FAQ and ... more

[halcyon_shift]

The ConclusionOkie! I think we've covered this pretty well and, at this point, I think we'll veer more into harm than help to keep going. As it's already upset people, that's more than enough (I'm so sorry, guys). So, I'm going to be closing this topic now. This is not the iron boot of authority stamping down, if you want to email or message me you

Comments

[some_stars]

My feelings about it (as a bidder) have always been that the net benefit to RAINN is the most important thing, and it's definitely a fact that a lot of people bid in hopes of getting incest or dubcon/noncon fic or vids. I feel like the real world benefit outweighs issues of bad taste, but I know that people are upset by the idea, and I don't want that to happen. Maybe if sellers listed in their description that they were willing to write/vid such-and-such things, so everyone could bid/sell with their conscience? It's surely too late this year, but maybe a search option where you could filter out people offering incest or noncon, to avoid triggering? I don't want to shame people who write/vid those things--I consume both myself--I'm just thinking of logistics.

[halcyon_shift]

I like the idea of a filter! Or perhaps something like the AO3 has with their warnings and whatnots? Or just some kind of code phrase o_0

It's absolutely, like I tried to say in my post, not about the shame. The people who write/vid those things ... write and vid those things and that's awesome. And those things have raised an awful lot of money, which is out there, supporting people, right now. It's simply that there's these sides and it gets raised and if I keep just sitting on it, I'll be doing people a disservice, I think.

I think we're going about this all wrong - it's about choice - and the choice is not ours

[morgandawn]

I'd ask RAINN - what do they think? Their wishes (not ours) should matter. If they want to exclude non-con/dub-con, incest (consensual or non-consensual), rape recovery, heal by sex etc with the understanding that it will reduce their donations...that's their choice.

And likewise, if they say - we'd use the devil to raise money to help save one more child or woman from hell...well you'd have to respect that too.

we shouldn't be making the choice for them. I wouldn't want someone making that choice for me. would you?

Re: I think we're going about this all wrong - it's about choice - and the choice is not ours

[some_stars]

I don't think it's fair to shift the decision onto them. It's our responsibility, and they shouldn't have to sift through a subculture they don't know and is probably disturbing to them. I don't personally believe money can be inherently 'tainted' and I think this issue is a question of our community standards, not something that directly affects RAINN.

Re: I think we're going about this all wrong - it's about choice - and the choice is not ours

[halcyon_shift]

It is important to have as much disclosure about what you're doing as possible in something like this, because charities need to know that the people fundraising for them are reputable and whatnot. When it all started, I had to fill in a form and things - we passed, obviously *g*

But I do agree that any explanation that would first require two courses in fandom subculture and a written exam is probably not the way to go.

Re: I think we're going about this all wrong - it's about choice - and the choice is not ours

[halcyon_shift]

In an ideal world, I agree - and it would be exactly what I'd do. Unfortunately, there are other issues, not least of which is the method we're using to raise money at all. Way back when, people were not thrilled at the thought RAINN may know it was fandom, with its fics and vids and copyright issues, let alone anything else, so I've always kept it low key.

That said, two people at RAINN have seen the site because, while think the donations helping the people are the most important thing and the rest is noise, I simply wasn't prepared to mislead them. My bad? They've seen it, they know who we are and what we're doing and all we've ever had is the encouragement to do more.

[varkelton]

It seems to me that a "Don't ask, Don't tell," policy simply turns the whole topic into a dirty little secret. There is enough problems with survivors feeling silenced, feeling shamed. Do we really want to bring that into fandom as well?

[halcyon_shift]

Not even a little bit :) It's "less don't ask, don't tell" and more "tell people who actually ask" that seems to be the suggestion people have for a compromise. The reason this is something of an issue is that, there's survivors emailing on one side who want the cest/dubcon/etc factor removed and survivors on the other who want it kept ... and both, obviously, are completely valid.

By ignoring it, I'd be ignoring the people this is meant to be helping. So that's a problem. I really, really hope we can figure something out. So far, I'm thinking that keeping it on site, but perhaps giving it its own filter or something is the way to go. I imagine we're going to run headlong into the warning/no warning thing that hit fic a while back, though.

[varkelton]

Warnings should not be optional. A survivor's decision to avoid triggery topics is every bit as valid as my decision to seek it out. We cope how we cope. But I think... intentional or not, some of the comments above made me feel like my way of dealing is not okay. That I'm not okay. I know I'm not the only survivor who explores what happened to me and how I feel about it through fic. However you decide to deal with this issue, please be careful not to leave part of the group you are trying to help feeling judged.

[halcyon_shift]

I'm with you on the warnings ;) I just meant there was kerfuffle over it, which I'd like to avoid here if possible.

I very much wanted to try and make it clear to people that there is a therapeutic side to the fics - that's why I listed it in the Pros columns -- people may not realise that, and I really think they should. I will keep telling people that, whatever the circumstance. I think it's pretty clear, that removing them from the auction is not an option and should not be an option, so thank you for highlighting that.

[afrocurl]

I think the compromise is the best option, because it still gives bidders and tarts the opportunity to write all of that, but not necessarily promote it within the site for the sake of RAINN.

[sabaceanbabe]

We've had 8 auctions in the past and half of those were for RAINN, right? Nothing has changed. We've never sugar-coated the fandom aspect of the auctions any more than we've played it up, outside of, well, fandom. The reality of it is that a part of fandom reads and writes and vids and photo-manips and paints and draws things that RAINN itself is against, but unless RAINN has said, "We love you guys and all the funding you've raised for us, but could you maybe tone down the parts we actively work against?" then I don't think we really need to change anything. And this is spoken as a non-incesty, non-dub-conny, non-non-conny fan.