There are many role-play sites, beyond count and there are a number that introduced 'inspection', and are they better for it depends on the people judging. It's not a matter of approval, it's a matter of no one is wrong on the internet. The staff don't bump or nudge there's no in-between, I found a person who was trained by Qui Gon Jinn, and was frozen and turned into a paddle-pop stick and popped out in chaos character creation.
You know what people did instead of approaching him, we ostracised him for something he had no knowledge of being wrong cause the system allowed it. It's not us it's on the rules around it.
There should be an in-between a person who nudges the new in the right direction, sure there may be some deliberation about what is the right direction but there certainly is one. Who decides I'd like to believe the Staff are capable, they've been writing long enough and know what poor writing is and isn't. Everyone starts out as bad but letting this free roam crap ain't cutting it, they don't understand where and how to improve if we coddle them.
Wanted your view on it. In my view there are no bad roleplayers.
[member="Kezeroth the Beholder"], thank god this is an opinion and not a fact.
The definition of role-play, sure there's some interpretation and lean-way, but we can assume from this definition that being good at role-playing is being good at performing that particular role. We can't just dash the last century of writing, what makes a character great, what are his motivations what are his flaws, who is he. A book will get panned if it isn't written well, a movie will die(well maybe not with some of the crap recently made). Why does this get a free pass, sure it's smaller than those two and this is for enjoyment but there are some constants.
We aren't all special snowflakes, not everyone can write well and certainly not everyone is a good role-player.