Content Policy Change

Now let us have an endless discussion of the term 'strictest', because that's important.

The laws have to do with the difference in ages between the partcipants in sex, not just the age of consent.

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty

That is to say that a work in which a 15 year old having sex with another 15 year old would be given more leeway in what is allowed when compared with a work in which a 15 year old is having sex with a 30 year old?

edited 14th Apr '12 4:30:17 PM by DarkConfidant

Did not realize there was another thread on this.

Might I take a moment to bring back this proposal?

I hope so, although I'm not comfortable with either to be honest.

edited 14th Apr '12 4:34:47 PM by Autumncomet

One Piece blog Beyond the Lampshade

I'd assume that the first would be given no more leeway if it featured graphic sex between the minors.

edited 14th Apr '12 4:31:28 PM by Firebert

Support Gravitaz on Kickstarter!

Right, 15/15 would not be child abuse, but if it is explicit, there is a good chance it is porn.

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty

But if the sex is merely implied or censored in some respect, then the work would (should?) not be immediately dismissed on account of being pedophilia. This is obviously not the case when it's a 15 year old with a 30 year old, or at least, the bar would be much higher than in similar-aged relationships.

Let's say for arguments sake it is explicit but it does push something forword, plot, character, meaning. For further arguments sake let's also say it's a New York Times best selling book in recent years and held the title for several weeks or months. What is the policy there?

Edit:*

edited 14th Apr '12 4:38:33 PM by Vyctorian

Rarely active, try DA/Tumblr Avatar by pippanaffie.deviantart.com

@301: ... That was funny.

L Mage: How graphic is graphic? Do we get a blow by blow detailed account of the whole thing or do they leave plenty of bits out but there is still plenty to make it clear what happened. Is anything left to the imagination or is it all spelled out explicitly? The more explicit the portrayl, the more a work should get a more detailed look. Graphicness needs to be accounted for as much as context and message. That can draw the line between acceptable story telling and an insert of possibly questionable pornographic content. Honestly this will be up to the comittee. From the sounds of it there will enough people to bandy the discussion back and forth I am not overly worried about that part.

edited 14th Apr '12 4:45:19 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

@303: Yes, definitely! This certainly has nothing to do with the fact that I made it.

Well that was like playing a game of Whack-A-Mole where "mole" is defined as "Cthulhu". -Count Dorku

The cutlist requests are now full of an effort to remove graphic-sex featuring arthouse films, some of them with many inbounds. Shouldn't most of them meet the definition of 'adult' rather than 'porn'?

Yeah, we're jumping the gun a bit I say.

I was afraid of this. Bluenose Bowdlerizers are coming out of the woodworks.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

More likely, it's a case of far too many people still being under the impression this is a Google-related change (as some of the posts in this thread so, even though this has come up in each of the two prior ones). This is the downside of not making an official announcement - word of mouth misinformation is going to be just as problematic as mass hysteria.

edited 14th Apr '12 5:00:44 PM by TotemicHero

Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)

Only one: Myrmidon.

edited 14th Apr '12 5:00:28 PM by Psyga315

At least some of those feature graphic sex with minors.

Support Gravitaz on Kickstarter!

Wait, all that is the doing of one person? I have to give him credit for his determination, even if it's largely misguided.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

On a separate note, will the works that get pulled have their names completely eradicated from the wiki, or will they just have no work pages?

♥ ♦ ♠ ♣

I just came in to find out why a bunch of pages were suddenly perma-redlinked. What's this latest Google incident FE mentioned?

How far is this new rule going- I saw mention that entire works were getting cut and perma-redlinked now, including Lolita which last I was aware is considered a classic.

Basically what I'm saying is, is there a handy summary for latecomers somewhere? I can see that there's suddenly a council on this stuff and all but I normally avoid the forum so I'm still kind of going "wait, what's happening to my favorite site?"

Well, yeah. One person is doing all the work, but Firebert is vouching for the cutting of one subpage for Saya No Uta.

edited 14th Apr '12 5:07:36 PM by Psyga315

@Insanity

A completely valid response and even more reason that general announcement of what's happening should be given.

"You are never taller then when standing up for yourself"

Lolita being cut reminds me of the strikethrough incident on livejournal a few years ago- a group threatened to tell LJ's advertisers they were a pedophile site, so they started cutting journals and communities with certain keywords in the profile, including literary discussion groups and support communities for rape/incest survivors.

Concern trolls and TOS trolls cannot be appeased. That's what makes them trolls. If anything, scrambling to cut everything that garners complaints feeds these trolls. So, I assume like Cryptic Mirror at 218, I don't accept "reputation" or "people complained" as justifications. Unless and until an ad service says "we see that you have X*

, and we can't serve you ads if you have X," that argument means nothing to me.

Nothing in The Goals of TV Tropes specifically mentions porn, but as of 4:30 PM server time on April 14, it also doesn't exclude it. It doesn't say "the wiki is about tropes used to tell stories, as long as those stories aren't dirty." As such, any work that tells a story is officially fair game. If certain stories essentially serve only to attract undesirable and disgsting elements, that's an argument for an exception to the policy, but it should be recognized as an exception.

I understand that none of the goals are "crusading against the idea that Sex Is Evil," but excluding works for no other reason than that they are sexual doesn't merely not crusade against that viewpoint, it promotes it. There may be a middle ground, that takes no position on the evilness of sex, but that's not it.

@Insanity: Part of the debate, though a largely unspoken part, would seem to be over whether and when "classic" is an adequate defense.

I'm glad to see that the pages for [REDACTED] and [REDACTED], award-winning works, remain intact. I don't think Columbia University is a hotbed of child rape apology.

The child is father to the man —Oedipus

Some of the stuff that was cut will most likely be restored later. For now Lolita, certain mangas, the Hentai index, and Fanfic Recommendations have been cut. Once the council is assembled, they will review all of those and restore whatever is deemed non-porn. They'll also review whatever else is nominated by (some TBA process) as questionable.

It is not about Google. It is about things Fast Eddie does not want on the wiki, that he was unaware of until the latest Google Incident brought tons of pedo-gushing and porn fanfic pages to his attention.

Fast Eddie has indicated, IIRC, that things which are entirely porn will be cut, things which only contain sex will be given more leeway, and that things involving statutory rape by U.S. standards will be held to stricter standards, but specifics are not forthcoming. The persons on the council, and the methods and standards they'll use for reviewing, have not been decided or disclosed yet.

Mods have nominated councillors and are voting on them in their super secret mod forum. Those selected will be contacted and asked for applications, later.

edited 14th Apr '12 5:19:23 PM by ArcadesSabboth

Oppression anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere.

What about stories with no sex with minors at all, but you saw a flash of minor panty a little too often for comfort?