Forum: Bug Report and Feature Requests

A woman in the story says 'I was raped by an older neighbor when I was 10' doesn't mean the story need the pedo tag nor the rape tag.

It would be only needed if the rape scene is described.

Even in that circumstance, it wouldn't be needed, as the story would not be accepted for publication as it breaks the under 14 rule...

I should have had a 😁 after the three dots. But yeah, it was a bit of a pedantic post by me. Regardless, it's still handy to know 'officially' that simple, non descriptive, mentions of an act don't require the tagging of them.

One of the problems with coding off-camera/stage comments is that the lack of substantive content will annoy those who have a kink for that code

That's even true for on-camera. In my novel "The Nymphomaniac," I don't list the cheating tag. Yet there is a little cheating. But it's 70 chapters so the cheating is minuscule — important, but a tiny percentage. You can't and shouldn't code everything.

I don't see what benefit there would be for a reader to search for stories coded 'off-camera' or excluding stories containing 'off-camera'. Surely readers would need an off-camera facility for all potential squicks eg rape off-camera pedo off-camera analingus off-camera.

AJ

I find a common complaint in author blogs is readers complaining about the in/exclusion of a code.

The complaint is typically about not coding something the reader wants to avoid, or including codes when the code's topic is just briefly mentioned in the story.

One of the problems with your suggested code and the 'Caution' code, is that they are general in nature and the readers cannot determine the specific activity they apply to. One of the reasons codes are added is to inform readers of potential squicks, and a second is to attract readers who want to read specific types of content. The result can be dissatisfied readers complaining in blogs.

For example, consider readers who have one or more squicks for there is a problem with trying to warn readers of a squick.

Assume a story has 20 chapters and there are multiple sex scenes in all chapters.

1 – If the same sex scene is used for all occurrences of sex in the story, it may be possible to include all sex codes. It would also be a story with very boring sex scenes.

2 – If the sex scenes are varied with numerous different sexual acts, the author would hit the 50-code limit, and the story would contain uncoded sexual activities. The story's sexual content would be more interesting.

We have addressed the presence of uncoded sexual activities in this forum in multiple threads. For me the issue is that there seems to be someone who has a squick related to almost every sexual activity code. The people impacted by a squick demand that authors code their stories to include the code for that person's specific squick. That is not possible for there are hundreds if not thousands of squicks, and most authors don't consider many of those activities to be squicks. In a long diverse story, there could be over a hundred codes that could be included for the story. So, the 50-code limit requires that some codes not be included.

The squick that comes to my mind is the reader who posted that the mere mention of sex between three or more people made them nauseous. My question was, and still is, 'Why is this person perusing stories on the SOL website when it contains that type of content. That is especially true because the story descriptions in the listing of new stories contain mention of that type of sexual activity?' That particular reader would be better off perusing one of WLPC's other websites.

For me, the bottom line is for the author to include an Introduction that describes things that cannot be included in the codes or the story description. One of the problems with this approach is many readers skip the Introduction.

'Why is this person perusing stories on the SOL website when it contains that type of content.

Because they are looking for other content that does interest them, and many codes don't need a third participant for those codes to be applicable.

Because they are looking for other content

Yes, that is true. But they weren't looking at the codes, and like many readers, they may not have even looked at the codes. They were reading the story descriptions and stories that did not identify multi-partner sex scenes.

However, what the person wanted was for authors to stop using multi-person sex terms that made the person nauseous. That included using the terms in the story descriptions they had to read to determine if the story was of interest to them.

Basically, their attitude was I want what I want and I don't care how it may affect others.

That is why I asked why they are perusing a site when they know they will encounter the objectionable terms.