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

Maybe the link in the report is wrong? Next one in the recs list is 15 chapters and mentions abuse

I Want The Mad Ones by Amarielle

• Recommended by Nai Eve
• Pairing(s): Yami/Tea touched on briefly
• Synopsis: "Yami assumes the role of Yugi's father after a case of physical abuse and trauma claims the boy's memory. Moral: Love is the pouring out of one's self into the completion of another. Finished."
• Comments: It's basically what it says it is, but it's very real. It isn't over-dramatic and even the author's notes are touching. It's written beautifully, but it's M for a reason; if you can't handle rape or some other scenes that would provoke a "too much information" if someone tried to tell you about them, then this story isn't for you.

edited 8th May '15 1:30:50 AM by Adannor

Alright.Checked that one as well. Didn't have the time to read the whole thing, so I just read the first and the last two chapters. Nothing that would qualify as porn, as far as I can see.

Bumping for resolution - specifically on Rules (which is apparently avaliable on the Wayback Machine from the current link), since it's holding the namespace migration up.

Hello, everyone. Sorry for not appearing in a while—college work has been taking up my free time again.

Okay, what should we know about that work universe in particular?

Looks like the page have been namespaced regardless.

This is my first time reporting a page here, so I'd like to report Wet Goddess here. It's an autobiographical memoir about the author's sexual relationship with a dolphin. The author is a zoophilia activist and describes his relations with the dolphin in the book. There's some quotes from the novel here. Needless to say, I feel that a man's personal notes on how he screwed an animal does not belong on this site.

edited 16th May '15 9:19:51 PM by chasemaddigan

IIRC, there was a ruling that zoophilia alone is not a reason to cut; the work needs to be either pornographic or depict sexualization of children.

I think that's just for sapient creatures of another species so we don't lose all our works featuring Interspecies Romance. Literal animal-fucking and the glorification thereof has to be a no-no.

edited 17th May '15 6:16:55 AM by Iaculus

Perhaps, but if so I think that would only happen indirectly. A work that is including sex with animals with the intention to titillate is quite likely to be pornography anyway. In this case I'm not entirely sure. Is the entire thing just about him having sex with a dolphin?

edited 17th May '15 6:31:22 AM by Arha

It's not exactly porn, but there are vivid details of the encounter. The author seems to think he had a legitimate romantic relationship with the dolphin and claims that she committed suicide out of grief shortly after he left.

So is it a story with porn in it or is it a porn story?

I guess it's a story with porn scenes, only the porn is the author having sex with an animal.

Look at it this way - why do we have rules against paedo-pandering separate to rules against porn? I can't think of a single reason against having works of art glorifying fucking children on your site that doesn't also disqualify works of art glorifying fucking animals. And this book is an entire manifesto on Why Fucking Animals is Cool and Good.

I've put it into the CVR queue.

^^ I'd take the opposite position. We singled out pedo stuff and nothing else, meaning we aren't targeting other fetishes that we find distasteful. It's not like we're primarily taking a moral stance here, this is about our relationship with Google.

edited 17th May '15 8:48:28 AM by Arha

It's a bit of this and a bit of that. We need to appease our benevolent ad revenue generating overlords. We also have to take the reputation of our site into consideration.

The porn stuff was to appease google. The pedophilia stuff is mostly for moral reasons.

Practical reasons as well. We caught a lot of flak in the Internet community for our apparent coddling of articles about content that sexualized children.

No, it doesn't. It gets judged on the same standards as other pornographic material.

We do not have rules against having works that graphically depict bestiality. Whether Wet Goddess passes will be determined by other factors.

Said content, I'd point out, we were trying to purge from those pages before they were summarily culled. I don't buy the "having an article on a work w/questionable material = endorsement" argument for a second, but they definitely needed cleanup...having that yanked out from under us was upsetting, to say the least. [/soapbox]

edited 17th May '15 5:30:59 PM by Willbyr

Well, if it means anything, I'm sorry for aiding in the removal of (at least some of) those pages despite the work that went in trying to clean them to an acceptable standard.

As for this "Wet Goddess" thing... well, I don't know about Discar and Goodrich, but since this seems to be just about some guy and his weird sexcapades thing with a dolphin, I'm personally not too keen on keeping it at all.

edited 17th May '15 5:50:34 PM by Komodin

Not going to formally decide without further data. Leaning no at moment.

I got your further data, so gimme an internet cookie for downloading and reading the sample (the first sixth or so of the book).

Let's see...it's basically a somewhat poorly-written artsy Random Events Plot. No explicit sex (the one sexual encounter, partly paraphrased, is "my first time I slept with this drunk girl, wondered why sex was supposed to be fun, then realized she had a crush on me, slept with her again later, then it was fun, the end), and the only reference to dolphins getting it on is a side character claiming dolphins are smart enough to understand what dildos are for. (Don't ask.) At least the Mushroom Samba the protagonist goes through after smoking a joint is amusing (for all the wrong reasons).

Even assuming it gets more explicit later, it doesn't seem to me like it's going to trip the porn to plot ratio. Which makes this ultimately a test case for how the content policy treats zoophilia played straight. Your call, guys.

edited 17th May '15 6:37:09 PM by TotemicHero

Yeah, I think it falls into the "weird but not against policy" section.

So no need to break out the hard vodka for the P5 team?