(Also, this is less aimed at you specifically, anon, and more addressing an overall phenomenon I've noticed in RP. Well. At least the circles I've been in. Your comment just so happened to be a good place to bring this up.)
Speaking as someone who was a mod in a prior existence: I think the difference is that it was an OC and not a canon character. Generally, one is going to be more strict with original character applications, because you only have the creator's word to go by when referring to personality, history, setting info, etc. Whereas with a character from a published canon, there are typically resources to refer to in order to check that their personality section isn't wildly OOC, or they haven't missed something important in the history, or that some feature of the world is represented properly. If an OC's app lacks consistency between the personality, history, and setting -that is, there's no connection between what the culture and land they live in is like and how this affected the character's past and present, and the significant events in their past don't seem to reflect in their current behaviour, for example- then it is more difficult to decide if this is an RPer you want in your game. Will they play in a consistent manner? Will they respect the setting?
With a canon character, you can generally see if the person seems to be on the right track, but maybe they aren't as detailed as you'd like or there's something they might have overlooked accidentally or they just need to connect things a bit better. With an original character... you often cannot tell if it's just they didn't write it in a way you prefer or comprehend best, or if they just threw together a bunch of ideas that sounded cool.
A lot of their response was valid criticism that would need to be addressed to form a coherent character. For example, the point where it was mentioned in the personality section that the character hates to receive help, but in their history they are shown to be accepting of it. I can think of many ways how these could tie together, despite being conflicting viewpoints on the surface. But. It's not my job as the person reviewing the app to make these connections to form a coherent character. It is the app writer's responsibility to link their thoughts together in such a way to form an accurate picture of the character. Especially when there is no resource to refer to as a back-up, because the character is purely the creation of the applicant.
There are two things I feel are worth noting.
One: In the cases that received pendings, several of them were ultimately rejected for some of the same reasons as the OC in question. I see several comments about how the personality is either not explained sufficiently, or is not consistent with canon, or is simply not consistent within the app. In the case of AUs, it is noted that the universes are not sufficiently explained as to what the differences are and how this affects the character (though thus far I see only one definite rejection for setting, the rest just seem to be pendings). Mostly, however, the majority of pendings are simply because the personality section is not quite what the app team is looking for. In that, it seems to be a fairly equal split between "too much history in the personality section", "would like a little more explanation of character growth over time", and "focus more on the character's traits and less how they interact with other characters". Most of the pendings with additional comments beyond that seem to be matters of formatting or requesting a new sample that shows something different about the character.
Also, a canon character was flat out rejected for almost the exact same reasons as the OC. Inconsistency between history and personality and contradictory information presented between all facets of the application, as well as poor grammar (which did not seem to be an issue with the OC). Which leads to my next point.
Two: It is much easier to point out the flaws in a canon character application because there is another resource to refer to. You can condense a critique of the personality down to, "You stated that Adam is mistrusting and paranoid, when in canon he is gullible and easily misled, especially by those he is close to." for example. Or even just as simple a statement as feeling that there's too much focus on positive traits whilst known and readily apparent negative traits seem to have been ignored.
A poorly written history section? Well, you can just say that it contradicts known canon information. Especially for characters where the canon is popular, so there are reliable wikis or other sources of information, that much simply boils down to the fact that a wiki link would have sufficed.
Whereas there is no convenient short-hand with an original character. If you want your critique to be meaningful and to get the writer to the standard you want, you need to bring out specifics. Why does the personality say one thing, but the history shows the opposite? How has the character achieved this accomplishment when they are written as being at a disadvantage compared to others who might be after this same goal? Why is it that the character has these experiences, yet holds beliefs that seem contradictory to what would be expected of a character of this type?
With the OC, just reading the critique, I can come up with a way to make many of the questions asked answer in a coherent fashion. The character hates receiving charity and feels terrible about it, but perhaps their culture says that charity must be accepted graciously. Maybe the child was the only orphan of their race in their group of orphans because the local area they lived in was predominantly inhabited by the other racial group. Perhaps the character, despite coming from a race that is overall not skilled with magic, was unusually gifted for their race (after all, traits tend to fall on bell curves, so naturally there will be extreme outliers at some point or another in all of history). Just to give some ideas as to how contradictory ideas can come together to form a coherent whole.
I will say that the notice of rejection did seem rather blunt, and I can see how it would (easily) be interpreted as rude or even as a verbal assault. So whilst the critique was valid and with a necessary level of detail, perhaps there is some way it could have been softened. Certain phrases stick out at me as being too abrasive. I probably would have phrased it as such (assuming I chose the exact same points to critique):
At this time we do not feel we can accept your character. Even with magic and three other alien species living among humans, it is not clearly explained as to how certain advanced technologies such as the internet and anti-gravity have been developed by this point in the world's history. With writing not having existed prior to 800 years ago, we do not feel this is sufficient time for these advances to have been made when compared with how slowly civilisation has developed in the real world. Additionally, you mention that the continent-city that the history section is set in is extremely diversified with regards to the race of its inhabitants. The fact that that, for example, only one Bast orphan lives among human orphans does not seem to adequately reflect this diversity.
In the personality section, we find that it's particularly lacking in her negative qualities beyond aggression. It also contradicts the setting and history given. For example, she's written here as hating to rely on others. Yet in the history, she does not express dislike towards her future guardian when he paid for food she stole, nor later on when he provides her with more food. Instead, she thanks him and eats with him.
In the history, beyond contradictions with the personality and setting sections, there are certain things that were not expanded on properly. For example, it is not clear what the difference is between a knight and a magic knight, if there is any. It was mentioned that the Bast tend to lack magical powers. If this is so, how did she then become a magic knight? What sort of training is involved? How long would it take the average person to rise through the ranks?
Beyond this, we would like further explanation on how a character could go from being "thoroughly broken" to "crankier than usual" upon arrival in a completely different world. Generally broken implies that the character is detached from the world and uncaring, whereas becoming cranky shows that the character is in tune with their surroundings and is likely inconvenienced by their sudden arrival in an unknown world.
Finally, the samples, especially the first person, do not follow from the personality given. Knights typically have experiences that would make it unlikely for them to not believe people exist who would be willing to end the world. If there is a reason she believes differently, we would like for this to be explained further. Otherwise, we feel it is inconsistent with the history created for the character, given what she was accused of doing before her reassignment.
Overall, we would suggest more thoroughly building the world, as it is presently lacking in sufficient detail to explain how the civilisation is what it is and how it affected the character's life. Also, some more consideration should be given as to why the character might have feelings and beliefs that contradict what she has seen and done.
wow, writing that up almost made me miss being a mod.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
this is really tl;dr, and for that, I am sorry.
(Anonymous) 2013-04-11 02:37 am (UTC)(link)Speaking as someone who was a mod in a prior existence: I think the difference is that it was an OC and not a canon character. Generally, one is going to be more strict with original character applications, because you only have the creator's word to go by when referring to personality, history, setting info, etc. Whereas with a character from a published canon, there are typically resources to refer to in order to check that their personality section isn't wildly OOC, or they haven't missed something important in the history, or that some feature of the world is represented properly. If an OC's app lacks consistency between the personality, history, and setting -that is, there's no connection between what the culture and land they live in is like and how this affected the character's past and present, and the significant events in their past don't seem to reflect in their current behaviour, for example- then it is more difficult to decide if this is an RPer you want in your game. Will they play in a consistent manner? Will they respect the setting?
With a canon character, you can generally see if the person seems to be on the right track, but maybe they aren't as detailed as you'd like or there's something they might have overlooked accidentally or they just need to connect things a bit better. With an original character... you often cannot tell if it's just they didn't write it in a way you prefer or comprehend best, or if they just threw together a bunch of ideas that sounded cool.
A lot of their response was valid criticism that would need to be addressed to form a coherent character. For example, the point where it was mentioned in the personality section that the character hates to receive help, but in their history they are shown to be accepting of it. I can think of many ways how these could tie together, despite being conflicting viewpoints on the surface. But. It's not my job as the person reviewing the app to make these connections to form a coherent character. It is the app writer's responsibility to link their thoughts together in such a way to form an accurate picture of the character. Especially when there is no resource to refer to as a back-up, because the character is purely the creation of the applicant.
There are two things I feel are worth noting.
One: In the cases that received pendings, several of them were ultimately rejected for some of the same reasons as the OC in question. I see several comments about how the personality is either not explained sufficiently, or is not consistent with canon, or is simply not consistent within the app. In the case of AUs, it is noted that the universes are not sufficiently explained as to what the differences are and how this affects the character (though thus far I see only one definite rejection for setting, the rest just seem to be pendings). Mostly, however, the majority of pendings are simply because the personality section is not quite what the app team is looking for. In that, it seems to be a fairly equal split between "too much history in the personality section", "would like a little more explanation of character growth over time", and "focus more on the character's traits and less how they interact with other characters". Most of the pendings with additional comments beyond that seem to be matters of formatting or requesting a new sample that shows something different about the character.
Also, a canon character was flat out rejected for almost the exact same reasons as the OC. Inconsistency between history and personality and contradictory information presented between all facets of the application, as well as poor grammar (which did not seem to be an issue with the OC). Which leads to my next point.
Two: It is much easier to point out the flaws in a canon character application because there is another resource to refer to. You can condense a critique of the personality down to, "You stated that Adam is mistrusting and paranoid, when in canon he is gullible and easily misled, especially by those he is close to." for example. Or even just as simple a statement as feeling that there's too much focus on positive traits whilst known and readily apparent negative traits seem to have been ignored.
A poorly written history section? Well, you can just say that it contradicts known canon information. Especially for characters where the canon is popular, so there are reliable wikis or other sources of information, that much simply boils down to the fact that a wiki link would have sufficed.
Whereas there is no convenient short-hand with an original character. If you want your critique to be meaningful and to get the writer to the standard you want, you need to bring out specifics. Why does the personality say one thing, but the history shows the opposite? How has the character achieved this accomplishment when they are written as being at a disadvantage compared to others who might be after this same goal? Why is it that the character has these experiences, yet holds beliefs that seem contradictory to what would be expected of a character of this type?
With the OC, just reading the critique, I can come up with a way to make many of the questions asked answer in a coherent fashion. The character hates receiving charity and feels terrible about it, but perhaps their culture says that charity must be accepted graciously. Maybe the child was the only orphan of their race in their group of orphans because the local area they lived in was predominantly inhabited by the other racial group. Perhaps the character, despite coming from a race that is overall not skilled with magic, was unusually gifted for their race (after all, traits tend to fall on bell curves, so naturally there will be extreme outliers at some point or another in all of history). Just to give some ideas as to how contradictory ideas can come together to form a coherent whole.
I will say that the notice of rejection did seem rather blunt, and I can see how it would (easily) be interpreted as rude or even as a verbal assault. So whilst the critique was valid and with a necessary level of detail, perhaps there is some way it could have been softened. Certain phrases stick out at me as being too abrasive. I probably would have phrased it as such (assuming I chose the exact same points to critique):
At this time we do not feel we can accept your character. Even with magic and three other alien species living among humans, it is not clearly explained as to how certain advanced technologies such as the internet and anti-gravity have been developed by this point in the world's history. With writing not having existed prior to 800 years ago, we do not feel this is sufficient time for these advances to have been made when compared with how slowly civilisation has developed in the real world. Additionally, you mention that the continent-city that the history section is set in is extremely diversified with regards to the race of its inhabitants. The fact that that, for example, only one Bast orphan lives among human orphans does not seem to adequately reflect this diversity.
In the personality section, we find that it's particularly lacking in her negative qualities beyond aggression. It also contradicts the setting and history given. For example, she's written here as hating to rely on others. Yet in the history, she does not express dislike towards her future guardian when he paid for food she stole, nor later on when he provides her with more food. Instead, she thanks him and eats with him.
In the history, beyond contradictions with the personality and setting sections, there are certain things that were not expanded on properly. For example, it is not clear what the difference is between a knight and a magic knight, if there is any. It was mentioned that the Bast tend to lack magical powers. If this is so, how did she then become a magic knight? What sort of training is involved? How long would it take the average person to rise through the ranks?
Beyond this, we would like further explanation on how a character could go from being "thoroughly broken" to "crankier than usual" upon arrival in a completely different world. Generally broken implies that the character is detached from the world and uncaring, whereas becoming cranky shows that the character is in tune with their surroundings and is likely inconvenienced by their sudden arrival in an unknown world.
Finally, the samples, especially the first person, do not follow from the personality given. Knights typically have experiences that would make it unlikely for them to not believe people exist who would be willing to end the world. If there is a reason she believes differently, we would like for this to be explained further. Otherwise, we feel it is inconsistent with the history created for the character, given what she was accused of doing before her reassignment.
Overall, we would suggest more thoroughly building the world, as it is presently lacking in sufficient detail to explain how the civilisation is what it is and how it affected the character's life. Also, some more consideration should be given as to why the character might have feelings and beliefs that contradict what she has seen and done.
wow, writing that up almost made me miss being a mod.