liviapenn - The warning debate, 2007 edition And I think that it's a a mistake to treat every story as *guaranteed safe* unless you are explicitly told otherwise-- not for any reason that has to do with the writer, but because it's *not an effective way for the reader to protect themselves,* for a lot of different reasons. If readers are really, sincerely afraid that they will be psychologically scarred by reading a story with their trigger in it, they should be treating every story as *possibly not safe* unless they know otherwise. Now, there are all kinds of things you can do in order to find out if a story is safe-- ask someone who's read it whether it's going to push your buttons. Read the end of the story first, or read the comments first. Wait for a rec from someone you trust. Only cold-read stories from authors who always use warnings, or stories posted to communities or archives that require warnings. Is this fair? Is it fun? Is it easy? Is it your fault that you have this sensitivity? No, it is not. But you do have it, and so you have to protect yourself, and if you *really* are all about protecting yourself, this is what you have to do. You can't depend on other people to do it for you.

ratcreature - so this is kind of a rant... It's just that I've by now seen this from several people, who get somehow ruffled about links in fandom and wanting to control them, and I don't get that at all. I think extending this proprietary feeling to mere links rather than to actual copies and distribution of stories and the like is a bad idea for fandom as a whole, and feel the need to argue whenever this comes up. Because if it became accepted etiquette standard in fandom (to have to ask for linking rights or be thought of as rude) it would make a lot of useful things like recs and thematic lists far more difficult, whereas is wouldn't really improve the control of authors in any real way, after all it's not like other people were in control of the story by linking to it, and trying to limit or choose the audience by controlling links rather than controlling actual access is just strange, IMO. Linking and archiving is just not the same.

celandineb - Fanfic and ownership rights Usually when people think about the issue of ownership as related to fanfic, they're thinking of the original author/writers and whether fanfic is permissible use of copyrighted material. That's not what I have in mind today. Once a story is posted in a publicly accessible venue, whose is it? What about a story written as a gift? Or a story that was once in a public archive, say, but has since been removed? Are there different levels of "ownership" rights?

regan_v - An Editorial Kink: The 14,275th post you've seen about the writer/beta relationship I have so many similes for beta'ing at this point: being the midwife to a story that the writer is giving birth to; being a dance partner, and you're the one who follows the other's lead; or (if it reaches the level of a kink) sex.// The comparison with dancing is the most appropo: in most cases, it doesn't get any more intimate than simple ballroom dancing. And if you're the beta, you have to follow the other person's lead. I tend to "feel out" how much input the writer wants, and adjust to suit her pace and needs. I have always possessed a strong sense of appropriate personal boundaries, and that comes in very useful in beta'ing.

catwalksalone - nipples, nipples everywhere, nor any milk to drink (ewww!) As far as I can see, pretty much every character, without exception is blessed with extremely sensitive nipples that are hard-wired directly to the groin and judicious application of teeth and tongue on the aforementioned nipples can bring someone to the point of orgasm, and probably over. There is a lot of the word 'nrrgh' at this point, I seem to recall.