and determine which one is better, or come up with a better idea?