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

While Game Of Thrones is Plot With Porn, a case could be made that it does sexualize children(or, more specifically, it sexualizes Danerys as much as ASOIAF does)... The latter is exempt because it's a book(and not sold in adult sections). Are we going to allow adaptations exemptions? If you do, you'll have a whole other set of people complaining...

Yes. And I agree with that. I just think we should "review everything to determine if they fit the exemptions", and not "determine something fits the exemption so it doesn't have to be reviewed"...

edited 25th Apr '12 10:41:17 PM by Swish

You're missing the entire point of the exemption. The exemption means it's immune to review. Period. That's what exemptions mean. It's what they're for.

An exemption means it's immune to review. NOT being immune to review does NOT mean it's banned.

It is a multi-tiered process, wherein one of any number of things can get a work OK'd. Only if the first tier fails to OK the work does it then progress on to the next tier.

edited 25th Apr '12 10:41:46 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

I think part of the problem is you can have "sexualize childred" along with deep, thought-provoking plots; Lolita being one of those exceptions. There is also the fear of bias on the part of Fast Eddie and P5.

edited 25th Apr '12 10:43:31 PM by redlar

Well the 5P already has a lot to do, adding the exemptions make it easier.

And as I recall A Song Of Ice And Fire had an implicit sex scene between a 14 year old and an adult in a clear case of Deliberate Values Dissonance. Plus it's such a minor part of the series that it's not enough to remove the page at all.

It might help if the post explained why the exemptions exist. If people think that the exemptions exist "to console your fears that all this mainstream stuff will be cut!" then it does seem like favoritism. But if the exemptions exist "Because the wiki's push to abolish porn is subject to American cultural norms, therefore there's no sense in being MORE zealous than existing cultural norms" then it might be more clear.

Though honestly, I wish people would just follow the Rules As Written.

My problem with cutting porn is that it's sometimes subjective as to whether or not it's truly just mindless porn. We can debate all we want about it, but it should be understood that there is a grey area where certain individuals would consider the work a preversion that must be removed, while other individuals would claim it may be enjoyed platonicly.

At the end of the day, sex is an inescapable part of human nature. TV Tropes has to deal with it professionally while keeping Google Ad Sense getting stressed out about us.

I think some of the rules (specifically those listed in the "Does that mean you'll be removing Romeo and Juliet or Law & Order?" section) are very unfair to foreign and fanmade products. Battlestar Galatica, for example, has a lot of sex. And I mean a lot. More sex scenes than some of the banned works. I'm not saying BSG should join the ban list, but there does need to be a specific list of requirements that would let a pornographic work remain (with the article edited accordingly). Things like "how long would the work be without the sex scenes?" "Are the sex scenes the climax (no pun intended) of the story? Does the work build to the sex scene and then abruptly end afterward?" And, yes, "Does it intend for the sexual abuse of a minor to be used as entertainment?"

Honestly, just because something got an M or R rating should not make it suitable for this site. There are films and games devoid of any substance that will avoid this censorship entirely simply because they got a US theater release.

"You'll know porn when you see it" is fine as a temporary rule, but going forward, we will need "hard and fast rules." Perhaps not now, but definitely before anyone goes around saying "mission accomplished."

edited 25th Apr '12 10:56:39 PM by SgtHydra

The exemptions exist because those are works that have been reviewed by a standard the wiki trusts to have caught the stuff we're looking for all ready. We have enough to review without going through them all again ourselves. That's why they're not getting a review.

5P decides to make the decisions. They handle the subjective stuff. If you don't think 5P can make objective decisions over subjective stuff... well, yeah. But that's how it's being handled, and I certainly haven't heard of a better system.

Besides-does Battlestar Galactica actually meet the exemption? If so, then complain to the rating agencies not to TV Tropes.

And I understand this. But I'm looking at it from the aspect that the first thing looked at is: "is there paedoshit?" If the answer to that is yes, it should be flagged for review(at this time), in order to look at the next step "does this fit an exemption?" because the people who ultimately decide of whether a work falls under an exemption is going to be FE and the 5P committee.

Once everything gets settled down, and everything has been reviewed, then it shouldn't be acceptable to flag something that's been determined to fit under an exemption(because, if we're smart about it, 5P will have made a list).

But since this is the start of the new policy, everything should be policed, if it's flagged. To make sure nothing falls through the cracks because it seems "obvious"(like the Game Of Thrones example, which as stated, doesn't fall under an exemption)... Because, I can guarantee you, if everything isn't reviewed at least once, there will be a few that do...

The first thing for review is "Is this reviewed by an agency we trust."

If so, then it isn't pedoshit.

If people submit works that fall under the exemptions, they should be chastised for doing so.

From an organizational standpoint, I agree that if we're going to have the exemptions take precedence (which, to be meaningful, they have to), it should be very super special ultra clear that they do.

edited 25th Apr '12 10:58:22 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

@ They Call Me Tomu: I don't a minority of decision makers operating without a rubric.

Who Watches the Watchmen?

Again, suggestions for the rubric: "how long would the work be without the sex scenes?" "Are the sex scenes the climax (no pun intended) of the story? Does the work build to the sex scene and then abruptly end afterward?" And, yes, "Does it intend for the sexual abuse of a minor to be used as entertainment?"

edited 25th Apr '12 10:58:44 PM by SgtHydra

Alas Sgt, that is the reality you face.

Think of them like the supreme court. I hate half the bastards on that team, but I acknowledge the judicial body for what it is.

Supreme Court has a rubric.

P5 has "whatever we say is porn is porn."

And this is turning into a witch hunt. All these cries of "pedoshit" sound very much like a bad sketch comedy show.

Oh wait.

It seems that any work with a young girl is "under review," as if it was somehow intrinsically bad. And while it certainly brought up some bad eggs, others are just ridiculous and a waste of the P5's time.

edited 25th Apr '12 11:05:55 PM by SgtHydra

Supreme Court's rubric is "I can't define porn, but I know it when I see it."

Except that the Supreme Court explicitly ruled that, ON THE ISSUE OF PORN, it's not something you can define well set values for.

You know, as they specifically said in the General Announcements post.

Even Supreme Court follows the whole "We know when we see it" guideline.

Nin Nin

edited 25th Apr '12 11:04:45 PM by encrypted12345

Yes, but the Supreme Court doesn't have to analyze what is and what isn't porn with any frequency. It's guideline is the Constitution and the Constitution doesn't mention porn anywhere within it, so they had to take a very ambiguous stance on the issue.

The P5 should operate more like the ESRB than the Peadofinder General.

edited 25th Apr '12 11:07:55 PM by SgtHydra

The Supreme Court also has decades of experience in being {mostly} neutral arbiters of the law. We have 5 volunteers for deciding what goes on a website; forgive me for thinking they're a little less reliable than the court.

That said, this is probably the best system we're going to have. It's certainly better than throwing up a crowner for each and every suspect page and trope.

edited 25th Apr '12 11:07:20 PM by redlar

True, which is why I grudgingly support them.

True, which is also why I grudgingly support them.

edited 25th Apr '12 11:10:30 PM by encrypted12345

Oh my god, that would suck utterly (the crowners thing I mean).

Anyway, it's Fast Eddie's site, so really, if we're going by "Purpose of removing content" we should just have Fast Eddie decide. So instead of "An impartial committee" just assume it's "Fast Eddie delegating."

Then, instead of viewing this as "some group proclaiming what the truth of pornography" is, it's "a group doing Fast Eddie's work for him in shaping the site that he wants to run, independent of what is the platonic ideal site of TV Tropes"

edited 25th Apr '12 11:09:10 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Still say we should have a long term rubric.

Not immediately, but for future sessions of P5. Something stable, reasonable, and fair. And available for the community to see.

Cause right now it's basically law by super secret tribunal.

I don't see that as a problem.

IMO, the alternative is just dealing with whatever Fast Eddie thinks is personally appropriate by his own personal impressions, and my impression of him is that he'd probably be less permissive.

edited 25th Apr '12 11:11:41 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

I would like to see more detailed guidelines on the NCP, rather than just the bit Bobby G posted. Again, it wasn't entrely clear on what the new criteria was; once that is cleared up and people understand just what P5 will be looking at, there won't be as much anxiety and rage.

We've already seen what happens when Fast Eddie takes action on his own. This is a million times better alternative.

edited 25th Apr '12 11:12:54 PM by redlar

Yeah, that would be somewhat catastrophic (No offense, Fast Eddie)

edited 25th Apr '12 11:12:34 PM by encrypted12345

I would request that all tropers

A.) Cooperate and

B.) Err on the side of under-reaction rather than overreaction.