Re: Meta thread

(Anonymous) 2018-08-09 02:29 pm (UTC)(link)
Does the no dudes rule apply mostly to ships or are we not allowed to talk about plots that include dudes?

Re: Meta thread

(Anonymous) 2018-08-10 12:54 am (UTC)(link)
Curious about this too, because I think randomly bashing a dude simply for being a canon love interest who's "in the way" isn't exactly following the "no discussing men, positively or negatively" rule.

Re: Meta thread

(Anonymous) 2018-08-10 02:14 am (UTC)(link)
I wasn't around for the discussion wrt this meme's existence, but imho "no dudes at all" is going to be really hard to enforce/follow. I think maybe just "no talk about shipping dudes" makes the most sense, but discussing how you feel about a male character, his existence in the story as he relates to f/f plots, etc, shouldn't necessarily be off-limits? Like as far as the comment above me goes, I think it's important to be able to vent about male love interests we find boring or obstructive in a f/f space, but I also think saying "I thought Sokka/Suki was perfectly cute and well-done, but I just ship Suki/Toph so much more and wish fandom saw things my way" should be a reasonable, not-mod-callable statement for discussion.

But maybe I'm missing really important context about the kinds of discussion that led to this place being made. And I'm really, really glad it's made.

Re: Meta thread

(Anonymous) 2018-08-10 02:29 am (UTC)(link)
SA Okay, I went and read the thread linked as the post quote source, and lol, the "conversational drift" person... I def think the no men rule should be for shipping, because I think it's natural to acknowledge the existence of men in the stories where we're shipping women, with the caveat that if discussions become more focused on how annoying m/m or m/f ships we hate are than actual f/f shipping, perhaps this needs to be re-evaluated. That's just my opinion but one way or another, bulldozing in with why a f/f ship being discussed would actually be great as a f/f/m threesome is incredibly frustrating. Just let us have this.