[[offtopic discussion]]

[sr71plt]

Hmmm. Why would Literotica support discussion on reading those writing erotica who aren't writing for this site?

 

[Nezhul]

this forum is too all about itself to discuss liberal shit like that.

You can only discuss literotica here! Because discussing other books and places to get them is SPAM (c).
And most of all, it hurts someone's wallets if you read stories off-lit. So hush. There is no worthwhile erotica off Literotica.

 

[sr71plt]

Why wouldn't it? I'm not thinking about authors at competing websites so much as I am authors of published fiction, which I don't think presents meaningful competition for this site. If one is going to offer authors a forum on this site to discuss what they do it makes sense to give them free rein to discuss works they like or that inspire them. Writers tend to be readers. They may be inspired by what they read. It seems like an obvious subject for discussion -- to me, at least.

Whether one agrees or not I haven't seen any posted rules precluding such a discussion, and I can't see why another author would want to discourage it.

I could respond that common sense says this Web site, the product of which is erotica stories, isn't served by promoting the same product provided outside of the Web site--and that's sort of "duh" common sense, but there, in fact, IS a forum rule against it--Rule 6: "Any post or PM made with the intent of promoting another site or a product will be removed." Promoting authors who explicitly don't write for Literotica is promoting another product.

 

[sr71plt]

Seeing laurel created a 'good reads' thread in the GB I don't think she'd mind.

The GB obviously is a completely different world--Laurel's irrelevant-to-the-Web-site play toy--from the product side of the Web site.

As I noted, there is, in fact, a forum rule prohibiting this. (not that Laurel follows the forum rules herself--e.g., copyrighted image posting, erasing posts when the rules explicitly say they won't be erased).

 

[lovecraft68]

The GB obviously is a completely different world--Laurel's irrelevant-to-the-Web-site play toy--from the product side of the Web site.

As I noted, there is, in fact, a forum rule prohibiting this. (not that Laurel follows the forum rules herself--e.g., copyrighted image posting, erasing posts when the rules explicitly say they won't be erased).

I would think that more than anyone here you know how the rules here are 'enforced'.

If people want to post to this discussion they should be able to and if its seen as being a violation the mod will close it.

 

[SimonDoom]

I could respond that common sense says this Web site, the product of which is erotica stories, isn't served by promoting the same product provided outside of the Web site--and that's sort of "duh" common sense, but there, in fact, IS a forum rule against it--Rule 6: "Any post or PM made with the intent of promoting another site or a product will be removed." Promoting authors who explicitly don't write for Literotica is promoting another product.

No, it isn't. The intent of my post is not to promote a product or site, but to find out what other authors the authors here like, or perhaps have been inspired by. It's not the same thing.

There are plenty of examples here at the AH and in other discussion threads and forums on this site of authors and site members discussing books and movies. Those threads include threads and posts on erotic books and movies. To my knowledge Rule 6 has not been invoked to preclude these discussions. If you are aware of examples to the contrary, by all means offer them. But if you are not, why would you want to discourage discussion of something that might be of interest to authors here?

If one follows the logic of your position to its conclusion no one on this site ever should encourage discussion of, or the reading or viewing of, any form of entertainment outside Literotica because doing so might pull a reader away, however briefly, from the pages of Literotica. Obviously, that's absurd. It's equally absurd to say that authors here should be precluded from discussing, say, the works of Anais Nin, and how she may or may not have influenced people, because doing so somehow promotes "products" in violation of Literotica's interests. Obviously, that's not what Rule 6 is intended to stop.

If Laurel disagrees I suppose she could say so, but if she doesn't (and I would be shocked if she did), I can't understand why an author would want to take this position and stifle discussion.

 

[sr71plt]

No, it isn't. The intent of my post is not to promote a product or site, but to find out what other authors the authors here like, or perhaps have been inspired by. It's not the same thing.

The erotica writings of non-literotica authors are non-Literotica product. In promoting them, you are encouraging people to read somewhere other than Literotica. Why would a for-profit Web site, which Literotica is, support its forum being used to do this? This really is basic economics.

And I call you on the "if Laurel doesn't agree she'll say so." She's off reading the GB, not the AH. It's your responsibility to follow the rules--and to try using a little common sense. You claimed there was no forum rule against it and I pointed out that there is.

 

[SimonDoom]

The writings of non-literotica authors are non-Literotica product. In promoting them, you are encouraging people to read somewhere other than Literotica. Why would a for-profit Web site, which Literotica is, support it's forum being used to do this? This really is basic economics.

The economics is a bit more complicated than that. Adding up the economic costs and benefits, IMO, leads to the opposite conclusion from the one you've reached.

1. Encouraging discussion of books written by erotic authors is not the same thing as "promoting" those books. It is not in any sense telling people, "Hey, don't read these free stories. Go to Amazon and pay 10.99 to read Anais Nin." It's asking what people have read, what they think, and how they've been influenced.

2. The likelihood is that these are noncompetitive markets. People will or will not read stories for free on this site, and they will or will not pay money to buy erotic books at Amazon, and discussing the latter isn't going to make people do less of the former. Talking about Anais Nin on this site is no more likely to hurt Literotica by drawing away viewers or readers than talking about Jane Austen or Bambi or the Prairie Home Companion. The probable economic cost of such discussion is minimal to the point of ridiculousness.

3. Permitting a very broad range of discussion on these threads like these, subject to minimal restrictions (like rule 6) intended to prevent this site from being used as an advertising platform for a competitor), adds value. People want a forum to discuss their ideas and sources of inspiration. That's what authors want to do. Restricting that deprives the site of the full value of the forum. Why would any moderator want to do that?

4. Openly discussing published works may promote the writing of better stories, which is a good thing for Literotica. Writers who read a lot, and are exposed to good writing, are more likely to become better writers themselves. The more widely Lit authors read of existing erotica, the more likely they are to write better stories. Better stories mean a better and more valuable site.

5. Encouraging readers and writers on this site to read more widely in the field of erotic literature, and to be exposed to the best erotic literature, is likely to increase interest in erotic literature generally, and to promote, rather than discourage, participation in this site. People who buy erotic literature from outside sources may end up spending more time here, not less. I can say without question that this has been true for me. I imagine for others, as well. In other words, not only are the markets not competitive, they may be synergistic.

6. Reading the works of authors can be a useful source of literary ideas, which authors can bring to this site for their own stories. This, too adds value to Literotica. Again, I can say in my case that things I have read outside the scope of this site have inspired my imagination and played a role in the stories I am writing for this site. I imagine this is true for others.

7. An additional economic cost of restricting what authors can post for no reason is that it makes the site less appealing, and it creates ill will. This site should want to promote robust and relatively unrestricted discussion. It should want to promote creative expression and discussion. For Pete's sake, this site is about sex stories! Silly, restrictive rules about what you can and can't say should not be welcome here.

The economic bottom line is that there is, very probably, no cost to this site whatsoever in permitting authors on this forum to discuss why they do or don't like Anais Nin, or E.L. James, or Anne Rice, or the Marques de Sade, or whomever. On the other side of the ledger, there is a loss of value in restricting what authors and members can post about for no good reason.

A smart moderator might want to have a rule against using hyperlinks in this forum to other, similar and competing websites. I could see something like that falling under Rule 6. But there's no good reason to stifle discussion of good erotic literature, generally. Doing so works against the website's interest.

So, I think the economics goes the other way.

Bottom line, though -- the moderator can do what she wants. But I'd be surprised if she agreed with you.

 

[sr71plt]

I think I've made the valid point.

 

[SimonDoom]

I think I've made the valid point.

I respect your different opinion, but I hope you are wrong.

 

[sr71plt]

I would think that more than anyone here you know how the rules here are 'enforced'.

If people want to post to this discussion they should be able to and if its seen as being a violation the mod will close it.

Or the mod could just erase the posts that I was questioning (there were posts on the front of what's now on the thread that were erased)--which pretty much supports my observation that the original post was something not permitted at Lit.

 

[SimonDoom]

Or the mod could just erase the posts that I was questioning (there were posts on the front of what's now on the thread that were erased)--which pretty much supports my observation that the original post was something not permitted at Lit.

SR71PLT, it appears you were right!

I have to admit I am thunderstruck by the mod's decision to strike the thread I started, as a matter of judgment and policy, but you obviously have been around here longer and know the mod's perspective better than I do. It's fine with me. The moderator can run these boards how she sees fit.

My question to you: why repost this as an "offtopic thread"? What's the point of that? As far as I can tell the mod did not post a message explaining why the previous thread was removed or what the mod's interpretation of the rule was. This thread includes some of the discussion from the previous thread, including my comments (with which the mod evidently disagrees).

I'm confused.

 

[sr71plt]

My question to you: why repost this as an "offtopic thread"? What's the point of that? As far as I can tell the mod did not post a message explaining why the previous thread was removed or what the mod's interpretation of the rule was. This thread includes some of the discussion from the previous thread, including my comments (with which the mod evidently disagrees).

I'm confused.

I didn't. I saw reference to it in another, recent, thread. And looked back to see what was done to it. What you see is what the Mod did to it.

I only picked up on it again because I've made the mistake of pointing to common sense positions for the Web site to take on such matters a couple of times recently and have been raked over the coals by posters like you on those being the common sense rules of the site. It's merely common sense that Literotica isn't here to encourage users to go someplace else for the same product Literotica has. An argument that someone used against me on this thread was that, if Lit. didn't like it, they would delete it. Well, they deleted the part that I questioned.

 

[SimonDoom]

I didn't. I saw reference to it in another, recent, thread. And looked back to see what was done to it. What you see is what the Mod did to it.

I only picked up on it again because I've made the mistake of pointing to common sense positions for the Web site to take on such matters a couple of times recently and have been raked over the coals by posters like you on those being the common sense rules of the site. It's merely common sense that Literotica isn't here to encourage users to go someplace else for the same product Literotica has. An argument that someone used against me on this thread was that, if Lit. didn't like it, they would delete it. Well, they deleted the part that I questioned.

Fair enough, except your statement that you were "raked over the coals by posters like [me]" is not fair. I disagreed with you, and stated why I disagreed in what I thought were well-stated arguments. I did not "rake you over the coals", and it is unfair and inaccurate to describe my statements that way.

You stated your position well and fairly; I disagreed with it. The moderator evidently has adopted your view of the restrictions on what people can say about authors outside the scope of this site. I think it's a silly position, as a matter of policy and as a matter of maximizing the value of this Site, but it's not my position to say what it should be or to enforce it, and I have no problem accepting what the moderator decides.

 

[sr71plt]

Fair enough, except your statement that you were "raked over the coals by posters like [me]" is not fair. I disagreed with you, and stated why I disagreed in what I thought were well-stated arguments. I did not "rake you over the coals", and it is unfair and accurate to describe my statements that way.

You stated your position well and fairly; I disagreed with it. The moderator evidently has adopted your view of the restrictions on what people can say about authors outside the scope of this site. I think it's a silly position, as a matter of policy and as a matter of maximizing the value of this Site, but it's not my position to say what it should be or to enforce it, and I have no problem accepting what the moderator decides.

"posters" is plural. It isn't just you and it wasn't just this one thread.

I have no idea what you are talking about in "what people can say about authors outside the scope of this site." What I pointed to as improper here was promoting other stories on other story sites. Notice that when it settled down to erotica in published books, it left the realm of promoting stories at competing erotica Web sites and was left in the thread.

 

[SimonDoom]

Perhaps (Probably) I'm missing the point, but according to me, that thread still exists...

It looks like you are right, after all. I scanned the threads after seeing sr71plt's post, and I couldn't find it, so I assumed it had been deleted. Looks like it just escaped my view.

 

[sr71plt]

I hadn't found it previously either--and had looked for it. So, I guess the site really doesn't care about its stated forum rules (that's no surprise--the forum guidelines say nothing will be erased and posts/threads obviously do get erased now) nor does it care that much for its business (that also is no surprise).

Carry on.

 

[sr71plt]

It seems to me they didn't like your predictions about how the site would react, and put your comments in a separate thread

Doesn't surprise me.

 

[Handley_Page]

Hmmm. Why would Literotica support discussion on reading those writing erotica who aren't writing for this site?

I think it would depend upon the definition or interpretation of the word "support".

Obviously, it would be wrong for any remark to be like an advert.

But a "I read so&so's story the other night; it was blah, blah . . ." might work.
But the snag is that there are those who would not understand the subtleties of the 'right' phrase. And there is a very real problem:
I reckon it's a bit like that interminable problem of the age limit; there's always some eejit who wants to skate round it or/and check the wiggle room.

I don't think it'll happen, but on the bright side, Lit is probably the best in its field,
so it's unlikely there are loads of gems on all the other sites.

 

[sr71plt]

I responded to a specific post, asking what non-Literotica authors posting elsewhere were worth reading. That's a call to leave Literotica and go elsewhere for the same product posted to Literotica.

I'm not going to let the goal posts for this original thread to be moved or "what iffed."

 

[lovecraft68]

If I recall the rest of the thread correctly no one was linking to competitor sites. The books being discussed were mainstream, including classics like Story of O 120 days of Sodom, 1001 Arabian Knights etc...those are not competition to lit, it costs money to read those

This was another example of the sites endless double standards when you have a regular poster running around here pimping their blog in practically every post they make and that blog contains material competing with lit.

But it is what it is and the mods recent hoovering of several threads and posts and that last thread by UK Snowy where Laurel is now removing stories that in no way shape or form break a rule other than some people didn't like the topic shows this is no longer a freedom of speech forum or site unless your one the blurt crowd on the GB.

 

[ElectricBlue]

If I recall the rest of the thread correctly no one was linking to competitor sites. The books being discussed were mainstream, including classics like Story of O 120 days of Sodom, 1001 Arabian Knights etc...those are not competition to lit, it costs money to read those

This was another example of the sites endless double standards when you have a regular poster running around here pimping their blog in practically every post they make and that blog contains material competing with lit.

But it is what it is and the mods recent hoovering of several threads and posts and that last thread by UK Snowy where Laurel is now removing stories that in no way shape or form break a rule other than some people didn't like the topic shows this is no longer a freedom of speech forum or site unless your one the blurt crowd on the GB.

Why all the fuss? Simon Doom's original thread is still here:

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1410630

Nothing has been removed from it, from what I can see.

All that has happened here, it seems, is that a Mod broke off Pilot's comment as the start of a legit sub-thread, a few people suffered short term memory loss (we're all getting older, no surprises there); and all of a sudden we're on the grassy knoll. But there's no conspiracy here, surely? Move along, folks, nothing to see here.

 

[jsmiam]

Why all the fuss? Simon Doom's original thread is still here:

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1410630

Nothing has been removed from it, from what I can see.

All that has happened here, it seems, is that a Mod broke off Pilot's comment as the start of a legit sub-thread, a few people suffered short term memory loss (we're all getting older, no surprises there); and all of a sudden we're on the grassy knoll. But there's no conspiracy here, surely? Move along, folks, nothing to see here.

Actually, Simon had two threads... The one you pointed to was about books. This one was about that which must not be named.

To be fair to Lit though, in spite of the many many flaws (many revolving around website design apparently done by high school juniors..)

• There could be a LOT more awful and obtrusive ads with popups everywhere. There isn't. Most of those which must not be named have them.
• They do seem willing to keep the ads mostly away. Can't say that about many of those which must not be named.
• Login walls, where you can't do or see anything. Again, many of that which must not be named do that.
• Ok, to be come full circle and be double-fair, maybe the web developers just don't know how to do any of the above things, but still, I'll give 'em credit.

 

[NotWise]

Why are complaints about this site so common among the authors? Is it:

a) I've given so much to this site and they could give me more in return,
b) I'd like to give so much more to the site but they have fuckin' rules!
c) I'm not getting the give-back that I know I've earned, because I'm great,
d) I could make this site so much better (but I've never done that before),
e) I just don't have much going on so I want to bitch about the site.

Is there something else I'm missing? You're getting published for free, you have a huge audience, there's little interference from the site and you can't stop bitching.

Really, explain to me why I shouldn't just think of the complainers as a bunch of sleepy three-year olds.

 

[TxRad]

To be fair to Lit though, in spite of the many many flaws (many revolving around website design apparently done by high school juniors..)

• There could be a LOT more awful and obtrusive ads with popups everywhere. There isn't. Most of those which must not be named have them.
• They do seem willing to keep the ads mostly away. Can't say that about many of those which must not be named.
• Login walls, where you can't do or see anything. Again, many of that which must not be named do that.
• Ok, to be come full circle and be double-fair, maybe the web developers just don't know how to do any of the above things, but still, I'll give 'em credit.

Lit started out as a place for Laurel to read the type stories she liked. This was back in the late 90's. The code back then was old and clunky by today's standards. Add in the fact that it was coded by a half dozen different people over a good number of years, most of which are no longer alive, much less around. Now try dragging such a Frankenstein monster into the present.

It ain't something done in a day or a year even. It has to be done in increments or the whole house of cards folds up and goes poof.

A lot of the bitching, as some call it, is because of things that don't work and haven't worked in forever. The brunt of answering newbie question about such things lands solidly in the AH. So that adds the bitch about why doesn't admin do something about it or at least explain it in the FAQ. As for doing something about it see two paragraphs above.

I love spaghetti but not spaghetti code. What we have here is a half dozen flavors of spaghetti in one pile of code. Bone apatite.