Ugh, everything keeps getting rejected

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

One of the recurring themes here is that Laurel/Lit has a right to do what she wants. I think that's sort of talking past the real issue most of the time. There are certainly people who come along with their entitlement splashing over everywhere they post who seem to think they have a god-given right to make demands. Those aren't the comments I mean. I mean the comments in which people are talking about fairness.

"Because I can" is not an answer to "It's not fair," just like "could" and "should" aren't the same things. They are two lines of argument that don't actually intersect. I'm not suggesting that this thread is all about "because she can." To the contrary, this thread is focused more on the balance of interests and different perspectives. That's why I chose to post this comment here. The reaction would be pure defensiveness if I posted it in a thread where "because I can" is already dominating the conversation.

I think it would be a really positive thing if other discussions were more like this one. The "because I can" veneer stymies conversation of the true topic, whether it's this topic or another. Rarely is whether or not someone "can" or has a right to do something the actual topic.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

Trump and Hillary? Or Trump and Bill?

You get three guesses, and the first two don't count!

 

[lovecraft68]

Because (in my imagining that led me to write the comment), the comment fight would quickly cease to be about the story, and become about all the other things that Americans seem to be fighting with each other about.



Because it would only take one person posting "did you see this story about Trump on Literotica" onto Reddit, or Facebook or whatever the kewl activitsts are using these days, to bring the hoardes. My larger point being, things with Trump are almost primed to go viral, because almost everyone has a hardened opinion about him, one way or the other. Much more so than any other political figure I can think of.



Trump and Hillary? Or Trump and Bill?

Maybe it was a threesome

 

[SimonDoom]

One of the recurring themes here is that Laurel/Lit has a right to do what she wants. I think that's sort of talking past the real issue most of the time. There are certainly people who come along with their entitlement splashing over everywhere they post who seem to think they have a god-given right to make demands. Those aren't the comments I mean. I mean the comments in which people are talking about fairness.

"Because I can" is not an answer to "It's not fair," just like "could" and "should" aren't the same things. They are two lines of argument that don't actually intersect. I'm not suggesting that this thread is all about "because she can." To the contrary, this thread is focused more on the balance of interests and different perspectives. That's why I chose to post this comment here. The reaction would be pure defensiveness if I posted it in a thread where "because I can" is already dominating the conversation.

I think it would be a really positive thing if other discussions were more like this one. The "because I can" veneer stymies conversation of the true topic, whether it's this topic or another. Rarely is whether or not someone "can" or has a right to do something the actual topic.

I agree with this, and I think it's fair to take the Site to task if there's evidence that acceptance/rejection decisions are being made capriciously or unfairly.

But in almost every single specific instance in which someone actually has raised this issue, I haven't seen that. It doesn't mean it couldn't be happening, and I'm ignorant of some of the background that Lovecraft writes about. There could be plenty to the picture I don't know.

I don't see anything strange or capricious about the rejections of the OP's stories in this thread, for example. From my quick scan I would expect them to be rejected as well on content grounds.

It's reasonable for people to want fairness, but it's not reasonable to expect a completely consistent and fair application of the content rules, because, given the constraints of the Site's ownership and manpower/womanpower, it's not possible.

 

[lovecraft68]

One of the recurring themes here is that Laurel/Lit has a right to do what she wants. I think that's sort of talking past the real issue most of the time. There are certainly people who come along with their entitlement splashing over everywhere they post who seem to think they have a god-given right to make demands. Those aren't the comments I mean. I mean the comments in which people are talking about fairness.

"Because I can" is not an answer to "It's not fair," just like "could" and "should" aren't the same things. They are two lines of argument that don't actually intersect. I'm not suggesting that this thread is all about "because she can." To the contrary, this thread is focused more on the balance of interests and different perspectives. That's why I chose to post this comment here. The reaction would be pure defensiveness if I posted it in a thread where "because I can" is already dominating the conversation.

I think it would be a really positive thing if other discussions were more like this one. The "because I can" veneer stymies conversation of the true topic, whether it's this topic or another. Rarely is whether or not someone "can" or has a right to do something the actual topic.

If the site were truly a free speech site as claimed then there would be no balance of interests or perspectives as everything falls under that. Exceptions of course for things that break forum guidelines or are excessively toxic or disturbing.

What's happened here often in the past-and will again-is someone will get a story rejected or a published story banned. They will come here and ask why...someone will answer, well it had rape or underage etc..

That person will then say how they've read plenty of other stories with identical content and why are they here?

The response is generally her site her rules followed by the ever fair and understanding 'don't like it leave.'

This conversation has gone much better than that, maybe because we're just having a basic discussion and not over an individual complaint....although it started with a complaint but a bizarre one seeing the guy is confusing where the hell his stories are.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

I agree with this, and I think it's fair to take the Site to task if there's evidence that acceptance/rejection decisions are being made capriciously or unfairly.

But in almost every single specific instance in which someone actually has raised this issue, I haven't seen that. It doesn't mean it couldn't be happening, and I'm ignorant of some of the background that Lovecraft writes about. There could be plenty to the picture I don't know.

I don't see anything strange or capricious about the rejections of the OP's stories in this thread, for example. From my quick scan I would expect them to be rejected as well on content grounds.

It's reasonable for people to want fairness, but it's not reasonable to expect a completely consistent and fair application of the content rules, because, given the constraints of the Site's ownership and manpower/womanpower, it's not possible.

The idea that constraints prevent fair application is an argument that addresses the actual topic. That's not what I mean. I mean the resort to "because they have a right to do what they want," which, as I said, isn't really present in this thread.

From a substantive point of view, I'm not sure whether lack of resources is a good reason. I don't know enough about the site's profitability to know one way or the other. I tend to think the ad revenue generated by such a large user base would be enough to hire people. It that's the case, the inconsistency caused by lack of human resources is the result of a choice not to make the investment in being fair.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

If the site were truly a free speech site as claimed then there would be no balance of interests or perspectives as everything falls under that. Exceptions of course for things that break forum guidelines or are excessively toxic or disturbing.

What's happened here often in the past-and will again-is someone will get a story rejected or a published story banned. They will come here and ask why...someone will answer, well it had rape or underage etc..

That person will then say how they've read plenty of other stories with identical content and why are they here?

The response is generally her site her rules followed by the ever fair and understanding 'don't like it leave.'

This conversation has gone much better than that, maybe because we're just having a basic discussion and not over an individual complaint....although it started with a complaint but a bizarre one seeing the guy is confusing where the hell his stories are.

I thought he was complaining that they were rejected by Lit. I thought the link to his own site was the way he as sharing the content of the story when someone asked. I may have missed something.

 

[SimonDoom]

From a substantive point of view, I'm not sure whether lack of resources is a good reason. I don't know enough about the site's profitability to know one way or the other. I tend to think the ad revenue generated by such a large user base would be enough to hire people. It that's the case, the inconsistency caused by lack of human resources is the result of a choice not to make the investment in being fair.

That might be, but we don't know enough to say, one way or another. I suspect that the Site owners are not earning what they potentially could from this based on its traffic numbers, but I don't know that. I have no idea if they could hire more people. I suspect not but I don't know.

Another possible reason for the perceived inconsistency is that the standards appear to have become stricter over time, so stories are being rejected now that would have been accepted before. That's a sign of changing standards, not unfairness, but it may not look that way to an author whose story has been rejected and who finds older stories with the same problems that were published in previous years. I recall reading stories that were borderline snuff on Literotica from years past, and I think some of those stories have been removed from the Site, but it wouldn't surprise me if some remained, nor would it strike me as especially unfair if they'd fallen through the cracks.

I guess I could summarize my view by saying, Yes, Literotica should be held to some degree of fairness in its accept/rejection decisions, but authors also should grant it a substantial degree of wiggle room.

 

[RejectReality]

From a substantive point of view, I'm not sure whether lack of resources is a good reason. I don't know enough about the site's profitability to know one way or the other. I tend to think the ad revenue generated by such a large user base would be enough to hire people. It that's the case, the inconsistency caused by lack of human resources is the result of a choice not to make the investment in being fair.

Ad income has been drastically down across the board, and even more so on adult sites, which have limited options. Most of Lit's ads are pointing to Lit branded portals, which means they're most likely not generating any revenue in and of themselves. They probably only generate revenue from sales of toys/VOD/and private minutes on the cam site.

Despite the massive amount of traffic, Lit isn't really set up to capitalize on it. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Lit generates just enough income to keep the lights on.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

Ad income has been drastically down across the board, and even more so on adult sites, which have limited options. Most of Lit's ads are pointing to Lit branded portals, which means they're most likely not generating any revenue in and of themselves. They probably only generate revenue from sales of toys/VOD/and private minutes on the cam site.

Despite the massive amount of traffic, Lit isn't really set up to capitalize on it. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Lit generates just enough income to keep the lights on.

I suppose it was only a matter of time before ad revenue went down. Rates seemed insupportably high when I checked from an advertiser's standpoint years ago. I also hadn't really paid attention to where the banner ads pointed lately. As a non-clicker, I'm afraid I'm not a very good revenue generator.

 

[UsuallyPresent]

Trump and Hillary? Or Trump and Bill?

Ivanka and Chelsea.

 

[lovecraft68]

Something to toss out there on the subject of lit's free speech policy is while I was away apparently comments are now being screened. I found this out when I posted my April Fool's entry and thought it odd that after a few hours I didn't have come comment, then I got about 10 at once. Before those showed up I had asked someone, I think it was Simon what was up and that's how I found out about the delay.

Of course the excuse is spam, but something tells me more than that is being deleted. My first thought was maybe she was looking at some of the hate speech and threats that make up a lot of LW comments, but no, same cesspool

I believe-and I could be wrong and this was a glitch-private feedback is also delayed and under scrutiny. I figure that because I had received three feedbacks at the same time and first thought it was a glitch or the sender clicked send too many times. but no, all different feedback all arriving the same time.

If comments are being screened and feedback, someone is now picking what we see.

That is not free speech, and although I was born at night, it wasn't last night so save the trouble of telling me its only spam being removed.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I believe-and I could be wrong and this was a glitch-private feedback is also delayed and under scrutiny. I figure that because I had received three feedbacks at the same time and first thought it was a glitch or the sender clicked send too many times. but no, all different feedback all arriving the same time.

If comments are being screened and feedback, someone is now picking what we see.

That is not free speech, and although I was born at night, it wasn't last night so save the trouble of telling me its only spam being removed.

I'm finding that I get notifications of comments many hours before those comments become visible on the site. I can view them through my author options but they're not generally visible.

Could be a delay for screening (either by the site or by me) or it could be just a technical issue, like the way view counts on stories are often out of sync with what you see on the author CP - sometimes it's easier to run updates in batches once a day/etc. instead of every time something changes.

You could test it by sending yourself feedback and seeing what does/doesn't get through.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

So you didn't have to, I checked AO3 where there are around 1300 stories with Trump as a character, about 900 in English, and about half those pairing him with other politicians (Obama, either Clinton, Boris, Macron, Putin, Kim Jong-Un...)

A disturbingly large number pair Trump with Harry Potter, Dumbledore or Hermione.

You're welcome.

 

[RejectReality]

It's not an excuse of spam. You weren't here when it all went down. We were getting absolutely flooded with spam comments on stories. I had as many as five within a half an hour on a single story.

Same thing happened over on Lush at the same time, and I had a rash on my own website. It was an all fronts assault. Had another rash break out in.... January, I think it was.

This is going to be an ongoing problem. The spammers have figured out how to defeat the existing controls, so new ones had to be put in place. That means moderation has to stay in place unless they find a more elegant solution.

Something to toss out there on the subject of lit's free speech policy is while I was away apparently comments are now being screened. I found this out when I posted my April Fool's entry and thought it odd that after a few hours I didn't have come comment, then I got about 10 at once. Before those showed up I had asked someone, I think it was Simon what was up and that's how I found out about the delay.

Of course the excuse is spam, but something tells me more than that is being deleted. My first thought was maybe she was looking at some of the hate speech and threats that make up a lot of LW comments, but no, same cesspool

I believe-and I could be wrong and this was a glitch-private feedback is also delayed and under scrutiny. I figure that because I had received three feedbacks at the same time and first thought it was a glitch or the sender clicked send too many times. but no, all different feedback all arriving the same time.

If comments are being screened and feedback, someone is now picking what we see.

That is not free speech, and although I was born at night, it wasn't last night so save the trouble of telling me its only spam being removed.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Ad income has been drastically down across the board, and even more so on adult sites, which have limited options. Most of Lit's ads are pointing to Lit branded portals, which means they're most likely not generating any revenue in and of themselves. They probably only generate revenue from sales of toys/VOD/and private minutes on the cam site.

Yep, coronavirus has been hitting online advertisers hard everywhere.

I'd add - running a porn site is a precarious business. Even if what you're doing is perfectly legal today, it might not be next year, and as we've discussed previously, things like payment services can be difficult for adult sites. Putting a lot of money into it might be a big gamble.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

When you comment on a story, it says it's awaiting moderator approval. Sometimes the comment takes a day to show up.

The bottleneck for approval for everything seems to be getting worse. I submitted a story on the 27th and it's not up yet, although it sounds like OP resubmitted his story since then and got it back again rejected already.

Last weekend seemed like a total troll invasion. I wonder if their story comments gummed up the works, in addition to the added load from the two upcoming contest deadlines, in addition to the additional activity from people being stuck at home.

 

[Blind_Justice]

If standards have changed, we should demand updates to the submission guidelines.

Not "ask politley", demand.

We are authors, not telepaths able to divine what Big Mama deems acceptable nowadays. Clarity would help all of us - it would cut down on PMs asking her why the hell another story got rejected and it would give authors clear limits to work with. Maybe even cut down on forum topics asking what is allowed.

Just sayin'.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

If standards have changed, we should demand updates to the submission guidelines.

Not "ask politley", demand.

We are authors, not telepaths able to divine what Big Mama deems acceptable nowadays. Clarity would help all of us - it would cut down on PMs asking her why the hell another story got rejected and it would give authors clear limits to work with. Maybe even cut down on forum topics asking what is allowed.

Just sayin'.

Demand only works when you have leverage.

 

[Blind_Justice]

Demand only works when you have leverage.

Ummm... are we the ones providing content or not?

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

Ummm... are we the ones providing content or not?

Yeah, but there's exactly zero chance of that supply dwindling. Thus, no leverage.

 

[Blind_Justice]

So we should keep on second-guessing how submission standards are interpreted? Someone get me a hare or two so I can practice my haruspicy. A few hundred and I might forecast the next Superbowl result.

I'm all for being polite, but there have been so many instances of asking politely for (very reasonable) site improvements which went absolutely nowhere.

 

[MechaBlade]

[Links to offsite work should be confined to your bio, signature, and the designated "Authors and their Books" sticky at the top of the forum, or passed via Private Message. -AH Mod]

Ah, I didn't know/remember that.

I like the idea of Pink Box, but I'm not into non-consent. If this one was rejected, I'm not sure why. Basically the writing's good, could be a little tighter. Maybe the mention of scat towards the end? Who knows with Lit sometimes. What did your rejection notice say?

Victim didn't enjoy it.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

So we should keep on second-guessing how submission standards are interpreted? Someone get me a hare or two so I can practice my haruspicy. A few hundred and I might forecast the next Superbowl result.

I'm all for being polite, but there have been so many instances of asking politely for (very reasonable) site improvements which went absolutely nowhere.

If you want to demand, go for it. I'm going to put a bell around your neck to keep you from sneaking up on the bunnies, though.

 

[MechaBlade]

There are some topics they just won't publish here. As it's their site, it's their right. I've not found a 'good' alternative, personally, so there're several stories I've written that won't see the light of day. *shrug*

My point isn't that they should accept all submissions. My point is that they should be consistent with their policies.

To me, it's additionally aggravating that I did the work to remove all references to Trump, Ivanka, Fox News, and all other real-world names and businesses from my Trump story and it was still rejected.

If the politics agree with Laurel's personal politics it can fly. Its that simple.

Lit's free speech stance has become free speech as long as I agree.

Seems that, yeah, it's whatever she likes/tolerates.

Let's be clear: this site is not a site for all speech, nor has it ever been. Certain stories were always rejected (younger than 18 year old characters for example). I have little problem with that. My main problem is that I feel like 10-15 years ago, when I did most of my writing and submitting, both of these stories would have been allowed. I would post links of a bunch of Literotica-hosted non-consent stories where the victim doesn't get off, but I'm afraid doing so would get them removed from Lit.

I get it, times change, and that's sad.