What do do about content regulation at Literotica

[SimonDoom]

I'm going to basically repeat the rant I recently made in the Enid Blyton thread, which NotWise, whose name suggests he's far too modest, wisely said probably would be wasted because the OP of that thread had dropped his cause.

Before I say this, I'll just say I thoroughly enjoy this Site, and I appreciate how difficult it must be for two people to run it.

Also, my rant has nothing to with what kind of content is regulated. That discussion can be had elsewhere.

My concern is with how opaque the rules are and how difficult it is to find Literotica's content regulations. I don't get it.

Given all the extraordinary amount of discussion and uncertainty and angst this issue causes, seemingly more than any other (except, possibly, anonymous voting and commenting), it seems odd that the Site refuses to address it. Unlike many other possible changes, this one would be extremely easy to do. They're so familiar with the issue after all these years that presumably it would take them less than a few hours to draft a full and complete statement of the content regulation guidelines, put it on the Site, and then clearly link to that location from multiple different places. How hard could that be? It doesn't require significant site redesign or change in the site's functionality. Even a techno-dork like me knows that.

For instance, here are some of the still mind-boggling problems with how this Site deals with this issue:

1. Here's the link to the Frequently Asked Questions: https://www.literotica.com/faq/05235347.shtml.
Nowhere in this list does the question appear: What story content does Literotica prohibit? A new author could read this list and have no clue that there are ANY regulations.

2. Here's a link to the Written Guidelines page. https://www.literotica.com/subguide.shtml. This page also does not contain a complete statement of the content regulations. It refers to the no-bestiality rule, but that's it. It does not contain a clear statement of the no-underage rule, or other rules.

3. Here's the link to the fullest statement to date: https://forum.literotica.com/showthr...hreadid=175666. It's a post in a thread posted in the Editor's Forum, of all places, in 2003, not by Laurel, but by "KillerMuffin." You can navigate to it from the FAQ page IF you click on "My Story Has Been Rejected. What Now?" near the bottom of the page. But that's obviously unhelpful to someone who hasn't submitted a story yet, and, further, it's not linked to on the Guidelines page.

As far as I can tell, you can't find the content regulations directly on the main page, the author's control page, the story submission page, or the stories page. It's not clearly marked in the Author's Hangout forum.

It baffles me that Literotica handles this issue in such an opaque and unhelpful way. It's my biggest complaint with the Site.

So, Simon's recommendations:

1. There should be a standalone page, that is identified as an official statement by the Site, that clearly and fully sets forth all content regulations.

2. That content regulation page should be prominently featured and linked to at multiple pages on the Site, including the Home Page, the FAQ page, the Writer's Guideline Page, the Literotica.com page, and the Stories page, at a minimum. There's no excuse for so much confusion on this issue. Laurel should post a new and clearly marked "sticky" thread to the Author's Hangout entitled something like "Statement of Site Content Regulations" which in turn links back to the complete statement.

3. To the extent Literotica modifies or updates its content regulations, the content statement page should be updated, right away. This can't possibly take much time.

Any other thoughts?

 

[yukonnights]

I don't have anything to add — but I agree with your suggestion. Maybe one thought; non-con needs some additional clarification IMO.

 

[Winter_Fare]

I agree it would have been helpful to have rules clear and in one place. I didn't discover this area of the site til after I'd made several submissions. One fantasy story got initially rejected for snuff, published a few days later after I clarified my intent. It totally blindsided me though, since there are tales on here that are blatant snuff. I'm talking about people being shot mid coitus (looking at you loving wives) eaten alive by snakes (erotic horror of course) and more. Clear guidance would help.

 

[Winter_Fare]

And as for the enjoyment rule in non con, I wish it would be scrapped entirely, but nobody asked for my opinion

 

[KeithD]

Literotica has pretty much left it to the users to explain the ins and outs of getting published here to other users on the discussion board. Again and again and again.

 

[windar]

Thank you Simon. I said the same here a week ago https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1559654

 

[SimonDoom]

If you have clear rules, it is clear to me that people will find ways to circumvent them.

If you try to catch all issues in rules, you'll lose far more than you gain; Laurel will lose flexibility to accept stories that are fine in content, but may 'officially' be in conflict with the rules. According to 'those who know', my story "I'm your Valentine" should not be allowed on Lit, as it is NonCon in which the victim doesn't enjoy it at the end.

'Clear' rules will create much more discussion, as people will claim that stories do or do not follow the rules, according to their own interpretation, and will demand Lit to follow their wishes as they see fit.

There is only one rule that matters: Rule Nr 1. Laurel and Manu own Literotica, and they decide what they allow and what they don't allow on their website. The rest are sub-rules.

It seems to me that the issue you raise -- which is legitimate and may in fact be of importance to Laurel and Manu -- can be addressed in the WAY that the content rules are phrased. But it's not a good reason why the rules, whatever they are, cannot be easily found. That fault of this Site makes no sense at all and can be very easily remedied.

I also can see your side of the "fine in content but 'officially' in conflict with the rules" point of view, but I can't help but think that it can be better handled by simply writing better official rules. The rules in that KillerMuffin thread haven't been updated since 2003, but it's clear that the rules in fact HAVE changed in practice. It's just lazy not to let the authors know what they are.

Plus, a statement can be appended to the rules, whatever they are, that Laurel and Manu assume absolute discretion to determine whether your story complies with their rules, and they retain the right and authority to update or modify the rules at any time without notice. That handles the issue in a more satisfactory way.

 

[HeyAll]

I think one thing that could help is showing pictures of story excerpts, and explaining why the excerpt is or isn't allowed.

It could help with things like dialogue grammar, noncon, etc...

 

[Comshaw]

If I may Simon, are you addressing the problem of the rules being hard to find, or that they aren't clear, concise and applied consistently?

If it is the second Ruben posted a good argument for why it is that way. There will always be those who try to get around or push the edge of a rule. Whether I like it or not this is Laurel and Manu's house and as such they have the authority to do what they want. That doesn't mean I can't bitch about it or petition them to change it if i don''t like it.

Personally, if it were me, I'd have very clear rules, but I would also follow it with a disclaimer, something like, "All written works submitted for publication are subject to the posted rules and the judgement of the site administrator whether the work meets the requirements of those rules."

As for the rules being hard to find, I agree whole heartedly. Most things on this site are hard to find. I think you can contribute that to the lack of evolving software running the place. Take a look at the front page. It's the same as it was when I got here in 2000.

What I'm trying to get to is it is like an old house that's been added to over and over, patches here, new rooms added there, so you end up with halls that go nowhere, rooms you can't get to, a confusing labyrinth. Sometimes it's better to tear a place down and build a new rather than keep adding on. The small municipality I worked for did that three times while I was there with their financial software. It got to a point each time that, even though it was a headache and one hell of a lot of work, it was better and more cost-effective to start with a new program.

But I can understand why L&M don't or haven't. It would entail a shutdown for who knows how long, which would piss all the users (authors, readers, and all the others) off. Business would suffer.

Comshaw

 

[MrPixel]

Yes, I agree the do's/don't's could stand to be a little clearer.

I uploaded a story a while back that closed with dialog referencing a particular form of sexual violence that could be construed as consensual under the circumstances (and the dialog), and Laurel rejected the story.

Since the act itself was canceled/avoided I thought I was in the clear, but evidently not. I took it down since the point of the story was the avoided act itself and editing for acceptance would make the plot pointless.

 

[NotWise]

I found five content rules in the links you provided:

1) No sexual activity involving bestiality.
2) No underage (under 18 years old) sexual relationships.
3) No URL links, site addresses, or other advertisements.
4) No celeb/fanfic stories in which characters are under 18 years old in reality or in the source material, but made to be over 18 for the story.
5) No excessive violence, snuff, or abuse of characters.

Numbers 2-5 are from the KillerMuffin post, which does not seem to mention bestiality. Are there others?

I've recently been exposed to the idea of writing legislation to clearly state a policy, but omitting details so the courts must establish relevant limits and definitions. In step with that approach, I reworded the rules to simple statements of the policy.

The devil is in the detail of just what the site has historically accepted and what they have historically rejected. For example, I'm taking the noncon rule to be a result of #5, rather than a separate content policy.

 

[Bramblethorn]

For instance, here are some of the still mind-boggling problems with how this Site deals with this issue:

1. Here's the link to the Frequently Asked Questions: https://www.literotica.com/faq/05235347.shtml.
Nowhere in this list does the question appear: What story content does Literotica prohibit? A new author could read this list and have no clue that there are ANY regulations.

2. Here's a link to the Written Guidelines page. https://www.literotica.com/subguide.shtml. This page also does not contain a complete statement of the content regulations. It refers to the no-bestiality rule, but that's it. It does not contain a clear statement of the no-underage rule, or other rules.

3. Here's the link to the fullest statement to date: https://forum.literotica.com/showthr...hreadid=175666. It's a post in a thread posted in the Editor's Forum, of all places, in 2003, not by Laurel, but by "KillerMuffin." You can navigate to it from the FAQ page IF you click on "My Story Has Been Rejected. What Now?" near the bottom of the page. But that's obviously unhelpful to someone who hasn't submitted a story yet, and, further, it's not linked to on the Guidelines page.

...Not to mention things like the "no Simpsons, Disney, or Harry Potter" rule that aren't covered by any of the site's official documentation pages, discoverable only by word-of-mouth from authors who've run into them after submitting stories.

(BTW, your link #3 is broken. Should be https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=175666.)

So, Simon's recommendations:

1. There should be a standalone page, that is identified as an official statement by the Site, that clearly and fully sets forth all content regulations.

2. That content regulation page should be prominently featured and linked to at multiple pages on the Site, including the Home Page, the FAQ page, the Writer's Guideline Page, the Literotica.com page, and the Stories page, at a minimum. There's no excuse for so much confusion on this issue. Laurel should post a new and clearly marked "sticky" thread to the Author's Hangout entitled something like "Statement of Site Content Regulations" which in turn links back to the complete statement.

3. To the extent Literotica modifies or updates its content regulations, the content statement page should be updated, right away. This can't possibly take much time.

Any other thoughts?

I would very much like to see this. We waste so much time on this forum explaining and re-explaining the de facto policy for frustrated new authors - and those are just the ones who find their way to the forums. Who knows how many others there are who don't come here? And surely it must create extra work for Laurel too.

Along with documentation of policy, it would be good to see clearer documentation of process - stuff like "my story was rejected for X but there's no X in it, why did that happen and what do I do?"

Some things that I think might be obstacles to this happening:

- Even though this would presumably save work for everybody in the long run, the work has to be put in first before the rewards are seen. (OTOH, I expect quite a few authors here would be willing to help in drafting documentation, given how much annoyance the lack of it causes here.)

- As Ruben notes, sometimes posting rules is taken as an invitation to look for loopholes.

- Some rules don't really make sense without 20+ years of historical context. For instance, the "no NC unless the victim enjoys it" - when introduced I think that was a matter of "we've decided we're not gonna host torture porn/snuff" but these days, to a new poster without the history, it comes across as "we only accept rape stories that minimise the consequences to the victim and promote the idea that rape is ultimately enjoyable to the victim". I expect writing those down in easily-findable documentation is likely to throw a lot of little contradictions etc. into the spotlight, which might feel uncomfortable.

- Deliberate ambiguity, e.g. as a way of dealing with legacy considerations.

The Internet has evolved tremendously since the days when Lit was founded: technically, socially, legally. That presents a dilemma: sites may need to change content policy to stay afloat (or just because the owners are human and their attitudes change over 20+ years!) But changing content policy can cause gigantic dramas in writing communities. I've seen that happen over and over on other sites.

For instance, back in 2007 LiveJournal decided to crack down on "abusive" material, and they did it in a very ham-handed way. Any account that had e.g. "rape" or "child abuse" in the list of user interests got permanently suspended, regardless of whether the context was "advocating child abuse" or "support group for abuse survivors". A lot of people left over that and similar incidents, and many other sites have similar stories.

Making that kind of shift abruptly and publicly is painful. An ambiguous content policy allows it to be done quietly and gradually, one author at a time, without kicking off a huge bunfight and mass exodus.

 

[SimonDoom]

If I may Simon, are you addressing the problem of the rules being hard to find, or that they aren't clear, concise and applied consistently?

If it is the second Ruben posted a good argument for why it is that way. There will always be those who try to get around or push the edge of a rule. Whether I like it or not this is Laurel and Manu's house and as such they have the authority to do what they want. That doesn't mean I can't bitch about it or petition them to change it if i don''t like it.

Personally, if it were me, I'd have very clear rules, but I would also follow it with a disclaimer, something like, "All written works submitted for publication are subject to the posted rules and the judgement of the site administrator whether the work meets the requirements of those rules."

As for the rules being hard to find, I agree whole heartedly. Most things on this site are hard to find. I think you can contribute that to the lack of evolving software running the place. Take a look at the front page. It's the same as it was when I got here in 2000.

What I'm trying to get to is it is like an old house that's been added to over and over, patches here, new rooms added there, so you end up with halls that go nowhere, rooms you can't get to, a confusing labyrinth. Sometimes it's better to tear a place down and build a new rather than keep adding on. The small municipality I worked for did that three times while I was there with their financial software. It got to a point each time that, even though it was a headache and one hell of a lot of work, it was better and more cost-effective to start with a new program.

But I can understand why L&M don't or haven't. It would entail a shutdown for who knows how long, which would piss all the users (authors, readers, and all the others) off. Business would suffer.

Comshaw

1. The issue is 2-fold. Partly that the rules are incomplete and as written don't address how the Site actually does things, and partly that the rules are hard to find.

2. Issue number 1 is a tricky issue. Issue number 2 is not. It would require no special programming expertise or time to create a new page that contains the rules, and then link to that page on other pages, so that page is easy to find. I'm not a programmer or web designer, and I know that.

3. The rules can be drafted to allow flexibility and to give the Site Owners discretion. But they haven't updated the published rules in 19 years. I mean, come on. There's no defense of that. None of the stated reasons defend that. That's just neglect.

4. The issues of giving Laurel flexibility can be resolved by drafting the rules accordingly. I proposed some suggestions for that.

5. Clear, black and white rules, while perhaps not allowing for gray-area cases where the rules don't seem to make sense (like RubenR's story, which I agree is appropriate and should be published even though it is problematic if viewed only through the current, inadequately worded rules), serve an extremely valuable purpose of being fair and even-handed to those who publish stories here. The Site should value that.

6. There's no reason why the rules cannot at least be updated to reflect, accurately, what the current practice of the Site is in allowing or disallowing stories. Since 2003, this Site has acquired 19 years of new wisdom and new practices in what they will allow, and they haven't changed the rules at all.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I agree with the basic premise that rules should be easy to find. Clarity is rather more difficult, but the basics are easy enough to state.

The key thing is that would be easy for the site, with no programme or policy changes needed. Five minutes and done.

Will people try to skirt around them? Of course, but then they’re trying to do that already.

 

[Bramblethorn]

It seems to me that the issue you raise -- which is legitimate and may in fact be of importance to Laurel and Manu -- can be addressed in the WAY that the content rules are phrased. But it's not a good reason why the rules, whatever they are, cannot be easily found. That fault of this Site makes no sense at all and can be very easily remedied.

I also can see your side of the "fine in content but 'officially' in conflict with the rules" point of view, but I can't help but think that it can be better handled by simply writing better official rules. The rules in that KillerMuffin thread haven't been updated since 2003, but it's clear that the rules in fact HAVE changed in practice. It's just lazy not to let the authors know what they are.

Plus, a statement can be appended to the rules, whatever they are, that Laurel and Manu assume absolute discretion to determine whether your story complies with their rules, and they retain the right and authority to update or modify the rules at any time without notice. That handles the issue in a more satisfactory way.

IME, something that might help here is focussing on principles rather than specific regulations.

"We don't accept stories where under-18s have sex": encourages gaming of the "all characters are over 18, even the ones with the body and mentality of 12-year-olds" variety.

"We don't want Literotica to become a site where minors are sexualised and we'll reject stories that we feel would conflict with that": maybe harder to game, and closer to the actual intent?

 

[LexxRuthless]

The problem with updating the guidelines is that people report stories for violating the site's guidelines all the time. There are a lot of stories on the site that were submitted more than a decade ago, including some of the most-viewed and most-favorited of all time, that would fail to meet the current standards. If the site suddenly provided an up-to-date version of the current submission guidelines, you just know there would be some self-appointed arbiter who would report a significant portion of the site's older stories for violating rules that did not exist when those authors submitted them.

Sure, Laurel would still have the ultimate say in the matter. However, do you think she wants to deal with the headache of suddenly having 200,000+ of the site's older stories being reported for violating the site's guidelines? We, as readers, would likely lose a big chunk of those stories. Authors who are no longer active on the site would simply have their stories disappear. Yes, it would help current and future authors avoid a few minor headaches when trying to submit stories, but at what cost to everyone else?

 

[SimonDoom]

The problem with updating the guidelines is that people report stories for violating the site's guidelines all the time. There are a lot of stories on the site that were submitted more than a decade ago, including some of the most-viewed and most-favorited of all time, that would fail to meet the current standards. If the site suddenly provided an up-to-date version of the current submission guidelines, you just know there would be some self-appointed arbiter who would report a significant portion of the site's older stories for violating rules that did not exist when those authors submitted them.

Sure, Laurel would still have the ultimate say in the matter. However, do you think she wants to deal with the headache of suddenly having 200,000+ of the site's older stories being reported for violating the site's guidelines? We, as readers, would likely lose a big chunk of those stories. Authors who are no longer active on the site would simply have their stories disappear. Yes, it would help current and future authors avoid a few minor headaches when trying to submit stories, but at what cost to everyone else?

Laurel is under no obligation to apply current rules to previously published stories. She could add a statement of her rules to this effect. That takes care of this problem completely.

Whether or not current authors are distressed by old stories is completely unimportant, from Laurel's perspective. And she can make it clear to us that it's unimportant, and then we have nothing to complain about.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Laurel is under no obligation to apply current rules to previously published stories. She could add a statement of her rules to this effect. That takes care of this problem completely.

Whether or not current authors are distressed by old stories is completely unimportant, from Laurel's perspective. And she can make it clear to us that it's unimportant, and then we have nothing to complain about.

I'm partly in agreement with this, but I wonder if there's a risk of backfire with statements like this.

Let's suppose the social/legal climate shifts to the point where stories containing topic X can be considered to run counter to contemporary community standards, increasing the risk that they might be considered "obscenity" and hence outside First Amendment proections.

Scenario 1: Laurel quietly stops accepting stories containing X, and maybe disables relevant tags etc. to make the site less friendly to X.

Scenario 2: Laurel publicly states "As of [date] we will no longer be accepting stories containing X. Stories posted before that date are unaffected by this change."

What then happens if somebody finds old stories on the site that still contain X, and makes a thing of it?

Under Scenario 1, Laurel can say "whoops, we haven't been accepting that kind of content for ages, but we have hundreds of thousands of stories - it's not practical for me to find and delete every old story with that kind of content." That might fly as a defense, or at least mitigation.

Under Scenario 2, maybe a prosecutor could take the public statement as evidence against Laurel/Literotica. It establishes that by [date] they'd become aware that X was problematic, that they were aware they were hosting stories containing X... and that it was their intention to continue hosting at least some stories on that topic.

(Scenario 3, of course, is actually trying to remove X from the archives - probably legally safer, but a lot of work and potential for author backlash.)

 

[lovecraft68]

People -including me over the years-have had this rant.

What you need to realize, and people here never want to admit it, is the rules are a joke. They are CYA to be able to remove a story when they want to.

There is far too much underage, rape, and snuff and torture for titillation on here to think that's not the case.

There's legal reasons as well. Not that its illegal to write anything in fiction, but say LE came sniffing around here because of some underage kiddie porn story, Laurel can say "hey, look, I have this rule, but its a two person show, and a big site, and some of these authors they just don't follow the rules, but I have them...

Countless times someone comes here-usually a newish author-and complains their non con story was rejected, but they can find dozens of far worse stories here, so WTF?

Then that person gets the "there's rules!" and those people look like idiots, because look around. Its like someone saying water is wet and saying "no, its not cause Laurel said wet isn't allowed here"

Then they get the oh, so helpful 'don't like it leave;

So to your rant you could add the enabling suck ups here who act like there really is a system here for rules and nothing rule breaking gets through. That's the issue, just like an idiot politician spouting absolute non sense, and their base regurgitating it like happy little parrots.

You can make all kinds of suggestions, but nothing is going to change. We're talking about a person who has promised for years to eliminate chapter stories from monthly and annual contests...and nothing, that has bold faced lied about new categories and rule changes and on and on and on.

Lush stories has a staff, their rules are rules, they have multiple people screening, you will be hard pressed to find a story there that violated the rules because they make an effort.

This site will not make an effort. In fact, often times stories that re rejected were rejected in error. Stories rejected for something not even human being 15 years old, yet "Raping Chay" has been on the all time most faved list since I've been here.

Ranting for venting is understandable, but making suggestions and thinking anyone will listen is a waste of time.

They don't care. The rules are wink wink. Underage is as simple as don't say "I fucked my 15 year old..." Just start at 18, say "3 years ago we..." and there's your underage sex scene. And they're fine with it. Don't get me started about how "budding breasts' is an acceptable thing here on a site allegedly opposed to underage.

And no rape? Yeah...My eyes would burst from rolling them over that statement. Torture for arousal? Read some of the BTB stories here.

The rules are hypocrisy, and its not worth getting worked up about it, other than calling out the mindless fools who are either liars or total idiots who say they are for real.

This site is a much more popular, but only slightly more polished version of Asstr.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm partly in agreement with this, but I wonder if there's a risk of backfire with statements like this.

Let's suppose the social/legal climate shifts to the point where stories containing topic X can be considered to run counter to contemporary community standards, increasing the risk that they might be considered "obscenity" and hence outside First Amendment proections.

Scenario 1: Laurel quietly stops accepting stories containing X, and maybe disables relevant tags etc. to make the site less friendly to X.

Scenario 2: Laurel publicly states "As of [date] we will no longer be accepting stories containing X. Stories posted before that date are unaffected by this change."

What then happens if somebody finds old stories on the site that still contain X, and makes a thing of it?

Under Scenario 1, Laurel can say "whoops, we haven't been accepting that kind of content for ages, but we have hundreds of thousands of stories - it's not practical for me to find and delete every old story with that kind of content." That might fly as a defense, or at least mitigation.

Under Scenario 2, maybe a prosecutor could take the public statement as evidence against Laurel/Literotica. It establishes that by [date] they'd become aware that X was problematic, that they were aware they were hosting stories containing X... and that it was their intention to continue hosting at least some stories on that topic.

(Scenario 3, of course, is actually trying to remove X from the archives - probably legally safer, but a lot of work and potential for author backlash.)

I would describe your post as a rational query about an unlikely circumstance. It could happen. It's unlikely, but it could happen. Let's suppose it does.

Laurel can insert a statement worded something like this in her statement of rules: "Literotica is domiciled in the USA and does not publish material that is illegal under American law, and we reserve the right to remove stories at any time if in our sole discretion we determine that those stories violate American law."

As long as Laurel's statement doesn't say something that is the equivalent of "As long the old stories aren't illegal under current legal standards, we feel no obligation to delete them" I think they are OK. That's a far cry from saying, "If our standards change, we're not going to delete stories that don't satisfy our current standards." They're two very different things.

I think these issues go more to the issue of exactly how the rules are stated, which isn't quite what my original post was about. My more basic point is that 1) there should be a Site-authorized statement of the content rules that is kept updated, and 2) the rules should be easily accessible by every author. Issues about the nuances of how the rules are stated are beyond the scope of my original post.

 

[RejectReality]

Lush stories has a staff, their rules are rules, they have multiple people screening, you will be hard pressed to find a story there that violated the rules because they make an effort.

May want to look in around there before bringing this line of argument up again. Things have changed dramatically. Virtually no definition of content rules anywhere. One paragraph is about all you have, and enforcement is category dependent.

No non-con, but the description of the mind control category mentions "people puppets", for example.

As things stand, Lit provides a lot more clarity if you're willing to search. Your line of argument was undoubtedly true a couple of years ago, but not so much now.

Granted, you're not going to slip things through with someone reading the whole story rather than skimming it, but holding them up as an example of clearly defined rules that are universally enforced is simply not the case any longer.

ETA: Someone literally minutes ago posted a long complaint there about the rules being unclear, difficult to find, and loosely enforced. LOL

 

[SimonDoom]

Ranting for venting is understandable, but making suggestions and thinking anyone will listen is a waste of time.

.

I don't want to argue with you about your specific qualms about what this Site publishes and what it doesn't. You've made your points clear, over and over.

But I don't believe that discussions on how to do things better are a waste of time. Maybe I'm a foolish optimist. I don't have reason to believe that the Literotica owners are just operating cynically and in bad faith. I personally don't believe that, and if that draws an accusation from you that I'm an ass kisser, I don't care much.

I think discussions about how things might be done better are always worthwhile. I think discussions about the bad faith of other people generally are not worthwhile.

 

[XerXesXu]

I don't want to argue with you about your specific qualms about what this Site publishes and what it doesn't. You've made your points clear, over and over.

But I don't believe that discussions on how to do things better are a waste of time. Maybe I'm a foolish optimist. I don't have reason to believe that the Literotica owners are just operating cynically and in bad faith. I personally don't believe that, and if that draws an accusation from you that I'm an ass kisser, I don't care much.

I think discussions about how things might be done better are always worthwhile. I think discussions about the bad faith of other people generally are not worthwhile.

If you, or someone who agrees with you, would draft a guidance sheet and post it for comment, I'm sure, after feedback and making any appropriate amendments, you'd have a document you could send to Laurel with your suggestion.

 

[oggbashan]

The problem with updating the guidelines is that people report stories for violating the site's guidelines all the time. There are a lot of stories on the site that were submitted more than a decade ago, including some of the most-viewed and most-favorited of all time, that would fail to meet the current standards. If the site suddenly provided an up-to-date version of the current submission guidelines, you just know there would be some self-appointed arbiter who would report a significant portion of the site's older stories for violating rules that did not exist when those authors submitted them.

...

I can think of one passage in a story I posted in 2002 that might be dubious on the under 18 rules as currently applied. It wasn't intended to be and I suppose I could rewrite the story to remove a couple of paragraphs or alter them so that the characters are older,

But if someone reported it? It is one of a series. If that story was completely removed, the progression of the series would be wrecked.

Applying rules, no matter how precisely they are drafted, is always a matter of judgement.

But, yes, they should be much more obvious and visible, probably linked from Lit's front page.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

A couple of things about rules...

1. No matter how many you have there are those who will break them or try to break them.

2.

I guess there is only one thing about rules. There is always someone out there that doesn't think they need to follow those rules.

Next time your out driving, look around you. How many idiots in cars are there? How many are just following their own rules of the road?

The same goes here, idiots in front of a keyboard.