If there's zero tolerance for pure porn and for pedoshit, people need to have some idea — not absolute certainty, just an idea — what qualifies. With pure porn, that's fine. My idea of what that means isn't going to line up exactly with the P5ers', but I can be confident it's along the same lines. Pedoshit is a different matter. It's a hapax, a word invented here for this discussion. All I can tell you about what it means is that it's up to the whims of the panelists. All I want is some idea of what their whims are likely to be.
I just want specificity one level down from what I'm seeing from everyone but ccoa
. I don't like "pedoshit is whatever P5 decides" but I'm fine with "pedoshit is X, and in the edge cases X is whatever P5 decides."
"That's a judgment call" is not a good argument against a rule, since there are people to make that judgment. "That invites rules lawyering
" is not a good argument, because the only people in a position to do it are the people making the decisions; it's not rules lawyering
when the GM does it. "That totally prohibits something we should obviously have a page on" is a good argument, which is why I'm distrustful of total prohibitions.
: "Nothing will be cut that doesn't need to go, nothing will be cut without review" rings a little hollow when
- Things that don't need to go have been cut without review
- FE has specifically said certain works won't come back whatever the panelists think of them.
Don't say I've been poking holes in what ccoa
posted when I've said twice it's exactly what I've been asking for.
edited 17th Apr '12 5:30:54 PM by HersheleOstropoler