Ugh, everything keeps getting rejected

[ElectricBlue]

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

Exactly.

I have no idea of the extra volume the lock-ins are creating for the site, but I suspect they're significant, and the infrastructure wobbles from time. Live with it, or pay to fix it.

This notion that users of a free site get a say in the running dynamics I find curious. We should be thankful that we have a platform for which we pay nothing - the alternative is no platform at all, or platforms down in the gutter.

We choose to use this platform and understood the terms of engagement when we chose to do so, and we can contribute in some way to the community (as folk in these forums do - and as reporting non compliant content does), but until such time as we walk in the door with a million bucks... I don't think we get to demand anything. It seems to me folk want to lead the gift horse to water. Or something.

I think the regular authors know the rules of engagement - this "debate" (and I use the word loosely) only flares up when someone new wanders in who hasn't figured it out yet. We all did (some of us with the help of this community) so they can too. It's not hard - and at least the OP found a place where they could get some advice.

 

[MechaBlade]

Re MechaBlade's specific complaint: I didn't read the stories in depth, but I scanned some of them, which is what Laurel would do, and it doesn't surprise me at all that they would be rejected on content grounds. Pink Box, for example, read quickly, looks much more like a true rape story than a Literotica "nonconsent" story. That doesn't seem controversial to me at all. The story about Donald very clearly falls outside the rules.

As a reader trying to understand these rules, you have to put yourself in Laurel's shoes and imagine never having seen your story before and spending a very quick time scanning it for content violations. If you can put aside your personal investment in your creation and think of it from Laurel's point of view I think 90% of these cases of confusion over rejection become quite clear.

The rules are weird to me. If I were Laurel, I'd probably just accept all stories, maybe barring non-consent stories with celebs.

Me too about Trump.
Because whether a story was favorable toward him or otherwise, it'd instantly be the nexus of a comment fight that could easily spill over and get unwanted outside attention. For Laurel, and for all the authors here.

I don't get it. Trump is universally disliked outside of a small group of Americans. While Lit has some hard right wingers on the boards, I have to imagine they're in the vast minority, and care more about posts than stories. What's more, it's satire and completely consensual (despite the incest). I imagine many erotica-reading Republicans would get a kick out of it.

Already, by describing it, Lit has hosted the concept in this very post (assuming this post doesn't get censored).

 

[ElectricBlue]

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.

And if they're found and reported, they still might be taken down - which is part of the self-policing mechanism the site uses. Just because something got through in 2005 doesn't mean it gets through now, and if content is found by a 2020 user, they're under no obligation to apply 2005 criteria.

Content policies and the policing methods change, and sure, it's annoying if there's no consistency between then and now, or even now and now, but the site owner is running the site in 2020 so it's today's rules of engagement that count.

 

[MechaBlade]

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.

Yep, that's exactly it. How else could I post links to rejected stories?

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.

Ah, that could explain it.

Yep, coronavirus has been hitting online advertisers hard everywhere.

That seems bizarre to me. Online revenue is up, especially at my e-commerce job. You'd think online advertisers would be raking in the bucks. Perhaps they hit a threshold where more eyes just creates more cost without more purchases.

 

[MechaBlade]

This notion that users of a free site get a say in the running dynamics I find curious. We should be thankful that we have a platform for which we pay nothing - the alternative is no platform at all, or platforms down in the gutter.

In theory, authors as a whole could decide not to use Lit; and could pull all of their stories. In practice, writers are always going to want a place to post.

And if they're found and reported, they still might be taken down - which is part of the self-policing mechanism the site uses. Just because something got through in 2005 doesn't mean it gets through now, and if content is found by a 2020 user, they're under no obligation to apply 2005 criteria.

Content policies and the policing methods change, and sure, it's annoying if there's no consistency between then and now, or even now and now, but the site owner is running the site in 2020 so it's today's rules of engagement that count.

It's annoying is my main point.

 

[jaF0]

Ah, I didn't know/remember that.

Here are the Forum Photo Guidelines for all attachments, avatars, and any image uploaded to our servers (Numbers 1 and 3 above):

Legally, we can allow soft nudity, but photographs (does not apply to non-photographic images) posted on this site may not contain "sexually explicit conduct", which the government defines as:

- Actual or simulated:
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital,


https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1200747

 

[KeithD]

I was sort of waiting to see if anyone would notice the avatar--and, if so and it was reported, whether the site would do anything about their own rule (which sort of fits in with the thread discussion). It's still there as of now.

 

[SimonDoom]

This notion that users of a free site get a say in the running dynamics I find curious. We should be thankful that we have a platform for which we pay nothing - the alternative is no platform at all, or platforms down in the gutter.

.

It's human nature to become accustomed to good things and take them for granted but to ratchet up the complaining about what we don't like.

This Site provides an amazing forum to write kinky stories and have them read by people around the world. That's pretty cool. The problems with the Site are pretty minor compared to that.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

Is the avatar causing offense? (Yes, I know there's a rule.) I'm not saying it's not causing offense to anyone. I'm seriously wondering.

 

[KeithD]

Is the avatar causing offense? (Yes, I know there's a rule.) I'm not saying it's not causing offense to anyone. I'm seriously wondering.

It would to someone, presumably. But that's irrelevant. Is it a rule or isn't it? Is that a graphic sex act or isn't it? Is either of those fuzzy?

 

[GroverLang]

Is the avatar causing offense? (Yes, I know there's a rule.) I'm not saying it's not causing offense to anyone. I'm seriously wondering.

Why would your avatar cause offence? Am I naive and not seeing in it something others do?

 

[SimonDoom]

Why would your avatar cause offence? Am I naive and not seeing in it something others do?

It's not a matter of offense. The Site prohibits the posting of explicit photographic images like this one, whether as avatars, visual work, or illustrations for a story.

 

[GroverLang]

It's not a matter of offense. The Site prohibits the posting of explicit photographic images like this one, whether as avatars, visual work, or illustrations for a story.

I understand graphic images for an avatar not being acceptable but could you explain to me how Nyx’s avatar fits into that category, please. Am I too young to understand?

 

[KeithD]

Why would your avatar cause offence? Am I naive and not seeing in it something others do?

That's not the avatar in question.

And this is just another aspect of the central discussion of this thread, isn't it? Are the stated rules the rules uniformly and applied that way or not? If not, why not?

(My answer to the why not is that so much is flowing through that everything isn't seen with the auxiliary answer that practice changes but the Web site seems allergic to updating its rules and instructions--not to mention when Bill Cosby might go on trial and when Fern might take a question. Another possible answer, which has already been given, is that the stated rules seem only an attempt to "cover ass." That clearly seems the answer to why so much stolen copyright material is tolerated here).

 

[Bramblethorn]

That seems bizarre to me. Online revenue is up, especially at my e-commerce job. You'd think online advertisers would be raking in the bucks. Perhaps they hit a threshold where more eyes just creates more cost without more purchases.

Yes and no. There are a lot of people staying home spending more time online, and buying stuff like groceries online that they would previously have bought from stores. One of the principles of marketing is that people are more likely to change their buying habits during major life events (new child, moving house etc. etc.) so that might be seen as an opportunity.

But a lot of businesses that usually advertise heavily have been shut down or taken a major hit (travel, cinemas, etc. etc.) and a lot of the people staying home are in a financially precarious situation. That usually leads to cutting back on discretionary spending.

At the start of March, predictions for Facebook's ad revenue were pretty grim, though now I look they seem to have largely recovered:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/06/fac...hurt-by-coronavirus-needham-analysts-say.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ook-sales-poised-to-hold-steady-idUSKBN22B1BB

I'd be interested to see the numbers for adult advertising. I would guess them to be down since the kind of things Literotica advertises are very much discretionary spending, but I don't know for sure.

 

[GroverLang]

That's not the avatar in question..

Thank you. I’m obliged for the clarification. I had made an assumption Nyx was talking about her own avatar but, of course, she did say the and not my. I’ve scrolled back and I realise which avatar the comment was about. I’m not a prude (I wouldn’t think you could be on this site) but it is crude and I do wonder as to the person’s thinking as to why they chose it as their avatar. Not much imagination has gone into it. Now if it had been a couple of droids doing the same thing...

 

[KeithD]

I don't care personally one way or the other about the avatar. Per the thread discussion, though, it clearly violates a forum rule on posted images. But then so do most of the rest of them. Most of them are stolen copyrighted images. That too, is a direct violation of the site's posted rules. But the site doesn't police them. I'm willing to bet that Laurel's avatar doesn't belong to her. Or Manu's for that matter.

 

[MechaBlade]

Here are the Forum Photo Guidelines for all attachments, avatars, and any image uploaded to our servers (Numbers 1 and 3 above):

Legally, we can allow soft nudity, but photographs (does not apply to non-photographic images) posted on this site may not contain "sexually explicit conduct", which the government defines as:

- Actual or simulated:
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital,


https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1200747

My knowledge of the new rules increases. For the record, I set this avatar probably in 2010 or so. I'll take it down if it offends.

 

[KeithD]

You're not capable of interpreting and following the stated rules by yourself? Again, I don't care whether it goes or stays, but I'm interested in what reasoning you have for not following the rules you can read--and now clearly have read--all by yourself. Sort of an "interesting" attitude. I wouldn't claim it was an unusual attitude, because the evidence is that there's a lot of it going around here.

 

[MechaBlade]

You're not capable of interpreting and following the stated rules by yourself? Again, I don't care whether it goes or stays, but I'm interested in what reasoning you have for not following the rules you can read--and now clearly have read--all by yourself. Sort of an "interesting" attitude. I wouldn't claim it was an unusual attitude, because the evidence is that there's a lot of it going around here.

No, I guess? I like this av, the rules were posted in a different forum, and I haven't investigated if this is an archaic rule or something everyone's following now. I'm not in a rush to change it.

 

[MechaBlade]

You're not capable of interpreting and following the stated rules by yourself? Again, I don't care whether it goes or stays, but I'm interested in what reasoning you have for not following the rules you can read--and now clearly have read--all by yourself. Sort of an "interesting" attitude. I wouldn't claim it was an unusual attitude, because the evidence is that there's a lot of it going around here.

Case in point: the avatar of the user who posted the rules violates the very rules she posted.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

It would to someone, presumably. But that's irrelevant. Is it a rule or isn't it? Is that a graphic sex act or isn't it? Is either of those fuzzy?

It wasn't irrelevant to me. I genuinely wanted to know whether the objection was solely that it was against the rules, or if it really bothered people, and I think I said as much in my post.

I was wondering if this was a case of enforcing rules just because they are there, or if it was about enforcing rules because they yield a desired result. When we enforce rules, it's generally for a reason, and not just because the rule is there.

There are many, many rules that most of us break every day:

• jaywalking
• wearing an American flag on clothes or using it in advertising
• premarital/extramarital sex (some states)
• connecting to unsecured wifi without permission (a lot of phones and computers give you the option to do that automatically)
• swearing in public (some states)
• sharing a Netflix password
• copying a song for a friend
• playing poker or pool for money
• using your cell phone to give you driving directions (some states)
• sharing prescription medicine (You have a headache? I'll give you prescription strength ibuprofen)
• smoking pot (some states)

Those are just laws that we routinely routinely break. We break scads of regulations. And rules? We break them all the time. What is enforced depends a lot on what we collectively think is important. In the case of Lit, the rule about images is there because of the law. But, that doesn't explain why individual users want to enforce it.

I do think it's an interesting subject. There are loads of avatars on here that are dick pics or tit pics, and as I understand the rules, those are fine. Does it make sense that a dick pic is fine, but not if there's a mouth on it? Not to me. That's why I was curious about why this particular is objectionable. Again, was it just because it's a rule, or was it because the subject matter offended? It would be obviously offensive on other sites, but I am still trying understand why it's offensive here. I think most of us write rather detailed descriptions of oral sex on a regular basis. That made me wonder why the visual depiction of an act we routinely write about bothered people.

Personally, I don't particularly want to see anyone's junk in an avatar, with or without a mouth on it, but it's not offensive to me in the context of an adult site full of porn and explicit erotic fiction (including my own smut.) The way I see it, it's just a matter of taste. It doesn't seem like something that's hurting anyone. If I'm going to take someone to task or report someone for breaking a rule, it's going to be because I care about what the rule is intended to accomplish. That's just how I approach things. I'm not suggesting other people should do differently. This question was just an effort to understand.

So, yes, whether the avatar was actually offensive is relevant to my question. In fact, it is my question.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

It's not a matter of offense. The Site prohibits the posting of explicit photographic images like this one, whether as avatars, visual work, or illustrations for a story.

I don't think there's any question in anyone's mind what the site rule is. That doesn't mean it's not a matter of offense. Unless individual users are taking on the role of Lit police, the purpose of rules is, at least in part, to provide a tool to deal with things that are objectionable. Otherwise, it's a bit like the neighborhood weirdo going around and making sure everyone is following every rule in the HOA covenants. If it is objectionable, that's different. That's a reason to enforce a rule.

 

[KeithD]

Case in point: the avatar of the user who posted the rules violates the very rules she posted.

That's your answer on why, clearly understanding the rules and that you violate them, you won't take responsibility upon yourself for following them? As I noted, I think it's a problem that illuminates a lot of what's behind this thread discussion.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

Case in point: the avatar of the user who posted the rules violates the very rules she posted.

Huh? You lost me. JAF0 posted the rules, and his avatar's a cougar. What avatar are you talking about?