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

@arcsquad: Actually, the long-term solution (per Word of the Fast One) is that we'll be weaning off of Google so that we can run the place with less Executive Meddling.

Until then, they have a say.

Arcsquad, the fact is that their say is not used in a consistent manner, so actually setting policy around Google action (as opposed to trying to divert it and avoid notice, which is a different matter; the policy changes made may have nothing to do with Google's actual policies) is impossible. If Rape Tropes are cut (hypothetically), Sex Tropes will be the next target for troll attacks, or maybe Queer as Tropes. (Oh my god, they're presenting those BISEXUALS as REAL PEOPLE?!)

And how much would you like to bet that a lot of the stuff that Google is getting called to their attention was put there by the same people who are pointing Google at it?

edited 6th Jun '12 8:44:38 PM by Ramidel

Why do people think that it is a Troll attacking us exactly? Could it not just be someone concerned with the site's content?

And what exactly does FE plan to do when he splits off from Google?

We have ad providers other than Google. The make up a lot of our revenue, but if their terms of service are going to start causing trouble that interferes with the site's actual mission, I think Eddie has decided that there's a way to live without them.

The site's actual mission? Quantifying rape is on mission?

Identifying and cataloging patterns in fiction is the mission. Like it or not, rape is among those patterns.

Eight seconds for the win!

edited 6th Jun '12 8:55:46 PM by TotemicHero

Documenting the use of tropes in fiction is the site's mission. Rape is one of the oldest subjects of storytelling.

Our ultimate purpose is to collect repeated patterns in fiction. Tropes related to rape, while they should be handled with care, are part of that mission - moreso then a lot of YMMV tropes, really, as they refer to actual fictional events instead of external phenomena unrelated to a work itself.

That said, of course it's not all down to hypothetical trolls or Google's 'standards' - the wiki's editors, as a collective whole, have repeatedly proven themselves utterly incapable of handling sensitive issues. The solution to that isn't a blanket cut in my view, but there's a real issue to be dealt with, not just a matter of appeasing our primary monetary source.

edited 6th Jun '12 8:58:51 PM by nrjxll

That reminds me for whatever reason, if our mission is the categorizing of tropes then what's our vision?

That it may be, but this site also needs to understand that it has multiple demographics. There is a hangout here for youth in one of the other parts of the forum. If the subject matter is to be addressed, it has to be done in a tasteful manner, and treated with respect.

From stuff that I've seen on that youtube channel, the more controversial the subject, the more people who cannot handle the material are drawn to it.

Exactly. Both a blanket cut and leaving the situation unchanged are the wrong choice here. There is a problem, one that shouldn't been blown off with "meh, trolls" or "Google moralizing".

@herse I do use safe search!!!

@arc really, I think that if the youth are too young to be on the internet alone, they are too young to use this wiki. If you can't read a YA novel with a plotline like the heroine's friend gets raped by her fiancee, so she uses her sword fighting skills to defend her honor, you are too young to use the internet. Sorry.

Lets not get angry with the fast one over the emergency measures in response to outside pressure, with time, the issues should be blanketed out, or they will get worse. Either way, at least in the content violations disscussions, we can do but one thing: Make sure that every work/trope gets its fair chance in the terms of the new content standards, making sure that not a single work gets cut unjustly.

The Fast one is doing what he needs to do to keep this wiki afloat. He isn't evil, he is just a Well-Intentioned Extremist. While we may hate it that some rather major tropes are being cut, he is only doing his best to make sure that All of the tropes do not get cut (And going on one or two preventative Crusades in the process.)

For the meantime, Put Google on your Ghostery, and TV Tropes on its whitelist.

He means well, but I'm still angry. What's a ghostery?

I still don't see why " Clean, Lock and allow edits in the sandbox" is never considered before Kill It with Fire. If the issue is not actually another Google incident the issue of keeping lewdish tropers under control locking seems like a better solution for us and to use as an example for Google's representatives. It shows not only that we don't trivialize rape, by taking actions not taken with normal pages, but it shows that we have a method to keep lewdness off our pages if need be. This blanket cut teaches the opposite lesson, though I can understand the Fast One was under pressure. It says that we can't control this issue without deleting a huge part of this wiki, and that we ultimately can't control what our tropers put on our wiki.

@Animeg https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13210976310A49080100&page=1#25

12-15 year olds, on this wiki. Should you tell them all to get off just so we can reinstate an index that was getting us in trouble?

@nrjxll: "the wiki's editors, as a collective whole, have repeatedly proven themselves utterly incapable of handling sensitive issues."

I have yet to see any evidence that this is so.

In fact, there's things that suggest the contrary. The Special Efforts thread about rape tropes? Almost all about trope names, not content.

@arcsquad 12: You don't think there's books targeted at that age group that contain rape tropes? I'm pretty sure I ran into some when I was that age.

edited 6th Jun '12 9:24:27 PM by Morganite

It is basically a program that can block advertizing bugs (given that you use firefox.) I use it to block normally dishonest advertizes (Aka, "Click this link for 300$!!!"), the whitelist is a function you can use to support your favorite sites in spite of them using the advertizing services. Basically, you could stop supporting google to protest their lack of investigation/bullying client websites, but without cutting TV Tropes revenue specifically.

edited 6th Jun '12 9:23:06 PM by Roraborialis

I'm inclined to feel that the 12 year olds should leave, honestly. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and fix the index.

Speaking of the index, what exactly does this 'lockdown' entail? I thought it had been cut, but it still shows up on the Index-Index (and a few of the tropes on it still appear on other indexes).

Key words: "collective whole". There's plenty of reasonable editors - they're the vast majority - but there's been a large enough number of problem editors for things like this that I think it's been proven that unrestricted access to 'sensitive' tropes is not something we can really handle.

And keep in mind that forum users make up a pretty tiny percentage of all users. That Special Efforts thread isn't really as accurate a gauge as you're making it out to be.

edited 6th Jun '12 9:25:43 PM by nrjxll

The sign-in page says that you need to be 13 or above to start an account. Not sure how long that's been there.

edited 6th Jun '12 9:24:03 PM by BadWolf21

I think the point Morganite was trying to make is that most of the material that needed cleaning up was in the titles and not in the content, suggesting that in spite of claims to the contrary, the majority of the content was actually considered acceptable in terms of presentation.

It wasn't here seven months ago, I can tell you that.

To reiterate, the only thing that's been cut is Victim Falls For Rapist.

Every thing with "Rape" in the title, even if it's not a rape trope like Rape Of The Lock, has been put behind the "Unwanted Topic" wall.

Nothing has happened to other Rape Tropes that don't have "rape" in the name, like Aliens Made Them Do It for example.

What exactly does the "unwanted content wall" do? Like I said, I'm still seeing these tropes blue-linked, though I haven't tried to click on any of them.

@Pyrite: That's a fair point, actually.