(no subject)

[shark-mod.livejournal.com]

With the upcoming rollout of the new polychromatic-rp.info website which will codify our rules for easy player access, there are some issues that we think should be revisited before we finalize the site.

We'd like to talk about how complaints are handled. As you know, there are many ways to go about making an official complaint on somebody's characterization, activity, and all those other things that come up when you get nearly 200 people together for collaborative storytelling (RP).

• Complaint Central for all your complaint shopping needs ruleswise
  
• Character Concrit Post which we highly encourage all players to contribute their characters to, and to use when you have concerns
  
• The seasonal How's My Driving Post which, as we mentioned, we are planning to restructure somewhat lol styptic pencil anyone but will be keeping

We want your input on any of the issues listed in the main complaints section of the website, but one of the places where we get some conflicting feedback is on the matter of OOC complaints.

You've all seen how we've tried to handle the issue of perceived OOC characterization. No system is perfect and we try our best, we always encourage communication between our players. Those three venues are what we have to offer, and as always IMs and emails are encouraged too. We'd like to open this thread to any suggestions or criticisms you might have about the processes.

Too few complaints needed?
Too many?
Too long between complaint letter issuance and when more complaints will be considered?
Not long enough?
Is anonymity bad? Is it good?*
Should we take action other than a letter for the first instance?
The second?
What about the third? Removal? Suspension?
At this time, by our own choice to avoid appearance of bias, mods do not lodge complaints. Do you prefer it that way?

Everything is on the table.

To date, we have never chosen to remove a character from a player entirely due to perceived OOCness. At the same time, because we have never faced that situation period, it may seem like we refuse to do anything about the situation at all, beyond sending notices to players. Removing characters from players over how they play them is a delicate issue and feelings are easily hurt along the way. We'd also like to hear the community's opinion on this issue.

While we encourage everybody's opinion, please remember to stay courteous while expressing yourself. This is a community matter. We will gladly accept community member input, but we have turned off anonymous responses at this time to keep the discussion civil.

Also, please understand that what we are doing now is soliciting community opinion. It will take a while to filter through what majority community opinion is and implement it. For instance, if we distill this down to two majority themes, we may open the matter to a community vote as to which method we will adopt. This will take time. We won't be making changes overnight, and any major changes would require overall community approval.

Also, while we're at it, a reminder that apps will be closed from May 12 to June 1 as part of our work on the website rollout. We have a lot of work to do to unify the message and posts and links and will need the clear space to get it done in. Thanks for your patience and your input.

*Anonymity is defined, for this purpose, as player anonymity in delivery of the OOC complaint email. We do not accept anonymous complaints to the OOC complaint thread. This is only in terms of keeping complainants' identities anonymous from the email recipient.

Comments

[merchantboom.livejournal.com]

Too few complaints needed?: I'd say that 3 seems like an acceptable number to fluctuate between depending on canon.
Too long between complaint letter issuance and when more complaints will be considered?: The only problem I have with this one would be that if you issue a complaint, you can't know when (or if, if the number of players are low) the letter has been issued to the player. I'm not sure how to address this issue though.
Is anonymity bad? Is it good?: I think it's good for the purposes of this method. The mod complain thread should be the last step in the complain process, meaning that anyone that has complained to the mods should have already complained to the player themselves. Retaining anonymity also prevents others from seeing a player as a 'narc' to the mods and refusing to play with them.
Should we take action other than a letter for the first instance?: I think it works fine.
The second?: I think the 2nd letter should come with a mandatory character restart, thereby giving the player a clean slate with the character.
What about the third? Removal? Suspension?: If a player is still unable to play the character in canon then I think requiring that player to drop that character should be the next step.
At this time, by our own choice to avoid appearance of bias, mods do not lodge complaints. Do you prefer it that way?: I think that keeping the mods from complaining is probably a good call for the reason you've given. Keeping the mods as impartial as possible in the system will help to keep the system fair, especially considering that it is possible in this community for mods to change.

[mildlyreckless.livejournal.com]

Personally, I say don't stress yourselves over it too much. :| If you as mods have received complaints about a player's OOCness, take it to the player so they know what's going on and encourage them to have critique posts and whatever so people can say what's bothering them. I don't think characterization should be really regulated by mods, since this is a...game. Not a dictatorship. >> If you guys are telling people about the community's concerns, then you're doing your jobs there, right? It's up to them to play and it's up to others to help them do better or they can just...deal. With a game this big, it seems nearly impossible to me to try and micromanage this stuff, no matter how many mods you have. It's not fair of anyone to ask it of you, and I also don't think it's fair that it would be attempted period.

But that's just me.

And I'm personally for anonymity, because some do it when they don't want bias to be shown one way or another, against mods being able to lodge complaints, yada, yada, yada. Things seem okay to me as they are right now? [shrugs]

[merchantboom.livejournal.com]

Out of curiosity, what action, if any, do you think should be taken for players that cannot, or will not change how they play a character even after complaints are taken?

Not to say that the mods have the right to dictate how someone plays, but if the way a character is portraying a canon character is negatively impacting another player's enjoyment of the game, what steps should be available?

[seethruskinner.livejournal.com]

Well, honestly? Every game is a dictatorship. That's how things have to be run. Games require a bit of totalitarianism, just so things get done. Poly at least has very benign mods, who very pointedly stay out of things where it would seem as if they were abusing their power.

But full on democracy would not work in an online setting.

[playstheblues.livejournal.com]

Personally I know the feeling of when you don't get along with a player or you feel a player might be unwilling to hear you out or you feel that a player may take the unnecessary defensive when you even think of the words "OOC". Personally, I have used all the methods ascribed above depending on my relationship with the player and I think that every time I've done so things have been handled to my satisfaction.

That said; I do think that sometimes the time it takes for an issue to get addressed can be a long one, but that might come from the nature of the complaint cycle and the fact that as a player, we usually don't get to see what's being done to handle this. However, I also feel that the anonymity of that particular venue is essential to prevent hurt feelings.

In my personal opinion, I feel that RP isn't 'srs bsnss' but that a lot of us do take characterization as something we feel is important in this game, considering the application system and the "ooc" checks that are in place. However, my suggestion is not to the mods, but to other players; as someone whose job and degree hinges on my ability to deal with and dish out critique, remember that if you feel that another player is totally off base, you don't have to take that critique to heart, and it's their opinion. It is best to read and review and internalize critique, but in a wide forum like this one, you don't have to take it as a personal attack but rather as a suggestion for improvement.

The word "complaint" suggests a highly negative connotation, and forums like HMD are not designed to hurt anyone's feelings, in my opinion, but to strengthen how people play. Anonymous or not, people are generally out to be constructive. I've seen a lot of anonymous critique - well written, well phrased critique go unheeded because it's done by "anonymouse" who may just be a person who is shy, or scared of an angry response, or wishes to present their views as unbiased by clique or friendship.

My two cents. Sorry for the tl;dr.

[playstheblues.livejournal.com]

Oh, and to add to this;

Personally I think mods should be able to file and lodge complaints; however, I think that when dealing with the person who the complaint is lodged against, they should probably delegate it to another mod. Mods have opinions just like rest of us.

[theotokos.livejournal.com]

Here. Let me add my two cents.

As it is, I don't mind the complaint system now, but I can't help but raise an eyebrow. I think this system is great, but it has it's few kinks. Like, I think that, three is great? But it depends on the situation, you know what I mean? For example, with activity, three complaints is GOOD. Whereas anything else, as nice as it is, I do hope that complaints are thorough and are consistent, otherwise I'd have to worry. Not only that, I don't see why stressing player-to-player based communication shouldn't happen. As great as it is if you're shy, there's a lot of nice and friendly people here, who are willing to work with you personally and resolve issues.

I don't know. Because we can't appease EVERYONE, but I don't understand why compromises cannot be made amongst ourselves. Yes, I know people can get scared, yes, I know people can be shy, but really, it would save a lot of hassle.

[playstheblues.livejournal.com]

I don't know where it says we can't handle it amongst ourselves. I just think that other options are a fine venue to have.

[merchantboom.livejournal.com]

I couldn't agree more with the player communication bit. Players should feel more comfortable and communicate with each other more, it would help out a lot. Unfortunately there needs to be an avenue to take in the event that such communication either goes sour, or a player fears that it will go sour. Not everyone can take criticism well, or deliver it well, and while one player might mean for criticism to be constructive and helpful, the other can easily take it as a negative statement on their RP abilities.

[whofelltoearth.livejournal.com]

Too few complaints needed?

...Considering that Polychromatic has hundreds of players and some characters are from very popular source materials, yes, resoundingly. Three complaints is nowhere near enough for, say, someone playing Harry Potter. Too many interpretations, too many bones to pick. Three is a drop in the bucket, especially cumulatively.


Too many?
...No.


Too long between complaint letter issuance and when more complaints will be considered?

...No. Players should be allowed to request they not be contacted regarding complaints that they've already reasonably refuted. It's unfair to players that complaints they have already reasonably proved inaccurate are constantly forwarded to them. Possibly even close to harassment.

Not long enough?

...No.

Is anonymity bad? Is it good?

...Anonymity is good. However, by only allowing negative anonymity, an unfair picture is given. Polychromatic only has a complaints thread, not a praise thread. Were there to be a praise thread, then the anonymity would be more reasonable. Players have no way to defend themselves against anonymous complaints, but the mods would have on file anonymous support for characterization also. In fact, if Polychromatic is going to stifle a player's ability to refute claims to individuals by allowing anonymity, it's only reasonable to allow positive commentary as well, to show a holistic picture.

Should we take action other than a letter for the first instance?

...This is too blanket a question. If the characterization is that bad, a suggestion from the mods for improvement could be given. If the characterization is not directly contrary to canon, there's no reason. There's little reason to send e-mails about ambiguous complaints anyway.

The second?

...if the complaints are fresh in nature, as opposed to being rehashes of previous complaints from more than a week ago, yes, another e-mail could possibly be sent.

What about the third? Removal? Suspension?

...Absolutely not. It's your job as moderators to moderator player behavior. If a player receives even forty or more complaints, this is irrelevant, directly because of the nature of the complaint thread. If a player's interpretation is not contrary to the source material, complaints or otherwise, there is no problem with the player. If the supposed oocness is not so significant that it's affecting gameplay for a large amount of players, it's useless to suspend a player because they don't meet other's style of interpretation.

...It's not a moderator's job to control interpretation. It's a moderator's job to moderate. Because people use the complaint thread and espouse a certain viewpoint should not call for mod pandering, even to a (vocal, as this is all the mods can measure) largish number of people.

At this time, by our own choice to avoid appearance of bias, mods do not lodge complaints. Do you prefer it that way?

...Absolutely. The mods are in a position which makes it unfair to lodge complaints, by virtue of being moderators. Mods should not be allowed to lodge complaints. If a character's characterization is so bad that it warrants action, the player base should provide enough voice.

[pirate-mod.livejournal.com]

Rest assured we're reading the comments posted to this entry in full, but we need to emphasize this statement for clarification...

Players have no way to defend themselves against anonymous complaints, but the mods would have on file anonymous support for characterization also.

We the mods do not accept any form of characterization criticism from anonymous commentators. On the OOC thread, we do not accept anonymous submissions. All submissions must be made by a member of the community and they are screened. Regarding HMD, we don't accept characterization criticism stated there as concrete evidence for a letter, especially if it's submitted by an anonymous commentator.

[seethruskinner.livejournal.com]

A mod's job to moderate would entail letting players know of complaints against them. If, as under the current situation, a player is not actually punished for these complaints, I don't see why those complaints shouldn't be forwarded to the player, no matter whether or not that player has already been informed of other complaints.

I can see why someone might feel 'under attack', but it's a game... you either just toughen up and accept the fact that other people disagree, take your ball and go home, or try to be flexible and see where there might possibly be room for improvement.

If things are at the point where it seems like there is 'an attack' or constant complaints from a single, repeated source... there are other factors at play than simply characterization. Which is something the mods kinda have to pay attention to.

[fairytits.livejournal.com]

One major problem I see in the process that hasn't been addressed is "burden of proof".

I can say Character A is OOC (which would ultimately my opinion) because of his entries and/or tags and leave it at that. That's good and all, but who's to say I'm right? I've seen the mods say many a time that they all don't know the fandoms, so no matter what, they can't necessarily be the final judge on characterization.

Now if I came with canon material to say "Character A wouldn't do this because of his/her reaction in this similar scene *insert material here*..." I think that would give more concrete standing to the complaint, so there's no hurt feelings being shoved into the complaint and it's purely objective.

Because we all know one person who takes RP a bit too seriously at times.

[one-of-heaven.livejournal.com]

OK, this'll be tl;dr.

I CONSIDER MYSELF EXCUSED IN VIRTUE OF THE TOPIC. So there.

I think that complaint threads have the potential for horrible abuse: people can infiltrate canon ignorance, interpretation inflexibility and personal grudges. What are the odds?

My suggestion would be that characterization / crit / contact threads should no longer be optional. I think that this would accomplish the following:

♦ it would give players the ability to respond to criticism with potential justifications / requests for elaboration or examples / honest inquiry for further input.

♦ it would remove the reporter / indirect unit ( moderators ) who have to add a level of formality to this issue.

In other words, enforce a manner of direct contact between players and complainants. People don't feel comfortable addressing certain issues on IM (it's admittedly more awkward), and perhaps anonymity is also a way of relieving inhibitions. Additionally, if contenders come to the player (even in this way), it does establish a sort of relationship of trust: "Hi, thanks for approaching me, and trusting me to deliberate over your comments."

Downfalls? Many. Impressively many.

♦ constant HMD-like feel; some people are and will be anxious by nature, and perpetual exposure might not help.

♦ people might complain to the player, who might choose to do absolutely nothing - what then?

I think that all complaints, once responded to, should be visible on the thread. That way, if complaints accumulate, and players start noticing that the person accused of OOCdom is doing absolutely nothing, they can contact a moderator and point them the thread's way. Moderators would then have the ability to see the (hopefully constructive) dialogue, both sides of the coin, and determine whether action should be taken. Once again, mods cannot be expected to know all canons, so it's understandable that they would base their decision on issues like, " 5 people complained your char was a h0r, while being a blushing virgin in canon. " and player replies being like, " I felt PURTY that morning so I wrote like that ;D" on what seems to be the most objective burden of proof.

♦ what if the player with the OOC character deletes comments?

Contact a mod. " Hi, I filed a complaint last month and I have received no response, and p.s: the player has been logging nonstop for the past 72 hours, so I know they're online."

♦ trolling on the characterization threads.

Players can also contact moderators if someone is abusing this forum for discussion: "Guys, bring the flamethrower."

♦ players or those with complaints interpret everything as personal attacks.

...I have no answer. I'm sorry, I don't mean this sarcastically. There is absolutely no way to convince someone that you're not out to get them, if they're inclined to believe that. This is a pretty big issue.

I realize that I've presented a potential solution with entirely too many flaws, and I hope I've emphasized and hyperbolized them sufficiently. I think answers to practical problems should be analyzed destructively.

On a parting note: I think people shouldn't forget that moderators are also players. If the same system remains, they should be allowed to file complaints, because it's not like their complaints will carry more weight than an average player's. Therefore, if it's just the one moderator complaining and no one else, there'd be no letter of complaint anyway.

[lefeufollet.livejournal.com]

...I love all of your disclaimers. ♥

And I think a lot of these ideas are choice, although I disagree with the parting note!

...now let me reread this again. OMG tl;dr Ruxi y u do dis 2 me?

[killing-sweep.livejournal.com]

While I think sometimes that it feels like there should be less complaints required because the complaint function is something that is not used as regularly as it should be (I know I always never think of it until an issue has bothered me to a particularly great extent), three seems to be a fair number to prevent against most grudge-wanking on characterization in general.

I do think anonymity is required in a situation like this, although it causes a lot of suspicion and finger-pointing. In this case, I feel that if a person can stand not being anonymous in regards to this, I believe they would have already contacted the mun through other means, as they are given ample opportunity to. Perhaps, come the second or third letter, it might be a wake-up call to note that those issuing complaints are different, if they are so, but nothing more than that.

I am entirely against the idea of character removal as anything but an absolute last resort, something that is taken with an incredible amount of gravity. So, I would lean towards quiet suspensions of players who have not shown significant consideration towards the complaints of their fellow players. Yes, playing is supposed to be fun, but role-playing is a community-driven exercise.

I honestly don't feel that moderators should be prevented from lodging complaints. If we trust them to judge our applications and keep peace in our community, I don't see why we can't trust them to express their own opinions in a private forum where action won't be taken without the added input of other players. The moderators are just as much players as we are and if someone's characterization is affecting their ability to play, I believe they should be allowed at least the right to speak out about it in a forum where their opinions will be held equally with any other players'.

[whofelltoearth.livejournal.com]

To say that we trust the mods to judge our applications is a bit strong and putting words in people's mouths. The moderator's decisions are final, and that implies no action on our parts, trust or otherwise.

The mods have in the past overlooked some extremely bad apps and accepted them. The app review process that players can now use fixes this problem, so that this happens much less frequently, but it's still unkosher to say that for the whole community.

i hope this makes sense, i'm kind of sleepy.

[becomedemons.livejournal.com]

I think three complaints is a good number, just because I know how hard it is to get people to actually follow through with making a complaint. I think we're all aware that people will vocally complain to each other for an eternity over AIM, but getting people to file a formal complaint is like pulling teeth. And I understand that - it's intimidating. You're putting yourself out there and declaring you know better how to handle [some character] better than the player, you're doing it without being anonymous, and you have no idea how you're going to come off or what's going to happen now that you've filled it out. In a venue that's pretendy funtimes, it can be a very anxious thing to do, so I think it's good that you give a lot of credit to people who cowboy up and do it. I also think that, due to the nature of the complaints, if someone has a personal vendetta, you'd be able to tell pretty quick.

I am very much in favor of anonymity, but I understand I may be in the minority, and I understand why that is. People as a whole - like, as a human race - tend to take criticism personally, regardless of it being over role playing or their performance at work. It DOES create tension and friction between players, no matter how dedicated people may be about keeping IC and OOC separate. I don't care who you are, even if you're superhuman about it, it's going to get to you, even if only subconsciously. Going anonymous alleviates a lot of that. Unfortunately, a lot of people take being anonymous as a green light to be a jerk, ruining things for the people who are trying to get legitimate feedback work done.

I think moderators should be able to make complaints. There are enough moderators that if one moderator makes a complaint, the other five can handle it and just keep the mod in question out of the loop.

I think Ruxi's idea of concrit posts being mandatory is excellent.

I hope everyone participates on HMD.

As far as determining if someone is OOC, I don't envy anyone the task. Everyone has different interpretations, opinions, things change during gameplay, etc. I think it should be handled on a case by case basis, because not all fandoms are the same, not all crews are the same, and I'm sure not all complaints are the same. I think you guys are smart and attentive enough to be able to make good judgment calls on things like that.

[concept-killer.livejournal.com]

Too few complaints needed? Three is good. It's the magic number in any situation. They didn't make the saying "If one person calls you a horse, ignore him. If the second person calls you a horse, begin to wonder. If the third person calls you a horse, get a feed bag and stock up on oats." without a good reason.
Too many? See above
Too long between complaint letter issuance and when more complaints will be considered? It might want to be upped to three weeks. It is the magic number.
Not long enough? See above again.
Is anonymity bad? Is it good? While I am a hater of anonymous, it's good because someone people are to frightened to come forth and say anything if their name is attached. There is good reason behind this sometimes.
Should we take action other than a letter for the first instance? Yesyesyesyesyesyesyesyes. If it's a valid complaint, drop the person an IM. Just say, "Hey, there was a complaint issued about such and such. Just letting you know."
The second? Yes again. See above.
What about the third? Removal? Suspension? The third is where it should get serious. Removal or suspension from the third is harsh but informing the player that it's coming down and you might wanna shape up would be proper IMO.
At this time, by our own choice to avoid appearance of bias, mods do not lodge complaints. Do you prefer it that way? While it sucks, mods shouldn't lodge complaints. It's a mods duty to enforce the rules they created, not be the one who patrols.

[concept-killer.livejournal.com]

igfuhdg SO TIRED. THE QUESTIONS ABOUT ACTIONS FOR INSTANCES ARE INCORRECT. I AM OFF TO BED

[goldbeforeglory.livejournal.com]

As it is, I don't really have an opinion on most of these questions. That is to say that, no matter what decision you make, I can't really see myself getting upset or thinking it's the "wrong" one. But I'll go ahead and give my opinion on one of the questions, since I actually, you know, have one.

Is anonymity bad? Is it good?

I'm not sure you could say concretely that this is definitely a good or definitely a bad thing. We don't even need to ague about the abuse of anonymous, because all of us have seen it at least one. Anonymity grants a person a certain feeling of invincibility, and there are people that take that power and run with it. "Anonymous" because synonymous with free reign to be rude, crude, mean, and perhaps unnecessarily harsh. Common courtesy, for some anonymous, seems almost to be a luxury.

However.

There are a great many things that some of us might want to say--not necessarily mean, even, but opinions that go against the general public, or that could potentially hurt a friend--which we feel we cannot while logged in. As an example, say I'm on friendly terms with Player A. Player A and I aren't BFF, but we get along. Now, say Player A is a horribly shy person (perhaps this is the reason we're not closer?) and feels she cannot approach me. Not because I come off as mean, but because she doesn't want to jeopardize what is currently an amiable acquaintance. But, Player A has an issue with the way I played Character B, and isn't sure how to approach me. I haven't put up a concrit post, and the issue she hasn't isn't severe enough for the OOC complaint thread. How, then, can she tell me what she thinks?

I think that, like so many other things in this world, anonymous itself isn't inherently bad or good. As always, it's up to the will of the user: the intent with which it's wielded. I don't think that the mods should do away with anonymous, as it can be a useful tool, but I suppose what I'm saying is that the mods, or the players, need to figure out if the pros outweigh the cons. It comes down to personal opinion.

[whofelltoearth.livejournal.com]

I agree. I think anonymous should be a choice, because people can be hurt when people close to them have a contrary opinion, even if it's negative or otherwise. To avoid that unnecessary stress, players should be able to make complaints which are single-blind.

We're human. We get hurt. We don't want to hurt people.

I just think that, as stated above, there should be a place for positive commentary from single-blind sources as well as a way for the mods to forward responses to the complainers, because the players don't know who they are to address them.

[warconductor.livejournal.com]

Three seems, to me, to be a good magic number for the number of complaints required. It's small enough that it doesn't require the entire game to respond before action is taken, but large enough that spurious complaints can be cut down. And I definitely think there needs to be time between letter and further complaints, as the person gets time to attempt to improve.

I think what might help in that regard is if there were some way to notify the persons in question that a letter had, in fact, been sent? That way they know to look for change, won't waste time sending complaint after complaint, wondering why the person hasn't done anything, etc.


I'm inclined to agree that anonymity should be in this case, as I see the mod complaint thread as kind of the smart bomb of addressing OOCness issues. It's the port of last call, what you would go to if there's no other way to get things done.


As for taking action I'm inclined to say that yes, eventually some sort of action should be taken. I don't know if suspension or removal is required, but if it becomes more and more obvious that someone isn't changing, or isn't even considering what other people are telling them, something has to be done. I honestly believe OOCness can affect other people's play, especially if they're canon-mates or someone the character would be in contact with frequently. If it continues and nothing is done about it, something needs to be fixed.


I also completely, utterly, and whole-heartedly agree with Ruxi's idea of mandatory OOC crit posts. It's totally genius.

[cal-sitter.livejournal.com]

I'm kind of groggy and not feeling 100%, but here's a rough outline of my thoughts, since I may not be back until late. I liked Vash-mun's point that "I don't think characterization should be really regulated by mods, since this is a...game. Not a dictatorship."

There are times when I'm concerned that this game is far too worried about characterization. It's not a formal writing workshop. For my own part, feeling like ever single sentence I write is going to be picked apart and analyzed is stifling (and I'm saying this as someone who's a veteran of a pretty aggressive and demanding formal program). While constructive criticism is certainly desirable, too much oversight of characterization in an RP setting opens the road to abuse and drama headaches.

I still believe that characterization/concrit threads should be optional. There's frankly too much opportunity for abuse and already several avenues in place for players to voice concerns about another's activity and characterization. Everyone responds to criticism differently, and that should be kept in mind when looking at the systems in place for critiques. People shouldn't be forced to choose between participating in concrit methods that may make them uncomfortable (the HMD thread is the most vocalized example) or getting out of the game. Some oversight is desirable, of course, but I still caution against too much in an environment that is, first and foremost, supposed to be fun.

Unfortunately, I have to cut this short, because I should have been out the door ten minutes ago.

[theotokos.livejournal.com]

Yeeeah, receiving a mandatory concrit post? I think that MIGHT scare a few people off. Not everyone is open to concrit, because some of us react differently. HMD has left a bad mark on some.

[so-very-greedy.livejournal.com]

Too few complaints needed?
Actually, I think it might need a bit more than 3. There's a LOT of people here. Different eople will see a character in different lights, it's just part of being human. Perhaps one person sees traits in a character another person doesn't.

Too many?
Hardly.

Too long between complaint letter issuance and when more complaints will be considered?
I think the time is about good.

Not long enough?
It's good.

Is anonymity bad? Is it good?
I suppose it depends upon the situation. It's hard to hear that you're getting complaints from someone, but don't have a chance to directly refute them because you don't know who they are. On the other hand, some people take things very seriously and might become standoffish toward a particular player due to complaints stemming from them.
As someone who has been complained about before I've always had more respect for someone who could come to me themselves, than someone going through a middleman.

Should we take action other than a letter for the first instance? The second? What about the third? Removal? Suspension?
As I have never ran my own comm, I can't really make much of an opinion on this one.

At this time, by our own choice to avoid appearance of bias, mods do not lodge complaints. Do you prefer it that way?
While I don't think mods should be able to lodge actual complaints that count against a player, I do think they should be allowed to come, on their own, to a player and give advice or ask for clarification on something a character does.

[theotokos.livejournal.com]

Actually, I think it might need a bit more than 3. There's a LOT of people here. Different eople will see a character in different lights, it's just part of being human. Perhaps one person sees traits in a character another person doesn't.

This is exactly what I mean, it depends on the situation, depends on the fandom, but asking for proof of burden, to repeat Abel-mun, but to keep in mind what Vash-mun has said. You could be playing a very finicky character from a fandom, whether it be well-known or not, and characterization is difficult, matter of debate. Blah.

And agreeing on the subject with anonymity. Encouraging player-to-player settlement goes a lot farther than having a mod tell us "oh, there were complaints and issues with players, but we can't tell you who made the complaints, therefore you can't reach out and fix it with someone". A bit backwards in my opinion. There can always be compromise.

[vicodincrutch.livejournal.com]

Is this what I get for going to bed early? D:

Moar later.

[seethruskinner.livejournal.com]

Since I've been pinging off others, I might as well state my beliefs.

Characterization is a tricky thing to police. I fully agree with taking and passing on complaints, but find that punishing people for these complaints is hard unless, as stated above, there is clear-cut (or very nearly clear-cut) contrariness to canon.

I agree that encouraging talk between players is the way to go. Characterization is tricky and dialog is how people need to discuss that sort of thing. But in an environment where that might not work, I also agree that the mods being an intermediary is also a decent system. Especially in one that encourages player dialog.

[quackingly.livejournal.com]

For the actual questions posed in the entry...I mostly think the way the characterization post works is pretty good. I agree with...someone, I forget who, that brought up the issue of burden of proof--I don't think it should be mandatory, but I'd like to see it encouraged in general. I think it'd be helpful both for mods and for players to get a crit that's something like "I think this character is acting far too friendly when they should be anti-social. In such-and-such episode they go as far as out-right stating they don't like people, and that sentiment remains throughout the series. Such-and-such curse/event/relationship/whatever has been used to defend the character being friendly, but it seems like it should affect a minor change at best" rather than "Bob should hate everyone, but she's playing him like a hippie!!". (Extreme example, partially for the sake of humor. ...and apologies to anyone that may be named Bob.) OOC is subjective, sure, but I know I find it a ton more helpful when I know where a person is coming from, particularly if they use examples from the game. (If the person making a complain acknowledges the growth in the RP and shows they've actually been paying attention to how I've been playing...generally I feel much more inclined to listen to what they have to say.)

Also, regarding this part of the policy: "Once such an e-mail has been issued, we leave improvement to player discretion, and only further consider new complaints after two weeks." Two weeks feels a little short to me, since it might not always be a enough time to fix a problem if it's significant. If it's the first time a player has realized there's a problem with something, they might be hesitant to restart, but...if it's something entrenched enough in the character that change can't be instantaneous, and they have to use character development to get a character back on track...two weeks wouldn't be enough time. Two weeks would probably not be enough to even notice any changes the player was trying to do. And if they get a second e-mail, then they're technically in more trouble, right...?
...At the same time, though, much longer than two weeks and it starts feeling ridiculous...so it's really hard to say what a good time would be. x.x;; I'm kinda leaning towards three weeks, but that still might not be enough time for the player to make decent changes, while it'd feel like forever for those who complained...so yeah, I don't know.

Oh, and finally--this is probably more directed at players than mods--I'd really like to see actual dialogue be encouraged. It seems like sometimes, particularly on the HMD, an Anon will leave their crit, the player will respond with explanations for why they might be making particular choices...and....Anon never responds back. Does that mean Anon understands the player's explanation and is satisfied? Or does Anon think the explanation is so horrible that it's not deserving of the time? Or is it just that Anon couldn't even be bothered to check back? When this happens...well, you don't know, and as a player this can be frustrating, particularly if you honestly want to please the person who left the crit. I don't think it's really giving excuses if a player does this, (not always, anyway) but more a sign that the player actually thinks about why they do certain things, so...it'd be nice to see Anon respond back to let the player know if they're satisfied or not (and if not, why).

[so-very-greedy.livejournal.com]

I second that last paragraph. I've know lots of anonymous who just snipe and retreat, without going any further into it.

[compactcrucifix.livejournal.com]

Before I get started with my answers I just want to make a note that a lot of people seem to think "OOC" is a nebuluous concept, and to a degree I agree. I want to clarify with a question okay a few questions of my own - playing OOC is one thing, but is "Playing OOC to mess with somebody else" a whole separate category of harassment? And how can you tell if someone is wildly out of character for no good reason or trying deliberately to make waves?

Ah.. as to the rest.

Too few complaints needed?
I'd say it's about right, actually. Repeat offenders for anything make me a little sad, but maybe they can't help it or need more impetus to change.

Too many?
Well, no, because certain people do have different takes on a character - multiple interpretations of a single scene might well even be correct. Van Helsing, for example: you can ship all sorts of pairings and use multiple different evidences to prove your point, and you'd probably be able to make a good case for them all. And I can see him going three ways from Sunday on a lot of them. ♥

Too long between complaint letter issuance and when more complaints will be considered?
Probably, unless the problem is glaring and critical, I'd say it's too short.

Not long enough?
Yes, that!

Is anonymity bad? Is it good?
It's definitely good. Reprisal = not good. Never. Builds a hostile atmosphere. And anon tends to take the teeth out of a complaint, anyway. You feel less betrayed by such-and-such person who was always so nice to you, yadda yadda, and yet thought you were playing BlueFace CuddleBuckets a little too wickedly for their tastes!

Should we take action other than a letter for the first instance?
Nah, I think a chance is a good thing, if people can correct their mistakes.

The second?
Getting into more irksome territory, yeah, but three strikes is a good rule of thumb, in my opinion.

What about the third? Removal? Suspension?
I would support suspension in this instance, provided all three are legitimate complaints.

At this time, by our own choice to avoid appearance of bias, mods do not lodge complaints. Do you prefer it that way?
I think it's only fair that mods get to submit complaints as well. It's your sandbox and you do a lotta work to keep the cat poo of other people out of it.