Content Policy Change

@ 214

Eddie has already defined that. Its any sexual activity involving one or more participants who are under the age of 16. Yeah, I know that isn't dictionary definition, but Eddie has decreed it to be the tvtropes definition.

Alright then.

The problems faced by the council are: mass hysteria, underinformation, troll misinformation, and the public clogging up the thread. Let me try another suggestion to solve this.

Each work will be handled separately. We'll determine an order, probably random or alphabetical, and post it publicly. Each work will have a public thread and a private one for the committee. The public thread will have a series of crowners to recommend pieces of information to the council (which we will of course call the Omniscient Council of Vagueness.) That should help the council receive pertinent information from the people who have seen the work personally and drown out the noise. After the decision, the private thread will be locked and made public so everyone can see the council's logic. During this period, P Ming a council member about their decisions will be a banworthy offense.

Any criticisms? The only one I can see is that it might take a while.

Which, as mentioned in other threads, is ridiculously wrong and a very bad choice.

edited 14th Apr '12 3:21:53 PM by SeptimusHeap

@226 If that means that two 15-year-olds with each other is pedophilia, then it's a terrible definition.

Not mentioning specific works.

edited 14th Apr '12 3:22:42 PM by ArcadesSabboth

@Septimus

It will also turn up other defenders or opposition, which can often be a good thing.

Are we afraid of more diverging opinions? I think an announcement should have already been made.

That's not the standard guys. That's our standard for fanfic recommendations. Different things.

@ 228 Preaching to the choir here, but what's the point in arguing with Eddie. He's said it and isn't going to back down and change it no matter what reasons we give, we may as well accept it.

@ 230 Exactly. You said it better than I could. This is going to upset people no matter what happens. They are going to complain no matter what happens. If they feel like they have not been informed properly, they will also feel upset about that. We can either make the announcement and get it over with, or spend the next gods alone knows how many months, and months, of constant grumblings and add to the feeling of disenfranchisement. I can understand the wish to keep a lid on it, and to try and present a whole solution to anyone who is upset. But honestly, ask yourself the last time that worked out for anyone.

edited 14th Apr '12 3:27:20 PM by CrypticMirror

I am somewhat relieved, lu, but I read several posts from FE that seemed to suggest otherwise.

edited 14th Apr '12 3:23:51 PM by SeptimusHeap

@Cryptic

Maybe calm logic and reason can sway him. Having 16 be the standard is illogical, if we can convince him of that he might revise it.

@Arcades Sabboth - I was talking specifically about pedo-shit. If there's even a single page that shows something clearly and graphically pedophiliac, then the whole work needs to go. There's no "out-of-context" for that.

@ 234 And the very best of luck on that one. I'm not going to be the one to try it.

Wow. That's gonna lead to some interesting cuts.

edited 14th Apr '12 3:29:00 PM by Psyga315

My take on this. Yeah a bit late to the busy discussion had a busy day.

There should be room for input from those familiar with the works in general. But the council should also be aware of people deliberately trying to slant a discussion in favour. To that end they need to do some leg work and research on their own, like when a major page clean up for a trope is underway. Then a decision can be made based on that.

@Martello

That's ridicules.

I now feel the need to reference the Comics Code.

The Code began to lose power in the 1970s when Stan Lee wrote a Spider-Man story involving narcotics. Even though it portrayed drugs in an extremely negative light and was written on the recommendation of the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Lee was told The Code would not allow the story to be published because of the depiction of narcotics being used.

edited 14th Apr '12 3:30:55 PM by LMage

I must be showing my age, my first thought was more the Hays Code than Comics Code. I'm getting old in my old age .

edited 14th Apr '12 3:30:49 PM by CrypticMirror

Martello what.

It is not ridiculous. Eddie has said Paedo shit goes no exception.

edited 14th Apr '12 3:31:28 PM by TuefelHundenIV

@Martello

... There can always be context.

There's one work I won't name drop, but you all know what it is and that issue has been resolved already..

edited 14th Apr '12 3:33:18 PM by encrypted12345

That is very excessive and also very overkill I think.

Agree on principle, but I wouldn't be sad about FE's ideas either.

But what if his ideas are too crazy excessive?

Yeah, when FE says "graphic and explicit pedophilic content," it means graphic and explicit pedophilic content. I am not aware of any works with an actual plot we would care about that take a random break to show people having sex with children. Feel free to correct me.

@Book

Our only hope is to pray he will listen to logic and reason if presented in a calm manner by the people that love this site.

I think your all talking the post too literally guys. Also obsessing on one persons post isn't getting us anywhere.

There are some, but not namedropping.

edited 14th Apr '12 3:34:27 PM by encrypted12345