Content Policy Change

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.

@Bobby G: "Nothing will be cut that doesn't need to go, nothing will be cut without review" rings a little hollow when

1. Things that don't need to go have been cut without review
2. 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

The child is father to the man —Oedipus

"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."

That doesn't change the fact that you have to act within what the site deems to be creepy. And hey, almost everything is subjective. Merely stating that something is subjective doesn't erase the fact that most people don't want it on their site, or find it disgusting.

One big YES!

@Bobby G The main point here is asking Fast Eddie to explain his policy and clarify statements and looking for potential loopholes and points of contention. Nobody was strawmanning or suggesting that we overturn policy. Though you may want to keep the discussion on track, going off on a rant is not constructive and hurts the discussion. I think you should take a break. I know it is possible to get a little too emotionally invested in a discussion. Done it before. Maybe come back in a few minutes. See how things are shaking.

edited 17th Apr '12 5:24:52 PM by RogueLeader

@ 2175 : "We are deleting lolicon/shotacon" is a relatively clear statement (of course, then we can bog down on whether or not a specific work counts). "we are trying to clear out works that were written for paedophiles", as post #2157 has it, is a qualification that we cannot assess and is therefore a very poor guideline.

And guys, this is not a nitpick, this is important: Knowing of the existence of child pornography and not reporting it is a federal crime, it is a big hairy deal. We are not talking about child pornography here. Please stop calling drawings that. If people think we have actual child pornography on the site we could have the FBI down on us.

edited 17th Apr '12 5:26:56 PM by lebrel

Calling someone a pedant is an automatic Insult Backfire. Real pedants will be flattered.

@Bobby: Name calling isn't going to get you anywhere. You may call it nitpicking, but I'm trying to stand my ground and defend what I believe in. You have the right to do so also, but stop with the meanness.

What exactly is Lolicon and Shotacon anyway?

edited 17th Apr '12 5:25:30 PM by condottiera

More pluck than an Alabama banjo festival

I've said this before but hey, why not end all of this by implementing a "No Rules Lawyering; Exceptions are Exceptions" rule?

edited 17th Apr '12 5:25:26 PM by CaspersWish

One big YES!

Guys don't fight!

Bobby, maybe you should take a nap or something to relax because you are getting scary mad!

Alt account of Angeldog 2437.

I wish everybody else felt that way, but we have to keep going.

More pluck than an Alabama banjo festival

@Bobby G,

I hope you understand you are clearly going by a different definition of 'shotacon' and 'lolicon' than lebrel is. If this is clear, than I hope you agree that not everything lebrel calls 'shotacon' and 'lolicon' should be cut, even if everything you call 'shotacon' and 'lolicon' should.

The labels by itself has no meaning. It shouldn't matter if some work is considered 'shotacon','lolicon', porn or even pedophilic. The important is the content. If it fits said label by what TV Tropes define the label. Of course, this is the whole purpose of the 5P. To avoid this kind of miscommunication.

edited 17th Apr '12 5:29:32 PM by Heatth

Oh.

Name calling is bad though.

edited 17th Apr '12 5:27:37 PM by Bookyangel2438

Alt account of Angeldog 2437.

It's better for us to look for loopholes and inconsistencies now, hypothetically, than to have people complaining about what's actually happening once this is fully implemented.

Fine. I will stop complaining about things that might happen, I will wait and complain about things once they've happened.

edited 17th Apr '12 5:32:27 PM by HersheleOstropoler

The child is father to the man —Oedipus

That makes sense.

Alt account of Angeldog 2437.

@Heatth: If everybody has a different definition, then I can see how that would be a problem.

edited 17th Apr '12 5:29:15 PM by condottiera

More pluck than an Alabama banjo festival

I think "asinine" qualifies as an insult. It is possible that you are endorsing something to be cut under the impression that the only people who like them are pedos, which is unlikely.

edited 17th Apr '12 6:51:52 PM by condottiera

More pluck than an Alabama banjo festival

Lolicon and shotacon, by definition, is animated/drawn child porn. What could he have possibly meant?

One big YES!