One Wank After Another

[coalcube]

A blank assignment is a funny thing, isn't it? When you have it, you don't appreciate it, and when you miss it, it's gone.

Wednesday 10 December: Default deadline (9pm UTC)
Wednesday 17 December: Assignment deadline (9pm UTC)
Wednesday 24 December: Main collection works reveals (9pm UTC)
Thursday 25 December: Madness collection works reveals (9pm UTC)
Thursday 1 January: Author reveals, end of event (9pm UTC)

Mini-Challenges:

Crueltide | Femslash Festivus | Yulebuilding | Three Turtle Doves | Two for One | Yuleporn  
Family Matters | Queering the Tide | Yuletide Madness Drabble Invitational | TransTide 
Chromatic Yuletide | Unconventionyule | Wrapping Paper | Babytide | MultiLingYule 

Yuletide Discord for Hippos & Exchanges After Dark for namespace drama 18+ discussion.

yuletide | yuletide_admin | yuletide_pinch_hits | App

2025 Collection | 2025 Madness | Tagset | Letters

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

 

Comments

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

If "Don't mention past relationships" is "railroading" and "forced to write fic to spec" to you, maybe you're not a great fit for exchanges, because you don't seem to be remotely creative or good at this.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

I'm just summarizing what coalie above said, man. Didn't say anything about my own preferences re: railroading.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

To me, the DNWs and likes together read less as "Don't mention prior relationships" and more as a want for an AU where zero prior relationships ever happened. The first is super easy, the second becomes something I find railroad-y and isn't what I want to write, which is why I removed the fandom from my offers.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

DC

less as "Don't mention prior relationships" and more as a want for an AU where zero prior relationships ever happened

They're the same for the reader.

You're writing a story. If you don't mention or allude to something happening within the story, then to the reader it will be like it never happened.

No one is stopping you from having long and detailed headcanons about the thing happening offscreen.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

But that's the core issue of the whole thread. Some coalies feel that their recip "basically wants a commission" because for them anything that limits their creative freedom equals "commission". It's lack of flexibility in their writing skills combined with an attitude that fundamentally doesn't understand the "gift" part in "gift exchange".

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

A laundry list of all the exact ways you want this ship written and all the hurdles the author needs to dodge to make the gift enjoyable to you is a tiny bit more than "anything that limits creativity", but keep wanking.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

Coalies ITT are wanking over a DNW as simple as not mentioning past relationships. Someone even mention "no darkfic" as too broad. This is "maybe you should write for yourself rather than a gift" territory.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

DC

Ah yes, the predictable and tired "skill issue" response. How about no.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

YADC

It's either lack of skill or lack of willingness. At least "I can't do it" is a valid excuse. "I just don't want to do it because it's not fun to have my creativity limited like that" is just being a dick.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

CYRT

Coalie, if exchange mods agreed with you, then optional details would not be optional.

Everybody else understands that there are limits to what you can ask for in the name of getting your perfect gift. We're just arguing about what those limits are, and "If you find this limiting then that's a you problem, sucks to be you but I'm built different" contributes less than nothing of value to the conversation.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

CYRT

And if mods agreed with you, then DNWs would not be allowed as they are now.

I'm not saying optional details shouldn't be optional (though I've done plenty of single-fandom exchanges that do work like that and they also work well), I'm saying that this whining about enforceable DNWs is shitty and not in the spirit of gift giving.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

+1

I don't know what's up with the self-satisfied wankers who think that if you find a laundry list of DNWs spelling out how they only want this fic and ship handled in XYZ ways kind of a buzzkill, then it's because you "lack creativity" and "should stop doing exchanges".

Maybe don't request fandoms and characters where the fic is literally unpalatable to you unless it ticks twenty different boxes. Because that is writing to spec(ifications) and IDK what these coalies are smoking if they're arguing otherwise.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

DC

Right, the people who aren't throwing a hissy fit about writing a gift for someone are the wankers, coalie. Uh huh. It's funny that multiple people have asked for examples of these horrible laundry list DNWs that make it impossible to write for someone and the best someone can manage is fucking Aurae, who had a host of other problems, the least of which were their DNWs. Give us an example of someone currently who has such a laundry list that no one could possibly write for them.

Or you know, you could game for blank sign-ups if people knowing what will make them happy and what won't is so unpalatable to you. Problem solved! You don't have to deal with that kind of thing anymore and everyone else doesn't have to deal with you.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

CYRT

What a weird response, especially with that "Where are the examples, huh? HUH?" gotchas. There have been two examples in the thread that have nothing to do with Aurae, if you bothered to read. I could name more, but I don't actually want to put those recips on blast, because I think using DNWs to railroad someone into your prompt is tacky but not something you deserve to get a bunch of bored coalies poring over.

Also "just game for blank sign-ups in Yuletide, the exchange where you can't see requests during sign-ups" - what even lmao. Newsflash, the participants signing up with blank sign-ups aren't the ones posting their letters in the app.

I also enjoy the shifting of goalposts in

Give us an example of someone currently who has such a laundry list that no one could possibly write for them.

"Nobody, not one soul in the entire participants list could possibly write for this request" has not been the issue at hand here and you damn well know it. This is an exchange with (mostly) blind matching, lmao. You're well within your rights to DNW everything other than one (1) and only hyperspecific thing that could make you happy in this fandom, but your odds of matching to a writer who is the one person who would be happy to write that are pretty low.

Just don't railroad your writer into one thing and let them have some options. It's that easy.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

+1

Every "example" we've been given is perfectly reasonable, which is the part that makes me conclude that these people are wankers.

I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who's saddled with a genuinely railroading request or something where the DNWs contradict each other. And I'm sure these requests exist. But they are not the ones that have been mentioned here.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

But do you have any examples of this kind of request?

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

"You're only allowed to write this character - who is canonically married to a different character, with kids - as an AU version of himself who has only ever been romantically or sexually involved with the other half of my OTP" is very much asking you to write to spec, coalie. Like those are the specs, and putting it in a DNW makes it non-optional.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

This is totally bonkers. Just don't mention his spouse or kids. It's literally as simple as that.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

Coalie, that's not my personal preference for handling ships either, but it is a really, really common type of request that's how a great many people prefer their ships handled, and something you should definitely be expecting to potentially have to write for any potential pairing you offer in an exchange. And I sympathize if you get this DNW when you've signed up to the '20k of elaborately plotty fic closely tied in to canon events' exchange, but this is Yuletide, where the requirement is simply to make it through 1k words focused on the requested pairing without actively namedropping the existence of their canon spouse.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

DC

And, like, they don't even have to write the ship. That's nothing the recip can demand or use DNWs for.

All they have to do is write a scene (or a few scenes, even!) with the requested characters A and B having a canon-typical interaction (which your recip who ships them will probably interpret as UST) and not mention either of their canonical wives or girlfriends.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

'No other relationships for requested characters' is one thing—fwiw I think that's reasonable for many fandoms/characters, though perhaps not for cases where a canon spouse/kids are major characters who play an important role in the plot/characterisation of the requested character. But this person (I think I know who they are, and they apparently really do mean this) DNWs ALL other relationships, including ones not involving the requested characters, and that can get very restrictive if you're writing anything including other characters who are canonically in relationships, or background OCs of the kind you'd need for longer, plotty fic. (And arguably runs into their 'anachronism' DNW for historical fandoms—it's a fact about the setting of my historical canon that most people older than mid-twenties were married; portraying a large cast of background OCs none of whom are in relationships would be anachronistic, interpreted literally.)

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

DC

I don't know the exact DNW but I don't really think "every character in this fic is single" is necessary here. All you have to do is not mention the relationship status of the background characters. I can't really envision the kind of exchange gift that demands a large cast of OCs where we need to find out details like their relationship status.

I suppose it also depends on what kind of fic the recipient is saying they want - it's possible that their prompts clash with the DNW if they demand for some kind of plot-intensive fic with lots of detailedly characterized OCs. But maybe they don't even want that kind of fic to begin with with (like, genuinely, this sounds like a nightmare gift to me - I don't even have an "unrequested relationship" DNW, but I just want fic about my requested characters and not tons of background characters and their canonical and non-canonical spouses; if I was interested in them, I'd have requested them).

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

How? How on earth is it very restrictive to not mention that the tavern girl has a husband, whether or not it would be anachronistic for her not to? She can be perfectly historically accurately married OFF SCREEN, you just don't put in a scene where she puts down your requested ship's beer and goes "By the way, I'M MARRIED IN A RELATIONSHIP I'M FUCKING SOMEONE HELLO STRANGERS I HAVE A HUSBAND, WE HAVE SEVEN POINT TWO KIDS AND HAVE BEEN MARRIED HAPPILY FOR 8 YEARS, WE MET AT THE PIG FARM DOWN THE WAY WHICH IS OWNED BY A MARRIED COUPLE"

Just don't! it's that easy!

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

DC

Yeah, I just don't get it. This isn't information about your background OC that needs to be mentioned, unless the story is actually ABOUT the OC. And frankly, if you're writing a story about an OC rather than about the requested character, you need to ask yourself if you're still fulfilling the assignment in the first place.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

Ok, but these DNWs mean that if you decided to give that tavern keeper a name just to make things clear, and her name was Mrs. X, that would be a violation of their DNWs. You wouldn't need to have to go on and on about her married status. A fic doesn't need to be focused in any way on OCs to sometimes occasionally find giving a background OC that is mentioned in like two lines of dialogue a name to make things clearer for the reader. And of course you can write around it in many ways but it is restrictive.