Sandbox Pages Pending For Perusal By P 5 Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

04:08:07 PM Aug 29th 2012
I think we can retire this sandbox. There's no real need for this, given that we have the content violation button and an entire subforum devoted to this.
08:25:54 AM Aug 30th 2012
edited by SeptimusHeap
I'll do this.

ETA: Now that I notice, this page has more than 1000 inbounds. Should we redirect it instead?
09:38:56 AM Aug 30th 2012
Redirect it to what?
11:12:10 AM Aug 30th 2012
09:17:36 PM Jul 27th 2012
edited by GeorgeTSLC
REVISED Defense for "The Brown Bunny" (Disclosure: I have not seen the movie nor want to)

There is only that explicit scene, and it's brief. Based from external sources, the act was also consensual among both actors (although still controversial). Sources, including The Other Wiki, show that the "work is mainstream and can be discussed in polite company". As made clear in the Tropes article, a significant part of that discussion will be condemnation of the one highly explicit scene. But if a porn consumer needs to sit through an hour and half of non-porn for a payoff, he's gonna want his money back. On balance, the work, taken as a whole (per the US Supreme Court) cannot be considered pornography.
12:39:31 PM Jun 22nd 2012
edited by Wii

Bakemonogatari: To say the younger characters are "sexualized" is a joke. In fact, almost everything having to do with sexuality in the series is a joke. The series plays every bit of it for laughs via Refuge in Audacity, save a few moments that are relevant to the plot: Koyomi, a 17-ish male and "former" vampire kisses both of his younger sisters one time apiece; Karen (15) for the sake of "consuming" a supernatural disease she is afflicted by, and Tsukihi (14) for the sake of… proving that their relationship is impossible to sexualize, conveniently doing my work for me. (OK, context: Koyomi learns that Tsukihi is not actually his sister, and moreover, not even human; he kisses her to prove to himself that they're still family regardless.) As a Running Gag, Koyomi also regularly greets appears-to-be-nine-ish ghost Mayoi by harassing and/or attacking her, which is Played for Laughs with such encounters turning into to a Big Ball of Violence, and Mayoi being Invisible to Normals, so Koyomi is just making a fool of himself to any onlookers; all the more when he inevitably loses/fails. Nadeko (14) gets two moments in a swimsuit, but both scenes are used for showing off her Body Horror as opposed to sexualization. And vampire-in-the-body-an-eight-year-old Shinobu gets a completely nonsexual (and non-explict) bath scene as an Establishing Character Moment, the entirety of which is spent on plot exposition and developing her Enemy Mine relationship to the main character. Oh, and at one point, Koyomi brushes Karen's teeth (literally) in a Does This Remind You of Anything? scene which again, uses Refuge in Audacity for comedy, and which both characters are made to suffer for.

The Idolmaster: I'll acknowledge I'm not an "expert", having seen the second anime and being familiar with the games, but... How did this even get on here? Is this something that took place only in Xenoglossia? I didn't see any kind of "sexualization" occurring even to the older characters. They're all idol singers and so they wear odd outfits on occasion, yes, but it doesn't go farther than a collection of girls 13-20 years-old in age range wearing bikinis on a beach, and there aren't any overt sexual implications made. The only subplot of even a romantic nature is a 15-year-old girl having an unrequited crush on a late-twenties male. And what kind of attempt at defense is "no actual sex is shown"? The series gets nowhere near that.
06:26:42 PM May 3rd 2012
Since the page is locked- I'd like to add a defense for RE-TAKE. To add to the current defenses, the all-ages version is not "fanmade" as the evaluation request states.
10:43:14 AM Apr 30th 2012
Okay, so shall the redlinked fics be nixed from this list since the P5 reviewed them and found them not worth keeping?
11:08:45 PM Apr 29th 2012
Can we please get Katawa Shoujo removed from this list. Anyone who has even played the friggin or even read its trope page would realize the it is Plot with Porn, the characters are all 18-19, and the sex scenes are all optional to begin with. It also seems like the person that recommended that game for deletion in the first place was an obvious troll.
11:11:09 PM Apr 29th 2012
He was an obvious troll. -_-. Let's just let P5 review it, laugh, then judge it to not be porn, so they won't have to deal with it again.

05:12:55 PM Apr 27th 2012
edited by Gilgameshkun
The Roommates 2009 works are Plot with Porn, and they develop their characters even when clothed, especially in the case of Roommates These Are My Reflections where any actual porn is very brief and the vast majority of the story is character development without porn at all.

Chub Pan is also Plot with Porn with developed characters that you interact with fully clothed on a regular basis. It even has a character sheet.

Grant is only R-rated, and has no porn at all. It just requires registration to see, because that's how Fur Affinity works if anything's greater than PG-13. There is no actual porn in the story.

Sorry, the page was locked and I wanted to add a defense of a listed work.
07:20:51 PM Apr 27th 2012
I added your defenses to the sandbox.
05:35:38 PM Apr 23rd 2012
edited by EarlOfSandvich
What to do about entries which only say "it needs cleaning"?

Granted, I don't think the P5 would strike it down, but when I saw "South Park" there for instance, I was like "... really?" Especially with the description given for its entry, it provoked that reaction from me.
06:05:34 PM Apr 23rd 2012
If Panty & Stocking with Garterbelt is in there for cleaning reasons, I don't see why one of its clear inspirations shouldn't be. Besides, a page with a show that relies on Refuge in Audacity like South Park probably needs some moderation.
02:29:23 PM Apr 21st 2012
edited by EmmaWoodhouse18
The Revolutionary Girl Utena submission brings up something interesting: We've already established in the rules that if something shows what looks like two 7-year-olds going at it, it doesn't matter if they're Really 700 Years Old, it's pedoshit and it's getting removed.

Does this apply in reverse, too? I'm a bit iffy about removing any example that includes teens having sex with each other (as real-life teens are liable to do), but especially when, as the submitter notes, they're made to look older. The sex isn't the focus of that anime and I would think the fact that, on top of that, the animators specifically made it look like they were older than teen-age should remove all notion that it is designed to arouse pedophiles.
06:13:30 AM Apr 22nd 2012
There is a forum section for this, content violation discussions. You may get better answers in one of the threads there. About Content Violations Discussions is probably the best place to ask it.
02:14:44 PM Apr 21st 2012
edited by EmmaWoodhouse18
How do we add to disagree with something that has been proposed, without making it look like Natter? Can we get rid of ones that clearly have no business being here and are just being added either by overzealous Moral Guardians, or by people against the policy trying to "prove a point"? (For example, Sailor Moon. I got it rid of it since I figured the person was just trolling and someone had responded with a -__- but please let me know if I should have edited it rather than removed it.)

For example, I was going to add something to the Cupcakes proposal in line with what was said in the above discussion post; it's gross and basically Gorn, but unlike Sweet Apple Massacre it isn't sexual, and it should also be kept as pretty much the Most Triumphant Example within the My Little Pony fandom of an extremely Dark Fic and Bile Fascination.
04:22:17 PM Apr 19th 2012
Well, since there isn't a thread (at least yet) to appeal those that are pending review, I wonder if it's okay to provide a bit of feedback for one of the works here.
10:07:32 PM Apr 19th 2012
Let's wait until these are actually cut or P5 says that they are worth debating. Some of the proposals are silly, so we don't need to waste our breath.
07:13:51 PM Apr 20th 2012
edited by EarlOfSandvich
I did mean to say that I object to the reasoning that Cupcakes is pending perusal; putting it in the same vein as Sweet Apple Massacre is a gross misrepresentation of what it is. Yes, it is a torture fic, but the material is the sort of thing more akin to Hostel and Saw, and besides, Pinkie Pie doesn't rape anyone in it. And especially NOT underage ponies. Yeesh! That is why I object to how it's been described. Not necessarily the listing itself...
11:19:10 PM Apr 22nd 2012
edited by encrypted12345
Well, I guess it's fine to list a short defense here now. Everyone has been doing it, and I'm not motivated enough to stop them.
09:38:41 AM Apr 26th 2012
Between this, the Wiki Talk thread, and other unknown-to-me arenas of discussion, I'm wholly confused. For what it's worth, I'd like to add a word of defense for one of the works here, but the page is now locked for editing.

Is this temporary? Or should I post the defense in the "Recommendations for Perusal" thread? Or is there some other thread designed for the purpose?
09:41:38 AM Apr 26th 2012
Post the defense in the "Recommendations for Perusal" thread. Note there should be only one defense per work; if there is already a defense, mention that and post a re-write that incorporates your points or specify what you'd like to append.
Collapse/Expand Topics