Previous Entry Share Next Entry
It's gonna be a hot, hot summer
Eicca
heavensqueen wrote in yuletide_coal
Yuletide is firing up the ovens already. Discuss the discussion about the changes of rules here


Flat: http://yuletide-coal.livejournal.com/5786.html?view=flat

  • 1

Defining the problem(s) w/ YT rules

(Anonymous)
In every job I've done, I've been taught to define the problem and the steps to achieving the solution before trying to change things. In other words, be proactive rather than reactive.
Everyone on the main comm is arguing all the different points at once, to sort it out for myself, I sat down and wrote it out as I saw it and tried to put the questions/problem in (an) order that might make it more systematic.

[Steps to defining the problem]Step one: Yuletide by definition of its faq is: an annual fic exchange for rare and obscure fandoms. So defining what is rare and obscure is the first step.
While there may be some disagreement on the numbers/archived used, most people feel that as long as the numbers are applied equally across the board, everyone will accept it, for the most part. But maybe there should be one post to discuss the numbers/archives/general.

Step two:
Once everyone more or less (possibly grudgingly) agrees on the definition of above, we run into the franchise problem. (I'm going to use Star Trek, Marvel/DC, and Sherlock as examples because they seem to be the ones thrown around most. Also, since I can't think of a good all encompassing term for re-imaginings, spinoffs, remakes etc I'm just going to call it sub-canons).

Problem A
The question is whether over-arching fandoms should be thrown out wholesale or individual sub-canons be allowed as long as they are under the cut-off
There are some people who are in favor of getting rid of everything, but I think the majority would prefer to keep the sub-canons in. But maybe coming to a consensus on that first would be good. Because, if I'm wrong, and most people agree to get rid of the big franchises, then the rest is really unnecessary.

Problem B
After that comes the argument of what is sub-canon versus not. Which is where the Character Limit idea first came in. Most Star Trek movies/shows/books would fall under main canon. But then there's books like the Rihannsu which aren't. To keep people from using it to sneak not-rare Spock or Kirk (who, pretty much are the same character across fandom), the Character Limit rule was created.

Problem C
But this was a problem for fandoms like Sherlock and comics where the movie canon(s) are different from the book are different (sometimes) from the tv versions. To partially fix this, the 100 year rule was added. Which fixed things for Sherlock type fandoms but led to:

Problem D
Comics fans (rightly or wrongly) feeling like there were being slighted and ignored. I don't read comics myself so I can't say how different the MCU version of Iron Man is from say, 616, but I have recently started watching the cartoons, and he's very different from the one in Iron Man: Armored Adventures.
And just the difference between the Batmans off Adam West, Michael Keaton and Christian Bale is significant.
So, in order to fix Problem D, we'd have to make special rules for defining sub-canons for comics and related franchises, which leads to:

Problem E and F
E is that if special rules for comics are made, it just adds more work and more "extra" rules. And more strife between comics and non-comics fan.

F creating those special rules in a way that is agreeable and solves the rare/not rare character problem

And getting even a majority of the 2000 plus Yuletiders to agree on anything is about as easy as herding cats.


Re: Defining the problem(s) w/ YT rules

(Anonymous)
SA

My personal opinion, (which has flaws as well but no matter what solution is achieved will have flaws)

Step 1: Make the eligibility 2:1 for ffnet:AO3 (either 250/500, or 500/1000*), if it's over or under make a combined cut off (375/750) and make it hard and fast, so even 1 over is out.
*I know some people think it's too high but I think if we go with the higher number, it is answer to the badfic/fusion/crossover debate that comes up with borderline fandoms.

Step 2: People can nominate whatever they want, however they want and trust people in the post-nomination cleanup to point out sketchy things or the best way to combine/separate sub-fandoms for best signup possibilities

Step 3: Get rid of all character rules. Risk the handful of people who might try to sneak in MCU Loki or ST:TOS Spock in exchange for the ease and lack of confusion and antagonism. The rules haven't (and won't ever) stop people from asking for crossovers with megafandoms or characters who haven't been nominated.

Re: Defining the problem(s) w/ YT rules

(Anonymous)
I like your steps, especially the first three. I personally vote for keeping sub-canons in, but there's not much that can be done without an agreement on that.

Re: Defining the problem(s) w/ YT rules

(Anonymous)
I really like the way you've broken this down. No hope of the mods being this logical and concise, unfortunately.

I'm leaning more and more towards just doing away with the character rule altogether, myself. It really is the source of so much strife and confusion. All you should have to do to nominate a fandom is show it has under [this] many fics, that's it. Yes, there will be a small handful of people requesting Cumberlock or Tenth Doctor or various MCU peeps, but we can all just roll our eyes, bitch about them here, and hope their writer gives them a steaming pile of coal. Meanwhile, the exchange itself would run SO MUCH MORE SMOOTHLY.

Plus the comics fans would be happy, and honestly this go around, that's what I'm hoping for. They keep getting shafted and now I'm totally rooting for them.

Re: Defining the problem(s) w/ YT rules

(Anonymous)
DA

I am in complete agreement with all of this.

Re: Defining the problem(s) w/ YT rules

(Anonymous)
+ 1000

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account