Ex Post Facto Rejection?

[fsqueeze]

Quick question for anyone with the expertise in this subject matter:

I have a story that's been up for almost a year now--submitted, reviewed, approved, and posted. Moderators have just yanked it from the site and rejected it.

I'll be looking it over for their concern. Pretty darn sure it's clean. (I/T category, flagged for possible underage.)

Regardless, I was wondering how something like this happens. Was it flagged by a reader? Multiple readers before the admin acts? What is the point of the initial review if a story can later be flagged?

Did guidelines recently change and I missed it?

Thanks for your time,

FS

 

[fsqueeze]

Thanks for the scoop, RubenR.

I suppose I'm a bit alarmed that an individual reader might have that kind of power over a story. My rejected one had more than 100k views and no prior issues of which I am aware.

I can't imagine, once the flag is raised on a story, administrators having the time to give the story a close, thorough reading, thereby granting previously approved stories and their authors the benefit of the doubt. I could be wrong, but the people who administer this site seem like they have a ton of other work to do.

Last point: I have recently enjoyed the benefit of getting my stories posted really quickly. This wasn't the case with my first several. I supposed the reason for this was that I'd built a level of trust with the admin. Now that I've been flagged--in my view, unjustifiably--does that trust vanish? Did a single reader, not reading closely or drawing a broad assumption, just shred that apparent benefit?

FS

 

[Hypoxia]

I had story reported for snuff, and pulled. I tweaked it to eliminate any trace, submitted it, and the revision posted. Later I PM'd Laurel and pointed out the lack of snuff in the original, and she restored it, along with all the usual LW comments, which is why I wanted it back up. Yes, appeals work.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I don't know about the correct steps to follow after a story has been pulled down; did they provide any information while pulling it down; any guidelines? If you are convinced there is nothing wrong with the story, I guess there will be ways to get it back up; follow the suggested steps or send a PM to Laurel

The author must address the stated reasons for rejection by doing a very close read of their text, remove any ambiguity or tweak the text. Then resubmit the story with the same title plus EDIT, add a Note to the Editor saying the issues have been identified and fixed.

That will put the story back in Laurel's processing queue, which means she will see it and review more closely. I wouldn't waste time with a PM - you need to tweak the text, not chat about it.

The reporting function is one of Lit's better features, I think - it allows the community here to do a bit of self-policing. If something is borderline, it should be flagged and put through a legit review process.

To answer the OP's question; yes, standards might get tightened up over time in response to more recent legislation (which might be what's behind web platforms clamping down on paedophilia and possible sex-trafficking content).

 

[jaF0]

To answer the OP's question; yes, standards might get tightened up over time in response to more recent legislation (which might be what's behind web platforms clamping down on paedophilia and possible sex-trafficking content).

Yes, the Pilgrims and Puritans and other maniacal prudes have taken over the asylum.

Remember that next time you vote.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I will admit I, yes I, reported a LW story for breaking the rules.

Almost at the end of the story goats and dogs were brought in to have sex with the wives, yes multiple wives.

I had to read the story twice to really believe what I saw. And the thing was, it wasn't all that long. Two lit pages at most. I just wondered how it got by Laurel, and with I looked at the authors page, he had a lot of stories published.

Yes, it was taken down so don't go looking for it.

 

[Oblimo]

Here’s what’s changed everything about Internet sexytime:

Public Law No: 115-164 (04/11/2018)
Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017

(Sec. 2) This bill expresses the sense of Congress that section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 was not intended to provide legal protection to websites that unlawfully promote and facilitate prostitution and websites that facilitate traffickers in advertising the sale of unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims. Section 230 limits the legal liability of interactive computer service providers or users for content they publish that was created by others.

(Sec. 3) The bill amends the federal criminal code to add a new section that imposes penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to 10 years, or both—on a person who, using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, owns, manages, or operates an interactive computer service (or attempts or conspires to do so) to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person.

Additionally, it establishes enhanced penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to 25 years, or both—for a person who commits the offense in one of the following aggravating circumstances: (1) promotes or facilitates the prostitution of five or more persons, or (2) acts with reckless disregard that such conduct contributes to sex trafficking.

Lots of Internet site owners are worried about how lazy the language of the statute is, and have taken an aggressive stance on sexytime. Hence, Tumblr’s decision to ban all female presenting nipples and Facebook banning people for even suggesting they are looking for a “good time.”

 

[eroticstoryspinner]

On one hand, this would never survive a First Amendment challenge in the US courts. On the other hand, no one wants to be the test case. Gripping hand, it's going be some interesting times.

 

[Oblimo]

On one hand, this would never survive a First Amendment challenge in the US courts. On the other hand, no one wants to be the test case. Gripping hand, it's going be some interesting times.

Agreed, 100%, although that’s one more hand than I am used to.

 

[eroticstoryspinner]

Agreed, 100%, although that’s one more hand than I am used to.

It's from Niven and Pournelles Mote books; The Mote in God's Eye, and The Gripping Hand.

 

[Hypoxia]

It's from Niven and Pournelles Mote books; The Mote in God's Eye, and The Gripping Hand.

Asymmetrical alien Moties had two small arms+hands on one side and one big arm+hand on the other. Thus the saying, "On one hand, this. On the other hand, that. But on the GRIPPING hand, the decisive point."

I like trinary logic. And 31-point logic. And fuzzy logic, fuzzy pillows, fuzzy cats, but not fuzzy cheese. On one hand, good fuzz. On the other hand, bad fuzz. But on the GRIPPING hand, fuzz sirens. I hope that's clear to everyone.