What can underage characters see/know?

[KeithD]

"so what you are saying is that you DONT know for certain"

You were saying about not being an argumentative poster?

Yes, I know for certain, because I've been here for over a decade and a half and have watched the discussion board discussions that long, which cover this issue a couple of times a week, and because I have successfully navigated the submissions process here (including exchanges with Laurel) over 1,500 times.

If you can't manage the systems here--after you've gotten help understanding them from others who do routinely manage the system here and you still are intent on arguing and biting the hands of those trying to help you even though they aren't any part of the submissions editor's policy exercising--then tough on you.

 

[Euphony]

Oh dear lord.

Save us from the wisdom of johnny-come-latelys who just want to hear themselves talk...

"How do we know Voboy's stories are indeed his own? Did he get help? Does he, perhaps own a dog that knows how to talk and type but only in erotic fiction? And why is he hiding said dog from the world so that we may all benefit from God's graces?"

I'm just asking questions.

 

[PastMaster]

Do you see now why this gets tedious, the old hands trying to give newbies some guidance, that guidance being rejected as toadi-ism or whatever the fuck, when what it actually is, is writers knowing how to get their stuff published? Without going over the Lit policy lines, which are very clearly drawn, and not at all hard to understand.

Write about adult sexuality on Literotica and you have no problems at all, and leave teenagers to explore their sexuality in some safe place else, which is not Literotica.

Why adults keep wanting to write about teenagers is beyond me. As I said in another thread, age them up as required, write your first time story just the once, like we all have, and be done with it. Then write about adults. Life is easy when you do that. Protest too much, and folk begin to wonder what it is you want to publish; that too should be pretty obvious by now.

The old hands trying to give newbies some guidance? - you pompous prick.
What he, and I were both saying, had nothing to do with the lit rules - it had to do with the statement that not being able to age a character by 2 years meant that the story was rubbish, which was clearly nonesense.
What you are trying to turn it into is a railling against lit rules - which it wasnt
and then making baseless insinuations that we want to publish underage content is simply not true

 

[PastMaster]

"How do we know Voboy's stories are indeed his own? Did he get help? Does he, perhaps own a dog that knows how to talk and type but only in erotic fiction? And why is he hiding said dog from the world so that we may all benefit from God's graces?"

I'm just asking questions.

because if that were the case the stories would be a damn sight better.

 

[Euphony]

If there is one hypothesis with lots of support, and another with no support, sure, either could be correct. But one is much more likely to be correct.

Welp, they've gotten to djrip.

#LItuminaTi

 

[Voboy]

because if that were the case the stories would be a damn sight better.

Yes. They suck. I strive every day to improve.

Bless your soul. You have a pleasant evening, now.

 

[PastMaster]

Yes. They suck. I strive every day to improve.

Bless your soul. You have a pleasant evening, now.

Sorry voboy - i actulally like your stories - that was a mean snipe but i couldnt resist. he set it up i had to swing for it.

 

[Voboy]

Sorry voboy - i actulally like your stories - that was a mean snipe but i couldnt resist. he set it up i had to swing for it.

No, you did not. That was your choice. And you chose to be an argumentative piece of shit.

That's your call. Own it. I'm done with you.

 

[PastMaster]

No, you did not. That was your choice. And you chose to be an argumentative piece of shit.

That's your call. Own it. I'm done with you.

Bless your soul- - you have a pleasant evening now.

 

[Senor_Smut]

Well, no, I didn't do any of that. I tried to point out some realities on this site and even agreed that the realities weren't fully pleasant ones. And you got pissy. And, so, you can just wallow in it.

Ogg did so explicitly, repeatedly. Others agreed. You were not one of them.

Nowhere in this thread did I suggest that the rules should be changed for me or anyone else. Not once. I accept Literotica's rules for being what they are and I am not trying to break them. I asked a question about what a an underage character who does not have sex can know, and from the first it was repeatedly implied that I was trying to break Literotica rules by simply asking for a clarification of them. Then I was told I was a bad author because I would rather write the story I want to write somewhere else than write the story I don't want to write here.

I was also informed that being greeted with aggression and hostility because some people are tired of the topic was somehow wise guidance. Again, after I stated, with no rancor or disaffection, that I knew the story wasn't right for the site and that I would post it elsewhere. I don't care what other questions have done to your mood. I wasn't a part of those. I came in, asked for guidance for the specific purpose of trying to avoid violating site rules, and got insulted.

This is not my first story for Literotica, but it is the last time I will make the mistake of asking anyone else on this site for advice. All many of you seem to want to do is get angry and whatever honest and helpful information I get from more reasonable people isn't worth the aggravation.

 

[Voboy]

Ogg did so explicitly, repeatedly. Others agreed. You were not one of them.

Nowhere in this thread did I suggest that the rules should be changed for me or anyone else. Not once. I accept Literotica's rules for being what they are and I am not trying to break them. I asked a question about what a an underage character who does not have sex can know, and from the first it was repeatedly implied that I was trying to break Literotica rules by simply asking for a clarification of them. Then I was told I was a bad author because I would rather write the story I want to write somewhere else than write the story I don't want to write here.

I was also informed that being greeted with aggression and hostility because some people are tired of the topic was somehow wise guidance. Again, after I stated, with no rancor or disaffection, that I knew the story wasn't right for the site and that I would post it elsewhere. I don't care what other questions have done to your mood. I wasn't a part of those. I came in, asked for guidance for the specific purpose of trying to avoid violating site rules, and got insulted.

This is not my first story for Literotica, but it is the last time I will make the mistake of asking anyone else on this site for advice. All many of you seem to want to do is get angry and whatever honest and helpful information I get from more reasonable people isn't worth the aggravation.

Concisely put.

Good luck!

 

[onehitwanda]

I question this as the reason for rejection.

It was explicitly referenced.

I can't find it because the history has fallen off the "My activity" page but the particular passage concerned one of my two (then underaged) protagonists kissing the other because "she wanted to know what it felt like".

The rejection note contained this line, highlighted, and specifically referenced the rule:

Sexual activity involving characters under the age of 18 (including but not limited to explicit sexual discussion, voyeurism, exhibitionism, fantasizing, masturbation, and graphic sexualized descriptions, in addition to actual sexual intercourse). Literotica has always had a strict policy against any under-18 content, and any attempt to violate that policy is grounds for account termination.

I don't believe it's possible to get a more direct shot across the bows.

 

[Voboy]

It was explicitly referenced.

I can't find it because the history has fallen off the "My activity" page but the particular passage concerned one of my two (then underaged) protagonists kissing the other because "she wanted to know what it felt like".

The rejection note contained this line, highlighted, and specifically referenced the rule:


I don't believe it's possible to get a more direct shot across the bows.

I'd be curious to read the passage, if you can find it.

 

[Senor_Smut]

Focus on this while you read what you wrote below...

PastMaster and I are two different people. I did not post his posts nor he, mine.

 

[KeithD]

Ogg did so explicitly, repeatedly. Others agreed. You were not one of them.

I'm done with you. I wasted my writing time this afternoon trying to help you understand the reality of this Web site (which includes that the posters to the discussion board have absolutely no say in what the Web site story file policies are going to be) and you refused to understand reality and were dismissive of those trying to help you. The issue is yours not mine. I've learned to navitage the Web site. You show no signs of being willing to do so. So, I'm done with you.

 

[Voboy]

PastMaster and I are two different people. I did not post his posts nor he, mine.

I'm well aware of that. But though I was replying to his post, I was referencing his defense of you.

 

[onehitwanda]

I'd be curious to read the passage, if you can find it.

Unfortunately I can't; while I have the document locally it's post-changes, not pre-changes. Essentially it concerns the very strong bond between Rose and Lea in "On the simplicity of words".
Thankfully the story stands by itself without the line or two that I had to remove. But I was sad about it; I didn't realise that it would fall foul of the restrictions though I guess with hindsight I should have been more circumspect.

 

[Bramblethorn]

so what you are saying is that you DONT know for certain - just because something has been stated multiple times on the board and never refuted doesnt make it true - Since there seems to be little engagement by the admins in the forums in the first place.
Now if it had been confirmed - that would be different.

From the horse's mouth:

Hi writers!

For clarification and future reference: we do allow characters under the age of 18 in stories. What we don't allow are stories in which characters under the age of 18 are involved in sexual situations. This includes as voyeurs, as the object of a voyeur, masturbation, having sexual thoughts, and so on.

We do allow references to past activity in stories so long as it is not explicit. For example, an adult character referencing his or her history - "I lost my virginity when I was 15" - is fine. Explicit and/or salacious details are not.

These are not new rules nor have our content rules changed in many years.

As far as things slipping through: one thing to realize is that the stories are not approved by a robot or script. They are approved by human eyes, which tire easily as I age. Every story must be formatted; tags, title, and description checked; and skimmed for content issues. The daily update takes hours. If I could find a way to do all this properly with a script, I would. But in the last 12+ years, the only way to do things right is to do it by hand, so to speak.

Mistakes happen. The site has been on a huge growth streak in the past year, with readership & unique visitors up nearly 20%. This means a corresponding growth in submissions. We want to post stories to the site as quickly as possible for you authors. We also want to make sure that the updates are as top-quality as they can be - with a minimum of formatting errors and no forbidden content inadvertently posted. Thorough checking of stories and timely posting is a balance we will continue to work to get right.

I'd like to be able to read every story through, but I can't. Reading 100+ stories/novels a night - much less formatting, tagging, etc. - is just not possible. So, if while skimming I see something that sends up a red flag and further reading doesn't clarify things, I often send it back to the author. If I stopped and read through each novel we receive to check on whether an underage character is sexually active at any point, I would be even further behind than I already am.

When a story is sent back to you for any reason, this is not a final rejection and it is not meant to be taken personally. This just means we have issues or questions. You are free to resubmit either with corrections - or, if you think we're wrong, an explanation of why we're wrong in the NOTES field.

If you believe your story was rejected in error, please open the submission, respond to the rejection in the NOTES field of the submission, and hit SUBMIT. Please do not add the word EDITED to the title, as that denotes someone editing an already approved story. Since we process all edits after the new stories are posted, adding the word EDITED to a title will cause a delay in the posting of your new story. If you are submitting an edit of a rejected story, simply open the rejected form, make the changes in that form, and hit SUBMIT. Do not start a new submission.

If you have any questions, feel free to PM me anytime. PMs are faster than emails.

Thanks everybody, especially those who let me know about this thread - and have a great weekend!

That post is from 2012. I can't say for sure that the process hasn't changed since then, but I'm not aware of any major changes relevant to this discussion. (I do know of some minor ones.)

 

[PastMaster]

I'm done with you. I wasted my writing time this afternoon trying to help you understand the reality of this Web site (which includes that the posters to the discussion board have absolutely no say in what the Web site story file policies are going to be) and you refused to understand reality and were dismissive of those trying to help you. The issue is yours not mine. I've learned to navitage the Web site. You show no signs of being willing to do so. So, I'm done with you.

and so once again you stomp off in a tantrum that what you actually wrote about what you thought he said wasnt indeed what was intended and since it was never posted here was never against site rules - but then it woudnt have been so much fun if you actually read his posts before mouthing off would it.

 

[PastMaster]

From the horse's mouth:

now THAT is certainty

 

[KeithD]

now THAT is certainty

Speaks to my certainly. I was here in 2012. I would have read that message. I didn't copy it because, apparently unlike Bram, I didn't perceive that someone like you would come along to feel entitled to have to have it proved to them. Of course even that can't be a certainty just because someone named Laurel asserted it in a board post. Maybe there are five little old ladies all doing the work in the name of Laurel. I'm surprised, you being you, that you haven't made that challenge already.

And that "stomp off" comment is the juvenile sort of technique Internet gamesters use to try to keep arguments going--speaking of you not being argumentative again.

 

[PastMaster]

Speaks to my certainly. I was here in 2012. I would have read that message. I didn't copy it because, apparently unlike Bram, I didn't perceive that someone like you would come along to feel entitled to have to have it proved to them. Of course even that can't be a certainty just because someone named Laurel asserted it in a board post. Maybe there are five little old ladies all doing the work in the name of Laurel. I'm surprised, you being you, that you haven't made that challenge already.

And that "stomp off" comment is the juvenile sort of technique Internet gamesters use to try to keep arguments going--speaking of you not being argumentative again.

I never said I wasnt argumentative - only that that particular post wasnt meant as such.

With regard to that post - that bram posted - had you said - Laurel posted to say... then that would have been enough - what you actually said was its been said many times and never refuted which is not proof .

I agree that just because someone called Laurel asserted it in a board we arent certain that it is THE Laurel but I think you are pushing that too far - perhaps it isnt me that's looking for the argument?

 

[ElectricBlue]

From the horse's mouth:

That post is from 2012. I can't say for sure that the process hasn't changed since then, but I'm not aware of any major changes relevant to this discussion. (I do know of some minor ones.)

Well found, Bramble. Let's put it in Simon's sticky, top of the page. It might stop these endless debates.

 

[ElectricBlue]

The old hands trying to give newbies some guidance? - you pompous prick.
What he, and I were both saying, had nothing to do with the lit rules - it had to do with the statement that not being able to age a character by 2 years meant that the story was rubbish, which was clearly nonesense.
What you are trying to turn it into is a railling against lit rules - which it wasnt
and then making baseless insinuations that we want to publish underage content is simply not true

I'm talking about stories on Lit, you were the one who introduced the Lolita argument, which is simply NOT relevant for Lit.

And you're still going on about the Lit rules, and one has to wonder why they cause you so many issues. Just saying.

 

[PastMaster]

Well found, Bramble. Let's put it in Simon's sticky, top of the page. It might stop these endless debates.

the point does have to be raised though - that post is over 10 years old - so much could have changed since then.