User blog comment:Waterkai/Considering Applications: An Attempt Without Bias/@comment-1520269-20140504201318/@comment-1520269-20140505210811

In response to Rai and Crow's (Dream) concerns, the intention of that portion of the proposal is to remove the necessity of mandated justification for selected pieces of content. Instead, the responsibility and choice of writer to justify their use of techniques and other content falls solely upon them.

Like you said, Rai, adding Black Lightning at random to a Konoha character wouldn't make much sense. If illogical skill sets aren't favorable in your opinion, simply don't make such a thing. Additionally, you can take it one step further and choose not to RP with anyone who makes illogical characters. This shifts the responsibility to the average user, allowing each individual to write in their own comfort zone. In turn collaboration may require compromise amongst users, which I think is quite fair.

Highlighting illogical skill sets a bit farther, I think that under any system such things are possible. Even with the current application rules an individual could add things to their character, that wouldn't make shred of sense, without citing a reason. For example, under our current rules it would be possible to add various hiden techniques, such as the Nara clan's shadow manipulation, to a character whose never even set foot on the shinobi continent. While such an act would be outside the scope of the rules, I doubt such a character would find an easy time getting admitted to multi-user projects and RPs.

Finally, I'll end with my thoughts on why general admin permission for such things would be a problematic course. While obviously less paperwork than the application system, it would inherently lead to more bias then anything else. It would encourage users who want access to the content of locked pages to simply bug admins until they got what they wanted, targeting admins with a more lax philosophy on technique acquisition. On the other side of things admins could simply hand out techniques for no reason, just because someone in particular asked, and hold out on certain users just because. In my opinion it sounds exactly the opposite than what the goal of this proposition, namely the impartiality. Additionally, you note that while my idea may encourage people to work on an article, it would rush them. While this may be true for some people, I think most people seek certain pieces of content because their concept requires it to some degree. If that is the case, I think that asking an editor to begin working on their article as a prerequisite to the addition of certain content will inspire a less manic atmosphere than an application. Working on a character to receive the content necessary to continue working on said character seems more laid back to me than filling out an application to work on a character.