TV Tropes Org

Forums

search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [2,191]  1 ... 82 83 84 85 86
87
88

Content Policy Change:

Always There
Wasn't it stated multiple times that the page for Lolita would be restored?
One big YES!
[up] Yes. But I'm complaining that if there are going to be new rules, then we should follow them to the letter or change them.
[up] Ug, I know. (frustration) But I confess I'm worried about Brave New World, because nothing is sacred anymore.
More pluck than an Alabama banjo festival
Always There
Then propose "minimal tolerance" instead of "zero tolerance". Good works will get to stay, and creepy ones will be erased.

Either that or they put up a "no rules lawyering, exceptions are exceptions" rule.

[down]Repeating that "If that goes, then cut this" line is hardly 'calmly suggesting a rename of the policy.'

edited 17th Apr '12 5:07:57 PM by CaspersWish

One big YES!
Rebel Ace
That is exactly what we are doing.
"[Live] as free, not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God" - 1 Peter 2:16 KJV
[up][up] The reason we are complaining is because good and creepy aren't mutually exclusive.

edited 17th Apr '12 5:06:03 PM by encrypted12345

 2157 Bobby G, Tue, 17th Apr '12 5:06:09 PM from the Silvery Tay
With Mod Hat On

Death of the Author is a concept from literary criticism which is being thoroughly abused here, and which is in any case not the point because we are trying to enforce the rules, not deconstruct them, thank you very much. This is not about pissing about with "I'm too incapable of critical reading to understand what the author was getting at", nor with "by my supercreative reading of Paedoshit no Fapfapfap it's neither pornographic nor sexual", it's about actually getting shit done.

All of this is entirely irrelevant to the policy, which is not to prohibit every work that depicting a child beauty pageant, and you knew damn well that the intent was not to prohibit every work depicting a child beauty pageant. The only point in suggesting that non-problematic series might be removed per these rules is to undermine the policy and derail the thread, because you don't actually expect us to cut any of these things. Cut it out or get suspended.

The other thing you are doing when you very pointedly misunderstand the policy is demonstrating that you do, in fact, understand the policy. Yes, we probably are deleting the article on your favourite porn. If you don't think it's porn, that's what the council exists to check.

The reason we didn't put up guidelines like ccoa's before is because we knew that you would look for holes in them like this. The English language is always open to reinterpretation. Sit around saying "Define this, define that" and you'll never understand anything, and you'll never get anything done. We are trying to clear out pornography, we are trying to clear out child pornography, we are trying to clear out works that were written for paedophiles. These terms mean precisely what you think they mean, and nothing is happening to Brave New World, Final Fantasy or fucking Mister Rogers' Neighborhood.

Thank you.

edited 17th Apr '12 5:07:24 PM by BobbyG

@Caspers Wish: I don't want creepy works erased. "Creepy" is subjective and there's No Such Thing As Notability.

Intent is moot.

I stand by my proposal to keep pages that would draw pedophiles locked and free of all sex tropes.

@Bobby G: That is incredibly rude. Just because you're a mod doesn't mean you don't have to follow the rules. And I have to say, I do honestly think those are in danger of being cut.

edited 17th Apr '12 5:09:57 PM by condottiera

More pluck than an Alabama banjo festival
 2159 Bobby G, Tue, 17th Apr '12 5:09:31 PM from the Silvery Tay
vigilantly taxonomish
There Is no Such Thing as Notability merely means that notability is not a criterion we judge works by, not that there are no criteria.

I have addressed "intent is moot". Death of the Author is not a policy page, it's a definition of a piece of jargon.

Edit: Oh, have I offended you? Let me tell you what I think is rude. Purposefully derailing this thread with non-issues is rude. Attempting to undermine policy with fallacious arguments and purposeful non-comprehension is rude. Don't do it.

edited 17th Apr '12 5:11:16 PM by BobbyG

Always There
"I don't want creepy works erased. "Creepy" is subjective and there's No Such Thing as Notability."

Then you're directly opposing what the staff, Google, and many tropers (I think) want.

[down]I never said it was. I'm only saying that you're moving in the opposite direction from the staff, and they aren't budging, so you're just doing this for fun at this point.

edited 17th Apr '12 5:15:18 PM by CaspersWish

One big YES!
[up][up] I know that it is not a policy, but it is something I believe in.

[up] I'm sorry, I didn't think disagreeing was against the rules.

edited 17th Apr '12 5:13:07 PM by condottiera

More pluck than an Alabama banjo festival
Bobby G, I'd be perfectly fine with "We are trying to clear out child pornography and that means exactly what you think it means" if I haven't run across people that thought that stuff like Sailor Moon was child pornography.

I've seen stuff get labeled child pornography that wasn't child pornography. Some of it by tropers on this wiki.

And if you want to ban people for suggesting that something someone said needs clarification, start with your fellow moderators like ccoa and shimaspawn.

edited 17th Apr '12 5:14:38 PM by Catbert

Always There
[up]Isn't that what the council is for? If someone recommends something that isn't child pornography by any stretch of the imagination for cutting, then the council won't let that cut happen.

edited 17th Apr '12 5:13:03 PM by CaspersWish

One big YES!
 2164 arcsquad 12, Tue, 17th Apr '12 5:13:20 PM from Monument of Sins
The Inheritor
I think I just suffered a brain hemorrhage reading through the last few pages. Did someone seriously equate a final fantasy fanservice moment to Brave New World?

This is why a case by case basis is the only way to go through these works. Look at the work individually, instead of screaming about what might be cut because something else was cut.

edited 17th Apr '12 5:14:13 PM by arcsquad12

Do not be so quick to make foolish offers, Daemon. Araghast too once thought I would be an asset to his cause. Look what has become of him.
 2165 djmaca, Tue, 17th Apr '12 5:13:46 PM from Philippines
Secret Character
@Bobby

A person's view of what work is porn, child porn or made for pedo is what's unclear here.
...a little brother should belong to his older sister, right? - Orimura Chifuyu
@Casper: You don't have to stretch you imagination very far to consider anything with explicit sex in it pornography.

@arcsquad: I think case by case is unfair because it would favor "notable" works.

edited 17th Apr '12 5:16:16 PM by condottiera

More pluck than an Alabama banjo festival
Rebel Ace
@Bobby G May we please keep this civil? Going on a rant won't help.

@Casper Creepy is subjective. You in no way refuted his point. I support the end of child pornography but also support putting in commons sense stipulations.
"[Live] as free, not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God" - 1 Peter 2:16 KJV
 2168 Martello, Tue, 17th Apr '12 5:15:18 PM from Black River, NY
Hammer of the Pervs
Condotierra - you might believe in that, but it doesn't mean everyone else shares your viewpoint. I was an English major in college, I dissected Death of the Author for hours with the other English fuckers. I wrote at least one paper on it, related to Heart of Darkness. Guess what? It doesn't have a damn thing to do with what this discussion is about.

edited 17th Apr '12 5:15:47 PM by Martello

"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.
 2169 djmaca, Tue, 17th Apr '12 5:15:20 PM from Philippines
Secret Character
@condo Yeah but then there are works that has explicit sex and isn't really porn.

[down][down]Oh ok.

edited 17th Apr '12 5:17:52 PM by djmaca

...a little brother should belong to his older sister, right? - Orimura Chifuyu
instead of screaming about what might be cut because something else was cut.

People that say that we are doing that are the ones that are strawmaning.

If the rules say "No fish" it isn't unreasonable to think that tuna will not be allowed.

edited 17th Apr '12 5:16:24 PM by Catbert

[up][up] The point that Condo's trying to make is that despite that, people will stretch their imaginations.

edited 17th Apr '12 5:17:31 PM by encrypted12345

 2172 lebrel, Tue, 17th Apr '12 5:17:09 PM from Basement, Ivory Tower
Tsundere pet.
@ 2157: This is still not helping. We have not ever had works of actual child pornography mentioned anywhere on the site (as far as I know of; if we do we should find it and report it to the FBI ASAP). "Pornography" obviously means something different to me than it does to Fast Eddie. Unless we can contact the authors and get a statement, we can't identify "works that were written for paedophiles", as lolicon/shotacon is not written for pedophiles, it is written for lolicon/shotacon fans (who are not necessarily pedophiles, any more than women who read lesbian erotica are necessarily lesbians).

Fast Eddie has laid down very stringent qualifications for what we should not have. Those qualifications, taken at face value, would cut a fair amount of stuff that I'm pretty sure he does not mean to have cut. That means that either a) he didn't mean to say what he in fact said, or b) I and you are both mistaken and he does intend a scorched-earth purge of even mainstream fiction that has episodes of early-teen/preteen sex. In either case, clarification is needed.
Calling someone a pedant is an automatic Insult Backfire. Real pedants will be flattered.
 2173 Bobby G, Tue, 17th Apr '12 5:17:51 PM from the Silvery Tay
With Mod Hat On
Nobody on the staff thinks Sailor Moon is child pornography. We have stated this enough times. This is the last time I am going to condescend to make a statement of this nature.

As for taking Death of the Author as a philosophical position, I'm afraid you're just going to have to live with the reality that TV Tropes holds no such philosophy and is not going to privilege the approach in the way you would like us to.

I wrote that post above because I am sick of this derailing and I am telling you all to stop. If you find that offensive, too bad; we have rules and we have to enforce them. I find this attitude of combating policy at every step pretty offensive, myself.
@Martello: So good to see that you're an expert. Policy or not, you cannot deny that it is theoretically posible for someone who is not a pedophile to enjoy something "intended" for pedos.

@Bobby G: I'm as sick of this as you are, but I am trying to remain calm and talk this out. You can't tell me I'm not allowed to voice my opinion. Given the site's endorsement of censorship, though, I wouldn't be surprised.

edited 17th Apr '12 5:21:22 PM by condottiera

More pluck than an Alabama banjo festival
 2175 Bobby G, Tue, 17th Apr '12 5:19:51 PM from the Silvery Tay
With Mod Hat On
as lolicon/shotacon is not written for pedophiles

That right there is exactly the kind of asinine nitpicking I hoped we might avoid. Silly me!

We are deleting lolicon and shotacon.
Total posts: 2,191
 1 ... 82 83 84 85 86
87
88


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy