Hi Sam,

I found this interesting so I hope you allow to give you my point of view on that.

The PG13 policy is stated clearly with links, on the submission page where writers submit their own work. They are required to accept that their submission complies with Dreemport guidelines before submitting their posts for public curation. I am not sure it could be much clearer than requiring an overt upfront action on behalf of the writer.

I refer to the "before submitting" point.

In fact, it happens that authors do not comply, doesn't it? That is a fact. So what to do with cases that have already occurred? You can insist on rules, but it will always be the case that people disregard some or all of the points requested in the rules. So this fact would no longer occur anywhere where everyone without exception adheres to the guidelines, that's when we should start to worry. That would mean that people are censoring themselves just to avoid attracting uncomfortable attention.

If you see yourself as a publishing house and you only want to publish authors on the basis of the guidelines you have set up and classify what you consider unacceptable and morally offensive, you will have to enter into dialogue with an author, deal with him, try to understand him and vice versa. In negotiating with each other and allowing a conflict, there will be a learning effect on both sides and also an understanding on the part of the publisher that they are prepared to take certain risks if the rest of the authors work is convincing, for example.

Basically, you can't generalise something like that, because each individual story is a case in itself. You can only talk about this individual story and negotiate with each other about what should remain in it, what should perhaps be rewritten and so on.
So it is always also rule violations that help to develop oneself, to mature in the process of a conflict.

The a priori "I won't even submit my story if it violates parts of the rulebook" is therefore a matter worthy of debate for me.

This debate is representative of much else that happens on media channels.
As the operator of a community or blog, one sets rules and asks for compliance with them. The argument that those who do not accept the rules in their entirety do not need to submit their works and can simply publish elsewhere is correct. However, it is also correct that consumers/readers of submissions of stories something that offends their sensibilities do not need to read or, for example, vote for a story.

Each individual can decide for themselves whether or not they take offence to something and the spectrum is wide between "absolutely unacceptable" and "perfectly okay". There are books on the bestseller lists or award-winning authors that I personally find repulsive.

And while as a community operator I would also offer rules for guidance, a submitted story that comes from a participant is already written and I have no control over whether others read or ignore the story. As for the submitter himself, I can therefore say that the submission does not meet the guidelines and will not be entered into the competition. So far so good. If someone wants to argue about it, why not?

But now it should be left at that.

In any case, the currently observable phenomenon of the cancel culture is not a figment of the imagination, if one knows cases and it is given a scale that seems to happen across all borders. One has to be careful as hell not to join such a culture. One just doesn't want to leave it at that and wants to have the morals, and that very one-sidedly.

I would find it much more exciting to read a story that breaks the rules in parts, to judge for myself, and all too willing to read an exchange of arguments between the author and the operator of a public platform (albeit after a case has been closed, for instance). Not everything belongs in public, and if it does, it needs extremely sensitive and good moderation.

Greetings to you.