Also in favour of "No Perversity No Prudishness".
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickI've added a couple of lines to Sandbox.Dont Be Creepy to fit with the new title. Feel free to throw out any suggestions for things to add to the page.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick![]()
This reminds me: Have you or Janitor ever thought of writing a brief history of how TV Tropes came to being, and major "milestones" in its life so far?
edited 7th Mar '12 11:53:20 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Some people from Buffistas.org, if I recall correctly.
Yes, we need a history of TV Tropes. No, it's not the topic of this thread.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanIt's been put out there before. Not here but you can find several links to relevant articles on Notable References To TV Tropes.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"In addition to the specific No Prudishness section, the No Perversity half explicitly says
edited 7th Mar '12 12:17:24 PM by HersheleOstropoler
The child is father to the man —OedipusDefinitely go with No Perversity No Prudishness.
edited 7th Mar '12 12:32:43 PM by Katrika
"You fail to grasp the basic principles of mad science. Common sense would be cheating." - NarbonicI think the best standard to avoid creepiness is "what is appropriate for a page, or for relevant parts of an example".
It's not prudishness to remove any sexual comment for a page like Veggie Tales. That's not a work that would have it. But it would be prudish to remove mentions of sexual content on a page like Playboy.
But examples also matter. If a trope wasn't about sex, but somehow an example involved sex in a way relevant to the trope, it would be appropriate, as long as it was written in a neutral way.
edited 7th Mar '12 12:33:14 PM by DragonQuestZ
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.^ It would depend on the nature of the sexual content on the Playboy page, though I guess that goes without saying.
I'm a little apprehensive that No Perversity No Prudishness is going to encourage a mindset of "How dare you delete my example about children's panties you bunch of prudes it was not perverted it was freaken needed," but that won't be a problem so long as the guidelines are clear and we stick to them.
edited 7th Mar '12 12:47:24 PM by BobbyG
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
That makes me think of No Creepiness No Prudishness.
![]()
![]()
Well, the good news is that if someone puts in an entry like that, we can justify banning them without any feathers getting ruffled — except theirs, of course, which is not a concern.
edited 7th Mar '12 12:48:46 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I think it would also depend on the Veggie Tales example. As it has rather graphic source material (The Bible can get pretty racy) there's a lot of adaptational tropes there that involve toning down those racy bit and those often times require discussing sexual material as it's the most likely to be changed.
It's something you have to keep in mind.
edited 7th Mar '12 12:49:43 PM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickThe examples should be no more prurient than the source material. For obvious reasons, it's better in many cases that they be less, but certainly there is no point in discussing sexual topics in regards to material clearly aimed at kids unless said material directly addresses them.
edited 7th Mar '12 12:51:16 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"^^^^ Agreed, Fighteer. I think what we have at Sandbox.Dont Be Creepy at the moment is pretty good.
@ Shima: But if the sexual material isn't in Veggie Tales (and it isn't) it doesn't need to be referenced on the page, does it? I presume that page isn't behind the Google veil.
Ninja'd. Yeah, what Fighteer said.
edited 7th Mar '12 12:52:10 PM by BobbyG
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The StaffNot explicitly, no, but there are ways to write about adaptational censorship without being racy. But if someone writes:
- On the Alice and Bob show, "The Fish Story" episode changed Bob's crime to slapping Alice with a fish to appease Moral Guardians.
You don't delete that because you know that his original crime was rape.
edited 7th Mar '12 1:00:39 PM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickWell, sure, mentioning that the source material contained rape and it was Disneyfied is hardly prurient.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I think having clear guidelines is better for avoiding undesired outcomes, and having recourse when they do happen, that the name. If we have a whole page setting out what it is, that's more important than whether we call it "perversion" or "creepiness" or "Aethelread" (though the last is ill-advised).
That said, I don't love how on the wiki as a whole "perversion" has come to be understood as "sexual in any way," when it means something narrower in the real world.
edited 7th Mar '12 2:30:19 PM by HersheleOstropoler
The child is father to the man —OedipusI mostly prefer No Creepiness No Prudishness because "perversion" to me says something different than "creepy stuff", and not sexual stuff or even orifices and co either.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanWell, let's look at it this way.
- Sleeping Beauty was much Lighter and Softer than its original version, in which the prince raped the comatose Beauty, and she didn't wake up until one of the children she bore suckled the poisoned thorn from her finger.
That's factual. It's not prurient or perverse to any greater degree than the material it's taken from. Take this one, though:
- Sleeping Beauty was much Lighter and Softer than its original version, in which the prince raped the comatose Beauty (can you blame him?) and she didn't wake up until one of the children she bore suckled the poisoned thorn from her finger. This sort of thing was hardly unusual for the time and was unfortunately Disneyfied for the sensitive little modern kiddies.
The difference here is that there's editorializing and, well, drooling over the rape part. This is not acceptable.
We can state the facts pertinent to the example without making it look like the wiki endorses them.
edited 7th Mar '12 1:35:15 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

"No Perversity, No Prudishness" has my vote.
Speaking of Janitor, I do hope she's doing okay. We (the ordinary tropers, at least) haven't heard anything from her for a very long while...
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.