After reading over many of the comments and reasoning on this thread; I find myself at a crossroads. I understand the sites admins trying to walk a line between creative expression and protecting copyrights. No other site would have bothered. And I too respect and understand that. But I still feel disappointed. The premise of this was in good faith, as mentioned. And in the interest of creative expression, as mentioned. While there is an argument to be made about respecting other authors work. This site is voluntary. We do it for the pleasure of it. An outlet for writers and readers of mutual interests to express our kinks. So to propose a theme of continuing unfinished stories by the hands of other readers is in part the spirit of what this site is. What greater respect to past or current authors is there if readers are so engrained in the stories that they would commit to expanding them? Everyone here should know exactly what I mean. We all do it. Imagining and hypothesizing what would happen or what could happen in the stories we loved. This is just another way for writers to be born. And to just cancel the event I find to be both premature and extreme. I cannot help but feel like a compromise could have been initiated. If protecting past or current works was the primary concern, then just allowing authors the means to mark their stories as âoff limitsâ would have been sufficient. For any story that gets continued under this theme could have their own identifier as being âviewer created,â to signify that this is an off-shot of the original work. Heck even in real life we have had many examples of stories being continued under a different pen. Frank Herbertâs Dune is a fine example. While yes, there were legal steps made; but the premise is the same. I would urge the admins to consider other means to satisfy both concerns over what has been decided. For at least in the context of this discussion for any opposing authors, their authority begins and ends with their own uploads. They may certainly have their own opinions and positions as we are community driven. But that is it. Just as aspiring or potential authors who wish to expand older stories understand which material they can experiment with or not. But the option to opt in or out should be voluntary and individual.
Awe man, I had already gone through my favorited stories and found the good ones that havenât been continued in 5 years.
You will never do an event or challenge that will please everyone. Itâs worth considering if the ones you are displeasing are authors, but if a story is forgotten for years (plural) and the author has disappearedâŚ. Why not is my question.
Iâm not talking about capitalism. Iâm talking about on a basic human level. This is an artistic work, I get that itâs smut but stories as a whole are art even the smut, that someone has done on their own and chosen to share with us. They didnât need to. Weâre not entitled to that. Itâs a little gift from a stranger to a strange.
Corin and AsisAsio are also doing a kind act for strangers. Weâre also not entitled to their labor or their thoughts. That doesnât negate or in anyway really effect that what authors are doing when sharing their work is an act of kindness.
I have no need to sight philosphers because Iâm not making a philosophical argument. Iâm making a base argument of manners. The core of the argument for this is âbut weâd really enjoy it if we had it.â And the fact youâd like something doesnât alone make you entitled to it. Itâs a stunning lack of gratitude for the ammount thatâs already been given.
I only want to add that giving the author the option to veto against any usage of their stories was not enough. We had this option right from the beginning.
The idea is not totally dead, but we have to prepare better and we have to put the authors into control. And Iâve already got an idea how we might be able to do that.
And that is good enough for me has somebody that has been on this site for over 16 years I know you will always do what is right for the fans and the site as a whole. I look forward to when you hash out how this will work.
Hello there.
Thereâs absolutely no reason to be rude or crude about my post. I understand that you donât necessarily see why that would be important to the topic. However, academic writing has taught me one important thing, that plagiarism is not OK in any sort of circumstance. And this idea threatens a version of plagiarism that could be conscrewed into something that itâs not. Well, I understand that maybe you donât agree with my point of view or understand why that would be important or how it is connected. Again there is no need to be rude or abrasive about your responses to anybody elseâs different point of view about the topic. I will invite you to stay curious about how others points of might be coming across and maybe even consider how you would want to be responded to. I donât know you and I am assuming nothing about you. However, I thought my post was pretty clear that this topic is very delicate and very sensitive.
When it comes to writing of any sort, it should be treated with respect and courtesy. It is not up to an arbitrary person to decide that a story should be resurrected because of whatever justification one might use to do so. While , I understand stories are important and everybody loves them that doesnât mean we should just start writing on them again because we want to. I see that as a form of plagiarism and a form of stealing somebody elseâs ideas or thoughts without their expressed permission. Thatâs a pretty problematic way to go about it you ask me.
Please understand that when it comes to writing. That I have learning disabilities so I apologize that my other post wasnât exactly as clear as I wanted it to be. Again I do my best to write edit and process. With this post and other post so far on this thread, I have been using voice to text. That is not always a clear or consistent process when it comes to me using that tool to express my ideas in a clear and concise way.
Plagiarism is defined as the intentional theft of ideas AND language and the attempt to pass them off as your own creation. No one on the pro side of this argument has argued for anything like this, so I would ask you to indicate where exactly the theft of idea and language and passing them off as someone elseâs is occurring.
Also, I would ask you to respond to my historical example which shows how this competition could work. If you need more information about renga feel free to ask, but I would like you to respond to that historical example.
So, Iâve actually provided an historical example, a historical model, not just some vague platitudes about entitlements and feelings. If you would be kind to address that historical model, I would be grateful. If you need more information, feel free to ask and I will respond. But deal with the issue I have placed on the debate table.
Iâve been waffling of whether or not to reply - while Iâm not exactly inactive in terms of writing and posting online, none of my work is (yet) on GKS or GSS. The problem is that, with how @Corin and @AsisAsio have acted in this thread, Iâm now heavily rethinking my recent decision to start posting here because I donât know if I can trust the site leadership. (Iâm not saying I donât, or that Iâve decided explicitly not to start posting here, but⌠I have Concerns.)
I want to be clear that Iâm not talking about the original challenge idea - I fully understand that it was presented in good faith, and with the best of intentions. Despite the flaws in the initially presented version, I even think that the core of it is a great opportunity for engaging with the community, reflecting on our history, and fostering creativity. The issue is in how any objections were responded to; first, there were a lot of calls from leadership for civility from the userbase, but that civility was not always reflected in the replies from leadership, and second, thereâs an apparent lack of accountability on the part of site leadership for the impact of their decisions, including attempting to use their intent to mitigate or negate that impact.
The prevailing attitude definitely seems, or at least seemed, to be, âWell, we have to stop because people are angry but we donât actually think there were any problems.â And a lot of, âWeâre doing this to respect and honor authors and stories!â without pausing to consider whether that intention reflects the reality. I donât think itâs all that unreasonable to believe that, âWeâre going to assign your story to someone else without your input or permission,â is the opposite of respecting and honoring someone, and while I understand, thanks to later clarification, that these were expected to be edge cases rather than regular practice, it was still something presented as a core aspect of the idea.
AsisAsio, in particular, completely failed to grasp the objections to using any stories without explicit permission; replies like this one entirely miss the point, not least the sentence, âGaining explicit permission implies that itâs always possible to do so,â which, no, it does not - the entire point was just not using stories that you canât get permission for, no matter how old or abandoned you believe them to be.
While Hypnofiend23âs comparison vis a vis sexual partners with/without consent was certainly extreme, itâs also not wholly incorrect - a less extreme example like, âI borrowed colleaguesâ favourite mugs ten times, and only two of them were times the colleague who owned it didnât want me to,â basically expresses the same idea. Is it a crime to do? No. Itâs still, at the very least, incredibly rude.
Is the concern that there would be too few stories available if you canât use those stories? That doesnât seem to be the case - I believe the number suggested was an expectation of two stories out of ten used without explicit consent. If itâs so few, why not just, yâknow, not use those stories? Maybe I missed it somewhere, but I have yet to see an explanation for why site leadership was so insistent on being able to use those stories, and I canât fathom why it would be so important given the wealth of other available stories that youâre likely to get permission to use. Like. âWe need to use these stories or the challenge wonât work!â is fundamentally incompatible with, âItâs too few stories to matter,â both of which are sentiments that have been expressed by site leadership, and itâs not clear whether site leadership actually understands that.
While I agree with you that âplagiarismâ is an inaccurate word, I donât think itâs an unreasonable one for someone to have pulled instead of âinfringingâ. Depending on the resulting nature of the works, it is absolutely possible that any stories written for this challenge would infringe the original authorâs copyright.
The biggest crux would be whether the resulting work is considered derivative or transformative; generally speaking, copyright includes the right to produce and control derivative works, although there are exceptions (and other nuance). I do think itâs likely that the works in question would be considered transformative rather than derivative, which helps - thatâs the primary legal protection for fanfiction, for example, and I trust the opinions of the lawyers who founded the AO3 in that regard - but even then, as much as I think itâs the most important argument here, itâs also not always enough to clear a work as non-infringing.
The other side, of course - and maybe this is just because of my long time spent in online fan spaces - is that doing this to someone elseâs story without permission, even an apparently abandoned one (and let me tell you, I have seen fics I thought abandoned for over a decade that the original author came back to and finished), is incredibly taboo in most of those fan spaces because, among other reasons, itâs just really fucking rude. Thatâs a cultural norm, of course, rather than an objective fact, but itâs a huge part of my initial objection to the challenge as it was initially presented, and I can only imagine that there are others around with a similar background to mine who had that same influence.
Apologies, because Iâm not going to read this entire thread, and if the point Iâm going to make has already been madeâŚso be it. If youâre an author yourself and thereâs a story that inspires you and you think youâre a good enough writer to continue it and be able to maintain the tone and quality, then why not direct that motivation and energy into writing a new series of your own thatâs just as good? You wonât even be constrained by your inspirationâs wishes, itâll be all your own. Isnât that basically what fanfic is?
Otherwise, if you bug the author (who knows just the flattery might get them to write more), and they give you free reignâŚwho cares? Go for it. If you hear nothing, take the hint, itâs not welcomed.
hello
I am not sure why you are being aggressive. Maybe Plagiarism isnât the right word. I can acknowledge that. I donât know if this has been communicated but I am not against this idea. Not in the slightest. I am offering perspectives in hopes that something can be hammered out and smoothed out for something that is less triggering to all.
The only reason I mentioned my background was due to making sure people understood where I was coming from and what my concerns are. @Corin and I have known each other for years. I consider him to be a friend. Someone that I can go to anytime. @Corin has been the main reason I started writing on the site. He has been nothing but encouraging and supportive as well as the rest of the community.
GSS is near and dear to me. I love this place and what it offers. There isnât anything I wouldnât do in service of GSS. This place has been healing for me in every sense of the word. I just want there to be more caution and consideration on how to continue a story. Not that it shouldnât be done. I myself have asked other authors if I could expand on their work, then made sure to put a link to the original in my submission. There is no need to attack anyone in this conversation. When we attack others, it just looks bad on the person attacking. It shuts down the conversation. It alienates people from contributing to a solution. It can also be seen as online bullying.
You are obviously very intelligent and see a potential. I just worry that if this isnât handled correctly or in a delicate way that it can and already had created hurt feelings. Hurt feelings can push people to do many things. I worry that someone would take it as a means to shut the site down completely. I think about this stuff because I am a naturally anxious person. I love this site. I want to do all I can to keep it alive.
That includes how to handle resurrecting old stories. I think itâs something that could be done if everything was addressed about possible issues that might arise and going through appropriate steps. I am here to be part of the soultion.
No. You donât get to set the rules in how everyone is allowed to interact in a conversation. This isnât a debate. The National Forensic League isnât scoring this. This is every day human interaction.
I said what I said. I meant it. And the things you said were barely relevant to it.
Part of life is accepting you canât have everything we want.
We may want more of these stories. Weâre not entitled to them. And itâs rude and inconsiderate to the people providing them to us, for free, to demand more than theyâre willing to give.
@fanboi214 @Tigerjay @DrakeNightstorm
Again, I gave you a historical example to consider; you lot completely ignored it and went back to your feelings. thereby proving my point.
In all three of your responses there is an absence of any notion of sharing, inspiration, or notions of the community at large. The approach you all advocate for is once itâs posted, you can look at a story but nothing else. Thatâs not how literature, music, or art works at all and thatâs not how people work at all. Also, all three of you are basically throwing a middle finger to the community; and if youâre throwing a middle finger to the GSS community, then why are you here? Why are you contributing in any way shape or form? Just stand ten toes down in your position and just walk away.
What you seem to be failing to grasp is that peopleâs feelings matter.
The authors who post to this site are choosing to contribute to a collective work because they WANT to. Because it makes them FEEL GOOD to do so. If you donât care about their feelings, if you make it not feel good they have no reason to do so.
This isnât a history debate. Itâs a social situation.
You donât seem to be grasping all the feelings involved in this. Time and time again you think about the authors of the old works and never realized that to improve your own writing you to read the works of others. The situation is far complicated than you want to admit because you coming back to the work of the old authors vs everyone else split and never look at the larger picture. Youâve insulted people time and time again. The social dimensions are just a convenient excuse youâre using to justify your argument.
I understand the feelings of the people who would enjoy the initiative. Their feelings are âbut I want this. I would enjoy thisâ
And my response to that is, too bad. There are many things you will want in life that you will never get. There are many more that you simply could never get. Accepting that reality is one of the most basic signs of maturity.
This has nothing to do with âimproving writingâ or âthe larger picture.â Itâs just hey hereâs a thing that would be cool and I want it therefore âgimme, gimme, gimme.â
Look
I think you seem to think your opinion is the only one that matters. That unless we do xyz then our thoughts, options or offers to make it better donât matter. You are engaging in online bullying plan and simple. I am not here to prove anything to you. The fact that you demand prof as evidence to your point is faulty.
I gave offers and options. I indicated I am here to be part of the solution. You seem to want me and others that disagree to well sit down and shut up just because you say so.
Well hate to break it to you but you donât rule the world. In fact, I have been nothing but kind and caring to you. Reasonable. I shared my worries and now you have weaponized them. It makes me wonder what exactly youâre trying too accomplish.
You donât seem open to anyoneâs opinions but your own. Good luck with that.
This kind of behavior is probably why others have left. The fact that you feel entailed to stories that any of us write for free. Due to your actions and how you are handling this I am now considering leaving the site and taking my stories with me.
That kind of entitlement just pushes people away. It doesnât open the conversation. I am not leaving yet but I am now seriously considering it if the group consensus is if my stories are here, they are free game just because you say so.
It doesnât work that way in real life. Any time someone forwarded a story they made it their own with their own idea. Their own characterizations. It wasnât a continuation of something that didnât belong to them in the first place.
I hope you consider how alienating people will just make people leave not make them stay. Not make them feel like their work is valuable. Your whole stance make it feel like everything on the website belongs to everyone.
Any of my work belongs to me. Period. I post here because I enjoy it and not because I have to. If anyone for even one second thinks my work is up for grabs, I will pull it all. Plain and simple.
You want to be a bully. Well, I donât engage with bullies. I ignore them. walk away from them. I can only imagine your response to this being something like âgood riddanceâ or something similar because of the amount of entitlement.
You have reminded me why I donât engage in forms like this. I wonât fight with someone on the internet. Because you will beat me with experience and bring me down to your level.
Well, thatâs the disrespect for your side especially from fanboi being met. I gave a legitimate historical example that could be a model for things but thereâs no such equivalent from you and yours. At this point because the contest is cancelled do you really want to move forward?
Yes, how illogical of us to consider emotional vectors in a discussion about community, an inherently social thing composed of emotional relationships, particularly a community thatâs all about creative writing, an inherently emotional practice. Intellectual, too, to be sure, but nonetheless emotional.
As for this:
In all three of your responses there is an absence of any notion of sharing, inspiration, or notions of the community at large. The approach you all advocate for is once itâs posted, you can look at a story but nothing else.
This is a wild conclusion to draw considering that the only objection Iâve raised about the challenge itself is that I think itâs rude to continue someone elseâs story without permission. You may view this as hypocrisy, given my stated involvement in fan communities/writing fanfiction; I donât imagine Iâll be able to convince you otherwise, given the way youâre rabidly trying to ignore any of the social dimensions, because the difference is a social dimension. The relationship between people who are part of the same fandom is fundamentally different than that between a fan and the creator of the property theyâre a fan of. GKS isnât strictly a fan community, but the relationship between people who are both members of the site is going to be much closer to that between two fans than that between a fan and the creator of the fandom.
As for the challenge itself, I think that, despite the flaws in the way it was initially presented, itâs a great opportunity, and I hope that site leadership revisits the idea (as they appear to be doing) with the valid criticism and concerns in this thread in mind. Given the numbers suggested for the stories involved - the projection was two out of ten stories that theyâd be unable to get permission for - I donât understand why site leadership has been so insistent that they need to be able to use stories without permission, too. At two-out-of-ten, thatâs a full two years of stories (eight stories at one story per quarter/four per year) they expect to have or get permission for, which is more than enough for the intended trial period for the challenge.
Ultimately, I think itâs, at best, sorely nearsighted of you to ignore and dismiss the social dimensions while trying to champion the community, given that the community is the social dimensions. This is also why I didnât directly respond to your point about renga; I agree with it in a general sense, but disagree with its relevance here because the relationships - both that between the teacher and student, and that between the student and the verse theyâre responding to - are fundamentally different from that between two people who are members of the same fandom, or, as in this case, the same creative writing community. You accuse us of using the social dimension to âjustify our argumentâ; from my perspective, you need to ignore it in order to justify yours.