Policy Discussion

[singularitymods.livejournal.com]

Some of Singularity's players have questions about the game policies on AU character applications. This post has been put up to allow players to approach the staff to ask questions, offer suggestions, and voice concerns regarding those policies. The moderators are also available via IM/PM [contact information] if any player does not feel comfortable discussing their concerns in public.

As of the end of this application round (August 15th), AU applications will be closed until this matter can be resolved. This ban on AU apps does not apply to the exceptions listed in the AU policies (malleable protagonists and canon AUs).

Comments

[puppetfetishist.livejournal.com]

I'm actually going to stay out of this discussion for the most part, primarily because I know me and I've got an unfortunate temper that might make things worse rather than better...

But I just wanted to say I really appreciate you guys putting this post up and taking the steps to try to address the problem.

So thanks, dudes.

[manipul8trix.livejournal.com]

REALLY quick question! Regarding the AU apps being closed next month - does this also include "other game CR" apps? I have a friend who was going to apply as one of those but doesn't know if she'll finish her app in time for the end of this round, so yeah. :3

[singularitymods.livejournal.com]

Right now we're working on a case-by-case basis; we're willing to give other game CR AUs a tentative yes. If your friend feels that the character they wish to app deviates too far from its canon outside of just other game-established CR so much so that it will be inapplicable, they should contact us to discuss it.

[gottakilldaves]

I think I've already said everything I had to say regarding the policy itself, so I won't bother repeating myself.

That aside, when it comes to AUs it's really hard to make a blanket rule for what is/isn't allowed, and from what I've heard there have been mixed messages in the past when players have approached mods asking if their AU would be allowed. Maybe there could be a separate post or a section on the reserve form for sharing AU details? While contacting mods individually might be quicker, I think having a post for that would make it easier for every member of the team to see the AU info and weigh in, leading to less confusion later on. If a player chose not to give details ahead of time and was rejected as a result, it wouldn't be a fault of the app team or mods.

The FAQ kind of works for this already, but I think it would feel a lot more welcoming for potential appers if they had a specific place for their AU-related concerns.

[puppetfetishist.livejournal.com]

This, absolutely this. Maybe when AU characters reserve they should summarize their AU, perhaps only in one sentence (I often find if an AU can't be summarized in one sentence, it shouldn't be apped anyway)


I also think perhaps we should re-iterate our points about what should/shouldn't be allowed here, in a more open forum that the players can discuss?

Personally, I feel that there shouldn't be a blanket rule. It should be "AUs are allowed" or "AUs aren't allowed", period, with perhaps the caveat that "Characters from cross-fandom AUs must EITHER have the serial numbers filed off (ie, you can't have a Bioshock AU, but you could hypothetically have an "underwater city with Objectivist ideals") OR they must explicitly have never encountered a canon character"

You can argue that disallowing cross-fandom entirely can hurt the casts apping in, but you can argue the same for fourth-walling, and this doesn't change the fact that there are some canons which are naturally this way. You haven't banned players from canons that naturally fourth-wall, and in fact this often seems encouraged.

In the end it's really up to the players what they're comfortable with, and again, the caveat that canon mashes must speak to their casts before apping is there (And you can ALWAYS confirm with each cast)

idk, I'm rambling, and incoherent here

I also still think strong AUs are viable -- my favorite one (that i keep bringing up) is 18th century sailor Commander Shepard (canon example: Marvel 1602). I also think that AUs where one tiny thing changes (we'll call it butterfly affect AUs) that can change a character's personality, goals, or story are also viable (Example: ... so many comic books. SO MANY COMIC BOOKS.)


IN THE END, I suppose what I'm saying is that trying to make blanket rules about what can and cannot be apped for an AU is difficult at best, and as always the merits of an AU should be judged on the quality of the prose and the ability of the player to handle a character, not the content of the AU itself.




THEN THERE'S OTHER STUFF WHICH I AM NOT AS ABLE TO ELUCIDATE UPON AND SHALL LEAVE TO OTHER PLAYERS, but mainly I feel that many of the recent rejections were ill-justified and/or outright rude :( which is upsetting.

[memorymodus.livejournal.com]

Mostly my concern is with communication -- from talking with multiple people it feels and seems as if not all moderators get together to discuss serious issues? It just worries me that a group of people centered around making the game what it is can't reasonably get together to talk about problems and player concerns. And I know that you definitely do communicate, but after being told that not everyone sees complaints I have become increasingly concerned that not all mods might be on the same page. Majority vote always leaves someone dissatisfied, and I think that perhaps instead of that, some sort of mutual consensus can be reached regarding serious matters? Not that it isn't effective, but leaving it behind in favor of more discussion could be preferable in some matters, like the AU applications -- and it also has the added benefit of encouraging the playerbase to compromise and understand each other's issues.

I also feel like a lot of the revisions and rejections lately have been a bit poorly worded, just as someone who has watched people I don't know receive them. The rejections feel awfully picky for some of the apps which have been well-written, and even though I know that you guys expect the best, sometimes the best feels a bit like "we don't want you here, so we will give you these revisions that are damn near impossible." Even though I'm sure that's not the intent, that's the feeling that it gives off.

[not-aquaman.livejournal.com]

I just want to +1 you on what you wrote about the app revisions/rejections. You basically worded it better than I ever could have hoped to.

[ecto-biologist.livejournal.com]

I really can't add any more to this that Man-D didn't put in better words.

Drive-by +1.

[timehacked.livejournal.com]

STILL TEAL

ALSO +1 THIS

[not-aquaman.livejournal.com]

I'll admit, I've been concerned about the "better off as fanfic" rule for AUs myself. I think it's too subjective to reject an app simply because it's "better off as fanfic." What constitutes 'better off as fanfic', exactly? The criteria aren't really specified.

I just feel as though any AU can be rejected on those grounds. After all, what is roleplaying but a form of collaborative fic writing, really? Furthermore, I think that saying an AU character is better off in fanfic is akin to saying that a canon character is better off in their own show--which sort of defeats the idea of roleplaying them on LJ in the first place.

TL;DR--I don't understand what, exactly this rule is trying to achieve. Explaining the criteria that determine whether or not an AU is "better off as fanfic" would be greatly appreciated! Because as it is, I think it's too vague and any AU could be ruled as 'better as fanfic.'

[timehacked.livejournal.com]

This is Teal who is too lazy to log out, but

Yeah, basically these are my problems with this rule as well. I feel like it's flimsy justification at best.

[ecto-biologist.livejournal.com]

+1 over here from me - there are no good guidelines/rules for AUs, and the 'Better As Fanfic' catchall serves as just that - a catchall. If the system needs a catchall like that, then shouldn't the system be fine-tuned in order to fix it so the catchall isn't needed? It's like trying to repair leaky pipes by putting a bucket underneath - sure it catches everything, but it shouldn't be put in place as a permanent solution.

[memorymodus.livejournal.com]

I agree with this. It seems like a very subjective rule that is easily bent around which person of the app team is heading the conversation over a particular AU.

[barkstabbark]

This this this, worded a million times better than I ever could.

[singularitymods.livejournal.com]

In our last mod post we clarified a few things:

http://singularityooc.livejournal.com/175376.html#cutid1

In the "better as a fanfic" section we clarified that AUs that have, quote "more than one or two significant plot or character points have been altered, or which radically alter the setting, tone, or characterization." fall under this rule.

For example, Donut as a Freelancer is okay, as it follows the canon. However, something like Donut in Tex's role wouldn't be acceptable. The latter wouldn't be acceptable because Tex's role requires things that Donut, in the same position, wouldn't do.

[savor-last-shot.livejournal.com]

Personally, I don't have a problem with that rule and I think it's meant to address AU concepts that pretty much take the character and turn it into something it really isn't or shouldn't be. Some AU concepts turn a canon character into someone unrecognizable - and really, AUs of a character should still be recognizable as that character, even if their circumstances are different.

[ecto-biologist.livejournal.com]

I'll have more when my brain stops trying to kill me, but having talked with Catie (Head mod over at a_facility), here's some notes she dropped on how to streamline the app process - especially in regards to time. Here's the cliffnotes version:

Cycle Change: Singularity's cycles don't allow for a lot in the way of of a break when it comes to app processing. A "Two for Reserves, Two for Apps", while good for lower-traffic games, doesn't work for the current traffic Singularity has coming in. The solution here is to pick a week - preferably one already covered during the 'two-on, two-off' cycle to devote to apps, while leaving three to handle reserves and other bits of modly business cuts down on the amount of traffic every month. Things might also seem to go faster if you pick a day when approvals and rejections get handed out.

App Processing: From what I understand, a number of mods- familiar with an apps canon - have to be present in order to get approvals and rejections, and you go through them one at a time. The solution here was pretty simple: Google Docs. From what I understand, mods usually have regular access to Google Docs. This allows each mod to - as apps filter in - read them and put their stance on the Google Doc - be it approval, rejection, revisions, or other. These can be peppered throughout the week on the apps that mods/app team can contribute on. Then a day (Let's say, for example, apps are processed 24 hours after submissions close.) is decided in which one mod can go through and give the copy-pasted acceptance spiel - or, if needed, a rejection spiel -, but the key here is to turn a majority voting into pseudo-majority. If mods and app team cannot reach a consensus, a rejection should be defaulted to. But only among those that know the canon. This allows more flexible scheduling between our mods, who are naturally very very busy with their home lives.

Policing Reserves - It should be stated that catching things in the reserve process saves both Singularity staff and Singularity applicants a lot of trouble. Catching reserves that might have issues - and warning applicants ahead of time - helps keep things functioning. Even if only half those that reserve apply, those that have been warned that their app might be likely to be judged harder that do apply are able to reasonably manage their case better - it may seem like policing or babysitting, but catching problems before their occur is the basis of being a moderator.

• Temporary Staff? It has been pointed out to me by a few members of the mod team that policing the reserves page is too intensive from a time standpoint. If that's the case, maybe seeking out volunteers who would work as 'Technical Assistants' would help alleviate the problem. Staff members who don't qualify as moderators or app team members, but who help maintain various parts of the community that the moderators are having trouble maintaining. I know several people who can and would volunteer to help with Singularity's various elements (Revamping wiki-pages and organization, helping maintain the reserves page stated above, helping maintain and/or drive the metaplot, and adding easy-to-use HTML navigation, among other things were listed.) simply asking for volunteers can be a great boon to the staff, who - as stated - is very likely busy with other things, most importantly their jobs and day to day lives.

I had more, I'll think of it later on. There was a lot of stuff I was thinking about while not able to do anything this weekend. People are welcome to ask questions.

[northborn.livejournal.com]

I'll probably comment more later, but I wanted to say that we already use Googledocs for our app process.

[northborn.livejournal.com]

Actually, I should probably explain the app process as it is.

Currently apps are linked in a google doc in which we use for discussion on the particular app. The apps are always handled a 3-like-vote basis, rather than waiting for a majority rule.

[modelscientist.livejournal.com]

I just want to chime in and say that I think the app rules, in general, work fine as is. The only thing I would say to change would be to perhaps shift to a more manageable app schedule to make sure you guys don't feel overwhelmed.

[alaspooryork]

Personally, I don't have a problem with the rules as they are. I spoke with the mods about my AUs before I apped them - it probably helps that they're both relatively minor, but I didn't have a problem getting in with them.

However, I disagree with the "content of an AU shouldn't matter, only writing should matter". While writing quality is important and should not be understated, it's unfair to current cast members to have to deal with an AU that's seriously out of place with their current canon; for example, an AU where Aang from Avatar gets captured, tortured and brainwashed by the Fire Nation and becomes a bitter, angry avenger. While this would be a really interesting AU to explore, it would make things really difficult for our existing and any future Avatar casts because the tone is so extremely different from the original canon--and yet they wouldn't ignore him without being OOC. And this wouldn't apply to only current castmates, who may all approve of an idea as a case-to-case basis--but future potential appers anyway. As I understand it, that's the main reason for the "better off as fanfic" idea. If your Aang is so different from canon Aang that he's barely recognizable, just app an OC. Going in with pre-established CR is great...but forcing other people into CR they may not be comfortable is not great.

/$0.02

[barkstabbark]

I think that's just another example of an AU that wouldn't work on an individual level? Though my wording would be less "only writing should matter" and more "only characterization should matter." Since Aang is a kind-hearted, cheerful character, even if you can explain the change it's still a drastic change in personality, and I think it would be fair to reject it for going too far from how he acts in canon.

idk, I guess basically what I've been saying is not to write off a whole category of potential AUs just because some of those AUs wouldn't work? Saying "his personality is way too different" is also a better/more specific reason for rejection compared to "this would be better as a fanfic."

[barkstabbark]

OH YEAH I ALMOST FORGOT TO MENTION THIS, gosh i suck.

I've noticed lately that apps have in fact been getting processed more quickly! So, I'm not sure if the current system still needs work or not, but so far it looks like you guys have fixed whatever the issue was. Maybe it could be made better?? idk, you guys seem to be managing app stuff better already, so I have no complaints in regards to processing speed. Keep doing whatever you're doing B|b

[singularitymods.livejournal.com]

That would be thanks to the additional help of Carolyn and Surge, as well as a smoothing out of a few behind-the-scenes aspects. They've proven to be amazing at helping us get through applications in a timely manner, and we're very grateful for their hard work.

[jadeblooded.livejournal.com]

I think the "better as fanfic" rule, while well-meaning, is too subjective and carries some weird connotations with it, especially when the case is usually "better as OC". I think it would be better posed to get rid of that particular wording entirely and just use a strong, unambiguously worded set of guidelines establishing the difference between an acceptable AU and what should be apped as an OC instead, that accomplish the same thing that "better as fanfic" attempts to accomplish in spirit. In addition, having AU applicants reserve and explain the AU when they reserve is a good idea.

I'm pretty satisfied with the app process, overall, this is just my two cents on that particular rule.

[rebuildscience]

^ what he said

[singularitymods.livejournal.com]

We would like to announce that we agree with that this sentiment is a solution that can be easily worked into our present system. Expect an announcement sometime today (08-15) regarding our plans to put this in place for our next Reserve round.

That said, the moderators still withhold the right to decide what ultimately defines our application stipulations and what is deemed applicable. This does not mean we do not invite discussion.

[singularitymods.livejournal.com]

Hey modbro.

You forgot that AUs are closed this next app round. (troll)

[intercept]

my only complaint with the app team in general is that they don't appear to have a set standard for what's acceptable and what isn't, regarding any character application. i am probably repeating what everyone else has said so i suppose elaboration is not necessary.

but besides the AU standards, please better define what is required of the setting section, because what the page says and what the mods want are often times different things. it seems more like they want something along the lines of a general history section in most revision requests, but the page itself goes against this. and it does not help to go to two different mods and get two different explanations, either, so i think a set standard would help extremely so that everyone is on the same page when questions arise.

i am not ragging on any of you, fyi; you're all very kind. but i just request that things regarding the standards be more streamlined, easier to follow, and not contradicted from app to app.

otherwise, everyone here is a doll. :) i really do enjoy the game and i'm so glad i can play my AU out somewhere. thank you.

+1

[barkstabbark]

I think the setting section could use some revamping for sure. It tends to be the thing that gets revisioned the most, so obviously a lot of people aren't understanding what it's asking for.