TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Content Policy Change

Go To

Vyctorian ◥▶◀◤ from Domhain Sceal Since: Mar, 2011
◥▶◀◤
#601: Apr 14th 2012 at 11:09:14 PM

You disagree that's it ad hominem, cause it is that's a matter of fact. I'm not saying the view is wrong I'm saying it's a Logical Fallacy. Which is a poor point to argue from.

edited 14th Apr '12 11:09:40 PM by Vyctorian

Rarely active, try DA/Tumblr Avatar by pippanaffie.deviantart.com
setnakhte That's terrifying. from inside your closet Since: Nov, 2010
That's terrifying.
#602: Apr 14th 2012 at 11:09:21 PM

[up][up][up]How is that an ad hominem?

"Roll for whores."
shimaspawn MOD from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#603: Apr 14th 2012 at 11:09:31 PM

Please stop talking about lolis. Save for a few random people in the anime section of this wiki, that word is used exclusively for sexualized little girls. This is true on other anime sites all over the web. It is completely inappropriate for this wiki and as such is not to be used. Knock it off.

@Nocturna: I posted an update a few pages ago.

edited 14th Apr '12 11:09:58 PM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
abstractematics Since: May, 2011
#604: Apr 14th 2012 at 11:09:58 PM

Oh, sorry Vyctorian, I didn't see your earlier post.

set, simply put, stop talking about this.

Now using Trivialis handle.
setnakhte That's terrifying. from inside your closet Since: Nov, 2010
That's terrifying.
#605: Apr 14th 2012 at 11:11:09 PM

[up]I haven't said a word about it for a whole page.

"Roll for whores."
Enthryn (they/them) Since: Nov, 2010
(they/them)
#606: Apr 14th 2012 at 11:15:40 PM

I mentioned Wikipedia because it provides an example of how to describe works without giving the appearance of endorsing them. Notability shouldn't matter here; a work being notable doesn't suddenly make it easier to describe in a neutral manner that neither endorses nor condemns.

If the work's subject matter is so reprehensible, there's no need to point it out to the reader; it's not part of our goal to tell our readers that murder and rape are bad.

setnakhte That's terrifying. from inside your closet Since: Nov, 2010
That's terrifying.
#607: Apr 14th 2012 at 11:20:57 PM

[up]It's been established that we will not be hosting pages on porn-for-porn's-sake, nor any pornography featuring underage, (or apparently underage,) characters, nor any work which portrays child abuse positively. Also, note that we (at least used to) have a page called "rape is love". Also, you people are being remarkably civil. Last thread about this I participated in here I was called homophobic, racist, and misogynistic for disliking pædophiles.

edited 14th Apr '12 11:24:15 PM by setnakhte

"Roll for whores."
abstractematics Since: May, 2011
#608: Apr 14th 2012 at 11:22:44 PM

[up]We already know that. We're not talking about that. Enthryn is saying that it's possible to keep neutrality and not resort to scathing condemnation, whatever that means.

Now using Trivialis handle.
encrypted12345 Since: Jun, 2010
#609: Apr 14th 2012 at 11:23:49 PM

[up][up] He's not complaining about that. He's complaining about how you said that a page endorsed an evil action because it didn't condemn it and was merely neutral.

Huh, thanks for the compliment.

edited 14th Apr '12 11:25:24 PM by encrypted12345

Full Battle Mode
setnakhte That's terrifying. from inside your closet Since: Nov, 2010
That's terrifying.
#610: Apr 14th 2012 at 11:25:17 PM

[up][up] & [up] Sorry, I misunderstood the post. It's late and I'm tired, so my reading comprehension isn't the best right now.. tongue

"Roll for whores."
Prfnoff Since: Jan, 2001
#611: Apr 14th 2012 at 11:32:33 PM

While noticing some admin's deletions on Paedo Hunt, it occurred to me that that trope describes what we're doing here, at least in spirit.

I'm worried that this censorship is liable to escalate still further sometime in the future. I don't see any good reason why that couldn't happen.

Nocturna Since: May, 2011
#612: Apr 14th 2012 at 11:37:18 PM

@shima: Sorry for asking again so soon. Looking at the timestamp (the post is here for anyone interested) made me realize that the speed of this thread had really thrown off my sense of time. I'd thought the update had come many hours sooner than it actually did, which is why I thought there might be new information. XD

setnakhte That's terrifying. from inside your closet Since: Nov, 2010
That's terrifying.
#613: Apr 14th 2012 at 11:37:51 PM

[up][up]Slippery slope fallacy. It's been done to death in these threads. I'm honestly surprised no-one's posted a parody of the "first they came for the Jews" poem. Find a new line of reasoning.

edited 14th Apr '12 11:40:00 PM by setnakhte

"Roll for whores."
abstractematics Since: May, 2011
#614: Apr 14th 2012 at 11:42:07 PM

Ok, don't just dismiss a post as "fallacy". If you think it won't happen again you have to present why a precedent won't lead to a pattern.

Now using Trivialis handle.
encrypted12345 Since: Jun, 2010
#615: Apr 14th 2012 at 11:45:46 PM

[up][up] He said he was just worried. I don't think he presented it as a point for argument.

[up] That refers to the Burden of Proof Fallacy, doesn't it?

Seeing a logical fallacy behind someone else's reasoning for saying something is a logical fallacy. How... confusing.

edited 14th Apr '12 11:48:22 PM by encrypted12345

Full Battle Mode
setnakhte That's terrifying. from inside your closet Since: Nov, 2010
That's terrifying.
#616: Apr 14th 2012 at 11:46:44 PM

[up][up]Sorry about that.

[up][up][up][up][up]There is absolutely no reason to assume that the excision of pædophilia from the wiki will lead to a massive spree of banning other things. In fact, several of your fellow doom-sayers decided to add things like Romeo And Juliet and other literary classics to the cutlist to prove a point, only to find them rejected. So, in short: you're getting paranoid about nothing.

e: [up]It's called the fallacy fallacy. However, I was not engaging in it because I was not saying that his post was wrong, merely that it was unfounded.

edited 14th Apr '12 11:49:54 PM by setnakhte

"Roll for whores."
abstractematics Since: May, 2011
#617: Apr 14th 2012 at 11:50:33 PM

I'm saying that slippery slope fallacy being used as an excuse to avoid debate is dubious. It depends on whether there's good reason to believe that there will be a consistent pattern.

What we need to look at is the factor that led to the slippery slope argument. The factor may be that people are afraid of sudden changes. I'm hoping that the committee will be a move towards avoiding sudden changes causing instability.

Now using Trivialis handle.
Enthryn (they/them) Since: Nov, 2010
(they/them)
#618: Apr 14th 2012 at 11:50:48 PM

The slippery slope is actually a legitimate concern here; the scope of what's being cut has expanded from pro-pedophilia works to all works depicting pedophilia to adult pornography, with several works such as Lolita and Fate/stay night ending up as collateral damage along the way. (I know that people have said they'll probably be restored, but the fact that they were deleted in the first place is why I'm concerned.)

The ban on pornographic works clearly doesn't follow directly from the earlier ban. It's not paranoia about nothing, and while I don't have any strong objections to removing works pages for completely unambiguous Porn Without Plot, I have good reason to be concerned that the scope of these bans will be expanded further.

edited 14th Apr '12 11:52:08 PM by Enthryn

TripleElation Diagonalizing The Matrix from Haifa, Isarel Since: Jan, 2001
Diagonalizing The Matrix
#619: Apr 14th 2012 at 11:55:21 PM

You can't seriously compare our coverage to Wikipedia's. We have a reputation as a site that "loves everything". Being negative towards a work or trope in any way is against site policy, while being positive and excited about it is encouraged. Add that to the fact that pages about things tend to be written by fans of those things to begin with, and you end up with how things are — whether out of principle or merely due to practical consequences, we do, with few exceptions, end up endorsing whatever we depict.

As to the "slippery slope" — I think it'd be best if the people who advance that argument will be more specific about what legitimate parts of the wiki they think would be in danger.

edited 14th Apr '12 11:56:26 PM by TripleElation

Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate to
abstractematics Since: May, 2011
#620: Apr 15th 2012 at 12:04:11 AM

For me, it's changing of policy that looks like it was on a whim. I hope that we get the matter on the site's idea settled so that changes can be kept in check.

Now using Trivialis handle.
encrypted12345 Since: Jun, 2010
#621: Apr 15th 2012 at 12:07:30 AM

[up][up] Positive and excited towards a specific trope is not encouraged. Towards YMMV and specific works, sure, but not for tropes themselves.

edited 15th Apr '12 12:08:55 AM by encrypted12345

Full Battle Mode
Prfnoff Since: Jan, 2001
#622: Apr 15th 2012 at 12:07:59 AM

The way I see it, it's pointless to speculate on what will get deleted in the next purge, partly because changes like this tend to get pushed through suddenly and unilaterally, with or without committees. Failed attempts to troll the Cut List don't really show what will or won't happen next.

For evidence that the slope has already slipped: the "Perversity Clean-Up" thread began with the OP's note that "this is about pages, not works"; it certainly didn't end that way.

Enthryn (they/them) Since: Nov, 2010
(they/them)
#623: Apr 15th 2012 at 12:08:42 AM

@Triple Elation: Mainly, I'm concerned about Plot With Porn works, or more broadly, any works depicting sex in a fairly explicit way. We have a fair number of good pages on interesting works that could fall into this category, and I hope that the ban doesn't expand to include them, or that they end up construed as too explicit or too much about sex or something. At the moment, it seems like that's not the direction things are going, but then again, this policy change banning pornography came quite suddenly and with little warning, so how are we to know that the ban won't be just as suddenly broadened?

Also (though this is less of a concern), what about works depicting violence against children? If works depicting pedophilia are banned, even if they clearly depict it in a properly negative light, what about — for example — a work involving the graphic murder of a child. Could that work be banned on account of depicting a horrible crime against a child?

edited 15th Apr '12 12:08:56 AM by Enthryn

encrypted12345 Since: Jun, 2010
#624: Apr 15th 2012 at 12:13:25 AM

[up] Because of that, there's a possibility that many Visual Novel pages will go away. That's my major concern. They're safe for now, but I'm keeping an eye open.

edited 15th Apr '12 12:13:41 AM by encrypted12345

Full Battle Mode
abstractematics Since: May, 2011
#625: Apr 15th 2012 at 12:15:58 AM

I agree with Enthryn's concern about non-porn. Why should porn get special attention?

Are we truly turning TV Tropes into a safe site? Or are we saying that violence is OK and suggestiveness isn't?

Either way (especially with latter), can we actually define a site that way that's fair?

Now using Trivialis handle.

Total posts: 2,191
Top