Welcome to the Content Violations Discussion forum, where we discuss whether a work violates The Content Policy.
Remember that the forum rules apply here
, plus the following:
- You don't PM moderators about stuff pertaining to the policies, except for thread reasons;
- We tolerate links to scanlation sites unlike in the rest of the site due to its purpose, although it's preferred to remove them when they have done their jobs;
- The forum is not a soapbox for your own views on the policy or on morality. Please leave them at the door.
Violations of these rules can result in a ban from the subforum, or from the entire forum.
Otherwise:
Also, keep in mind that there are works that we don't want flagged without a really good reason as they are not likely in violation of policy:
- Is a film rated below "R" for U.S. distribution.
- Is a show that can be aired on prime time television.
- Is a video game that is rated below "M" by the ESRB.
- Is a written work that is sold in major bookstores without an "adult" or "mature" label.
- Is an anime/manga/etc. that is approved for U.S. import as a non-adult work.
- Is read/shown/taught in high school or below.
- Is in another format and meets equivalent criteria.
What we're looking for:
- Pure porn, or porn with an Excuse Plot only,
- Anything that has explicit underage sex,
- Implied sex of preteens or younger, and
- Fanservice intended to cater to pedophiles (lolicon and shotacon fanservice can count).
A couple of guidelines so the procedure can move smoothly:
- Do not list whole indexes or works just because they are on a certain index or have lolicon, H-Game or shotacon on their trope list.
- Do not list works you know nothing about without at least reading the trope page.
- Do not list works that you know are G-rated but you find creepy.
- If it's paedophile-pandering approximately how old are the characters involved? What happens? Is it graphic? Is it merely implied?
- List what objectionable content there is, and how much of the work consists of that.
- If it's entirely sex, say so. People have different ideas of what porn is. We all have the same idea of what a work being entirely sex scenes is.
- If you're not sure about a work, say so, or ask someone who does know that work. But don't make blanket accusations. Post here: "I don't know about this work, but the page says X".
- Google and Wikipedia are your friendsnote . Do a little digging on works you aren't sure about.
Also, in the case of H Games, there is this questioning to fill up:
- When are the sex scenes located?
- Are they spread out over the game?
- How much gameplay is there between sex scenes?
- Are they only at the endings?
- How hard do you have to work to get an ending?
- Are they in every ending? Every good ending?
- Are the sex scenes optional via a choice in the menu?
- Would the story make sense without them with minimal or no rewriting?
- Are the scenes made up of stills, or are they animated?
- How explicit are the sex scenes?
- This isn't a headcount. Your opinion is only considered if it explains in at least some detail how you came to the conclusion that the work is/isn't porn/paedopandering.
- When a moderator determines that the discussion has yielded a consensus, they can enact its conclusion/ask a moderator to enact the conclusion.
- The discussion is only about whether the work qualifies as porn or as paedopandering. We don't assess anything else in this process.
.
Q: Why is this happening?
A: Concerning the porn, it tends to attract creepy edits that have brought us into issues with the adservers while not significantly contributing to our core purpose - tropology. Concerning paedophilia-pandering, such works are just plain creepy to have pages about.
Q: What can I do to help clean the site?
A: You can flag content as unsuitable using the flag tool, which is located in the Tools menu to the right of each article, keeping the criteria in mind. Also, you can help enforce No Lewdness, No Prudishness across the wiki, possibly though cleaning pages listed in this Long Term Projects thread.
Q. This episodic work isn't finished yet. Shouldn't we wait for the ending before discussing it?
A. No. If released instalments may violate the content policy, we want to take action as soon as that's established — we don't need to wait for the ending. We can always revisit a decision to cut or keep once the work is over, but that point might still be years or decades away.
Q: This work is not actually/primarily pornographic. Why was it cut?
A: This could be for a number of different reasons. If the work was deemed to be paedopandering, for example, it will be cut whether or not it's actually sexually explicit. Being pro-paedophilia or pandering to paedophiles is bad enough, even if the work is nominally anti-paedophilia. Of course, it's possible that there was a mistake and then you should appeal it - please check the reasons first, however.
Q: This work is being/has been cut, but it is not a violation of the Content Policy. How do I make an appeal?
A: Flag the work page using the button in the sidebar and state your reasons for restoration.
Q: This work is pretty much pure porn, but it's really good porn. Can an exception be made?
A: Nope, sorry. If it's mainly porn, it goes.
Q: Why would you cut this? In [culture x], it is totally acceptable.
A: The vast majority of our readers come from the Americas or Western Europe, so we will be adhering to what could broadly be termed "Western" standards. This means we will not be permitting works which sexualize 12 year olds, and nor will we be demanding that every picture of a woman on the site must wear a burqa.
Q: How can you possibly claim to know authorial intent? (Roland Barthes is my co-pilot.)
A: It is not important what the authorial intent was, only the outcome.
Q: Wikipedia have articles on all kinds of awful stuff. Why can't we do the same?
A: Wikipedia is a strictly academic site. They have to cite sources and a "no censorship rule". They also do not aim to be Family Friendly, and are not reliant upon third party ads for funding. Conversely, one of our stated aims is to celebrate fiction, and our generally light, non-negative tone is a reflection of this, which has led to much more gushing about inappropiate content.
Q: So should I take every article here as an endorsement of whatever it describes?
A: No, of course not. We have pages on Greedy Jew, Adolf Hitler and Mein Kampf after all. However, if we choose to focus our attention on schoolgirls' thighs or porn, it does reflect very poorly on us. Fan Fic Recommendations are a slightly different issue. If a work is recommended there, this should be taken as an endorsement by the troper who wrote it.
Q: Are we allowed to make forum threads about works processed by the Content Violation Discussions forum?
A: If it was voted "clean and keep", a forum thread is relatively safe as long as it is restricted to talking about the clean parts. Anything with a stronger judgement is discouraged on the forums.
Q: Where can I find decisions regarding a work?
A: They are linked from the discussion page. Sometimes the old list of content reviews or the thread list in this forum can help as well.
Q: I still have some questions/concerns.
A: We will be happy to answer them. There is a thread for this.
- Guro: Violence played for titillation. (contrast Gorn)
- 5P or P5: The panel that administered the policy prior to the review system being overhauled in 2022. See 5P.
- P(a)edoshit: Older term for "P(a)edopandering", deprecated for being inflammatory.
- Porn: A work mostly concerned with sexual arousal. Having NSFW or explicit scenes doesn't automatically make a work porn — it's when showcasing explicit scenes is the entire point of the work.
Also, questions about the policy can be asked here. They will be added to this thread's FAQ section once answered.
Edited by Mrph1 on May 5th 2024 at 6:00:30 PM
You have to consider that it's a bit of a studios art-stile fault.
https://vndb.org/c5674 - he is a collage student
https://vndb.org/c3729, https://vndb.org/c3729 - and they are age-vice.
It's just that fluffy artstile may make characters in VN look younger. But the only one meant to look like a loli by the authors is this one https://vndb.org/c3732
You know. I'm raging not because it was banned from the base but because people in discussion thread just called it "loli-shit" without even trying to analyze the matter or compare the different illustrations or consider the general artstyile.
I haven't seen any valid arguments beside "for me this character looks like a loli and this game is loli-shit" in that thread.
Well, "looks like a little girl in a sexualized appearance (="loli")" is kinda the key problem with these works...
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
And if you meant the 3rd screen on VNDB. It's a medical examination. Nothing more. And girl looks small there because the guy is huge. Compared to most of other characters she looks normal.
@Septimus Heap while reading the VN I never considered this two characters lolis. Didn't even had a though. If some people did it's more like their problems. Moral guardians tend to see things everywhere, even id authors didn't mean them to look like it.
If you recall, the biggest reason for the loli cleanups is the Google Incident (or was it the second Google Incident?). If TVT's ad servers decide to pull their ads because they don't like the content TVT is hosting, that means the whole site is going down, and the people who decide that are not going to listen patiently to an explanation of why the love interest who looks thirteen is totally legal, or so on. TVT also doesn't have any sort of obligation to catalogue each and every work of fiction.
edited 5th Mar '16 3:18:26 PM by RedSavant
It's been fun.
Loli stuff was also a decree from Fast Eddie to purge it very hard, before Google sees it.
I know your reasons just that it really looks like going overboard and double-standarts.
It reminds me of currents feminist South Korean heads, who started arresting hentai artists just because. Or Russian anti-LGBT law.
Ah, whatever. I see that no one will listen anyway.
We're listening, it's just that the rules ARE there for a reason, and it's not 'just because'. It's that the site is still highly reliant on ad revenue. That, and again, the site has no obligation to host every work and every type of work.
edited 5th Mar '16 3:30:37 PM by RedSavant
It's been fun.
Your "double standard" claim is false. It's not about popularity, the works you cited have versions without hentai. This one doesn't. It's not our fault the authors didn't make one.
The girls looked like children to nearly everybody in the discussion thread. It wasn't "just some trolls".
edited 5th Mar '16 3:31:18 PM by Adannor
They didn't even try to compare them to other characters or look at more arts before judging.
And how all-age version negates the existence of 18+ one. It's double-standard in all it's might.
And your argument about non-existence of all-age version is not valid. Studio went bankrupt soon after publishing this VN.
'They didn't exist long enough to make one' doesn't invalidate the fact that they didn't make one.
It's been fun.
Sorcerer in training
Or that no one picked up the rights to make a Bleached Underpants version, or a fan didn't put in the time to make one.
The new admins have worked to get non-Google advertising on board, and one post (somewhere) referenced them networking with at least one Google employee to avoid the immediate cut-off issues that were part of the Incidents, but that doesn't mean that questionable or outright violating works can just come back. At most, they can be appealed and reevaluated. But a lot more advertisers than just Google don't like the idea of being associated with positive depictions of apparent or actual child sexualization, regardless of what the character's actual age is in-universe.
On a side note, coming in and calling the admins, mods and P5 members Moral Guardians, and saying everyone else who participated in the discussion were trolling, is NOT a good way to ask for an appeal and reevaluation.
edited 5th Mar '16 8:02:18 PM by Candi
Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
Calling a normal work "loli shit" without digging a matter is not a good way to poss as a neutral judges.
Sorcerer in training
That's an opinion by the staff member in question, and considering how the folks in question are in day-to-day interactions on the site, it takes a lot to get them to the point they express themselves that way.
There was a crapload of pressure at the time, with the staff and admin trying desperately to find out exactly what Google Ads objected to (since they didn't deign to specify the work or trope), and a good deal of reacting by tropers who didn't take a second to think, "What a minute, what's the best/worst thing I could do right now?" It complicated things and put more pressure on the staff, even as they tried to evaluate works while fielding both personal attacks and work overload while being understaffed.
Attack the argument, not the person. Entering a conversation with "they are this" instead of "I see them as" or "these actions look to me" or some other form of reasoned argument makes you look like you're looking for a fight, not seeking to defend the work or asking for an appeal and re-evaluation. Disagreeing is fine; it's how you do it that matters.
It also breaks the #1 rule: Don't be a dick. Insulting people right off the bat, regardless of your feelings or affection for a work, is rude. Calling the staff Moral Guardians is rude -and they've heard that one a bunch of times, always in a negative manner. Calling those discussing the matter "trolls" is rude.
No matter how positive your desire to see a page for that work back is, presenting yourself and your argument in a negative manner is not going to help.
Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
I'm just saying that my rude reaction comes from their rude behavior.
I tried to discuss things normally here. If that topic didn't look like a bunch of people just trying to insult the title, than my first post could be much more polite.
They weren't rude to you. They weren't insulting of anybody who tried defending the title back then either. But you are taking this matter excessively personally, and taking insults to the people rather than objecting to actual things done (well, you did give some of that, but it was mired in insults and you flatly dismissed the explanations of the rules the cleanup works)
Only two of my posts contained them. And not explicitly. And it was because of I just saw all the discussion and was on emotions.
But I'll apologize for the last one.
Apparition in the Woods
Equating people who express the opinion that a work does not meet site guidelines in a way that you dislike to government censors who outright arrest people for fighting for their rights is astonishingly unsporting behaviour, to put it lightly. You disagree with a decision being made on a private site that in no way directly impacts your day-to-day life. You are not being oppressed, and frankly, as a queer person who probably would get tossed in jail under the Russian laws, with queer friends in Russia right now, I kind of feel personally insulted by the assertion that you are being oppressed by this decision.
I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.
There is a report function in place - it's second from the right on the list of buttons you see above every post, and it looks like a yield sign. If you think you're being personally attacked, or if someone is otherwise violating the "don't be a dick" rule, then hit the holler button on that post and the mods will take a look at it.
You are still required to be polite, however. If you can't discuss the issue politely, then I advise stepping away from the discussion, because regardless of the situation, you're the one who risks getting banhammered if you lose your cool.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
JHM, bringing up an irrelevant subject and playing Oppression Olympics is a Chewbacca Defense and not helpful.
edited 15th Mar '16 11:37:17 PM by Ramidel
It's a bird.
So, I've read through the various threads, announcements and FAQs. Most of it is perfectly clear, but I still have to ask this, to get a final answer once and for all:
Yes or no, are we allowed to criticize the content policy in any way, shape or form whatsoever? Can I point at a part of it and say "I disagree with this", in any part of the forum, or will that always result in a warning or suspension?
Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.
Lost in Space
You may express your opinion, civilly and constructively, as you may about anything else. But we've done this whole thing to death so many times that everyone is bored with it.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Only policy related actions that are running chances of resulting in suspensions is stuff like shitpost spamming or trying to make copies of cut works under slightly altered names.
Civilly voicing your disagreement and reasons for it is perfectly fine.
It's not popularity, it's having clean versions with none of the porn.