coaltide | Don't Stop Coal Now!

Entry tags:

2021

Don't Stop Coal Now!

Tonight I'm gonna have myself a real coal time
I feel alive
And the exchange I'll turn it inside out, yeah
I'm floating around in agony
So, (don't stop me now)
(Don't stop me)
'Cause I'm having a coal time, having a coal time~

Main Collection Reveals: Sat 25 Dec
Madness Collection Opens: Sun 26 Dec
Author Reveals: Sat 1 Jan

yuletide |

yuletide_admin | Writing Post
2021 Collection (Madness) | 2021 App (bonus + challenges) | Letter Post

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

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

CYRT. Apparently my meaning wasn't clear. This is an and matching exchange, which means if I request "A" and "B", you had to have offered "A" and "B" or All. If I then say, "I want only A/B, and A & B is a hard DNW," that's trapping my author, since they didn't sign up to write A/B, they signed up to write "A" and "B".

Actually they signed up to write A alone, B alone, or A & B.

So yes, "you must include both A and B, but DNW A&B" would be boxing in. "But DNW A&B, but gen focusing on A is good" is not trapping the author into writing something they didn't offer.

Which is literally what I said both times. I wasn't getting into solo A or B, just A/B vs A & B

But no one is saying "DNW gen A&B" without giving a solo A or B out is okay. Obviously we all agree that's not okay.

DC

We don't all agree, actually.

Wait, there's someone who thinks DNW: A&B is okay without giving a solo A or B out?

I understand there are some people who don't agree it's okay even WITH the solo out -- that's the whole argument here. But I don't see anyone in this thread (except maybe you?) taking the stance that it's just straight up okay to DNW gen across the board. I'm actually pretty sure that's against the rules.

However, the person they matched on requested "A" AND "B" in a situation where they were only required to request one character. "DNW [Requested Character] appearing in the fic except in this particular shipping scenario" is not tenable as a DNW.

This! Just requesting A and indicating in their likes that they love A/B but would rather not have B show up if it's not shipfic would be fine, but you can't request a character and then DNW that character appearing outside of one specific context.

That falls under the general rule of "DNW X" is fine but "DNW anything but X" isn't, for (almost?) any X.

Yes, which is why OP is kind of a dick, and would be a full-on dick if they actually used DNWs to box their writer in next time.

AYRT

Honestly, I actually think I agree it's not really okay as a DNW -- or at least very weird. But I would find it fine expressed as a strong preference. "I love A/B. But if you don't want to write that, I'd really prefer gen fic focused on A rather than gen fic focused on A&B's friendship [here are some prompts to that effect]" strikes me as reasonable.

+1

There's no way that DNW would be enforcable.

CYRT - Ach, you are 100% correct, and I have no idea why I said YT was OR matching. My half-asleep brain was apparently interpreting "OR" from the perspective that the *writer* was offering to write any of the characters they offered, and was never guaranteed to match on all of them, so in theory the writer had to be willing to write just A or just B. But yeah, that's not "OR matching," obviously.

/clearly should not be participating in coal threads on this little sleep

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Don't Stop Coal Now!

Re: Who Got Coal

Re: Who Got Coal

Re: Who Got Coal

Re: Who Got Coal

Re: Who Got Coal

Re: Who Got Coal

Re: Who Got Coal

Re: Who Got Coal

Re: Who Got Coal

Re: Who Got Coal

Re: Who Got Coal

Re: Who Got Coal

Re: Who Got Coal

Re: Who Got Coal