Can we please discuss the removal of works pages in a separate topic than the removal of recommendations?
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful^^^ Because unethical and illegal works are unethical and illegal
◊. (Ninja'd.)
But yes, it's a little confusing trying to have two discussions at once here.
edited 31st Mar '12 12:03:28 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 StaffJust to clarify, what is referred to by an "illegal work" in this context? I'm fairly certain all of the fanfics in question are legal in America, although some are illegal in Australia. (They're about acts that would be illegal if performed, but that's not quite the same thing.)
edited 31st Mar '12 12:03:53 PM by feotakahari
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something AwfulWell, the last time this was debated Hydronix argued that CP and snuff films were tropable, which, y'know, no.
Of course Lolita isn't illegal. Please don't be daft.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The StaffWell, judging from Maddie, it sounds like the works pages aren't going anywhere anyways, so let's make this just about fanfic recs. If all of the fanfics in question are legal in America, the question then becomes whether they should be removed anyways. The main reason for removal seems to be one of preserving reputation.
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something AwfulCould I suggest, seeing as the issue has been dealt with, that this thread be wrapped up? Unless anyone has novel arguments?
The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.If the rec puts any real emphasis on the sex, I'd say it's creepy enough to be deleted.(obviously I mean the rec)
However, as said before, if the Rec is for underage sex or statutory rape, we don't need a rec for it.
Quest 64 threadI think the question remaining that's actually relevant to this thread is whether there are any circumstances in which it's OK to link pornographic works.
As far as I'm aware, there aren't, and such should be removed on sight.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff![]()
Agree with first paragraph, second one Needs Enforcement Details.
In another thread, shimaspawn said that linking to themselves-SFW warnings on NSFW works was fine.
edited 31st Mar '12 12:12:05 PM by SeptimusHeap
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanHas the issue been dealt with? I thought it was still in question whether we want to keep the recs at all or not.
Lolacat, I see what you're saying with the difference between an acclaimed work like Lolita, and a crappy fanfic by some random Internet creep. I'll be the first guy to say that the whole idea of a "classic" and what is or isn't literature is a load of bullshit, but I think the line has to be drawn somewhere, and fanfic might be below that line. There's nothing original or literature-like about taking somebody else's characters and making a story about them doing something different and probably disturbing. Else those Justice League XXX pornos would be considered legitimate cinema.
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.Remove all the links sounds fine to me. I'm sure they can Google it.
![]()
Can't think of any way to do the enforcement part. Put up the rules, and per the usual, report, let the regular thing happen.
edited 31st Mar '12 12:14:23 PM by Hydronix
Quest 64 threadWell, what's the rationale behind not linking pornography? Because recommending it without actually linking it seems like it would be contrary to the spirit of the law, albeit not the letter.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff@Bobby: This site is PG-13, but I don't see any problems with no linking to actual porn.
However, a clean home page of the work if possible could work as well.
Quest 64 thread"Enforcement Details" is the part where:
- We read the laws and all its loopholes and exceptions and not-usually-enforced bits.
- We screen the links and fics to find such parts.
If we can't fix both these parts, we can't have rules forbidding works (or recs for them) containing illegal stuff. It's simple.
![]()
![]()
Porn isn't illegal by itself. Child porn is, but again "Enforcement Details"
edited 31st Mar '12 12:18:44 PM by SeptimusHeap
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman^^ At the moment I'm talking about recs. Works pages are a separate issue and should have their own thread.
And the site is alternately "PG-13" and "family friendly", which is confusing.
^ We can't apply common sense? If something is technically within the rules but contrary to their intent, it's clearly not OK.
Linking porn is not illegal, but it is against the rules of this site.
Are you saying we can't prohibit child porn because "enforcement details"? With respect, what the bloody hell is that supposed to mean?
edited 31st Mar '12 12:21:38 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@Bobby: It's confusing, indeed.
Anyway, that's why I went with the "No Reccing fics with Statutory Rape or anything below 16/16 having sex." instead.
Quest 64 thread![]()
OK, misphrased. I meant that we need to have a way of enforcing a rule. "No porn on our pages" is easy to enforce and to understand. "No porn in works we linked to" is more difficult and apparently a change of policy. "No illegal things in works that we linked to" has additional legal issues to fix.
Honestly, I think we can do without the fanfic recs altogether. Policing them for specific rules about content means a lot of work for everyone for something that is entirely off mission for us.
Again, I think the suggestion to make a subpage for derivative works and give the fanfics pages on the wiki is the ideal substitute. Work pages are neutral in tone, ideally, so we're not recommending anything. Just reporting its existence. People can review the work on the review page.
edited 31st Mar '12 12:25:34 PM by ccoa
Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.
Crown Description:
There have been suggestions to forbid recs for fics that have certain content, namely illegal sex, in them, and due to the difficulties in enforcing such rules in practice it has been proposed to remove Fanfic Recommendations altogether.

...I think it would have to depend on the work. Keeping pages on works that are clearly unethical and illegal is clearly not OK.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff