![]()
Second paragraph
has Best Of assuring that there will be a place for the community to have input and an implicit guarantee of some level of transparency to be decided later.
"Some level of transparency"? There is no possible way for that to be false.
Are you guys serious here?
I can understand cutting clear-cut child pornography, but Lolita? One of the most bestselling and most important pieces of literature of the last century? The subject of the book Reading Lolita in Tehran, which was itself a bestseller, and provided very important insight into the culture of Iran?
Yes, I am yet another troper calling this censorship—because guess what, *it is*. The message you are sending here is "don't talk about pedophilia at all because it's gross." What a great message to send to people who have actually been victims of it and who use fiction as an outlet. Will you cut the Lovely Bones as well—something the author wrote to deal with her own trauma? Will you cut Hard Candy because it dares to even mention pedophilia.
Yes, pedophilia is a terrible thing, and child pornography is disgusting—I'm pretty sure most people would agree with that. But censoring it like this is just the same, problematic strategy of "sweep it under the rug" which has led to decades and decades of victims not only going without treatment but perpetuating the vicious cycle.
This is censorship, plain and simple. I really thought this site was better than this.
I can understand that you would be upset, but please give the matter some time. Lolita cutting has been talked for a few days and it's up to the committee to see if it can be returned.
Now using Trivialis handle.I think it's because of the fact that the site wants to be clean, in a way. The initial cuts were done as a safety net.
Now I still think that if this is indeed the direction the wiki's going, it's important enough to warrant its place as a core guideline.
Now using Trivialis handle.You guys do realize that when the council gets finalized, the first order of business is probably going to be to put Lolita back, right? Pretty much everyone seems to be against that cut, and I'm pretty sure Eddie only cut it in the first place because he misunderstood the level of explicitness and thought it was worse than it was.
Once this thing gets set up, it's probably going to start with the series' that have the most people clamoring for reinstatement. Lolita and Fate Stay Night are probably at the top of the list. I mean, don't take this as a guarantee, but if the administration wants to demonstrate that the system works, fixing the most glaring cuts right off the bat is the logical thing to do.
edited 14th Apr '12 9:23:34 PM by JapaneseTeeth
Reaction Image RepositoryYeah FSN, defiantly needs to be not cut. While there is hentai in it, that was the first version most people don't know of it because of that version most people know of it because of the wildly popular not pornographic all anime, and Ova's.
This.
edited 14th Apr '12 9:26:21 PM by Vyctorian
Rarely active, try DA/Tumblr Avatar by pippanaffie.deviantart.comYeah it and VN's with anime spin offs (or non pornographic V Ns) that were cut need back in. I understand why FE did it, because he was in panic mode, but I suspect they'll be added back in.
The things that will have LONG discussions about whether or not to be cut are going to be slightly more obscure but literary things, like Fanny Hill: Memoirs of a Women of Leisure.
All VNS!? (checks page) Thank god. Ace Attorney is spared for now.
But seriously... Was anyone really going to cut the pages of an entire medium?
The Crystal Caverns A bird's gotta sing.
No, I know a couple have been cutlisted. Fate Stay Night was accidental and Virgin Roster was ... yeah.
As a whole, they are known for being a shady medium, so that's why Man in Black noted them.
edited 14th Apr '12 9:55:06 PM by encrypted12345
Full Battle ModeIt won't accomplish anything, but some things should be said anyway. This is censorship, plain and simple. In a single clumsy, heavy-handed move, hundreds of pages were removed for no other reason than a supposed threat to the reputation of the wiki itself. These pages allegedly hurt the innocent. Honestly, what kind of excuse is that? This wiki exists for the categorization of story telling tool and stories themselves! It is not meant to be glorified babysitter, making sure some precious snowflakes don't hurt their innocent eyes!
Fast Eddie claims that this is the way it has to be. Quite frankly, it's not, but we don't have a choice. TV Tropes does not have a competitor, so we'll be forced to accede because they're too busy fearing the slightest thing that could theoretically make an advertiser raise an eyebrow.
Wikipedia has articles describing worst content with a professional, detached voice, yet apparently, we can't even do that much! In fact, we have no say.
By the way, works could come into the several media, and not all of them be explicit. Only the medium that has explicit content should be considered.
Now using Trivialis handle.![]()
![]()
Grow up. A) the council hasn't even been formed yet, and B) We're not talking about a shadowy government organization burning books, we're just talking about not allowing pages on some pretty fucked-up shit. This is not a free speech issue. The first amendment does not apply to the wiki. If you have nothing productive to add to the thread, please leave.
edited 14th Apr '12 10:02:28 PM by setnakhte
"Roll for whores."
Diagonalizing The Matrix
Unlike us, Wikipedia doesn't have a "no negativity" rule. Once you're done reading the page on something nigh-universally acknowledged as evil or depraved you will walk away with the impression that it is a bad thing. This wiki, on the other hand, is by fans and for fans. You don't walk away from one of our pages thinking that its subject was a bad thing. As a result, we have a serious "depiction equals endorsement" issue.
Throwing around loaded words does not magically alter reality. The threat to the wiki's reputation is not "supposed", it is very real. There is nothing "alleged" about the negative feelings doubtlessly experienced by innocents who had to suffer any sort of sexual abuse when they ran across pages which depicted this abuse in a positive light. Discontinuing endorsement of that kind of media is not an "excuse", it is the honest reason we are doing this. An advertiser, namely Google, did not "theoretically" raise an eyebrow, but rather raised it in a very practical sense. And taking offense to positive depiction of child pornography certainly does not make one a "special snowflake" (especially given the meaning of that term, which apparently has nothing to do with any of this at all).
edited 14th Apr '12 10:06:55 PM by TripleElation
Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate toIt kind of is censoring, actually, but that isn't the actual point no.
The real point here is that there does seem to have been some excess cutting, and with any luck things will be re-added that deserve to be re-added.
Technically this has been said but I wanted to throw in that I'm of the same opinion.
Token Loli!

I apologize if I missed it, but has there been any word on how visible the council's process is going to be?
I bring it up because in the past we've had issues with things like cut list decisions seeming completely arbitrary due to things being decided yea or nay without any insight from the cut masters.
edited 14th Apr '12 9:08:37 PM by Meeble
Visit my contributor page to assist with the "I Like The Cheeses" project!