taylors workbench II

Containment Procedures: Are the Containment Procedures all necessary?

The general idea behind this is that in-universe, it has to make sense. Remember, the Foundation is huge and has a lot on its plate; it will always use whatever containment procedures require the least investment of personnel and materials.

Many users interpret use of an excessively extreme containment procedures as an attempt to make an object seem more powerful or dangerous than it really is, and therefore assume that the author doing so is the sort of person who thinks that "dangerous" is the same thing as "interesting".

• Are there measurements mentioned? If yes, are they all necessary? Measurements shouldn't be included unless they are essential to containment. E.g., it's okay to say 'standard' and you don't need to include the measurements at all, as that can actually cause more trouble and questions more often than not.
• Recurring errors (multiple uses of imperial system) don't have to be mentioned every single time.
• Are there guards or surveillance involved? If yes, do you feel like it needs it? Example: A telephone that lets the user speak to the dead does not have to be monitored, since it doesn't do anything if left alone.
• What clearance levels are required, if applicable? If it's anything above 04 (Site Director), do you agree with that? Or will a Senior Researcher do?
• Is specific personnel mentioned? Avoid naming specific personnel. If you name someone specifically but they are unavailable in-universe, personnel won't know who to address instead. This is especially true if you then proceed to blackbar it anyway, because we won't know who to talk to.
• Is relevant information in the Containment Procedures [REDACTED] or [DATA EXPUNGED]? If yes, point this out. Think about it: In-universe, this doesn't make sense because if I'm supposed to learn how to contain something successfully, I need to have complete information.
• Avoid using fluff text like "To ensure safety" to justify containment. In-universe personnel will assume that all information is there for a reason.
• You don't need to spell out everything. Guard rotations, door codes, and lock procedures are basic procedures that anyone who's employed by the Foundation would already know, and aren't important to this particular object.

Description.

• Don't use 'seems to' or 'appears to be' unless the effect or object actually **//isn't//** what it seems like.
• It's not he/she/they, but 'it'.
• Are the physical attributes of the object explained in too much detail? Or too little?
• Pay attention to clinical tone. Something isn't 'ice-blue', it's 'blue'. Look for exaggerations like 'razor-sharp', 'huge', 'lightning-fast'.
• Specifically with humanoids and 'monsters', there's a very fine line between ''anomalous effect'' and ''ability''. Pay attention to whether the effect can be activated at will or if it happens regardless of will. If it feels more like a ''power'', it's very easy to fall into x-men territory. This doesn't mean that it absolutely is an x-men if it is, but chances are higher.