BronxWench

21406

21400

We have members who are readers but not authors, and that incentive would mean little to them since they do not post content at all. As to the offering of a omake or chapter for a review, the authors who do not choose to do this may see this as pressure for them to do the same. For those authors whose schedules do not permit additional content or faster updates, I would be hard put to offer reassurance that their ability to garner reviews won't be negatively impacted. With over 150,000 registered users in the archive, our decisions are based on the input we get from a majority of those members. I may understand your goal, but it is not something that we can allow.

21391

Honestly, it's a very slippery slope. The entire subject of trying to encourage reviews is fraught. Readers do not like to be pressured. They can be extremely sensitive to anything they perceive as a demand for reviews, even if that wasn't the intention of the author. We then receive emails and it becomes a rather unwieldly thing. The other matter that is sensitive is the updating of stories. Authors often have things crop up in their lives that make updating a very low priority. It can be as dramatic as a job loss or a death in the family. It can be work or papers due at the end of the term. It can simply be a frustrating bout of writer's block. For whatever reason, anything that is perceived as pressure to update generates emails from the authors. We have even had flame wars erupt on review boards over update demands. The long and short of it all is that we do not permit the use of incentives to encourage authors to update or readers to review.

21387

21385

21383

Believe me, I understand the frustration, but as the code stands now, we have a character limit on that field. Having said that, we are in the midst of a code rewrite, and while I can't guarantee that this part of the code will change, we do take our authors' opinions seriously.

21381

21373

21365

21363

21351

21347

21344

21342

21338

21336

21333

21329

21324

Because I often write for game fandoms, I am often handed plot lines that require my PC to be something of a Mary Sue/Gary Stu. The challenge for me becomes one of explaining why this one particular person is the only one who can save the world, while at the same time trying to flesh out the frequently cardboard NPCs that follow my PC around. It's a fascinating challenge to un-Sue that Sue. If you think about it, no hero ever acts alone. There's always something, and that can be the fun part of writing for these fandoms. I like to flesh out the NPCs with back stories that give you an idea of why they're tagging along, and personalities of their own instead of having them serve as mirrors for the PC's actions. I've also been known to credit some of the quest successes to NPCs rather than the PC where it makes more sense for the NPC to have done better. It makes for a richer and more realistic narrative. Having said that, the anti-Sue is as awful. The lead character who is paralyzed by indecision, or self doubt. The guilt-wracked character who can't forgive themselves for past mistakes, and judges every action by those errors. The one who turns humility into a vice rather than a virtue (which calls to mind another pet peeve completely unrelated to this thread). The self-effacing mouse who becomes somehow competent under duress. Gamers have a love/hate relationship with Sues, and when we turn writer, we get a chance to see if we can do better. That's the fun part.

Before I lock this thread, the site is domiciled in and governed by the laws of the United States, where the legal age is established as 18. Until and unless the site's owner decides to take up residence in another country, it will remain governed by the laws of the United States. This author will not be permitted to return. The matter is not up for discussion.