The Place for Purging Porn and Pedo-Pandering (AKA P5 flag evaluations)

Yeah, but I don't think "a general distrust for-" really thinks too deeply about that kind of thing.

I definitely agree that "If it passed the MPAA then we really don't need to worry about it" is a good rule.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree that some works are so obviously okay for having pages and the like(like your example, Romeo And Juliet), but I disagree on... I think... the sequence of events that should occur.

The exemptions should be in place for the reasoning why some work has a page even if it violates some aspect of the policy... But the fact that exemptions exist doesn't mean, in my mind, that a specific work(like your example, Romeo And Juliet) should not be looked at by the review board. Even if it's only so the reviewing people can say "this fits the exemption list, it's okay."

Now, granted, people have to come up with legitimate reasons for a why a work should be looked at. But, if there is one, it can be said that all works are reviewed...

Basically, my thing is this: I can make a legitimate and reasoned argument as to why A Song Of Ice And Fire should be reviewed by the 5P committee... I think it should be okay for me to post that, even though I know(along with, theoretically, everyone here) that said work would never be cut. And I think it should be okay for other works that are obviously not going to be cut, due to that exception thing, to be posted(again, with the reasoning spelled out)...

Mostly because if these works aren't reviewed, it brings up the idea of favoritism or some other stupid excuse... It would also help on building a list of exempted works. Works that are reviewed, and exempted can be put on a page where people can be told "Hey, we reviewed this work already, and found it to be okay. Request a review of it at your peril."

Though, perhaps I'm in the minority on this...

If there's a clear and present rule for what is never going to get cut, then the only favoritism is towards those things that fit that rule. There is, thus, a favoritism to anything that's already been reviewed by an official agency. I don't think that's a bad favoritism.

Well, in Bunny Drop the girl and her not actually blood related foster parent uncle do actually get into a romantic relationship that started to develop naturally after she hit 16. In-context, it's fairly sweet, but the crush isn't the most dubious thing in the manga. Still, nothing at all explicit or implicit happens, and I don't think it could be called paedophilic, so I see no reason it should be reviewed.

edited 25th Apr '12 9:38:09 PM by Katrika

I think that it's very important that, if we have a "If it's reviewed by the media and not adult, it's not adult here" policy, we just stick by that policy. If we create exceptions to that policy, then it's meaningless.

Unless, of course, there's a clear rule on what the exceptions to said policy are.

edited 25th Apr '12 9:42:38 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Swish, I don't get why you feel it necessary to put up for review works that everyone knows won't be cut. All it does is make more work for everyone concerned. What's the point? What does it accomplish?

Is it that, like some other tropers, you think it should be OK but would like a declarative judgment?

I agree that certain works that would clearly be in line with the guidelines but may contain questionable materials should be reviewed to prevent the appearance of favoritism and the like. I can think of at least one work that falls in this.

Sometimes, the lack of appearance of fairness and due process is as bad or worse than a lack of fairness in the outcomes. At least from a psychological perspective.

However, I think we could wait until the bulk of the more questionable work is taken care of.

edited 25th Apr '12 9:53:43 PM by DarkConfidant

I think that bringing up something for review that is explicitly something that we've already said we will not bring up for review is more unfair than the implicit favoritism western works get.

And I'm a huge weeaboo/otaku.

So, take that for what you will.

There are some works that aren't going to be cut because of [Insert personal reason here]; they are just getting a pass because of how popular they are.

That's the image not reviewing them will create, which is exactly why P5 should review them and set down definitively why these works are okay. If they apply the standards fairly and explain what pushes a work over the edge and what doesn't, then people will be a lot less concerned and a lot less worried.

edited 25th Apr '12 9:56:51 PM by redlar

There is a mechanical objective rule in regards to any works that are autopassed by virtue of the fact that they're considered OK by conventional media. If people want to think that objectivity is not a thing, let them. But unless they want to argue that "ratings agencies are full of shit and tend to vote things that are okay when they're not okay" there's really not much grounds for their objections.

That being said, if people want to say "sometimes ratings agencies let things pass that really shouldn't pass" okay, but I don't think that they're going to win that argument.

edited 25th Apr '12 9:59:36 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

As far as I'm aware, there's no onus on 5P to actually give any reason for any of their decisions. Certainly the can, but they don't have to. Especially if that reason is going to boil down to "is rated PG-13/TVPG/12+/etc.".

See This Film is Not Yet Rated . This point can be made to extend to the ratings agencies.

edited 25th Apr '12 10:00:12 PM by DarkConfidant

Yes. That's essentially it, at the core of the argument.

This rule that's being implemented is fine, and it says "no paedoshit." And then there are a list of exceptions as to when "paedoshit" is okay...

I think everything that legitimately falls under the "paedoshit" definition should be reviewed by the 5P committee, to determine if it falls under an exception. Even if we know it likely does before going into the review.

Yes it's more work, at first, but when it's done, everyone would know definitively, and there would be no room for debate or complaints. Because some complaints may be justified... Especially when some mods are on record as saying that some works qualify under the exceptions(like Game Of Thrones), when it could be claimed they don't(because HBO isn't considered "prime-time television").

edited 25th Apr '12 10:20:21 PM by Swish

Nvm reread.

HBO has porn on it at some points, right? But, 'it's labeled as such isn't it? I don't know, as I don't get HBO.

edited 25th Apr '12 10:23:55 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Perhaps I did. It didn't help that his previous one said "I am going to thump every post after this that mentions Game Of Thrones."

Porn on HBO is labeled TV-MA(Nudity, Sexual Content, Language). Game Of Thrones is labeled TV-MA(Nudity, Sexual Content, Violence, Language).

Oh.

Well okay then.

I have no idea why Game of Thrones is okay.

We're cutting Porn Without Plot and A Game Of Thrones qualifies firmly as Plot With Porn. Tv-MA means "sexually explicit" which is not nessecarily the same thing as "pornography".

"Is a written work that is sold in major bookstores without an "adult" or "mature" label."

It might have only applied to the novels. One point that was brought up in the new guidelines was that spin-offs and such might be banned under the new rules or the original might be banned but spin-offs could be okay.

edited 25th Apr '12 10:29:39 PM by redlar

So, it's okay'd, not because of the broad exemption, but because it doesn't fit the criteria of things that the wiki wants to cut. Got it.

Right. The idea is to get rid of works that are only porn or works that sexualize children.

Could someone make that really clear, in bold letters in the NCP post by Bobby G? Because even after reading the whole thing, that point didn't get across to me or a lot of other people, friends sitting next to me included.

What the hell are you guys doing? I leave the site for a while, come back, and everyone's desperately ripping apart the only parts of the site worth perusing. The problem isn't that there's objectionable content on the site, it's that there's a sub-population of weirdos on this site who talk about shit in the creepiest manner possible.

Eddie found out about some of the seedier stuff on his site, decided he didn't want it here, and has set up a system for deciding what can and can't stay.

That's being dealt with anyway.

Unless you mean non-pedophile related sex talk, in which case, it's been relegated explicitly for the Fetishes thread.

The idea is that if its avaialable for publishing in the US it automatically gets a free pass BUT if it doesn't it needs to be reviewed by 5P to see what other merits the work possesses.

I don't like it either but it's FE's site, and we've got a council to minimize the damage.

edited 25th Apr '12 10:39:31 PM by RhymeBeat