And then there's the ever-nebulous definition of "pedophilia" itself. It's impossible to firmly draw the line: one person will think anything under 18 is illegal and immoral, and another will say the same about 16, and another about 14. That's not even getting into the problems with Really 700 Years Old and related tropes.
Is it really worth nuking entire pages of notable, well-written content just to satisfy the latest Paedo Hunt crusaders?
edited 11th Apr '12 4:40:15 PM by FringeBenefits
![]()
Yeah, panicking won't really help. However, from what I've read I believe this is the last straw for Adsense's policies. If anything, we should continue ways to replace it with a donation incentive system.
edited 11th Apr '12 4:41:37 PM by EarlOfSandvich
I now go by Graf von Tirol.^^ This is the internet. Rationality is a perverse deviation from the norm.
edited 11th Apr '12 4:41:49 PM by Nohbody
All your safe space are belong to Trump@854 This was Eddie's and Janitor's own decision, not an enforcement. He said it on the SWF-ness site
.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
How is it the last straw though?
edited 11th Apr '12 4:42:03 PM by Bookyangel2438
Alt account of Angeldog 2437.@ Eddie: Yes, no question, no matter how notable a work is, our page for it should not condone pedophilia. But we should still have a page for it.
I wasn't here when everything started, so I don't know exactly how everything started except that it involved Buffy. But I know I was drawn to this site because the person linking me here explained that every single thing, ever, gets a page if someone cares enough.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.Just in case there is any chance for even more drastic retgone-ing of contents, I recommend tropers to save the histories and sources of any article that could be, potentially, and in any highly roundabout way, hit by this, to their hard disks.
Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?Lolita, really? We can't talk about Lolita? I mean I've never read the book and I don't know all that much about it, but Wikipedia says:
@ 857: Well, Eddie just cut Black Bird, a bestselling-in-the-US teen girl's romance manga, on the grounds that the heroine is 16 and her Love Interest looks 20-something and there is one (extremely discreet) on-screen sex scene on their wedding night. So I think the slopes are slippery enough already.
edited 11th Apr '12 4:44:07 PM by lebrel
Calling someone a pedant is an automatic Insult Backfire. Real pedants will be flattered.![]()
What's next for this whole cutting thing???
edited 11th Apr '12 4:44:32 PM by Bookyangel2438
Alt account of Angeldog 2437.![]()
![]()
No, he cut it because even though it's not against the policy as he's writing it now, when it was brought up, people phrased it as if it was. As Eddie has never read it, he assumed said person knew what they were talking about.
Just so we are absolutely clear on this - is our policy now that it is OK to recommend to our readers - and indeed prudish to forbid the recommending of to our readers - pornographic Tangled and My Little Pony fanfiction, providing we're not "lewd" about it, of course, because Heaven forbid that we should be "lewd"... but not OK to host an article, on our Wiki concerning fiction, on one of the most widely respected, intelligently written and influential novels of the past century?
I strongly suspect that this is not what Google are after. It certainly isn't what I would like from TVT.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The StaffWe've learned that the people who want to write about certain subjects, mostly around fetishes and sexuality, are not self policing. They have non-standard standards.
I'm sorry folks, but if stuff that portrays pedophilia is important to you, this just isn't going to be the site for you.
Please lay off the pony questions, while we work on something important.
edited 11th Apr '12 4:46:53 PM by FastEddie
Goal: Clear, Concise and WittyLolita isn't that important to me, I guess. It's just the principle of the thing.
Not only does this feel wrong, I am almost certain that this is not the solution to the Google problem. It's not the solution to anything.
^ Eddie, it is not a pro-paedophilia book.
edited 11th Apr '12 4:49:39 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 sense but wasn't it against pedophilia??
I think that this solution is very...
um, I can't think of a good way to describe it in words.
edited 11th Apr '12 4:50:01 PM by Bookyangel2438
Alt account of Angeldog 2437.

@840 I'm just fearing that some great works may get the cut for having pedophilia elements in them without it being the focus of the work.
Hmm... maybe I'm getting too much into the slippery slope falacy here...
edited 11th Apr '12 4:38:16 PM by Elbruno
"Yeah, it's a shame. Here we are in an underground cave with all these lasers, and instead of having a rave we're using it for evil."