InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "Say no to Syph!"

randomsome1 (randomsome1) wrote,
@ 2008-01-13 13:20:00

Entry tags:

rant

Looks like Gj is going into its final throes. I was gonna try to private-lock everything there but I can't get past the database errors.

I'm wondering if I should get an AFF.net account for the smuts, or if I should just drag them to here. Again. I'm getting a little tired of moving them too.

I was reading the giant post on fanficrants-Lj about reasons to not join the Organization for Transformative ~~Wank~~ Works and realized that the ranter missed something:

OTW says that they envision a future where all fanfic is "legal." Lots of people get stuck on the "legal" bit--what do they mean, legal? That fanficcers can sell it? I'm gonna go for the "all fanfic" bit. I saw an author on the Dear Author site who found her entire book copied and pasted into someone's fanfic, with only the names changed. She said that as it was she had hell getting the admin to take it down, and that the plagiarist's fans gave her all kinds of hell for shutting down the c&p machine. Would this author have no recourse? The thing the plagiarist turned out was fanfic and would be "legal" by OTW's standards.

And what about the fanficcers who get hit by plagiarists? Does OTW think that's all right because it's fanfic of fanfic? Or that the work's okay because it's a "transformative" variation of the original? Hey, the plagiarists switched some spelling and sentence structure. Sometimes. Sort of. That means it's CHAAAANGED. And with plagiarist and plagiarist-defending Heidi Tandy as part of their legal team, these worries become very very valid.

Though I probably won't have to worry, anyway. It's not like the community's done anything besides stand around and posture (and talk about having people pay dues to be full members of their LIVEJOURNAL COMMUNITY). They want to have a wiki! but haven't started their own or tried to work with the thousands of pages of existing wiki. They want to have a super duper uberspecial fanfic archive! but haven't started their own, haven't taken into account the tons of archives that they'd be competing against, and haven't tried to work in with the most logical solution to scattered fanworks, fanworksfinder.com. They want to defend fanficcers! . . . but if it comes to legal mess, probably won't.

Bah.

I have a page of Cassie Edwards rant, four total pages of PWP, a mixing bowl full of unsealed dreads, about eighteen hair sticks in process, two hundred words of silly-fic, a revamped and retweaked other silly-fic, a WIP for a(n original) flash fiction contest, and most of a second chapter for the crit group. And I am still hideously behind in everything, and must be back at work in nineteen hours. Can't wait for vacation.

(Post a new comment)

wingedrivers
2008-01-14 07:30 am UTC (link)

*headdeskery is had* I think fanfiction is fine the way it stands. Where we can write it but can't sell it. It doesn't make sense to me the legal obligations if we're allowed to sell it without the author's permission. Though craft stuff seems to be the same boat and now I'm just gonna go in circles bleeeeeeeeh.

Huzzah for Gj. I wonder if any of my friends made it over. Rawr, I hope this place can hold us up. Now it's the Lj/Gj refugees, no?

And can't wait to read whatever you pimp out and check out your new pretties!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	randomsome1 2008-01-14 07:38 am UTC (link)
	squeaky has already bumped up the server to the point that (I think?) he said it'll last us a few more years. But with as motivated as he is I doubt we'll run into the same kind of mess that's taking Gj down. I still don't know what I think about artsy stuff vs. fanworks but my crafty stuff doesn't fall under that sort of confusion so all is well. :P (Reply to this) (Parent)

here from metafandom's del.icio.us

empink
2008-01-14 09:01 am UTC (link)

Not official representative of OTW, etc etc, blah blah, but I just wanted to remark on this point:
(and talk about having members pay dues to join their LIVEJOURNAL COMMUNITY)

Man, no. No one I know has paid any dues to join their LJ comm, EVER. Anyone paying anything currently is most likely doing so of their free will, afaik. Do you mean the dues they will collect (in the future) from members who want to vote in elections?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us randomsome1 2008-01-14 09:14 am UTC (link)
	They were talking about instating membership dues to make people full (and voting, thus counting) members of what remains a livejournal-based group. If they don't want it to look like this then they need to get on the ball and away from Lj. But that would require them to get on the ball. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us

empink
2008-01-14 09:48 am UTC (link)

So far, the only official stance I've seen on membership dues for the org is right here in their FAQ, where they talk about elections and who can vote in new board members and whatnot. I *highly* doubt that anyone saying otherwise (i.e. you must pay to participate 'fully' in our LJ comm) is speaking officially for OTW. Nowhere in that FAQ does it say that they expect people to pay dues yet; they've even put it out that donations to them aren't tax-deductible until they finish sorting out their status as a nonprofit in the US, so that people who donate know very well that they won't be getting any tax benefits from doing so.

Apart from all that, they're probably not going to hold elections until they have the archive or one of their other two projects in place, so that people who then become members have something concrete to use to judge the performance of their currently appointed officials. I certainly wouldn't bother paying to be a member until I'd tried out the archive and watched OTW's progress for a while, and from all I've been reading about them so far, it doesn't seem like anyone expects me to be a member unless I want to be involved.

Lastly, as far as getting 'on the ball', I'm not sure how much more on the ball they could get right now if they are really trying to work towards building something long-lasting. Nonprofit status alone takes a while to get in the US (about a year, I think?), and building and testing stable archive software from scratch is something they're already doing that will also take some time to produce results. Big projects like this take a while to get off the ground, especially when you're working solely with volunteer labor that have real lives and obligations, AND trying to do things by consensus and with feedback from a larger community.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us

randomsome1
2008-01-14 10:38 am UTC (link)

See: general ignoring of feedback, general attitude that dissenters are interrogating OTW's text from the wrong perspective. See: your use of the word "yet." See: continued overall lack of momentum.

When the Fanlib wank went down, Fanlib moved and moved fast to try to fix the problems people pointed out. They made a massive mucky mess of things but they fixed their wording and attempted to make amends with the cranky fen who stayed around long enough to provide discussion. OTW is still clinging to its wording (that many have seen as exclusionary, problematic, clunky, and inaccessible) while repeatedly insulting the people it claims to want to protect. This says something.

I understand that everyone's intentions are good, but the setup and execution have raised a few eyebrows and have turned more than a few people off--myself included. I don't feel any pressing need to have my fanworks be officially labeled "legal" (they're not illegal now, and things won't change unless someone or some group forces the issue) and I would rather scalp myself with my own bare hands than have

heidi8 be my intellectual property lawyer. And unless something changes radically with OTW, my opinion isn't going to budge.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us

empink
2008-01-15 07:31 am UTC (link)

Hey, your unhappiness with OTW's execution of their goals and with the people involved isn't my problem. That is all your opinion about OTW, and you're welcome to it; I'm not trying to shift it at all. I just wanted to make sure anyone reading your post didn't assume something out and out wrong about OTW-- that they were making people pay to become members of their LJ comm, which just isn't true.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us

randomsome1
2008-01-15 10:03 am UTC (link)

Read the sentence a little more closely next time, mmk? Pertinent words in bold:

talk about

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us

empink
2008-01-15 12:20 pm UTC (link)

*shrugs* I actually haven't seen anyone officially talk about having members pay dues to join the LJ comm either. Back when the idea of the archive and whatnot was being knocked about and refined? Maybe; I certainly didn't wade through every thread in

astolat's journal when that discussion happened. But now, when they've set things up? They've made things pretty clear as far as who has to pay for what, and that's the point I wanted to make.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us randomsome1 2008-01-15 12:50 pm UTC (link)
	Here you go: Membership donations to join the group that's based @ Lj; $10 minimum in order to have voting rights. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us

empink
2008-01-15 01:18 pm UTC (link)

Er, both of those links just prove my point, actually. Nowhere on the first page linked does it say that donation is necessary to join or participate in the comm, and

shrift's comment only reinforces what I said earlier. I get the impression that you think that elections will be held soon, even before OTW has gotten anything more significant off the ground, thus needing people to donate in order to vote.

Look, we seem to be looking at the exact same thing and coming away with different conclusions here; what those two links say to me is that I'll probably be donating $10 to the OTW when the elections come up. Which, from what I've read here, isn't likely to be until at least in late summer of this year, if the OTW can be considered to have started last year at about that time. I don't see what's wrong with that; by that time, if the archive hasn't surfaced or looks like crap, I can very easily not join or whatever. And it still wouldn't prevent me from participating in the LJ comm they've set up. If you're taking issue with the fact that they're requiring donations from people who wish to have a say in who they elect to their board later on, that's a different issue entirely, and implies you have a problem with them taking donations at all or something like that. Which I think is a little weird, because with the nonprofit model they are building off of, donations are what will keep the org going on, and are what will get them started in the first place.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us randomsome1 2008-01-15 06:58 pm UTC (link)
	See: To become a full voting counting member of. I'm getting a little tired of having to repeat myself. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us

cofax7
2008-01-15 10:43 pm UTC (link)

Not a member of OTW at the moment, but I've been paying attention.

The only advantage anyone gets from joining OTW as a paying member will be the right to participate in elections for the board. Full stop.

There will be no limits on participation in the discussion on the LJ, posting to the archive, reading the archive, using or editing the wiki, participating in the journal, or anything else of that nature associated with membership status.

The $10 membership has to do with supporting the organization financially, the same way you might support your local public radio station. If you choose not to send $ to your public radio station, you still get to listen to it.

I hope that clarifies the situation. This is what Naomi and the board have said, and given that OTW is supposed to serve fandom, it's the only fair thing to do.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us empink 2008-01-16 02:31 am UTC (link)
	Thanks for saying this-- this is exactly what I was trying to point out. There's just a very big gap in the statement that "you have to pay to be a member" when the fact that voting is pretty much the only privilege a paying member gets is left out. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us randomsome1 2008-01-16 09:48 am UTC (link)
	So you were trying to point out what I've been saying. Okay, fuck it. Seriously, is your reading comprehension this awful? How is there a very big gap between "you have to pay to be a member" and "to be a member, you have to pay"? Jesus Christ. Stop trying to be an emissary for OTW--you're just making them look worse. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

um, wow

empink
2008-01-16 11:18 am UTC (link)

This is what you said: and talk about having members pay dues to join their LIVEJOURNAL COMMUNITY.

Out of context, what that looks like to me is literally that you are saying that OTW is talking about having members pay dues to join their, as you said, Livejournal community. In context, anyone can join their Livejournal community without paying anything, and I'm sure you know that just as well as I do. Anyone can use their planned projects without paying. I feel that you're making the fact that they will request dues from people who want to vote in their elections out to be a whole lot more than it is. That is all I was trying to say.

Lastly, none of what I've said so far warrants insulting my reading comprehension or whatnot. Chill the fuck out.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: um, wow randomsome1 2008-01-16 11:23 am UTC (link)
	I've got a better one: GTFO. You're either an idiot or intentionally misreading what I've tried to elaborate on in the comments here, and I don't have the time or patience for you. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us

randomsome1
2008-01-16 09:20 am UTC (link)

Please tell me where this is different from what I've already said, which is: To be a full counting voting member of OTW (which is currently based at Livejournal) one must pay membership dues.

You sure you're not one of them? You used about a hundred fifty words where twenty would do to restate something I've been saying through this entire damned thread.

Once again: I'm getting a little tired of repeating myself.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us jacquez.livejournal.com 2008-01-23 08:46 am UTC (link)
	Where on earth are you getting the idea that OTW is based at livejournal? The OTW's mailing address is in Silver Spring, MD. The OTW has a news outlet at Livejournal, but that is neither the only news outlet they have, nor their base of operations. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us

randomsome1
2008-01-23 09:50 am UTC (link)

You're kidding, right?

The group does its communication with members via Livejournal. Their newsletter/postings may go out to other Lj clones, but commenting is only allowed at Livejournal. The mailing address is meaningless as no communication goes out from it--unless there's a paper mailing list no one knows about. The traffic of their barely-updated and blogless website (as shown here and here) does in no way reflect the numbers they'd be getting if their 1k+ Lj userbase also frequented their website.

Unless you're saying that because they've said they have a mailing list at a physical location (which isn't the same address listed for fandomwiki.net or transformativeworks.org) that the majority of their business goes on there instead of online. If that's the case, there's no point in wasting my time with you either.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us

the_shoshanna
2008-01-23 09:28 pm UTC (link)

Yes, the OTW communicates (not just to its members; to anyone who is interested) primarily though LiveJournal, though it posts updates in many other places (not just LJ clones) as well. But the OTW (which is a nonprofit organization incorporated in the U.S.) is not the same thing as the LiveJournal community http://community.livejournal.com/otw_news. An organization is not the same thing as its newsletter. "Being a member of the OTW" has nothing to do with "being a member of otw_news".

The OTW has said, repeatedly, that becoming a member of the organization, for which the fee will be US$10, will bring the right to vote in elections for board members, and that that is the only thing members will have that nonmembers will not. The LJ, the IJ, the archive, the archive software, the legal assistance, the wiki, etc., etc., all will be available for all fans to use or not, as they please.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us

randomsome1
2008-01-24 12:02 am UTC (link)

Said that a few times. Let's recap one more time:

OTW is based at Livejournal, where it does the majority of its communication with its members and followers.
OTW charges a minimum (donation) of $10 annually to be a full member.

This is what you've said. This is what I've said. This is what all the half dozen of you people keep saying, to which I keep replying "Yes, I know. To be a full member of OTW, which is based at Livejournal, one must pay at least $10 a year." And then you people come back in and try to swear that's not what you've said at all.

Do you see how I get frustrated, and how my opinion of you all keeps dropping? Between this and the post at fandom_wank you aren't doing yourselves any favors.

I'm done wasting my time with you as well.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us

empink
2008-01-15 01:24 pm UTC (link)

Also, imho, the LJ comm isn't all that there is to OTW. I view it as their preferred communication outlet for the time being, and I doubt that's all they'll end up having to their name. Or, at least, I'd like to think so. I *can* see where donating now, when they're not taxed up or whatnot and when they haven't put out anything more than calls for volunteers or statements of intent would not appeal to most people, but I feel like that's a separate issue. I doubt that any other niche, underfunded volunteer-run organization would draw lots of funding until it was seeing results.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us witchqueen.livejournal.com 2008-01-16 11:03 am UTC (link)
	heidi8 isn't going to help anyone with IP work as part of her volunteering for OTW, she's helping them to incorporate and gain non-profit status. Filing for non-profit status is expensive and complex, and they should not do it without the advice of a qualified (i.e. bar-licensed) attorney, which she is. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us randomsome1 2008-01-16 11:12 am UTC (link)
	Mmk--that might be a good thing to clear up on the who's who post. The lack of elaboration leads one to assume she's there in her capacity as an IP lawyer. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us beckyh2112.livejournal.com 2008-01-15 06:42 am UTC (link)
	OTW is building their own archiving software from scratch, hm? Are they making it open source? What programming language are they using? Who is doing the programming? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us empink 2008-01-15 07:33 am UTC (link)
	In order of questions asked, yes, yes, Ruby, and I believe it's mostly people on their technology whatsit community doing the programming, as well as volunteers they're still soliciting. And that's all official answers that can be found in their IJ comm here: otw_news. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us beckyh2112.livejournal.com 2008-01-15 11:08 pm UTC (link)
	While it can be found there, it's not easy to find there. They could improve that. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us

purplepopple
2008-01-14 07:57 pm UTC (link)

You know, in fairness to OTW, you're right that the wiki thing has been explained:
1. OTW does not want to work with others because this is about independently building something for fandom as yet another tool. Fan History has a different philosophy, looking for opportunities to network in fandom to build a bigger base. This includes working with FanWorksFinder, exploring possibilities of working with Wikia, FanWorks.Org, MediaMiner.Org and others.
2. OTW comes at fandom history from the perspective of activist feminism and literary criticism. This is a position that violates the philosophy that Fan History has which interrogates fandom from an education, ethnographic, science, sociological perspective. This has to do with participation of various people in separate projects, rather than any fault of either project.

And ultimately, those are fair reasons for OTW not to work with Fan History. I think where OTW fails is that they have not communicated those reasons in a platform where people can see it, and in such a way that people can look and say: We understand your reasoning. We might disagree. We won't use it but we understand it. They also need to sync up their website with their words elsewhere. In doing both, OTW should be able to quiet most of the criticism that OTW is recieving... which started in June 2007 and is still going on in January 2008.

On a personal level, I just would like OTW's supporters to turn down the level of personal vitrol, stop blaming anti-OTW sentiment on my friends and me, and turn down the trolling of anti-OTW/OTW-neutral folks.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us

empink
2008-01-15 07:40 am UTC (link)

*is faintly bemused* I didn't make any points about them explaining the wiki thing, but hey, free quasi-agreement :)

I think where OTW fails is that they have not communicated those reasons in a platform where people can see it, and in such a way that people can look and say:
I personally think they're at this place already, but hey. As I said above, everyone's entitled to their opinion. Imho, there is no way OTW is going to quiet most of the criticism springing up against them, and there will never be a way for them to do that. Fandom isn't the agreeing sort as a whole, and one thing they change about how they approach things is going to make some people happy on one hand and upset others on the other. And frankly, I would just like the damn archive they promised to surface first :P

If I've been offensive coming in here and trying to point out a couple things, I apologise. There's no need for everyone to get heated up about differences of opinion, imho.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us beckyh2112.livejournal.com 2008-01-15 11:04 pm UTC (link)
	Isn't some of the criticisms they've received based on clunky wording that they haven't bothered to fix? I would think that would quiet some of the criticism. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us

empink
2008-01-16 02:37 am UTC (link)

Thing is, I can see a clear tradeoff between tweaking wording and language and so on (which takes up time and effort that could be spent on doing other things) and actually building the stuff that they've promised. I personally think that quieting criticism should take less precedence than putting up the archive at this point, so I'm not too fazed by how long it's taking them to officially respond to criticism, especially since no matter what they do, not everyone's going to be happy with them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: here from metafandom's del.icio.us

purplepopple
2008-01-16 07:46 pm UTC (link)

The reasons they've been criticized and continue to be criticized are numerous. The best list of them can be found here, along with a list of what fandom sees are its positives.

Their word clunky issue, and I'm just speculating here, is because they really haven't figured out what they are about, haven't identified who their core audience is, etc. They don't seem to know if they want to be a radical liberal feminist organization, which espouses that women are better than men, or a liberal feminist group where men and women are equal. It seems to be contributing to the way that people cannot relate to them because they don't know how to react. They don't seem to know if they are from fandom, acting like fandom... or if they are above fandom, acting on fandom's behalf but being focused on external reactions to fandom.

And most of this really does boil down to a communications issues, defining terms, determining audience.

For me, I'm confused about their definition of fandom because sports fandom is a huge part of fandom. It is not what I consider traditionally female, with a long, deep, rich female history.

Schimmel, Kimberly S.; Harrington, C. Lee; Bielby, Denise D.. "Keep Your Fans to Yourself: The Disjuncture between Sport Studies' and Pop Culture Studies' Perspectives on Fandom" Sport in Society 10.4 (2007). 16 Jan. 2008 <http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/17430430701388764>

If you can gain access to that article, it is well worth reading because a lot of it can be read into how OTW views fandom, as most of their academics come out of a popular culture approach to fandom. (My own leanings would be more sports fandom like.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	holetoledo 2008-01-15 08:03 am UTC (link)
	I dunnoes, AFF.net is so much worse than FF.net sometimes, but I could understand why you'd wanna cubbyhole 'em into one place. Is MediaMiner.org any ~~worse~~ good? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	holetoledo 2008-01-15 08:09 am UTC (link)
	Off topic, but do you know anything about the movie, Cloverfield? No one knows what the monster is supposed to be, but I'm hoping that it's Cthulhu! (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	randomsome1 2008-01-15 09:57 am UTC (link)
	AFAIK, NO ONE has any idea what Cloverfield's about. I want the movie to end all movies: Quetzalcoatl and Cthulhu battle for world domination in the year 2012, but must be stopped by Vin Diesel--who's wearing a loincloth and riding in on Godzilla. I'd definitely pay to see that. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

From Cracked.com...
(Anonymous)
2008-01-15 10:30 am UTC (link)

[snip]...I think the Internet may be on the wrong track here. Everything we know suggests this monster is a horrendous object of terror. Voltron wasn’t terrifying. It was awe-filling and arousing. No, if the answer to the riddle lies with the Japanese, we have to know what it is they’re worried about. As a student of Japanese culture, I can state confidently that in their daily life the Japanese are mainly plagued by the following three things:

1) Men who molest women on commuter trains.
2) Gangs of Tokyo drifting teenagers.
3) Animated pieces of feces.

Which leads me to conclude that the monster in Cloverfield is a 40 story turd that slides around in an unnatural manner while molesting women.

So probably not a date movie...[/snip]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/2008/01/08/using-the-power-of-reason-i-have-deduced-what-the-monster-in-cloverfield-is/

-Gem-chan

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: From Cracked.com... randomsome1 2008-01-15 10:51 am UTC (link)
	O_O (Reply to this) (Parent)

	holetoledo 2008-01-15 08:29 pm UTC (link)
	Let's just hope that Godzilla's skin is akin to high quality leather so that Vin Diesel doesn't chafe? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	randomsome1 2008-01-16 09:04 am UTC (link)
	Loltasm :D (Reply to this) (Parent)

purplepopple
2008-01-15 06:24 pm UTC (link)

MediaMiner.Org, if you want to know more about them, let me know as I chat with two of their admins.

They, at times, have an audience problem with a large part of their user base being under 18. I think, for fan art, they have a number of restrictions but they mostly involve child porn. They have the same deal with fan fiction if I recall correctly. They don't allow chan. (I'd have to double check beyond that.) Most fan run archives are basically no chan for legal reasons.

AFF.Net's one big advantage seems to be that they have a large audience. I believe, the last time I checked compete, they get over 100,000 unique US based visitors a month and a great deal of traffic beyond that. I've not heard of them removing much stuff for content issues.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Here from Metafandom

esther_a
2008-01-19 04:28 am UTC (link)

"The thing the plagiarist turned out was fanfic and would be "legal" by OTW's standards. "
Fan fiction uses characters and plot elements from other sources, with credit. Something that involves passages that are copied word for word from something else and not cited are plagarism. I'm not an OTW member, but I expect that the situation you describe here would not be considered acceptable.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Here from Metafandom randomsome1 2008-01-19 05:48 am UTC (link)
	One'd hope not--but if that's the case, they might want to rethink their use of words like "all." Also noteworthy: the number of fics on ff.net that are retellings of canon storylines with just an inserted OC, or the number of fics that are other storylines with a different fandom's characters (ie, the "PotO as acted out by Naruto characters" works). (Reply to this) (Parent)

	necole-m.livejournal.com 2008-02-14 10:28 am UTC (link)
	I've had an AFF.net account since FF.net stopped hosting the smuts way back when. Which serves to remind me how long I've been in fandom. I haven't been to the site in forever, but I've had fics up for years and haven't had a problem. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	randomsome1 2008-02-14 10:35 am UTC (link)
	Awesomeness. I don't like that I don't get review alerts, but whatever. (Reply to this) (Parent)