Call for discussion re: alt.startrek.creative.pg-13

Meta
Title:	Call for discussion re: alt.startrek.creative.pg-13
Creator:	Shannara and commenters
Date(s):	May 15, 1997
Medium:
Fandom:
Topic:
External Links:	Call for discussion re: alt.startrek.creative.pg-13; archive link
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Call for discussion re: alt.startrek.creative.pg-13 is a 1997 post by Shannara.

Shannara was a controversial fan who was very much not a fan of slash.

The post was an announcement and subsequent discussion by fans about genres and ratings allowed on the planned-for but not yet created offshoot of alt.startrek.creative for "all ages" that was "family friendly." The original proposed title was "alt.startrek.creative.pg-13," but the resulting title was alt.startrek.creative.all-ages.

Some Topics Discussed

• homophobia
• personal preferences
• what is canon?
• what is "family friendly"?
• Star Trek
• moderating a newsgroup is not a lisence to play God
• perhaps a Usenet group isn't the solution, but instead a personal website or archive?
• what to call it:
  • alt.startrek.creative.pg-13
  • alt.startrek.creative.all-ages
  • alt.startrek.creative.non-sexual
  • alt.startrek.creative.family
  • alt.startrek.creative.family-oriented
  • alt.startrek.creative.young_adult
  • asc.ya

• some sarcastic names:
  • alt.startrek.creative.no-slash-here
  • alt.startrek.creative.stories.that.we.like
  • alt.startrek.creative.stories.the.moderator.likes
  • alt.startrek.creative.no-queers
  • alt.startrek.creative.stories.shannara.george.and.natalie.all.like
  • alt.strtrek.creative.all.ages or
  • alt.startrek.creative.scared.of.stories.that.aren't.mainstream.and.might.make.people.think.now.isn't.that.scary

The Original Post

This is an official call for discussion to create an offshoot of alt.startrek.creative that will answer the pleas for no slash and no graphic adult stories.

The proposed new group would be alt.startrek.creative.pg-13 Natch, stories posted there would also be posted on a.s.c., just like stories posted on a.s.c.erotica are also posted on a.s.c., but it should satisfy those begging for a family-friendly group.

I'm just offering my services to help in the creation of the thing. These people's requests are reasonable, in a sense, but no way should a.s.c. change. I believe a new group is the way to go. It will take some work to get it accepted, but Trek groups are popular, so it shouldn't be too hard.

Fan Comments

[George D. Morgan]: Ms. Shannara:

This would be a Good Thing if it flies. When I logged on the first few times, about all I was getting was the slash stuff and other things that triggered the Great Gay Stories Flame War. While this has passed, the responses in the news-group have showed the need for a more general newsgroup for those who would like to not read about Kirk and Spock boinking each other, among other things. Second, the idea of a Mirror Universe to ASCE appeals to me.

The only real concern that I have are the spammers, the people posting their ads about the various forms of Adult alleged-entertainment all over the alt. This is perhaps the Big problem to the acceptance of ASCE to the slashers. If you want a slash-free environment, you are going to have to deal with the spammers, or Creative/PG-13 will surely meet the same low acceptance rate as Creative/Erotica.

I look forward to the response.

[Lynda Simhomer]: To Shannara and all other interested parties,

This is an excellent suggestion and one I would fully support. Nevertheless, as most anyone who browses the Usenet Trek groups can attest, it would be virtually impossible to guarantee the new group would stay spam-free and family-friendly -- unless it was a *moderated* group. IMHO, if you don't have definite, enforced guidelines from the start, you'll be wasting time and bandwidth.

The discussion of moderation in ASC is an old one. It seems that a lot of the authors who oppose it do so out of fear of censorship. Whether or not this concern is valid, I don't believe it would be as much of an issue in a PG-13 group since its purpose would be to *censor* out material deemed inappropriate to minors.

What *is* appropriate material might become the subject of much heated debate, of course; that's why I think it should be unequivocally spelled out in the group's FAQ.

So, if a *moderated* PG-13 group is on the table, I say go for it. :)

[Webbie]:Might I humbly suggest: alt.startrek.creative.family or alt.startrek.creative.family-oriented? This would (as much as can be expected in cyberworld) likely keep the adult spammers away. (one hopes)

[Eric Bohlman]: alt.* is an international hierarchy, but "pg-13" is a US-specific term. alt.startrek.creative.non-sexual would be a reasonable name, but unfortunately it matches /sex/ which would make it a spam target. Maybe alt.startrek.creative.all-ages would work.

[...]

That particular usage of "family" is also somewhat US/UK specific (with a nasty pedigree dating back to the early Victorian era) (I actually typed "error" here initially) when Thomas Bowdler published "the Family Shakespeare" and gave us the verb "to bowdlerize"). It's also potentially ambiguous.

[Shannara]: The problem is some people object to having to sort through the slash and NC-17 posts. This would give them an alternative. Sort of like a.s.c.e was intended as a branch alternative for folks looking for nothing but slash and NC-17. a.s.c.e was certainly not intended to be the only place slash was posted, but, as I understand it, a place where slash and NC-17 was concentrated. It would be a similar idea with the new group, and, by the way, I am definitely open to suggestions about the name. PG-13 is U.S. specific I guess. I suppose "family" would be okay, although we do intend to allow sexy stories, just not graphic stuff (which I personally enjoy, but I'm trying to address two groups of people here -- those that just don't like slash, and those that don't want to see any NC-17 type stories at all in their group. a.s.c. is operating beautifully as it is, no need to change. We just need to make a branch group where people can look for a concentration of non-slash and non-adult stories. Sort of like a genzine as opposed to a slash zine.

[Marlissa Campbell]: I think it would be useful to clarify the *purpose* of this proposed new group. Is it strictly so that the squeamish don't have to even see headers for R & NC-17 stories? Or is it an attempt to promote writing of fanfiction that would be suitable for children to read or have read to them? If the former, then I don't really see the point - I've never had any trouble using the headers to identify stuff I didn't want to retrieve or read. If the latter, then the question is whether there are writers who would like to write and post more family-oriented fare, but who have been put off by the proliferation of adult stories. Is that the case?

I'm curious because, while I like having the full spectrum available to me, I would love to have a source of Star Trek stories that would suitable for sharing with my children. As has been pointed out by others previously, even a G rating is no guarantee that the material will be suitable for, or of any interest to, children. While I bet I'm not the only one who would be grateful for some children's stories, I would question whether there's enough interest to keep an entirely separate ng viable.

Are there possible alternatives to consider? - such as a separate website (or a corner of the current archive) where "family-friendly" stories could be archived (whether they were first posted here or not)?

Zepp :Out of the various suggestions, I think probably the most useful and international is alt.startrek.creative.all-ages. I admit to having little interest in such an NG myself; OTOH, I fully support its right to exist, and if by doing so, it will relieve us of some of the outraged wails and wanks, then this cannot but be a Good Thing! So, I support, and say, count my vote as a yes to form that group. Might not see me in it very often, but I'm all for more peace and quiet!

[Taffy]: ...if a group is to be created for the express purpose of avoiding slash stories ... well, I'd just like for people to admit to what they're doing. Hiding behind children is not only unfair, it's cowardly.

If people really are trying to create a group appropriate for children, well that's fine. But that means that *all* G, PG, and PG-13 stories should be welcome there. Shannara made a very good point earlier about the appeal of non-explicit slash stories to gay youth. I'd like to extend that to *all* children. Exposure as a child to positive gay role-models is one of the best ways to combat homophobia.

But, if the purpose of this new group is to create a slash free atmosphere ... that's very different. For a group of people to say that they cannot tolerate the sight of slash stories on a newsgroup that they frequent is beyond offensive, it's absolutely homophobic. I realize that there are people who want a slash-free group. That does not mean that we need to cater to that. At my university the Office of Resident Life gets dozens of requests from students every year, asking that they not be placed with homosexual roommates. These requests are not honored. Why? Because, in the opinion of the university administrators, they don't deserve to be.

I think we're faced with a similar situation here. Now, obviously I can't stop anyone from establishing alt.startrek.creative.no-slash-here. But I don't have to approve of it, and I'm not going to just sit here and allow people to hide their homophobia behind our children. If you want to establish a non-explicit stories group, great. If you want to establish a slash-free group at least have the courage to admit to what you're doing.

And I'd like to encourage everyone who is currently involved in creating the new group to examine what they are doing and determine if it is really something that they feel they should be involved in. I know Shannara (just to use an example) was probably just responding to a perceived demand.

[Alara Rogers]: Let's be careful here. Slash is not about being gay. Slash is about taking characters who are usually presented as het in canon, and portraying them as involved in a homosexual relationship. I think most slashers would agree that being gay isn't the point of slash.

Therefore, there is a difference between being offended by slash -- which, as a general rule, shows characters in a relationship which is against what canon implies-- and being offended by gays. For instance, if someone were to write a non-explicit story about Dax and Kon in their Jadzia and Lenara bodies, and this was posted to asc.ya (or whatever you're calling it), and the moderator rejected it because it shows lesbianism, this would clearly be a bias against gay and homosexuality. Dax and Kon are a canonical relationship.

However, if you write a non-explicit story in which Paris and Kim are lovers, one can be offended by this *without* being a homophobe. I would find it very irritating if a canonically gay character in Japanese animation was portrayed as straight for the purposes of a fanfic. (Yes, anieme [sic] has canonical gays, that's why I use them as an example.) So I can understand how people might find it irritating that slash takes canonically straight characters and puts them in homosexual relationships.

I don't know if this would have anything to do with the group's charter, though. If you guys want to create a "family-friendly" group, why would it be more offensive to have a non-explicit slash story than a non-explicit Mary Sue story? Even if you don't like slash and think it's way out of character, isn't it also way out of character for Picard to, oh say, adopt a child as his daughter and leave her in command of his ship when he's gone, when she's 12? :-) (Sorry, stephen.) I have no problem with people who dislike slash because they think it's stupid and out of character. But you're not trying to create alt.startrek.creative.stories.that.we.like, you're trying to create alt.startrek.creative.young_adult (or family, or pg_13, or whatever.) Your mandate is to display stories that are not sexually explicit or violent, which kids and parents can enjoy together. So why is slash (non-explicit, mind you-- no more than kisses) considered more offensive to children than other forms of bad writing? (Mind you, *I* am not saying slash is bad, I'm arguing that from your point of view it is, because it's out of character.)

You basically have two choices:

1. You dislike slash because it's out of character for people portrayed as het on the show to be in a homosexual relationship. it is, in fact, no more or less out of character than Stephen's Marissa stories, or Karmin St. Jean's Q stories where Q falls madly and sappily in love with people, or any story in which an unlikely pairing, such as Janeway and Paris, occurs. So if you reject slash because it's out of character, you must also reject all those other stories-- and at that point, it becomes alt.startrek.creative.stories.the.moderator.likes.

2. You dislike slash because it personally offends you. why is your right not to be personally offended greater than the right of a teenage boy to read a story where the handsome and respected doctor aboard DS9 is bisexual, just like him? I don't like stories where Christianity is portrayed as objectively correct and true-- there was a Q story where Q told Picard that Jesus Christ really was the son of God. This offends my religious beliefs. Would you say this story can't be posted, because it would be offensive? But then, *most* Star Trek stories take the premise that if God exists He is unknowable. Doesn't that offend deeply religious people? If you are excluding slash from a group for kids because it offends *you*, aren't you saying that your morality and mores are more correct than anyone else's?

So I'm not saying you're a homophobe if you don't like slash. Far from it. But if you decide to reject non-explicit slash stories from your group for young adults, isn't that privileging one form of offense at writing over another? Aren't you really saying "I find slash so offensive that I don't believe any children should be exposed to it"-- and if so, *why* do you find slash so offensive? Finding slash offensive because it's out of character is not homophobia-- but finding slash so offensive that it can't be shown to kids, even though other stories that are out of character can be, *is* homophobia.

As for the argument that there would then be nowhere to go to escape slash, and slashers have two groups so why shouldn't non-slashers-- you're conflating two separate scales.

• Erotica* can be het or slash. Erotica contains sexually explicit material and is not for kids. All forms of erotica, het and slash both, are permissible on both asc and asce.

• Slash* can be erotic or non-erotic. Slash contains two same-sex characters in a relationship, usually characters that are canoncically portrayed as straight. *Erotic* slash can be posted to asce, but *non*-erotic slash does not belong on asce.

When you say slashers have two groups, why not non-slashers, you're confusing slash with erotica. *erotica* writers have two groups-- why not non-erotica writers? That's the whole idea behind asc.ya, to make a group that has no erotica in it. But when you talk about *non-erotic* slash-- that is, Bashir and Garak are lovers, and the story is about them having tea, and there's absolutely no sex in it-- it seems to me that the story should not be excluded from asc.ya. I am fully behind the notion of a group dedicated solely to non-erotic works, but let me abuse my power for a moment here. If you exclude *non-erotic* slash from your group, the only possible reason can be homophobia-- just because you don't agree with it and think it's way out of character is no reason why it is not appropriate for teenagers, some of whom are gay and need positive role models. The quantity of such slash is incredibly small-- your group will *not* be overrun with non-erotic slash-- but it does belong on a group whose charter is "a safe group for young people."

if your charter really is "a safe group for young people", I am all for you. If your charter is "a group that conforms to our personal prejudices and censors stories we don't like even if they contain no erotica or violence", then find your own damn archivist, because I will not archive any story posted solely to a group that exists to promote censorship. Sorry-- I really don't like saying something like this, but I won't support a group I don't believe in. Exclude erotica and violence-- fine, great, we do need more stories that aren't erotic or violent. Exclude slash, and you will be saying you don't feel homosexuality is appropriate for teens to read about-- and that offends *me*.

[Shannara]: I consider "slash" by definition to be explicit in nature. The new group is for non-explicit stories. Alara, you're welcome to archive any of it or none of it. You work very hard at archiving and do a good job of it and I won't think any less of you if you decide not to include the new group because it doesn't allow slash. Anyone is welcome to frequent the group, or not. The group is being created to provide an alternative.

[Ruth Gifford]:The one thing to remember is that the moderator(s) will have to have a very careful set of guidelines. How much "mushy stuff" is too much? How much violence is too much? There are romantic moments in PG-13 movies and in young adult novels and there is a fair amount of violence and scary stuff in both as well (has any one looked at a Goosebumps book -- ewwww!).

My gratuitous advice (after all, I've only written *1* story that would qualify for such a group) would be that the first order of business on the new ng would be a long discussion of the standards by the people who would be reading and writing for the new group.

Another thing that I should mention here. Will stories on the new group be crossposted to ASC? Will stories on the new group be archived in the ASC/ASCE archive? If so, whoever writes the FAQ might want to bing the posting suggestions in line with the ASC posting suggestions.

Ruth ofering [sic] to help the FAQ writer and Maintainer if they'd like somone [sic] to beta-read.

Shannara:...there have been many cries for no slash and no homosexual themes. Now, before I get flamed, although I don't enjoy reading such stories myself, I see nothing wrong with people reading and writing them. It's not for me to say what somebody should read or write. But we have a.s.c for that. a.s.c is sort of the mama group and a.s.c.e and the new group are the offspring, albeit lying at opposite ends of the spectrum.

[Paul Carver]: I was under the impression that there are no canonically homosexual characters in Star Trek. I have heard rumors that Paramount is homophobic and deliberately gives a heterosexual love interest to any character that the fans perceive as potentially gay.

I don't understand the logical argument that PG-13 stories must maintain canon sexuality. Are there any other areas of canon that must be maintained in order for a story to be considered PG-13?

If the sexual preference of the characters is being singled out as the only element of canon which must be maintained in order for a story to be considered PG-13 then I must conclude that this rule is using Paramount's anti-gay attitude to justify discrimination against gay young adults.

[Kamin]: Hey, slash need not be explicit. The criterion is that two same-sex characters are featured in a ROMANTIC intanglment. Romance need not involved sex. I've read several PG slash stories, by torch, if memory serves (which it often does not) on Atara's very archive. I honestly found them as good or better than the majority of NC-17 slash stories.

[Ruth Gifford]: Shannara has said that she wants the sexuality of the characters to be as established in canon. I ask that trickiest of questions: Who decides what's canon? Are you going to somehow get Berman, Piller and Taylor to moderate your group? Are you going to ask the actors? Hint: *Don't* ask Andrew Robinson, John deLancie or Patrick Stewart. The first two have said that *they* think their characters are bi (deLancie actually said "bi-special" and Robinson said Garak would probably jump "anything that moves"), and the latter has said that he thinks it's "certainly possible" that Picard might have some repressed homoerotic tendencies (see .sig quote)

If you choose to go by filmed canon, it has been established that there is *one* character out of 4 incarnations of Trek who would not get involved with someone of the same sex, and her stated reason wasn't about not being bi. This leaves all the other characters open to interpretation. Again I ask, *who* does the interpreting? Obviously Shannara and I don't agree on certain characters, but why is her interpretation any more or less valid than mine? Because Character A hasn't ever been shown with a person of the opposite sex before? Talk to gay or bi people about when they first came out publicly or even just to themselves. We don't *all* know from birth, you know. I couldn't tell simply by looking at Alara (not a typo, I mean Ms. Rogers our Archivist) that she's bi. She has a male SO, and there are probably many people that she works with or knows on a casual basis who don't know she's bi. The same goes for Trek characters.

If you don't want anything queer, fine. If you don't want to extend Trek's famous message of tolerance (which helped a confused American teenager living in Iran in dealing with the fact that all people don't think the same way she did) to gay and bi people, fine (well, it's *not* fine, really, but it's your prerogative). But don't you see that you're laying yourself open to charges of hypocrisy if you hide behind canon? Trek canon, like the Christian canon, can be interpreted in many ways. When you say, "my way is right, yours is wrong," you're acting like bigots have through the centuries. If you exclude queer fiction from ASCYA, have the guts to stand up and say so. ("Hi! I'm ________ and I don’t think fags and dykes have a place in the 23rd/24th centuries because I don't like or approve of their lifestyle." "Hi ______!")

I've supported the idea of ASCYA , because I have an 8 year old step-daughter who reads Trek YA novels. She also likes to write stories and may (like so many of us in our teenaged years) want to write or read fanfic. The fanfic writing teenaged daughter of dykes may choose (like so many writers) to write about what she knows and make up a Mary Sue whose mother suddenly fell in love with another woman after being married to a man. It'd be a pity if you wouldn't let her post it in your sandbox.

Ruth who wishes it known that she's not calling *anyone* a bigot, just pointing out that this thread makes certain people *look* like bigots.

[Jane Harmon]: Shannara - this is ambiguous, and you need to clarify what you mean. This could mean:

a.) any story, however non-sexual, featuring a same-sex couple in a sexual relationship (with the 'sex' part of the relationship being pursued 'off-screen', as it were) is unsuitable for a general audience, since it could potentially corrupt the young and is an affront to 'family values'. (I know many people feel this way; it's not clear to me that this is what you mean, however.)

or

b.) 'slash' means 'sex' and if no sex acts are depicted (however implied), a story featuring a same-sex couple isn't slash (and hence, one would assume, would be suitable for your group.)

Before anyone can decide what they feel about your 'slash-is-explicit' you need to clear up what you mean. If Number One, btw, I agree with Taffy, Alara et al, and suggest you call the proposed group alt.startrek.creative.no-queers and be done with it.

[R'rain Prior]: I consider the creation of a new newsgroup to cater to younger readers an admirable endeavor, but I have some questions about what will and will not be allowed. Shannara, you say that you consider "slash" to be by definition explicit in nature (which it is most certainly not) and that it will not be allowed on the new group. What I would like to know is who made this decision? Was it the decision of a single moderator or a consensus (which would probably be impossible to reach without being able to ask each and every person who would potentially read and post to the group)?

[Shannara]: Think of the new group as an online fanzine. Stories are submitted to fanzines, which can essentially be divided into slash zines and genzines. The new group will be a genzine. Stories must be submitted. Unlike a regular fanzine, we'll pretty much take anything (that isn't explicit sex or graphic violence). We have three moderators, and all agreed that characters established as straight on the shows should not be portrayed as gay in the new group. As was stated in the beginning, the new group is being created to satisfy TWO groups of people, those that don't want slash on the group and those that don't want ANY NC-17 at all.

a.s.c and a.s.c.e exist for those who want to post slash stories, whether explicit or not, about the established characters. There have been many calls, and even fights on a.s.c between those who, wrongly, insisted that a.s.c not allow slash stories. a.s.c was established to allow everything. That's cool. The new group will be a more limited group however and answers the calls for no slash and no explicit stories. Gay stories about author-created characters are welcome on the new group, provided they are not sexually explicit.

If this discussion has now degenerated into a flame war on the part of the slash-lovers, then it's time to call the discussion to an end and go about the business of creating the new group, alt.startrek.creative.all-ages (Thanks for the name suggestion, Zepp.)

[CmdrBevC]: Look, I'm REALLY tired of this fight. No one designated this, this was never specified as that...bull$#!^ (AOL TOS). This is a case of either NOT being able to access the DESIGNATED (define the word EROTICA if you don't get it) newsgroup (NOTE: Violence doesn't apply, unless it's of a sexual nature. ), or being LAZY. I am going to ask politely that you utilize the gift that *someone* gave you and post the sex-oriented NC-17 smut/adventure/rape stories in it's place. I ANNOUNCE TO THIS GROUP THAT I AM NOW OFFICIALLY BOYCOTTING ALT.STARTREK.CREATIVE UNTIL THIS IS RESOLVED. I WILL NOT POST MY STORY HERE ANYMORE, NOR WILL I POST ANY FUTURE STORIES HERE. I WOULD ALSO REQUEST THAT ANY PART OF THE STORY "PARALLEL POWERS" (TNG, P/C) THAT HAS BEEN ARCHIVED BE PULLED AND DELETED.

[Keikimo]: Okay...can I first ask...what the hell is your problem? You obviously have a problem with the amount of EROTIC fiction out there, you now have a problem with the creation of a new FAMILY newsgroup. So what DO you want? Wait...I think I can answer that. You want us NC-17 users to stay off your "oh so pure" ASC. Well we just went through two sets of these arguments, I'm really tired of hearing them and I hate to break it to you...but there ain't no chance in hell of convincing NC-17ers to switch when it's clearly stated we can post here if we want.

Well aren't we so high and mighty. In case you didn't notice, the fight was over long ago. This thread was on the creation of a family-oriented newsgroup (Something positive that came out of that whole, drawn out, aggravating mess.) So maybe we aren't the ones who are being lazy. I seem to think that not setting a kill file, not reading the FAQ where it states ALL FICTION can be posted and posting an article that has nothing to do with the topic at hand is outright laziness.

And as for designated newsgroups, that's what Alt.Startrek.Creative.Family is supposed to be doing. (At least I think...:) It's for people like you, who have a problem with people like me, to congregate and enjoy the company of underagers, Sumt haters, or puritains like themselves. If/When you cannot get to the ASCF site, I'd love to see you eat your words. You'll know how much of a pain it is for us NC-17 users to expect everyone to be able to access ASCE. It's not laziness that's the problem, its just common sense.

[...]

We're corrupt? Cause we post NC-17? (Now I'm branching off topic here... accept my apologies early! :) IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK ANYMORE, the discussion about NC-17 on ASC is over, fini, complete, done... We are allowed to post here, end of story. Now, if you have a problem with that, you should be supporting the formation of ASCF (Or pg-13, I've seen both mentioned). Not blathering on about removing smut from ASC.

[...]

Wonderful...means one less person who's gonna be whining and complaining cause the world doesn't revolve around them. I'm sorry, but I for one could care less about you, your decision or your stories. If you don't want to be here, I say have a nice life. This newsgroup will continue to function without your presence.

[...]

And you are trying to make the entire world revolve around you. It doesn't. If you wanna talk majority, here it is. The MAJORITY of people on this newsgroup who vocalized their opinions WANTED NC-17. Those who didn't are trying to establish ASCpg-13. And then there's you who seems to think we've comitted some absolute injustice by forcing YOU to go to ASCpg-13 when ASC should be yours. It's no more yours than it is mine. You have a problem with the propagation problems with ASCpg-13, then I have just as much of a right to have a problem for the same reasons with ASCE. You believe that I should post to ASCE, the same goes for you. In the end, it all comes down to ASC belonging to everyone. Whether you choose to support ASCpg-13 is totally up to you. But stop whining when things don't go YOUR way. The world does not revolve around you... deal with it.

Shannara: Ahhh. Get a life! You go do your thing, and we'll do ours. From the very first post, we said the new group would have no slash.

[Jessica Krucek]: You know, there is a real puritanical attitude towards sex in American Society, but we seem to have very little problem in comparison with graphic violence. It seems that we have no problem with blowing each other's brains out, fistfights, and other displays of hatred and malice.

But two loving, consenting ADULTS expressing a sexual attraction...HEAVEN FORBID!

Tell me, do we, as Americans, have SUCH a problem with love that we'd rather hate? From our murder rate, the availability of guns, and typical TV programming, it would appear so.

BTW, while I have written a couple scenes that are rated "R" for sexual content, the only "R-rated" stories I have in the Trek universe are because of "adult themes" and some pretty brutal violence.

[...]

Its place is here, like it or not. I don't like the smut, but there's a simple thing you can do.

SKIP OVER IT!

[Alara Rogers]: Does this mean Picard cannot date a black woman and Sisko cannot date a white woman? in canon, even when these two were paired with aliens, it was always aliens played by a woman of heir respective race, black or white.

Natalie says that what you are rejecting is any story with sex, and that same-sex relationships between two canonically het characters is all right if one can justify it within the series, so long as there is no sex. (For instance, once could justify a relationship betweenParis and Kim, but not a relationship between Janeway and Paris. Or, to use Natalie's example, Picard could have a fling with a homosexual original character, because just because canon has put him with women doesn't mean he would *never* sleep with a man-- that's a judgment call. But he couldn't have a fling with Riker, *or* Deanna, beccause it violaetes their professional relationship. I still think this smacks a little of "you write what we like", but it's much more open than what I had previosuly thought.)

So which is it, Shannara? Are we to take your word on the subject (which, given that Dax is the only canonically bisexual character, means that non-sexual stories about Garak and Bashir cannot be posted), or Natalie's? If you meant what you said, then your group excludes *all* same-sex relationships except for those with original characters or Dax, because you are enforcing your interpretation of canon on other writers. And whether you intend this to exclude gays or not, the fact that TPTB are scared of homosexuality and have to make sure that all characters are established het-- hell, they tried to make *Q* het! Q has no gender!-- means that if you enforce this interpretation of canon, and do not enforce other interpretations (for instance, the interpretation that Sisko cnnot get involved with a white woman because in canon all his lovers are black) it *does* come across as selective homophobia. But if you really mean Natalie's interpretation, you are giving authors much more freedom, and enforcing canon in a way that's based on the *characters*, not on you personal interpretation of whether they'd be gay or not.

Shannara has not said any canon will be enforced other than "no homosexuality unless canonical." Natalie has sid "non-canonical is okay in terms of sexual orientation, but no pairings for the sake of pairings-- Picard should not be with Riker *or* Troi because there is no eviednce of such a relationship and it would wreck their owrking relationship. However, Picard could be with an original gay character because even though canon presents Picard as het, he could be bi, prefers women." (I am paraphrasing both; don't get confused by my use of quotes.

If Shannara is correct, yes. If Natalie is correct, no. I wish the moderators would figure out which version they're going to go with, because I will archive the group if Natalie is correct, but not if Shannara is, for reasons i've explained.

[Alara Rogers]: The argument is not that your attempt to get away from NC-17 stories makes you homophobic, but that your attempt to get away from *non*-NC-17 stories which have no sex but do feature two canonically het characters having a same-sex relationship would be homophobic. The reason why this is homophobic is that the argument "but Bashir is het in canon, so he *wouldn't* be interested in Garak" is much like saying "but Sisko has only dated black women in canon, so he *wouldn't* be interested in your white-skinned Mary Sue." Does the fact that Sisko has only dated black women mean Sisko could *never* be interested in a white woman? Well, maybe, but it's open to interpretation. Maybe Sisko just isn't turned on by pale skin-- or maybe it's the cowardly Powers That Be trying to avoid controversy by keeping their star from mixing races. (Notice Picard only dates white women, even if they're aliens. Lesser characters get to mix races, but apparently Picard and Sisko have to stick to "their own kind.") So if you were creating your no-NC-17 group, and someone wrote a sweet and totally non-sexual romance about Sisko falling in love with a Bajoran woman with pale skin, and you rejected it, even though there was no sex and no pornographic material in it whatsoever, because "in canon, Sisko only dates black women", you would be opening yourself up to two charges: firstly, that you're racists, and secondly, that even if you're not racists, you're imposing your idea of "canon" on a group whose *charter* is only to keep out the porn. If it's the first, obviously you have a problem. You wouldn't be doing ttens of mixed race any favors by creating a group which disguises a racist, "races shouldn't mix" agenda under the heading of protecting children and creating a place safe from smut. But suppose that's not it? Suppose you totally support the rights of real life blacks and whites to have romances, but it doesn't fit your interpretation of Sisko's character so you won't allow it? Well, *then* you're practicing censorship. Not the kind of censorship a moderator is supposed to practice, to keep a group on-topic, but the kind that says "I don't like it so you can't post it, *even though* it meets the guidelines for the group's charter." At that point, you could well reject my non-romantic Q stories because they violate the canon we've seen in "Q and Grey." You could reject stories that explore poltical ramifications you don't believe in. If you are not racist, but you reject stories where Sisko has a non-sexual romance with a "white" person, beccause in canon he doesn't, then you are practicing censorship based on personal taste.

[Keikimo]: Sigh...its amazing. In the course of a month we've now combined two arguments into one post - against NC-17 and against Slash. Okay, personally I'm very happy that we've all come to a decision that makes (most) everyone happy. Everyone gets to post at ASC, I will post to ASCE as well and those who cannot stand to wade through my NC-17 drivel can go to ASCpg (Or ASCF or ASCA or whatever it's called now.) However, I think you should reconsider the slash part of the newsgroup. There are a lot of good arguments for having PG rated slash on the newsgroup, actually there are a lot of good reasons as to why we shouldn't pair up characters for the sake of pairing up characters. But I'm not sure why you don't want slash on your newsgroup. The Paris/Kim playboy series by Torch, minus the few sex scenes in the middle, talks about a wholesome relationship between two guys. Personally, I think if someone CAN write this stuff without turning it into sex-fiction, they should be able to post in an all-ages newsgroup. Again, something that was supposed to try and alleviate some of the tensions here between the two encampments just got a little more nasty. I'm not sure if I caught all the messages posted (There's been quite a few of them lately) but from the gist of what I got, this was a friendly debate over whether to include slash or not. How we deteriorated once again into the debate about homophobias, (Both Paramount's and this newsgroups) and also into poisonous barbs like get a life, is beyond me. Sometimes I wonder if we're going to be split down the middle forever, in an eternal ASC civil war...

[Natalie Kim Bjorklund]: I am writing the first draft of the FAQ today and I will be FAQ maintainer for the new group. So the first draft will have MY version of what is and is not acceptable. For the record, if the group excludes gay and lesbian relationships simply because they are gay or lesbian then this will be the shortest FAQ maintainer's office in the history of internet. I have every confidence in both George and Shannara that this will not be the case however. Once we have thrashed out a draft that all three of us agree on we will post it. It can be discussed again then. Also we have agreed that we should have a way of dealing with appeals that address either: 1) How could you call THAT appropriate for children! 2) How could you call THAT inappropriate for children! I am now asking for volunteers interested in being part of our appeal board of moderators to offer us opinions in the case of dispute. We don't yet have all the details worked out about how this will go but if you are concerned about homophobia, censorship, and the like, then please volunteer for the appeal board. I would especially like to invite Taffy and Alara to be part of such an appeal board because they both have excellent perspectives and would help us be certain that undue unfair censorship and/or homophobia DO NOT become part of the alt.startrek.all-ages mandate. Being a moderator means you will occasionally make mistakes and occasionally your point of view won't reflect the best point of view. We are human after all. We would appreciate support in this, not accusations, thank you.

Greywolf the Wanderer: I still support the creation of the group -- but I vehemently disagree as to what canon is. Therefore I have a conflict of interest with the founders. I do hope that stories posted in the new group, if it gets made, *will* also be posted to a.s.c., as I would love to read them. But I cannot support the concept that suddenly, in the 24th century, there are no gay or bi characters. IDIC must prevail, I suppose -- but on this, we will never agree. So it goes. Yes, I have changed my mind somewhat -- I had to, once this portion of the wording was pointed out to me. The idea that a completely non-seuxally explicit story is somehow bad or offensive simply because the characters are gay -- bothers me. The founders of this group have the same freedom of speech that I do, and I support said right -- it does not mean I have to either agree with or approve of them -- merely that I tolerate their existence. And I do. May it go well for them, if this is really what they seek. -- Greywolf the Wanderer, sadder and a wee bit wiser

George D. Morgan:

If you must piss on us, Graywolf, be advised that I do have a bucket and disinfectant :)

[...]

Here's another monkey-wrench in the works: I am one of the moderators....I don't think I'm on a power trip here. I've been asked, I think it's a good idea, and I'm doing it. Call it your influence and Keikimo's too. On the other hand, CameronB has mortally offended me, while Ruth Gifford and Atara Stein have gotten under my skin. I have the feeling I've gotten into something my box can't handle, but I am literate and, theoretically, intelligent. As far as I know, all I have to do is read and vote, and I am only one of three. There is an appeal process being set up. My opinion about the appeal process is that if an author needs to appeal, he or she should be posting on ASC anyway....Nothing is automatic here. I am one of three moderators who votes on what gets into ASCA. If I don't like a story, I'm going to vote against it. If Shannara and Natalie like it, then I am SOL.

Ruth Gifford: Interesting isn't it? Here we are, writers and/or readers of fan fiction about a universe that preaches the doctrine of equality (whether Trek lives up to that doctrine is another tangled web, and I ain't going there today) but the mere thought that some of the established characters might be even bi let alone gay, sends people into a tizzy. Do people think that homosexuality is a disease that will be "cured" by the 24th century? Do they really think that none of the people in Starfleet will be gay? What about being bi? I don't remember the percentage of people who claim to be bi, or who have had the occasional gay encounter, but it's higher than the 10% that we usually get as the percentage of gays in the population. Do we really believe that *none* of our established characters ever walked on the other side of the street, even if it was only to discover that they liked the opposite sex better after all? Apparently those thoughts are too dangerous and too much to bear for some people. Why?? I get sad every time I read this thread, and a lot of people probably think I should just shut up now. They're probably right, but does anyone understand just how hypocritical the whole argument is? To hide behind the Almighty Canon in only *one* area, over only *one* issue is mindboggling and indicates either massive self-delusion or rampant hypocrisy. Shannara made a point of assuring the underage poster that her P/C story would be welcome on ascaa. Why? It ain't canon unless it ends with one of them backing off from the relationship and the other one staring soulfully into the camera as the music heads toward the credits. So if you really want the stories posted to ascaa to not go where Paramount won't go, then there can't be *any* P/C (never happened), J/C (admitted attraction but they both backed off), R/T (it happened, but it's over), J/J (sorry she's with Worf now), P/T (they haven't gone there yet), K/T (that never happened either, mores the pity) and so on, unless there stories that acknowledged the attraction and then deny the relationship. *PERIOD* The minute you argue that the attraction is implied, then you must either allow every attraction that others can infer from the show, or explain why the idea that some of these characters might be gay or bi offends you so much. But if you simply single out same sex relationships, how can you avoid charges of homophobia? I really *don't* see homophobes everywhere. The fact that I'm gay may make me more aware than most that homophobia is alive and well in this world, but I don't automatically assume that everyone I meet is a homophope. When I do see it however, I'll point it out, the same way I object to racism, sexism and so on.

[Paul D. Morgan]:

Ms. Gifford.

Deal with it. I have to, and now, so do you!

[Jeanita]: "Deal with it." This is the response of a man self-described as intelligent and literate? You disappoint me, George, though I find it fascinating that when your logic is put to the test you and Shanarra both resort to childishness. If this is your consistent response to pressure, how long will it be before you turn on one another?

[Ruth Gifford]:

George,

If you're going to throw a monkey-wrench into the discussion, do everyone the courtesy of explaining what it is. Are you saying here that you are going to reject any slash story, regardless of whether or not it fits into the PG-13, Young-Adult, All-Ages category? Or are you just trying to get a rise out of Alara?

Natalie seems to be of the opnion (and yes Alara, I saw that post after I psted--two different ISPs and I still get lags) that non-explicit slash stories are OK. OTOH Shannara is calling for no slash unless it's supported by filmed canon, although I haven't seen any post in which she explains how she's going to deal with other storeis ath aren't supported by filmed canon, which essentially includes *all* fanfic, yours George, mine, Alara's, Macedon's, Stephen's, *everybody's*.

Instead of stating *your* position on all of this, you settle for the above post which could mean *anything*. I'm glad Alara gave you what for (a post I did see; you go Alara!), although it seems that your flip little statement was abiguous enough so that you can later look innocent and claim she was picking on you.

Sheesh!

So what is it gang? alt.strtrek.creative.all.ages or alt.startrek.creative.scared.of.stories.that.aren't.mainstream.and.might. make.people.think.now isn't.that.scary

Ruth, who has given up hope that one of these days people who argue aganist slash will explain why it frightens them so.

Paul Carver: I have no objection to a newsgroup dedicated to bigotry as long as it is clearly as such. I strongly object to a newsgroup identified as young adult which uses a round-about way of censoring stories based on same sex relationships since young adults who are attracted to members of their own gender are in no way inferior to young adults who are attracted to members of the opposite gender. My previous post has not been answered. Is canon going to be rigorously enforced in this new group or is canon only going to be used to reject same sex stories.

[George D. Morgan]:

Mr. Carver:

Just so you know, it's done. It's called alt.startrek.creative.all-ages.

Object all you wish. You have your place. We have ours. Live with it.

Alara Rogers: If this is what you believe, then you don't understand Usenet and you don't understand the responsibilities of a moderator. It doesn't matter if you *like* the story. It matters if it is on topic. If you create a group intended for children and family viewing, and then exclude *any* stories that don't have sex or violence, your group is no longer about children and family viewing. It's about your personal tastes. Well, if you want a forum that caters to your personal tastes, create a Web site, don't waste bandwidth with a newsgroup.... I don't care what your personal opinion of slash is. I have archived things that were so terrible they made me want to barf. I have archived things that were so offensive they made me want to castrate the poster. I am the archivist for this newsgroup, and therefore, if the material fits the purpose of the archive-- to record all stories posted to this group-- I have to archive it, whether I believe in it or not. A moderated group should work the same way. Regardless of whether you *like* slash or not, if the material is PG-13 rated, it belongs on an all-ages newsgroup. Otherwise the group is *not* a forum for all ages and you may as well change the name to alt.startrek.creative.stories.shannara.george.and.natalie.all.like

[George D. Morgan]:

Moderating is a duty. You are expected to be scrupulously fair in carrying out that duty. If, as Natalie has said, the FAQ will allow for same-sex stories to be posted on ASCAA as long as they do not contain explicit sex or violence, then your duty as a moderator will be to allow them to be posted. If a story sucks rocks because it's unbelievably badly written, too bad, it's still your duty to allow it to be posted as long as it fits the parameters.

Knowing Alara's high standards, we should all be glad that she views her position as archivist as a duty, because she archives *everything*. Your (and Shannara's and Natalie's) duty will be to simply weed out stories that don't fit the parameters of the ng. And now, as we all wait to see what those parameters are, I suggest you think about what you're going to do if the FAQ allows for non-explicit slash.

[...]

....let me tell you something. I may have gotten under your skin by reacting negatively when you insulted my genre and by extension my writing, but consider this. I *will* jump down the throat of the first person that tells you or anyone else not to post your G and PG-13 stories to ASC because there's ASCAA for that. Do you think I like every bit of TrekSmut or even slash that comes down the pike? Hell no, there are stories I cross the street to avoid having to read. I don't even like all the bdsm that gets written. But it belongs on a group dedicated to Star Trek fanfiction and I'll fight like hell for all of it. I happen to believe very strongly in fan writing; as I've said before anything that turns us from being passive viewers and into active participants in a creative process is a good thing. If nothing else, it found me my future wife, made me a lot of friends, and gave me the confidence that it takes to stand up for myself.

{{Quotation2 |[[Alara Rogers] So what you're saying is that you, too, would like to go on a power trip and exclude stories that are acceptable for young people simply because they don't fit your view of how the characters would act? If this is what you believe, then you don't understand Usenet and you don't understand the responsibilities of a moderator. It doesn't matter if you *like* the story. It matters if it is on topic. If you create a group intended for children and family viewing, and then exclude *any* stories that don't have sex or violence, your group is no longer about children and family viewing. It's about your personal tastes. Well, if you want a forum that caters to your personal tastes, create a Web site, don't waste bandwidth with a newsgroup. }}

[Natalie Kim Bjorklund]:

First I would like to thank those who have called for calm to prevail. Second I would like to thank those who have supported our efforst to create th alternative group. Finally I would like to especially thank all of those who have decided to reserve judgement until the FAQ is out.

It is in the process of being written. We are very close to a final draft. We do not yet have the final draft. When we have it, we will post it.

We have decided there will be an appeal process to ensure all concerns are aired. We have had several volunteers for our appeal board and we are designing the appeal process so that everyone can have input whether or not they are on the board. Only Alara has been confirmed as one of our board members and I am grateful she has agreed. The others are still under discussion but i think once the group is chosen and posted everyone will agree it represents a balanced and fair group representing all views.

Regarding homophobia and the abscence of gays and lesbians on St and an attempt to make them go away and not exist. Please note that the concern is groundless and is directly addressed in a positive manner in the FAQ. I am not prepared to post the FAq yet because we are still discussing minor details but i think everyone will be very pleased with the even handednes of the FAQ and the appeal process.

Finally I have not been posting ay more because I have been quite literally spending hours sorting out FAQs and the appeal process.

PLEASE be patient, be optimistic, and hold your judgements (and flames) until after the FAQ and the Appeal process are posted.

Natalie (Who is beginning think maybe negotiating Peace in Middle East should be her next task. It would be a lot easier!)

swlove I have not read the FAQs for the new site and so will reserve some judgement. That Alara is on the board is a saving grace, even though she is but one voice. In principle, I have no problem with the creation of a PG-13 fiction site. What I am at a loss to understand, is the exclusion of same-sex romance stories. I think that the only valid reason for excluding non-graphic slash would be because it can be a confusing proposition, even for adults. However, this does not mean that readers below the age of 13 should not be helped toward an understanding of differing lifestyles at a time when they are still open to new views. The portrayal of loving relationships between two adults of the same gender is something that should be encouraged and applauded. Excluding the stories presumes there is something inherently wrong in the behavior. I feel this sends the wrong message, offering a judgment that young readers might carry with them into the "real" world and into adulthood. As fanfic writers, we influence opinions, views --- and prejudices. The appropriate message is that loving relationships should be treasured -, no matter the gender - for the precious and rare gifts that they are.

GreenWoman:

Regardless of the point of departure from canon, *departure from canon itself* is one of the prime motivations behind most fanfiction. If TPTB always gave us what we wanted to see, who would be writing? ;-) I write very little, and I have had no sex scenes in any of my small vignettes (so far, anyway). I'm not a big fan of the erotic (as someone unfortunately flying solo these days, it can get a bit frustrating to read such stuff) and I don't care for slash (because for the most part it does seem out of character). *HOWEVER*, I think that anyone who invests the time and the effort into putting their story into words for the rest of us to read (OR NOT, AS WE SO CHOOSE) should be allowed and applauded for doing so! And if those with children aren't willing to invest time in reviewing what they read, or those whose beliefs and sensibilities are offended by such things can't be relied upon to use their own discretion in their reading, it does not automatically follow that that responsibility should fall upon the rest of the posters and readers in this group. As a person who posts here on an extremely limited basis, I have been a lurker throughout this debate. Now that the issues have been more clearly defined, I feel a strong need to register my opinion: Creating a newsgroup in which sexual content is not welcome makes sense, I suppose. However, regulating who is attracted to whom in fan fiction set in the Star Trek universe is an unwelcome intrusion into the freedom of the fanfic writer to explore that which TPTB have not.

GreenWoman (who posts here in an uncharacteristically vehement tone and does not mean to flame anyone, but who feels very strongly about this issue ...)

[Toby Fisher]: Excluding this category of story is, in my opinion, akin to

excluding, say, stories about black people, disabled people, in other words, anything which you do not perceive to be the norm.

If it is not explicit, and therefore could be given a pg13 rating. I personally do not read much of the adult stuff, and dislike a good deal of it, but at the same time, I respect people's rights to write what they wish, so long as it is legal.

Each to their own, and in a newsgroup you are catering for a variety, however narrow, of different tastes. What you like or dislike should not com into to it, George, and if it does, I would strongly suggest that you resign your position as moderator.

Just my couple of pence worth.

[Natalie Kim Bjorklund]: Since... you have clearly not seen the latest FAQ, and since ASCA has not, never did, and never will exclude any story solely because it has same sex romance stories, I have forwarded to you both your very own copy of the FAQ to read at your leisure.