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)]

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)]

CYRT

Yeah, I think you're right about the appeal to the majority.

I think this conversation is partly guided by: well of course some DNWs are more difficult and restrictive than others, we can all agree on this, everyone go home - that is, if that's the only thing being asserted, what's the conversation?

But people seem to also be claiming that there is

-a trend for more people to have more (excessively?) complicated DNWs lists
-a trend for people to have DNW lists that impose outrageous/unreasonable limits on their writers, to the point that this can actually be DESCRIBED as a thing people, generally, do, rather than rare one-off occurrences

And the conversation has even gone into tangents about how DNWs may be a mistake and we need to overcorrect in the other direction. Some interesting suggestions but I can't see that working nor can I personally agree with the goal.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

Some interesting suggestions but I can't see that working nor can I personally agree with the goal.

~Ironically you are being really railroady in discussing this.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

Whereas you've come along hours later to snipe "no u" rather than making interesting points.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

If you think that's railroady, I can see where your stance on dnws is coming from

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

CYRT

I think there's something to the claim that requests in general have grown more detailed and specific, not less, but it's not something that can be objectively evaluated even if we agreed on the criteria (unless someone were REALLY bored). And I actually think detailed and specific DNW lists work just fine in normal exchanges... but then, I can't remember the last non-YT exchange where I didn't basically handpick my recipient.

FWIW I don't even think "treating your request like a commission" is automatically a bad thing, but it's definitely different and only really works if everyone is on the same page, and being on the same page and having consistent expectations is exactly what Yuletide does not allow, due to how it's set up. You match on character, not ship, and DNW: Gen is unenforceable. A ton of people do blank sign-ups or bucket list offers, you're encouraged to go ODAO by the mods if you have to, and requests (for the most part) aren't visible during sign-ups.

At the same time, Yuletide matching also means it's possible to offer characters A, B, C and D, because you're comfortable writing all of them and also like their group dynamics so you figure you should have no trouble getting an assignment for a solo character or multiple of them. But you offer that, and you might still get assigned to someone who only wants shipfic of B and D, who never interact in canon, and has a lot of very specific ideas about what they want to see in their gift.

IDK, there are some weird structural issues in how requests and matching work in Yuletide that seem primed to increase the chance that a participant hoping to get a lot of creative freedom might get matched to a participant who only wants one thing. I also have enough fandoms so rare that there's no point requesting them anywhere outside of Yuletide (I still do, I get nada), so it's not like I'm unsympathetic to wanting to make sure your magical fill for Someday My Fic Will Come won't contain some random trivial thing that won't ruin your enjoyment of it.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

dc

I also have enough fandoms so rare that there's no point requesting them anywhere outside of Yuletide (I still do, I get nada)

That's just not true. As someone who's requesting their Yuletide-size fandoms in exchanges all year round, the only way you get nada is when you request them alongside popular fandoms. If you repeat your Yuletide request in Candy Hearts, Trick or Treat, S4S or Consent Issues, you will get fic for them.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

CYRT

This is an incredibly funny thing to act so sure about.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

SC

Sorry, I know what you're TRYING to say. "Keep requesting your rare fandoms, you never know!"

But come on, coalie, some fandoms simply are that rare.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, the problem with being exclusively into Yuletide-sized fandoms in other exchanges is not if you want to receive them, it's if you only want to write them. You can absolutely guarantee you receive a gift in one of your tiny fandoms, but what you can't do is force other people to request them.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

I prefer not to be on the pinch hit list till someone writes kittyfic or I use a sock to pinch hit for myself to get at least something from someone who actually is interested in the canon.

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)]

CYRT

Because for most people, DNWs are dealbreakers not just "well, it's nice if the writer wants to avoid that".

Sure, I can skip the DNWs and put it all in my likes and optional details instead. And like you said "If the author wants to write that, they probably will". And if they don't, and I back button out of the fic because that was one of my dealbreakers and I'm not going to read a fic that has OCs or unrequested ships or mentions of lemons, then that should be okay for the author, right? After all, they had the information in my optional details and chose to not write it, so not getting a comment is also okay?

Because let me tell you, I really doubt it works that way. (And if it does, and the author doesn't care about the comment and also clearly doesn't care about writing what the recip likes, then what's the point of a gift exchange here?)

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, yeah.

I think a lot of the people complaining about unreasonable DNWs are people who do not believe that having a barmaid named "Mrs. Jones" hand you your drink is actually anybody's dealbreaker.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

CYRT

I personally don't care if she's called Mrs Jones or Lucy or Candy Boobtastic. I just don't want your OCs in my gift fic at all. So, yes, it's a dealbreaker. If you can't wrap your head around that, that's a you problem.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

DC

Okay, I believe you, and I'm also not trying to get you to out your AO3 name or anything, but what sort of canons and characters are you asking for?

Feel free to tell me it's a skill issue and a me problem but - genuinely, I do not understand what you're looking for here and why brief OC appearances - especially if they're devices to move the plot along - are a dealbreaker.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

If having a barmaid show up for one line in a fic is truly a dealbreaker for you, coalie... well, I shan't say it.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

DC

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?

And now we're back to something I personally find more interesting as a talking point, yay!

I think my own requests are like this - tldr

- I have a very short list of DNWs, and my prompts are a few cheerful paragraphs rather than likes. And this works for me. However, I am probably ticking other boxes some coalies find undesirable. My system works for me because I care less about getting a gift than successfully completing a writing challenge. There are things I don't put in my DNWs that would probably ruin a gift for me, but I focus my DNWs on things I see as a real risk. If I get something else unpleasant (hasn't happened yet) either I roll with it or I would assume it's an author with extremely different ideas to me; either I would get their bizarrely weird edgy take OR I'd get the very bland thing they could write if I'd thrown a DNW book at them. Eh. Some coalies (or maybe just ffa nonnies) would say I'm being unfair to my writer by potentially setting them up to write something in good faith I'd dislike. Call me when it happens.

-I think it's hard for people to talk persuasively about what they like, and people who have mastered this skill underestimate how difficult it is for others

-When people get awful fic or see awful fic in the wild they often add DNWs to protect themselves and so DNWs seem to accrue to people who've been doing exchanges for a while. Meanwhile, it's seen as risky to shorten your DNW list because it can signal that you now welcome something you previously forbade

-It's hard to generalize the right DNW strategy because it's so dependent on the quirks of people with whom you share fandoms.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

CYRT

Those are good answers, though I have to admit it was a bit of a leading question on my part. "I'm putting it in the DNWs because it's an easier way to make sure I get what I want" is an understandable motivation, but the part I didn't want to say for fear of sounding too judgy is that I think it's a bit rude.

Although, maybe this is inconsistent of me but I don't mind anyone with long DNW lists when it comes to smut, because even tiny details can have so much impact to whether a smut fic is hot or just completely unreadable to you. But when it comes to more neutral or less emotionally charged elements, I do have trouble believing that (like other coalie said), something like a brief OC appearance is a genuine gift enjoyability dealbreaker.

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

CYRT

The coalie who finds OCs an unpleasant distraction from the characters they want to be completely absorbed in seems like a good example for this discussion, actually. Personally, I think I'd react better to "I can't get enough of these two, please spend as much as possible of your story with a laser focus on how they feel about each other and act towards each other," than "DNW: OCs, unrequested characters."

Re: Unpopular Opinion Time

[(Anonymous)]

/that coalie

Phrasing it positively is nice, sure, but "I can't get enough of these two, please spend as much as possible of your story with a laser focus on how they feel about each other and act towards each other" doesn't actually say "I absolutely don't want any OCs in the fic", so I'd be sacrificing clarity here. And I might get a perfectly good faith fic from an author writing me my faves just the way I love them and include OC mentions because I didn't explicitly say that I don't want them, which would suck both for them and for me (and it would be my fault because I wasn't being clear).