Wanted! New 5P Members! Apply Here! (November 2016)

Yeah, it'd be pointless - this is a temporary recruitment.

If that's the case, it should be rewritten to be more general - like "Look out for bulletins about 5P recruitment."

That would depend on how often we have to recruit, I think.

I'd like to add a recommendation for Dr Psyche. He was professional and courteous when I made a proposal in the Complete Monster thread, even though my submission wasn't quiiiite heinous enough to make it.

The page probably should be updated to show that the P5 is recruiting now. It can always be changed back.

Where should the page be updated? I've changed Five P though.

You probably also should have removed tdgoodrich1 from the page while you were at it. He just ain't around any more, and the search (as I understand it) is for four new people.

edited 20th Nov '16 5:40:09 AM by TotemicHero

I think it might be helpful to make a note of it at the top of P5 page and possibly the administrivia page as well so that it'll catch more attention. Many people who visit those pages may not read them in their entirety, especially if they believe they've already read everything. And yes, tdgoodrich should also probably be removed from the page. If he shows up again later we can do something about it then but for now I don't think he's more more of a real member than Meeble.

I feel like I could join this; I have good experince with editing the various elements that make up TV Tropes (been active on TVT for at least 6 years under around 15 different accounts, never really could decide on a good name until the current one stuck; no I'd not change my name again, don't worry), I'm reasonably hardy and can stomach bad material and I can spend enough time on this aside my other duties. I'm still a bit salty that you pulled 2 of my favourite series (Ro-Kyu-Bu! and Seikon no Qwaser), so I also know how it feels to give flak as much as receiving it, but since I assume it was simply due to Google forcing it than actual bias, I don't really mind.

Either way, I've made some articles myself, launched at least 2 tropes and check various articles regularly for bad edits and fix most bad edits I find otherwise if I can, I hope that helps. Lastly, if you have a lot of applications, feel free to disregard mine and take other people instead.

^The Kaizerreich Honest question: Since by your own admission two of your favorite series were cut as pedo-pandering with unanimous 3-0 decisions, how can we be certain that you will remain unbiased on that issue regarding other works?

I want to make sure that I am clear what I am getting at. I don't know either of those works, I personally don't care what you like, and I don't condemn. But three other members state the work violated the P5 policy and you sound like you disagree with their decision. Will you be able to uphold P5 policy regardless of your personal opinions of the work?

edited 20th Nov '16 10:30:44 PM by Daefaroth

Since "unanimous 3-0 decisions" in an environment of 5 people sounds to me like "2 people either weren't asked or withheld their votes", I could just do the same and withhold my vote if a decision on a particular work creates a conflict of interest. If it doens't (I.e. I don't care about it personally), then yes of course. After all we all have our biases and preferences to some degree or another and knowing them, and more importantly, knowing when they might influence a decision in a negative, distorted, non-objective way, is important. On the topic of the two series I mentioned, for example, I might have plus-voted Ro-Kyu-Bu! and certainly withheld my vote on Seikon no Qwaser, since as I said I personally enjoy these series, but I wouldn't want my personal opinions on them influence a greater scope of people. Yes, I may not agree with the decisions, but I can see why people are being very careful with certain topics (Google having a bit of a Hair-Trigger Temper, for example, and nobody wants to risk the whole site's revenue for the sake of having an article about a series featuring moe girls playing basketball).

edited 21st Nov '16 12:38:06 AM by TheKaizerreich

IIRC by the time Qwaser was on the table P5 was already dropping members, so 3 is actually all there was.

In a system with 5 panel members, if the first 3 all vote one way it doesn't even matter how the other 2 vote. They might as well invest that time investigating other works.

If I can add my two cents - In a 5-man environment, there's a difference between a unanimous 5-person vote and and a 3-2 vote. Yes, once the three agree the other two have lost, but that doesn't declare broad agreement. There's a reason the Supreme Court has a judge write for the dissenting parties.

The system is specifically set up so that 3 agreeing votes gives a disposition. Every 5P can write a disposition then and close the CVR report, I believe. There are no dissenting dispositions.

I'm just saying if there's already 3 votes one way the rest of the P5 don't necessarily have to spend their time forming an opinion about that work. That leaves it with just the 3 votes, and that's fine. If it's 3-0 either way it suggests, in normal circumstances, that the other 2 didn't vote because it was a clear cut case. One would expect that if they had voted it might very well have been 5-0 or 4-1.

edited 21st Nov '16 10:28:21 AM by BestOf

I disagree with the "three votes mean the rest of the 5P shouldn't bother" theory. A work can come under review/have the decision appealed and other perspectives would be nice to have.

edited 21st Nov '16 12:35:06 PM by Assassin-sensei

If it's taken for another round on appeal, I'd expect the members who did the original vote to also take another look at it and vote again.

Well, only one (at most) of them will still be on the panel. Remember, the 5P was suffering gradual member attrition.

I was talking in general terms about the system in theory. You've got a point, though. I wouldn't be surprised if a fairly large numbers of works were to be re-evaluated by our new-look 5P once we get to it.

My only point was that it shouldn't seem like the losing votes are automatically discounted, just noted that, despite the quite obvious fact they lost, they still had an argument, if for no other reason than to show why they lost.

It isn't a matter of should or should not; it is a matter of how it is programmed. Per The Content Policy And The 5 P Circuit under "How This Works" — "Once the tool has achieved 3 votes in one direction (no, it's not necessary for every 5P member to vote), they can add a disposition and close it, after which the flag shows up in the Resolved but not done section."

But I seem to have opened a completely unintended can of worms. I didn't have any intent of starting an argument about if 3-0 was good enough or if the last 2 (even assuming there were 2 more) members should have made a comment.

My concern was purely that The Kaizerreich expressed disagreement on two votes that cleanly showed in favor of cutting due to pedo-pandering. I was concerned that she would be too lenient on the topic if it was found in a work that otherwise has redeeming qualities. So I asked her to clarify and she has. Any remaining discussion on the technical process of the 5p gathering votes doesn't belong in this thread.

edited 21st Nov '16 6:41:15 PM by Daefaroth

It is probably best that we assume good faith here and try to trust that everyone here is putting themselves forward in an earnest desire to better this site and keep it functioning smoothly. While there have certainly been people here who have argued for certain pages with questionable intentions and taken potshots at the P5 without respecting the context in which it was formed or the integrity of the people in it, I think it best to assume that people here will try their best to be objective.

For what it's worth, there were certain decisions made by the P5 on works which I enjoyed which I actually thought were too lenient. I love the Monogatari series to death, but Nisemonogatari has some scenes which are hella sketchy even if there is a greater narrative purpose to them, and I'm pretty sure the response the last time it was brought up was a resounding shrug. I don't *want* this series removed from the wiki—it's easily one of my favourite modern anime franchises, for all its faults—but were it up to me, I'd have to vote it down, even if doing so made me very, very sad.

I agree with JHM. As much as I enjoy Saya no Uta, that's one I'm surprised the 5P chose to keep, considering how much the sex scenes focus on Saya's child-like innocence/appearance. I trust/hope that everyone currently applying to the 5P can work past any bias that they have towards enjoyable works with skeevy content and work in the best interest of TV Tropes.

Well, by the same logic there's a lot of series that "in theory should be removed". Random examples: Fate/kaleid liner PRISMA☆ILLYA or Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha Vi Vid have lots of nudity featuring grade schoolers, Empowered mentions in its own description that it's definitely Not Safe for Work and just about any recent slasher movie/game features so much Gorn that it makes people very, very uncomfortable. Or the many Eroge that have articles on TV Tropes, who by definition involve explicit sex scenes. But they're not removed because they, like the aforementioned Saya no Uta, also feature excellent writing and interesting characters/Character Development or, in some cases, excellent gameplay (or even both, like Sakura Dungeon). At least, that's how I understand it - it's a very difficult balance act that could easily be screwed up if only one person were to decide - hence 5 people having to come to a conclusion.

As much as I'd love to elaborate my own views on this here and now, this is not the thread for it. Take it to the general Content Policy thread, please.

edited 22nd Nov '16 8:38:02 AM by TotemicHero