![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
4th letter to ff.net
Oct. 25th, 2012 11:06 pmTo whom it may concern,
I have recently been party to an argument with the group Critics United (http://www.fanfiction.net/forum/Critics-United/78623/) over the interpretation of a second of fanfiction.net's rules on forbidden content. The rule in question is #5, which says:
5. Any form of interactive entry: choose your adventure, second person/you based, Q&As, and etc.
This is a poorly worded rule, which is the source of the dispute. As I interpret it, the rule forbids INTERACTIVE content, and second person is only forbidden when it is used to create interactivity, as when the reader is addressed as if she or he were an insert into the story. When second person is used as a simple point of view technique, akin to first and third person, to convey the viewpoint of a named canon character, that is not interactive and therefore not forbidden. The members of Critics United argue, on the other hand, that ALL uses of second person are forbidden -- either because the rule can be read to say so, or because they think second person is somehow inherently interactive.
The rule is so poorly worded that your own admins disagree on its interpretation. For example, in response to the first round of complaints, an admin agreed with my interpretation and deleted two reviews from members of Critics United. In response to a third review from Critics United and a second complaint from me, no action was taken. And in response to a fourth review from Critics United and a third complaint from me, my story was deleted. So as you can see, one of your admins thinks I am correct in my understanding of your rule, while another thinks Critics United are correct.
This inconsistency helps create a poisonous and fearful atmosphere on the site, as can be seen by the way some anonymous users followed me from my fanfiction.net page to my livejournal (http://edenfalling.livejournal.com/) and began posting misogynistic slurs in my journal, and by the way a group that may or may not go by the name Eliminator (though I would take that with a grain of salt, since it was reported to me on my livejournal by an anonymous troll; Eliminator may well be a single person with far too much time on his hands) has now begun targeting me on your site with abusive and misogynistic anonymous reviews and claims that they have reported me for violations -- even of stories that do not use second person!
Here is an example of one such review:
( cut for BLATANT MISOGYNY and SEXUALLY ABUSIVE LANGUAGE )
Please note the misogyny, the sexually abusive language, and the irrational hatred directed toward the entire Homestuck fandom. Please also note that the story in question -- "Waking Persephone" (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/8637148/1/) -- is not in second person and does not violate any other content rules either. This is the sort of behavior that results from unclear site rules and inconsistent enforcement.
I respectfully suggest that the wording of the content rule in question be changed to eliminate this uncertainty. If you intend to forbid all use of second person narrative, with no exceptions, it would be simple to add a 7th content guideline to that effect, like this:
7. All use of second person narrative (you-based POV).
If you only intend to forbid second person narrative when used in an interactive fashion, it would be equally simple to reword the existing rule along the following lines:
5. Any form of interactive entry: choose your adventure, Q&As, and etc. (Second person/you-based narrative may be a warning sign of interactivity but is not necessarily interactive on its own.)
In either case, the rules would then be clear and all parties would know where they stand, instead of being dependent on the inconsistent ways each individual admin reads and interprets the current poorly worded rule.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Culmer (http://www.fanfiction.net/u/461224/Elizabeth_Culmer)
Member since 2003
---------------
ETA: I would like to state, for the record, that the reason given for the removal of my story was this: Main reason for removal: "Not allowed: interactive, chat/script, real person, mst, and etc." Note that there is no mention of second person whatsoever! Me, Myself, and Die did not use chat/script format, was not about a real person, was not an MST fic, and was NOT INTERACTIVE, under any standard definition of interactivity.
So why was it removed?
Because the forbidden content rule is badly written. Therefore the rule should be clarified.
I have recently been party to an argument with the group Critics United (http://www.fanfiction.net/forum/Critics-United/78623/) over the interpretation of a second of fanfiction.net's rules on forbidden content. The rule in question is #5, which says:
5. Any form of interactive entry: choose your adventure, second person/you based, Q&As, and etc.
This is a poorly worded rule, which is the source of the dispute. As I interpret it, the rule forbids INTERACTIVE content, and second person is only forbidden when it is used to create interactivity, as when the reader is addressed as if she or he were an insert into the story. When second person is used as a simple point of view technique, akin to first and third person, to convey the viewpoint of a named canon character, that is not interactive and therefore not forbidden. The members of Critics United argue, on the other hand, that ALL uses of second person are forbidden -- either because the rule can be read to say so, or because they think second person is somehow inherently interactive.
The rule is so poorly worded that your own admins disagree on its interpretation. For example, in response to the first round of complaints, an admin agreed with my interpretation and deleted two reviews from members of Critics United. In response to a third review from Critics United and a second complaint from me, no action was taken. And in response to a fourth review from Critics United and a third complaint from me, my story was deleted. So as you can see, one of your admins thinks I am correct in my understanding of your rule, while another thinks Critics United are correct.
This inconsistency helps create a poisonous and fearful atmosphere on the site, as can be seen by the way some anonymous users followed me from my fanfiction.net page to my livejournal (http://edenfalling.livejournal.com/) and began posting misogynistic slurs in my journal, and by the way a group that may or may not go by the name Eliminator (though I would take that with a grain of salt, since it was reported to me on my livejournal by an anonymous troll; Eliminator may well be a single person with far too much time on his hands) has now begun targeting me on your site with abusive and misogynistic anonymous reviews and claims that they have reported me for violations -- even of stories that do not use second person!
Here is an example of one such review:
( cut for BLATANT MISOGYNY and SEXUALLY ABUSIVE LANGUAGE )
Please note the misogyny, the sexually abusive language, and the irrational hatred directed toward the entire Homestuck fandom. Please also note that the story in question -- "Waking Persephone" (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/8637148/1/) -- is not in second person and does not violate any other content rules either. This is the sort of behavior that results from unclear site rules and inconsistent enforcement.
I respectfully suggest that the wording of the content rule in question be changed to eliminate this uncertainty. If you intend to forbid all use of second person narrative, with no exceptions, it would be simple to add a 7th content guideline to that effect, like this:
7. All use of second person narrative (you-based POV).
If you only intend to forbid second person narrative when used in an interactive fashion, it would be equally simple to reword the existing rule along the following lines:
5. Any form of interactive entry: choose your adventure, Q&As, and etc. (Second person/you-based narrative may be a warning sign of interactivity but is not necessarily interactive on its own.)
In either case, the rules would then be clear and all parties would know where they stand, instead of being dependent on the inconsistent ways each individual admin reads and interprets the current poorly worded rule.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Culmer (http://www.fanfiction.net/u/461224/Elizabeth_Culmer)
Member since 2003
---------------
ETA: I would like to state, for the record, that the reason given for the removal of my story was this: Main reason for removal: "Not allowed: interactive, chat/script, real person, mst, and etc." Note that there is no mention of second person whatsoever! Me, Myself, and Die did not use chat/script format, was not about a real person, was not an MST fic, and was NOT INTERACTIVE, under any standard definition of interactivity.
So why was it removed?
Because the forbidden content rule is badly written. Therefore the rule should be clarified.
