Peachy · 8:20pm Dec 20th, 2013
You may have noticed stories about ponies and peaches over the last few days. Dozens of them. Read Obs' explanation here.
Now, I don't want peachfics to be banned. If people get a kick out of writing and reading peachfics, yay for them! But this peaches thing was instigated and carried out by some of the same people who only days ago were arguing against meta-fictions.
Back when knighty banned metafics, he described them as circle-jerks that were just in-jokes. That isn't what meta-fics are. "Metafiction" is an old, established literary term that means something else. At the time, the mods didn't care enough to define clearly what they meant by "meta-fiction" or what the ban covered.
But this peaches things, which two mods participated in, was precisely a non-pony-related circle-jerk about an in joke that only people who read Obs' blog posts got. And this was just days after some people argued against meta-fics, using exactly that "peaches" kind of non-pony-related in-joke as their straw-man example of what should not be on fimfiction.
Now, suddenly, fine distinctions matter. Obs justified his own peach-fic by noting that
1. His story was also about ponies, not just about the meta aspect.
2. It was harmless fun.
3. He writes other kinds of stories as well.
4. If they hadn't been in the featured box, they may just as well have been replaced by the clopfic of the week, or otherwise an entirely unrelated story with an equally silly premise.
These are distinctions that the mods have never cared about when banning other people from writing other kinds of stories. Some of them (points 1, 2, & 4) are also points that I just made a few days ago in a blog post about metafiction, which didn't seem important to Obs at the time. And the things that were important to him at the time, like most of them being bad, or in-jokes, or not primarily about ponies, suddenly aren't important.
Obs, I still like you and your stories, and I think the peaches thing was funny, and I'm not upset about it. But I can't take seriously anymore what you or any other "peachers" said about why some kinds of stories should be banned.
If it helps the anti-meta case, I was anti-peach as well. For exactly the reasons I'm anti-meta fics. Though I'll give Obs that any one of those fics was probably a perfectly good fic, they were written as a meta-joke. And I warned him about exactly this.
...yeah, gotta say, it's hard to disagree with that. The peachademic seemed like exactly the sort of thing the meta ban was put in place for. I disagree with the meta ban in general (and as has been said elsewhere, almost everything truly problematic is also covered by other rules; see, "hate crimes legislation"). But stories based on an obscure fandom reference with ponies as little more than a framing device?
QED, much?
I would just like to add to this that several people who have recently written peach stories, have, in the past, made blog posts saying they hate that exact type of [pony] [verb] [noun] story. It's not totally relevant, but I felt it needed to be mentioned, regardless.
hold on, so peachfics are proof that banning metafics was a bad idea in the first place?
Huh. Fancy that.
I disagree about the assertion that these would classify as meta in any way. If that were the case then wouldn't any crossover also classify?
Wow, this get more heated than I thought it would.
I dont know if calling stories about on site peoppe or brony celebrities is meta, but the meta rule certainly is there to prevent that kind of fics, or as you said they explained, fics where user x writes a story about user y and in some way "dares" user y to write about user x and so on i guess.
Maybe just rename the "meta" rule then.
To me this is kinda the same as if any event happens in the fandom and then we see dozens of fics centered around the event, in this case Obs making up a random title and people using it en mass.
Or how we see fics after an episode about a certain event in it.
1628627 They aren't "metafictions" in the literary sense, because they're not about writing. But they are "metafics" as the term was used by people arguing against metafiction, because they are an in-joke about blog posts made on fimfiction.
Crossovers are also targeted by the same arguments made against metafiction, because they're not just about ponies, but are about ponies and X. When a metafiction does this, it gets criticized for being "just about X".
i wasn't around for the original ban of metafics, but I don't see a reason to ban them in the first place.
Simple solution, stop banning shit.
I personally think metafics are just peachy!
(see what I did there?)
i.imgur.com/XFUKOp2.jpg
Interestingly — and please note, this does not change 1628661's original point at all — I don't think the peach stories would have fallen afoul of the actual text of the "meta" rule. From the FAQ about which types of stories are banned:
"Twilight Sparkle Eats A Peach" is
clearly* a circle-jerk, and thus according to current rules is banned, yes. (The circle-jerk rule is a poor one too, because in practice it's basically unenforceable … except for in-jokes of which the moderators are participants, in which case we get situations exactly like this one. It clearly goes hand-in-hand with the meta discussion.)But the text of a peach-eating story is not, on its face, about the site or its users. It's not even commentary on the site or its users, except to the extent that peach-eating is an in-joke, and that's covered separately.
Anyway, I don't mind meta stories (though I retain reservations about stories about named fandom figures), so all I can really do is watch the anti-metas score an own-goal here and shrug.
1628600, you do get points for consistency.
--
* EDIT: 1629023 raises a good point; another problem with the "circle-jerk" rule is that the edges are blurry.
Are peachfics circle-jerks (by the FAQ definition)? This has nothing to do with the quality of the peachfics, or what their legitimacy should be — I'm just trying to parse rules as written. I submit that they are,
because looking in comments to the original site blog post, there is plenty of discussion about how they should be written because they would be amusing. Never mind, I thought I remembered that, but I'm not finding it when I go back to look.Okay, then let's tackle this from another direction: can somebody provide a definition of "circle-jerk" which clearly and rationally bans some stories but does NOT ban writing prompts? As written, if the circle-jerk rule doesn't ban writing prompts, then I'm not sure what it DOES ban. Unless it depends on the intention of the prompter (prompts for fun are worse than prompts for contests?) …
1628948
Yay! Now everyone knows where to come for a real, quality stick-in-the-mud!
Remember, folks: Bookplayer -- for all your joy killing needs.
1628949
(Psst. I think you're thinking of The Saga of Dark Demon King Ravenblood Nightblade, Interior Design Alicorn, which wasn't written by Skywriter but by our humble host.)
Well, hey now, if you'd like to assert my hypocrisy, make sure you've got my position straight.
1. I did not make that blog, nor any of the points therein, with regard to peachfics as meta. It may seem like a minor distinction, but I feel it's rather important you don't imply I argued metafics to be fine when they're harmless fun, or if you write other stories.
2. My concern with metafics is primarily regarding stories that center on Fimfiction as a website, and Fimfiction's userbase. To the tune of "Rainbow Dash gets a story on Fimfiction" or "Alexstrazsa and Wanderer D have sex in Equestria."
This too may seem like a minor distinction to some, but it's rather a big one, because I'm going to lay out here why I don't think the peach fad contradicts my stance on meta. Or, at least, not the sort of meta I've raised issue with.
My primary concern with regards to metafics is that they can only be understood if the person reading them is in some way ingrained with Fimfiction's community and knows the site's mechanics or prominent users on it. It is difficult to understand much about "Alexstrazsa in Equestria" if you've never heard of Alex. "Why was that Nicolas Cage joke there? How were we supposed to know he sells pony mousepads? Confusion!"
You may suggest that peachfic, as a sitewide phenomenon, was confusing to people, since "Why are there so many stories about Twilight and peaches?" but individually any given peachfic is a comprehensible story, which stands on its own as a My Little Pony fanfic. Functionally speaking, the results of the peachfic fad were no different than if someone had held a writing contest and named "Twilight Sparkle Eats Peaches" as the prompt.
I think this is an important distinction, really.
If you see a peachfic about Obselescence the Peach God, descended to Equestria to beguile Twilight and pony authors with peaches, with many winky references to his lustrous flowing beard and penchant for hats, that's the sort of meta I contest, and I'll be glad to repudiate it.
Incidentally, blasting the peachfic fad as in itself meta might be... a little questionable, really. Is it suddenly engaging in meta for a dozen Fimfic authors to get together and go "Hey, let's each write a story about Rainbow Dash fighting crime as a superhero and post them all together"? That seems dubious, if you acknowledge that every story is a workable standalone fic, and it seems rather sketchy to imply that any cluster of authors writing the same kind of stories -- for whatever reason -- is by default meta. I'm not sure that's a good rule of thumb to go by...
A picture of Rainbow Dash holding up a can of peaches with a picture of Rainbow Dash holding up a can of peaches with a picture of Rainbow Dash...
"Nothing is 20% cooler for thee...than me."
1628948
My question as a writer is who decides what a so-called 'circle-jerk'? If Obs had posted a blog saying "everyone write a story about Twilight Sparkle eating peaches, because it'll annoy everyone who isn't following me," that's clearly a circle-jerk. But what if it's just a prompt--and it could be any prompt, and it could come from any source? Does that count? Assuming it ever becomes popular, should Peregrine Caged's Prompt-A-Day group be banned?
I have two published stories that are prompt stories--Did Somepony Order a Large Ham, and my prompt-a-day collection (for the ones that are too short--or not good enough--to stand on their own). Isn't writing a story about peaches pretty much the same thing?
Some of you, I'm sure, can guess why I'm asking. For everyone else: I wrote the first peach story, Twilight eats a Peach. I didn't do it to troll, I didn't do it as part of a circle-jerk, and I didn't do it because I thought it would be an instant feature if it did. I saw a prompt, and I wrote a one-shot using it.
1628949
Not that I'm very involved with anything Past Sins related, but it seems to me that there's nothing meta about PS-spinoffs. They're sort of hierarchical fanfic, in a sense, being derivative works of a derivative work, but they're not (as I would understand it) relating to things outside the fictional setting they're using. To me, that's the defining characteristic of "meta" the way it's being bandied about—that the story exists not because of the fictional setting but because of real world stuff that's divorced from that setting, excepting an ancillary connection. The peachpocalypse really has nothing to do with MLP, excepting that MLP characters are being used in peach stories. It's entirely about referencing a minor blog post and getting in on the joke while the getting is good.
Now that's not to say such stories can't be done well. I do enjoy "Twilight Sparkle Earns the Feature Box". But for my part, I'll probably just hide in a cave until Peachnarok has passed.
1628949 1628948 You're right - the peaches stories are more of a circle-jerk rather than "metafic" as defined by the mods. They're "meta" in being about the site itself; specifically, references to Obs' blog posts.
(The word "metafiction" has an established meaning, which does include "Dark Demon King etc." and all those Skywriter stories. I wish the rule used a different word.)
1628987
>It may seem like a minor distinction, but I feel it's rather important you don't imply I argued metafics to be fine when they're harmless fun, or if you write other stories.
Why does them being harmless fun, or the author writing other stories, justify circle-jerks but not metafics?
>You may suggest that peachfic, as a sitewide phenomenon, was confusing to people, since "Why are there so many stories about Twilight and peaches?" but individually any given peachfic is a comprehensible story, which stands on its own as a My Little Pony fanfic.
Why doesn't this apply to metafics which are a comprehensible story and stand on their own as an MLP fanfic?
1597997
>There are totally good metafics and authors who write solid metafics out there -- you're right with that -- but I afear the much larger flood of people who'll dash off quick'n'easy metafics to take advantage of community in-jokes and the easy popularity you can derive from them.
Then why not also say, "There are totally good peachfics and authors who write solid peachfics out there, but I afear the much larger flood of people who'll dash off quick'n'easy peachfics to take advantage of community in-jokes and the easy popularity you can derive from them"?
>I feel something really ought to be done to keep them from being cheap popularity grabs or otherwise prominently displayed in ways that'd confuse/shut out new folks on Fimfiction.
A lot of people were confused by all the peach fics, which were cheap popularity grabs and prominently displayed.
Regardless of how you categorize peachfics, every argument you made against metafics applies at least as well to peachfics, and every defense you've made of peachfics also applies at least as well to metafics.
1629023 If Obs had posted a blog saying "everyone write a story about Twilight Sparkle eating peaches,
He did. That was after you posted your story. Again, I don't object to peachfics. I object to the inconsistency between the treatment of metafics and peachfics.
1629118
I notice you haven't really provided a response to some of my more important points. Namely the following:
"Functionally speaking, the results of the peachfic fad were no different than if someone had held a writing contest and named "Twilight Sparkle Eats Peaches" as the prompt."
"Is it suddenly engaging in meta for a dozen Fimfic authors to get together and go "Hey, let's each write a story about Rainbow Dash fighting crime as a superhero and post them all together"? That seems dubious, if you acknowledge that every story is a workable standalone fic, and it seems rather sketchy to imply that any cluster of authors writing the same kind of stories -- for whatever reason -- is by default meta."
I'd like your position on these points, if you could.
Because circlejerk, so far as the rules are concerned, is in reference to stories that don't make sense if you're not "in" whatever small group of folk they're supposed to appeal to. It's there to defend against stuff like "Me and My Five Facebook Friends in Equestria," where everything that happens is essentially the author going "Hey, remember that one time when we all..." without regard to whether anyone who wasn't there can get the joke.
Peachfics, as I've stated, are comprehensible and workable stories in their own regard, so while they're arguably meta, in the same way Twilicane stories might be meta, I don't consider them to be either circlejerking or the kind of meta I've taken issue with.
Because, um, they aren't comprehensible stories on their own?
If someone had, out of the blue, written "Twilight Sparkle Eats Peaches," that'd blend just as easily as an MLP fanfic as anything else would.
If someone, out of the blue, wrote "Alexstrazsa in Equestria," then you're out of luck unless you actually know who Alexstrazsa is.
Fair point, but like I said, my concern there is really the problem-frosting on top of all my other issues with meta. If my argument boiled down to that alone, I'd go after quick clopfics and stuff too.
And yet, as I said, all the peachfics were individually comprehensible, and didn't rely on being "in on" what was happening to be a standalone story, which is again where my issue lies with metafics.
Again, two major points:
-There's no functional difference between posting stories as a result of peach fad and if someone had made a contest with "Twilight Sparkle Eats Peaches" as the prompt and folks had posted their stories for that.
-Suggesting that an arbitrary group of authors writing stories from the same basic premise is by default meta, even if those stories are workable standalone MLP fics, is problematic.
1629165
>>Why doesn't this apply to metafics which are a comprehensible story and stand on their own as an MLP fanfic?
>Because, um, they aren't comprehensible stories on their own?
This seems to be our major point of disagreement. There's nothing in the definition the site uses of metafic that says they aren't comprehensible stories on their own. A story about Wanderer D in Equestria is no more confusing than a story about an original character in Equestria. Either can be confusing if badly written. "Hoardsmiths" by Skywriter is still a meta-fiction as defined by the ban. And, you still allow crossovers that make no sense unless the reader knows who Master Sgt. is. And I think I've said all these things to you within the past week.
I appreciate your taking the time to reply.
1629391
Well, I mean, if that's the only heel you have to grasp in my argument, the issue of metafics' overall comprehensibility seems rather a heavily opinionated subject. I'm personally of the belief that the problems metafics pose -- namely that of being comprehensible to a relatively tiny subset of users, primarily only those who are well-engrained within Fimfiction's community and know the right names/mechanics -- aren't particularly comparable to crossovers or original characters in a story. It's apparent you disagree with that, though, and while we can haggle the semantics of why or why not, I'm not sure there's a conclusive argument for one side or the other.
So, again if that's the only point you want to battle me on, it seems less like I've engaged in outright hypocrisy, as you've implied, and more like we just disagree on this. I'm fine with the latter, since we're all free to agree to disagree, but I'm somewhat less fine if you want to maintain the former. You're going to need to hit me with something more conclusive if you want that accusation to stick.
1629451 It's not the only point of disagreement; it's just the only one you're defending here. I enumerated four things you have said and showed how I think they are inconsistent, and you defended all four by referring back to the proposition that metafics are not independent stories. I still believe that every argument you've made in defense of peachfics could be made in defense of metafics as defined in the ban, and every argument you've made against metafics could be made against other stories that are allowed.
Much of our failure to connect is because you're using a different definition of metafic than the one given in the ban. The definition used in the ban is "any story that is about the site or its users." It says nothing about whether the story is a standalone story requiring no special knowledge. There's no point arguing with you further unless you acknowledge that the ban might apply to Hoardsmiths, and to other stories that are complete and comprehensible without any special prior knowledge, and that that is a problem; and also explain the principle by which other categories of stories that are not comprehensible without special knowlege are allowed.
It seems to me that the proper conclusion from your arguments is that "do not write stories about the site or its users" should be replaced with "do not write stories that require outside knowledge". It further seems to me that would be an extremely bad rule.
I also think it's disingenuous to say that "let's all write stories about peaches" is like saying "let's all write stories about Rainbow Dash", since the former seems--and I can't read your mind, but this is the impression I got from your blog post--to have been in the spirit of "this is a very silly thing that will hopefully confuse and annoy lots of people" rather than "this is a good topic that should produce interesting stories".
1629644
I disagree with metafics for that reason, which coincides to some extent with the reasoning for the ban, but I'm speaking here for myself, since this is about my supposed hypocrisy.
Well, then, there you go. Peachfics are stories about Twilight Sparkle and peaches. Not about the site or its users.
This is why I wrote a blogpost on the subject, which you supposedly read, saying specifically that I did so in the spirit of "Hey, this'd be fun, let's do this thing and have fun together." With pretty much no ulterior motive beyond that.
So, y'know.
1629678
>>The definition used in the ban is "any story that is about the site or its users." It says nothing about whether the story is a standalone story requiring no special knowledge.
>Well, then, there you go. Peachfics are stories about Twilight Sparkle and peaches. Not about the site or its users.
What are you even talking about? I am not saying that peachfics are metafics. I really feel like you're just skimming what I've written.
>This is why I wrote a blogpost on the subject, which you supposedly read, saying that I did so in the spirit of "Hey, this'd be fun, let's do this thing and have fun together."
Your precise words were, "Go forth, minions." It was meant as an invasion, not as a writing prompt.
The subject is important to me, but we're not getting anywhere. I don't think we can accomplish anything here except make each other angry.
1629709
I'm not really sure why else you'd bring the definition of metafics into this, then, because your point is entirely about my own self-inconsistency. I've stated the sort of issues I take, and what kind of metafic I take them with, and it seems thus far like your counter is "I think these issues apply to peachfics too!"
Except I disagree with that, and have explained why. Evidently you disagree with that, and like I said, we could debate the semantics of which arguments apply to which sort of fics where--which maybe they do or don't, but this seems like a heavily opinionated issue to me, and not one where I've acted in ways that don't accord with my stated worldview.
Somewhere along the lines you also brought in the site's definition of metafics and Hoardsmiths, for some reason... I'm not really sure where that was supposed to go.
Yes, 'cause I thought it was fun. I can see how it'd be misinterpreted that way, but it was pretty much all in the vein of "Let's all have a good time," rather than an attempt to be disruptive, hurtful, or confusing.
Sure, okay. No hard feelings, yeah?
1629709>>1629786
The two of you have a difference of goals. Obselescence wants new and casual fimfic users to be able easily find new stories that they'll like. Bad Horse wants writers to be able to write the best possible fics. Obselescence is optimizing for user-likely-has-a-good-fimfic-experience, and Bad Horse is optimizing for user-likely-has-the-best-possible-fimfic-experience. Barring non-rule-oriented changes to the site, these are conflicting goals. It's obvious that you're not going to get anywhere because you're arguing in favor of conflicting goals.
Resolving this is not possible without giving different users different fimfic experiences. I believe Obselescence already mentioned that Knighty is working on this.
1629786 Except I disagree with that, and have explained why. Evidently you disagree with that, and like I said, we could debate the semantics of which arguments apply to which sort of fics where--which maybe they do or don't, but this seems like a heavily opinionated issue to me, and not one where I've acted in ways that don't accord with my stated worldview.
The opinions you've stated have on multiple occasions relied on your assertion that meta-fictions do not stand on their own as independent stories. Now, we can use "metafic" either to mean what the word truly means (stories that comment on the art of fiction), or we can use it to mean what is banned by the rule against metafics (stories about the site or its users; also, originally, knighty include "circle-jerk" in the definition of metafiction). You still aren't using either of those definitions. Since we're talking about rules, we ought to use the definition in the rules: Stories about the site or its users. If you used that definition, you would not be able to respond to my points in the way that you did.
I am not especially interested now in proving whether you are or are not inconsistent. What I am hoping for, given what you've said, and that you are a mod, is that you will admit that the "metafic" rule as stated is bad, because it does not ban the kind of stories you object to (stories that require outside knowledge), and does ban stories you don't object to (like Hoardsmiths). I will be disappointed if you keep saying metafics aren't standalone stories when I have repeatedly pointed out (like, half a dozen times) that neither the true definition of metafiction, nor the one used in the rules, imply that they aren't standalone stories.
If you could take all the objections you made here to "metafics", and put those into a rule to replace "no circle-jerks and no stories about the site or its users", I think that would go a long way towards clarifying what both of our positions are. (My opinion is that it would be impossible to write any such rule that wouldn't ban thousands of stories already on the site.)
1629876 I appreciate your attempt to help, but my differences with Obs aren't that subtle. They may be more along the lines of me wanting to defend metafiction and Obs wanting to defend his consistency.
1630035
The thing is that stories that can't stand unless the reader is already rooted in Fimfiction's community is more or less closest covered by "Stories about the site and/or its users." I stick with my defense of peachfics in this regard, because they run afoul neither of the rule itself, nor my overall concern with the majority of fics the rule bans. And I'm not really interested in debating the nitty-gritty of "Well, if you think that way, then what about crossovers, huh?"
The rule does, admittedly, take out a couple stories that I might not otherwise object to, but I think trying to poke holes in the rule to allow those fics through would either make the rule itself porous and ineffectual, or otherwise make it define banned meta in so squishy a manner that nobody'd be happy with our enforcement of it. Ultimately, such fics are a fairly small minority compared to the vast amount of meta I do take issue with, which the rule also blocks. So, in this case, my position in this case happens to mostly coincide with the rules as it stands.
Of course, I really don't know what's running through knighty's head on this, so whether he agrees with that or not is an enigma.
Anyhow, you have an alternative interpretation of the rule that'd satisfy both of our desires, I'd be happy to hear it.
1630035
I deleted the top half of my last comment shortly after posting it because I couldn't explain myself properly. I will explain it now.
If you understand that the two of you have a difference of goals, then I'm going to assume that
means you think it's bad relative to Obselescence's goal.
If you want to convince him that the rule is bad, then you need to convince him that it's bad relative to his goal, and keep in mind that he needs to minimize the time needed to moderate this site as well. Up until now, you've been arguing that his claims are invalid. It makes no difference whether or not you're right about that (as demonstrated by the post above this one). The only thing that will make a difference, if you want to convince him, is you disconnecting the rule from his goal. His claims in support of the goal do not affect anything, except to give you a better idea of his underlying goal.
1630101 Then I'd suggest the rule should be "No stories that can't stand on their own unless the reader is already rooted in Fimfiction's community."
1630107 I'm not going to try to persuade him to do something about the metafiction rule pursuant to his goal of appearing consistent. I'm assuming he also has a goal of being a good moderator.
1630101>>1630186
I have an alternative that I think would work for everyone: get rid of the meta story rule and make it clear that the "circle-jerking" rule broadly applies to fimfiction and its users. This eliminates the problem of banning meta stories that stand on their own, eliminates problem of local drama popping up in stories, eliminates the problem of featured meta stories being incomprehensible to new and casual users, and makes it more clear to moderators which fimfiction-related stories should and shouldn't be banned.
Plus, knighty will probably like it since it tidies up the rules just a little bit more.
1630101
Ah, now this is where you are making an assumption. Using Bad Horse's own examples of good "metafiction" there are two right off of my head that refute you point about needing to be deep into the site to understand. When I first read Heretical Fiction, it was because I had read a previous story of Skywriter's and wanted to see more. This was fairly soon after I joined and I had no idea that this story was about Eternal. In fact, once I did learn it was about Eternal, that gave me the push to actually read the behemoth story I kept hearing about. The story was entertaining on it's own and lead me to another great story. In a different way, Hoardsmiths is also meta, this time discussing the entire brony community. It's no cheap allegory, but a fully fleshed out world on it's own that also happens to reference our relationship with Hasbro.
This is Bad's point that you skip past; these stories can stand entirely on their own, which seems to be your point of contention. I understand you have to shovel a ton of shit every day and issuing bans makes it easier to sift through all the fics getting tossed at you, but the arguments used against meta as per definition in said ban could be applied to many more genres, including, as was his point, random things like Twilight Eats Peaches, as well as clop, HiE, crossover, etc.
1630551
He already acknowledged that the ban works against good fics. The problem is in coming up with an alternative that allows good fics and not bad fics prone to making the front page.
>>The rule does, admittedly, take out a couple stories that I might not otherwise object to, but I think trying to poke holes in the rule to allow those fics through would either make the rule itself porous and ineffectual, or otherwise make it define banned meta in so squishy a manner that nobody'd be happy with our enforcement of it.
1630186
Like I said, you have to be careful about how you reword the rule if you try, because a given rewording can either change nothing, make the rule ineffectual, or otherwise render the rule troublesome to enforce. "No stories that can't stand on their own unless the reader is already rooted in Fimfiction's community," is very mushy wording, and it's easy to see how it could lead to some fics getting failed, and others getting passed, based on semi-arbitrary differences.
The staff isn't really keen to engage in that sort of amorphous judgment call, and I imagine the userbase wouldn't be very happy with it either when they get failed, but can point to fics that they believe should have failed along with them.
So, y'know, careful consideration is important.
1630399
I'm tentatively all right with the wording of this rule, but I'm unsure if it really solves the concern on the other end of the fence, and maybe even tightens the ban. "This includes in-jokes specific to Fimfiction.net users" is fairly broad wording, so what does or does not constitute an in-joke specific to Fimfic could very easily be a contentious point in whether or not to pass/fail a story. Again, that's a scenario that's... less than ideal.
Do allegorical tales about Fimfiction, ala Hoardsmiths, still count as an "in-joke"? What if an arbitrarily large group of authors decide to write stories based off the same premise? Do we dub that an in-joke too, as some people have been quick to term peachfics? Or does it have to breach some fluid meme-boundary before it turns from "A group of authors who got together to write stories from the same premise, as is authors' wont" into "A whole bunch of people getting in on an in-joke, and therefore these stories ought to be banned"?
It's... tricky, I think.
1630551
I did acknowledge that there are some stories that might be caught by the meta rule that I wouldn't object to on those grounds, but I hold simultaneously that there's a big majority of fics that I would object to that are also kept in check by this rule. Speaking as someone with access to the approval queue, we get some pretty darn funky meta-type stories, and that's with a decently comprehensive meta-ban in place.
One of them was actually a peachfic, incidentally. Or, perhaps it'd be better to say that it was an attempt at a peachfic...
Anyhow, the trick, really, would be figuring out how to allow stories like Hoardsmiths through without making the ban useless/creating situations where users feel the staff is making arbitrary judgments about what is and isn't allowable metawise.
Ah, well, slight misconception here. The arguments I've made here are why I, personally, take issue with stories like "Alexstrazsa in Equestria." Not the official reason as to why meta is banned--I haven't really talked to knighty insofar as his own motives for that, and I defer to any judgment he makes regarding that.
My argument here is really just why I don't support the majority of the stories the current ruling blocks, and why I feel the current ruling is perhaps the best available solution for preventing the sort of meta stories I wouldn't want to see--even if it's admittedly imperfect.
I guess you could argue my own reasoning is problematic, in that it could be extended to things like crossovers, but I personally don't see these as equivalent comparisons, and I get the feeling that an argument on that would very quickly boil down to semantic haggling and probably not convince either side. So I'm happy to call that one an agree-to-disagree deal.
1630591
How about this:
It's less broad and only extends the "circle-jerking" aspect to Fimfiction.net users, which I believe is already well-enough understood (given that there's already a rule based on it). It allows peachfics that have some substance other than "peachfic lol", and it allows allegorical tales about the site since the core story can be relevant to non-fimfic users.
1630591
So the 'attempt at a peach-fic' was crap and refused, correct? Was it refused due to being meta or due to is being 'an attempt', implying it was shit?
1630580 The problem is in coming up with an alternative that allows good fics and not bad fics prone to making the front page.
There are no rules for how to write good fiction. Therefore, there are no rules that will distinguish good fiction from bad fiction.
1631234
"Good" and "bad" being relative to some goal. Whether or not there can be a rule to reliably bin "bad" fiction at no cost to "good" fiction depends on the goal and on the lower bound of "reliably".
Ultimately, the rules don't have to be precisely crafted. So long as they get the point across to writers and to moderators, they should be good enough. To say that no rule can be constructed to prevent the kinds of fics Obs is thinking of is to say that Obs is bucketing certain fics in a way that most others cannot approximately understand.
I personally think Obs is taking the right approach here by letting his feelings dictate his stance more than his written words. The unfortunate consequence of this is that, if his posts are taken literally, he'll seem inconsistent, and he'll seem to be making up arguments as convenient because he's having trouble putting to words exactly what he's thinking. As I understand it, he is being consistent, logical, and a "good moderator" though his exact words may lead you to disagree.
1633556
The first part of that was an extremely lengthy reiteration of part of Bad Horse's original argument several blog posts ago.
http://www.fimfiction.net/blog/258335/emergency-unless-you-are-professor-plum-in-which-case-please-ignore-this
And the second part reiterates Obs's current concerns about removing or changing the rule.
I don't think this adds anything new to the discussion, but it was a decent recap of parts of the arguments.
This post was written for the sake of avoiding another cycle in this discussion.