An important announcement

[upcyclingmod]

Hello, everyone.

This mod announcement is meant to address the many concerns that our players brought to us since the conclusion of the latest app round. We’ve received your feedback, and rest assured, it won’t go ignored. All of us want this game to thrive. For that to happen, we mods need to foster an environment in which our players feel comfortable enough to truly get creative.

Which is why we’d like to start off with an apology.

Our application review has been poorly handled. We received feedback on this in the past and have attempted to improve our process since, but the attempts have been haphazard and not always cohesive. This seems to have only made the inconsistencies in our review process worse. Though this was not our intention, it was the ultimate outcome, and we are truly sorry for the double standard we created. On top of that, the word choice in our rejections was unhelpful and at times accusatory. This was a failing on our part, and we make no excuses. Our potential players did not deserve this treatment, and they will not receive it in the future. This, we promise.

In light of this, we have re-reviewed this round’s rejected applications and decided to offer all rejected applicants a fair chance to revise.

Going forward, we will be doing our utmost to alleviate the aforementioned issues. The first step is to significantly change our application process. Instead of having one mod review applications, a team of mods will be taking on the task each round. Our hope is that this will not only ensure that our app mods are never forced to rush the process but also increase the odds that any given app will be reviewed by someone with canon knowledge. The more present and knowledgeable we are, the more likely we are to catch mistakes. In conjunction with this, we plan to establish a concrete grading system in order to make the process more consistent and fair in subsequent cycles. This system should ensure that every mod on the team uses the same evaluation criteria across the board.

Many of you have also come to us with concerns about favoritism. It was never our intent to keep plot information secluded to certain player circles, and we have never prevented players or characters from seeking it out. However, we readily acknowledge that not all of the information characters learn gets filtered to the game at large in a timely manner.

One of our players came to us with a brilliant suggestion, and we have been working with them to establish an official in-game document that will make it easier for characters to share information with each other. It will be an editable Google doc, linked in the game’s Full Navigation for easy accessibility. We had planned to ICly announce it during a network intro mingle this month, but our choice to hold off announcing it OOCly was a mistake.

To give us the time we need to kickstart these changes, this month’s OOC Meet n Greet has been delayed! It will go up Thursday. Please pay attention to these posts from now on as they have undergone important reconstruction. Information relevant to that month such as event timeframes, weather, and possible monster encounters will be displayed here. The plan is to announce player plots as well, so everyone can get in on the fun.

On Friday, we will be posting a network mingle for all characters to participate in. This is the mingle that will introduce the game’s information sharing document. It will also be the first in a long line of regular monthly network mingles.

Ending things on a more positive note, the game’s information pages have been under review for a while now, and we’re glad to announce that all of them have been officially updated! We would like to extend our thanks to Wind for taking on this project. Feel free to glance over the FAQ and other renovated pages, and please contact us if you have any further questions!

Edited to Add: We have locked this post to active game members. While we're willing to continue hearing suggestions and crit from members of the community, having dropped players or socks come in to argue with the playerbase was never the intent of this post. If anyone not in the game has additional commentary to make, they're welcome to direct it to the mod contact page.

Edit 2: Hi guys, we're unlocking this post again. The initial locking was a kneejerk reaction, and for that we're truly sorry. In becoming a little frazzled, we haven't been taking your comments to heart the way we should have been, and our replies may have come across as cold and uncaring. We're going to step back from this post for a day or so to cool off, but we're hoping to allow civil discussion here between both members of the community and onlookers alike.

Comments

[positivesock]

As someone who wrote a comment to your mod contact page, thank you for a pretty satisfying response.

One question though, are you walking back your rejections completely and re-reviewing applications, or do you intend on having players still fulfill some of the bizarre requests made of them through required revisions?

[upcyclingmod]

Thank you for coming to us with your concerns!

We have completely rescinded our rejections and replaced them with what we hope are more cohesive and thoroughly explained revision requests.

[positivesock]

I stepped back so that I could watch how this continued to unfold and I have to say that after more has come to light, I'm really disappointed. I was optimistic to hear that people would get a fresh chance, only for them to get increasingly weirder and more reaching revisions the second time around.

As a prospective player, it also really sucked to see you guys knee-jerk close this post because a few socks replied. I thought it was great to have a platform where this could be discussed openly, but you decided to shut it down when it started to get tough.

I am going to echo the voices of those below me saying that out of fairness, your solution should have been to accept the applications that clearly met the standards you have sought to lay out rather than giving everyone blanket revisions.

One of those players declined your revisions because of this. You are actively driving players away, both present and potential. Why are you doubling down on this, when it's clearly unfair?

[sendmyregards]

Thank you for listening to your playerbase, and taking the first step to making overdue changes and quality of life improvements to the game. As someone who expressed distress over the spread of information in the past, I'm looking forward to seeing the collaborative document. Admittedly, I'm worried that it's player-run though, since there is no guarantee everyone will use it, but I will remain optimistic and be grateful to at least have more of the information in a centralized location.

On the other hand, I do need to admit that I am somewhat disappointed in the way the applications are now being handled despite the efforts made. I am glad to see that the decisions have all been reversed and turned into requests for revisions. However, I continue to disagree with the idea that some of those applicants should be forced to revise applications at all. I also think that a few particular applicants deserve a more personalized and direct apology for the language that was used by the mod when they were originally declined. The blanket statement for each of the offered revisions doesn't feel like enough in those cases, particularly because the only time "sorry" is used is in a sentence that feels like a dismissal or a send-off: "If not, we're sorry, and we hope your next game experience is a happier one."

I don't expect Rome to be built in a day. But like I mentioned in my comment to the mod contact, I think genuine humility will go a long way after this. Admitting to an error is only half of it; demonstrating remorse is important, too.

[upcyclingmod]

Thank you for going out of your way to contact us.

Issuing individual apologies is indeed something we've neglected in our rush to address the playerbase as a whole and brainstorm how to solve the very real problems being brought to us. We worry doing so now may seem insincere on our part, but that is no reason not to. We cannot and will not pretend we're going about this massive patchwork attempt with anything even resembling expert precision. All we can do is address further concerns and prove that we will be better going forward.

Thank you for being patient with us as we try to sort everything out. We really do appreciate it.

Unfortunately, we do stand by our revision requests. What we are asking applicants for this time mostly encompasses clarifications of confusing or unexplained portions of the app and requirements that have been laid out clearly on the app page itself, such as providing canon examples of how characters act on their emotions and virtues.

[angelmort]

I appreciate the prompt response to the concerns that you've received, and I understand that putting changes into place takes time since you have to go through the whole process of putting the fire out and all that.

In addition to the above, I think it would go a long way to do some updates to the application page or the FAQ to make what makes a "good" app more clear. I'm not sure if you'd be comfortable sharing your grading system, but maybe it could be tweaked for public use? I imagine some of the issue on the player side is just that they're not completely sure what the expectations are, or what standards are, or what have you. Maybe include a couple sample applications as well? Regardless of how you handle it, if you're going to have rigid and strict standards, you need to be clear about exactly what you want to see.

For the issue of favoritism, I don't mind the slow drip of plot information via proactive characters. It's a cool approach, but I can also appreciate concerns about gatekeeping and characters dropping and whatnot. Would you guys consider putting in some "failsafes" for those situations? For example, generally giving characters more motivation to share information, or "triggering" a character's information coming out - in a game I used to mod, belongings were left behind for the next person to find. But something like forged (or real) journals, or any other number of things, could both be an interesting way of furthering the mystery while also ensuring that information keeps going around.

A google doc is fine, of course, but honestly the coolest part of this way of modding is the personal touch so I'd love to see that built on.

I'm also curious as to why the majority of characters get special notes in their acceptance, while a handful are left out? It's a minor thing, but I am curious because as it is, it just comes off as either arbitrary or a mod oversight.

[upcyclingmod]

Thank you for being understanding.

Another application update was planned for after this round. However, changing the application every month has likely only added to people’s confusion about what is expected of them. We have strived to make our current expectations clear on the app page itself, and these expectations will compose the basis of our grading standard going forward.

"What is their greatest negative emotion? [...] Are they afraid of the dark, or do they regret not saying they love someone? Why? How has this emotion affected their daily lives? How do they see the world differently because of it?"

"How aware are they of this negative emotion, and how do they act on it in canon? Does your character realize just how much this emotion has affected them? How do they act or refuse to act on it? If your character is afraid of the dark, explain how they reacted that one time there was a sudden black out."

These are direct quotes. These are the things we will be asking for in the future. Nothing more and nothing less.

We can and will include more sample applications on the app page as soon as we come to a consensus on which ones best showcase our expectations.

In regards to the rest, we’re glad you enjoy our approach! It could use adjusting, certainly, but we want as many players as possible to feel as if they have had a fun, personalized experience when dealing with our NPCs.

Our NPCs have previously encouraged characters to share important information with the game at large, resulting in several information sharing posts over the network. We acknowledge, however, that these are IC measures, not OOC ones. Strapping a metaphorical ticking time bomb to information given to characters privately is something we would have to discuss as a group.

NPCs dropping non-personalized clues/journals that may or may not be truthful is an excellent suggestion that we can implement during future events. We would also like to utilize the new monthly network mingles in much the same way, with an NPC addressing the network at large. That way, everyone can play out the discovery of this information simultaneously and have one more place to share information they obtained privately.

The very simple and honest reason that some applications do not receive personalized notes is that we can't think of one at the time. This is meant to say absolutely nothing about the app, character, or player in question. Now that we plan to handle application review as a team, we will have more brains available to get creative and ensure no applicant is left out.

With this in mind, we will be attempting to leave a note for every accepted application during our next app round. If this exercise proves unwieldy, we will stop handing out notes altogether.

[strictpress]

Thanks for the response.

I agree with the comment above that there needs to be more clarity in apps. These days, widespread rejection or revisions is fairly uncommon in DWRP. It's especially uncommon in an app system intended to be simple. If there is a consistent problem with applicants not providing the information that was asked for then I think this is a problem with the application itself not asking or not presenting the right questions or prompts for applicants to provide said information.

Even as someone who applied and was accepted, I got the impression that the app is actually asking the applicant to provide specific information without directly asking for it. While the app asks about vices and virtues, I feel like it actually wants to get an understanding how characters interact negatively and positively with the setting and mechanics. I think it would go a long way to provide more detail, and examples, as to what you want to know from applicants in their app. This is, in my opinion, even more important with a simple, yet unconventional app, like Upcycle utilizes.

I also agree that the notes on acceptances to only a few characters, whatever the intention, is bad optics. I think going forward this should either be removed or be universal.

[upcyclingmod]

Thank you for trying to help!

We have been inconsistent with our app review in a big way, and it has caused problems not only for us but for every potential applicant. This is our most prominent failing, and we want to fix it. Every change we plan to make to the application review process is meant to fulfill this goal. Our aim is future consistency in review, not to alter the application itself.

This means that going forward, we will be judging apps based on exactly what we have outlined on the app page. Revisions and rejections will likely still happen, but we will be clear and transparent about why they have been issued and how the app can be improved. If all goes well, every future applicant who clearly answers the questions posed under each section of the application should be accepted.

We will be attempting to leave a note for every accepted application during our next app round. If this exercise proves unwieldy, we will stop handing out notes altogether.

[paperpusher]

Hey guys, thanks for the response to the player concerns and for opening up a dialogue. I took a quick look over the OOC info pages and want to thank you for taking feedback about updating those pages into account. I also like having the visibility and ease of reference of an in-character google doc available, but one thing that occurred to me is the issue of logistical things like world speakers having advantage against possession RNG rolls-- obviously our characters aren't going to have any clue about that, but it'd be helpful to have that information available for people OOCly for quick reference when it's relevant. Same re: any other status changes that might come up in gameplay that I'm currently drawing a blank on! (I think possessed people roll for disadvantage in certain situations?)

I want to touch briefly on bringing companions into the game, particularly because my experience when I apped in differed from how it was handled this round. I mentioned potential companions in my app (who in retrospect are autonomous enough that I'd feel like I was playing multiple characters) and got a quick informal question in response to my app about whether they had enough personality to be considered appable. In comparison, I'm canonblind for the companion situation from this app round, but seeing that it was considered a rejection or revision-worthy issue surprised me when I didn't even get an official revision request. To be clear, I think the way things went down with Best Girl Hiiragi is the best way to approach it if the question comes up again of whether a companion is a distinct enough character to come in! But I also think it's worth putting together some brief guidelines on what qualifies as a companion vs a character, and/or encouraging people to give a couple sentences about the companion's autonomy & personality in the app if they're on the fence.

I'm also agreeing with giving everyone something personalized on apping into the game, whether it's a note or object-- I know there's IC reasons behind certain characters getting what they do, but since it's a fun thing to get on an OOC level (and can immediately give characters a jumping off point for investigation or color their interpretation of the NPCs, it gives you something to do right away) I think it's something that should be expanded to all the characters as they come in.

Thanks again for your willingness to discuss these things over with the players!

[whiteshroud]

Jumping on here to +1 about the google doc and more information about logistical stuff when it comes to Silence/World Speaker roles.

Honestly, while I get wanting to have an element of surprise- I'd really like more detailed information about how the Silence. Information like how it progresses, how you heal it, etc. Up to this point, I feel like both the infected and the worldspeakers/holy players have only really gotten like vague information and then we're expected to plot from there -- only to get told later "no that's wrong" if we do just that. Which is frankly a little frustrating sometimes.

So if we could have concrete information even just on the OOC front, I feel that'd help a lot just so us players can go plot out mini-events. Because I'd rather not to have to check in all the time with the mods for what's essentially a subplot. Plus yeah, having that information widely available can open things up for other players with characters who don't aggressively go after NPCs and world info. While I play a secretive dick who would rather never share anything -- I 100% get people's frustration with having their characters locked out of information and plot stuff. The more we work on addressing that, the better.

+1

[muffled]

Clearer notes about companions, and what constitutes a companion, would also be helpful. Being familiar with Star Wars, I was surprised that BD-1 (and Corran's astromech Whistler) were not considered companions despite the fact that in canon that is exactly the function they serve. Some droids can act independent of an owner (IG-11 as a good example shows a lot of autonomy and has an entire character arc centered around it) but the majority do not.

Companions can be a tough thing to consider so I think having guidelines about what a 'companion' is could be useful, or perhaps require players to explicitly outline how their requested companion falls into that category. That way it can be part of the review process and a canonblind mod won't have to struggle with determining if they are appable. With the Child, I mentioned in my app that he's an infant and non-verbal as part of justification to bring him as a companion. I chose to write this out in my app because I wanted to give reasons why I felt he couldn't be apped on his own, which could then be judged in app review.

[upcyclingmod]

We appreciate you guys being willing to work with us!

We agree that laying out all established RNG power systems as well as roll advantages/disadvantages would be extremely beneficial to the game. We will do our best to compile this information succinctly on the RNG page itself for ease of access.

Our contrary reasoning for allowing certain companions and disregarding others stems directly from our flawed app review process, which we will be changing. We need a solid standard for what counts as appable and what doesn't, and we will create one. From here on out, any time we are uncertain, we will be sure to ask for clarification rather than jump to unfair conclusions.

We will be attempting to leave a note for every accepted application during our next app round. If this exercise proves unwieldy, we will stop handing out notes altogether.

[quietblueflame]

First off thank you for the response. It can be hard to own up to mistakes and even harder to make changes based on it. It does seem like yall are doing the right thing, but keep in mind it’s going to be a big expectation going forward from your current players and future players that you keep working on it. Professional especially.

There have been other issues that have come up I think need addressed as well and some of the above comments have already touched based on some of these. I worry deeply about a player run doc for plot because there will probably be issues ICly/OOCly with actual information gets shared. What if a character who’s been given a lot of information has to drop suddenly? What if a player doesn’t feel like updating the doc? It feels way too up in the air, and it’s already been hard enough to track down the plot.

Perhaps the player doc could be a thing, but I think the mods need to be responsible for making sure the players can easily keep up to date with the plot as well. It also seems like on top of all this, A LOT of information is completely lost within the FAQ and RNG rolls and these need to be organized along with a mod plot page. I know it’ll be quite the task, but trust me it’ll be worth getting that together for everyone’s sakes.

I’m also in agreement with the personal notes as well. I was thrilled Rena got one because it’s given me a lot to play with! But it feels super unfair to others who have not been given one. It has actively made it harder for some players to join in the plot. So please consider them as you continue.

Another issue I think needs to be addressed is AC. I know you all have some hard rules established, but I’ve noticed a lot of AC checks seem to have previously unspoken rules/expectations set that are not clear to the playerbase. Such as “tagging a different person,” “tagging outside the cast,” etc. If these are actual expectations, please make these clear on the AC page. It feels very blindsided to only address this when suddenly it’s like it’s an issue.

I apologize if these criticisms seem harsh, but it’s honestly only because I’d like to see this game thrive and succeed. I think yall have something awesome going on on a base level, but it needs these sorts of adjustments to grow strongly. Perhaps if there’s something I can do to help as well, let me know! Thanks for your time!

+1

[thevalley]

I had no idea about those AC rules and I've been in the game since the start. It's perfectly fine to have these rules but they have to be listed somewhere. Otherwise you're essentially making the players play Calvin ball in regards to doing AC which just feels frustrating and unfair. Especially in a game that's supposed to have a low AC with the purpose of being non-stressful.

(this is Ru/Abby-mun btw)

[upcyclingmod]

Rest assured, all promised changes will be made. It will just take time.

As stated in other replies, we will be updating the FAQ with more in-depth plot information as soon as we can compile it. We will also be gathering all RNG-relevant information to put on the RNG page itself. If players have read the updated FAQ and find that the plot-related questions do feel buried, a mod plot page would be a great idea. If we choose to implement this, we would transfer the in-depth plot information to this page rather than the FAQ.

While we intend to do what we can to encourage information sharing throughout the game, we cannot be expected to control the actions of our playerbase. We understand your concerns about player drops and tight-lipped characters, but there is not a whole lot we can do about these things while simultaneously maintaining the personalized NPC interaction that this game has become known for. A player who drops suddenly may not be able to share the information their character learned, but nothing is stopping other characters from learning the same information.

We will be attempting to leave a note for every accepted application during our next app round. If this exercise proves unwieldy, we will stop handing out notes altogether.

These AC discrepancies are yet another case of us failing to effectively relay certain details to our players. Thank you for catching this. We have now updated the AC page to reflect our expectations upfront.

[bindsthedead]

First of all, I'm glad concerns are being addressed, and that plot is being made accessible to people who don't chase after every little detail.

But! I do have a concern/request. While it's good that you're accessible on plurk, and I think that it's helpful for getting in touch with individual players for hashing out details like "How many successes to learn a particular spell" or for a player plot where people want things to be a surprise, and it's good to ask for player input, those two shouldn't be combined. Not every player is on plurk, not every player on plurk is on your plurklist, so if you're asking for input like what kind of events people might like, or answering stuff that affects one player but would be relevant to many more, it would be better to tell them to ask it on the FAQ or other relevant post.

I admit, I've asked you stuff on Plurk that I should have asked on the FAQ, just because it felt easier, but I'm going to try to avoid doing that in the future.

[upcyclingmod]

We understand where this concern is coming from and will certainly work on it in the future. A lot of questions asked on plurk would be suited for the FAQ, and we agree that it would be better for players to take their questions there instead. We'll do our best to remind people of this going forward.

Thank you for trying to do your part as well. We truly appreciate your desire to improve the game for everyone in it, even in the smallest ways.

[sononizaki]

I'd like to preface this with another echoing of thanks for the response that the concerns and feedback are being fully addressed here as well as offer my own personal feedback.

I'll be +1-ing the fact that the criteria for applications definitely needs to both be streamlined, clear, and concise on what you want your standards to be. Another thing that I'd like to bring up here is more transparency - while the mod contact page is readily available, it currently does not state who the mods are and what their roles do given that as far as I'm aware, none of the staff are anonymous, as seen in the October 15th announcement. New players are not going to be able to readily see that, and I think awareness of who's doing what, especially if you all are planning on having a part of the staff also be app mods is honestly really vital. This also regards moderator specific posts; if there's a specific moderator speaking, it's best to clarify that. Even more so when there's a mistake this major that can sway people one way or another regarding whether or not they would like to stay.

Regarding how the applications were handled - I feel like I'd be beating a dead horse by saying this as it's been said enough times, but I would also like to input my personal thoughts on them as well. While you do state in the announcement post that 'our hopes that a given app will be reviewed by someone who canon knowledge', this gives me slight doubts; what will happen if none of the moderator team is familiar wtih the character? When I submitted an application during the cycle prior to this one, the rejection notice stated that things were contradicting the Wiki page, and for me, it felt like my application, as well as my knowlege on the canon was being put in bad faith.

Another thing to note is that applications are screened at the end of each cycle as far as I am aware, and there is nothing on the application page that states that this is the case in the slightest bit. Which is why I ask: will this continue to be the case? If yes, then that needs to be explicitly stated on the application page as well.

As for plot-related details: while I am personally fine with plot details being given to those who are proactive in trying to find them, I feel like there is a lot of issues in having that information be shared. One thing that I'd like to bring up is that while an editable Google document might be a good thing, having it being player-run means that some issues can occur regarding updating the document and such from an IC standpoint. The other issue that you run into from an IC standpoint comes from the concept of "characters who are less familiar with the current/modern day technology", meaning that those characters would essentially be locked out of MAJOR conversation regarding the plot and sharing of information if it's all going to be network-based, and that might be a little unfair on that front, so having another alternative to that would also be great.

I will also agree with the comment above me regarding how OOC information is doled out; please encourage people to utilize the FAQ more over answering on plurk. It's nice to have someone who is willing to answer on plurk, but not everyone has plurk, and not everyone will see the answers on plurk - it's really easy to get answers like that buried and it would be more efficient to have those answers readily available in the FAQ. An OOC announcement stating the updates to answers that players might be curious about would be good in helping streamline this sort of thing and allow for more organization.

I think that should be it on my front; I appreciate the time and effort that you guys took in hashing out this response, and I thank you guys for your time - I apologize if any of these might seem harsh or potentially a little blunt, but I wanted to get my thoughts out there for both visiblity's sake as well as share my thoughts, as a player in the game who wishes to see potential improvement moving forward. If there's anything I need to further clarify or expand on, I'm willing to do so.

[upcyclingmod]

We understand your desire for transparency, however, we do not agree that these suggestions are vital. As you mentioned, information on specific mods has never been listed on the contact page. Our team has not sought strict anonymity, but neither have we publicized individual information. This is unlikely to change. Modwork is representative of the team and game as a whole, not something to be viewed differently depending on who manages what page or drafts what reply. If this is an aspect of the game you or others are uncomfortable with, we regret that, but we intend to discuss modwork as a group and take action as a unit.

Mods of every game are forced to review applications they have no canon knowledge of. This is something that will inevitably happen. In these cases, we have no choice but to rely on third party information such as wikis to check application accuracy. This is not a statement against the player who wrote the app but rather a necessity to provide consistent standards and fairness in the app process.

Applications are indeed screened after each app cycle. As things stand, we feel that stating this on the app page would be redundant. Especially when players are coming to us with concerns that information is being buried, we want to make sure what information is available on the app page is exactly what players need in order to write their apps. Nothing more.

The player-run document will be largely IC, yes. This is why we believe it is very important for us to update OOC pages like FAQ and RNG in the way other players have requested. As the player-run document will ICly be a physical document and not a digital one, characters' technological know-how will not be a factor in their participation. If players want their technologically impaired characters to join in on the network discussions, it is a simple matter of having another character explain the technology to them.

A lot of questions asked on plurk would be suited for the FAQ, and we agree that it would be better for players to take their questions there instead. We'll do our best to remind people of this going forward.

[colouredmesock]

Another sock who came to you with concerns about the application cycle. Not impressed with how you’re handling this.

— You’re doubling down. You’re doubling down on your reasoning for declining these applicants or asking for inane revisions. The only difference is that you’re feeling magnanimous enough to give declined applicants another chance. It’s insulting because most of these apps did not deserve to be declined in the first place. It shows you’re unwilling to admit you made a mistake. You are putting the burden of proof on the players. When they have already done their diligence in the aspects you’re nitpicking at:

* Asking for virtue clarification when it’s clear from the get go.
* Asking for more samples from a character. After outright admitting there was nothing wrong with the original samples.
* Asking for the possible appability of a companion when the applicant gave a link in their app to said companion, showing how much personality it has. (Spoilers: Not much. It’s a robot that can hack things with the intelligence of a Pokemon.)

My biggest issue now:
— Your refusal to give an actual apology to applicants you were rude to. You accused of one applicant of trying to bend your rules. You told another to read aloud their own app because it’s too hard to read. Most mods would have been raked over coals for doing that. You weren’t. Your players gave you the benefit of the doubt and waited to see you apologize to these applicants in a personalized manner. You did not. The most you’ve said that wasn’t the boilerplate ’Sorry we goofed’ template was this: ’The language in your app rejection was accusatory and unfounded. That is on us, not you.’ That is not an apology. That’s the bare minimum acknowledgment of what you did before putting burden of proof that the companion isn’t applicable. Again.

This is frustrating and disappointing to watch. People keep talking about how nice and sweet you are. People keep saying you’re too naive and mean well. I’ve yet to see those virtues.

[upcyclingmod]

We understand that you're disappointed in us and our prior conduct. You have reason to be.

We would like to clarify some things:

First, the initial round of application review was handled by one mod. The second was handled by a different group who reviewed the applications independently of the first and without being informed of any biases behind the initial rejections. Their decisions were supported by the entire mod team. Our initial responses were unacceptable and unfair, both in their callous tone and in their demonstrable lack of consistency. That wasn't okay, and we are sorry for the harm it’s caused our applicants. Both rejections and revisions happen over the normal course of an application round, but this round was unfair on more than one level. We decided to offer blanket revisions because our playerbase was rightly demanding fairness, and we did not wish to single out any particular applicant for receiving a different response. Our applicants did nothing wrong and did not deserve the treatment they received, but we don't believe offering blanket acceptances or accepting some and not others would have been fair for anyone. We stand by our revision requests.

Second, the mod who reviewed apps initially sent several private apologies yesterday. These were personal, meant for the applicants who were wronged and not the internet at large.

We have made mistakes, big ones, in a mod capacity no less. We are sincerely sorry for our conduct. We have apologized both publicly and privately and are now working to prevent these mistakes from ever happening again.

[bowfaire]

Good mornevening mods.

As a new player, I've sort of just been watching things go down before making judgements. I think, for the most part, I was satisfied with the initial apology. The situation is a mess, isn't going to resolved over night, and I don't really think there's any perfect resolution for this so I expected some amount of fumbling/dissatisfaction. I don't agree with everything (like making some people still do revisions for no reason out of "fairness", etc) but people have already spoken on that already so I'm going to bring up something else.

I don't think this post should be locked to only members. This isn't an issue that only impacts current players. This all started as an application issue and that involves any/all potential applicants who may or or may not be in the game. It also shouldn't matter that dropped players are chiming in considering this is why some of those players dropped.

I think it's also a bad idea to split this discussion between here and a screened mod contact page. For the latter, this is an issue that affects the players in the game too and we deserve to the discussion instead of having it screened.

I understand that there's a lot of criticism right now and that's very stressful to deal with but please understand that none of these comments (as far as I can tell) have been attacks, even if they disagree. While everyone has been firm and clear/direct with what their issues are, they've also been civil and constructive while bringing up valid points. It's not a good look to shut those voices out.

I strongly urge you to consider unlocking this post and letting comments resume for transparency's sake.

If this post is beginning to become too much, it's fair to update to say that you'll be taking a day or two to step away and reflect/process all feedback so far to figure out the next best response instead of having another knee jerk reaction like locking this post is. I'm not saying to put it off! But I'm saying it's okay to take a little bit of time if it means coming up with a better solution. (Also, if you do this, communicate it to us so we know you aren't ghosting/ignoring any sitting or later comments.)

I understand that players (current, past, potential) want accountability and answers now and I understand that the mods want to give what the people want but some of the responses so far have come off as knee-jerk reactions that aren't the most well thought out. And again, this goes back to my earlier point where this whole situation is a mess with no perfect solution so it's difficult to expect a completely satisfactory response. But this post has been up for a couple of days now and you've received a lot of feedback.

If you haven't already, I think it's time to really take everything, sit down, and reflect on what's been said. Talk with each other as a mod team and see how you've handled things here. Do you still stand by everything? Do you take anything back? What could have been done differently? What worked and what didn't? And once you've done that, I think a follow up announcement is due.

+1

[muffled]

I've dropped so I won't have access to this page for much longer, but I echo unlocking this post. Considering this apology is issued at people who were declined from the game and offered a chance to revise, it's not in good taste to not let them even see this post contents anymore.

Taking some time away to make distance and then come back to respond is perfectly fine as Eski says, but it should be public. People are being civil here and people should feel comfortable using sock accounts.

[bindsthedead]

So one thing I noticed is that at many of of the complaints about apps (not everyone getting notes, using wikis for reference, uneven standards)- all connect to the way that that apps for canons the mod was familiar with got different treatment from those that the mod didn't know very well. I think this probably wasn't intentional, but it did create a strong sense that different apps were being judged by different standards- because they were, even if that wasn't the intention.

For apps the mod was canon familiar with, they might have focused more on characterization, rather than dotting the is and crossing the ts of the app requirements. They had an easier time judging the samples, and could easily come up with notes or small items for the characters to find when they arrived.

For apps the mod wasn't familiar with, they ended up adhering much more strictly to the app requirements and may have had a harder time judging samples, which meant that these apps ended up getting held to an unfairly higher standard, in addition to getting checked against possibly inaccurate or out of date fandom wikis without applicants being told this would happen. If they'd used apps from canons the mod was familiar with as their basis for 'what makes a good app', then applicants would end up feeling, correctly, that they were being held to a different standard, and feel less than welcome when their character didn't get a note or item on acceptance.