Content Policy Change

You know, isn't this the entire reason that the panel exists? So that they can look at these works to determine which ones fall under the guidelines and which ones don't? So that we can stop with the fear mongering and the exaggerated claims of "if work X was cut, what next?" hyperbole?

@Fighteer,

I don't think you understood the purpose of Rhyme's post. You are being overly defensive here.

Exactly. Which is why Eddie change in the guideline, which include "every possible sexualization of children is unambiguously out", is troubling.

ccoa original post made it open to revision. Eddie's edit does not.

edited 17th Apr '12 3:05:11 PM by Heatth

Yes, right.

Let's stop the argument about Fighteer's ban threat and the "If X is cut Y will have to be cut too", please.

edited 17th Apr '12 3:04:32 PM by SeptimusHeap

And I quote (from Eddie's updated policy)

"Sexualizes children: not okay. "

Ccoa's had it rely on context Eddie's is a flat out ban.

I was talking about something FE legitimately changed.

edited 17th Apr '12 3:05:44 PM by RhymeBeat

Fighteer is telling you to stop trhe fear-mongering and slippery slope fallacy. Our problem are works that are clearly designed to appeal to pedophiles, not works where little girls appear pretty so other little girls can project on them.

That is what I would call "paedo-shit" and can die in a fire.

edited 17th Apr '12 3:06:16 PM by SeptimusHeap

@2003,

But Rhyme wasn't saying "if we cut X we must cut Y". He was just pointing a flaw in the guidelines using an example.

And Rhyme gave us an example which was not pedoshit. And which do not deserve to die on fire.

edited 17th Apr '12 3:07:18 PM by Heatth

I chastised Rhyme for deliberately using an extreme example in an attempt to refute an argument that nobody but him was putting forth. In short, strawmanning.

For gods' sake people, exercise some mature judgement. We are not cutting Little Miss Sunshine. It won two Academy Awards, for crying out loud.

edited 17th Apr '12 3:08:32 PM by Fighteer

I think people constructing straw arguments now

... Did anyone save a copy of Ccoa's original guidelines, just for reference?

@Fighteer: I thought the new prohibitions weren't about Google's policies.

He wasn't strawmaing. He was using an example to show the guideline is flawed. He wasn't suggest to cut Little Miss Sunshine at all. The opposite.

edited 17th Apr '12 3:08:25 PM by Heatth

What's with all the strawman arguments? It's like people don't want anything productive to get done.

All right, I admit I'm confused. What is the definition we're using for "sexualizes children"?

@Heatth: And nowhere but in his depraved imagination would we countenance cutting a film that won 2 Oscars because it has a little girl in a beauty pageant. Be serious or we won't take you seriously.

edited 17th Apr '12 3:09:41 PM by Fighteer

Using them as Fanservice or otherwise using them in a manner that would arouse paedophiles, methinks.

edited 17th Apr '12 3:09:55 PM by SeptimusHeap

That's how I'd define it. I'm assuming Eddie means "sexualizes children in the eyes of the panel members, or Eddie."

@Fighteer

I thought we weren't supposed to say or imply that other tropers where pedophiles? And nowhere but in his depraved imagination might be poor word choice.

edited 17th Apr '12 3:11:21 PM by LMage

@Caspers Wish The reason that it seems like a strawman argument is because how extreme Eddie's guidelines are.

To quote.

edited 17th Apr '12 3:12:55 PM by encrypted12345

@Fighteer,

No one was suggestion you would. It was only suggested Eddie's guideline is flawed, precisely because of that. He listed something that is not okay at any circumstances. And Rhyme put forth a work which do use that 'something' in a perfectly innocuous way and which we would never cut.

edited 17th Apr '12 3:12:52 PM by Heatth

How am I strawmanning "We can't have any works that sexualize children at all" by pointing out a work that sexualizes children where there's a good reason for it"?

Eddie changed ccoa's rules. Which is where my concern lies.

And the girls in Little Miss Sunshine are in bikinis, with very heavy makeup. That and the burlesque routine afterward could be considered "sexualizing children". Like I said this type of thing should rely on context.

Exactly.

My understanding of "sexualizes children" is itself not entirely independent of context. There's still enough of a grey area there for me, assuming the P5ers (or at least three of them; at least one does not) understand it the way I do. So I'm not all that worried that any work that does it is to be definitely rather than probably cut.

edited 17th Apr '12 3:15:29 PM by HersheleOstropoler

Little Miss Sunshine wasnt made to titillate its viewers

There is where it lies the problem. I don't think 'sexualizing' something always means 'meant to titillate'.

I see puting girls on bikinis as a way to sexualize them. But I don't think it necessarily means as a way to arouse the viewers.

edited 17th Apr '12 3:15:44 PM by Heatth

Exactly which is why it relies on context. The sexualization was meant to be disturbing and hypocritical.

There you go. That's where the panel comes in. If they decide it's sexualising children, then it's out, as Eddie said.