I hope you don't feel as if I'm attacking you (because I most certainly am not ^_^) but I can't help but address some of your points.
[quote name='Veles' post='218047' date='Oct 31 2007, 04:01 PM']They do bring up alternatives to the situations they describe - an extra information box in the application form so that relationships between more than three characters can be described and documented and proved. For 6 upcoming and 3 pending, they suggest the numbers be raised. For codes, they suggest that the word "fan" be allowed.[/quote]
I must disagree with this; I can't find any alternative solutions in the original post; 'alternative suggestions' being defined as 'compromise' in my books
The extra information box idea was posted by Mistress Puff, not the original posters. I also cannot find any alternatives voiced about the 6 upcoming/ 3 pending rule. An alternative suggestion would be, for example, telling us what exact numbers they would like the numbers to be raised to. As for the codes, asking for the word 'fan' to be allowed is simply asking for the rule to be lifted altogether (though actually, codes with only 'fan' on it
are allowed in certain categories. We did not ban the word 'fan' altogether, we simply want the codes to not be ambiguous).
[quote name='Veles' post='218047' date='Oct 31 2007, 04:01 PM']Relationships- I agree. There are legitimate relationships out there between four or more characters, although as it was pointed out a lot of these can be applied for under characters (meanwhile a lot of them cannot, thanks to the group rule). A secondary textarea for more information about the relationship would make it easier for the staff to sift through them. If nothing is written in it without any legitimate proof of the relationship actually existing, why can't the staff simply ignore it or reject it? The staff already has the ability to reject anything they want without having to explain themselves, so I don't really see the problem here. Disclaimer: I am not a staffer at either fanlisting network and I also don't have a life, so I obviously have no idea what staffers have to go through at all. I freely and openly admit that. smile.gif[/quote]
If you are the only applicant, you
will be approved, so no, we don't have the ability to reject anything without explaining ourselves ^_^ You are also always free to ask as to why the application was rejected as well, though I'd imagine the staffer would tell you the reason regardless (i.e. applying for a manhwa, series is too new, unapprovable subject for x reason, etc.) As for the box idea, the thing with that is, as I mentioned before, is that it grants us the "god-status" that nobody wants, to allow us to determine whether the 4+ person relationship is legitimate or not. If we approve Person A for a 4+ relationship, but rejected Person B for a 4+ relationship
just because we don't find it legitimate despite whatever proof Person B may have provided -- it honestly wouldn't be fair to any of you. The box idea (extra information field) itself is fine for helping the staffer with URLs and whatnot like at TFL, but for the 4+ relationships, it simply wouldn't be fair.
Show Posts
;;;;
