http://singularitymods.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
singularitymods.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
singularityooc2011-08-13 04:43 pm
singularitymods.livejournal.com) wrote in singularityooc2011-08-13 04:43 pm
Entry tags:
Policy Discussion
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).
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).
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
breaking my own "I AM NOT ENGAGING IN THIS DISCUSSION" because
nobody else is
boo
no subject
ANYWAY I wasn't going to comment on this myself, but. hm. okay, I'll shoa you my own teal deers.
Personally? I think borderline canonmashes should be allowed, as long as it isn't incredibly blatant (ex. Elfenstuck is a little on the blatant side [NOT TOO MANY CANONS WITH PINKHAIRED PSYCHICS WITH INVISIHANDS], though events are altered due to changes in characters and their motives as well as canon terms). The issue of characters from the second canon suddenly having new "castmates" isn't all that different from bringing in a character with previous CR. The latter is dealt with by asking the characters they had CR with for permission to remember them, otherwise they either forget it happened or avoid the character entirely if the mun isn't okay with it. The same could be applied for canonmash-y AUs: if characters from the second canon don't want certain spoilers/to be recognized/to interact with the AU at all, they can just say so, and it should be standard policy for the AU player to ask first. Like if we suddenly got Elfen Lied characters, I would definitely ask them if they were okay with Jack tagging them and what sorts of things they wouldn't want him talking about. it's just a common courtesy.
As for how much should be changed to make a canonmash viable, I can't really say. It's a bit of a tricky subject! But I think if you can bring the setting down to its most basic concept and apply details and influences from the character's canon in a way that makes sense, it could work just fine. You could have an AU about a school for mutants with unusual powers, but that doesn't mean it's Xavier's, and I don't think X-men characters would be too baffled by it existing unless the AU involved copying all their backstories and powers and applying them directly to AU'd characters.
And when it comes to judging AUs in general, I still say the setting has little impact. For setting AUs the character's personality should still be intact, and their decisions should still make sense. There will always be deviations from the original canon, but if they still react as that character would and act like they would then they are still that character. On the other end of the spectrum, "butterfly effect" AUs should still reflect the original character and their decisions! If a different decision was made, it should still make sense. If a Zelda AU had Link running off to join Ganon for the whole world domination schtick, that would be weird and hard to explain, for example. Basically, personality is EVERYTHING. And if an AU changes a character enough that they're not recognizable and make wildly different choices, that is doing it wrong.
Certain AU concepts shouldn't be banned simply because they may cause problems or invite other players to abuse them. In those cases, you can identify the problems and use those as a reason for revision/rejection, instead of just "we don't allow this kind of AU." If all the AUs of that type get rejected anyway because they don't work around the problems? That's fine, and that's reasonable. But if someone does manage to make a compelling AU with accurate characterization, and they get rejected because they changed the setting or were too similar to another canon? That seems just a bit unfair.
no subject
all of these teal deers
I WOULD SAY THOUGH re: even Link running off with Ganon. If he just DID IT randomly with no explanation, that'd be a bad AU. But if something horrible happened to him, and Ganon made a truly compelling argument in Link's darkest hour, etc, so forth and so on, where we have an in-story reason for this change, and can still see a logical progression from Link-as-hero to Link-as-fallen-hero, THEN we have a viable AU
It's a matter of detail, of thinking about how you're crafting your setting.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
/late
no subject
no subject
This strikes me as a simple, efficient solution.