Content Policy Change

To clarify I am also female.

I had false hope that Eddie had clarified that last bullet point.

We are not denying that it exists, we are just removing the pages for the works here.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:00:51 PM by SeptimusHeap

They'd rather just keep it off of their wiki. It's their call.

And on top of that, condemning the works would break the "No Negativity" rule, and would then lead to even more people whining.

Yeah, what they said.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:01:03 PM by CaspersWish

I just noticed another thing about the guidelines. It separates between "explicit sex" and "implied sex". The thing is, while both a mutually exclusive, they aren't the only possibilities either. I understand "explicit sex" as "sex where we can actually see the act" and "implied sex" as "when the act is only implied to be happening, though no actual confirmation is given".

However, there is still "the sexual act is very much explicitly happening, but we don't get to actually see it", which is neither "explicit sex" nor "implied sex", from the way I see it. I get the feeling ccoa meant my "new" category to be include into 'implied sex', but I wanted it to be made clear.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:04:32 PM by Heatth

That was a part of ccoa's original post and I think cooa meant to draw the distinction between "sex on screen" and "sex off screen".

@Caspers Wish: I think banning the works violates that much more. If I wan't clear, what I meant is that if whoever's in charge wants to condemn something, fine, but trying to uphold the rules after what I see as a massive violation of the wiki's mission.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:04:02 PM by condottiera

I don't remember ccoa post anymore. (I edited my previous post)

Yes, it is what I think too, but it is unclear, so I wanted confirmation.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:04:46 PM by Heatth

Since when was it the wiki's mission to keep pages that they no longer want on their wiki?

And they're not banning those works, they just don't want them to have pages on the wiki.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:08:51 PM by CaspersWish

@Casper

That's effectively the same thing.

Actually, I think we are still allowed to list them on trope pages. So it is different, as we are not banning every mention of the 'forbidden' works.

@Caspers Wish: That sound a little bit like the scary side of Insistent Terminology. What "we" want is not what I want.

@Heatth: If we're allowed to list them on trope pages, why can't we have page to list all the pages it's listed on? Is that so hard? I said before, we can lock it to keep out pervs.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:10:47 PM by condottiera

No, it's not. You'll probably still be able to list them on trope pages, and talk about them elsewhere.

Okay. I thought that the whole Google thing was what kick-started this whole thing.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:11:59 PM by CaspersWish

We can't have porn on the wiki. Google makes too much of a fuss. That's just the way it is; yell at them if you want.

That would likely cause people to try to make a page on the work since they'd be red links.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:10:59 PM by strawberryflavored

The pages will be locked, though. And probably with a banner quickly explaining the situation.

Once again this has nothing to do with Google anymore

edited 17th Apr '12 4:11:16 PM by LMage

There is nothing "Slippery slope" about saying "We've made mistakes in the past (cutting works that don't need to be cut) and we need to avoid making the same mistake in the future."

If I wreck my car, saying I need to be more careful driving in the future isn't a strawman. It is a lesson learned from past errors. I can't say "Of course I will never wreck my car, how dare you suggest I'm a fallible driver?" when I've already done it.

@Discar: The "no pages for porn works" isn't actually driven by The Second Google Incident.

@Marq It is, but that's not the primary motivation for it. It's the secondary motivation. We aren't doing this just because of Google. We're doing this because we found some genuinely horrifying shit on the wiki in the process of cleaning things up for Google. So it's a little of both.

I think the main problem is that, due to our No Negativity*

Personally, I agree with you. But I can see the reasons behind the purge as well.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:14:01 PM by Heatth

I've heard it vehemently denied that this had anything to do with it because Fast Eddie said so, and now people are flip-flopping. If he doesn't want to lose money he should just come clean.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:15:02 PM by condottiera

He doesn't want to lose money because the wiki needs money.

@Heatth: I personally don't think editing a work's page is the equivalent to a personal stamp of approval. Having a page on something bad does not mean everyone on TV Tropes likes it.

@encrypted: I know, I just mean that he shouldn't lie about his motivation.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:19:29 PM by condottiera