HMD;; June 2012

[capemods]

✖ HOWS MY DRIVING? ✖

New to the game? New characters? Just a little unsure of how you're doing? That's what this is here for, people.

How it works: Comment here - others will reply to that comment with what they have to say, and hopefully many lulz and happifuntimes will be had. We're encouraging asking questions if you don't know why or how a character got to the point they're at in game, and we're encouraging constructive criticism that isn't:

"Oh, you're so good bb!"
or
"I hate you. Diaf."

So make it good! You only get one shot every other month, right? At any rate, before you go off to comment, remember: You will get comments you agree with, and you will get comments you don't agree with; thus is the way of life. Don't take it personal. Don't get angry and start trolling. These people don't have anything against you as a person — unless, uh, they do, which we won't abide by — and we're all here to have fun, right? So let's act like it.

Anonymous comments have been temporarily enabled in the OOC community for the sake of anonymous crit, but as this privilege was abused last time and the moderators had to intervene, as promised this time around we are keeping logging IP on. We will not be checking the IP-addresses unless things get out of hand, nor will we be sharing them ever, but this is a measure in place to help prevent further abuse of anonymous commenting. If this causes discomfort, most players, as well as the mods, have personal HMDs on their journals. You are also free to contact any moderators privately or by PMing this account.

Go forth and conquer, Cape and Cowl.

<b>Player name:</b> <b>Characters played:</b> Character ✖ Fandom ✖ Character LJ <b>Personal HMD link(s):</b> (a href = )your link here(/a) <b>Anonymous allowed/encouraged? Y/N:</b> On the concrit threads. <b>Other comments?</b> Explain any life-changing or persona-altering events that your character has gone through in game and if they have changed that character's base personality in any way that could cause someone to go: "Buh-whut."

MODERATORS

AJ ✖ Ali ✖ Amy ✖ Anna ✖ Archie ✖ Arielle ✖ Aura
b-thugg ✖ Betsy ✖ Brakish ✖ Britt
Cap ✖ Cris
Dalrint ✖ Dawn ✖ Dre ✖ Duke
Elle ✖ Eric
Franky
Gabbie ✖ Gazebo ✖ Georgia
Haley ✖ Hallie ✖ Hati ✖ Hilo
Ian ✖ Inkwell ✖ Iola
Jason ✖ Jenny ✖ Jesse ✖ Jill ✖ Junabi
Kat ✖ Kates ✖ Kay ✖ Kerry ✖ Kibs ✖ Kiki ✖ King ✖ Kirsten
Lauren ✖ Leah ✖ Liz ✖ Lucy ✖ Lyrie
Maddie ✖ Mao ✖ Meg ✖ Mishi ✖ Molly
Nai ✖ Nat Squid ✖ Nita ✖ Nix ✖ Nu
Oke ✖ olesia
Rachel ✖ Rebe ✖ Ruka ✖ Ruru ✖ Ryan
Sam ✖ Sammo ✖ Sara ✖ Setine ✖ Shadow ✖ Shugo ✖ Skalja ✖ Stacey ✖ Stephanie ✖ Suki
Terana ✖ Terpy ✖ Theo
win
xepi
Yami
Zen ✖ Zero ✖ Zoe

Comments

[demonspawn]

well, granted that you called my argument faulty, it's hard to make a point without citing specific examples and i haven't done it without asking that players consent -- just for the record. but if it makes you uncomfortable, i'll drop it. i just wanted to make the point that the time factor can be the deciding factor, and that's why i think it needs to be more clear.

i'm saying that having some sort of clear cut-off will help at least make the criteria a little more clear because as we both seem to be pointing out, there's a lot of gray area. the one thing you CAN define is a time-in-game minimum. i think things should just be as clear cut as you can possibly make them. those other questions you're posing to me are things i feel like it's your guys' jobs as moderators to figure out.

and honestly i get tired of mods telling me i'm being flippant or that my arguments don't make sense. they make sense to me, and since i'm making an effort to bring this point up to you, i feel sort of disappointed that i feel the response is "we can't help you because your argument is flawed and your point is invalid?"

[soulbondee]

I don't mean any offense by the request; language like "i happen to know that the player in question would have [done X or Y thing]" isn't something I can respond to. Using non-specific details about their update is perfectly acceptable, and we can continue to do so, but I can't delineate what other explicit criteria culminated in our decision. As for the "faulty," I meant it only in terms of that specific comparison; to me, it read similar to if I were given two application notices, where one got "accepted with stipulations" and one received a "decline," and was questioned over the fact that both had a power adjustment involved -- leaving out that the "decline" included several other points leading to that decision. I was not applying it to your overall concern with regards to the time-in-game factor; that is definitely valid, and I understand where you are coming from. I apologize that I sounded dismissive.

I think some of this confusion may be stemming from the difference between what's constituting a factor and a "deciding" factor. The time a character has been in game -- when compared to the scope of the update -- can be a consideration. However, it is not a primary or deciding factor; this is why some smaller updates have been approved on a shorter time scale. In this case, even if the character had been in game for several months, it would have needed extensive reworking. The matter of time compounded other extensive factors within the request itself.

It's very rare that time-in-game becomes a component in updates -- two times in nearly four years, if my memory serves me. It's one that more often than not isn't, and the few times it is a concern, is never the catalyst for reworking. We have never outright sent back a canon update solely because of the length of time a character has been in game.

Because of this, making a rule-change based on a single, non-decisive criterion from a very unique combination of factors seems like it could be potentially excessive. The questions I asked were rhetorical, and meant to illustrate a sample of what all we would need to cover to make a rule like that; I wasn't expecting them to answered.

On that final point, I wasn't accusing your argument of making no sense; I was trying to agree with what looked like a sentiment you were expressing -- but on rereading it now it seems I misunderstood what you were getting at, and for both that and my subsequent response, I'm sorry.

However, if it seems as though the "time in game" factor crops up more frequently, or any other matter regarding updates seems to be confusing, then we will definitely see what we can do to make things clearer.