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

My point is, that's an older policy. I wanted confirmation that the old policy trumps the new policy, and that the fetishes thread will remain.

@Shima: Well, that assumes that Eddie did remember that that thread existed, in the middle of all the chaos and flurry that happened during the first few weeks following The Second Google Incident and the resulting policy shifts. I wouldn't be surprised if he forgot about it completely.

edited 8th May '12 3:48:59 PM by MarqFJA

We would tell you if anything had changed on that matter. The forum rules would have changed.

In truth, they haven't really changed. You were never really allowed to talk about porn before outside of fetishes and we stomped threads talking about sex in works before any of this started. That policy isn't new.

Yeah, well, the policy change was primarily due to site reputation concerns on Eddie's part. It would strike me as plausible that he would determine the Fetishes thread to be too much of a risk for the site's reputation and decide to zap it permanently.

I edited this into an earlier post due to ninja, but I'll say it again - Elle's idea last page is a very good one, and the issue with The Monster Girl Encyclopedia being addressed right now is a great example of "new shit has come to light" to borrow a The Big Lebowski line.

Yep, and that's true for both sides of the game. If something is proven to have been persecuted on false information (fan art mistaken for real art, troll lying about actual content, actual copy of the work turns out not to match the wiki page), and at least one member of P5 admits they would have voted differently if they'd have known, then it can be reopened from the other direction.

Seems fairly harmless.

Quick request, the current members of the 5P are, as noted on the page, Komodin, Meeble, Martello, Catalogue, and Discar.

I can't speak for everyone, but I would find it kind of interesting to see previous members listed as well. I believe Triple Elation was once on the staff as well. (I've heard SOMETHING happened with him recently, but I'm not privy to the details. And I'm pretty sure he dropped out before whatever happened happened.)

EDIT: He, not they. Unless Triple Elation was a hivemind of intelligent termites, or something...

Or, at least, who have been previous members of the Fab Five?

edited 8th May '12 4:10:34 PM by TriggerLoaded

Triple Elation was the only prior member. He left the council, and then later got himself banned for breaking the "exporting drama" rule.

Catalogue did have some kind of emergency that kept him away for about a week and a half, but he came back.

I don't think we need to document that sort of incident, but on the other hand, some form of recognition for past efforts (in a general sense) should be due later on, if the membership changes.

I meant in general, not specifically pertaining to this incident. Anyway, irrelevant discussion, my bad.

edited 8th May '12 4:14:10 PM by Pyrite

TE's page got blanked, so I don't think giving him honorable mention is going to happen anytime soon.

That was more my intention, list previous members... Or member, I guess. (Thought there was one or two others.) Not to list why they're no longer part of the site, just that they used to be on the crew. Don't even mention how they got themselves banned. As mentioned, that happened after they resigned from the Fab Five.

edited 8th May '12 4:12:17 PM by TriggerLoaded

Triple Elation never actually did anything on the P5 though. Is there a point to mentioning him?

I think this kind of thing is definitely necessary, simply for the fact that I could read 500 pages of a webcomic, say "well, nothing really objectionable there, keep it", and not be aware that Page 504 starts a huge pro-pedophilia story arc (for example).

How, if at all, are we going to keep things that have been flagged, judged, and three-angeled from being flagged again without anything having changed or any suspicion the voting was based on inaccurate information by people who didn't think to check?

More cynically, how, if at all, are we to keep a person, or a group of people, or, to pick a totally random example, a griefer site from flagging something over and over again in the hopes of getting the result they want?

edited 8th May '12 5:44:24 PM by HersheleOstropoler

Restrict flagging to being inaccessible to new accounts until they make a certain number of edits/forum posts (which will remain private to the administration, since AFAIK there's no way for a troper to actually track the total number of edits/posts they've made) or some similar limit would be a good start.

Thanks for noting the typo.

edited 8th May '12 6:35:51 PM by MarqFJA

Lock out repeat flags of an article, requiring admin/mod approval to open for re-submission. Using Monster Girl Enyclopedia as example: Flagged and passed. Person with new information wants P5 to re-evaluate due to legitimate concern, so they forward the relevant info to mods, who then unlock.

Ninja'd, then clarified.

edited 8th May '12 5:52:53 PM by tdgoodrich1

@Marq - I think you meant inaccessible.

Perhaps, rather than flagging again, they should just bring up the new information in here, for the case to be reopened.

Is it easier to just flag or bring it here?

If they just flag it, they can't meet the criteria for reopening it. The flag system has no text box to add information. Which also means it's really hard for people to give evidence against bad work that aren't immediately obvious.

They should have to tell us why. Like "Well, this seems like a G rated anime, but in episode 54, it turns into a child porn fest".

If things that are flagged end up having flagging stay locked if they're kept, I know what I'll be flagging.

Huh?

Yeah...I couldn't parse that either.