re: modifying special applications (from ask the staff)

[spawnloser]

I saw the question in Ask the Staff about special applications and it touched a nerve.

So, someone submits a special application and is denied for something small, something they didn't understand or think of... and now the player has to wait months before submitting the SAME application with that slight modification?  Arbitrary.  Callous.

I understand that the staff don't want hoards of special applications pouring in, but having a way to edit and modify would be awesome, especially as we approach the end-times for Arm 1.0.  Someone really wants to try race X or guild Y so sends in a special applications... and instead of working with the player, the special application is denied and the player NEVER gets to try something that may no longer exist or may only exist in a warped and mangled form hardly recognizable when compared to what it is now.  I think this is sad.

I would like to see the staff soften up when it comes to special applications and be willing to work with people when special applications are close but not close enough.

[FantasyWriter]

I'm pretty sure that most staffers (if indeed the reason for rejection was small) would allow followup by email, but making that official policy would make EVERY rejectee think they were entitled to email follow ups.

[brytta.leofa]

It's a shame that we can't discuss concepts with the staff.  But... volunteers. Sanity. Etc.

[Is Friday]

I'm pretty sure that most staffers (if indeed the reason for rejection was small) would allow followup by email, but making that official policy would make EVERY rejectee think they were entitled to email follow ups.

That's been my experience.

[spawnloser]

I'm pretty sure that most staffers (if indeed the reason for rejection was small) would allow followup by email, but making that official policy would make EVERY rejectee think they were entitled to email follow ups.

That isn't the stated policy, and it would be better, imho, to have a way to go about it without having to resort to emails.  The reason to have it be part of the special application process includes the fact that staff can comment on special applications (not just the staffer handling those special apps), and having them able to comment on the revised version of the special application could be helpful and even necessary for the person to have the special application approved.

[FantasyWriter]

if the policy was such as you stated, I believe people wouldn't spend as much time and effort on writing their special apps to make sure everything is perfect.
The current policy, especially after the 3 apps/year rule, makes you put forth as much effort as possible towards the app before you send it off.

[Shalooonsh]

Two things I need to state before this post:

1:  I am not a HighLord.  I do not have sway on special apps, I have never governed special apps, and what I am about to say is guess work.

2:  This is not official staff position.

Special apps take a lot more work than I think most of the playerbase readily realizes.  On top of that, a very small percentage of the playerbase actually takes advantage of the special application process, but those that do tend to take -VERY- liberal advantage with that process.  Before the limitation for spec apps/year was put in, I believe I saw three accounts that would put in at least one spec app per month, sometimes more if they got a quick denial.

The policy is purposefully kept vague because of this quote:

It's a shame that we can't discuss concepts with the staff.  But... volunteers. Sanity. Etc.

With me as the possible exception, the staff of ArmageddonMUD are a very sane bunch.  That sanity is something we prefer to conserve.  Real life being what it is, being staff for Armageddon is something we do to get away from the workaday stress of deadlines and pressure.  Giving free reign for every denial to write in to us and question the minutia of the denial is going to drastically drive the stress level of the special application duty upwards.  As said, most staffers are fine with a followup, but not every staff member is, and that is a decision that should be left up to the individual staffer in charge. 

FantasyWriter is completely correct in that the 3 apps/year rule has -drastically- improved the quality of the special apps that are submitted.  The special apps I have seen lately have been incredibly detailed, with rich histories, excellent descriptions, and even an outlay of certain goals the player wants to achieve with the special app.  That little goal section really helps us, as staff, get a feel for what it is you're truly looking for in the character, and even if we have to deny it we may (thanks to that knowledge) be able to point you towards a path that you could pursue instead of your original concept.

Again, not a HighLord, not official staff position, but hopefully informative all the same.

[RogueGunslinger]

if the policy was such as you stated, I believe people wouldn't spend as much time and effort on writing their special apps to make sure everything is perfect.
The current policy, especially after the 3 apps/year rule, makes you put forth as much effort as possible towards the app before you send it off.

Every special app I've ever had, no matter how painstakingly long I worked on it, when I finally submitted, I always thought of more I could add, tweak, or fix to make it better.

[brytta.leofa]

The policy is purposefully kept vague because of this quote:

It's a shame that we can't discuss concepts with the staff.  But... volunteers. Sanity. Etc.

With me as the possible exception, the staff of ArmageddonMUD are a very sane bunch.  That sanity is something we prefer to conserve.  Real life being what it is, being staff for Armageddon is something we do to get away from the workaday stress of deadlines and pressure.  Giving free reign for every denial to write in to us and question the minutia of the denial is going to drastically drive the stress level of the special application duty upwards.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say, but in a rather more terse and opaque way and with 24% added grumble.

Mind you, I'd love little better than to have a few staff members at my personal beck and call.  We'd I'd have all sorts of fun: Oh, Bob, how do you like the way I'm playing Amos?  Say, Susan, could you work in another half-giant 'gicker slave of House Jal, because I'd be totally--  Jeff, wouldn't it be totally realistic for my PC to learn reading and writing by watching his Salarr-family bossgal? 

And that's with just one of me, and, even at that, I'm probably, ultimately, not the most demanding player we've got.  Things are mostly the way they have to be.

[Jingo]

I have to say that Dak at least is awesome. For answering questions (even bad ones) and letting me tweak my concept.

And probably taking a lot of time to do so.