Total posts: [11,282] 1 ... 87 88 89 90 91 93 94 95 96 97 ... 452
The Place for Purging Porn and Pedo-Pandering (AKA P5 flag evaluations):
SureeeeendaaaaSomething like that? Didn't know we had a separate page for that.
You gotta get yourself some marble columnsThere'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 man —Oedipus
@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
SureeeeendaaaaA 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.
World's Toughest MilkmanActually, 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.
But how do people make sure there evidence is new? I like this solution.
edited 8th May '12 9:01:24 PM by Shadis
SureeeeendaaaaAgain, 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.
World's Toughest MilkmanYou'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.
*DOINK*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.
You gotta get yourself some marble columnsI'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 man —Oedipus
sick of it allOff 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):
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.
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.
☆♥☆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.
☆♥☆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.
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?
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:
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.
Ravenous SophovoreIf 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.
O' Allah, save EgyptYou 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
The Sonic Wiki Curator... Gosh. What am I, chopped liver?
Conceptually FrameworkedWelcome 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. 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
"Nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri, quo me cumque rapit tempestas, deferor hospes."
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 email@example.com.