Coal All The Way

[coalcube]

It's coal-bo time.

 Coal Friending Meme


Yuleporn | Make the Yuletide Gay / TNB+ | Femslash Festivus 
YuleBuilding | Two for One | Crueltide | Misses Clause
YuleSwaps | IF | Wrapping Paper 

Yuletide Discord for Hippos. Google Group for PHs. F_F wiki for history.

yuletide | yuletide_admin | Writing Post
2019 Collection | 2019 Madness
2019 App | Letter Post (LJ) 
 

Flat / Recent | Top-Level (Last) | Search

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

No one would know, honestly. Anyone outside of the nommer would assume it wasn’t nommed. If the nommer tried to kick up wank, mod could say they didn’t see it but maybe the Ao3 system ate it/their nom didn’t save? Anyway noms are closer, try again next year!

[(Anonymous)]

OTOH I don't know why one wouldn't just ban this specific bad actor.

[(Anonymous)]

I dunno, banning people from exchanges for acting like twats on anonmemes seems like a slippery slope.

[(Anonymous)]

You could, it would be the same principle if you wanted to avoid wank. Either the wanker says nothing and nobody knows or it plays out like this:

Wanker: I signed up but...the mod deleted it, wtf?
Mod: Ao3 must have eaten it or you didn’t save? Sorry, try again next year.

Bans are private anyway. It isn’t like the mods put up a list with the names of everyone that defaulted or wrote a DNW.

[(Anonymous)]

That's assuming they wouldn't raise a fuss and bring it to the mod before sign ups start, which would be early enough for the mod to add it in. And this excuse only flies one round, because if you did the same thing in two years, it would be very obvious.

Basically, you're a lying, shitty mod and it will eventually catch up on you. If you had any sort of backbone, you'd outright ban them or the fandom and face the wank. Because you can bet that even tons of people with no interest in that fandom would raise a fuss because if mods will stop approving technically eligible fandoms randomly, what's to stop them from rejecting some other fandom they personally dislike?

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT would be happy to state outright in the rules that sympathetic portrayals of Nazi Germany are not admissible.

[(Anonymous)]

So would you ban things like Gone With The Wind too? Because I find that just as sickening. Or hell, even Hamilton. It honestly turns my stomach they have Jefferson played by a Black man.

I wouldn’t ask you in the abstract, because I don’t think mods should make those calls, but I sure as fuck would if you make a moral stand like that.

[(Anonymous)]

It honestly turns my stomach they have Jefferson played by a Black man.

Overplaying your hand a little here, racist troll.

[(Anonymous)]

CYRT

Nope. I’m 100% sincere. I hate that fucking musical. There are plenty of good stories about Black people set in that period and it’s ridiculous that instead of telling one of them, they decided to gloss over the racist abuses of the founding fathers by casting them as people of color. The fact that the only white person in the play is King George, when England was vastly more inviting to Black people and former enslaved people, is horrific. Many former enslaved people fought on the side of the British because they were far more credible at offering them freedom.

I don’t think anyone is morally wrong for enjoying the fandom or writing fic in, I understand why some POC like it, but I hate it with every once of my being and if we are going to ban things with sympathetic portrayals of Nazis, I want the musical that sympathetically portrays anti-Black slaveholders banned too.

[(Anonymous)]

Speaking of shitty attempts at trying to insert minorities into history, thank god feeld didn’t win the Pulitzer. I would have rioted.

[(Anonymous)]

DC

You know, knee-jerk I thought you were like my ex-friend who is offended at black Orphan Annie or black Wendy Darling because "those are white stories and just as offensive as an all-white cast of Roots would be." But after reading your post, I completely understand and agree with your stance.

I never saw Hamilton, don't like the music or care about it at all, and had never really thought about it before. Thanks for a new perspective.

[(Anonymous)]

TBH sometimes a hard “they’re banned because I say so” is what #leadership means. I don’t doubt her defenders are thinking “but what about MY pet dark fandom??” or “but what about the time I lingered three exchanges in a row???” but sometimes the one person just sucks.

[(Anonymous)]

+1

Hamilton hating coalie from downthread would vastly prefer just banning Aquatics over trying to make it a generalizable moral stand, because honesty, I’m preemptively annoyed and hurt about the inevitable dismissal of all the complaints about anti-Black or colonialist canons. I don’t mind people being fannish about those things, but it would really suck to hear someone try to explain to me why such-and-such canon is not *really* as bad as Nazis, because in fact, they don’t find whatever exchange regular who loves it as bad as Aquatics.

[(Anonymous)]

i don’t see how it can work. she can make another account; if you ban DP, i’m pretty sure she can find another fandom to get into. if it really is sympathetic (semi-)real nazis that are the only thing that makes her feel fannish, there are plenty of those. so you either have to keep banning their socks, or make a moral ban to cover nazi stuff, in which case people like airt will be upset because some racist/antisemetic things are banned and not all. and if you ban anything racist then it becomes a question of why not noncon or underage etc, and it really is the purity exchange (which i think is fine for people who want that, but fandom would flip out).

tl;dr banning aquatics = but they can sock up and pretend to be someone new into dp. banning aquatics + dp = people will want other wankers and problematic fandoms banned too and then you’re the person running consent exchange with 14 people.

[(Anonymous)]

Eh, wouldn’t be the first time fandom sniffed out socks, and the job would be pretty easy if they stuck with shit like WaterWhirl.

Besides, a lot of the issue with them is their campaigns around their and DP’s reputation. If they quietly sneak back with new softe Nazis that get written and don’t get a covert reccing campaign, what the fuck ever, I still won’t like, write for, or knowingly read anything by them, but it’d bring them down to a level of asshole that isn’t a constant stitch in exchanges’ sides.

[(Anonymous)]

She'd throw a fit, but she does that everyday anyway. Think of how much better exchanges would be without her.

[(Anonymous)]

That rule won't help you with Desert Peach. Think of it as trying to ban fictional Schindler's Lists, not fictional Triumph of the Wills.

[(Anonymous)]

Except that's not true at all, is it.

It would be perfectly easy to have a rule that says: canons with sympathetic portrayals of Righteous Among the Nations Nazis are fine; canons with sympathetic portrayals of Nazi generals who helped Hitler conquer Europe and never lifted a finger to help his victims until it became obvious he was going to destroy Germany too are not.

[(Anonymous)]

So no Inglourious Basterds or World on Fire? No Bent?

[(Anonymous)]

If you thought Inglourious Basterds or World on Fire were sympathetic to the Nazis that seems like more of a you issue, honestly.

Bent is probably out by this criterion, but since it has all of one fanwork for it on AO3, and that not produced for an exchange as far as I can tell, that seems like a sacrifice fandom can afford to bear.

[(Anonymous)]

Or The Pianist, I guess? It shows Nazi Germany as being horrible, but I'm sure someone people who consider the one good guy officer enough for a ban.

[(Anonymous)]

Hamilton, with sympathetic portrayal of Jefferson: in or out?

[(Anonymous)]

This is a weird argument because Jefferson is the villain of Hamilton. You want 1775.

[(Anonymous)]

plus 100

"sympathetic portrayals of Nazi Germany are not admissible" -- one and done. I know people love to argue but this is not the moral conundrum leading to fourteen people in a consent exchange some coalies are pushing.

[(Anonymous)]

What isn't true at all? CYRT said you can't get rid of Desert Peach with a rule banning sympathetic portrayals of Nazi Germany, and it sounds like you agree.

Who is going to go through all these canons with Nazis in them to determine whether some Nazi character they contain is portrayed too sympathetically?