officialnotice: (Default)
the pines mods. ([personal profile] officialnotice) wrote in [community profile] intothepines2017-06-01 11:06 pm

( ! ) regarding our latest application round

Hey, guys.

Since The Pines first opened, we've done our best to maintain transparency with our players and welcome any feedback they might have. Over the last couple of days, we've received some pretty important feedback, and we feel that it's important to address it as a team.

First, an apology.

We rejected an unusually high number of applications this round, most on the logic that in order to be accepted, the app would require too many revisions to expect in the allotted 72-hour revision period. We realize now that this was unfair to the rejected applicants. Many perfectly good applications are written in less than a day — who were we to say that three full days was 'not enough time' to revise? Additionally, we didn't have a clear-cut standard answer for precisely how many revisions qualified as 'too many'.

We wanted to say that we're sorry for this, and for any stress or upset that it caused. Whether or not you were able to revise within the 72-hour window was a decision we should have left to your own judgment.

To rectify this, we welcome any rejected applicant from this round to ask for the revision notes to be provided, and then to submit your revisions within 72 hours to be evaluated and hopefully accepted.

Again, we're sorry for this. We thought we were doing a good thing in our goal to hold our applications to a slightly higher standard, but only now have we realized that our approach to doing so was upsetting and unfair. Future application rounds will see this change reflected, with rejections sent only to the applications that sincerely could not be revised into something we would be able to accept, regardless of time frame. Additionally, we will be re-evaluating our current application guidelines for clarity, weeding out example applications that were selected early in the game for lack of a wide selection of applications to choose from but are not the best representation of our standards, and including an 'application advice' section in our Newsletter on the 3rd.

Thanks for hearing us out, and we hope this has begun to alleviate some of your concerns.
truestbeliever: (Default)

[personal profile] truestbeliever 2017-06-02 07:52 pm (UTC)(link)
Hi!

I would like my revision notes please. Thank you for doing this.