Sniped
(account deleted) 14 Sep 2023 12:06
backrooms mfs when entity 1 isn't a murder monster or god 👇
Entity 1 / Discussion
Forum
» Meta / Per page discussions
» Entity 1
This is the discussion related to the wiki page Entity 1.
(account deleted) 14 Sep 2023 12:06
This is way better.
I know, I can do it.
Dark Romanticism much at the end there?
My only problem with this is that, while the clinical tone didn't shift, the feelings the reader's mood got from reading the article totally changed right at the end there just because you took a dark turn in tone. It doesn't really impact the overall quality of the article, just a slight annoyance.
Still, +1.
Just a high schooler who thinks he is good at writing. Likes working on a lot of stuff, ranging from writing for the Backrooms Wiki, to providing critique, and reading. ~ Pen.
"The truth is the truth. What changes is what we know about it and what we're willing to believe."
- Jonathan Maberry, Rot and Ruin
Concept wise, this expands the og page really well in a way that almost feels a narrative. It took the og page and absolutely ran with that and expanded upon unique aspects that could make the entity stand out. I’m a sucker for both well done story like stuff and rehabilitating bad articles so this is an easy +1 from Val.
To me, this page isn't all-too bad. There are some imperfections, such as a couple of SPaG errors here and there, and the reference to peoples splitting into several others(right?) being too vague, at least in my opinion. I feel like the ending just… doesn't add anything to the sections preceding it; it emphasises how humans can never surpass the nature of the Backrooms, that they are insignificant, and I think it's done well, but it honestly feels as though it could be incorporated in the History section. I also think that the only thing compelling me to upvote is the writing style, and how the text smoothly transitioned from one topic to another in a pretty engaging way. It also portrays humans as less competitive than we truly are, in my opinion (that is, until it speaks of humans disagreeing etc, but I don't think it's emphasised enough), although I'd be getting philosophical from here.
Mostly1 well-written, the ending could be slightly better, neutral feeling, but somewhat engaging. The concept is… fine. It presents humans from bottom to top. I'm not entirely sure whether it's meant to describe humans as though the reader didn't know or not; I can't tell, to be honest, since towards the end it feels as though everything is being taught to a child rather than another kind of sentient being.
I'd say it's good enough for an upvote, but I think this concept has a lot of unused potential.
Footnotes
1. a bit of tone issues here and there
Please mind the Forest.
I'd say it's good enough for an upvote, but I think this concept has a lot of unused potential.
I can't even imagine the amount of time it would take to completely flesh this out. It'd lose like 90% of the audience just due to how long it is. I mostly believe that they hit all the core lore-clumps, and it was executed pretty well. I personally love the way it views humans as inferior, and childish, but still slightly protective in tone. Not saying this article is imperfect, just saying it's one of the better ones on this site.
+1
~Robert~
Out of curiosity, what is the last image at the bottom? (And is it possible that the backrooms could even destroy the front rooms as a whole?)
I hate it when so-called "human" entities are written in such a clinical style; the original descriptions were written more like the humans themselves, rather than from a completely third-party perspective as they are now.
But the end instead feels a little like it was written by humans themselves,And it's very well written, too. i like it. so… Give a rating of nv.
I can't accept such a clinical cavity.Humans can't be so emotionless in their writing.That's unimaginable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
humans can be emotionless in writing
Eyy.. i just typed a loada garrbagge
Mechanically speaking, I don't think there's anything wrong with it, and in any other context I'd even say it's pretty well done.
But conceptually, I don't really think this is the kind of thing that makes sense to be in the MEG database IMO. The database is supposed to be something the MEG uses to understand, classify, and help others manage Levels/Entities present in the Backrooms.
With that in mind, it doesn't really make sense to me why they'd bother creating an article about humans- y'know the species they and pretty much every wanderer is. It feels like a sorta meta-commentary that SCP did for its SCP-001 entries where the SCP Foundation or even the SCP Wikidot itself is an anomaly, but doesn't really work for the Backrooms given the framing device of what the wikidot is imo.
I don't feel too strongly negative about this since it's actually written and structured pretty well, my issue is conceptual, and that this doesn't really feel like a thing that would make sense for the MEG to bother entering into their database in the first place.
A lot of the first part is just fundamentally uninteresting for me. It's just telling us, (humans in and out of universe), what humans are, wikipedia-style. Only ten lines down (on desktop) does the article begin talking about how humanity is working specifically in relation to the backrooms, which is just "because we come from the frontrooms, we've done really well in the backrooms."
Then, in a moment of weird flow, the article only now starts giving context about humans arriving in the backrooms. This is where it starts to get interesting, but it just likes to shun details. The worst offender here is
This resulted in human beings settling within the Backrooms and building civilizations to survive the harsh environment and native fauna.
Doesn't even have humans as the subject of the sentence summarizing millennia of human progress. The whole paragraph basically just gives you "every since they existed, humans have noclipped in, which lead to them doing [intricate worldbuilding and stories 70% of the wiki is based on]. One of the best examples of this is Level 11, which closely resembles their original reality" (nothing is done to help explain or enhance the significance of Level 11's similarity to Earth here)
The lack of details just continues throughout:
Using their capabilities listed, they were able to surpass great adversities and settle in otherwise dangerous places.
Tells us next to nothing. The most you can get from this sentence is something along the lines of "ancient humans used their high problem-solving capabilities, rapid learning rate, highly social lifestyle, natural drive for learning, and the development of technologies, sciences, religions and cultures to solve big problems and settle in tough spots!" Which sounds like a chatGPT attempt at summarizing early human history.
Onto the environment part: It's hard to get the significance of it, because it's treated like it's addressing things on Earth (finite resources, where sustainable development is actually extraordinarily critical) when it's actually addressing the Backrooms (very likely infinite resources, plain survival is still a higher priority than sustainable development in many places).
take
the damage of much fauna
This is, again, so vague that it's nearly impossible to tell how severe the statement is. "damage of much fauna" could be anything from "we set up a normal animal farm" to "mass extinction," and I'm mostly inclined to assume the former, and then not care much because it's said so minimally. It's difficult to sympathize for suffering when it's said only in the form of "damage of much fauna." Overly clinical tone and a proper explanation of the suffering caused by eating meat do not mesh well.
their aggression to equally hostile entities has dwindled their populations.
For all we know, this is "humans have been waging a localized war against nonsentient colonies of giant fire ants trying to eat them." And "populations" is a weird term in the backrooms! Say that all the colonies of giant fire ants on a level are eraticated. And, because the next level over has an infinite amount of giant fire ants, the population of fire ants hasn't actually dwindled measurably. And take stuff like Crawlers. I'd say that reduction in its population would largely be a positive because the victims of the fungus are already dead and are a risk to others.
Although indirectly, the large-scale presence of humans has led to the creation of multiple entities that resemble them in appearance, mannerisms and biology.
Potentially really cool (if it was expanded on at all), but how do we know this?? With facelings, they are, I believe, canonically copies/reflections of humanity. But it is still a leap to say it's indirectly1 due to "the large-scale presence of humans." And with hounds, the canonical origin is "we can't determine the origin of Hounds at this time." There's nothing, to my knowledge, that contradicts the possibility that hounds were around long before humans were.
This effect has had an influence which has existed for thousands of years and, seemingly, will continue indefinitely — drastically reshaping the course of the future.
Specifically just mentioning this here and now—it'll be relevant in a bit.
Next section
The Psychology section suffers these problems the least—I'd say it largely works for me, conceptually. Although, I really wish stuff like "Which makes human beings extremely unpredictable to the eyes of others." (btw, grammar error: Fragment) was expanded upon more, as it really doesn't feel relevant when dropped in with no context or follow-up.
Okay, I have something to get to in a bit, so I'm actually going to skip to addressing the ending: (may return to fully finish it later)
So! After hearing about the power of humanity, all they can do, all that holds them back, we learn that their "one, fatal flaw" is…
that they're not immortal!
I suppose that phrasing is a little unfair; specifically, the big deal is that the backrooms will "eventually eliminate humanity and its footprint as a whole."
Is there any explanation as to how this will happen? No, the page just gives you the level list, entity list, and phenomenon list. The backrooms' other creatures, natural effects, and rapidly evolving landscapes will do humanity in! (ignoring the fact that plenty of "other creatures" are helpful, oodles of the "rapidly evolving landscapes" are not rapidly or even slowly evolving, and…I wonder why the object list is left out? It can't be as if objects are largely helpful and poke a big hole into the "backrooms is out to get humanity" hypothesis. That'd be silly)
There's also that it is somehow, somehow "known that humans — rather morbidly — will be the first to go."
Focusing specifically on the "none of what they ever do is permanent" part:
I'm not even going to bring standards anti-nihilist arguments into the picture
because
This effect has had an influence which has existed for thousands of years and, seemingly, will continue indefinitely — drastically reshaping the course of the future.
who cares if humans themselves will be temporary if it seems like they'll be leaving behind a drastic, infinite legacy? (apparently, this sentence is meant to be far less guaranteed than I thought, and the level it cites doesn't actually support the claim)
Footnotes
1. Saying "indirectly" with no elaboration actually leaves more unanswered questions than if you'd said "directly" or just not used an adverb.
Goodness, wikidot has a weird account system. What's this weird forum signature thi
Unfold
-1 (to be fair, this is a really hard concept to pull off) by 
SecondtoInfinity, 16 Sep 2023 15:50
Re: -1 (to be fair, this is a really hard concept to pull off)
One day I'll fully dissect this crock of shite
Eyy.. i just typed a loada garrbagge
Unfold
Re: -1 (to be fair, this is a really hard concept to pull off) by 
Greggita Mahayfaio, 17 Sep 2023 21:02
Re: -1 (to be fair, this is a really hard concept to pull off)
okay, i'm back! finally, it's about time I dissect this.
I do actually want to preface this by saying this is unironically one of the worst pieces of critique I have ever seen. You may think I'm being hyperbolic, using dry wit, or hamming shit up, but I am serious! Part of me not replying to this was because the level of utter misunderstanding actually infuriated me at times. However, with my semi-newfound love for Gordon ramsay, I'm going to get my no bullshit attitude on and dissect this crock of shite.
So, onwards we go!
"The whole paragraph basically just gives you "every since they existed, humans have noclipped in, which lead to them doing [intricate worldbuilding and stories 70% of the wiki is based on]."
Immediately I feel completely baffled. Good start! You've just done nothing but describe the paragraph and… deemed you don't like it? It's cool if you don't, but for a critique of why you don't like a thing, this first bit has none of that! Like, this is your whole point. Maybe it's a moot point to bring that up in the article, even if it is true and relavent to mention in the page itself, but you didn't mention that so I can't know if that's your point.
"(nothing is done to help explain or enhance the significance of Level 11's similarity to Earth here)"
I do not need to explain to you why Level 11's similarity to earth is important (wow, a recurring theme! this must be the chekov's gun or the first rule of 3. How delightful). Level 11 is a hub between levels, is extremely habitable, and is also extremely like earth's big cities! Sure, I could've mentioned that, but Level 11 has a rating of +215, 55 comments, 4,981 results on the discord, and searching "Level 11 backrooms" onto google prompts 9,330,000 results. Needless to say, you and I know what it is, as do most people reading. And if they don't, all you need to do is click the fucking link to Level and understand IMMEDIATELY! that immediately is not hyperbolic, either. from the image to the first 2 paragraphs, you understand completely what its relavence to humans is. ffs.
"Tells us next to nothing."
Incorrect. I can prove it, too.
|
\/
The most you can get from this sentence is something along the lines of "ancient humans used their high problem-solving capabilities, rapid learning rate, highly social lifestyle, natural drive for learning, and the development of technologies, sciences, religions and cultures to solve big problems and settle in tough spots!"
So. which is it? does this line tell us "next to nothing", or does it actually describe a whole fucking lot? Like, you say "the most you can get", implying you really had to grasp at straws for any kind of reading, and then you go on to actually go out of your way to over-explain the point in more words than the original passage?? Pick a goddamn side! Like, the most justification you give is "Which sounds like a chatGPT attempt at summarizing early human history." which is like '?????'. I'm sorry, did they not do that? I get points of history were ABSOLUTELY overlooked in the page, but this page also isn't a real world history book? It details people in the backrooms, for one, and a brief skim of the site kinda backs this up anyways.
Onto the environment part: It's hard to get the significance of it, because it's treated like it's addressing things on Earth (finite resources, where sustainable development is actually extraordinarily critical) when it's actually addressing the Backrooms (very likely infinite resources, plain survival is still a higher priority than sustainable development in many places).
take
again, massive misunderstanding! (holy shit, a recurring theme!) not once, at least I hope not once, are the recourses stated to be finite? like, yeah, there's infinite recourses, but you'll need to go further and further out to find them. eventually, you loot the last thing a place has to offer, and you go further. it's still damaging to the places humans go through even if more lays further.
This is, again, so vague that it's nearly impossible to tell how severe the statement is. "damage of much fauna" could be anything from "we set up a normal animal farm" to "mass extinction,"
And, more importantly:
and I'm mostly inclined to assume the former, and then not care much because it's said so minimally.
how in the name of sanity did you come to that conclusion!? you just came off of the passage about how humans can ravage levels for recourses and can do so fucking indefinitely, only to then somehow forget that prior context and assume the passage is about insubstantial things?? Like, yeah, I get it, it's an understatement to say "fauna". That was an intentional choice because saying "fauna" can rub off both as small scale and as big scale. it's all purpose! I don't need to delve further into this point. I'm sure you know where you fucked up.
Overly clinical tone and a proper explanation of the suffering caused by eating meat do not mesh well.
Again, no. Brevity is by design to encompass all scales of destruction. Also how the fuck did you simplify it to just "eating meat"? how the hell did you do that?
For all we know, this is "humans have been waging a localized war against nonsentient colonies of giant fire ants trying to eat them." And "populations" is a weird term in the backrooms! Say that all the colonies of giant fire ants on a level are eraticated.
Stop being pedantic. I think it's pretty bloody obvious what it means. sure, the broadness about said word can imply it's about fire ants (and, given my last point, you totally could make that connection) but good god. I think it's clear, by using the squishy meat thing most people have in their skulls, that obviously we don't mean fucking fire ants. again, I don't need to go further, the level of nitpicking is on the level of clickbaity marvel articles.
And take stuff like Crawlers. I'd say that reduction in its population would largely be a positive because the victims of the fungus are already dead and are a risk to others.
No one said at any point about this. Like, it's presenting the deaths as neutral. Of course, it is a good thing, no one will argue will that! But, regardless of intent, the deaths still happened. This is a moot point.
With facelings, they are, I believe, canonically copies/reflections of humanity. But it is still a leap to say it's indirectly
Yes, it is indirect! Do you think humans sat down one day and decided facelings to exist? no…? cool! then it's indirect. Moving on.
And with hounds, the canonical origin is "we can't determine the origin of Hounds at this time."
Wah-hey, something you have slight ground on! Yes, it's true, it's not directly stated where Hounds come from and it's easy to assume that hounds maybe came first. Who knows. However, considering this page states multiple fucking times that humans indirectly and directly shape the Backrooms wherever they go, I think it's safe to assume we're taking creative liberty. If you dislike that because it goes against the Hounds' base page, fair enough.
that they're not immortal!
I- Kind of?? That's like the most broad, baby's first theme examination you could ever do. The actual flaw, whilst it does include the fact that they're not immortal, is the fact that they're most influencial entity in all of the backrooms and yet will ultimately go forgotten. It's a direct contrast not just in that, but also to how humans work. Humans want to remembered, and never will. Before you state this has to be mentioned in the text, I will just say that you (assumedly) are human. If the feeling of being forgotten or dying has ever or will ever trouble you, congrats! you understood the page's concept without even needing to be told it.
Is there any explanation as to how this will happen? No, the page just gives you the level list, entity list, and phenomenon list.
This comment makes my piss boil! Which hurts my insides :c. Anyways, moving on, this comment genuinely does piss me off. I am sorry for the bluntness, but if I have to explain to you the idea of decay, age, and natural erosion then I think you have failed more than the fucking page. Like, we all know about ancient history and how things erode. Our modern day will eventually become ancient history, so shit will erode. go take a fucking history and geography course
oodles of the "rapidly evolving landscapes" are not rapidly or even slowly evolving
You are thinking far too terrestrially. across millions of billions of years levels will evolve, just like how fucking everything does. Again, things changing overtime is a given in life. I don't need to explain that for dumbasses
It can't be as if objects are largely helpful and poke a big hole into the "backrooms is out to get humanity" hypothesis. That'd be silly
1) thanks for the sarcasm <3
2) Fucking. no?? read the page again, or if thinking is not up your alley, just reread earlier where I told you the theme. "backrooms is out to get humanity" ass shit.
3) I actually didn't include objects because I couldn't think of a way to tie it into the sentence lmao. I couldn't be arsed thinking about a way to do it, I'd already done a power of 3 list, so I opted not to bloat.
Focusing specifically on the "none of what they ever do is permanent" part:
I'm not even going to bring standards anti-nihilist arguments into the picture
because
It's not anti-nihilist, it's like… kinda true. in billions of years the universe will end and the earth will cease to be. by that point, nothing will've been permanent. Whether or not you want to see that as good or bad is up to you, not the pages.
god, that was tough to get through wasn't it! Whilst reading this, I noticed 2 things, those being:
1) please don't do literary analysis(this is partially a joke but also holy shit you dropped the ball here)
2) you don't like infering things. This, on paper, is chill. If you prefer your pages to be more simple and laid out I get that! but please don't make shitty strawmans about fire ants to mask the fact you don't like to analyse pages, or at least found it hard to do it with this one.
Anyways, yeah, finally looked at this. Now I can clear my mind of the worst thing I ever read.
Good luck with your future writings, though! /gen
Please put long texts in collapsibles. ~ staff
Eyy.. i just typed a loada garrbagge
Unfold
Re: -1 (to be fair, this is a really hard concept to pull off) by Greggita Mahayfaio, 06 Oct 2023 22:32
Funniest response to critique I have ever read.
Just a high schooler who thinks he is good at writing. Likes working on a lot of stuff, ranging from writing for the Backrooms Wiki, to providing critique, and reading. ~ Pen.
"The truth is the truth. What changes is what we know about it and what we're willing to believe."
- Jonathan Maberry, Rot and Ruin
Unfold
Re: -1 (to be fair, this is a really hard concept to pull off) by 
PenOrSaber1, 07 Oct 2023 13:20
Preface!
I’d like to restate, as said on the discord, that this wasn’t intended to be professional constructive critique aimed at helping the article be as good as possible. I was just trying to explain why I downvoted, as Niku specifically requested. T’was done in one sitting.
The whole paragraph basically just gives you "every since they existed, humans have noclipped in, which lead to them doing [intricate worldbuilding and stories 70% of the wiki is based on].
You've just done nothing but describe the paragraph and… deemed you don't like it?
Well, if you look at that sentence alone, yes. But, unlike you say, it is not my whole point. If you read the rest of what I’ve said, (“likes to shun details,” “summarizing millenia,” “basically just”), I hope you can tell that the point I’m trying to make is that the paragraph simplifies things too much. In retrospect, I would not actually call it the worst offender! One of the perils of writing in one sitting. (While I don’t say it here, it’s also that the things in question aren’t well-elaborated on anywhere else. Before any actual follow up to this sentence, we get the level 11 comment, which, well,)
(nothing is done to help explain or enhance the significance of Level 11's similarity to Earth here)
I do not need to explain to you why Level 11's similarity to earth is important.[…]Level 11 is a hub between levels, is extremely habitable, and is also extremely like earth's big cities![…]Needless to say, you and I know what it is, as do most people reading.
So, yes, I know what level 11 is. I understand its similarity to Earth. You’re absolutely correct to say that is obvious.
My point is about the fact that this information doesn’t do anything. Look at the original sentence:
Yes, one of the most populated levels is the most reachable highly survivable & sustainable & society-buildable level. It also happens to be really similar to an Earthen city, though I’d argue that the former statement explains Level 11’s population much more. However,One of the most densely human-populated levels in current times is level 11, which closely resembles an environment associated with the humans’ original reality.
I’m still not getting why it’s important. You don’t actually explain that here!
This is actually a conversation we had in the discord, too!
There’s no point to the information. It doesn’t add to the current content on its own. You (well, the article) absolutely do need to explain to me why Level 11's similarity to earth is important, because it doesn’t seem to be important here. Honestly, I’m a bit surprised you forgot the whole discord exchange where we sorted this point out.
Tells us next to nothing.
Incorrect. I can prove it, too.
The most you can get from this sentence is something along the lines of […]
So. which is it? does this line tell us "next to nothing", or does it actually describe a whole fucking lot?
Next to nothing. I was as generous as possible in trying to elaborate what it told us to illustrate that it still doesn’t show much at all even when rewritten to show as much as possible. Keep in mind that everything I listed (“high problem-solving […] “development of technologies”) is not actually new information. (actually, it was silly of me to make that point by presenting it as if it was new info; the sentence does sound better if it is :P)
It’s just, originally, referred to as “capabilities listed.” And those “capabilities listed” just got humanity to “surpass great adversities and settle in otherwise dangerous places.” I don’t really get your refute to the ChatGPT thing, because this sentence in particular (and, less so, my expansion of it) really do sound like ChatGPT to me. It’s a weak, bland, undetailed summary that makes a very simple connection.
It's hard to get the significance of [the point about humans damaging the environment], because it's treated like it's addressing things on Earth (finite resources, where sustainable development is actually extraordinarily critical) when it's actually addressing Backrooms (very likely infinite resources, plain survival is still a higher priority than sustainable development in many places).
like, yeah, there's infinite recourses, but you'll need to go further and further out to find them. eventually, you loot the last thing a place has to offer, and you go further. it's still damaging to the places humans go through even if more lays further.
We don’t know this is the case. A popular interpretation of The Backrooms is that many levels are, in addition to being truly infinite, fluid. Long-term damage doesn’t last, and the removal of resources from an area can become irrelevant as that area becomes a different area with new resources.
Now, we could say that the page specifically adheres to a canon where this isn’t the case! It’d certainly make sense—the page says humanity’s damage will last, so it’s a canon where it will indeed, right?
Except, at the bottom of the page, it very deliberately cites levels as “rapidly evolving landscapes,” so, no, it seems to follow a canon where levels are quite fluid, which would be one where humans can’t make serious damage to The Backrooms’ landscape just by harvesting resources at a normal rate without a very big population.
so vague that it's nearly impossible to tell how severe the statement is. "damage of much fauna" could be anything from "we set up a normal animal farm" to "mass extinction[…]and I'm mostly inclined to assume the former, and then not care much because it's said so minimally.
how in the name of sanity did you come to that conclusion!?
Should have said I’m inclined to lean towards the former, so assume that’s what I mean from here on out. So! To go point by point:
you just came off of the passage about how humans can ravage levels for recourses and can do so fucking indefinitely, only to then somehow forget that prior context and assume the passage is about insubstantial things??
Well, I’m saying that the resource-ravaging is not a substantial thing, so no, the prior context does not contrast for me.
Like, yeah, I get it, it's an understatement to say "fauna".
Yeah.
That was an intentional choice because saying "fauna" can rub off both as small scale and as big scale. it's all purpose!
Well, uh, what makes it rub off as big-scale? I don’t think it’s the previous passage for the aforementioned reasons, you yourself admit it’s an understatement, and this is only stated as the result of “The requirement for food and large settlements,” so seems like it’d just be on the scale of human settlements (which tend to be on the smaller side here in The Backrooms)
Overly clinical tone and a proper explanation of the suffering caused by eating meat do not mesh well.
Again, no. Brevity is by design to encompass all scales of destruction. Also how the fuck did you simplify it to just "eating meat"? how the hell did you do that?
Really unsure what you mean by “Brevity is by design to encompass all scales of destruction.” The more brief you are, the less you’re encompassing something. Technically, you have included a ton of stuff in your statement, but it doesn’t really feel like you’ve covered it. Brevity’s about, well, being short, not thorough.
This is especially true when it comes to emotion: (while this does have some clear exceptions,) the less you say, the less the reader will feel. I don’t know about you, but just “resulted in the damage of much flora and fauna” doesn’t make me feel much at all.
If it helps you, I can edit something in the place of “eating meat,” though I don’t feel that it’s actually relevant to the argument.
For all we know, this is "humans have been waging a localized war against nonsentient colonies of giant fire ants trying to eat them.”
Stop being pedantic. I think it's pretty bloody obvious what it means. sure, the broadness about said word can imply it's about fire ants (and, given my last point, you totally could make that connection) but good god. I think it's clear
This is actually something I’ll fully (mostly) concede! Yeah, I think there’s still a clear argument for clarity when you’re going hard clinical tone/wikipedia style, but you can still get what this means. :zealotyuh:
In retrospect, I think that the actual issue with this sentence is instead:
I don’t think the populations of most entities have actually dwindled.
As I say, (and as you don’t respond to), these “populations” are in The Backrooms! This makes them a: infinite or b: really really really big, in contrast with the much-smaller-than-that human population. Assuming humans do kill most entities near their settlements, that’s just not a meaningful drop in entity population!
(could the page instead just say that a lot of entities are killed, making a valid point that doesn’t have to deal with the issue of proportions in infinity/near-infinity? Yes, but the page doesn’t do that here, and…)
I think humans aren’t killing most entities near their settlements! Actually flip through the entity list. A lot of “do’s” involve escape, running away, or just avoiding the entity. In a lot of cases, I just don’t think we’d see much entity death. The most common dynamic, by far, is “human dies” or “human escapes/avoid entity” rather than “human kills entity.”
With facelings, they are, I believe, canonically copies/reflections of humanity. But it is still a leap to say it's indirectly due to "the large-scale presence of humans."
Yes, it is indirect! Do you think humans sat down one day and decided facelings to exist? no…? cool! then it's indirect. Moving on.
Uhhh, you’re gonna have to make this point a little clearer. Now, I did phrase myself badly here: with “But it is still a leap,” the “it” is the claim that facelings are created indirectly by humanity, not the “evolving to match humanity” thing. This is because we only know that facelings have evolved to match humankind, the “facelings are The Backrooms’ attempts at replicating humankind” thing in the original article is just a theory, which, while very much plausible, is not sufficiently backed up.
And with hounds, the canonical origin is "we can't determine the origin of Hounds at this time."
Yes, it's true, it's not directly stated where Hounds come from and it's easy to assume that hounds maybe came first. Who knows. However, considering this page states multiple fucking times that humans indirectly and directly shape Backrooms wherever they go, I think it's safe to assume we're taking creative liberty. If you dislike that because it goes against the Hounds' base page, fair enough.
Well, yeah. The no-canon policy does technically allow people to make a page that totally takes the reins of the lore of another page. But you generally want a good reason for it! I don’t think the page has properly established the “humans shape The Backrooms” thing. There’s not a very specific argument I have for this right now, I just don’t think it’s really been proven. And you need to do a lot of proving in order to cite a page that almost directly contrasts the claim you make in the same sentence.
that they're not immortal!
I- Kind of?? That's like the most broad, baby's first theme examination you could ever do.
Yeah, I found this claim ridiculous enough that I thought I’d share my very first thought. In retrospect, it’s a little too rude and I wouldn’t include it.
The actual flaw, whilst it does include the fact that they're not immortal, is the fact that they're most influencial entity in all of Backrooms and yet will ultimately go forgotten. It's a direct contrast not just in that, but also to how humans work. Humans want to remembered, and never will.
This I understand.
Is there any explanation as to how this will happen? No, the page just gives you the level list, entity list, and phenomenon list.
This comment makes my piss boil! Which hurts my insides :c. Anyways, moving on, this comment genuinely does piss me off. I am sorry for the bluntness, but if I have to explain to you the idea of decay, age, and natural erosion then I think you have failed more than the fucking page. Like, we all know about ancient history and how things erode. Our modern day will eventually become ancient history, so shit will erode. go take a fucking history and geography course
I’m terribly sorry I boiled your piss.1 But I don’t think the “decay, age, and natural erosion” thing is valid here. And I don’t think “ancient history” or “a[…]history and geography course” support your point either.
The reason why: Backrooms
Yeah, uh, no reason to assume that The Backrooms as a whole will really decay, age, or naturally erode. Some levels are certainly doing this, but others don’t seem to be. The whole heat death of the universe shebanban could totally not apply to The Backrooms. How would humanity know one way or the other?
oodles of the "rapidly evolving landscapes" are not rapidly or even slowly evolving
You are thinking far too terrestrially. across millions of billions of years levels will evolve, just like how fucking everything does. Again, things changing overtime is a given in life.
I don’t really know how to respond with anything other than “Erm, it’s Backrooms.” In a place where infinity is possible in a myriad of ways, decay and change are not a given everywhere. At least, certainly not in a canon-neutral page like this was intended to be (as per the author).
It can't be as if objects are largely helpful and poke a big hole into the "Backrooms is out to get humanity" hypothesis. That'd be silly
1) thanks for the sarcasm <3
Yeah, I should have been more polite, but, uh, seeing as this itself was sarcastic, I assume you’re fine with the sarcasm?
2) Fucking. no?? read the page again, or if thinking is not up your alley, just reread earlier where I told you the theme. "Backrooms is out to get humanity" ass shit.
Phrased it poorly :shrug:
I think the phrasing is a moot point because “Backrooms is out to get humanity” vs “Backrooms will eventually erase humanity naturally” doesn’t matter when what’s being discussed is the method by which The Backrooms will do that.
3) I actually didn't include objects because I couldn't think of a way to tie it into the sentence lmao. I couldn't be arsed thinking about a way to do it, I'd already done a power of 3 list, so I opted not to bloat.
Hm. What if there’s not a good way to tie it into the sentence because it doesn’t actually support the sentence, like I’m saying?2 I can’t help but feel like you haven’t responded to my actual point: a loooooooot of objects seem to work, intentionally or naturally, to help humanity. Sure, that doesn’t do much if Backrooms is guaranteed to do the decay & erosion thing you mention so much, but again, it’s Backrooms. We really don’t know that.
But I feel like this sentence implies something more: The combined forces of its other creatures, natural effects, and rapidly evolving landscapes not only outdo, but eventually eliminate humanity and its footprint as a whole.
Feels like it’s genuinely not just talking about decay—it means something that objects would contrast with.
I'm not even going to bring standards anti-nihilist arguments into the picture
It's not anti-nihilist, it's like… kinda true. in billions of years the universe will end and the earth will cease to be.
…
…
…
Backrooms
So, yes, again
It’s extremely possible that The Backrooms are not even part of the actual universe! (personally, I find this a cool interpretation of The Backrooms: a twisted reflection of the universe remaining long after the universe itself has cooled to a desolate void, but anyways,) Even right now, the heat death is disputed, and that’s in a place that does follow the laws of physics! I think it’s genuinely impossible for a canon-neutral page, right now, to make any sort of claim as to the final fate of The Backrooms.
To conclude:
you don't like infering things. This, on paper, is chill. If you prefer your pages to be more simple and laid out I get that! but please don't make shitty strawmans about fire ants to mask the fact you don't like to analyse pages, or at least found it hard to do it with this one.
Eh, I don’t feel like you made this point very strongly throughout your response, and I feel like I’ve refuted it well enough thoughout.
And
god, that was tough to get through wasn't it!
please don't do literary analysis
the worst thing I ever read
unironically one of the worst pieces of critique I have ever seen
go take a fucking history and geography course
So! With all of that you’ve said, I have something separate to discuss:
Kindness: A brief essay
Us humans are very driven creatures. This is natural and healthy for us. Without it, we have no purpose. But it can be a dangerous thing! I’m not talking about potentially dangerous and damaging pursuits, but about genuine wishing for approval and success. As good as it can be, it can cause us to do things we regret. Worse still, these things can fail to have the intended effect! Hence, it’s actually very important to try to be kind and polite to people. Not only is it critical to society, not only is it fundamentally good, and not only does it improve people’s lives, but it’s the rules.This site is based primarily around writing and feedback! A healthy mindset in writing and critiquing is really important to and for us all. When people give feedback badly, it can result in nasty events.
Now, I’m not saying you should make extreme substantial personal sacrifices to be nice, but when it is in your power, you should do da good thign. If you do all the right things with conviction, you can even reach true enlightenment & inner peace.
So pretty please use less swears & rudeness when responding to me.3
Please put long texts in collapsibles. ~ staff
Footnotes
1. Autocorrect insists this is “bailed” rather than boiled, but I would never apologize for bailing someone’s piss.
2. I do see a clearer way this could fit into the sentence, but it would require more deviating from the attempted canon-neutrality.
3. And all the other lovely people you’ll meet throughout your hopefully long & rich life, too!
Goodness, wikidot has a weird account system. What's this weird forum signature thi
Good job! I loved your response just as much! Especially the backed-up kindness essay!
Just a high schooler who thinks he is good at writing. Likes working on a lot of stuff, ranging from writing for the Backrooms Wiki, to providing critique, and reading. ~ Pen.
"The truth is the truth. What changes is what we know about it and what we're willing to believe."
- Jonathan Maberry, Rot and Ruin
Greggita Mahayfaio, you are expected to maintain a respectful and considerate attitude towards all community members, especially when addressing critiques of your work. If you disagree with someone's critique or find it lacking in quality, there are constructive and polite ways to express your disagreement rather than responding with a lengthy and aggressive post. This is an official warning to you from staff.
SecondtoInfinity, we appreciate your efforts in providing resources for effective communication. If any issues persist, we encourage both of you to continue the conversation through private messages.
Both of you - moving forward, please utilise collapsible formatting for long texts. This is a locked staff post. Please refrain from responding if you are not staff, and avoid continuing the discussed conversation in this comment section in any way, as it may result in appropriate disciplinary actions.
when stars smile at the moon / wonder how it looks in your eyes
just dialing your number / failed to press the last two - PRAYING IN MY HEART:
when the moon reaches stars / if you hold me tight
feel your heart beat so close - WOULD THIS LAST LONG?…
It is correct actually. Anthropoid means, technically, "of or belonging to the primate suborder Anthropoidea, which consists of the New World monkeys, Old World monkeys, and apes including humans." I guess you find it confusing cuz you read this article from the CN site, which has made a little mistake in translation. The translator from the CN site translated "anthropoid" to "类人", which means "resembling human beings". It is also accurate though cuz the word "anthropoid" has that meaning. It's just out of context.
/forum/t-16337643/entity-1#post-