Cap_Ironman Big Bang!

[valtyr]

Hi all! After the success of the Reverse Big Bang, we think it's time to run another Big Bang. A not-reversed one.

This would follow the standard format of writers writing, submitting a summary, and then artists claiming summaries to do art for. Then, artists, uh, arting, and then they pick a post date and post on it.

The fics would be expected to follow the guidelines for fic posted to this comm - to wit, "Just be sure that in fics, Steve and Tony are one of your main pairings or at least very prominent characters." Gen fics about Steve and Tony are accepted, but fics that focus on Steve and Tony in other ships are not. A fic about how Steve and Tony rebuild their friendship after Avengers Prime, with background Steve/Sharon, is fine, but a fic about how Steve and Sharon rebuild their relationship with Tony in the background is not.

Projected timeline:

April 10: Author sign-ups open.
April 30: Author sign-ups close.
May, June, July: writers write.
July 31st: Drafts and summaries due.
August 1st: Summaries posted for artists to claim, and mod emails draft and puts artist and author in touch.
August: Artists art
August 31st: Artist and author pair pick posting date in September
September: Fics and art posted, much rejoicing.

I thought an artist sign-up wasn't really necessary? Just, artists show up and pick?

Anyway, the reason I'm posting this early is to get general comm input on whether the timeline works, whether there are any colossal flaws in the plan, etc. Also, how long should the minimum wordcount be? 20k? 30k? 50k? Tell me your thoughts. If I don't get anyone's thoughts, I'll have to use my own, and then we will all be sorry.

Comments

[flufflenecharka.livejournal.com]

Over on one RP I play in one of the mods was in a car crash and couldn't do anything to inform us of that, thus creating months without plot until she recovered.

So if someone has a legitimate honest-to-God reason and they're sorry and it was real life biting them in the ass, I'd be against banhammering. On the other hand if they just couln't do it, that's something else. Just don't forget the few legitimately-couldn't-make-it cases. Or something.

This comment had a point at one time, I swear.

[muccamukk]

Every challenge we've hosted here, we've made sure people know that dropping out isn't a big deal, so I'd feel pretty bad banhammering people when they did.

I have no idea if someone just didn't feel like finishing or had to have a lung out, and I don't think I'm qualified to draw the line as to where the cut off point ought to be.

That said, I really appreciate people who e-mail me ahead of time so I can set up a pinch. Just disappearing is stressful to mod.

[arysteia.livejournal.com]

I do think as a generalisation there's a big difference between an every man for himself challenge, and something reciprocal, or where you're part of a team. In that sort of situation I think dropping out without notice is a big deal. That said, this is a small fandom and you're right that we don't seem to have a list of repeat offenders (and I have been in fandoms where that was definitely the case!) so I'm happy to roll with it.

[muccamukk]

All the challenges we've run here (while I've been on board anyway) have been reciprocal challenges. Either the Bangs or one of the Santa exchanges.

It was pointed out on one of the meta comms (I think), that putting a huge amount of pressure on everyone about dropping out pretty much excludes people who get anxious about deadlines, or social pressure at all really.

That's why we have the no pressure stance, the form letters for dropping out, a pinch hitter list (usually), and, in the Santas, a list of prompts to claim with no pressure or due dates.

Having done all that, keeping a List of the Banned seems contrary to the spirit. Though, as you say, no one's done it twice anyway.

[arysteia.livejournal.com]

I guess I just have a gut-philosophical stance where if you've let someone down you have to take your lumps, however miniscule those lumps may be. But I'm not actually as mean as that makes me sound! And it's clearly not a problem here, so I suppose I'm projecting based on experiences elsewhere.

The idea of excluding people with anxiety from the get-go had never occurred to me, so thanks for mentioning that.