In reply to chaosninja (msg # 17):

Well, assuming you were going good, responding well to questions, etc . . .

It might just be you had a good idea, but didn't make the cut. Nothing wrong with you, but not something the other person could know until the end really.

In reply to Azraile (msg # 18):

But still how they present that character and how well they paid attention to the rules I set out for RTJs are both important in knowing the player.

And I must say, no they can't control themselves. The internet does not tone people down, it distills their innate traits. If someone seems like a jerk in the RTJ, I've found they are always more of the same in play.

In reply to steelsmiter (msg # 3):

Seems a little harsh. If someone spends an hour writing an awesome back story which looks like an interesting and intriguing character to add to someones game, isn't it a little harsh to not even acknowledge them if they forget to add; Species: Elf. I'm not sure your standards but I know for my RTJ's I just don't acknowledge RTJ's if it looks like they spent less than five minutes thinking and writing combined.

History: She is a tormented girl from New York. She is also really wealthy.

Age: 19

Physical Description: Beautiful blonde and tall.

In reply to willvr (msg # 20):

Oh yes this!  I hate it when I get accepted into a game but the GM doesn't reply to the RTJ PM to tell me.

In reply to Dara (msg # 14):

LOL that is an AWSOME GM!!!

That is what I am talking about.... ok you have a char that you want to play, and you REALLY want to play it, but it don't fit the setting.  Ok, lets make it fit the setting.

And the guy playing the char might have been well aware of the rules of the setting, and was just playing out the insanity of his char and the consept.... or he could have just been really stubborn or dense.

Ether way though, the GM handled that like a pro.



In response to others, that is exactly my point... there are people to whom good spelling and grammar is not something they are capable of. It's not a lack of trying or caring, it's not a lack of intelligence, it's just the way there brain is wired. No matter of anything is going to fix that.... ever. Unless we learn to rewire peoples brains, and that's not the most appealing prospect for various reasons. >.>

In reply to chaosninja (msg # 17):

In the game I ran I did just that. I got a lot of RTJs. Some I rejected as I really didn't like the char concept and/or had concerns about the writing skills/style of the player, while others I kept on file in case players dropped out, which happens a lot in PBP no matter how good the fame.

Sure enough after a while we lost a couple of olayers is I went back through the list of possible players I had left 'on hold' and asked if they wanted to pick up an abandoned player. Some said no, others said yes and others didn't reply at all - all of which are fair responses in that situation.

Rejected an RTJ is hard to do, just like rejecting a job application. Saying 'I think you are crud' is really hard to do so I will always try to be nice, even if I end up telling a little white lie like 'we got a lot of interest so sorry you missed out this time'. I try to be as honest as I can without hurting the feelings of a stranger.

If a rejectee asks for more feedback I will try to be as honest as I can, but don't usually enter into a long dialogue as that will never end well...

Aah but I have put right in the RTJ requirements, the explanation for why they're not being accepted. Anyone who doesn't include what I want (say for example, because they were either ignoring it or because they were ignoring what I wrote in the first place) is not a 'good' or even a 'worthy' addition to my game. Straight up. I have no respect for people who don't pay attention. I won't pretend to. So let's get something straight: I want people who ignore my requirements to play the game to be 'put off'. Ignoring them works perfectly for that.


Wrong again, I also warn that protesting the full requirement will get them banned from the game, and possibly put on my ignore list. They have no choice but to not be persistent and troublesome.

In reply to Sir_Chivalry (msg # 21):

If THEY seam like a jerk, thats one thing.  If there char seams like a jerk, that's another and that is what I am talking about.

Judging a person ONLY on what there consent is and nothing else. (except perhaps the way they word it, again not something that is always there fault.. I know people who for the life of them can not explain a character or describe how they look but once they start RPing them they are mindbogglingly good. )

In reply to Azraile (msg # 24):

Yeah, and I sympathise, but on the other hand, if it's so bad that I have to spend 20-30 minutes interpreting what's written? That's just not going to end well.

I'm not saying that's the case with you; I don't know, I haven't been involved in games with you. But if it is, I'm not going to put myself through that just because the player has legitimate reasons as to why their spelling is bad.

In reply to Azraile (msg # 24):

Sorry to say, the player wasn't playing up the insanity.  He was trying to play his pashtani in spite of what the GM said.  He was frustrated and the GM was frustrated and so were all the rest of the players.

I don't care.

---

Spoiler for My Requirements: (Highlight or hover over the text to view)
As an adult game requests to join must include:
I <username> I am xx years old, born xx/xx/xxxx and it is legal for me to view adult materials in my current residence.

quote:
GMs should also not allow the players to get too creative with these statements, as changing its wording can make it invalid for our purposes.


quote:
Partial statements, and obviously false statements, should not be accepted.


If you argue over filling out the complete form, I will not be accepting your RTJ.

---

This message was last edited by the user at 04:58, Mon 14 July 2014.

In reply to Jarodemo (msg # 25):

Honestly, I would rather be told my idea is bad, and here is why it will not work for that game. I just dont want to waste days or weeks writing for a character that will never be played.

All told, I was very nice about the whole thing, as I try to be with all GMs because they are the ones doing most of the work really. And should I hear from them about a opening, I look forward to it.

In reply to chaosninja (msg # 31):

I think the problem is that while you might be happy with an honest response there are a lot of PBPers out there who can't handle an honest response and may then try to enter into dialogue that will be difficult, acrimonious and even downright nasty. As a GM trying to set up a new game do you want that level of grief? No, you just want to find a handful of players who will hopefully be good and get your game running.

So it is easier to give a bland rejection rather than a detailed rejection letter that ultimately has no value to you as a GM and might lead to hassle.

I try to avoid spending a great deal of time crafting an RTJ unless i think I have to (say, the GM has a really long RTJ form and requires a lengthy in-character sample response).  There are so many games on here that if you can't find the game you're looking for, just wait a while.   Also, some GMs create games, advertise for them, and then disappear.

However, if I see that the GM has a great track record and I really love his or her writing, I'll make an extra effort on the RTJ.  I love GMs who accept writing samples from other games, though.  That really reduces the workload on applying to a game.  Likewise, I really appreciate GMs who ask potential players to hold off on crafting character sheets and just submit pitches for characters.  If my dwarf bounty hunter idea doesn't work out for one game and system, I can pitch it again sometime for another game or system, and I don't need to bother with filling out a Pathfinder or GURPS character sheet, just to see the idea shot down by the GM.

However, like I said, if the GM looks like he or she is worth it (or if it looks like the game's going to get a ton of RTJs), I will put a lot more effort into the RTJ, but it does stink to spend hours on the RTJ, just to be told the game is full or that actually the setting doesn't include either dwarfs or bounty hunters.  =)

In reply to Dara (msg # 29):

That is a shame, still the GM handled it well.

In reply to steelsmiter (msg # 30):

That is different from any of this, and isn't harsh at all.... it's just as simple as telling them to re-post it properly and if they won't then they don't want to play do they? It's not a misunderstanding, it's not something they can't do, it's not being unreasonable or non-empathetic. It's a site rule you have to follow too and you need them to if they are going to play.

No, in fact, it isn't.  On no account should anybody contact us to deal with what is, essentially, an in-game interpersonal problem.  You need to sort it out among yourselves (hint: GMs, if a player doesn't seem to understand the message that he's not welcome in your game, you have a ban button.)

In reply to Azraile (msg # 27):

I am fully able to differentiate if the person is not a jerk because they'll be acting in such a way usually as to show this, even if the character is flawed.

And interestingly, I've got two very nice players who play jerks, and it oddly enough still makes them a handful for other players to play with because they stay in character. So sometimes I should in fact judge the character too.

And though I'm the kind to ask for someone to repost if they forget the age statement (in a new request), I wouldn't blame steelsmiter. Rarely has someone who didn't send the age statement right the first time proven to be a good player.

@bigbadron, ah thanks I wasn't sure about that (thought I read that but I couldn't go back and check easly on a phone). I didn't know we had a ban button to stop people from requesting access. That's good to know.

I really need to take some time to look through all the options I have available some time, IRL is so stressful as of late and keeping me so busy the past two weeks I've mostly been accessing this on the phone. >.<

On a side note I find it funny that I made a Poor RTJ response thread and a satire bad character idea thread in the same week.

In reply to steelsmiter (msg # 30):

After looking at the requirements, I'll make one point. You don't have to have both age AND date of birth. Some don't like to give out DOB as it can open them up to tracking so I can understand not wanting to give it out. 'I <username> I am xx years old and it is legal for me to view adult materials in my current residence.' is a valid statement for RPOL.

So if it's JUST not adding DOB, I'd still find it overly harsh.

I've had the same experience. If a character is a jerk; occasionally, they won't work within a game. SOmetimes they can; other times they can't.

And even putting aside the age request; I wouldn't blame anyone for not responding to someone because they don't fill out the entire RTJ form. Whilst it'd be nice to always be told you're not in; and why, I'm not going to question why if they don't respond (though that might make it less likely I go for another of their games); or if they just want to give a bland statement. There are other games.

In reply to Mad Mick (msg # 33):

That is another good point too, if your looking for a game and trying several different games you don't always feel like or have the time to make anything but basic RTJ's in games until you get more details on the game. Making snap judgements on passing, "Hey whats going on here?" kinda RTJs is another good way to miss out on good chars. Not everyone has time to commit to shinning gold star RTJs to every single game they are checking out.


In reply to Sir_Chivalry (msg # 36):

I totally agree. Still I don't think you should make judgments only by there char. You can simply say, I don't want a jerk in this game, or we have enough jerks already. Then simply say, "Is there any other character ideas you have?" or see if they are willing to alter the one they have.


And I don't see why anyone would ban some one because they didn't quite get the age statement right. Mistakes happen, it don't mean there trying to circumvent the system, give them a chance to fix there errors...



In general I say give them a chance to fix anything wrong, and TELL THEM WHAT IS WRONG!!!!  >.<

Here's the thing though... if I'm looking for a party of 5; and I get 15 RTJs, why should I ask one that isn't quite right now, to make it right, when I already have, for example, 7 or 8 who could easily fit, and I already need to say to 2 or 3 players that I wouldn't mind at all having in the game "Sorry, you missed out."

If I have to readvertise, then they can reconsider a different concept at that point to maximise their chances.

No it isn't. I specifically stated failure to include it bars them from the game, and your peeve is ignoring players.


Telling them that again is both redundant and annoying. If they fail to comply the first time I tell them (that is in the RTJ Requirements thread) then they don't want to play, or their desire to play is only exceeded by their willful ignorance. I will not acknowledge willful ignorance in any way, even if it means they are offended by my ignoring them.


A liberal application of this takes the stress away :D


Oh and part of me ignoring them gives the side benefit that they can catch their mistake and post it on their second post. I'm totally willing to work with a player that does that :D

In reply to elecgreystone (msg # 38):

I don't care.
This message was last edited by the user at 05:31, Mon 14 July 2014.

In reply to steelsmiter (msg # 42):

If they make a mistake in an age statement and you you discount them that is rather harsh. Like I was saying mistakes happen. If they show they are unwilling or incapable of doing so, that's one thing.... but if they slip up once um... no

I don't agree with any "one strike your out" policy of any kind, period.

It isn't quite one strike and you're out. Like I said, if they catch their mistake, and they fix it in their second post, I'm fine with that. Thing is though, I don't care if anyone doesn't agree with any 'policy' I have. They would know the risk if they'd read the requirements. If they didn't, I don't want them in my game. If they did, and didn't do it anyway, I don't want them in my game. Again, the exception being if they fix it. Until they do, their RTJ sits there lonely, for reasons they'd already be informed of if they read my RTJ. Simple.

In reply to steelsmiter (msg # 42):

*Shrug* Up to you in the end. Not sure why you need more than is required by the site though.