coaltide | Coal Rivalry

Entry tags:

2025

Coal Rivalry

All the things Coal said, running through my head.

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

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

+1

Poor beta, honestly.

No one could possibly produce an acceptable version of beanfic without utterly rewriting it, and that's not betaing. It's just not possible.

I wonder if the mods were hoping that when the beta told them all the changes they'd need to make, they'd decide it wasn't worth the effort and default.

I can't quite believe the mods were expecting it to work. It seems ridiculously naive when everyone knows writers can just ignore betas and the worse the writer the more likely they will.

Maybe the long term plan is that they're going to mark this up as not following the rule about the beta, and will tell them no next year? But that's just going to be even messier.

But that's just going to be even messier.

Why? It's good to have something specific to point to in moderation decisions.

+1

"We asked you to do X, you didn't do X, goodbye" is a valid way of handling things.

How much you have to listen to a beta and how much is artistic license wank. People just brought up how ," he shrugged is their vision as a writer and not a mistake. Was it overstepping for the beta say anything about the tense the story was written in when the author wants it in that tense? What if that tense is actually three to four tenses in a trenchcoat, what if it's meant to be like that?

Considering that the author thinks it is all in past tense, that argument doesn't hold water. Or tense-weasels in a trenchcoat

I'd read that as like saying they're now writing in second person. Why they think present tense with some inconsistencies in both directions is called past tense is beyond the scope of betaing, but they at least claim it's a deliberate tense choice. It seems more plausible they didn't want to go through the trouble of changing it, but how would you prove someone's refusing to edit their fic rather than valid stylistic writing choices?

I really do not think that is the common sense interpretation of what they mean by saying they are writing second person. They are writing about a second person. That is not what they literally said but it is borne out by what they proceed to do and by other places where they've left out words.

"I am now going into second person" is way more wrong than "I took the majority of the edits with the exception of changing tenses since I think it worked best past tense". At least it's talking about tense either way rather than confusing point of view and number of characters. They even might've been trying to say that they refused to fix their "changing tenses" to be consistently in present tense because they thought having some past tense worked better.

No, they mean "I am now going into writing about a second person".

Not the point. Yes, they must have been trying to say that they were writing about another character because it's written in third. But even adding words in to try to make the sentence say something else, that's still not how people say they're going to write about another character. Occam's razor, they've seen other people say they're going into second person and copied the phrasing without understanding the meaning.

CYRT

I think there's a pretty huge difference between a readable story with some stylistic quirks that some but not all schools of thought consider to be grammar mistakes, and a Bean10 story with a claim that the tense inconsistencies are deliberate.

There's no need for a mod ruling to ban Bean10 to hold up to, like, every conceivable good-faith work under the sun. In a vacuum, it's true that it may be hard to come up with rules that will definitely ban poor capitalization while still allowing experimental works with deliberate lapses of grammar, but there's also no need to come up with rules like that. Case-by-case scenario is fine in extreme cases.

But that's why they should just kick the person out at the start, not add a rule about betas and then kick them for not following it later.

DC

Yeah, you can't polish a turd, all you can do is roll it in glitter.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Coal Rivalry

Re: Actual Coal (or, what were they thinking)

Re: Actual Coal (or, what were they thinking)

Re: Actual Coal (or, what were they thinking)

Re: Actual Coal (or, what were they thinking)

Re: Actual Coal (or, what were they thinking)

Re: Actual Coal (or, what were they thinking)

Re: Actual Coal (or, what were they thinking)

Re: Actual Coal (or, what were they thinking)

Re: Actual Coal (or, what were they thinking)

Re: Actual Coal (or, what were they thinking)

Re: Actual Coal (or, what were they thinking)

Re: Actual Coal (or, what were they thinking)

Re: Actual Coal (or, what were they thinking)

Re: Actual Coal (or, what were they thinking)

Re: Actual Coal (or, what were they thinking)