I mean, in the end of the day it doesn't matter whether I can't participate in something because of a diagnosed disability (or a *non*diagnosed disability), or whether Sarah McFiccer can't because she's completely overloaded with work, or whether Rachel Writerson can't because her muse just doesn't work that way - what matters is that there are people who'd like to participate in something but can't in the format it's given.
I think there is a difference there that matters, though. I mean, if Sarah *knows* that her work schedule precludes a large time commitment to some other project, then she shouldn't sign up for, say, a Big Bang challenge or Nanowrimo-- but there are lots of commentfic challenges or ficathons with 1000-word limits. If Rachel's muse isn't inspired by getting assigned one specific person's prompt, she should skip Yuletide or similarly assignment-based ficathons, and instead do challenges like kink_bingo or lgbtfest where there are huge long lists of prompts and you can pick whatever suits you. Etc.
Kaz has provided a lot of really interesting ideas for that most (if not all) challenges could be vastly improved, accessibility-wise, but as a mod, when it involves letting other people down, I think potential challenge participants have a responsibility to honestly gauge their own capacity to participate, and commit themselves accordingly. Obviously there are always things that people can't control-- illness, unexpected emergency, computer problems, and obviously the kind of autistic interest patterns and social anxiety that kaz is describing fall into this category.
But someone who's run fic challenges, I don't really have a lot of sympathy for people who would sign up for any kind of *exchange based* ficathon knowing ahead of time that something like their work schedule won't let them follow through. IMO, that's completely different than getting sick or having a family emergency or something like what kaz describes, that's totally unexpected and not under that person's control at all.
no subject
I mean, in the end of the day it doesn't matter whether I can't participate in something because of a diagnosed disability (or a *non*diagnosed disability), or whether Sarah McFiccer can't because she's completely overloaded with work, or whether Rachel Writerson can't because her muse just doesn't work that way - what matters is that there are people who'd like to participate in something but can't in the format it's given.
I think there is a difference there that matters, though. I mean, if Sarah *knows* that her work schedule precludes a large time commitment to some other project, then she shouldn't sign up for, say, a Big Bang challenge or Nanowrimo-- but there are lots of commentfic challenges or ficathons with 1000-word limits. If Rachel's muse isn't inspired by getting assigned one specific person's prompt, she should skip Yuletide or similarly assignment-based ficathons, and instead do challenges like kink_bingo or lgbtfest where there are huge long lists of prompts and you can pick whatever suits you. Etc.
Kaz has provided a lot of really interesting ideas for that most (if not all) challenges could be vastly improved, accessibility-wise, but as a mod, when it involves letting other people down, I think potential challenge participants have a responsibility to honestly gauge their own capacity to participate, and commit themselves accordingly. Obviously there are always things that people can't control-- illness, unexpected emergency, computer problems, and obviously the kind of autistic interest patterns and social anxiety that kaz is describing fall into this category.
But someone who's run fic challenges, I don't really have a lot of sympathy for people who would sign up for any kind of *exchange based* ficathon knowing ahead of time that something like their work schedule won't let them follow through. IMO, that's completely different than getting sick or having a family emergency or something like what kaz describes, that's totally unexpected and not under that person's control at all.