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.
no subject
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.