Woah. When'd this thread explode?
Crimson Flame said
So basically we're all competing for spots. :/ From my experience, this always comes down to, "what kinds of characters the GMs like." Because the people that are willing to be judged like that are all good writers who have read the rules and know what's expected. So, what do you go on? :/I really don't want to be competing against people for a spot in an RP. :/
I'm not saying people need to compete for the same spot. A competition for a small number of spots with a due date sucks. It's a pain in the ass, a potentially large waste of time, and, yes, encourages a favoritism from the GM('s). If the third case is true, it's easily possible someone that put in less work gets a spot that someone who did more work doesn't, strictly because the GM likes the character idea or player more.
But I'm not talking competitions. I'm talking critical analysis of a bio that goes beyond "Is there at least a sentence(/paragraph) for every section of the bio?" A lot of GMs accept anything that meets a low and basic requirement, or don't push a player to fix a character sheet even when the GM thinks there's flaws that need fixing. That floods in bad characters, bad settings, and bad players.
The GM doesn't pick what they like. They make a standard, and they stick by it. E.g. A standard for how well a personality/bio is written (is the character a Gary Stu? are they realistic? will they make sense existing in the plot, with the other characters?) Or a standard for how they write the character into the setting(if a player tries to force an idea that does not fit the setting, don't let them).
Technically, a GM can always show favoritism, with or without serious review of a bio, with or without bio competitions. But those are bad GMs that think running a roleplaying campaign is equivalent to using human players as their dolls in a puppet show. You don't play with them.