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

[barkstabbark]

nice going teal that didnt last long at all B[

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.

[puppetfetishist.livejournal.com]

yeah p much this

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.

[memorymodus.livejournal.com]

I agree with this.

[totallynotaspaz.livejournal.com]

+1ing this entire thread, and especially the last paragraph from Jack-mun.

[ecto-biologist.livejournal.com]

Pretty much this entire thread, right here.

[circuitry]

I have nothing to add here; you've said everything I wanted to say.

/late

[featheryasshole]

Yes, this.