Content Policy Change

@booky: Hell, no. We don't have enough firefighters to put out the flaming that would ensue if people in the wild knew that we are cutting their fetishes (or pages they like).

edited 14th Apr '12 1:30:32 PM by SeptimusHeap

That is a good point.

I understand your reasoning. Maybe note on top of this sections of the forums or something?

edited 14th Apr '12 1:31:47 PM by encrypted12345

I believe it was The Fast One's decision not to do so. At some point, I expect that there will be a more formal announcement, but more than that, you will have to ask him.

That's probably why. If it were widely advertised, it would probably incite more of a panic than not doing so.

edited 14th Apr '12 1:32:35 PM by DarkConfidant

@Heap: Won't that increase the severity of the impact when the midden finally hits the windmill? Lolita and Naughty Tentacles were pretty much literally replaced with great, big Do Not Want signs; you can't tell me nobody saw that.

EDIT: Do Not Want was nuked? When did that happen? And why didn't anybody just let one of the redirects stick?

edited 14th Apr '12 1:34:02 PM by Artemis92

Remember SOPA? Its announcement caused thousands of people to snap back and protest. I would assume something similar would happen if they announced the changes.

Geh, I saw that when I checked the pages for one anime I liked. That was shocking.

edited 14th Apr '12 1:33:47 PM by encrypted12345

So:

I think that works with the sole intent of soliciting sexual arousal and nothing else should be cut, but nothing else. Containing sexual content or addressing sexual subject matter shouldn't be grounds for cutting so long as we treat the matters respectfully when we create the article in question.

edited 14th Apr '12 1:36:05 PM by LMage

Well they're going to find out eventually aren't they?

So wait all Visual Novel containing sex are automatically cut apparently? Because Fate Stay Night was apparently cut despite the fact that there was a hidden message stating that that it wasn't Porn with Plot because there wasn't enough sex to qualify. I personally think that keeping should be the default with cutting the one that requires the council's agreement. It shows that works are given bad faith, especially if there's media bias going on (focus on Fan Fic, Anime & Manga, and Visual Novel).

That makes sense.

Although what if people panic?

I am slightly confused as to why it is Anime, Manga, and Visual Novels.

edited 14th Apr '12 1:35:48 PM by Bookyangel2438

Not all of them. The ones with a lack of plot will probably go. Fate Stay Night was an accident.

edited 14th Apr '12 1:35:30 PM by encrypted12345

@88

I will agree that the discussion should be transparent, but I think it should only go so far.

Considering the subject matter and how people are reacting, I think it should be a annon discussion (mods can see who posts, but not the normal tropers) so that people are less reluctent to be associated with particular topics. This would also mean that all "nominations" and discussion would go through a spesific process and not strait to the council members.

edited 14th Apr '12 1:37:59 PM by Belian

I strongly disagree that discussion should be anonymous. See GIFT for details.

What I can support is strict moderation of this particular forum and willingness to block/ban someone from that forum should the individual continue to cause hysteria/discord or threaten the like.

I hope things that are not bad are restored.

To keep things from spiralling, would it be feasible to have a separate thread for each work under discussion, no other works to be discussed in that thread, lock the thread when resolved one way or the other? And maybe a limit of 10 or so active threads at a time. That might cut down on the "well, what about this other thing" arguments.

But at some point we are going to need a genertal statement of what sort of content should be flagged for review. "Has titillating sex scenes" will net thousands of works, from Sci-Fi novels to Harlequin romances.

edited 14th Apr '12 1:44:58 PM by lebrel

That is why I said that the mods should be able to see who was posting in order to reprimand them if nessisary.

I especially think the the members of this council should not be anounced, just "statement from... ," so that they are not bombarded with P Ms.

A crowner to decide what people want to discuss the most would aslo be usefull

edited 14th Apr '12 1:45:20 PM by Belian

I agree. Not because of GIFT but because of accountability. A council with such grand decided power should be held accountable for their actions. Part of the cost of the power they hold over the wiki is that they must be held accountable for the people who may disagree. Also do we want council members that would be bothered by criticism? If anyone goes out of line they will be banned of course, but the Troper population should be able to see and understand their councilmen.

edited 14th Apr '12 1:44:50 PM by RhymeBeat

I suspect that they will be. From what I've read, everything even remotely pornographic got cut and secluded into some undisclosed place on the site. Next, after FE and the mods get everything that's even potentially an issue, the council will begin the process of deciding what can safely be introduced back to the site. It is best to make sure that everything questionable is cloistered away to make sure that there's no Google Incident Part III. Only then do we return what can be returned without invoking the wrath of The Advertisement Server.

Agreed. I use GIFT sort of colloquially to make the point that a (perceived) lack of consequences causes people to do things they otherwise wouldn't. Deindividuation is the technical term.

edited 14th Apr '12 1:49:21 PM by DarkConfidant

Everything questionable??

This just seems silly.

I agree that we should air on the side of caution, be cutting everything questionable is not a good idea.

edited 14th Apr '12 1:49:44 PM by LMage

It is very excessive.

A) I was just putting another idea out there to head off unforseen consiquenses

B) There are some things I don't particularly want to be associated with but might want to give input on. I was trying to suggest a way that I could give that input without going through the council members. Or creating a sock puppet

edited 14th Apr '12 1:53:41 PM by Belian

A lot of things were cut by accident, and so people are sort of irritable lately.

Obviously, there is judgement involved here as everywhere. However, the big problem is missing something that needs to be cut and invoke Google's Wrath again. It is a much smaller problem to cut something, have the council decide it's okay, and then restore it.

I do not disagree with you in point of fact, but that as a point of policy, this is the better way to go about it. I agree that that the standard for a work's inclusion should be fairly low in the abstract, but Google clearly thinks that we set the bar too low, and here we are.

edited 14th Apr '12 1:54:15 PM by DarkConfidant

And many things came close to cutting that don't remotely deserve it.

I disagree, I think this wiki losses something every time it cuts. It's not something that should be done lightly.

edited 14th Apr '12 1:52:40 PM by LMage