TV Tropes Org

Forums

search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [11,349]  1 ... 87 88 89 90 91
92
93 94 95 96 97 ... 454

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

The sub-forum is used by the panel that adjudicates possible content violations. Threads can only be opened here by people on the panel. This thread is for general discussion of flagged works; if new threads are needed, the P5 will open them.

Important links: The Content Policy and the 5P Circuit, Content Violation Reports list.

edited 12th Feb '13 2:10:16 PM by Fighteer

 2276 They Call Me Tomu, Tue, 8th May '12 8:38:25 PM Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Sureeeeendaaaa
Something like that?

Didn't know we had a separate page for that.

 2277 Hershele Ostropoler, Tue, 8th May '12 8:40:58 PM from BK.NY.US Relationship Status: Sharing a spaghetti noodle
You gotta get yourself some marble columns
There's the appeals thread. That can stay open for appeals either way ... though I have to say, if something is cut because it has things there's zero tolerance for, I'm not sure how a person can make a case that it doesn't (of course, if something was cut for being Porn Without Plot it is, in principle, possible to make the case that it is more plotsome than it appeared).
The child is father to the manOedipus
@shima As we understand it that's for pre-5p cut works, I think he means somewhere to list a work you think deserves a second look and the new evidence for or against.

edited 8th May '12 8:43:17 PM by Shadis

 
 2279 They Call Me Tomu, Tue, 8th May '12 8:46:32 PM Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Sureeeeendaaaa
A totally non-binding page that the P5 crew could voluntarily look at, along with whatever listed details (possibly using the same nested tech that Trope discussion pages have?), so as to select works for re-review.

 2280 Xtifr, Tue, 8th May '12 8:55:00 PM Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
World's Toughest Milkman
Actually, I think we've already seen one successful appeal of a P5 cut (successful in the sense that the committee is reconsidering in light of new info): Gor.

Of course, it may still end up being cut, but it was still a case where new information was actually worth considering.

I'm sympathetic to Martello's concerns—certainly there's been plenty of ridiculous and tedious and too-often-repeated appeals based on arguments the P5 already considered. Fans are fans, and often have a hard time acting sensibly with respect to something they like. But I think there needs to be at least a tiny window for genuine new-information appeals, possibly backed with threats of hair-trigger thumps or worse if the privilege is abused.

As for Pyrite's question: how does someone know if the information is new? The answer is make sure or don't bother trying. Or be prepared to face the consequences. P5 doesn't have any obligation to make it easy for you.
"Existential Despair" is an oxymoron.
[up]But how do people make sure there evidence is new?

[down]I like this solution.

edited 8th May '12 9:01:24 PM by Shadis

 
 2282 They Call Me Tomu, Tue, 8th May '12 8:59:22 PM Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Sureeeeendaaaa
Again, my idea is to have a publicly viewable discussion of listed works, with "reasons to re-review" nested below. The P5 team wouldn't have to argue with people over which works to re-review, because it would be more like a suggestion box than a debate. On the other hand, I'm not sure how you'd prevent people from snipping in the discussion method of "Yeah, review THIS-what with the pedo pandering and the stuff and things!" or something.

I think that an option for re-review should be there, and I think that the P5 should take the notion seriously, but I also think there should be a pretty clear divide whereby a given work, once reviewed, is assumed to not be reviewed again. Thus, if a work never gets re-reviewed and someone says "What gives?" the standard answer "works are chosen to be re-reviewed at the behest of the P5" can be given, as a "okay you can go away and shut up now."

I guess the entire point I'm making is to encourage something non-confrontational and very procedural that doesn't reduce the information access that the P5 crew has access to. It does mean that the P5 has to occasionally have active members scout the list though.

 2283 Xtifr, Tue, 8th May '12 9:07:26 PM Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
World's Toughest Milkman
[up][up]You're asking the wrong question. In fact, if you have to ask....

It's not my problem, it's not P5's problem. If you want to raise an issue, make sure. Otherwise, don't bother. If you can't figure out how to make sure, then you'd probably best not bother.
"Existential Despair" is an oxymoron.
 2284 Pyrite, Tue, 8th May '12 9:26:18 PM from Right. Beneath. You. Relationship Status: Hiding
Until further notice
[up]As you've said,

certainly there's been plenty of ridiculous and tedious and too-often-repeated appeals based on arguments the P5 already considered.

I'm just trying to think of a way where those who appeal in good faith know what actually was covered by the 5P, so that they don't go flooding the appeals thread with old information. It's still up to the 5P whether or not they decide to review or not, but there shouldn't be a situation where the stock reply of "We've already gone over this bit" has to be repeated over and over again.

One hypothetical example would be any Bleached Underpants work, where a less-objectionable version of the work does exist but it's unclear which version the 5P actually reviewed before cutting.

(I know subjectivity of already-reviewed material is another issue, but that should be the point where 5P puts their foot down and says that they've considered it already.)

edited 8th May '12 9:29:18 PM by Pyrite

Not a substitute for a formal medical consultation.
 2285 Hershele Ostropoler, Tue, 8th May '12 9:27:34 PM from BK.NY.US Relationship Status: Sharing a spaghetti noodle
You gotta get yourself some marble columns
I'm now thinking back to the idea of a thread (or some other technology; I can be glib about that because I'm not the one who has to code it) with a strict one-post-per-person-per-work rule*, for appeals. This ties in with Tomu's idea, something panelists will look at and are then free to ignore if the information isn't new or doesn't justify a reëxamination.

If the information is new and does justify a reëxamination, though, it's poor form for the panelists to make snap judgments and refuse to be swayed by mere facts.
The child is father to the manOedipus
 2286 A Groupie, Tue, 8th May '12 9:41:14 PM from City of Angelic Devils
sick of it all
Off topic from the current decision, I would like to get an exemption added for music and bands (much like the "beneath an R rating is exempt without VERY special circumstances") to the guidelines for the following reason (especially since this has come up at least twice and, without the exemption, it may come up in the future):

  • No matter how disgusting the lyrics or visuals etcetera, that it IS a musical work fulfills the Porn with Plot criteria handily because pretty much any musical effort invested means that there is both a Bleached Underpants version (instrumental or radio edit or Walmart copy, as much as some of us hate the latter of those) and that even in the non- Bleached Underpants versions, there's something there besides "this is about getting people off, " no matter what the lyrics are or what the visuals are.

Of course, promotional videos could be a problem, but those can be dealt with by cleanup, just like fangirling etcetera can be. And of course, if some band actually DID center its work around promoting pedophilia, it should and could be cut.

But I think we need to carve out an exemption for music in general, in that it is incredibly hard by the nature of the medium to create porn with no reason for existence.
?
Before I sleep, I'm posting to remind myself that we should talk about media targeted towards sexual minorities, and also, the general issue of women's fiction/genres as well.

[up]Like shoujo and josei?
 
True, and romance novels, and YA lit, and stuff I forgot about.

YA lit is covered by the blanket exemption already. It's probably the biggest reason I wanted the exemption, for fear of knee-jerk reactions might get certain works in that demographic cut.

 2291 Kuro Bara Hime, Tue, 8th May '12 11:01:28 PM from Somewhere...I think Relationship Status: Mu
☆♥☆
I just realized Living With Monster Girl with is still cut. That got a non-H version recently. If that's restored, perhaps The Monster Girl Encyclopedia & Monster Girl Quest could be redirected to that?

If you provide a link to the non-h version, we can look into it.
 2293 Kuro Bara Hime, Tue, 8th May '12 11:16:40 PM from Somewhere...I think Relationship Status: Mu
☆♥☆
Here. It's only two chapters so far. It's not exactly porn, no explicit genitals or sex, but it is very ecchi and nipples are shown.

 2294 ninjaclown, Tue, 8th May '12 11:21:18 PM from The Great White North
It's back.
Sorry if this has already been asked, but the Monster Girl Encyclopedia was submitted for review twice and came up with two conflicting courses of action. How did that happen?
 2295 Troll Post, Tue, 8th May '12 11:23:29 PM from troll post crusher

 2296 Catalogue, Wed, 9th May '12 3:52:27 AM from where the good times are
A pocketful of saudade.

Back.

Sorry for the MIA. I've been elsewhere in real life for the past 1.5 weeks, and elsewhere around the Content Violation board since yesterday. I thought I should read this thread in full before commenting. Took some time; the growth was massive.

A couple of interesting points, many of which are already solved but worth reiterating:

  1. Many voiced concerns about panel size, accountability, and so varyingly on: I'd say it's already a good system, where even a closed verdict can be appealled, and the sharper criticisms are either (1) unaware of several looser aspects of the panel (e.g. appeals), or (2) lamenting about the humanly limits of democracy.

    For the former, there should be a one-stop Wiki article where you can get all the details—something like the new Administrivia.Five P page. The latter should write a book.

  2. It's already been said, but the guidelines and criteria for the panel will have holes rules-lawyers can exploit. If it's not ambiguous there will be no need for a panel at all. For myself, I will try to be consistent and avoid being "Oh what about this mainstream series?"-ed. The rest of the panel, I believe, will do the same.

  3. Very important, so I risk being a broken record: target demographics are relevant. This is mostly true for fanservice-ish elements involving 14-16 years olds in media.

  4. Someone posted a very good summary of the moral judgement problem. In short, just because the work is rejected by the panel, it doesn't necessarily mean that enjoying it is wrong.

    For this reason I will refrain from using terms like "paedoshit" unless it's extremely reprehensible, although I don't object if people want to use it themselves.

    There's scandal about a year ago where a high-schooler submitted a racy picture of her for the yearbook. People talked about censorship or being patronising, but it's missing the point: there are standards of publications. There's a time and there's a place. Take it somewhere else.

  5. Can we have a search function for the CVR page?

  6. As it happened, I think I can still revive the Lotte no Omocha! issue. I don't advise the "keep" camp to hold their breath, but I'll have a look anyway.

  7. Someone referred to the "yea" vote as the Angel of Non-Porno. I think it's a magnificent name. We should name these guys.

  8. Like Meeble, I consider myself to be a person of high squick tolerance. Unlike alcohol. So, if you're afraid of treading the muddy tracks of entrails and human waste, I can help.

That's it! You have a good day now.

edited 9th May '12 3:56:04 AM by Catalogue

The words above are to be read as if they are narrated by Morgan Freeman.
 2297 ccoa, Wed, 9th May '12 5:53:58 AM from the Sleeping Giant
Ravenous Sophovore
If we don't end up redirecting Monster Girl Encyclopedia to the Bleached Underpants work, we could potentially redirect it to Monster Compendium.
Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.
 2298 Marq FJA, Wed, 9th May '12 6:02:56 AM from Saudi Arabia Relationship Status: Shipping fictional characters
O' Allah, save Egypt
[up][up] You are officially my top-favourite panel member for merely taking so much time to address so many concerns in such concise detail, and in such well-mannered manner. You deserve a Made of Win badge.
Ash-shaʻb yurīd isqāṭ ḥukm al-ʻaskar
 2299 Komodin, Wed, 9th May '12 6:15:42 AM from Somewhere in Windy Hill Zone Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
The Sonic Wiki Curator
[up] ... Gosh. What am I, chopped liver? sad
 2300 Ultimately Subjective, Wed, 9th May '12 6:26:24 AM from Once, not long ago
Conceptually Frameworked
Welcome back Catalogue.

Your post is very thoughtful and you have my full confidence behind you.

And thank you for your stance on the the word "pedoshit". Whatever it is being used to refer to, I feel that not using expletives helps keep discussion civil, especially on a forum where tone is not always obvious.

[up] grin We know you've all been doing great work, but Catalogue just got here, Komodin. The Prodigal Son and all that.

Plus we don't want to scare him off. Regardless of his squick tolerance, bad fanfic is something else as we've seen smile
"Nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri, quo me cumque rapit tempestas, deferor hospes."
Total posts: 11,349
 1 ... 87 88 89 90 91
92
93 94 95 96 97 ... 454


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy