Content Policy Discussion

It's not a distancing so much as they've been very backend focused and the mods have largely trusted P5 to run itself since they'd proven themselves reliable.

If the admins are being backend focussed and essentially leaving the site to run itself, I say we should change the model under which the P5 is chosen. As I said, the program is still relevant, but the high burnout means there needs to be an onging, effective system for the election of new P5 members. The P5 should not be allowed to fall below five members.

That is encouraging news. Props to the admins for all the good work that they had done, are doing, and will do for this site.

The way I see it, you don't dump the news of a staff member's death on the "boss"(es) and then give them a list of other things that need to be done as well.

I did emphasize that P5 takes three minimum to run properly. I figured they could sort out the details themselves once they had time to consider and reflect.

Sometimes it's just take one thing at a time. Especially if things are crazy.

Fantastic the admins are coming up with a better way to handle the process.

edited 24th May '16 6:20:16 PM by Candi

Just from my experiences, this job is absolutely not fun and not a walk in the park. You should be aware that it's gonna set you up to read, at minimum, a lot of shitty fanfic. At worse, you may end up watching August Underground, like poor fuckin tgood had to. (Over Christmas. I still owe him a drink.)

I say this bc even non P5 members read and saw a metric ton of terrible things during the initial cleanse. (BASKETBALL ANIME) If you haven't been involved prior, you really should read at least a portion of this thread and see if you can really stomach this work.

On the other hand, the sheer volume of shit has already been dealt with by heroes of the past, so it's going to be quite easier now. Aside from always present potential for an occasional "gem".

edited 24th May '16 10:48:51 PM by Adannor

My condolences. I had no idea that Komodin was even ill, let alone terminally. He seemed like a good guy. I hope his friends and family are doing well...

To the topic at hand: I would like to volunteer, having refrained for this long despite being tempted in the past. I have a fairly high tolerance for grotesque and skeevy materials while putting a hard and fast distinction between what I can personally handle and what works for the site given our rules. I am not a seen-it-all jaded type, really, nor an ideologue in one direction or the other, but I've seen enough weird, bad stuff to be... inoculated.

However, I also spend much less time on the site than I used to, and tend to edit sparingly—partly because if I really think something needs an overhaul I go into perfectionist mode and nothing gets done that way, and partly because I just don't have a ton to say. And I'm also well aware of how subjecting oneself to really nasty stuff that regularly can be rather taxing, which I am wary of. But it seems to me that I've spent too much time backseat driving, sitting in the bleachers, choose your metaphor and stick it here.

Worse comes to worse, I burn out and take a sabbatical. As it stands, I'm here and I have little better to do.

My weird obsession with age ratings and content has always sort of had me butting into P5 stuff, so I'm excited for the opportunity to join. Also, I'm glad the higher-ups haven't abandoned this group entirely.

People posting their resumés here in relation to this should wait until the mods have announced the selection process, I feel.

Agreed. Let's wait to see what the mods want out of candidates besides cast-iron livers.

My condolences.

Asking this might turn out to be a bad decision, but is there any chance that we could tone down some of the more confrontational parts of the pages linked to in the OP? (I.e. Replacing "just plain creepy" and similar subjective judgments with "not wanted on this site" and so on.)

This is what I was originally planning to ask the first time before things got out of hand.

That suggestion does bear merit.

I feel it's worth drawing a line in the sand as to what sort of editing practices are "creepy" or inappropriate regardless of what one might think of the subject itself—content wasn't the sole reason many of these pages were purged—and I certainly think it's fair to say that the moderation might not want certain things on this site because they are magnets for that kind of uncomfortable and lurid treatment.

However, "just plain creepy" looks exactly like the sort of Troper Tic we now purge on sight. "Not wanted on this site" is much better.

Agreed. 'Creepy' is subjective and arguable; 'this material is unwanted' is much harder to argue.

edited 21st Jun '16 7:52:39 AM by RedSavant

There are no practices that are creepy regardless of what one might think. When you stop looking at how people think about things, "creepy" disappears.

Contrast with inappropriate, which is a thing no matter what people are thinking.

We could also accompany "inappropiate" with "highly controversial" and something to the effect of "risks attracting too much of the shoot-first-ask-questions-later kind of legal reprecussions from both the authorities and the site's corporate sponsors due to the influence of Moral Guardians".

^That also sounds too flippant to me, though. If this is even going to be looked at - and the mods are well within their rights to say it's not - we want something short and clear. Nothing complicated, no appeals to higher authority or scoffing at 'Moral Guardians', just a notice that there is content and conduct that is unacceptable on the wiki and that will not be tolerated.

I think everyone deserves at least a brief yet comprehensive explanation for why it is unacceptable. There are multiple reasons behind the decision, some of which are unrelated to one another. The greater the number and variety of reasons that justify an argument, the more likely it is that the average troper will agree with at least one of those reasons.

That is tempting, but also rather passive-aggressive, which is exactly the kind of thing I want to avoid.

This, more or less.

That is a fair point, though.

@Marq: That's fair. The problem with setting out a more comprehensive definition of what is and isn't allowed is that, basically, that's what the P5 is for - knowing it when they see it, so to speak, and reviewing fringe cases that aren't one-glance, open-and-shut removals. Still, that means they deal with a lot of 'but if you just read it, you'll see that-' and I can absolutely sympathize that they just don't have the time to review the entirety of every borderline series,

The issue is that there needs to be wiggle room for appeals and reviews, but also a clear set of rules that mods can point to to say 'this series was removed for this, this and this, as is clearly written'. Problems arise when people start thinking of the mods as garden-variety tropers putting themselves higher than other people instead of people with legitimate authority to enforce a specific standard. The site isn't egalitarian when it comes to content standards, and it shouldn't be; the standard should be retooled and refined if there are places where it can be, but when it comes down to it it's up to the site holders and the advertisers what is and isn't acceptable.

I'm for reevaluating some of the more 'judgmental' language mentioned above, partially because words like 'creepy' are essentially subjective and can be made clearer, and partially because, well... this may be my privilege as a mostly uninvolved forum-poster speaking here, not knowing the kind of flotsam the P5 and the mods have to clear away from the filter on a daily basis, but in essence I don't think there's any need to be or appear defensive about the standard. 'No pedoshit' is to the point, but 'We do not allow the creation of pages on, or discussion of, works which violate our content standards' is a lot more ironclad in my opinion.

You seem to be under the impression that I want things to be set in a clear black-and-white definition, which is not what I was getting at. Bear in mind that the P5 do their judgements based on a set of clear guidelines that inform them of what they're looking for in general terms, leaving it up to their individual discretion to decide whether or not a particular work does count as the thing they're told to look for.

I'd go for simpler; "unwanted." While I agree that the current description is picking unnecessary fights, in my experience, giving away too much reasoning is more likely to start a fight than less. Especially when the haunch and the hoof of the reasoning is "because people not answerable to the tropers said so."

I agree that we can tone down the more judgmental language, though.

edited 21st Jun '16 3:54:30 PM by Ramidel