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
I think it's perfectly possible to maintain the site content policy clearly and fairly without disparaging people whose tastes differ as long as they're not pushing for a policy change or adding content that violates said policy. No harm, no foul, right? If it's not affecting the wiki, then we have no business telling people what they can or can't think.
It's been fun.
Lost in Space
Fair enough. It was uncalled for. But we have banned users for pedo-apologia. What happens to them outside of TV Tropes is not our concern.
edited 18th Mar '16 11:28:06 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
It's a bird.
Is it still possible to agree to disagree and end this discussion on a somewhat friendly note?
Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.
Lost in Space
Tell ya what. I will bear no grudges if we can drop this line of conversation entirely.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Apparition in the Woods
Just gonna briefly respond to something a few pages back:
Anyway.
Part of the history of the paedophilia apologia rule stems from actual sexually predatory individuals being banned from this site in the past. I personally don't think that the vast majority of people with weird sexual peccadilloes (even really messed up ones) are even remotely dangerous to others, but given how certain people have used this site in the past, the reasoning behind the hard line on such posturing with respect to our content policy seems more than reasonable.
I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
Collector Of Fine Oddities
Diaper fucker comes to mind.
Lost in Space
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Yes, we had a few nakedly pro-pedophilia folks, who have all (hopefully) been banned.
That was an unfortunate turn of phrase.
It's a bird.
Sorry to bother you again. No complaints this time, just two unrelated (well, mostly) quick questions:
- What is the definition of a "sex thread"? Also, does the "no lewdness, no prudishness" rule only apply to the wiki, or to the forum as well?
- How would the site policies apply to characters who look older than their canonical age? (ie Dawson Casting and the like)
In order:
- What a moderator considers a thread dedicated to discussion about sexuality, intercourse and the like. NLNP is primarily a wiki policy.
- Younger Than They Look (which is the underlying trope) can be an issue, yes. Generally appearance and psychological competence are the overriding factors, at least so it seems to me.
- It's a thread that's about sex, duh. Robot-like absolute definitions are not always applicable in these areas. What actual thread (or idea for a thread) has you questioning?
- It'd probably be best to treat it as "youngest of how they look or how much the story says they are" to be on the safe side. We've had an anime banned due to having a girl it said was 14 while packing breasts bigger than the size of her head.
edited 24th Mar '16 1:48:19 PM by Adannor
It's a bird.
1. I'm mostly thinking of the discussion that ended with this post. Since it's already over it might not really matter, but that discussion seemed relatively tame (imo) compared to what I've seen people get away with in other threads, and I'd like to get at least a rough idea of where the line is drawn for future reference.
2. Alright, that makes sense.
Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.
Note that chronological age can be ignored based on circumstances (for example, a Sex Bot's chronological age is probably not a factor).
Yeah obviously, stuff like robots and aliens that fully mature in a year are special case.
@Corvidae: I personally wouldn't say that post breaks any rules. Like people have said, there are no hard and fast cutoffs, but to me, at least, discussing the mechanics of fursuit sex in terms that amount to 'you'll get heatstroke, don't do it' just sounds like shop talk. No one typed that one-handed, basically.
As for #2, same as everything else - that's what the P5 is for.
It's been fun.
Hi
For the record, we discussed that page of that thread behind the scenes and didn't find it objectionable.
At one time, we did have a thread called the Nunnery which was dedicated to...adult discussions, as well as a thread in the anime forum talking about hentai, but both were purged as part of the cleanup effort.
Hentai was actually purged because of Google pitching a tantrum or something along these lines.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Absolutely no relation to NLK
Wasn't the Nunnery purged because there were some preteens frequenting it, or am I misremembering?
Dopants: He meant what he said and he said what he meant, a Ninety is faithful 100%.
Lots of teenagers there and possibly preteens, but I am not familiar with any specific incident playing a role in the deletion. Although I remember that some of my colleagues were concerned about their presence.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
It's a bird.
@ RedSavant and Willbyr: That's more or less what I was assuming/hoping for. Just wanted to make sure.
Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.
Apparition in the Woods
@Marq FJA: Among others, there was a man who cyber-stalked a fourteen-year-old girl and made strange, rambling YouTube videos about how the age of consent should be set at twelve. An acquaintance of mine reported him to the FBI at one point.
These individuals have long since been banned, but their presence in the first place caused a number of people here to leave, and a few to assume actively antagonistic stances toward this site as a consequence. It is best that we avoid repeating such grievous errors.
I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.
Red Like Santa
This review should be looked at
It says that a character played by an actress that was 12 or less (according to imdb) had "fetish-fuelability"
Now known as Cyber Controller
What Ramidel said. That was out of line.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.