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

Most of the stuff currently on the queue won't be cut, and Fast Eddie was planning to drop them off the queue anyway, once the new flagger button works. Part of the issue is that the flagged works include a lot that were simply flagged "mature" to keep Google ads off them, and several that were flagged by trolls.

edited 26th Apr '12 10:57:44 AM by ArcadesSabboth

It still feels like these are too far. I can understand removing FATAL (despite its hilarity) this form of censorship feels archaic.

But its not my place to decide, do what you want I guess. But I'll let you know I strongly disagree.

We aren't removing them. They are going to be checked, not automatically removed. Stop overreacting.

edited 26th Apr '12 10:57:26 AM by lu127

Evereything that's currently on this list was flagged for No Google Ads, not for possible content violations. Someone said that they might go through those first, because there are so many of them and most are insta-keep. The content violation flagging system isn't even up yet.

Just make sure you do so in a reasonable and informed fashion.

Over 16 assume it's good, it's fine, don't worry about it.

High school age in general, is it with other high school students? Probably ok as long as it's not too graphic. I don't mean a little bit of nudity. I mean actual blow by blow stuff.

Younger than that, probably bad.

South Park isn't going anywhere. Idol Master probably will stay, too, but I haven't looked into it yet. As far as I know from Pop Culture Osmosis, it's fairly innocuous.

edited 26th Apr '12 10:58:18 AM by Martello

@Thorn: Stuff being on that list doesn't mean it's going to be cut. It just means we're going to take a closer look at it. It might be cut if it's bad enough, but I seriously doubt that South Park or Idolmaster is going anywhere.

I'm not overreacting. I simply disagree with this measure, even if I kind of understand why it is happening. In the end its about ads. Checking is okay but I don't see where some of these things can be in violation.

And I know, its just being checked, I just mean in general to this whole measure. Its one I just disagree with is all.

edited 26th Apr '12 11:01:30 AM by Thorn14

It's not about adverts, Google ads are back. FE does not want pornographic crap like FATAL, Mai Chans Daily Life or Rectified Anonymity (the pokémon story) on his site. He also doesn't want shotacon and lolicon - or to put it another way, modern works that are pro-paedophilia or use a lot of fanservice of underage girls or boys. And Google only wanted us to put a barrier in which told people that they were going off site and we didn't endorse what was there.

edited 26th Apr '12 11:11:42 AM by TheOneWhoTropes

Nit-pick, but "lolicon"/"shotacon" means "paedophile", not "paedo-pandering". That would be "loli"/"shota" or "lolicon/shotacon-baiting"

I don't have the time to comb through all pages.. so do we have a consensus about what to do with works without an official release in the US?

If not, can I propose using standards of a country that

1. the work has an official release and
2. with standards more or less equal to that of the US?

Because most of this kind of concerns are about manga/anime, may I propose using Hong Kong or Singapore as such jurisdictions, as those two places are known to be the most prudish places in East Asia, and also would have more licensed manga/anime works.

Nitting your nit: lolicon and shotacon can both be used to refer to the genres, and frequently are.

Right. In the English usage it can mean both. (As an aside, in the Chinese Language as used in the PRC, the -con suffix no longer has the sexual connotation and just mean liking something)

Kay. Yet another ambiguous term, like "p(a)edoshit". And the first meaning I got from lolicon was the "person" aspect.

I may be misunderstanding what some people consider explicit. "He and she had sex" is not explicit. "He slid his throbbing thing into her wet thing and he chewed on her thing" is. (I don't intend to quote actual examples, sue me.)

I consider explicit in this context to be what I said previously: drawn or photographic depictions of genitalia engaged in intercourse, or written descriptions thereof. Call me naive but I highly doubt that "mainstream teen-oriented manga" contains this.

It's not ambiguous. As a genre it merely means works with lolicon/shotacon content.

edited 26th Apr '12 11:21:28 AM by SamCurt

Can the semantics discussion, it's exactly the kind of thing that ISN'T appropriate for this thread.

Fast Eddie gave a dictionary link somewhere for the definition of "explicit" that we are going with.

If it can both mean "pedo-pandering" and "pedophilia", then it is ambiguous, since we are mostly against the former.

Oh, OK then.

edited 26th Apr '12 11:23:36 AM by SeptimusHeap

Fighteer's naive.

I don't think they contain anything like that. And that description describes 70% of fanfics that we may have to cut.

edited 26th Apr '12 11:24:16 AM by lu127

The point is I'm not too sure we have a good line. Boku No Pico, I understand, but Negima?

There's the level of Ikea Erotica that Fighteer just gave in a lot of teen works, but they don't tend to dwell on it that much. The focus tends to be more on how it makes the characters feel than the blow by blow. It's explicit, but it doesn't tend to be pornographic.

edited 26th Apr '12 11:26:19 AM by shimaspawn

@ 341 Fighteer: "Explicit" is one of those ambiguous words. It depends a bit on when it was published (they've gotten more explicit over time), what the target age range of the work is (younger vs older teens), and how much the publisher feels like playing chicken with the censors, but Shoujo for younger teens may feature from-the-waist up sex with naked breasts and brief Anime Anatomy-style full-body nudity; Shoujo for older teens may feature sex scenes with substantial full-body nudity and brief glimpses of obscured or censored genitalia.

For examples of what gets a 16+ rating in the US, see Mars, Black Bird and Hot Gimmick. [I had Sensual Phrase there, but that got an 18+ over here despite being for teen girls in Japan.]

edited 26th Apr '12 11:33:22 AM by lebrel

@Thorn: I believe the mods have already nixed suggesting Negima for cutting as frivolous, given its distribution in the mainstream US market under an acceptable rating.

I guess I have a hard time reconciling those classifications with works that would garner, say, a PG-13 or R (or NC-17) rating in the U.S. film market. I cannot imagine teen sex with near-genitalia and full body nudity making it as anything less than R in film, and more likely NC-17 or banned from theaters. Hell, in the U.S. film market, it is illegal to show full nudity of an actor under 18, isn't it? As in throw you in prison illegal.

So if we're dealing with a market where different standards for age-appropriateness apply, then we can't go by the self-ratings.