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

Even if we say "available = safe", (I don't, though I think it's a good litmus test) it doesn't necessarily follow that "not available = not safe".

That, and, according to Fighteer, you can submit a PG-rated work for panel perusal if you really have a good reason.

That's sort of misrepresenting what he said. He said you'd better have a good reason to submit a PG-rated work, or you will be suspected of trolling.

Some manga companies do have ratings, I've seen them. I checked Sailor Moon's rating - it's 13 + or PG 13. Black Bird is Older Teen or 'R'.

Most works available through means that are supposed to be safe will be safe. It is better to sift through stuff that falls outside that classification first and then dig in deeper into safer territories to weed out the sneaked in stuff.

Bad Wolf 21 That might be more accurate, yes.

Remember guys, if we had a hard rule like "anything licensed less than an R-rating is fine, anything above is not," we wouldn't need the panel. So yes, there's going to be gray areas and discussion.

Also, we say that things with questionable ideas wouldn't be sold in the US, but Kn J was definitely sold, manga-wise, in the US as Nymphet, rated 18+, and STILL got cancelled by the publisher.

No, while an American company did obtain a license to import from the Japanese author/publisher, it was never actually sold in the US. At least, according to this news report. If you check Anime News Network's page for the manga, a license-holder is mentioned, but no mention is made of actual publication of it in America.

edited 22nd Apr '12 11:15:09 AM by ThatHuman

well, it does include some sexual content that may be disturbing to some viewers.

Weird. It had an Amazon page that suggested that the first volume was actually sold. My bad.

Consult Wikipedia to clear up the confusion on KNJ. To summarize, a publisher licensed the manga and stores placed orders before they getting the full picture on what KNJ was about, after which orders were gradually dropped and eventually the publisher decided to abandon the import on grounds of the work being unsuitable to Western audiences.

edited 22nd Apr '12 11:41:42 AM by MarqFJA

I'll just add that unless US licensed anime is shown in theaters or on TV, any ratings on the box are put there voluntarily by the companies. They're fine as guidelines but don't have the stamp of an "official" organization like the MPAA or the ESRB.

Anyway, instead of guessing what Fast Eddie is ok with, can someone just get him out here and say that works already rated/sold for kids/YA get a pass? I know the mods are in favor of it, but too many times I've seen him throw out the executive veto over what mods have said, often when I've thought the mods plan was more reasonable. The fact that he did so over coca's draft guidelines and resulting flames was contributory to the thread in Wiki Talk being locked.

We have asked and are working on establishing a consensus on that matter. We're all for sanity and reasoned debate here, and don't welcome policy statements that provoke flame wars, either.

"works already rated/sold for kids/YA get a pass"

I agree that works published in the anglosphere that are comparable in objectionability to films rated <= PG or video games rated <= E10+ should get a free pass just to keep out people who would disrupt TV Tropes to illustrate a point. But just because we cover a work doesn't mean we necessarily want to host Fanfic Recommendations for that work. Does FE still want to impose a strict ban on fan fiction recommendations for works with species where 16 is considered elderly? Case in point: a Civilized Animal character's grandparents being under 16 years old at the time of the story, implying that the characters parents must have had Teh Eevul Seckz at half that age.

Why the hell don't we have an equivalent page on disruption of TV Tropes to prove a point, at least on Administrivia? Because that's something we very much need, especially with all that's been going on recently.

edited 22nd Apr '12 1:44:55 PM by TwoGunAngel

Are we talking about sex between intelligent dogs or gerbils or something? I suppose it depends on context. Anthropomorphic Animals that are clearly meant to evoke images of underage human sex are obviously out.

But just because a given work is clean doesn't mean that all fanfic about that work is automatically okay; that's stupid. The converse, on the other hand, is kind of iffy — it's hard to see how you could safely have an article about or recommend a fanfic of something that violates the content policy.

Again this is a clear-cut case of "Don't be a dick". Not to mention an example of when concrete rules start inviting people to be rules lawyers.

edited 22nd Apr '12 1:47:22 PM by Fighteer

Example of a potentially not kosher work having totally okay fanfic to be recommended (hypothetically speaking): Guts and Griffith philosophise around the campfire.

Problem is that you can't host an article about the fanfic without discussing the work it comes from at least somewhat. Not sure how that flies under the current guidelines.

Well, there'd still be individual fanfic pages for notable ones. If a user really wants a page of a safe fic, could he make it and describe it's tropes like with any other fic, with just a passing note that the source material is NSFW, but the fic is ok?

Should we also be looking at tropes pages to ax, along the lines of Naughty Tentacles? I'm thinking in particular of Legal Jailbait (a trope where the work does fanservice/fetishizing of someone underage, except with a HandWave as to why they're actually legal such as 'really a gazillion years old/robot/vampire') and Memetic Molester (a bunch of molestation jokes). Both of those, and possibly others, look incompatible with the new content guidelines.

I just thought of something that probably should get an official clarification.

For visual works, drawing the line between 'explicit sex' and 'non-explicit sex' is easy. However, in purely written works (Literature and Fanfiction, mostly) the line is a lot less clear—the distinction between erotica and Romance Novel has blurred over the last few decades to the point where the difference often has more to do with audience, and language used, than actual content.

So when we're trying to figure out what should be flagged (and what should be appealed), where does TV Tropes draw that line?

Take them to TRS. Our porn or paedophilia policy is about works so far, not tropes. And I doubt that any of these are problematic.

Anyway, apply No Lewdness and you should be fine.

I have said it three damn times. Legal Jailbait is clean and it if you look at the examples, not even half of them are fetishizing. Memetic Molester has nothing to do with molestation, it has to do with inside fandom perception.

edited 22nd Apr '12 2:08:02 PM by lu127

I don't see how Legal Jailbait can be clean, by definition. The idea of jailbait is 'someone underage whom the character or viewer should find sexually attractive.' Legal jailbait means 'someone that looks like jailbait {an underage person that is nevertheless supposed to be found sexually attractive}, but there's a Hand Wave so that they aren't actually illegal'. The entire purpose of the trope is 'yes, it looks exactly like pedo, but it technically isn't!'

As for Memetic Molester, the entire page is a bunch of, 'hey, that canon character? Actually a rapist or pedophile, ha ha!' If we're cutting pedo stuff, shouldn't we be cutting all the jokes about Mr Tumnus/Horace Slughorn/Edward Cullen/et infinity raping children?

edited 22nd Apr '12 2:17:59 PM by GliderGuy

Trope Repair Shop or the Review thread here, please. This isn't a place to discuss the policies.