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

I think what Ram actually means isn't "P5 > Mods"

It's "If the official policy of the P5 is "go ahead and make it, if it's a problem it'll get reviewed and cut" should this work have the "don't make a page on this" tag removed?"

Ultimately, I think the P5 should give the work a look, just for consistencies sake.

You certainly shouldn't make pages if you're certain that they'll fail a P5 review. And I don't think that creating a page that the mods have said not to create is likely to be a smart move no matter who outranks who. You don't outrank P5 or the mods. If you really think the mods are wrong, the smart thing to do is talk to them about it. The dumb thing to do is ignore them and do whatever you want because of some barracks-lawyer interpretation of "the rules". :)

Also, if you go by precendent, there was a discussion a while ago about whether it was permissible to make a page for some pornographic work. Consensus was pretty much "if you know it's porn, don't even bother". The "no pre-emptive censorship" is for things that may go either way.

You know, warning in comments on two pages is kinda weak. Page can get created without the guy ever seeing them. Then it will be P5 issue.

Untill we have a system where staff approval is required before making any new pages, there is no way to prevent anyone from making anything. However having warnings like we do right now is better than nothing.

Personally, I'm inclined to think that there should be more pre-publishing censorship going on where mods or at least fellow tropers review a new page before it goes "live", not so much because of Content Policy reasons, but just to make sure that it isn't poorly written or a mere stub.

In the case of Student Council President, the work page was cut, which is why the tag is written as it is. The tags are there both to get around the "image source needed" problem and to let anyone curious about the works know what they are and why we can't have them, provided they actually read the tags.

edited 10th Aug '12 6:25:55 AM by Willbyr

What's up with Koihime Musou not getting cleaned up yet? I saw before one of the P5 reviewed the anime and deemed it acceptable but I didn't see anything about the V Ns. The original VN has H scenes with three different clearly underage characters (like 10 years old underage) and a handful of questionable ones as well. Amusingly, it doesn't even bother trying to BS the "All Characters Are 18 or Older" warning that most eroges have. I have no idea about the PS 2 (and neither does the rest of the internet if 10 minutes of searching is anything to go by) but I would assume that even without the H scenes having multiple paths with underage characters would still count as pedo pandering. Anyway, it just seemed to me like Koihime was getting a free pass for some reason; but the underage characters are such a blatant violation that it oughta be cleaned up at least for the sake of consistency.

The vote was to purge references to the 18+ versions. There are all ages (or at least non-H) versions of the VNs. Cleanup has only begun as recently as Tuesday. The process doesn't happen instantaneously.

edited 10th Aug '12 6:56:40 AM by tdgoodrich1

Moreover, we are not supposed to use "underage" as a standard anymore as it's too ambiguous.

Wasn't the original criteria "panders to pedophiles" any how?

Can anyone figure out what is going on with Tropers.Ragna The Saviour

It looks like someone called Mare just page blanked it. Is Mare the same person that flagged it? And what is the reason for page blanking and flagging a Troper page? If Mare doesn't explained him/herself here, perhaps a mod need to PM him/her.

Ragna just recently showed up in Edit Banned thread and mod replied that he got that for vandalising troper pages.
I suspect that Mare is doing the same to him.

I don't have a foggiest idea what when and with whom went down, though.

I think I'd leave this to the mods, tbh.

Yeah.

Okay, I just thought it odd that a troper page was flagged.

BTW, I see that Manga.Hen is flagged even though it has already been cut. I assume it got appealed, so was flagged so P5 can vote on it.

Some of the subpages are still there. What are we supposed to do with them while it is awaiting review for restoration? Cut them or leave them be?

YMMV.Hen and Quotes.Hen.

I zapped it off the list. We're not in charge of cutting troper pages. It should be investigated by a moderator, though...

They've already acted on it in Edit Banned.

Any other works up for discussion? (Catbert's idea sounds Wiki Talk worthy, but that's a different discussion)

Leave them be, Catbert.

edited 10th Aug '12 9:42:50 AM by SeptimusHeap

As far as I know, Hen was never properly reviewed and voted on. It seemed to have been a rogue cut.

@Catbert: Leave the subpages for now. If we ultimately decide not to restore Hen, cut them then.

Yes, Hen was rogue. I flagged it for a proper review.

Hen has been floating around for quite some time. Since it's a restoration request perhaps we should handle that one sooner rather than later.

Fair enough. Let's take that matter to the Page Restoration thread.

Can anyone think of a pressing reason not to cut Shintaro Kago? Does he have any work that does not fall under the porn category?

The Other Wiki and our own article seem to imply he doesn't, so right now all this page serves as is a list of porn, and guro porn at that.

edited 10th Aug '12 12:28:20 PM by Catbert

Like Waita Uziga then?

Quite a bit of them. And the page outright says that they are less sexualised than most.

They are freaky and grotesque, do include NSFW elements, but not focus on titillation.

edited 10th Aug '12 12:39:32 PM by Adannor