Echoing everyone else that the no-revisions change sounds really problematic to me. I can kind of understand the reasoning behind it, but there are plenty of reasons for an app need revisions other than that the player didn't understand their character well, and I feel like this could discourage a lot of good potential players from apping. And other people upthread have already covered this issue better than me, so I won't go into detail on that.
But, what seems like the main problem for me is that different games require different amounts of detail to be accepted, and new players really have very little way of knowing what level of detail SC is looking for until they actually app. Because apps are sent in by email instead of posted publicly, new players can't go through old apps to get a feel for what the app team is looking for. They could go to the Taken list and check current characters' journals for their applications (which is actually what I did when I apped), but those apps wouldn't necessarily be recent, or the whole app might not be included. (I know some people don't include the samples when they post their app on their journal later.) It's also a lot more work for the applicant. With revisions being possible, this isn't a huge deal because if they misunderstand something, they'll have a chance to fix it with hopefully clear instructions from the app team on how to do so. But with no revisions, it becomes a much bigger problem because everyone absolutely has to get it right the first time.
So, with the way things are right now and adding this new rule, what I feel like you're basically saying to applicants is "You have to write an application we approve of, even though we haven't given you a lot of examples or otherwise demonstrated what exactly we're looking for, and also you have to get it right on the very first try or you're rejected, and you'll have to wait two months to try again." That may not be what you're intending to say, but that's how it comes off to me, and I don't think it's at all fair to potential new players.
A beta system would help a lot with this, but it has its own set of problems too. Like a couple people have mentioned, what if the beta thinks the app is fine but the app team rejects it? The beta could take a lot of heat for that, and would probably feel terrible about it to boot, especially if they were the only beta for that applicant. It's a solid idea, but the way it is right now I think it puts a lot more pressure on the betas than it needs to.
To counter all of that, I'd definitely want to see some example applications put up, so applicants can get a better idea what kind of apps the mods are looking for. (Or even just easily accessible links to good, complete applications that people have already posted in their journals.) A checklist of things to definitely include would also be really helpful, and maybe even a list of common things apps have been rejected for in the past, so people know what to avoid. At the very least, I think lists like that should be supplied to the betas, so they know what to check for and have a better idea of what the app team is expecting. The more information the betas have, the better job they'll be able to do as betas.
...And then I ran out of steam and couldn't figure out how to end this, sob. In short, I don't think the change is a terrible idea by itself, but it would need a bit more adjustment before I'd really be comfortable getting behind it.
no subject
But, what seems like the main problem for me is that different games require different amounts of detail to be accepted, and new players really have very little way of knowing what level of detail SC is looking for until they actually app. Because apps are sent in by email instead of posted publicly, new players can't go through old apps to get a feel for what the app team is looking for. They could go to the Taken list and check current characters' journals for their applications (which is actually what I did when I apped), but those apps wouldn't necessarily be recent, or the whole app might not be included. (I know some people don't include the samples when they post their app on their journal later.) It's also a lot more work for the applicant. With revisions being possible, this isn't a huge deal because if they misunderstand something, they'll have a chance to fix it with hopefully clear instructions from the app team on how to do so. But with no revisions, it becomes a much bigger problem because everyone absolutely has to get it right the first time.
So, with the way things are right now and adding this new rule, what I feel like you're basically saying to applicants is "You have to write an application we approve of, even though we haven't given you a lot of examples or otherwise demonstrated what exactly we're looking for, and also you have to get it right on the very first try or you're rejected, and you'll have to wait two months to try again." That may not be what you're intending to say, but that's how it comes off to me, and I don't think it's at all fair to potential new players.
A beta system would help a lot with this, but it has its own set of problems too. Like a couple people have mentioned, what if the beta thinks the app is fine but the app team rejects it? The beta could take a lot of heat for that, and would probably feel terrible about it to boot, especially if they were the only beta for that applicant. It's a solid idea, but the way it is right now I think it puts a lot more pressure on the betas than it needs to.
To counter all of that, I'd definitely want to see some example applications put up, so applicants can get a better idea what kind of apps the mods are looking for. (Or even just easily accessible links to good, complete applications that people have already posted in their journals.) A checklist of things to definitely include would also be really helpful, and maybe even a list of common things apps have been rejected for in the past, so people know what to avoid. At the very least, I think lists like that should be supplied to the betas, so they know what to check for and have a better idea of what the app team is expecting. The more information the betas have, the better job they'll be able to do as betas.
...And then I ran out of steam and couldn't figure out how to end this, sob. In short, I don't think the change is a terrible idea by itself, but it would need a bit more adjustment before I'd really be comfortable getting behind it.