TV Tropes Org

Forums

Content Violation Discussions:
Content Policy Discussion
search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [1,418]  1 ...  9 10 11 12 13
14
15 16 17 18 19 ... 57

Content Policy Discussion:

This thread is about our content policy. Your questions, complaints and suggestions about the content policy go here.

Our article on our Content Policy and the 5P can be found here.

This post contains the original, longer version of the introduction of this thread.

Before you post here, we expect you to read the post about this in General Announcements, as well as at least the first post in this thread to get a clue about what is going on. If your question or complaint is already addressed in either of those, don't be surprised if we respond with just a link or a quote.

If you have questions or complaints or suggestions after reading the announcement, this is the place where you can ask them.

edited 16th Jan '13 8:28:11 AM by BestOf

I'm pretty sure Lotte isn't gone by admin fiat. Komodin and I voted to restore while the other three voted cut, and when the restoration came up it was put on hold since by that point there was only one active P5 member besides the two of us, so it didn't seem fair.
 327 tdgoodrich 1, Wed, 26th Sep '12 1:06:24 PM from Atlanta Relationship Status: Californicating
Son, You Gotta Take It On The Chin
OK, can we take the discussion to Restorations? I don't want us clogging up the policy thread with non-policy discussion any more than necessary.
"Polite life will fill you full of cancer." - Iggy Pop

"I've seen the future, brother, it is murder." -Leonard Cohen
love lockdown, you lose.
What would we do, though, to just get rid of the white screen covering it? I don't really care about Lotte either way, but we need to actually have access to a page to do anything about it. Is that something we'd have to take up with Eddie?
 329 Fighteer, Wed, 26th Sep '12 1:11:24 PM from the Time Vortex Relationship Status: Dancing with Captain Jack Harkness
Yes, that's an Eddie thing.
Ironically, the pursuit of the definition of happiness does not appear to be a happiness-maximizing behavior.
love lockdown, you lose.
Thanks for that. I'll stop derailing now. :)
Sorry to insist on this topic, but I think all this requires more discussion than the amount that was given.

Just to make it clear about what I'm pointing out here, the porn part of the rules has already been quite clear and I think it is fair.extra stuff to clarify myself

Now... My Head Scratcher is about the other part of the content policy which I don't feel like I was properly clarified yet. The part about what's currently called paedopandering. I just can't make a complete sense out of it...

Why does such thing need to be that strict? I don't talk about anything that evolves s.e.x with minors. That makes complete sense. I'm talking about other works, works that just show a little more without implying or "screaming" SEX in the images or in its content. I really still don't get it.

The image that that a really large amount of the tropers are getting from this action is that works, specially japanese works, are being blindly cut. I do know this is not true, they are being evaluated according the current rules. What it really sounds like it's happening is not that the P5 is doing anything really wrong, what's wrong is these new rules. They are an exaggeration, they are just too tham strict!

I already asked to talk personally to Fast Eddie or to have an open discussion with him, as he's the one who is making those rules. The objective is to understand why do those paedopandering rules actually need to be like that. The problem is that my request was completely ignored and only a member of the P5 or a moderator (don't actually know who) answered that he didn't know specific "stuff" about why the rules are like that. What's the problem with having an adult conversation with the admin if no other member can take his place? I read all clarifications that many others were redirected to and many links but they don't show enough about this subject.

edited 7th Oct '12 2:53:36 AM by brunoais

 332 Sabbo, Sun, 7th Oct '12 3:05:27 AM from Australia Relationship Status: Baby don't hurt me!
From what I recall, Fast Eddie said the following (paraphrased) back when these rules were introduced: Cataloguing works such as those attract pedophiles to this site, and we don't want their kind here.

Not only from my POV but also from many ppl's POV, there are works (and tropes)* not meant to attract pedophiles that are being cut and restoration petitions towards them are being rejected.

That's what I'm seeing the the last 9-10 months.

edited 7th Oct '12 3:12:45 AM by brunoais

I'm an Irene!
The Author's intent is not the same as what the P5 determine what the work itself portrays.

Some are clearly pedophilia without a doubt.(Kodomo No Jikan) Others are questionable. Some are only Pedophilia if you think about it too hard.

But the fact remains that many works do invite pedophiles onto this site, and they need to be eradicated due to that, and the fact that they're no longer appropriate for this site.

I understand that they're still a legitimate work with tropes/storytelling, etc. That does not make it "fine", however. I get where you're coming from(except I disagree that most of what is hit isn't clearly pedophilia), but I still agree to remove it from the site.
 335 Sabbo, Sun, 7th Oct '12 3:19:49 AM from Australia Relationship Status: Baby don't hurt me!
[up][up]If they are being rejected by the P5, feel free to petition for their restoration in the appropriate thread.

edited 7th Oct '12 3:20:00 AM by Sabbo

ATM, I'm not requesting for any particular work to be restored.

I just want to know better than the info we have now, why such strict rules about that? I do know F Eddie does not want pedophiles here but is there really a need to such strict rules? No proper answer has been given in that, yet (only vague and somewhat vague answers).

Edit: The image this is giving me now is something like:

"How do you kill a fly? Blow up the house!" No doubt the fly is killed but too much goes along with it

edited 7th Oct '12 3:30:03 AM by brunoais

I'm an Irene!
Let's cut out the hyperbole, please. It's not funny.

Pedophiles are not welcome at this site. Pedophilia is illegal. Pedophilia-pandering works tends to invite them. It works together into an simple system of No Works = Less Pedophiles.

Plain and simple.
The only problem I can see with pedophiles in this website is that they could edit works to make dubious works look like they are good works meant for pedophiles. If that's the case, locking to prevent unwanted editing would be enough, but that's not the case, so there must be more into it than what meets the eye.

(pls correct me properly if I'm wrong)

BTW: [up]I didn't mean to be funny in the previous post. I used that sentence to try to express myself how I see the current discussion. I'm in real need to really understand what's going on with that option. Your answer is still too vague and is the same as the P5 and the moderators are writing, so it is not actually helping me to obtain my answer. From what I've been reading, sounds like (almost) no one is actually able to properly answer me.

edited 7th Oct '12 3:47:27 AM by brunoais

I'm an Irene!
There is no proper answer beyond "We do not find pedophilia and works pandering to them acceptable. They must leave."

That's the entire gist of it. If ones who don't let known who they are exist on here and edit regularly, whatever. But if we find out they're one, they're banned. This is a full Admin decision regardless.

We're not going to approve of pedophilia, or pedophiles being on the site. That's all there is to it.
Man... this is going too much in circles... I need a complete answer to understand it and the more time passes, the more I think that only the one who made the rules can answer it sad.

I want to insist on the subject but I'll just shut up for a while to get more info and PO Vs else I'd just be here in circles and not produce any useful conclusions.

edited 7th Oct '12 4:00:16 AM by brunoais

 341 Ultimately Subjective, Sun, 7th Oct '12 4:00:52 AM from Once, not long ago
Conceptually Frameworked
[up][up][up][up] I think it might be a bit early to say if this makes a dent in actual paedophile numbers.

The policy takes a very hard stance. It's an administrator ruling. It potentially makes T Vtropes look bad and yes it prevents paedophiles using TV Tropes to look up material, thereby also stopping them openly spreading here.

By the way, didn't we have a page for the policy? I can't seem to find it.

edited 7th Oct '12 4:01:05 AM by UltimatelySubjective

"Nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri, quo me cumque rapit tempestas, deferor hospes."
 342 JHM, Sun, 7th Oct '12 4:06:02 AM from Neither Here Nor There Relationship Status: I know
Thunder, Perfect Mind
You want an explanation? I'll put it simply: The sexualisation of children makes the majority of people here horribly uncomfortable. We are an open-minded group on the whole, but things like that don't tend to sit well with us. Not only does keeping articles on such subject matter here without an explicit neutrality rule seem like a tacit endorsement, but there are people who frequent this site who were victims of sexual abuse themselves. They find this material uncomfortable at best and traumatising at worst, and we would rather lose articles on paedophilic materials than alienate innocent contributors.

Capisce?

edited 7th Oct '12 4:07:59 AM by JHM

In uffish thought
[up][up]The Content Policy And The5p Circuit is what you're looking for.
Merge those duplicates! Fix that factual error! Delete that shoehorned non-example! You have the power! Meta Four
 344 Willbyr, Sun, 7th Oct '12 6:50:27 AM from North Little Rock, AR Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
Anime-ted
[up][up] Good summation. Even if we had a strict neutrality rule, I still think people outside the wiki that either didn't pay attention to it or chose to ignore it would still scream "endorsement".
 345 Totemic Hero, Sun, 7th Oct '12 6:51:32 AM from the next level Relationship Status: Abstaining
Mild panic
To clarify, since JHM's answer is incomplete:

The pages on explicit material (both pornographic and paedo-ish) were attracting edits that overly glorified the scenes within the work, making it look like we endorsed it. (It didn't help that most of these works tended to not paint these things in a negative light.) This made a number of tropers uncomfortable...and quite a few other people uncomfortable too, most notably the AdSense (Google's ad service) people.

It didn't help that the vast majority of these works were niche works, meaning few editors were working on each page. The fewer editors, the less Wiki Magic to correct for such problems. So a lot of these went undetected for a long time.

Thus the cleanup. The only other alternative would be to have the moderators and/or tropers, at least in the short run, run a round-the-clock watch on such pages, in order to keep them from becoming too endorsing or, worse, too explicit themselves. Obviously, since that would likely require more people to read/watch/play most of the works in question, they naturally shot that idea down.

While it would be nice if we could provide a full documenting of every type of work, the inevitable price of freedom of creativity is that some people will use it to produce works of questionable taste. * These subjects are just too hot to handle right now, so to speak.

edited 7th Oct '12 6:55:37 AM by TotemicHero

"These days they have a stat for how many times a guy goes for a cup of coffee." -Mark McGwire
 346 shimaspawn, Sun, 7th Oct '12 6:52:32 AM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
[up]x4 That is a very good summation of why we don't want that sort of material.

That said, there are other things that were removed because of issues with Google.

edited 7th Oct '12 6:53:23 AM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
[up][up]Now THAT's an answer ;).

The solution the this wiki's problem seems to be something in the lines of cleaning and closing for edit all questionable and possible paedopandering works that have been talked in these forums. The biggest work we can think of (pls note I'm picking up the strongest example I could find) for that is the so much Kn J controversial work. It has good tropes to share among really questionable and too paedopandering material. The way to go does not seem to be radical cut option. The way to go is to clean and close. I don't say that that specific work should be restored (that's a discussion for the other forum) but I'm giving an example for all of you, including tv tropes owner, to think if the current radical option is actually the best option for tv tropes.

Is it really a problem to have anyone, without restrictions, to view this wiki? If so, what real problems can it cause with viewing? If all tv tropes is cleaned up and just states the tropes without any pedophile tendencies what's the problem to have shows that never had a proper controversy? Why not just clean and close 'em?

Just in case:

clean as in, removing questionable quotes, examples and tropes and leave the rest intact. (some one will have to do this, eventually)

close as in, someone can propose an edit and it's up to a moderator (or another capable, trustworthy user) to approve the changes or reject the changes. Ofc it needs to warn the user about the situation. A good example of that approach is what happens in anidb*.

 348 Septimus Heap, Sun, 7th Oct '12 8:10:56 AM from Zurich, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
A Wizard boy
The fundamental problem with cleaning porn is that there is no workforce for that. With paedopandering, cleaned paedopandering works are still cleaned paedopandering works.

Concerning the other question above: There is a substantial amount of tropers that are unsettled or creeped out by the knowledge that our wiki has pages on works that pander to paedophiles and similar sexualization of children and this amount includes the administrator. Now, you won't hear much of them at the moment in these threads as most of them have either left, were booted for being disruptive or are just not speaking openly. But because of this we have this policy of removing work pages about paedophile-pandering works, and cleanup will not suffice.

edited 7th Oct '12 8:19:31 AM by SeptimusHeap

 349 Morganite, Sun, 7th Oct '12 8:26:31 AM from Dynamis - Firefly Alley
Something strange...
@337, 339: I'm pretty sure some of what you said is actually contradictory to stated policy. (And quite possibly the law.)
"So... the time has come for you to meet your demise..."
 350 Best Of, Sun, 7th Oct '12 8:50:43 AM from Finland Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
With Mod Hat On
From the announcement linked in this thread's OP:

"You make it sound like you don't want paedophiles contributing to TV Tropes!"

Let's be frank. We are not interested in your fetishes, fantasies, or sexual preferences unless you make them an issue. There are plenty of people with "deviant" sexual interests who manage to live entirely normal lives. For those who cannot, we advise you to seek counseling and/or other medical assistance. Do not attempt to use TV Tropes as an outlet. Paedophilia is an extremely dangerous, damaging thing, and we are not going to tolerate it.

Similarly, we are not going to tolerate paedophilia/lolicon/rape apologists. Do not come on here and protest that it's just "misunderstood" and that if we just open our minds a bit... no. We are not going to be engaged in that sort of discussion and we will ban you if you try to start it.

We also wish to make it clear that we are not sponsoring or implying that it is okay to embark on a Pædo Hunt. We're just retroactively enforcing standards that we probably should have had from the beginning but didn't appreciate the need for. Those persons who do not wish to comply with the new standard are invited to go somewhere else that will appeal to their interests better — or in extreme cases seek professional therapy.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Total posts: 1,418
 1 ...  9 10 11 12 13
14
15 16 17 18 19 ... 57


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