Log in

No account? Create an account
Stargate Atlantis Gen Ficathon
Annual genfic festival
2012: Humor, Week 1: Stayin' Alive 
6th-Jun-2012 08:34 am
Genficathon Team Sunshine
Category: Humor
Title: Stayin' Alive
Prompt(s): [Freestyle]
Additional Content Notes: Seventies, mustaches, Humor, Action/Adventure, Team, Porn
Rating: Explicit. This gen fanwork includes explicit sexual content.
Wordcount: 13719
Summary: Trapped in 1972, John gets an offer he can't refuse, and the pornstache he's always wanted. But what happens when the whole team goes back to the Seventies to rescue him?

Story and art: Stayin' Alive

ETA 07 June 2012 2247 US EDT: Anonymous comments are now screened, because the discussion here has been linked at external locations.

Note: Comment notifications to sga_genadmin from this post are currently turned ON.
7th-Jun-2012 10:12 pm (UTC)
Hiiiii. michelel72 here; I'm the one who took on modding this fest, the one who didn't reject this fic, and the one who specifically added the "explicit content" advisory to the notices.

I understand that the allowance of this fic is controversial. If I mod again next year, based on what I've heard here and elsewhere about the likely expectations of folks who specifically seek out gen fics or follow a genficathon, I will modify the rules so that they clearly state that explicit sexual activity and sexual advances are not permitted.

But those were not outright stated in the existing rules, so I did not think it was suitable for me to reject this work (or a second one that does contain sexual advances) based on those grounds. As an explanation (not an excuse), I'm still learning what I "can" and "should" do as a mod. In addition, as is probably clear by the differing opinions in this post, different people have different opinions on what "gen" means. We can all provide explanations, rationalizations, and citations of other opinions, but there is (and, I think, always has been) blurriness to the boundaries of this concept.

In my judgment, this fic did conform to the strict letter of the rules. Rather than rejecting the fic, then, I chose to retain the fic but to label the content clearly so that no one who is uncomfortable with explicit sexual content would encounter it inadvertently.

No one, obviously, has to read the fic if they don't want to read sex. I know it's disappointing to skip a day, but it's not the case that this fic supplanted a no-sex fic; there are a total of 12 fics this year, of which two may not actually be turned in at all and one was a pinch-hit.

Discussion is obviously valuable, and I'm certain that if this fest continues, whoever next mods it (whether that's me or someone else) will clarify the rules so that this particular situation won't occur again. But I'll ask that folks keep in mind that no offense was ever intended by anyone (certainly not by me, and I have confidence not by the author) and that they can simply ignore this fic — or any other — if the overly permissive moderation this year means that content of debatable compliance is included.

PS: I am taking on faith that no one is reacting on the basis of the fic including specifically gay sex. Any arguments that same-sex content should be held to different rules in a gen setting will have no traction whatsoever with me.
7th-Jun-2012 10:33 pm (UTC)
Thank you for writing this. FWIW, I think you made a good mod call here.

I have a question about anonymous commenting: will that continue to be allowed on posts here, unscreened? I understand that it is meant as a courtesy for people who do not have an LJ (facebook, Twitter, OpenID, Google, etc.) account, and that unscreening puts a burden on the mod, but....
7th-Jun-2012 10:58 pm (UTC)
Thank you. As you may have guessed, your suggestion above (It seems that [...] the happy medium is to use proper ratings, content notes, and warnings and allow individual readers to choose whether this fic is one which they wish to read) is the approach I tend to take and that I had hoped would suffice here.

As for the commenting ... by "here", do you mean this specific post or this comm? I take issue with elements of at least one of the anon comments in this post, but I'm not sure that I'd necessarily choose to suppress them — rather than letting folks see and respond to them — if I were responsible for unscreening them. (What criteria would I use?) For now, the discussion appears to be reasonably well controlled, so I'm reluctant to act as gatekeeper in the absence of, say, personal attacks. If you disagree, though, I'm open to the possibility of changing my mind on that.
8th-Jun-2012 01:31 am (UTC)
I disagree. If someone want's to comment they should do it under their own name, not hide behind an anon name. It's not fair to the rest of us that comment under our name.
8th-Jun-2012 02:55 am (UTC)
I have concerns about folks who don't have accounts here, or might have other to-me-legitimate reasons to be anon (such as the author wanting to participate) ... but busaikko has pointed out that this discussion has been linked externally. I've switched this post to anon-screening; I can't promise I won't unscreen anon comments, but I will at least now be a gatekeeper to try to ensure that trolling and attacks aren't displayed. Thanks.
8th-Jun-2012 04:53 am (UTC)
8th-Jun-2012 02:25 am (UTC)
By "here" I meant on this comm. I think that it was very fortunate that the discussion here remained civil; not a reflection on any of the comm members or readers, who have conducted a very lovely reasonable debate even while holding strong and occasionally opposing opinions about the fundamentals of the genre, but because this page was linked to on at least two anon memes that I know of, and the potential for attracting trolling comments was fairly high. The other reason I suggested screening comments is because the author has not been revealed -- for myself personally, I'd find it hard to take negative comments from a named commenter to which I could not respond, but an anonymous negative comment seems more like an attack than an attempt to engage in discussion (but YMMV).
8th-Jun-2012 02:53 am (UTC)
Actually, now that you point out this has been linked elsewhere, I think you're right that the potential for trolling or attacks on the author are more of a risk. In the interest of watching out for that, then, I've switched at least this post to anon-screening. Thank you for clarifying!
8th-Jun-2012 02:19 am (UTC)
Thank you for taking this on this year. You just never know when something will spark a difference of opinions. ;) Great response!
8th-Jun-2012 02:56 am (UTC)
Thank you. It's certainly been an education!
8th-Jun-2012 03:25 pm (UTC)
Thank you for explaining, and I'm sorry if I offended anyone with my strong views about gen.

I also want to state that my responses to this would have been the same for het sex content. I deplore the anon comment about 'gay sex', but I didn't want to respond as I suspect that's what the person wanted - and I hate giving those sort of people what they want.

Edited at 2012-06-08 03:30 pm (UTC)
This page was loaded Aug 17th 2019, 6:22 pm GMT.