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

Well, the thread seems to be completely different now since at least the last couple of months have been nothing but the same 3 people messing around.

I thought that number dropped to two. *shrug* Anyway, like I said, it should be safe as long as they keep within site policy (and AFAIK the rule is to keep anything particularly NSFW within The Nunnery, and explicit depictions are off-limits), but it shouldn't be too hard to start a new thread, or take it to PMs if there're only two of them.

And, of course, I hope nothing happens to the players.

edited 20th Jun '12 8:12:06 PM by Pyrite

Martello's rage quit (what was that based on anyway? The fact that some of us are willing to defend works that he views as "Pedoshit"?) aside, Tales of MU and Mating Frenzy are both "2 votes both ways" and while the former might have grown a more in depth plot (I got bored of the writing after a while), the latter is Crack Fic with no explicit content.

Well, the thread has enough NSFW content to delete the troper page. I see nothing wrong with nuking the thread and allowing a new SFW thread. Their discussion thread should be fine, as should any players.

That's just my personal way of dealing with the issue.

I have all the text saved. But either way, this could lead to drama, so let's not go over that. Only thing that I think matters relating to him is if his voted would still count or not.

edited 20th Jun '12 6:54:11 PM by Hydronix

A SFW thread would be nice, but works judgement would be significantly more speculation, less proof powered.

It would nice if we could have the thread split into a two parts: One for the judgement works, for the strong of stomach, and one thats more about the content violations in general, for talk about general policy and such.

...Er, we mean a new thread for "Kagami Snuggling With Onions", nothing else. The current thread violates the content policy and needs to be nuked or atleast perma-locked.

Ehh. I got confused. We are regulating forum threads now?

We always were.

Anything close to "cybering" was never allowed.

True true, but that seems like that would totally be a different official function from the 5P. The 5P is a little bit extravagant for something like this, well, more that even.

edited 20th Jun '12 8:15:53 PM by Roraborialis

Just to clarify: the mods and admins have always monitored forum threads as part of their duties, in addition to watching the main pages. (This one seems to have slipped by due to the posts in question having been submitted before the institution of our current policy.) The Works page for KHSAS was raised for 5P's review. Since the decision was that the existing KHSWO thread contained paedo-pandering content, both the Works page and the forum thread were flagged for the mods to make the appropriate disposition.

5P does not have the authority to lock / delete threads directly, but there is nothing stopping any member from hollering for a mod to look at the thread, which is granted to all forumites.

(Apologies for using bold text. Italics didn't make the key words stand out enough.)

edited 20th Jun '12 9:02:02 PM by Pyrite

Oh, that's what you meant.

Well, I'm just wondering what the Mods plan to do, then. Let's move on.

Ok, It just seemed a little bizarre for me at first. Thanks for clearing it up quite a bit, Im still slightly confused as to how a thread ended up in the 5P, but regardless, me being confused produces nothing of value (To someone who isn't likewise confused.)

They reviewed it because it had a work page (since deleted as was voted).

...Yeah, it's my fault for not being clear. Sorry. We reviewed the thread in order to decide what to do with the Works page. The mods will decide what to do with the thread itself.

edited 20th Jun '12 9:04:53 PM by Pyrite

Since someone brought it up, how are Martello's votes going to be handled?

I know he voted devil head on Mitsudomoe no matter how much I tried to tell him that it's toilet humor, not pedo-pandering. I told him to watch it and see for himself, but he flat out refused.

Regardless of how I feel about his attitude, I think Martello did a good job as a P5 member and I've found myself in agreement with most of his devilheads. However, if it did really go as you say and have solid reason to believe that devilhead was dictated by spite, at least that should be reconsidered.

This said, I hope you don't want to imply that everything he did as a P5 should be declared null. It would mean invalidating a lot of the general P5 decisions so far.

Martello was thick sculled, and a little quick to the gun. Ultimately, let his final votes sit.

Really, my big beef is that while, yes, his decisions were right as often as any other member of the 5P, he would ultimately make them for much simpler, and blown out of proportion reasons. I was uncomfortable with how he under-thunk things, and because of this, I am slightly glad that he is gone.

I really hope we get a more proof oriented 5P member then Martello, who sometimes seemed to devilhead based on word of mouth sometimes, or at least, never disclosed his reasons as well as the other vocal members of the 5P.

I think this was mentioned elsewhere, but bear in mind that "gravedancing" is frowned upon in the forums. If there are issues with due process, feel free to raise them (and hopefully we'll get to them in due course), but kindly refrain from personal attacks.

In the meantime: IIRC, the panel's stand is that appeals might be considered if new evidence or irregularities are found which are likely to swing the vote. But the 5P will get to that when they come to it, as there's a lot more stuff on the list to cover. Please be patient.

edited 21st Jun '12 1:25:05 AM by Pyrite

Ehh... Umm. I just got caught being unsportsman-like. Well, Ill leave that as an example of.... Me being flawed as anyone else. Ultimately, I was getting stuff off my chest, but deleting my post personally is wrong due to the fact that I would probably never acknowledge that I did goofed if I didn't leave it.

I don't see any reason to undo a Martello vote on an open question unless and until we get a replacement, but then I'd like to let the new guy make his own decisions; if an issue is -not- yet decided, then stare decisis really doesn't apply.

If we get a rash of restore petitions on settled 3-2 Martello decisions once we get a new guy, however, we have a problem.

edited 21st Jun '12 2:24:11 AM by Ramidel

Someone flagged One Piece Baratie Arc. Looking at the page, I can barely tell what it's supposed to be, but if anything, it falls under Trope Repair Shop's jurisdiction, not P5's. Can one of you zap it off the list?

It's a work page.

Wait, it's a recap for an One Piece story arc:[1].

edited 21st Jun '12 4:35:59 AM by SeptimusHeap

Zapped.

If it's a real part of the storyline, it belongs in Recap.One Piece Baratie Arc, if it's someone's Fan Wank they haven't written yet, it goes in DarthWiki.One Piece Baratie Arc and would need to be rewritten to have a trope list, and if it's Fanfiction it goes in Fanfic.One Piece Baratie Arc and would need to be rewritten to have a trope list.

Moving to Recap namespace. Wait, Septimus Heap ninja'd me.

edited 21st Jun '12 4:38:41 AM by TheOneWhoTropes

The recap is legit, by the way. Septimus moved that specific one, I added other three that had the same allocation problem and cutlisted the lot.