Could perhaps someone give an example of a scholarly book that was rejected for lack of evidence? My understanding is that it is extremely rare to reject a book, that it is more often for being OOC, plagiarized, etc. and that it is never the decision of one person. I also understand that if a book is rejected, the writer is given a clear reason why. So perhaps this is much ado about nothing or perhaps there are books that we need to re-look at, but some concrete examples might be useful.
I think part of the issue is that books with similar content as existing cannon lore get rejected as well. So it's hard to see where the line is sometimes.
I stand by the Oneiroi's decision to pull the book from the public library. I will specifically withdraw the Oneiroi's reason why and replace it with my own words which I've stated to you several times: We reserve the right to pull writings in the public library in our sole and absolute discretion. Any reason given for pulling a public writing is out of courtesy only and not to be taken as a precedent or a rule.
This is the gist of the problem. No actual guidelines to go off of. What is accepted by one is not accepted by another, and what was once is no longer. And no discussion has been had concerning the people that use the system and the people ruling over the system. People have been told to just accept whatever admin say without any autonomy over being able to defend their works against bias. Whatever that bias is. It might just be that someone is more liberal with what is acceptable and another is not.
I think what people are asking for are some standards...and I for one don't see why it would be hard to have some basic guidelines and for admin to be held accountable when critiquing books to those guidelines/standards.
I believe the admin should be allowed some discretion and oversight for scholarly works for no other reason than to give players who happen to read the book inaccurate or false information.
This is a super important point. It's critical to have a dedicated place for players to go in order to read about lore that is reliably canon. I just have the strong opinion that the org libraries are far from the right place to do that.
The whole point of having orgs is to have conflict, and that doesn't happen without a diversity of policies and ideologies. When every individual org library is expected to share the same non-conflicting canon, it suppresses player creativity and limits rp opportunities to motivate disagreements and political change within your org and between orgs. At the end of the day, this takes away from the game rather than adding, and reduces participation.
I think @Enya's idea of having a select library meant only for excellent scholarly examples of strict canon, while removing that condition for org libraries, adds to the game and increases opportunities for debate, interaction, and publication.
You can't know for sure how many people – I know I'm among them – have opted not to write something for scholarly because it doesn't seem like I'm doing anything new or game-changing when it's stick with the master narrative or lose all basis for your views.
We reserve the right to pull writings in the public library in our sole and absolute discretion. Any reason given for pulling a public writing is out of courtesy only and not to be taken as a precedent or a rule.
No actual guidelines to go off of.
I think the right reserved by the staff/volunteers in that quote is reasonable and important.
However, the rule requiring scholarly works to follow canon or else be pure speculation leads to an unhelpful exercise of that right. I feel like unless you give players high or full transparency about the canon, you can't punish people for guessing wrong, or discourage player input on the basis of players not having full information.
Trouble is, it's not possible to make public the great majority of Lusty's canon without creating a huge spoiler that ruins engagement. Openly sharing info that currently has pieces tucked away here and there in quests, dreams, rare events, and coveted curios etc would turn what is meant to be a role-playing game into an already-written book that doesn't need players with ideas of their own.
There's a good reason for leaving players guessing about lore and canon – it creates subjective space for player input, creativity, and interaction. Please don't exclude scholarly sections of org libraries from that space.
We reserve the right to pull writings in the public library in our sole and absolute discretion. Any reason given for pulling a public writing is out of courtesy only and not to be taken as a precedent or a rule.
No actual guidelines to go off of.
I think the right reserved by the staff/volunteers in that quote is reasonable and important.
I'm not so sure about reserving that right, actually. Other creative online spaces have been trying to be much more transparent about what they will pull and why, these days. Whether they succeed or not is up for debate, but there is at least movement towards trying to give advance notice about what is okay and what is not so people know the rules and are not surprised by their application.
It is their sandbox, so rules are important! But keeping them secret is not healthy / conducive to creativity imo.
It is their sandbox, so rules are important! But keeping them secret is not healthy / conducive to creativity imo.
Especially given that Lusternia is supposed to be the sort of place where we are supposed to "write the story", so to speak.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
I think the right reserved by the staff/volunteers in that quote is reasonable and important.
I'm not so sure about reserving that right, actually. Other creative online spaces have been trying to be much more transparent about what they will pull and why
I think we agree. I was saying that as long as staff/volunteers are transparent about what they expect, they can act on the right to pull public works at their own discretion fairly and rarely. Without transparency, using the right becomes arbitrary.
If you're saying we should get rid of the right for staff/volunteers to pull public works at their own discretion, I'm not sure I agree. Due to rules and lore changing over time and cheating/plagiarism, I don't think pulling works would end. More likely, volunteers would need approval from higher-ups, creating a new layer of bureaucracy that would make the rest of the game slower, and which might make staff/volunteers more selective about what they accept for publication so they don't have extra work later.
I stand by the Oneiroi's decision to pull the book from the public library. I will specifically withdraw the Oneiroi's reason why and replace it with my own words which I've stated to you several times: We reserve the right to pull writings in the public library in our sole and absolute discretion. Any reason given for pulling a public writing is out of courtesy only and not to be taken as a precedent or a rule.
This is the gist of the problem. No actual guidelines to go off of. What is accepted by one is not accepted by another, and what was once is no longer. And no discussion has been had concerning the people that use the system and the people ruling over the system. People have been told to just accept whatever admin say without any autonomy over being able to defend their works against bias. Whatever that bias is. It might just be that someone is more liberal with what is acceptable and another is not.
I think what people are asking for are some standards...and I for one don't see why it would be hard to have some basic guidelines and for admin to be held accountable when critiquing books to those guidelines/standards.
As you well know, this email had nothing to do with lore or canon and was over an issue about a writing that was deemed not to be appropriate because of a sexual nature. My point to you was that in such cases, it is not up for debate, we will simply exercise that right for any writing on a triggering subject that we simply do not believe appropriate for Lusternia. Shame on you for conflating that with the discussion on lore and canon.
I stand by the Oneiroi's decision to pull the book from the public library. I will specifically withdraw the Oneiroi's reason why and replace it with my own words which I've stated to you several times: We reserve the right to pull writings in the public library in our sole and absolute discretion. Any reason given for pulling a public writing is out of courtesy only and not to be taken as a precedent or a rule.
This is the gist of the problem. No actual guidelines to go off of. What is accepted by one is not accepted by another, and what was once is no longer. And no discussion has been had concerning the people that use the system and the people ruling over the system. People have been told to just accept whatever admin say without any autonomy over being able to defend their works against bias. Whatever that bias is. It might just be that someone is more liberal with what is acceptable and another is not.
I think what people are asking for are some standards...and I for one don't see why it would be hard to have some basic guidelines and for admin to be held accountable when critiquing books to those guidelines/standards.
As you well know, this email had nothing to do with lore or canon and was over an issue about a writing that was deemed not to be appropriate because of a sexual nature. My point to you was that in such cases, it is not up for debate, we will simply exercise that right for any writing on a triggering subject that we simply do not believe appropriate for Lusternia. Shame on you for conflating that with the discussion on lore and canon.
So wouldn't the correct response be:
"Our rule for publication precludes this subject matter from being in books," and point to said rule? Saying "Any reason given for pulling a public writing is out of courtesy only and not to be taken as a precedent or a rule" is absolutely chilling, because you're left with no idea what the rules are.
I mean, I get why you need the right to pull books. But you can't do so and just say "We felt like it," you need to set specific ground rules for it which state "This book was pulled for this reason, per our guidelines, and the guidelines apply to everyone equally. We don't care who you are, this subject matter is not acceptable." That is reasonable and fair, but stating "Our rules are 100% arbitrary" simply... isn't.
Edit: Also, please don't go "shame on you" because while the book subject may be something different, the rejection reason is fully in line with the topic here... which is that we don't know what the rules are and they are kept hidden from us. Which is what we're asking to change.
It is their sandbox, so rules are important! But keeping them secret is not healthy / conducive to creativity imo.
AAHHHHH THIS. And also the underlying mechanics of the game function as its rules. Being secretive about how things works only ever hurts in the long term, period.
Re: pulling books, there was some conflict over it ages ago and there was a promise of producing actual content guidelines to prevent surprise rejections for being inappropriate. Never materialized.
Any sufficiently advanced pun is indistinguishable from comedy.
I'm looking forward to have some clear guidelines so I can write scholarly again. I always find it risky to do so especially when we aren't sure what's acceptable and what's not. I keep on hearing about the "glory days" when admin would collaborate on pieces and do RP about the books or interesting subjects pertaining to them, and that doesn't seem to happen anymore.
Maybe if we could distinguish as players what the admin desire, and go back to the old system when addressing canon then there wouldn't be such a problem? A crystal set of guidelines would encourage us as players to learn them so we can reach out to collaborate with admin if they desire, or write more things for Lusternia. As Shaddus said, we essentially 'write the story' along with them, and it'd be nice to have that together.
The cool night-time breeze shivers in the arid caress of the streets of the capital city, brushing the earthen taste of dust across your lips.
*
A blessed silence falls upon the city for the moment, most activity confined to the towers and the theatre due to the snowy weather.
*
Pinprick points of light twinkle in the deep black overhead, their brightness full of a cold, hungering malice.
I mean, I get why you need the right to pull books. But you can't do so and just say "We felt like it," you need to set specific ground rules for it which state "This book was pulled for this reason, per our guidelines, and the guidelines apply to everyone equally. We don't care who you are, this subject matter is not acceptable." That is reasonable and fair, but stating "Our rules are 100% arbitrary" simply... isn't.
Edit: Also, please don't go "shame on you" because while the book subject may be something different, the rejection reason is fully in line with the topic here... which is that we don't know what the rules are and they are kept hidden from us. Which is what we're asking to change.
You don't know the full context of that out-of-context email wherein the writer was told specifically why it was rejected but after multiple back and forth, this was presented as the bottom line reason as continuous 'discussion' was leading to a spiral of argumentative deadends, so yes, shame on you, for using it as 'proof' of library policy concerning lore and canon. I simply am not going to tolerate using selective, out-of-context email excerpts about an appeal that should have remained private to begin with as an example of library standards. So while it is true that we reserve the right to pull something for any reason, it only happens in extraordinary circumstances and is not my stating that "our rules are 100% arbitrary" which is absurd on its face.
In any event, I am somewhat sympathetic to presenting better guidelines and was open to suggestions, but going down this path will not be fruitful.
In any event, I am somewhat sympathetic to presenting better guidelines and was open to suggestions, but going down this path will not be fruitful.
Then I'd like to direct you to my previous post about Curwa's book, the one with the excerpt in it. Clarifying why that one had inadequate labeling would be a good start.
It'd also help us to know why the policy changed, so we can better understand the goals.
Any sufficiently advanced pun is indistinguishable from comedy.
I mean, I get why you need the right to pull books. But you can't do so and just say "We felt like it," you need to set specific ground rules for it which state "This book was pulled for this reason, per our guidelines, and the guidelines apply to everyone equally. We don't care who you are, this subject matter is not acceptable." That is reasonable and fair, but stating "Our rules are 100% arbitrary" simply... isn't.
Edit: Also, please don't go "shame on you" because while the book subject may be something different, the rejection reason is fully in line with the topic here... which is that we don't know what the rules are and they are kept hidden from us. Which is what we're asking to change.
You don't know the full context of that out-of-context email wherein the writer was told specifically why it was rejected but after multiple back and forth, this was presented as the bottom line reason as continuous 'discussion' was leading to a spiral of argumentative deadends, so yes, shame on you, for using it as 'proof' of library policy concerning lore and canon. I simply am not going to tolerate using selective, out-of-context email excerpts about an appeal that should have remained private to begin with as an example of library standards. So while it is true that we reserve the right to pull something for any reason, it only happens in extraordinary circumstances and is not my stating that "our rules are 100% arbitrary" which is absurd on its face.
In any event, I am somewhat sympathetic to presenting better guidelines and was open to suggestions, but going down this path will not be fruitful.
1) You are the one who chose to use a system with flaws as one of the cornerstones of a new competitive system.
2) You have the gall to tell me that I should be ashamed? The sentence should never have been written in the first place, and instead of acknowledging that you are going after the players who tell you that it was wrong. How is this acceptable?
3) How can you read this sentence as anything but 100% arbitrary? "Any reason given for pulling a public writing is out of courtesy only and not to be taken as a precedent or a rule." It is explicitly stating that reasons are being used which are not even actual rules and thus can be done whenever they want. If this standard was applied to any real-world competitive event people simply would not trust it or have any faith in the process.
I think you need to take a breather here, because attacking your players on the forums is not the right way to go.
Second, I would suggest the following guideline. You are correct that I do not know the context. It is quite possible that something like this came up earlier in the discussion, but to my mind if it was stated as an official rule you could just point at it and end the conversation there. It would not have needed to progress to where it did.
"Lusternia is a game with complex and occasionally mature themes. However, we hold the public section of our library system to a higher standard of scrutiny. Depictions of sexual violence are strictly prohibited."
I really doubt that most of the game would have any issue with this! I know I wouldn't. Apply this standard to all new & existing books consistently. You can even make additional bullet points under the "higher scrutiny" line.
I support your right to pull books if they don't meet standards. I strongly feel that those standards need to be public. Attacking me for stating such is incredibly unfair.
As a reminder, if you simply made rejection reasons publicly visible that sort of out-of-context thing wouldn't be a concern because people could see why for themselves.
1) You are the one who chose to use a system with flaws as one of the cornerstones of a new competitive system.
2) You have the gall to tell me that I should be ashamed? The sentence should never have been written in the first place, and instead of acknowledging that you are going after the players who tell you that it was wrong. How is this acceptable?
3) How can you read this sentence as anything but 100% arbitrary? "Any reason given for pulling a public writing is out of courtesy only and not to be taken as a precedent or a rule." It is explicitly stating that reasons are being used which are not even actual rules and thus can be done whenever they want. If this standard was applied to any real-world competitive event people simply would not trust it or have any faith in the process.
I think you need to take a breather here, because attacking your players on the forums is not the right way to go.
Second, I would suggest the following guideline. You are correct that I do not know the context. It is quite possible that something like this came up earlier in the discussion, but to my mind if it was stated as an official rule you could just point at it and end the conversation there. It would not have needed to progress to where it did.
"Lusternia is a game with complex and occasionally mature themes. However, we hold the public section of our library system to a higher standard of scrutiny. Depictions of sexual violence are strictly prohibited."
I really doubt that most of the game would have any issue with this! I know I wouldn't. Apply this standard to all new & existing books consistently. You can even make additional bullet points under the "higher scrutiny" line.
I support your right to pull books if they don't meet standards. I strongly feel that those standards need to be public. Attacking me for stating such is incredibly unfair.
Yes, I believe any who use an out-of-context email to be ashamed of using it as an argument for anything (which your number 3 point does, ahem). Yes, I should take a breather, so I won't be looking at this thread for a few days. I'll come back and see if there is constructive feedback.
I'm staggered by what I'm seeing here, and utterly disgusted by the behaviour of an admin that I have literally stood up and defended in private conversations. They say a friend will say good things behind your back and bad things to your face, so here we are, I guess.
What you're typing makes absolutely no sense. How can a rule which literally covers any situation ever be out of context? You want constructive feedback? The rule is serving no purpose other than to perpetuate the perception of bias. It needs to go. Replace it with a rule saying that new rules may be added in response to unexpected situations (such as sexual impropriety in the material, if that is indeed what took place) and that such new rules will be made public.
ETA: That this comment earned me my First Comment Badge is a damning indictment of where we are right now.
I'm staggered by what I'm seeing here, and utterly disgusted by the behaviour of an admin that I have literally stood up and defended in private conversations. They say a friend will say good things behind your back and bad things to your face, so here we are, I guess.
What you're typing makes absolutely no sense. How can a rule which literally covers any situation ever be out of context? You want constructive feedback? The rule is serving no purpose other than to perpetuate the perception of bias. It needs to go. Replace it with a rule saying that new rules may be added in response to unexpected situations (such as sexual impropriety in the material, if that is indeed what took place) and that such new rules will be made public.
ETA: That this comment earned me my First Comment Badge is a damning indictment of where we are right now.
1) As noted, the comment was taken out of context of a larger conversation, excluding other parts of the same conversation that also address the situation. When you cherry pick and only present certain parts of the conversation while not including the rest of it, you can make something that's said in earnest look and mean totally different things. I can't tell you how many times I've made a comment in regards to a specific situation only to have that same comment thrown back in my face in entirely different circumstances in which I never would say that. It is unfair to say that that one comment applies to every situation without knowing the full context in which it was said.
2) For some reason, it keeps being said that there are no guidelines or standards. HELP CRITIQUING is the standard and is the guidelines we use. They could be improved and are not perfect, but they are still standards and guidelines. Any statement to the contrary is fundamentally false. There is a difference between not agreeing with the standards/guidelines and there being no standards/guidelines. Please do strive to keep that in mind.
3) As you and others have noted, we need to reserve the right to reject things in case something unexpected comes up. I agree, we should post this and make this information public when it does happen. In all honesty, it probably was an oversight, which as you may have noticed, happens quite a bit in regards to helpfiles etc. We're human, and thus not perfect. Estarra has already mentioned that she's willing to work on and improve them. Portius mentioned that this was previously talked about and it fell through and nothing happened. Again, we're not perfect, there is a lot on our plates and we're doing what we can.
4) There is never a single person that is deciding what gets rejected. There is a team of admin that look over everything and discuss it and that team is what ultimately decides if it needs to be rejected. They don't want to reject stuff, they want to pass it through. They're doing the best they can to maintain the standards that are set in place. Again, they are not perfect and sometimes things are missed. The other thing that seems to be not mentioned here is that if a book is rejected for whatever reason, it can be editted and re-submitted to fix the issues.
I understand that some people are incredibly passionate about the library system and what it entails and that in general, people want it to be something that everyone can easily use and enjoy. We do need to take a certain level of autonomy when it comes to the system though, and the general feeling I get from this thread is that it is understood. We can definitely work towards being more transparent in that regard.
So, let's move on to context, because I have absolutely nothing to hide or be ashamed of. I was making a point that my situation and that of theirs has common ground in the fact that the guidelines and standards are not something we can trust in or work by.
So anyway, I wrote a book around the time of 2017/03/13 I decided to have it published. If, for the sake of context or curiosity you want to read the book you can contact me IG or message me here on forums.
I was explicitly told the book would not be published because they (being admin, specifically Oneiroi) did not wish to include rape in Lusternia's world. It was pulled from the library.
We noted that rape already exists in Lusternia lore. We also appealed on the grounds that censorship in Lusternia regarding sexual violence when other violence is tolerated can be seen to be whitewashing this issue. To which they responded with something akin to:
We are not marginalising sexual violence; we are deeming it to not be something we wish to include in our gameworld. Thank you.
However, we were left without any way to appeal this decision and on my behalf the emotional energy to appeal this decision was more than it was worth. Yes, the book is close to home for anyone wondering. Yes they knew this. It took me almost 2 years to make the attempt to resolve this situation, and here we are now.
I made an appeal through email asking once more how the reason given to me was justified given the lore of Lusternia contained much of the same content. After MANY emails eventually Estarra replied with:
Regarding appeal of the book regarding rape, we reserve the right to reject any submission for any reason. In this case, we felt your story was too explicit for Lusternia. There are no hard or fast guidelines except that we hope writers intending to distribute writing in Lusternia's public library system will refrain for sexual explicit or potentially triggering subject matter. Again, what constitutes that will be decided on a case-by-case basis in our sole and absolute discretion.
To which I did not respond because it left the original question unanswered. Why was my book banned for containing content that was similar in nature to that of which exists within the lore. And that is when Estarra replied with:
I stand by the Oneiroi's decision to pull the book from the public library. I will specifically withdraw the Oneiroi's reason why and replace it with my own words which I've stated to you several times: We reserve the right to pull writings in the public library in our sole and absolute discretion. Any reason given for pulling a public writing is out of courtesy only and not to be taken as a precedent or a rule.
So that is the all of it. If Estarra and co still feel like context is missing, I am more than happy to share every single email thread I have because I have nothing to hide, and NOTHING to be ashamed of. I was also under the impression that emails from companies are generally considered public. And yes, this is personal for me on levels beyond that which is discussed here. Because #metoo and #letherspeak and why should anyone be silenced just so a man can sit comfortable while a woman is told to be ashamed or be silent?
As far as being silent - we asked you not to post inaccurate, inflammatory statements (such as we're trying to tell you to be ashamed and be silent), but that's it.
It's difficult to have discussions when these kinds of accusations are continually thrown around despite not being true.
Thank you for further sharing the context in regards to the stated rule. As has been noted, we do need to keep a degree of autonomy for unexpected situations and will strive to be more transparent and fair about them in the future.
I think we are arguing over two distinct issues here and they are blending together.
Leaving aside the merit of pulling any specific book, I think this is the crux of the issue regarding rule clarity:
We have two statements of rules for rejecting books.
One of them is HELP CRITIQUING, which lists very specific circumstances.
The other is this: "I stand by the Oneiroi's decision to pull the book from the public
library. I will specifically withdraw the Oneiroi's reason why and
replace it with my own words which I've stated to you several times: We
reserve the right to pull writings in the public library in our sole and
absolute discretion. Any reason given for pulling a public writing is
out of courtesy only and not to be taken as a precedent or a rule."
Those two sets of information are in conflict. They contradict each other. If reasons shouldn't be taken as a precedent or rule and it happens at admin discretion, then we have no reason to believe that the admin try to keep things consistent. It seems like a pretty strong statement that they don't care about that, in fact. On the other hand, if HELP CRITIQUING is meant to include all of the rules, then the support statement is wrong and we should try to take things as precedent.
Which one is it? The feeling I've gotten from this thread is that the it is meant to be based on rules and be consistent. So acknowledge that support statement as poor phrasing or a mistake, try to do better in the future. Or, if I'm wrong, acknowledge in a help file that it is meant to be solely what the library team decides is appropriate.
Just decide which one it is meant to be and act accordingly. That probably means admitting that there have been mistakes, one way or the other.
If you're concerned about overlooking topics when you write the rules and trapping yourselves later, here's a compromise. If you feel like you absolutely have to pull a book that doesn't break any stated rules, pull it without reducing the library's credibility and make sure it still counts for credit generation. Doing that will at least remove the mechanical effects of the rejection. It's not ideal because there will still be emotional ones. Those probably matter more. But that will always be a crappy situation for everyone, and at least doing some compensation is a nod of sympathy. If that's a coding issue, you might be able to make a new security level (Nobody uses them, but you can mark books as restricted or secret and hide them to anyone without that clearance level) that is restricted to admin and classify them at that level.
---
Beyond that, there's the other issue. What should the grounds for rejection be?
That one is much more relevant to me. I don't feel any great need to repeat myself on that beyond that I feel like most of the posts on that topic have been pretty thoroughly ignored beyond the first comment on it.
If you really want to hammer out a functional set of rules, I would strongly advise you to call together some of the library people to work them out with you in a calm environment and then put them out on the forum for discussion before you implement them.
And for the love of Yudhe, remove the clause that says you will alter the rules without announcing it. There is no such thing as a small change. The shift to requiring scholarly books to be firmly rooted in canon was classed as a small change. Just put it all in a changelog or an announce post.
---
I'd also really love to see follow-up on Curwa's book, seeing as I still cannot see how it got rejected with the stated reason in light of the passage I quoted. That's ultimately a single ruling that could be appealed, so it's not crucial. But I think it does illustrate why people might be concerned about stated rules not being followed very well.
Any sufficiently advanced pun is indistinguishable from comedy.
I've decided I have a better articulation of all that, if you want the tl:dr
not to be taken as a precedent
That's the bad part. If a ruling does not set a precedent, then you can reject Book A for its content one day and let B through with the same content later. That will always look arbitrary and lead to bad feelings. It doesn't work for a competitive system, or for a fun one.
But we have to acknowledge that you might discover something that really needs to be rejected, but that you didn't think about when you were planning the rules. That's fine, we can resolve this.
Here's a functional rule:
The Divine Scholars reserve the right to reject books if they contain content that is inappropriate for Lusternia. This sets a precedent. Below, you will find a current list of things to avoid. This list will be updated the Divine Scholars need to make a new ruling.
And below that, you have a list of rules. If you need to reject for something that was not on the list at the time, you put it on the list. No exceptions. Do not class anything as obvious or minor. Common sense is a myth. Follow that with an announcement that the list has been updated.
Follow that with a note that you can email support, Issue, or whatever format is easiest to appeal the decision. People already do this, and there is precedent for having rejections overturned through a support email.
I believe this covers more or less all of the structural things that everyone needs, and from there it's mostly a matter of deciding on appropriate rules.
EDIT: Tangentially, can we rename HELP CRITIQUING to something like HELP LIBRARYRULES? I feel like the current name is very unintuitive and people are only going to find it if they do a binge on library help files.
Any sufficiently advanced pun is indistinguishable from comedy.
As you well know, this email had nothing to do with lore or canon and was over an issue about a writing that was deemed not to be appropriate because of a sexual nature. […] Shame on you for conflating that with the discussion on lore and canon.
I see Estarra's point but I think telling a player to be ashamed crosses a line. The player has since come forward explaining personal and political reasons why women, which includes me, often get blamed for trying to be open about sexuality and sexual trauma. Obviously Estarra did not say that and was referring to conflating a private incident with a lore discussion, but we can never know what someone has struggled with and should be mindful of that when talking to them.
There need to be more spaces in society for talking openly about sexual experiences and trauma. Still, I do not think Lusternia is fully the forum for that and I support the staff/volunteers' right to place limits on sexual content. 1) Lusternia is for players of all ages (https://www.lusternia.com/in-game-help-files/?what=underage-players), so there's a consent issue to consider, and 2) yes, there are people who can do it thoughtfully, but letting anyone talk about sexual violence in library works would likely get exploited in problematic ways that are hard to regulate. Best not to leave the door open for that kind of abuse.
Not trying to derail further but I feel as though you are missing the point. Estarra literally said "Shame on you." and removing parts of someone's post or whole posts as you have done on this thread and others is a method of silencing someone. You complained about lack of context, I gave it. Someone else gave it too and you silenced them! You complain that I am using something out of context, other players showed you how it isn't, you still make subtle attempts at gaslighting me into thinking I am complaining about something that isn't something others are also complaining about because the subject of my book makes you squick where as others are easily handled by your precious sensibilities. Fine, ban players from writing about rape if it is too much for you to handle. Make it a damn rule and be done with it.
The whole point of this thread is MAKE A DAMN RULE and stick to it. And I volunteered my book and my situation as something to go off of because most people are too scared to upset Estarra and don't even know how to start a conversation that is upsetting. I'm not afraid. I don't care if your feelings get hurt, that is why people hate me. I will say what is what and give no damns. You are in the wrong. Do the right damn thing.
Not trying to derail further but I feel as though you are missing the point. Estarra literally said "Shame on you." and removing parts of someone's post or whole posts as you have done on this thread and others is a method of silencing someone. You complained about lack of context, I gave it. Someone else gave it too and you silenced them! You complain that I am using something out of context, other players showed you how it isn't, you still make subtle attempts at gaslighting me into thinking I am complaining about something that isn't something others are also complaining about because the subject of my book makes you squick where as others are easily handled by your precious sensibilities. Fine, ban players from writing about rape if it is too much for you to handle. Make it a damn rule and be done with it.
The whole point of this thread is MAKE A DAMN RULE and stick to it. And I volunteered my book and my situation as something to go off of because most people are too scared to upset Estarra and don't even know how to start a conversation that is upsetting. I'm not afraid. I don't care if your feelings get hurt, that is why people hate me. I will say what is what and give no damns. You are in the wrong. Do the right damn thing.
I apologize, I explained in the post just above yours. I'm sorry, I missed that.
I only removed statements that were false and inaccurate after asking you to stop posting them. I actually left the initial ones there. You don't get to make false and accusatory statements with impunity. You don't get to pretend you're speaking the truth and saying 'what is what' while insulting and accusing wrongly. We stand up for ourselves and get accused of bullying, harassment and gaslighting. Unbelievable.
You did give the context, which validated that your previous statement was out of context. Maybe you didn't realize it? It wasn't in regards to lore or cannon, but instead in regards to what's appropriate to publish within Lusternia, in which the administration has the final say. I explained that we need that level of autonomy for the unexpected and will strive to be more transparent about it in the future. Is that not enough for you?
What is the right damn thing? You mean stick with the rule we've already made and already stuck with? Acknowledge we can be better and more transparent?
As you well know, this email had nothing to do with lore or canon and was over an issue about a writing that was deemed not to be appropriate because of a sexual nature. […] Shame on you for conflating that with the discussion on lore and canon.
I see Estarra's point but I think telling a player to be ashamed crosses a line. The player has since come forward explaining personal and political reasons why women, which includes me, often get blamed for trying to be open about sexuality and sexual trauma. Obviously Estarra did not say that and was referring to conflating a private incident with a lore discussion, but we can never know what someone has struggled with and should be mindful of that when talking to them.
There need to be more spaces in society for talking openly about sexual experiences and trauma. Still, I do not think Lusternia is fully the forum for that and I support the staff/volunteers' right to place limits on sexual content. 1) Lusternia is for players of all ages (https://www.lusternia.com/in-game-help-files/?what=underage-players), so there's a consent issue to consider, and 2) yes, there are people who can do it thoughtfully, but letting anyone talk about sexual violence in library works would likely get exploited in problematic ways that are hard to regulate. Best not to leave the door open for that kind of abuse.
I have always maintained that if that were the reason given, I'd have been fine and accepted that because it is valid. However the reason I was given and then the way they dealt with the error was not something I will -ever- forgive. They have treated me disgustingly. And the way I am being discussed on public Lusternian forums outside of the official forums is also disgusting. But people's hatred will always win over common decency.
And I won't be stepping back. I did for too long. We lost a really great player over this. I have had my character and my person slandered and attacked by players that don't know me all damn day, and to top it off no one seems to even realise that all I was saying is I have actual evidence as to the admin saying "we can do what we want sucked in" to your library submissions. It was them that brought up the book claiming I was being out of context. At no point has anyone said "Sorry Ena we made a mistake actually what we meant was that we don't want anyone being able to contribute horrific versions of rape culture here and to avoid having to filter that out we are making a rule" and then making the rule. Because that isn't actually what they meant or what they were saying. But even now they could, but they won't. I'll likely never see an apology because they are never 'wrong'.
Not trying to derail further but I feel as though you are missing the point. Estarra literally said "Shame on you." and removing parts of someone's post or whole posts as you have done on this thread and others is a method of silencing someone. You complained about lack of context, I gave it. Someone else gave it too and you silenced them! You complain that I am using something out of context, other players showed you how it isn't, you still make subtle attempts at gaslighting me into thinking I am complaining about something that isn't something others are also complaining about because the subject of my book makes you squick where as others are easily handled by your precious sensibilities. Fine, ban players from writing about rape if it is too much for you to handle. Make it a damn rule and be done with it.
The whole point of this thread is MAKE A DAMN RULE and stick to it. And I volunteered my book and my situation as something to go off of because most people are too scared to upset Estarra and don't even know how to start a conversation that is upsetting. I'm not afraid. I don't care if your feelings get hurt, that is why people hate me. I will say what is what and give no damns. You are in the wrong. Do the right damn thing.
I apologize, I explained in the post just above yours. I'm sorry, I missed that.
I only removed statements that were false and inaccurate after asking you to stop posting them. I actually left the initial ones there. You don't get to make false and accusatory statements with impunity. You don't get to pretend you're speaking the truth and saying 'what is what' while insulting and accusing wrongly. We stand up for ourselves and get accused of bullying, harassment and gaslighting. Unbelievable.
You did give the context, which validated that your previous statement was out of context. Maybe you didn't realize it? It wasn't in regards to lore or cannon, but instead in regards to what's appropriate to publish within Lusternia, in which the administration has the final say. I explained that we need that level of autonomy for the unexpected and will strive to be more transparent about it in the future. Is that not enough for you?
What is the right damn thing? You mean stick with the rule we've already made and already stuck with? Acknowledge we can be better and more transparent?
You apologised for upsetting someone else because they called you out. I have never ever received anything but hassle form anyone on the admin team about this book. The context was really simple. I had a book removed and the end result as it stands is that you can removed anything you want without any reason. It matched the same problems scholarly books were facing. That was the context. I didn't care about my book, all I was trying to do was say "Hey guys this is why, they have this rule which nullifies any other rule." and none of you liked me pointing that out.
So the right thing to do would be to listen to what the players are asking from you to help build a better library system, as for me. Ask your wife how she would feel if she were me and get back to me.
Edit: or your mother, sister, daughter, hell any man that has a story to tell that was hard to live through, write, share publicly.
Comments
I think part of the issue is that books with similar content as existing cannon lore get rejected as well. So it's hard to see where the line is sometimes.
I think what people are asking for are some standards...and I for one don't see why it would be hard to have some basic guidelines and for admin to be held accountable when critiquing books to those guidelines/standards.
This is a super important point. It's critical to have a dedicated place for players to go in order to read about lore that is reliably canon. I just have the strong opinion that the org libraries are far from the right place to do that.
The whole point of having orgs is to have conflict, and that doesn't happen without a diversity of policies and ideologies. When every individual org library is expected to share the same non-conflicting canon, it suppresses player creativity and limits rp opportunities to motivate disagreements and political change within your org and between orgs. At the end of the day, this takes away from the game rather than adding, and reduces participation.
I think @Enya's idea of having a select library meant only for excellent scholarly examples of strict canon, while removing that condition for org libraries, adds to the game and increases opportunities for debate, interaction, and publication.
You can't know for sure how many people – I know I'm among them – have opted not to write something for scholarly because it doesn't seem like I'm doing anything new or game-changing when it's stick with the master narrative or lose all basis for your views.
However, the rule requiring scholarly works to follow canon or else be pure speculation leads to an unhelpful exercise of that right. I feel like unless you give players high or full transparency about the canon, you can't punish people for guessing wrong, or discourage player input on the basis of players not having full information.
Trouble is, it's not possible to make public the great majority of Lusty's canon without creating a huge spoiler that ruins engagement. Openly sharing info that currently has pieces tucked away here and there in quests, dreams, rare events, and coveted curios etc would turn what is meant to be a role-playing game into an already-written book that doesn't need players with ideas of their own.
There's a good reason for leaving players guessing about lore and canon – it creates subjective space for player input, creativity, and interaction. Please don't exclude scholarly sections of org libraries from that space.
If you're saying we should get rid of the right for staff/volunteers to pull public works at their own discretion, I'm not sure I agree. Due to rules and lore changing over time and cheating/plagiarism, I don't think pulling works would end. More likely, volunteers would need approval from higher-ups, creating a new layer of bureaucracy that would make the rest of the game slower, and which might make staff/volunteers more selective about what they accept for publication so they don't have extra work later.
theatre due to the snowy weather.
hungering malice.
What you're typing makes absolutely no sense. How can a rule which literally covers any situation ever be out of context? You want constructive feedback? The rule is serving no purpose other than to perpetuate the perception of bias. It needs to go. Replace it with a rule saying that new rules may be added in response to unexpected situations (such as sexual impropriety in the material, if that is indeed what took place) and that such new rules will be made public.
ETA: That this comment earned me my First Comment Badge is a damning indictment of where we are right now.
1) As noted, the comment was taken out of context of a larger conversation, excluding other parts of the same conversation that also address the situation. When you cherry pick and only present certain parts of the conversation while not including the rest of it, you can make something that's said in earnest look and mean totally different things. I can't tell you how many times I've made a comment in regards to a specific situation only to have that same comment thrown back in my face in entirely different circumstances in which I never would say that. It is unfair to say that that one comment applies to every situation without knowing the full context in which it was said.
2) For some reason, it keeps being said that there are no guidelines or standards. HELP CRITIQUING is the standard and is the guidelines we use. They could be improved and are not perfect, but they are still standards and guidelines. Any statement to the contrary is fundamentally false. There is a difference between not agreeing with the standards/guidelines and there being no standards/guidelines. Please do strive to keep that in mind.
3) As you and others have noted, we need to reserve the right to reject things in case something unexpected comes up. I agree, we should post this and make this information public when it does happen. In all honesty, it probably was an oversight, which as you may have noticed, happens quite a bit in regards to helpfiles etc. We're human, and thus not perfect. Estarra has already mentioned that she's willing to work on and improve them. Portius mentioned that this was previously talked about and it fell through and nothing happened. Again, we're not perfect, there is a lot on our plates and we're doing what we can.
4) There is never a single person that is deciding what gets rejected. There is a team of admin that look over everything and discuss it and that team is what ultimately decides if it needs to be rejected. They don't want to reject stuff, they want to pass it through. They're doing the best they can to maintain the standards that are set in place. Again, they are not perfect and sometimes things are missed. The other thing that seems to be not mentioned here is that if a book is rejected for whatever reason, it can be editted and re-submitted to fix the issues.
I understand that some people are incredibly passionate about the library system and what it entails and that in general, people want it to be something that everyone can easily use and enjoy. We do need to take a certain level of autonomy when it comes to the system though, and the general feeling I get from this thread is that it is understood. We can definitely work towards being more transparent in that regard.
As far as being silent - we asked you not to post inaccurate, inflammatory statements (such as we're trying to tell you to be ashamed and be silent), but that's it.
It's difficult to have discussions when these kinds of accusations are continually thrown around despite not being true.
Thank you for further sharing the context in regards to the stated rule. As has been noted, we do need to keep a degree of autonomy for unexpected situations and will strive to be more transparent and fair about them in the future.
I see Estarra's point but I think telling a player to be ashamed crosses a line. The player has since come forward explaining personal and political reasons why women, which includes me, often get blamed for trying to be open about sexuality and sexual trauma. Obviously Estarra did not say that and was referring to conflating a private incident with a lore discussion, but we can never know what someone has struggled with and should be mindful of that when talking to them.
There need to be more spaces in society for talking openly about sexual experiences and trauma. Still, I do not think Lusternia is fully the forum for that and I support the staff/volunteers' right to place limits on sexual content. 1) Lusternia is for players of all ages (https://www.lusternia.com/in-game-help-files/?what=underage-players), so there's a consent issue to consider, and 2) yes, there are people who can do it thoughtfully, but letting anyone talk about sexual violence in library works would likely get exploited in problematic ways that are hard to regulate. Best not to leave the door open for that kind of abuse.
You are correct, it appears I put my foot in my mouth here.
I'm sorry for doing so.
I was thinking that it was said during the numerous emails and messages that have gone back and forth, and we never said anything of the sort there.
The whole point of this thread is MAKE A DAMN RULE and stick to it. And I volunteered my book and my situation as something to go off of because most people are too scared to upset Estarra and don't even know how to start a conversation that is upsetting. I'm not afraid. I don't care if your feelings get hurt, that is why people hate me. I will say what is what and give no damns. You are in the wrong. Do the right damn thing.
I only removed statements that were false and inaccurate after asking you to stop posting them. I actually left the initial ones there. You don't get to make false and accusatory statements with impunity. You don't get to pretend you're speaking the truth and saying 'what is what' while insulting and accusing wrongly. We stand up for ourselves and get accused of bullying, harassment and gaslighting. Unbelievable.
You did give the context, which validated that your previous statement was out of context. Maybe you didn't realize it? It wasn't in regards to lore or cannon, but instead in regards to what's appropriate to publish within Lusternia, in which the administration has the final say. I explained that we need that level of autonomy for the unexpected and will strive to be more transparent about it in the future. Is that not enough for you?
What is the right damn thing? You mean stick with the rule we've already made and already stuck with? Acknowledge we can be better and more transparent?
And I won't be stepping back. I did for too long. We lost a really great player over this. I have had my character and my person slandered and attacked by players that don't know me all damn day, and to top it off no one seems to even realise that all I was saying is I have actual evidence as to the admin saying "we can do what we want sucked in" to your library submissions. It was them that brought up the book claiming I was being out of context. At no point has anyone said "Sorry Ena we made a mistake actually what we meant was that we don't want anyone being able to contribute horrific versions of rape culture here and to avoid having to filter that out we are making a rule" and then making the rule. Because that isn't actually what they meant or what they were saying. But even now they could, but they won't. I'll likely never see an apology because they are never 'wrong'.
So the right thing to do would be to listen to what the players are asking from you to help build a better library system, as for me. Ask your wife how she would feel if she were me and get back to me.
Edit: or your mother, sister, daughter, hell any man that has a story to tell that was hard to live through, write, share publicly.