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

[clamoris]

I'm sorry but I'm gonna have to chime in here to say that I highly disagree with that approach to applications regarding canons the mods don't know about. Wikis, especially fan made ones are... well, written by fans, not by the series creator and often not up to date (or there isn't even a wiki at all out there), so taking their validity completely over a players still comes across as if you don't trust your players to be telling the truth about their character and their canon events.

Maybe this could be fixed with a history section in the apps for a player to help add that info where a wiki is lacking, or god forbid, if we have to link to a source on where the mod can actually read/play/watch the canon to check it out for themselves on their own time to see what a player is talking about if they so choose, but otherwise it's still kind of disappointing having it worded like you trust a random stranger's information about the canon over the person actually playing the character.

[colorofthesky]

I just apped here so I don't know all the context for everything being brought up on this post, but I just feel like pointing out, in almost every game I've ever apped to that had a History section, players were allowed to link wikis for ease of reference. I don't think there's anything wrong with adding a history section to the app so players can link info they believe is good, but wikis are pretty standard as far as DWRP apps go.

Since that's the case, I don't really think it's fair to ascribe ill intent to mods saying if they're not familiar with a canon, they may peruse a wiki for reference.

[clamoris]

I'm not saying the mods can't use a wiki for reference, I'm saying that they've poorly worded this decision about it, and that in the past, they've denied applications for canon points that are past where a wiki was last updated. Which, isn't particularly fair for a player if they want to play a character but a wiki from their obscure canon hasn't been updated in like five years.

[colorofthesky]

Thanks for the clarification!

I agree the best solution to cases like these is to include a history portion in the app where people can link to wikis/other sources and write out anything they feel isn’t accurately represented or included in outside references.

[upcyclingmod]

If a player's application and the character's wiki do not match up, there is a discrepancy. The discrepancy may be with the application or it may be with the wiki. Either way, we as mods are obligated to question where that discrepancy is coming from. This is standard procedure.

We will not be adding a history section to our application at this time. The application was designed to be unique, a deliberate step away from the history and personality text walls that have become DWRP's norm. We want to keep it that way. We do not believe our issues with review consistency stem from the application itself, and we intend to focus on standardizing our review process over changing the app.

[bindsthedead]

While it's understandable to want some kind of reference for canons you're unfamiliar with, fan wikis, especially for obscure series, can be incomplete or inaccurate, with fan theories getting presented as fact, and less popular characters having minimal or no information, even if they have enough canon to be considered appable.

I think that you could give applicants the option of indicating if they don't consider the wiki for a series reliable (possibly in the special notes section, if you don't want to add another section to the app), and then find another way to verify that the app isn't wildly off base. (Maybe find another player familiar with the canon and ask for their input? I'm not sure)

EDIT: Another possibility- if an app is for a relatively obscure canon and the applicant doesn't feel the wiki is reliable, maybe allow them to link their own write up in the Special Notes section? And make it clear on the app page that if mods aren't familiar with a canon, they'll consult its wiki, so players can have a heads up that they might want to indicate if they consider a wiki accurate or not.

[upcyclingmod]

Players are absolutely free to tell us if and when they believe a given wiki is unreliable! We are not weighing apps solely, or even primarily, on how perfectly they align with third party sources. But if, for example, the wiki for a character we don't know states that the character killed their parents and the app lists familial love as their greatest virtue, we are going to mention this and ask the applicant to clarify. We do not believe this approach is something out of the ordinary.

We agree that this is something potential applicants might want to know, however, and have edited the app page so there will be no surprises going forward.

[shortforever]

So I'm new here and I'm not sure if I should ask, but.

Isn't "We don't know the character, so we're going to go look at the character's wiki" just "link the character's wiki in the 'history' section, we'll read it if we don't know the canon" but with a few extra steps, and without the possibility to clarify if the wiki is wrong about something?

[upcyclingmod]

You are more than welcome to say your part!

In our response to bindsthedead, we agreed that giving applicants a space to specify their concerns about their character's wiki or anything related is a good one. We have edited the application page in order to make sure all applicants are aware of this option.

We would also like to clarify that we have no problem with applicants listing wikis themselves. What we want to avoid is players feeling they have to write out an entire history section because their wiki is incomplete or nonexistent. This is why we aren't adding a history section. We want our applicants to focus instead on the negative emotion and virtue sections, describing only past events that are directly related to said emotion and virtue.

[bridgetothefuture]

I've dropped, but I would like to add that the wiki for Death Stranding has multiple points in it that blatantly contradict canon. In cases where wiki links are required, I explicitly state those, but the idea that a wikipedia being outdated is reason enough to reject an application is incredibly disheartening.

I could do it if I wanted to, but going to grab screenshots of the canon to prove the wiki wrong is too much work for a hobby.

[whiteshroud]

I'm staying out of most of this, but I do want to chime in that while sometimes it does suck that a canon's wiki isn't very useful sometimes (Tokyo Xanadu's for example is pretty useless due to it being an obscure canon) and that it is a crappy situation that a bad wiki could influence mod decisions -- it is also equally unfair and unreasonable to expect mods to know every single canon that may app at a game without any input from the player. Even if modding was a paid full time job (which it's not, it's an unpaid volunteer position) - it'd be impossible to know every single one.

And sure, sometimes mods can ask other people for tips about a canon, but that's not always an option if the canon is particularly obscure. Not to mention asking someone can cause the same problems as reading a bad wiki, if it's someone whose interpretation of a canon is pretty far out.

Unfortunately this is the case with every panfandom RP, not just upcycle. It's frustrating for sure, but I don't think it's this mod's team fault on this one so much as just an unfortunate reality of DWRP. But I do think it is on players to provide extra information if they feel their canon's wiki is unreliable, just because expecting the mod to do all the legwork on top of everything else (since they'd be doing that for dozens of canons each app round) is a pretty unfair request.

Sorry, I'm stepping out but I just wanted to voice that.

[bridgetothefuture]

My issue is that a wiki link isn't required on the app. I assumed that the app was being looked at face value; if they need character history and a wiki link, they should require it. That way a player would be able to justify themselves for any discrepancies that might occur.

[whiteshroud]

If that's your issue, then that did not come across as your comment reads as you not liking people judging things via a wiki or having to gather information to show the wiki is inaccurate - not that there's an absence of a wiki link.

But hey sorry for not understanding! If asking for someone to link a canon history is something people would be helpful, I'd be for it. I just don't like the idea of expecting mods to know every single canon since that's just not at all feasible. That's all.

[bridgetothefuture]

I was adding to Taku's statement, I thought it was obvious given it was a reply to her comment.

I never said that mods should know every canon, that would be ridiculous. But if they need to look up information in order to judge an app, that's a sign that the app is lacking.

[clamoris]

Well, I did offer the suggestion of a potential additional history section if the wiki is lacking/nonexistent, but as seen above, the mods apparently don't want to do changes to their app like that, so that sort of leaves us at an impasse?

And "discrepency" worrying aside, they could just... ask? Like hey, could we have a clarification on why the wiki contradicts your app? Because right now, the mods are still coming off as more accusatory of a player's truthfulness in comparison to honestly any other game I've been in that has ever asked for more clarification on a character's canon and history.

[bridgetothefuture]

Yeah, I'm troubled that they default to rejecting an application instead of asking for clarification.

[whiteshroud]

If a player's application and the character's wiki do not match up, there is a discrepancy. The discrepancy may be with the application or it may be with the wiki. Either way, we as mods are obligated to question where that discrepancy is coming from. This is standard procedure.

From what I read, it does sound like they are planning to question for clarification if there is cases of discrepancy. There's no implication that it's immediately the fault of the player. Whether they hold to that, we can't know until the next app round as what's done is done with this round.

I'm not really interested in arguing on the mods behalf, I just wanted to point out that knowing all the canons is unfair and unrealistic. That's all.

[clamoris]

I didn't say that they needed to know every canon in existence. I'm saying that they are using really poor wording choices that don't make it immediately clear what their stance is here.

Just say "we will ask the player if we don't recognize this canon or detail about them", not this "question this discrepancy as is standard procedure", it's too stiff and can give the wrong impression. There's wanting to be taken seriously as mods, and then there's the risk of coming off as cold about it to the players coming forward with this issue.