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)]

NC

I feel like this wank has had a lot of one coalie saying "But it would really limit what you were able to write if you couldn't do that, it's pretty restrictive" and another coalie replying "that's not unreasonable! It's easy to avoid if you just really limit what you write!" and then first coalie saying "See! It's limiting!" and second coalie saying "It's possible to just follow the limits!" ad infinitum while getting progessively ruder about it

Like. "That really limits what you can write" and "that's not an impossible limit" can both be true.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

It doesn't fucking limit dick shiggly you butthole

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

it does if you DNW dick shiggly in the butthole

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

But every single DNW limits what you can write. The Yuletide rules themselves also limit what you can write.

The very nature of fic exchanges is that there are limits to what you're allowed to write. If this is an issue, then the solution is pretty obvious. Be free and limitless!

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's valid to discuss where the line for "too many limits" is for an explicitly ODAO exchange, personally, though I don't have strong feelings on what it should be.

I just wish we were still having that argument instead of people repeatedly saying "but setting limits on your writer doesn't limit your writer." like. Obviously people are going to disagree on that one.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

I am willing to agree that outrageous, railroady, excessively limiting prompts exist and can exist, but no one's cited any real ones I would agree with except for the case of Aurae Socktopus Georg.

The volume of "It's terrible how so many people write railroady requests nowadays!" assertions is annoying when this begs the question so urgently.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

DC

I mean, read between the lines there. A lot of coalies agreeing about railroady requests are probably complaining about their current assignment. They're not going to be spilling more info on that for obvious reasons.

I'm not sure why you're dismissing the cited examples just because you disagree. That's just, like, your opinion, man. I've written for one of those people and yes it felt exactly like writing a commission. Maybe you just feel differently because your tastes align with the recip's tastes.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

CYRT

A lot of coalies agreeing about railroady requests are probably complaining about their current assignment. They're not going to be spilling more info on that for obvious reasons. Sure, maybe!


Just to make sure we are on the same page:

The cited examples are:

-Aurae/Aariel/I think it was actually MiriamKenneath or Blue_Ringed_Octopus, throwing a hissy fit over getting a mention of Padme when asking for a Vader/Leia fic
-An unspecified person who takes "no previous relationships" to an unusual degree, not named
-BardicRaven

And further back in coal:
-DNW italics/other emphasis
-DNW incest/rape for Black Jewels

And I think there was another one on last post but someone else will have to dig that up?


I'm not sure why you're dismissing the cited examples just because you disagree. That's just, like, your opinion, man. I've written for one of those people and yes it felt exactly like writing a commission. Maybe you just feel differently because your tastes align with the recip's tastes.

If the assertion is "some people are railroading", then I think it is reasonable to look at specific examples and opine on whether they are railroady. The assertion was not "some people's long and complicated DNW lists are restrictive to me." I certainly can't disagree that different people will find different DNW lists easier or harder to work with! But that isn't railroading.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

CYRT

"If the assertion is "some people are railroading", then I think it is reasonable to look at specific examples and opine on whether they are railroady. The assertion was not "some people's long and complicated DNW lists are restrictive to me."

Interesting distinction. On one hand I think it's pretty clear that it it's subjective: it's unlikely but possible for someone to sign up with the most railroady, even blatantly unenforceable request imaginable and match to the one other person in the world who is giddy to write it, and obviously they would not find it restrictive, but that doesn't mean it's not restrictive.

OTOH there's definitely a sense of appeal to majority in which DNWs are considered reasonable and which aren't, which makes sense, because unless you make sure your niche requests are visible in advance (and possibly even then), you're more likely to match to a writer who has common tastes, not uncommon ones.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

DC

"Maybe you just feel differently because your tastes align with the recip's tastes."

Or they matched on a different fandom that doesn't clash with the DNWs as badly.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

DC

Or we just disagree because we understand that "I personally find this DNW limiting because I have an id mismatch with my recip" and "the request is railroading" are very different things.

It sucks to be matched to someone who's such a mismatch that writing something that fills the request feels like pulling teeth, yes. That doesn't mean the recip did anything wrong.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

CYRT

I think it depends. What bugs me about this thread is there's a lot of "id mismatch is the writer's burden to deal with and resolve" vibes going around. I think it's absolutely fine to make it clear what you like in your sign-up and be unapologetic about it. Using DNWs to achieve that is also fine... but it can go too far, and the line isn't always obvious, but it is there..

The thing is, you can put what's most iddy to you (down to the most trivial details like what pet names you want your OTP to use) in your likes or in your DNWs. Either way, the information is there. If the author wants to write that, they probably will, right? Why isn't that enough?

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

but no one's cited any real ones I would agree with

Gee, I wonder why.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

+1

There is ground for nuance between "limits exist" and "no limits exist", ffs.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

CYRT

Because we use "limit" differently here. People who say "these DNW limit me" have repeatedly said that they mean that this is something that impedes their creativity and spoils their fun, whereas saying "exchange fic sets limits as to what the writer is allowed to write" is a neutral statement.

And either way "where is the line for too many limits" is not something that's possible to answer when it comes to DNWs because how limiting DNWs are is subjective and depends on the author's own preferences. Personally, I'd find a single "DNW: A/B" or even a "DNW: italics for emphasis" much more limiting (but still valid!) than a laundry list of "DNW: darkfic, smut, original or unrequested characters, character death, any mentions of children, semicolons, AUs, fic set before the end of canon, kink". Someone else will probably feel differently and might find "DNW: original characters" terribly limiting and everything else easy to accommodate.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

DC

I disagree that we can't discuss where the line is for too many limits just because it's subjective. (And now we're getting somewhere interesting!) For one thing, we already do view some DNWs as too restrictive, officially or unofficially. "DNW: AUs" and "DNW: anything" other than a coffee shop AU" in a request would be seen very differently.

I just think it's a courtesy to allow some leeway. You might not match to someone who wants to write that specific thing, and that's ok.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

CYRT

Except your example isn't subjective. "DNW: anything other than a coffee shop AU" is the very definition of railroading. Regardless of whether I personally like coffee shop AUs (I do) and would find this limiting myself, it's a railroading DNW.

And there's a massive difference between that and a DNW like "no requested relationships". That's what some of us have been saying all along. Railroading is not subjective (and generally not enforcable). Whether a DNW is limiting for you personally and might get in the way of you having the best time writing your assignment on the other hand is subjective (and a reasonable DNW).

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

CYRT

Coalie, why do you think I used the very definition of railroading as my example. Seriously.

You keep using the word "subjective", I do not think it means what you think it means... I guarantee you that if you had this exact conversation now about whether "DNW: anything other than a coffee shop AU" is unreasonably railroady or not, without it already being enshrined in the rules as an unenforceable DNW, there would be coalies piping up in favor of how if can't write a coffee shop AU, then you're an inflexible writer and should probably default. Come on. You know there would be.

The point is that while some DNWs are on the official list of examples of railroady DNWs by mod consensus, that does not actually mean it's a complete or comprehensive (or even reasonable!) list, WTH. We absolutely can discuss which ones are railroady even though it's subjective.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

I can't remember the last time I encountered italics in a fic so I'm really struggling to wrap my mind around how they could be integral to someone's fic writing style.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

"You never encounter fic that heavily relies on italics for emphasis," coalie asked. "Huh, that's so weird."

They wondered if the other coalie was in very different fandoms, or if they were just the type whose eyes skipped over formatting when they read and they simply didn't notice the italics use in the fic they read.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

NC

Italics is so weird to me for emphasis when it doesn’t really stand out that much and ALL CAPS or bold is right there.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

I think a lot of people in audiovisual or voice-acted fandoms get overly fixated on trying to capture every little nuance of how the actors pronounce things by using italics for emphasis instead of just trusting the reader to be able to hear the voices in their head as they read. (Similar to how some fic writers will go overboard trying to describe every little detail of body language all the time instead of just a few representative actions.)

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

DA
I only see one side getting rude about it and determined to die on the hill of BUT WHERE ARE THE RECEIPTS, SHOW US THOSE RECEIPTS SO WE CAN WANK EVEN MORE. The wank has the same flavor as the one from early in the season about whether you're an asshole for going ODAO instead of defaulting and I'm kind of surprised to see the coalies bat so hard for the opposite side here.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

As someone who probably counts herself on the "modern DNWs and their limits are fine, actually" side, I don't think we're being rude? On average. I think there have been some rude comments on both sides.

This all started with some pretty bold assertions, centering around "I do think (some/many) people are now using DNWs as a way to make the optional details not optional."

And I would personally only accept that premise if "(some/many)" was switched for "(in very rare cases)", but you want to proceed with on the assumption that some/many is correct.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

CYRT

I was counting the "Just stop doing exchanges" comments that started pretty early and predictably and are not just rude but the death of any genuinely interesting argumentation. I don't really have a strong opinion on how common or uncommon it is because that seems pointless to litigate. Least interesting part of the conversation IMO.