Story Series Rejected after 5 years

[ElectricBlue]

Not being familiar with competitions I’m a little in the dark as to how things work and what’s required.

Submitting a stand-alone story, good story telling, something to do with summer. Same as any other story, except that the voting patterns are usually different.

 

[KeithD]

Followed by Keith who pointed out if that's the case, its fine.

Cite where I said anything was "fine" on this thread.

You're just going to continue your obsessed, sick stalking of me, aren't you?

 

[gunhilltrain]

I do report stories that clearly breach the rules. I'm not looking for them, I normally avoid NonCon, Incest, LW, and other categories where it may be expected (except when I read contest or challenge stories) and I wouldn't check out dubious stories mentioned in threads, but if I run into clear child-porn, snuff or other violence which clearly breaks the rules, then I report it.

The option is there for a reason, and I don't like running into such content on a site where I share my own stories. One has to go; those stories breaching the rules of the site, or my stories.

I get what you mean. But I'd still be reluctant to drop a dime on another author, especially after several years had gone by. So where would I draw the line? I'm not sure; I sort of know what was in this series although it's not available to read any longer.

Is writing about certain things the the equivalent of actually doing them? Is making a movie depicting it - not literally enacting it - worse? I found some things in American Psycho hard to take. The same goes for one of Will Self's novels. Of course, those were stand-alone works, not part of a larger entity like this site which is shared by many people.

When I was a kid, I wanted to be a firefighter, not a cop. I wanted someone else to handle the enforcement job even if it was necessary to be done by somebody.

 

[Voboy]

I get what you mean. But I'd still be reluctant to drop a dime on another author, especially after several years had gone by. So where would I draw the line? I'm not sure; I sort of know what was in this series although it's not available to read any longer.

Is writing about certain things the the equivalent of actually doing them? Is making a movie depicting it - not literally enacting it - worse? I found some things in American Psycho hard to take. The same goes for one of Will Self's novels. Of course, those were stand-alone works, not part of a larger entity like this site which is shared by many people.

When I was a kid, I wanted to be a firefighter, not a cop. I wanted someone else to handle the enforcement job even if it was necessary to be done by somebody.

If the site owner cleared it and five years' worth of readers have cleared it, I'm bemused why anyone who writes here would take it on themselves to un-clear it.

For those who miss the sarcasm, "bemused" isn't what I really mean. I think it's a cowardly thing to do.

 

[KeithD]

Since a position has been falsely (and maliciously) asserted to me on this thread, I'll state my consistently taken position on this. (Not that anyone need care. I only do so because I have been brought into it and misrepresented).

I believe in a MYOB and let the Web site rules/processes apply and operate, even as unevenly as they do, personal use approach. The report button exists, so users can use it as far as I am concerned, with the responsibility of what is done with it being the Web site's. I do wish I was confident that the Web site will thoroughly check the circumstance out, including notifying and working with the author before zapping the entry, but I'm not confident of that from historical observation. But that's their problem, not mine. If they zap one of mine, I'll take it up directly with them if I think they have been unfair.

I don't report stories as violating the posting rules--not least because I don't read many stories here. Reading isn't nearly the turn on for me as writing it--and I'm busy enough writing it that I don't read much of it. So, reporting anything that others is doing doesn't really come into play with me. Beyond that, I don't stick my nose into what anyone else is doing here with stories. That's between them and the Web site. I'm not in competition with anyone here; nor am I a member of the vigilante morality police.

 

[gunhilltrain]

If the site owner cleared it and five years' worth of readers have cleared it, I'm bemused why anyone who writes here would take it on themselves to un-clear it.

For those who miss the sarcasm, "bemused" isn't what I really mean. I think it's a cowardly thing to do.

I'm not sure I'd use the word cowardly; it's something less bad than that.

The "no snitching" concept doesn't make sense regarding drug dealers, burglars and such people. It also would be wrong not to report someone making an actual snuff film with real people killed.

I respect the rules of the site and try to follow them. Maybe, however, it's better for the site to police itself, even if the two people involved can't handle it all.

What would truly cross the line? The Holocaust, maybe? But there really is porn with Nazis, made in Israel of all places. It must be a way to confront their fears and have a cathartic experience. Or maybe it's just perverse for its own sake. Who's to say they can't have it?

I would say - we just discussed this - that depictions of sex with children, even written depictions, are dangerous because they might encourage people to actually do it.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

Since a position has been falsely (and maliciously) asserted to me on this thread, I'll state my consistently taken position on this. (Not that anyone need care. I only do so because I have been brought into it and misrepresented).

I believe in a MYOB and let the Web site rules/processes apply and operate, even as unevenly as they do, personal use approach. The report button exists, so users can use it as far as I am concerned, with the responsibility of what is done with it being the Web site's. I do wish I was confident that the Web site will thoroughly check the circumstance out, including notifying and working with the author before zapping the entry, but I'm not confident of that from historical observation. But that's their problem, not mine. If they zap one of mine, I'll take it up directly with them if I think they have been unfair.

I don't report stories as violating the posting rules--not least because I don't read many stories here. Reading isn't nearly the turn on for me as writing it--and I'm busy enough writing it that I don't read much of it. So, reporting anything that others is doing doesn't really come into play with me. Beyond that, I don't stick my nose into what anyone else is doing here with stories. That's between them and the Web site. I'm not in competition with anyone here; nor am I a member of the vigilante morality police.

I believe the "malicious" assertion was actually an agreement with what you said in the original thread about this story. The fact that it was the original thread is clear from LC's prior post, and some other references in this thread. In the original thread (not this one), you pointed out that as long as the violence and snuff was merely implied, it did not violate guidelines. "Fine" seems like a pretty reasonable summation of that opinion.

Specifically, you said, "Probably because it just mentions it in passing and doesn't graphically describe it happening."

This was in response the the question, "Is that why the story is allowed on the site? Does it only become snuff if you actually depict the stuff that happens to them, and merely saying it will happen to them is okay? Or did this story just get lucky when getting through vetting, or was this written before some rules changed?"

JaF0 cited that thread in the fourth post on this one.
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1527795

You're going to give yourself a heart attack.

 

[Voboy]

I'm not sure I'd use the word cowardly; it's something less bad than that.

The "no snitching" concept doesn't make sense regarding drug dealers, burglars and such people. It also would be wrong not to report someone making an actual snuff film with real people killed.

I respect the rules of the site and try to follow them. Maybe, however, it's better for the site to police itself, even if the two people involved can't handle it all.

What would truly cross the line? The Holocaust, maybe? But there really is porn with Nazis, made in Israel of all places. It must be a way to confront their fears and have a cathartic experience. Or maybe it's just perverse for its own sake. Who's to say they can't have it?

I would say - we just discussed this - that depictions of sex with children, even written depictions, are dangerous because they might encourage people to actually do it.

But this wasn't about sex with children.

Five years.

Five years they were posted.

Five years worth of readership that clearly had no issues with them. Five years. And then one single hall monitor decides to get their feathers ruffled?

Laurel passed it, no? Why does that not matter?

 

[Voboy]

The site has rules which are, in my opinion, also promises for certain standards. It's well known that submitted stories are only skimmed by Laurel; she can't catch everything.

I can't take stories down; I can only ask the site to check again if a story meets the site's rules. I don't see why that would be a cowardly thing to do, to point out that Laurel might have missed something, and to help the site maintain its standards.

I don't understand why so many people think it's acceptable to skirt the rules of the site that hosts their stories, and the stories of many others. If you don't agree with the rules, go somewhere else. Don't come up with childish excuses.

Laurel cleared it.

Does that not matter to you? "She can't catch everything;" such a cop-out.

She makes the rules, and it's incumbent on the maker of the rules to enforce them. She had a chance to do so with this story, and did not.

Why do you merely pass that off as unimportant? The site has a judge and jury, and it's not me. Nor you.

 

[KeithD]

I believe the "malicious" assertion was actually an agreement with what you said in the original thread about this story. The fact that it was the original thread is clear from LC's prior post, and some other references in this thread. In the original thread (not this one), you pointed out that as long as the violence and snuff was merely implied, it did not violate guidelines. "Fine" seems like a pretty reasonable summation of that opinion.

I have two posts to this thread. I haven't bothered to check back to a connection to another thread. I'm not a vigilante policeman on this discussion board, nor am I any part of smear campaign against another poster.

One of my posts here merely agrees that it probably was a user who reported this story, not Laurel--that I doubted she tools around looking for problems with five-year-old posted stories. The other post directly responded to the OP's request for how to get in touch with Laurel.

LC, and now you, backing him up, have an agenda of attacking me for what I haven't posted. I think you, as a recent user at Literotica, could use more of MYOB and less of morality police and backing up of a long-term stalker.

 

[jaF0]

And then one single hall monitor decides to get their feathers ruffled?

Do we know that? Do we know the site didn't employ some sort of search bot to examine older stories in response to some sort of new laws? Do we know this was the only story affected? In fact, we know of at least one other with similar content being rejected. How many story side Litsers even know about these forums, let alone come here often enough to discuss one of their stories being pulled?

 

[Voboy]

Do we know that? Do we know the site didn't employ some sort of search bot to examine older stories in response to some sort of new laws? Do we know this was the only story affected? In fact, we know of at least one other with similar content being rejected. How many story side Litsers even know about these forums, let alone come here often enough to discuss one of their stories being pulled?

Post 12. I find the timing of the other thread compelling.

 

[ElectricBlue]

If the site owner cleared it and five years' worth of readers have cleared it, I'm bemused why anyone who writes here would take it on themselves to un-clear it.

For those who miss the sarcasm, "bemused" isn't what I really mean. I think it's a cowardly thing to do.

That misses the point that the site owner, once alerted to it, took it down. Someone reported it (after five years, that's the only way disappearing content can disappear, unless the author takes it down themselves) - which means in the eyes of the site owner the story (or a section of it) contravenes her content policies as they stand, today.

If the story was okay, it would still be there. If it's been taken down, it's because Laurel has viewed it the same way she would if it was submitted as a new story, today. She'd bounce it back, giving the author the opportunity to revisit it, tweak it, or argue their case. If the author does nothing, that's their call, and the content stays down.

 

[jaF0]

Post 12 doesn't address any of the questions in post 41.

 

[Voboy]

That misses the point that the site owner, once alerted to it, took it down. Someone reported it (after five years, that's the only way disappearing content can disappear, unless the author takes it down themselves) - which means in the eyes of the site owner the story (or a section of it) contravenes her content policies as they stand, today.

If the story was okay, it would still be there. If it's been taken down, it's because Laurel has viewed it the same way she would if it was submitted as a new story, today. She'd bounce it back, giving the author the opportunity to revisit it, tweak it, or argue their case. If the author does nothing, that's their call, and the content stays down.

This has happened to me before, very similarly. Laurel pulls stories fairly automatically in response to complaints and, as you say, leaves it up to the writer to appeal.

She probably still hasn't read it.

 

[Voboy]

Post 12 doesn't address any of the questions in post 41.

Re-read it.

It connects this story's reporting and removal to the other pertinent thread, adverts us to the probability that that other thread put this story on a hall monitor's radar, and suggests that's likely who reported it.

I find that more probable than an unannounced new bot trawling the back catalog.

 

[jaF0]

It connects this story's reporting and removal to the other pertinent thread, adverts us to the probability that that other thread put this story on a hall monitor's radar, and suggests that's likely who reported it.

You're assuming.

You know what they say about ass-u-me, right?

 

[Voboy]

You're assuming.

You know what they say about ass-u-me, right?

As are you. As are we all, until Laurel chimes in.

Find that bot yet?

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

I have two posts to this thread. I haven't bothered to check back to a connection to another thread. I'm not a vigilante policeman on this discussion board, nor am I any part of smear campaign against another poster.

One of my posts here merely agrees that it probably was a user who reported this story, not Laurel--that I doubted she tools around looking for problems with five-year-old posted stories. The other post directly responded to the OP's request for how to get in touch with Laurel.

LC, and now you, backing him up, have an agenda of attacking me for what I haven't posted. I think you, as a recent user at Literotica, could use more of MYOB and less of morality police and backing up of a long-term stalker.

Your paranoia is really getting the better of you. First, you were convinced that I was in league with AwkwardMD. Then you were convinced that I was in league with LC. Now, I point out that someone was agreeing with you, and you call that an attack. The times I've been oppositional with you were times when you were belittling someone. Otherwise, I generally let you rave, even if you're replying to something I've posted. This time wasn't oppositional. This time, I saw you getting worked up (two rather emotional posts) over what was pretty obviously a misunderstanding. So I said something. .

I'm not sure how many years you think it takes to recognize when somebody isn't making any sense. However, I'm not a new Lit user. I met my husband at Lit more than nearly 20 years ago. This is the first of my usernames I could remember, and it's from 2000:

https://www.literotica.com/stories/memberpage.php?uid=9233&page=bio

There have been others since then. This is the new username I chose when I started writing. Contrary to what you've assumed, I'm fully aware of the claims you've made under your prior handle and your behavior back then.

It really doesn't matter how long someone has been using Lit. You don't get special privileges because you've been here a long time. In your case, it just means that you have an established track record.

 

[KeithD]

This has happened to me before, very similarly. Laurel pulls stories fairly automatically in response to complaints and, as you say, leaves it up to the writer to appeal.

She probably still hasn't read it.

This is the "not all that happy with procedure" point with me (not that I'd get into it unless it happened to me). I think there's a fairness obligation that should be there for Laurel to give the benefit of the doubt to the author and to give them an explanation chance BEFORE pulling the story. My observation on the times this has happened is that it's pulled immediately, which isn't giving the benefit of the doubt to the author. That's hedged, of course, by the case where the rules infraction is obvious from the review read (which itself is hedged by "then it should have been caught upon original submission"). What is better now under the new author's page system is that (presumably; I haven't seen any of this in action) the author now is notified of this new rejection on the author page. Before, there was no notification at all, and the complaints coming to the board on this issue were that the stories were pulled and the authors didn't know they were until/unless they stumbled on the fact.

I agree that what makes this all hazy is the reality that the stories aren't scrutinized very well from the first submission. The volume of submissions and limit of submission editing time provided explains this, but it doesn't fully justify it. With one exception (including a URL which, although fake, did not follow guidelines because I was unaware of the guidelines--my problem), every rejection I've gotten on a story has been caused by incomplete scrutiny by the submissions editor, and the stories have subsequently been published as originally written. From a historical perspective, I can't discount that this is happening with already-published reported stories as well. Thus, the more fair policy would be to notify/work with the author before zapping a reported/questioned already-published story, I believe.

 

[KeithD]

Your paranoia is really getting the better of you.

I didn't read any further than this. I think I have your number. You didn't have to stick your nose into this at all, but that hasn't stopped you on other issues on the board. You're a natural for the hall monitor position based on late arrival and little production.

 

[Voboy]

This is the "not all that happy with procedure" point with me (not that I'd get into it unless it happened to me). I think there's a fairness obligation that should be there for Laurel to give the benefit of the doubt to the author and to give them an explanation chance BEFORE pulling the story. My observation on the times this has happened is that it's pulled immediately, which isn't giving the benefit of the doubt to the author. That's hedged, of course, by the case where the rules infraction is obvious from the review read (which itself is hedged by "then it should have been caught upon original submission"). What is better now under the new author's page system is that (presumably; I haven't seen any of this in action) the author now is notified of this new rejection on the author page. Before, there was no notification at all, and the complaints coming to the board on this issue were that the stories were pulled and the authors didn't know they were until/unless they stumbled on the fact.

I agree that what makes this all hazy is the reality that the stories aren't scrutinized very well from the first submission. The volume of submissions and limit of submission editing time provided explains this, but it doesn't fully justify it. With one exception (including a URL which, although fake, did not follow guidelines because I was unaware of the guidelines--my problem), every rejection I've gotten on a story has been caused by incomplete scrutiny by the submissions editor, and the stories have subsequently been published as originally written. From a historical perspective, I can't discount that this is happening with already-published reported stories as well. Thus, the more fair policy would be to notify/work with the author before zapping a reported/questioned already-published story, I believe.

This seems reasonable, and it adds no extra steps; it merely leaves the story up during the appeals process, like a guy out on bail.

Seems fair.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

I didn't read any further than this. I think I have your number. You didn't have to stick your nose into this at all, but that hasn't stopped you on other issues on the board. You're a natural for the hall monitor position based on late arrival and little production.

Nobody - nobody - believes you didn't read the entire post. Not reading the entire post and then replying anyway would be even more foolish than not reading it at all. I've produced more than 150k words, including 7 chapters and one standalone story in four months and I'd be very, very comfortable comparing my production and ratings to yours in the same period.

Again, that's beside the point. We don't get to participate based on how much we write. As far as hall monitor? I'm not the one who complains to the mods or to Laurel all the time. I've never done so. If i have something to say, I'll say it directly. If you want to continue this discussion it's gong to go about as well for you as the previous ones have gone. The last one I recall ended with you vomiting up your purported resume and posting a picture of the cover of every e-book you've ever tried to sell. (Even though it was completely irrelevant to the discussion.) If you keep it up, you're just going to end up having another meltdown.

 

[lovecraft68]

I have two posts to this thread. I haven't bothered to check back to a connection to another thread. I'm not a vigilante policeman on this discussion board, nor am I any part of smear campaign against another poster.

One of my posts here merely agrees that it probably was a user who reported this story, not Laurel--that I doubted she tools around looking for problems with five-year-old posted stories. The other post directly responded to the OP's request for how to get in touch with Laurel.

LC, and now you, backing him up, have an agenda of attacking me for what I haven't posted. I think you, as a recent user at Literotica, could use more of MYOB and less of morality police and backing up of a long-term stalker.

First off, I was using your post in the original thread about this story as in I was agreeing with you. I don't know what your other post was.

As for MYOB and you're not a policeman on the site? I agree with you there as well.

I think you'll agree with me when I say that yes, lit offers us this platform for our stories and we get a lot of eyes one them, but the site also makes money off of our stories so to me that's a fair exchange.

But everyone posting stories here is also making the site money, people come here for our stories. Advertisers pay for space so those readers will see their adds. But according to some in addition to making the site money I should also police the stories and posts and do their job for them? I'm supposed to run around and explain the 'rules' to people?

No thank you. The site should be accountable for the content that 'slips' through here. Not us. Especially when You and I, for our stories and participation in contests and on the boards were branded trolls for pointing out site BS.

In the immortal words of the woman in the movie Airplane. Chump don't want no help, chump don't get no help" That's a quote, not me calling you a chump...just to be clear.

So I'll agree with MYOB on whether or not someone here is writing something they shouldn't.

But I'll hold you to your MYOB the next time you start ranting in the feedback forum that people who are posting feedback to people who asked for feedback are guilty of "vigilante criticism" because that is you trying to police that forum based on whatever you think.

So I'm tucking the MYOB in my back pocket for later use.

 

[KeithD]

Objecting to vigilante activity being itself vigilante activity. Yes, I'll treasure that as ultimate whataboutism and deflection attempt.

And, yes, I'll continue to point to vigilante activity and obsessive checking up on other users here with a MYOB.