route_29 | A NEW RULE APPEARS

Entry tags:

A NEW RULE APPEARS

Hey, Route!

Yes, more new stuff. Everything chaaanges, chaaaanges, it's evolutionary~

1) New apps rule!:
In the interest of clarity and app processing speed, we now ask that potential applicants post their application in comments rather than linking. If the app contains explicit references to 'hard' spoilers (think big reveals, like 'Dumbledore dies', I SEE DEAD PEOPLE, I am your father etc), players should put the application in their own journal or their character's journal and link it, making sure to mention the presence of spoilers within.

We've always gotten linked apps (goodness knows I'm guilty of linking an app or five that was spoiler-free!), but having them all on the page means the mods don't have to open a million tabs while processing, and spoiler links keep fellow players from stumbling onto things that might ruin a canon for them.

This is a rule; as of today (the 11th of October), if your app is linked but not marked for spoilers, it will not be processed that week. We trust all our players will read and abide by the rules list, which has not changed besides this.

2) Polling about the passwords:
RELAX, we're not changing anything concerning passwords...yet. But we're thinking it's about time this thing got an overhaul, don't you think?

Our proposed fix: What we'd like to do is remove the passwords altogether and replace them with something of a task system: on the rules and FAQ pages, tasks such as 'explain in one sentence how your character feels about strawberries in their personality section' or 'include a link to your favorite youtube video in the canon links section'.

The goal here is to make sure people have at least given a cursory visit to both pages. These tasks would change arbitrarily and be located arbitrarily within the FAQ and rules. Yes, these would be more work for you, and for us, but the current password system feels outdated and obvious.

Your turn: How do you feel, Route? Hate this idea? Love passwords? Have a better idea? Let us know!

[Poll #1785767]

If you have grievances, comments, suggestions or ideas concerning either the new app rule or the password system, you can: PM the mod account, PM any of us individually, catch us on AIM, or post (anonymously or not) to our (screened) Suggestions post.

Looking forward to hear from you!

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

~~Oh my god, do I ever stop asking questions.~~

On linking applications, I know comments were getting screened a lot around the time linking got super popular. I just wanted to make sure that this wouldn't happen again? It's the whole IF IT'S NOT A WHITE LISTED LINK, SCREW YOU 8DDD thing LJ started doing last spring. I think, for a while at least, wikia wasn't whitelisted and that's where a good portion of reference links come from.

Also, on passwords: I know you've heard this a thousand times from me, but if someone is already in the game, reading through the huge post that is the FAQ is a giant headache to find something that hasn't even necessarily changed. I don't think a system like that is going to work when you have fifteen and a half pages (on google docs) that a player is going to have to read through every single time they want to apply for a character.

I'm all for an arbitrary task being placed arbitrarily in the FAQ, but I think the arbitrary changes are a little unnecessary. The FAQ might change but unless you're going to overhaul it completely, it's overkill to ask someone to read fifteen pages that are mostly static to find a task.

Mind you when I mention this, I think of the Dollsy House, where there was a task stated in the rules, that never changed to my knowledge, but you'd have to read the FAQ to know.

Alternatively, I also think Mostly Harmless's system works pretty well? Where you have to answer a question with information from the FAQ. This actually seems like a pretty popular system, when it comes to making sure people read the FAQ.

~~Though I'd like to see the youtube thing, personally. It sounds fun.~~

Edited 2011-10-11 07:45 (UTC)

This may just be me, but I think if we're going for a change, then it should be something that's actually related to the rules and FAQs. I mean, something like the ones suggested there seem rather out-of-place, and could also lead to more complaints. I think if you're going to let people go through reading all the FAQs and the rules, then it's more appropriate to put in questions that are actually related to them (i.e. how many pokemon can you have in total?)

Also on apps--- if it's easier for the mods that all of the apps be posted there rather than linked, I'd suggest that if there are spoilers in the content, then it'd be best if they just went and white-texted those parts instead? I don't see the difference much otherwise from how it is normally except a little less apps linked, but that's just me.

Edited 2011-10-11 07:41 (UTC)

Possibly unpopular opinion time!

Honestly, I don't like being forced to put an app in comments because some apps can be really long and I think it's neater to have one comment with a link rather than a pile of comments if there's a lot to explain or a person/character gets wordy. It also lets people go back and fix typos or coding errors without having to delete and repost the entire application. I know that other games require it and I can understand the reasoning for it, but I personally don't enjoy it and it'd make me a little less likely to app for anyone else if I had to guess how much text filled a comment box bit by bit.

And as for the password system, while it makes sense for new players, having to search for something arbitrary every single time I write an app is a little frustrating. Unless there's been a rules change, I don't see the point in constantly requiring it when people who know about it probably just ctrl+F for relevant phrases to see what it is this time.

I basically agree with this -- the password system is already incredibly arbitrary and too easy to manipulate to be a good indicator or whether or not someone has actually read the rules/FAQ, and changing it to something equally arbitrary and easy to manipulate isn't going to make it any better. Something quizzing you on actual information in the FAQ, like how many Pokemon can you have, or asking which rule you like the best and why, would do a much better job, if you guys really want something like this in there.

I have a question regarding when, exactly, these changes take effect.

In one section you stated:

This is a rule; as of today (the 11th of October), if your app is linked but not marked for spoilers, it will not be processed that week.

Two sentences later, you claimed that you aren't changing anything... yet.

So when, exactly, are you going to put these changes into effect?

I'm actually glad to see action being taken, since this game was pretty idle in terms of moderation and regulation in the past few months, but the changes proposed here sound disconnected and, to be completely honest, announced in a cluttered and disorganized way.

Seconding Reine, I think there are other changes that are more relevant to the game (unanswered FAQ and inquiries, details of in-game functions that people are still unsure about more than a year after the game was opened) to address than how to submit an application...

or, and this is where I sound quite dickish, making it necessary for players, even ones who aren't new, to read through a long and un-updated FAQ because of a change in the way you make sure people have read it. It hasn't been updated, I cannot stress this enough. I realize I didn't suggest a better system than this when I contacted you a few weeks ago, but I'm... actually filled with feelings of (unsure) regarding the order you are doing this in.

Edited 2011-10-11 07:53 (UTC)

I think they mean the "no changes yet" part specifically regarding the password system, not the linking. There's a gap between the two parts of the post where they're under different lj-cuts, and that sentence is the start of the second part.

Ah, is that so? Then that was a misunderstanding on my part. Whoops. :|a

~~never stop asking question! i'll do my best.~~

If we have a linking problem (like, as you pointed out, comments getting screened) rescinding the rule may definitely become an option; but for now, we want to try this out in the name of making apps both A) easier and faster for us to get through, and B) keeping everything in place for our and for players' reference. We had some concerns, for instance, when someone erroneously thought we'd accepted a (linked) app with no samples, when the mun had actually simply removed them after being accepted.

Noted down your suggestion on giving a pass to curent members, which seems sound! I'm going to make a document with everybody's suggestions, for safekeeping. As for the tasks themselves--would something like, "which rule did you like best and why?" or "how many pokemon can one trainer keep?" be better? I'll have to look into the app system at both those games.

Thanks for the input!

To both of you--gotcha! We'll definitely be going for something more Route-related in light of all this feedback. I really like the suggestions for questions you've given! That would be something that veteran players could do in a snap, and new players would have to look up. As for white-texting, we'll definitely consider it if the number of linked apps doesn't go down.

Thanks for taking the time!

Unpopular opinions are allowed!

I understand your reticence! I also think a link looks neater. But having it all organized in the apps post saves us the trouble of, for instance, custom comment pages or having to open several tabs at once, and helps us keep things in order. It also allows us to keep apps for reference--like I mentioned above, there were problems recently where someone believed we'd accepted a samples-less app, when the player had simply removed them after being accepted. Does that help clear up our reasoning? I know it may not change your personal opinion on the matter, but I just wanted to make sure you knew we weren't doing this out of the blue.

Noted on the passwords! What about FAQ- or rules- related quizzing, as other have suggested: would that be a good compromise?

That's totally my bad! I've separated the post a little better; now I hope it's easier to understand that the two are separate. I meant that the new rule concerning apps, because it's a small thing, is being instated now, but nothing is being done concerning passwords until we get feedback from our players and come to a decision. If you'd like a deadline, I'd say two, maybe three weeks at the very longest?

As for why we're posting this now: we wanted to get this out and announced before a new wave of apps hit, so that people would be aware. My preference would have been to wait a few more days, but due to the nature of the app cycle, announcing it on a Monday seemed soundest.

As for the FAQ--it's being worked on! It's definitely #1 on our priority list and hasn't been forgotten. However, we also realize there are a lot of much smaller, easier things that can be fixed to make things more efficient, and...well, for lack of a better way to say it, we want to keep you, the players, in the loop. Just because we have small projects like this on our plate doesn't mean we aren't working on tackling the bigger things; I sincerely apologize if that's the way it seems.

Someone could just as easily delete the relevant part of there app as well on the app page in the case. There's also been a few cases of app-theft which could be way that person removed the sample. Having all the apps left open on the apps page I would think increases the chance that someone will just steal that app for another game since they're all in one convenient place.

And I'm rather in agreement with the above unpopular opinion. I actually had to hunt for the password the first time because I read the FAQs before apping and by the time I got to the password part in the app, I'd utterly forgotten it and had to actually go ask someone where in heck the thing was. The 2nd time was a bloody nightmare of "Where did they hide that stupid thing this time ug".

Not that it really matters since if all the apps are posted in line, you can just scroll up and take it from a the last app on the page anyway with very little fuss.

If you really want to keep all the apps together and on file, I'd suggest having them be emailed instead. Less app theft, clear apps page, easy ability to have everything in a searchable database and no comment limits. [the only trouble there is LJ formatting doesn't carry over]

Well, the thing is? There's an option to turn it off. It was kind of a roundabout, tired way of asking "Please tell me you guys have turned off link screening?"

Maybe I didn't phrase it right, but it's not so much of a pass as much as a one-time deal. I'm all for the task and all for the searching of the FAQ, I just think a repeated search for everything is excessive.

And, again imo, I think a question better suited would be something like "how does anonymous work on the gear?" or "What Pokemon types does rain affect?"

(Dollsy just asked you, somewhere in the FAQ to put "Welcome to the Dollsy House" at the bottom of the app, when I was there.)

Okay - I know some of this has been said, but rather than just pop an "agreed" or "disagreed" here, I'm just going to say it all to keep my own thoughts organized.

Regarding apps:

I personally dislike this, though the decision has been made already. There's a couple of reasons for this. The first is that it's really an inconvenience for the person posting the app. I understand you guys want to make it easier for yourselves and feel it's more organized, but... it's still not really a great solution. Posting apps in comments not only feels disjointed, but in general has so many flaws. It usually takes a couple of tries to even get the comments posted because you have to deal with the character limit. And if you make a typo, screw up coding, or anything else, you either have to edit a million times or delete the app entirely and repost it. I can safely say I have done this numerous times in games because I've messed up a link or caught a typo I made AFTER posting.

The second problem you have is that there's now a double-standard. Major spoilers count -- but nearly every canon has something with a major spoiler. If someone apps anything that came out in the last year, those are all major spoilers. Someone playing for an obscure canon isn't going to want to spoil people if they're hoping maybe they can get people into their fandom. Hell, I don't like throwing spoilers around for RPGs that have been out 3-4 years because I sure as hell know that I never loved that I knew the ending to half my games before I played them, many times from reading the apps pages of my games before anything else. Everyone's definition of a "major" spoiler of the level you described is different -- so how exactly are we supposed to know when it's okay and when it's not?

Regarding the Password System
Why do we need this at all?

I don't mean to sound like a jerk or anything, but I have wondered this from day one. There's always going to be an inherent flaw with this. The first is that if you're in the game already, presumably, you've read the rules and FAQ. Those people should be exempt to begin with.

But even for new players, it may be best to go with an honor system, because I've never seen any password/question based on reading rules/FAQ work. A lot of people, when they app into a new game will read the apps in queue to get an idea of criteria and general app styles. Doing this, you'll find those hidden things very easily -- it only takes peeking at one of two apps to figure out what's going on without ever going to the FAQ page if you really wanted to. It's flawed and it's actually something some people would consider a game breaker for them because it feels kind of like being a little kid who needs to repeat stuff back to their parents to prove they're listening.

I know and will admit that the last few apps I've done, I've looked at the last 3/4 apps for the password, then did a ctrl+f in the FAQ page to make sure it was the current one.

I'm sorry this is so long or if it came of as rude or anything! That's not my intent at all and I just wanted to point out the things I see wrong with it. You don't have to answer the parts you've covered with other people, either. I've read through everything so while I know, I still needed to say it (mostly so it didn't feel disjointed). I'm glad to see you guys are being proactive with making changes, but I think some real kinks need to be worked out with some of these systems, too.

Hi! I just wanted to clarify with you (since both Ara and Raile weren't mods back then) that the screening link problem should be settled. The only reason why it started screening apps was when LJ reset every privacy setting the mod/comm accounts had when it included the new "Spam Protection" bit. And screened "untrustworthy" links.

It was brought up to me via AIM (or private plurk, icr which it was now) and was fixed immediately.

Yeah, that's what I was talking about. I probably just wasn't phrasing it right |D I just know the problem persisted for a while, like with the harry potter wikia, and I had no way of knowing it was fixed |D Thank you.

I understand your reasoning, I just don't like it personally. The incident with someone thinking there weren't sample was easily cleared up with a brief explanation on anoncomm, so I can't see why it was worth taking into consideration when it was one isolated incident. I've modded in the past and I think that multiplying tabs is just part of processing apps, but even that isn't too bad if it's kept in its own instance of whatever browser the person is using. Custom comment pages can be disabled easily enough too.

Mayfield asks for commented apps rather than linked, but I don't like it there either. Again, it's just a naggy personal preference that'll make me less likely to do anything with apps in the future.

And on the other issue, quizzing still doesn't make sense for anyone other than new players unless there's been a change recently. We all had to read them once, there's no point in making us read through everything multiple times, especially for the people who app and drop frequently.

It's okay! I had a feeling that was it~ And yeah, I remember that happening to Harry Potter and some of the Homestuck apps when they linked to the official MSPA site. I'm sorry for not being persistent enough about getting the word out that privacy settings were fixed, I think LJ was having one of it's... moments at the same time :|a but yes, sorry about that! They're all fixed now :'>

You put a lot of my opinions (posted a few comments up) into words clearer than I ended up being capable of. Thank you.

... When is LJ not having one of its moments >___>;;

oh god that's a good question, I don't even.... >_>a

Just throwing my own two cents into this! It will probably be similar to others, but might as well throw mine in.

I personally feel that the password system or even the new proposed replacement for them doesn't really help when it comes to terms of reading the FAQs and Rules.

The passwords can be extremely easy for people to find by simply going ctrl+f with them or looking at other people's applications for the password they have used. The same thing can be done with the task system, but if we have to choose one, I will say that the task system is much more better though make it a task more relevant to the FAQS/Rules? Something like answer the question with the information in those two sections or the question itself being about them. It at least assures that people have read a little of it.

However, I think if you guys are going to keep this password/task system in, maybe you should exempt it from people already playing in the game. Those who are already in Route will probably already know all the rules and basic FAQ stuff, so this seems just like extra work to them. It's mainly the new players that need to know this so perhaps this system should only be applied to them.

As for the apps part, my opinion has been echoed already in terms of that I prefer linking because of character limit, editing, app-stealing, etc etc. The decision has already been made, but this is just my own opinion on it. I personally like linking because of typos or html code failure. When I post it in my journal, I can easily fix it but in comments, either edit it a million times or delete the whole thing in general. If there are custom pages that you're concerned about, then I suggest that maybe putting a note in the apps saying "if you're linking, please make sure to keep custom comment off".

This has gotten longer than I have thought it will, but yeah, just my thoughts on this. Sorry in advance if any of this sounds confusing or rude! I really appreciate everything you guys are doing right now and gathering our opinions like this, so keep it up!

I'm not a mod, nor do I have any position of power or decision making in Route, but an "isolated incident" on anoncomm for Route is never just an isolated incident. If it happens once, and the mods make a mistake in the future, it will come back on them for not fixing the problem when it came up in the past. This isn't a new occurrence, not for anoncomm and not for the game.

This is from player perspective, mind you, and someone who constantly links her own apps. The mods are trying to change their reputation and enacting policies on things which have caused misunderstandings--and made not only the mods look bad, but other players. No one likes to have their page linked to anoncomm negatively, no matter what the subject of the negativity is.

There's pros and cons to each method, and while linking is easier for the players in the game, and seems less messy, it is less likely to cause misunderstandings if it's all laid out.

And for the record, while I will probably bitch and moan in the future about how ugly apps look on the comments page when they're all nice and pretty in my journals, I do think the linking thing is a good idea.

There's pros and cons for either side, as I said in another thread, but in the end I do think it's a lot easier for the mods and is less prone to misunderstanding. It'd be super easy for someone to edit a journal they linked to and go OH MAN THIS REJECTION WAS TOTALLY UNFAIR, or for misunderstandings on anoncomm like the recent one. At the same time, I've seen people get pending notices and rather than respond to it with the revisions, go back and change it, and I can understand that this makes it hell for the mods to judge when they can't see where the changes are--and I don't think it should be up to them to save copies.

I'm fairly against email applications, as well, as I've never had any really good experiences with the concept and more often than not I've spent a week going "holy shit what if I got the wrong email address." I also like to see what applications are judged on, prepare myself for possible castmates, and to watch the progression of applications on Saturday nights because I have nothing better to do. This is a bizarre hobby. I know. Don't judge me. The email thing i just my experience and opinion, but I figure I'll put it out there.

Like I said below, there's a bunch of pros and cons and while I prefer linking applications, I can see why you guys would put this policy into effect. It's a lot of hassle on your end and can catch other players up into misunderstandings and drama. It's ugly, sure, but we only have to do it once. There's character limits, also sure. But they can be avoided by breaking things down i nto smaller sections before posting the application. And there is app theft (and i know a stupid amount of people who've had their apps stolen for other games), but people can steal apps from our journals, too :\

My only complaint about it aside from LJ's stupid link policy is that maybe the date for the change should've been posted sometime before the change. Everyone should follow the policy immediately, yes, but some people might miss this post. It might've been better to start on the next app cycle, and post a warning on the page--"Applications after 12:00 AM, EST on October 16th must be posted in the comments. As of October 16th, any applications linked from journals without spoiler tags will not be processed until the following application cycle." It gives us time to adjust, and people who've read the post would be able to follow the policy.

... If that last part sounds busybodyish, I don't mean it to. I just have some trouble saying things right, and using examples tends to be how I roll.

This is all just my opinion and you don't have to take it into account, and I really have no clue why I spent so much tl;dr explaining support of something, but I figure if I'm going to disagree, I might as well explain why I agree with what I do?

I hope you don't mind if I add my own (somehow unpopular, from what I see) opinion to this! Well, to be honest, I... prefer comments to linking! It's just me, but I find them neater that way. I can see how coding fail or typos can make life difficult in those, but I don't think it's that much of an issue, so personally, I don't see a problem here.

However, as already mentioned by some, the spoilers policy seems double-standard. I mean: have you honestly seen an app without spoilers? The answer is no; every app in history had, has and will have spoilers within itself -- bigger or smaller, but spoilers nonetheless. Some that are not considered major may still ruin a canon for someone (an example here, and since it's, well, a spoiler (for SMT:P3), I'll white it out: Chidori's death perhaps wasn't the most shocking spoiler in the entire game, but for someone who's just started playing it, it is a big thing). Now the question is, who is to decide what is a major spoiler and what isn't? Personally, I think that by reading an app, you fully agree to bear the consequences: people should be aware there may be spoilers lurking in the app, and it's their risk and responsibility if they choose to read it anyway.

And as for the password... Yeah, I agree it's laughably easy to go around; however, I think the tasks you provided examples of would be the same. Just CTRL+F "task" and done! The idea of rules/FAQ-centric questions that has been mentioned above is better, but it's also true that the players who are already in-game shouldn't be made to go through all of it again. I mean, I go to FAQ frequently (hence the name of the section, huh?) because my memory's not perfect and I need to check if it's okay to rename a Pokémon, what the limit is, what the current weather affects, HOW TO WRITE THAT GODDAMN "é"... I imagine (hope?) a lot of players consult the page on regular basis, so is there really a point in making them study it all again when they probably look up things there already...?

... Wow, that is a lot of tl;dr I'M SORRY. But yes, I'm done. Sorry if it comes off rude (I DIDN'T MEAN TO) and/or doesn't make any sense ;;

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 1 of 3

A NEW RULE APPEARS

i have to stop editing.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

/sneaks in liek ninja

/gasps!

no subject

>:3 fufufufu

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject