erased thread

[madelinemasoch]

null

 

[MillieDynamite]

If the bots kicked it, it might not even require a re-edit. I'd suggest an IM or "Communication" to Laurel asking for clarification or for her to give a gander and see if can pass as is. Baring that, if you don't think you've violated the rules, resub as is with a note to the admin. But it's gonna take time, either way.

 

[MillieDynamite]

You send a message via the communication function here. Click the little envelope icon, go to the bottom of the drop-down, select Start a New Conversation, and put Laurel's name in the Recipients field.

 

[MillieDynamite]

You'll need to have your mail function turned on.

 

[EmilyMiller]

What @MillieDynamite said.

Or you can click on this @Laurel and then “start conversation”

Em

 

[EmilyMiller]

Or.,. If you think it is totally legit as is… resubmit with a note saying that in the notes box.

It’s thought that populating this box bypasses the bots and goes to Laurel.

Em

 

[Djmac1031]

It's an unfortunately frustrating process, and I understand your frustration with it.

Without actually reading the thing, it's tough to give any advice on "what went wrong."

I suppose if Laurel doesn't herself specify the problem, I'm sure someone here, maybe even me, would be willing to try and spot what may have flagged it.

Although I'm certainly no "expert" on that. And we all know the rules can be interpreted differently on any given day.

Good luck; keep us posted.

 

[oneagainst]

It's an unfortunately frustrating process, and I understand your frustration with it.

Without actually reading the thing, it's tough to give any advice on "what went wrong."

I suppose if Laurel doesn't herself specify the problem, I'm sure someone here, maybe even me, would be willing to try and spot what may have flagged it.

Although I'm certainly no "expert" on that. And we all know the rules can be interpreted differently on any given day.

Good luck; keep us posted.

What he said - if you want, PM... happy to scan and see if there's an issue that jumps out. I've been close to the borders a few times. Sometimes you can't see the wood for the trees.

 

[BelleCanzuto]

It could be that a particular scene in the beginning or towards the end where the timeline gets reconnected is misinterpreted as towards-one-character's-death when he doesn't actually die

I had a story rejected for exactly that.
The way I wrote the story, close 3rd person, after something happened to the main character I wrote "and her world went black " . The very next line, has that same character waking up and interacting with the other main character.
It took me three editing attempts before I figured out that was the problem.

I resubmitted with a note to Laurel pointing out that the character wasn't harmed or killed, and noting (possibly even quoting) the sentence that showed the character alive and well. Then it went through.

If there's a way to show Laurel the part of your story that makes it clear the character didn't die, put that in a note to admin when you resubmit.
That's my best advice.

 

[Djmac1031]

I had a story rejected for exactly that.
The way I wrote the story, close 3rd person, after something happened to the main character I wrote "and her world went black " . The very next line, has that same character waking up and interacting with the other main character.
It took me three editing attempts before I figured out that was the problem.

I resubmitted with a note to Laurel pointing out that the character wasn't harmed or killed, and noting (possibly even quoting) the sentence that showed the character alive and well. Then it went through.

If there's a way to show Laurel the part of your story that makes it clear the character didn't die, put that in a note to admin when you resubmit.
That's my best advice.

I'm curious as to why a character can't die in story. Unless depending on the circumstances it was considered "snuff?"

 

[BelleCanzuto]

I'm curious as to why a character can't die in story. Unless depending on the circumstances it was considered "snuff?"

Yes. I'm pretty sure she thought it was snuff at that point.
It's my only noncon story, and the female mc was being punished for attempting to escape a civilian prisoner of war camp (for lack of a better way to describe it) with some fairly lecherous soldiers watching.

If you have any interest, it's "War Prize" in my story list, and part 1 is the part that got rejected initially.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

To date, I've never had a story sent back. Have I mentioned, I'm a good Jew? What that has to do with anything, I don't know.

 

[DickandDoof]

Personally, I’m a bad Jew. Haven’t been to shul to atone for my sins or ask for forgiveness in decades. But I’m a very good atheist.

 

[RejectReality]

Here we go with this "bots are rejecting it" illusion again. Word filters are notoriously difficult to dial in. If some automated tool was reviewing stories and kicking them, a lot more stories would be getting kicked back, and we'd have seen a period where a huge number were getting kicked back. This isn't Facebook or Youtube with umpteen dollars to toss at automation software, and I think most people have an idea of how well it works in those places even when hordes of coders and bookoo dollars are hurled at it.

The only thing that's ever been cited to validate the belief that there's some automaton standing between authors and human eyes during the review process is people not understanding why their story was rejected. For anyone who has any inkling of how this kind of software works, there's a mountain of indications that it's not being employed in that fashion. The far more likely scenario is that a tool akin to spell-check is highlighting problematic words and phrases.

As to this specific rejection, you've already put Laurel on alert by having at least one rejection for non-con, so there's probably a touch of "here we go again" influencing those quick decisions she makes as she skims. Penetration is not a requirement to run afoul of the non-con restrictions.

If you're certain it's an erroneous knee-jerk rejection, and you haven't actually broken any content rules, then resubmit with a note pointing out those sections where you believe things were misinterpreted. Mistakes happen when you're processing 60-100+ stories per day, and rejecting who knows how many more.

If you'd like, you can drop me a private message, pass along those sections, and I'll look through them to see if any red flags jump out at me before you resubmit.

 

[JaxRhapsody]

I'm curious as to why a character can't die in story. Unless depending on the circumstances it was considered "snuff?"

The site also requires an HEA ending, if I recall.

 

[alohadave]

I'm curious as to why a character can't die in story. Unless depending on the circumstances it was considered "snuff?"

Characters can die. It just can't be sexualized.

The site also requires an HEA ending, if I recall.

No it doesn't. Some categories reward HEA endings, but it's not a submission requirement.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I suppose if Laurel doesn't herself specify the problem, I'm sure someone here, maybe even me, would be willing to try and spot what may have flagged it.

It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, it matters what Laurel thinks. Madeline should persevere, trying to PM Laurel for more guidance.

 

[JaxRhapsody]

Characters can die. It just can't be sexualized.

No it doesn't. Some categories reward HEA endings, but it's not a submission requirement.

I could've sworn it did, or did at one time. Good because one of mine is slated to die.

 

[MrPixel]

... I’m a very good atheist.

I dunno. The problem with atheism is there are no holidays.

 

[Djmac1031]

I dunno. The problem with atheism is there are no holidays.

Sure there are. We get the same days off everybody else does.

We're just not obligated to spend them in church lol.

 

[Djmac1031]

It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, it matters what Laurel thinks. Madeline should persevere, trying to PM Laurel for more guidance.

I agree that's the best solution, obviously.

But we all know how tough it can be to get in touch with Laurel sometimes

 

[ElectricBlue]

I agree that's the best solution, obviously.

But we all know how tough it can be to get in touch with Laurel sometimes

She got in touch with me directly quite recently, citing an AH post of mine as well as something I reported. She might be selectively elusive .

I reckon @madelinemasoch needs to review their content carefully, as if reading it cold, and be patient. It seems to me there's a gap between the words and the full context (ie, no-one gets maimed writing/reading this story), which is throwing a spanner in the works.

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

ie, no-one gets maimed

No, no. It's not maiming. It's a surgery.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I had no idea writing could be this powerful when I hit New Story

Silly you .

Context matters, though. Is there something disconnecting between the words and meaning you believe you wrote, and the words as they are actually written, but without your brain in the middle?

Often, with rejections like these, it's something quite simple, where the author doesn't see an alternative reading, but to others it's blindingly obvious. There's something being missed, obviously - and either you are missing it, or you're not making yourself clear to Laurel. Good luck tracking it down

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

Personally, I’m a bad Jew. Haven’t been to shul to atone for my sins or ask for forgiveness in decades. But I’m a very good atheist.

I'm actually not considered a good Jew by many friends now. Being that I am in a Messianic Judaism church now. I can't quite call myself a Christian Jew, though. Like Ellen's boy friend, on Seinfeld, you being an atheist isn't a concern of mine, you're the one going to hell not me. LOL