Page Restoration Petitions

Shadis / Two Gun Angel: I know the reasons. I've been keeping track of these issues ever since the actual Second Google Incident.

The reason I'm raising these two up is that, based on the input in the threads, I have reason to believe that:

• In the case of My Balls, insufficient evidence was considered when assessing the amount of explicit content (especially in the later parts of the work) and the apparent age of the female lead, and thus may cross the line in terms of acceptability, and;
• In the case of Lotte no Omocha, since most of the arguments have been based on the toned-down anime version, a decision should be made based on the anime (and not the manga, which is decidedly more risque, or the premise as a standalone), for the sake of transparency. This is more of an issue with the process rather than the actual verdict - if none of the votes change following said considerations, then I have no major issues if it remains cut, and the 5P now has better grounds for explaining their decision. Bear in mind that the one member who did review the anime, Meeble, gave it a (borderline) cut, suggesting that there's going to be a lot of subjectivity. (Whether or not the vote changes is likely to depend on whether or not Catalogue gets a vote in place of Fast Eddie, as I don't anticipate the other four changing their decisions.)

I'm not trying to influence the decision of 5P based on my own subjective opinions; I'm just bringing up additional information which might not have been mentioned or considered during the original decision-making process, and requesting that these should be taken into account as well. Please see the original posts for the points I'm trying to make.

edited 31st May '12 8:06:42 PM by Pyrite

@catbert also some of the stuff cut were ecchi teen comedies like our American Pie but animated.

Certainly it has been my concern that this sort of thing might happen, but what actually got cut that you would classify as such? I've seen ecchi shonen works proposed for cutting, but so far they seems to have survived the process reasonably well, and I've been reassured by statements by staff that stuff like Negima is off limits for review.

Eiken was the only one. Arcade Gamer whatever passed although people were shocked by the premise. Apparently panty shots are considered more... bad than swim suit scenes despite being the same amount of 'skin'?

Negima! is off limits due to being PG-13 is what I thought.

edited 31st May '12 8:36:16 PM by animeg3282

Can we get back to actual petitions, please? We could discuss all this in the About Content Violations Discussions thread.

@animeg Fully-Clothed Nudity, we have an entire trope about the double standard. Really, the thing we should be afraid of is lonnnnnnnggggg panty shots/swimsuit shots that focus on the groin.

I propose the law of crotch-screen time: As the amount time that the crotch area of a character is focused on increases, the level of sexualization the character is receiving also increases. Short shots of panties/a swimsuited groin are relatively tame, and are in real life are an eventuality. Rubbing your camera on a girls groin for five or six minutes is rather awkward, and creepy.

edited 1st Jun '12 1:30:47 PM by Roraborialis

That should be a trope. hahha

Flagged Naughty Tentacles, since it's not possible to reach the flagger on Naughty Tentacles due to the "Unwanted Topic" thingy there.

I propose the law of crotch-screen time: As the amount time that the crotch area of a character is focused on increases, the level of sexualization the character is receiving also increases.

I could propose a similar law for breasts. It would even be accurate; if the breasts are focussed on a lot, it's almost certain that the character is being sexualized.

But it would be a horrible law to use in making decisions here.

Why *are* Naughty Tentacles and Lotte the only things with the banner, anyway?

First one is because of the Google Incident.

Second one is honestly unknown. It's a super-heated topic about that we try to avoid discussing right now. However, we do need to get rid of it due to some ghost wicks. So a cut would work well.

The potlinking on Naughty Tentacles is what made this necessary in the first place.

As for "that thing which I'm afraid to mention by name", I don't know. Maybe it was the most squicky of the stuff that was initially cut.

Edit: Ninja'd!

edited 3rd Jun '12 12:23:41 AM by KrazyKopter

KNJ was squicky and permanently cut. No complaints here. As for LNO, with the huge amount of arguments, putting a banner on it just helps them a bit die down. Not perfectly, but it may get a look over. As I said, my only issue is the ghost wicks right now.

There are lots of factors, but: % of screen X time per shot X frequency X DETAIL= sexualization roughly would make sense.

Still, It was half serious, things like that are impossible to judge mathematically, but if we really want to get deep down to the heart of the panty shot issue; Panty shots are generally low detail, small, and in the background, making them relatively tame in light of what we are judging. There is a tremendous difference between a close up shot where the panties are the entire screen, and basically all the details of the girls... privates... are showing through, and one that shows up in the background, is detail free, and is around for less then a second.

Technically, they are not seriously notable without some sort of feature of the shot pushing forward the awkwardness. Whether it be their frequency, detail, level of focus in the shot, time, or a combination of the above. They are BASICALLY a swimsuit, but up the skirt shots constantly is still a little bit weird, since they are NOT a swimsuit.

I'm sorry if it seems like over analyzing this, but If we are going to discuss how we should judge these things, its a necessity, even if it makes us feel like worse human beings overall. If we want to do things right, we will have to get our hands dirty, whether its as simple as googling an official site, going to the works wiki, or sending a poor, but brave fellow down into the pits of hell with a flashlight and safety glasses to give us a review.

Meh, Perhaps I'm being too joking, or a little bit too serious business. Maybe I am enjoying debating said subjects far too much for my own good.

On the ghostwiks/redlinks: I feel that cutting redlink examples for being so is vandalism, but making the links not links is A-OK with me, and I wont ever blame someone for cutting an unnecessarily gushy example. I have already made it clear my position on the banner, so I won't say any more in it.

There's a Special Efforts thread for dealing with that stuff anyway. We're not deleting stuff without asking either.

Some other series might have their own thread, though. Lotte No Omocha had one of those.

I'm one of those people that would prefer LNO just get a redlink instead of having a special banner essentially making a value judgement for the casual perusers of this site.

edited 4th Jun '12 8:45:25 PM by Raidouthe21st

Seconded, because Lotte No Omocha was NOT what caused the Google incident, and that banner belongs on other things as well if we put it on there. Should be removed so the pages can be cutlisted properly.

Characters.Lotte No Omocha - Looks like they have cut them, so the ghost links should be gone.

edited 5th Jun '12 2:19:30 AM by TheOneWhoTropes

I also agree with the above two posters, simply on the grounds of "It's dead, it ain't coming back, take the body off the pole in the village square and give it a proper burial." It especially seems odd that Lotte no Omocha gets the special DO NOT WANT treatment, even when far worse items get the normal blank/locked page treatment.

Speaking of which, shouldn't stuff like this be cut as well? And is it still acceptable to write/host reviews of deleted works?

If the main page was cut, then yes, the subpages should be cut too. That page has already been cutlisted though.

edited 6th Jun '12 4:00:04 PM by strawberryflavored

Yep, I cutlisted it. Flagged the reviews while I was at it. Those all get deleted along with the main page.

Literature:Gor. Under the 'Is a written work that is sold in major bookstores without an "adult" or "mature" label' exception. For decades the books in the series were sold in bookstores without an adult or mature level, right in the science fiction section between Niven and Norton. Even today the DAW paperbacks are sold in used book stores, and the only way they are given "special" treatment is as rare and valuable collectables.

Gor is still there. Or are you petitioning for it to be unlocked and the examples restored?

ATTN: Modmins and P5:

As the other thread is currently locked, may I continue posting reviews of stalled discussion here?

edited 7th Jun '12 5:08:34 AM by tdgoodrich1

I'm petitioning for Gor to be unlocked and the examples restored. Or else an explaination that I've misread the meaning of:

"We will not accept recommendations to purge anything that meets the following criteria"

(Which is entirely possible.)

edited 7th Jun '12 9:45:28 AM by sablesword

Is it possible to add the "Mind Rape" trope back in, other than the name the trope is generally not sexual; a rename should be sufficient enough of a change to agree with the new content policy.

Considering the Rape pages haven't been cut (note the blue links), I doubt the current state of affair is permanent. For all we know even a rename to Mind Rape may be unnecessary. Though we still need Google to tel what the problem were before we can address it properly.