Power Plays--Extra chapter now up.

[Fresh C]

I feel the need to expound on the fact that she only does it because she thinks Shinji believes she deserves it, and thus it plays on the fact that at that point she would do ANYTHING. It fulfills a story purpose because it shows how far SHE is going, just like the whole thing shows how far Shinji is going. Therefore, it has both purpose and meaning.

I'm not going to say that that wasn't your intention in including that scene, but I will say that I personally didn't get that feel from reading the story. If this was your intent, it came across poorly to me. I can see how you could argue that point, since she did seem to like the fact that Shinji was watching her (I think you mentioned this in the story) but the main feeling that I personally got from the encounter was that it was mostly gratuitous. The scene could have easily worked without it. You may very well have meant to give the interaction a deeper meaning, but I can only judge from my own personal opinion in a case like that.

Also, "sexual explicit" presupposes it is mean to arouse.

Have to agree to disagree on that one. The example I stated above covers my feelings on it.

It's also for "shock value". So there. The fact remains that you have two stories where both break the rules in basically the same way, yet only one is subjected to that rule and rejected ONLY on that rule. I am left simply with the conclusion that the rule is merely an umbrella to cover the lack of fairness and impartiality from the QC, another excuse in the long debacle that this was, born simply out of sense of vendetta on the part of the QC because I called you out on the weeks and weeks it took to go anywhere with this story.

There is no Vendetta. I've talked to you before and I've told you that you were completely right in your earlier accusations (aside from the reasoning for the fics rejection). We were slow, and we mishandled the situation. You may have grated a few nerves back then, but I hold nothing against you, because you were right. We were wrong.

However in this case, the acceptance of the story has absolutely nothing to do with you. The story was actually accepted for AE well before your story was even submitted to the site, but a miscommunication with the author caused it's uploading to be delayed.


Re: [AE] Witness
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2007, 03:23:58 AM »

"Witness" has received 3 votes and so has passed.  I have sent an email off to the author.

This thing was accepted way back in June. You won't be able to find this post because it's located in the QC forum, but if you don't trust me you can ask LD to look it up and confirm it for you.

We aren't trying to give any special treatment to anyone, and we try especially hard not to give negative treatment to anyone based upon past experiences or preconceptions. Your story was judged by the same rules that everyone else's stories are judged by, and so was Witness.

[Rommel]

This thing was accepted way back in June. You won't be able to find this post because it's located in the QC forum, but if you don't trust me you can ask LD to look it up and confirm it for you.

We aren't trying to give any special treatment to anyone, and we try especially hard not to give negative treatment to anyone based upon past experiences or preconceptions. Your story was judged by the same rules that everyone else's stories are judged by, and so was Witness.

If that is the case, then I find it very hard that you would originally "forget" the rule when you approved PP only to then "remember" it seemingly out of nowhere. I doubt very much Witness was even considered in the same terms you considered PP because if that were the case you would have rejected from the start instead of having to change your mind. Am I wrong?

Furthermore, Witness creates a precedent by which your rule is then invalid and mute because you have clearly not enforced it in the past. You only enforced because it was convenient. Again, with no regard to fairness.   

I'm not going to say that that wasn't your intention in including that scene, but I will say that I personally didn't get that feel from reading the story. If this was your intent, it came across poorly to me. I can see how you could argue that point, since she did seem to like the fact that Shinji was watching her (I think you mentioned this in the story) but the main feeling that I personally got from the encounter was that it was mostly gratuitous.

IIRC, you have the full version, in which case she actually says it just to make it pretty clear.

Asuka turned her pleading eyes from him to Kensuke and, finally, to Shinji, and he thought she wanted him to intervene and save her from this humiliation. Maybe he should have. He would have done anything to save her, but ...

But he was far too angry with her.

He wanted to see the Second Child degraded.

When he gave her the slightest shake of his head she seemed to deflate completely, her whole body sagging. “You really think I deserve this, don’t you?" she asked him dejectedly.

Shinji’s silence answered that question for him.

Refusing to loose his chance, and seizing on her uncharacteristic disadvantage, Toji thrust his bulge more urgently towards Asuka.

"Well, now that we’ve established he wants to see you do this too," he said, “do your best.”

And that is re-establised at the end:

Sure, things hadn't gone as planned, but she had gotten what she wanted anyway, and it wasn't like blowjobs counted as sex or meant anything when it was with someone you felt nothing for. And Shinji had thought she deserved it--that was enough for Asuka to justify it to herself.

She also had to admit that part of the reason for the intensity of her orgasm had been the utter humiliation of being forced to suck two cocks in front of Shinji; she had been soaked before he’d even touched her just from knowing that he was watching her covered in cum like that. It was filthy and made her feel like a slut, but it was the truth. She didn't think she understood how something that was so wrong could end up being so enjoyable.

And she would have enjoyed it even more if not for the emotional turmoil his words had triggered in her. Hikari had been right. She couldn’t just keep thinking about herself and about what she wanted. If she had realized how Shinji really felt—that she was actually hurting him—she would have accepted that he had some say in this relationship sooner.

She recognized that she couldn't change him if he didn't want to be changed, but hoped that after today it was Shinji who would realize it was okay to have control.

It's called subtlety. Geez. 

[Fresh C]

The only reason I remembered the rule was because one of my fellow QC members reminded me that the rule existed. Had they not reminded me, I probably still would not have remembered it (as sad as that may be). However now knowing the rule, I have to enforce it to the best of my abilities, whether it was enforced that way in the past or not. If I had the same knowledge then as I do now, then it would be handled in the same way.

And if I considered Witness (or any other story on the site that's currently accepted) to be in violation of that rule then that story would be removed as soon as possible, however unpopular such a removal would be. But I don't believe this to be the case with Witness. The major difference between the two stories being that Witness reads as if it's a story based around scattered instances of sexual content while Power Plays reads as a means of describing sexual content, surrounded by a story. So naturally a person would give less scrutiny to a story like Witness because it doesn't try to be overly sexual throughout the whole reading. It doesn't have sex in all it's chapters, proving that sex is not the main focus, but from a surface glance at Power Plays, one could be lead to believe the opposite which is why such a story garners closer attention.

I can't force you to believe that I treated your story with fairness... all I can say is that I believe I did.

[Rommel]

The major difference between the two stories being that Witness reads as if it's a story based around scattered instances of sexual content while Power Plays reads as a means of describing sexual content, surrounded by a story. So naturally a person would give less scrutiny to a story like Witness because it doesn't try to be overly sexual throughout the whole reading. It doesn't have sex in all it's chapters, proving that sex is not the main focus, but from a surface glance at Power Plays, one could be lead to believe the opposite which is why such a story garners closer attention.

Right:

Evafics.org describes a lemon as the following: "A story that contains sexually explicit content. Not meant for prudes, old ladies, and choir boys."

.

Then if sexually explicit content is not acceptable and is itself grounds for rejecting a story, you shouldn't host lemons. Period. I should remind you that you have a LEMON category and a lemon is defined, as you said as having sexual content, therefore you accept lemons in which case sexual content is NOT the issue, and neither is whether it is more or less sexual. In other words, the rule regarding lemons does not make a distinction between a story wrapped in a lemon or a lemon wrapped in a story. Meaning you argument is purely circumstantial.   

PP is intended to be sexual to tell the story. That is perfectly acceptable according to your own rules. But that is also used as a plot devise the same way drama or comedy tell a story--it is a medium for the interaction between people. I don't need 70,000 words just to write about sex, and anything close to a decent glance would reveal the real point of the story even if it has a nice coat of sex. Even you picked up on that on your first review, which given how this turned out says A LOT. Hell, you even recognized it has more meaning than other stories you've approved. And if you can recognize that, then I believe my point is made. Yes, it is sexual. Means to an end.

[Fresh C]

Sexual content isn't an issue you're right. But as for me personaly, my definition of quality does not include a trashy story whose only focus is that of sexual content. Such a story crosses the line of fiction, into pornography to me because generally the characterization is bad, and the plot is non-existant.

Your story did not have these characteristics, but from a surface glance it shows many of the elements found in such stories, which is why we all had to look at the story carefully. It wasn't cut and dry pornography. But it had enough focus on sex, to make me wonder how close it was to crossing that line. Thus, I looked at your story closely to make sure it wasn't a story like that. And as my initial review revealed, I still don't think it is. The only groud for my rejection is that rule. Otherwise I would have approved.

I know that the ammount of sexual content in a story is no grounds for approval/rejection, but realisticly it sends up red flags toward a story that would be more likely rejected. Just like adding an OC who is a pilot into a story isn't a situation that calls for imediate rejection, but you better believe I'm looking at that story more carefully to make sure that pilot is not a Marry-sue.

That's all I was trying to say. If your story was under any closer scrutiny it's only because it bears similar characteristics to stories that would normally be rejected.

[Rommel]

Sexual content isn't an issue you're right. But as for me personaly, my definition of quality does not include a trashy story whose only focus is that of sexual content. Such a story crosses the line of fiction, into pornography to me because generally the characterization is bad, and the plot is non-existant.

Your story did not have these characteristics, but from a surface glance it shows many of the elements found in such stories,

You should be able to see beneath that. I would expect at least that much. Subtlety and complexity in the story were not meant to be easy. You are supposed to think it's all about the sex. It makes the realization that it's not all the more stark. You know that. And despite that you still rejected it for being exactly what you say it's not.

That's all I was trying to say. If your story was under any closer scrutiny it's only because it bears similar characteristics to stories that would normally be rejected.

But you still rejected it simply because of "similar characteristics" even though you've already admitted it's not that kind of story. The rule by itself is a weak argument, I already have precedent of the rule being ignored wholesale. I also already proved that while it is sexual (acceptable) and is meant to arouse it is also meant to do (and does, as you have likewise admitted) much more than that. You can deal in nothing but black and white if you want, but the whole point of the story was to wrap sex and storytelling together in a very complex way.

Black and white is for people who never passed a comprehensive reading test, anyway.

[Fresh C]

The only groud for my rejection is that rule. Otherwise I would have approved.

You completely ignored that sentance. I looked at it more carefully for those reasons. But the rule is the only reason I rejected it. It displays rape with (what I assumed at the time, and still believe the story supports) the intent of arousal.

That's all that it comes down to for me. It broke a site rule.

[Rommel]

So does Witness.

The rule by itself is a weak argument, I already have precedent of the rule being ignored wholesale.

Which brings me back to the issue of the double standard. You also ignore that while it arouses (because this is a lemon) that is not the ONLY intent. That it actually has a purpose and meaning in the story.

I honestly don't know why I bother with this. It's not like I'm submitting anything, and it's not like you are approving it. But I might as well grind my ax.     

[Fresh C]

Okay, what rule is Witness breaking?

I think we have a misunderstanding here.

It is not against the rules to sexually arouse. It's only against the rules to have a rape that's intent is to sexually arouse.

You can write all the sexually arousing non-rape scenes that you want, so long as they have good characterization and support the plot. But if a scene contains Rape, that is INTENDED (meaning this is it's perceived main purpose) to sexually arouse (and even if it does sexually arouse some, that doesn't matter as long as that's not the authors main intent) that's when the story is against the rules.

Edit: I'm heading in for the night, so any comment you make I'll get to tommorow.

[Darknemo2000]

I have a good word to describe everything what Fresh C wrote here it is called HYPOCRISY

Seriously, he seems to be nothing more but a hypocrite repeating one and the same thought again and not seeing how screwed up his idea is as the logic he uses is circular.

Lets see a some logical simple formula's shall we?

A) Rape stories are banned
B) Not arousing sexually rape stories are OK
C) PP contains rape that is arousing
D) Witness contains rape that is not arousing
----------------------
E) PP is bad (thus banned), Witness is good


Now, though the structure of such thought seems to be correct the problem lies in who the hell can tell what is sexually  arousing and what is not...

you would say, ah but you can clearly see that the story behind is not so sexually orientated and the whole purpose is the story and not sex while PP is just sex with story clothes...

WRONG. In both case you could pull the same description on one or the other story. I could say that the scene in PP was more shocking and the details worked more as a shock rather than arousement, while in Witness the Shinji scene was so hot that one could day's non stop to it.

Basically. no matter how objective you are trying to be it is all going to your own subjectivity to decide what is arousing and what is not.

Basically, if to say it rudely - your logic is still based on how your dick feels. And such logic no matter how great hypocrite you are, is nothing but the same subjectivity as - I like it - good, I don't like it - bad.

Your rules are not rules, cause they are non-existent practically. There is just a single rule - you like it or not. If you like - you take, if you dont - you dont.

Face it, so long as you dont have a really objective judgment rules your rules to decide which fic is good and which is bad is nothing but a show for idiots to believe, that the mister hypocrite is actually trying to be objective.


What is intended and what is not? It is still subjective criteria which is meaningless.

If you want your whining about it being objectively based (meaning no double standarts) valid, then make your criteria objective as for now it is stil based on your subjective interpretation and Rommel has all rights in the world to blame it having double standarts.

Because you cannot rightfully tell which scene is intended to be arousing and which is not. For now both Witness and PP are the same, one could be treated as sexually arousement was intended just as much as the other...

So, stop pretending to be objective because it isnt even funny. Just say - Witness is good because i like it, PP is bad because I dont like it.

[JimmyWolk]

While I wouldn't want to say that Witness shouldn't be accepted to EFO or PP absolutely has to (as I like both), the "NO REIP" rule does sound somewhat pretextual.
The sex in PP is hardly even rape. Yes, Asuka is made to do things she didn't give her approval beforehand; yes, some of which she obviously dislikes - but she wants to be made to do things she didn't give her approval beforehand, planned the first incident to most extend herself, and even the anal-"rape" in the second chapter (which comes much closer to actual rape than the staged bit in the first that's getting quoted here) gets her off, also after having edged him on the whole time up to that (the newer version even underlining that she feared he'd hate her more than anything else).
You can say that's clicheed, voice your fears that the very lack of traumatic suffering might send a wrong picture or that you simply don't find it very realistic and/or OOC, but aside from that still being very subjective (well, it's hard to like/dislike a story objectively), the point remains that the sex is overall consensual within this story - actually even more so from Asuka's than Shinji's POV.
If you think the plot isn't deep enough or if you don't like the premise, then just say so and don't go with "IT HAS TEH REIP" (which - even if it would - is apparently in itself not even much of a problem) and "lemons aren't meant to arouse" if you're just uncomfortable with D/s.

ed: Also for that rule - aside from it being not even being there anymore with the site-change until the new/old management installs it again - my guess is that it was meant to keep stuff like "Date Rape" away. But ironically, that would probably have more chances to get accepted than PP with this "rape is okay as long as it isn't arousing" argument. 

[Fifth Horseman]

This is why I don't post to sites with a QC. Too much potential for this kind of drama. I get enough of that in other areas of my life.

[Rommel]

The only reason I remembered the rule was because one of my fellow QC members reminded me that the rule existed. Had they not reminded me, I probably still would not have remembered it (as sad as that may be).

Lets be clear on one thing: the rule was not post ANYWHERE on the site. That instantly and unequivocally makes it null and void.

Second: you need to explain to me how writing rape for "shock value" is different or better than doing it to "arouse". There is an incredible dichotomy there in the sense that apparently rape is ACCEPTABLE to the site if it's meant to shock but not arouse. If anything, writing rape just for the shock is even WORSE.

What is more, I doubt that rule was even considered when Witness was approved, because like I said the rules aren't posted anywhere and you would have known. 

Nemo and Jimmy have pretty much said everything else I wanted to say.

[Dartz]

Fuck this shit... I'm out of here. Goodbye DS....

the only question before I go is:

Do I nuke the entire fanfic section in one last blazing abuse of mod powers before I go, or not?

[Rommel]

This doesn't even have anything to do with you. So you wanna leave, leave. Nobody is gonna stop you.