Re-reading this, I get the feeling that the Miller test
should be the standard rule for cuttable porn here, repurposed appropriately.
edited 15th Apr '12 1:19:56 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.@873: If it's a tricky case, yeah. If it's something like Rapelay, the council can exercise its discretion. Remember, every day taken on a Foregone Conclusion is a day not spent on an actual case. (Some of you can think of it as another day before Fate/Stay Night is restored.)
edited 15th Apr '12 1:20:06 PM by Chimaera
Well that was like playing a game of Whack-A-Mole where "mole" is defined as "Cthulhu". -Count DorkuThe Miller Test no longer applies to porn though, only obscene porn. It really should be...the Miller Lite Test
@879 I mean the council or whatever shouldn't have to know to an absurd certainty AKA beyond a reasonable doubt whether or not something is porn or pedoshit. It just has to be 90% sure. They don't have to flip through it, if it's description reads like Virgin Roosters or Rape Lay
edited 15th Apr '12 1:22:32 PM by TheManInBlack
What about people who are exactly as anti-porn as the administration but doesn't agree on what works are porn?
I think three arguments are being treated alike:
- Work X should have a page because it's not pornographic.
- Work X should have a page because pornography is fine.
- Work X should have a page because every work should have a page.
I'm not sure why 1 is being treated as 2, except by people who genuinely don't see any difference between them.
When I and others press for input, it's not to give people a chance to argue "this page should stay even though the work is porn/pedo" but "this page should stay because the work isn't porn/pedo." I, at least, am taking about going in with the assumption that pages on porn/pedo works should be cut; I'm not going for the equivalent of jury nullification here.
edited 15th Apr '12 1:24:32 PM by HersheleOstropoler
The child is father to the man —Oedipus@872: If a work is decided 3/2, it indicates a lack of consensus by the committee in their decision. If that is because of lack of information or because it is a boundary case, then it seems as though more input and time to consider the work is prudent. If it's a 5/0 case to eliminate it, the council probably need not concern itself with appeals unless there's patently false information on this site or elsewhere that would require a more structured appeal process.
edited 15th Apr '12 1:22:57 PM by DarkConfidant
@Septimus: I do agree with the Miller Test as a guideline. It'll likely sort out smut if it's just smut just for the hell of it, and would particularly work out with the third prong: "redeeming social value".
edited 15th Apr '12 1:25:26 PM by EarlOfSandvich
I now go by Graf von Tirol.![]()
What if a 3/2 decision comes after a solid week-and-a-half of argument? Perhaps instead of automatic appeals, we should require a 4/1 vote unless a week has passed. At that point, the requirement will drop to a simple majority. This will prevent hasty decisions on borderline cases, but allow a clear consensus to move quickly.
edited 15th Apr '12 1:26:25 PM by Chimaera
Well that was like playing a game of Whack-A-Mole where "mole" is defined as "Cthulhu". -Count DorkuThere won't be 10 day spans without a decision. This is not about open ended debates. The panel calls for comments when it needs them, otherwise it acts.
The determination is going to be very simple in most cases. Is porn, is not porn. If a majority of the panel feels it is porn, it is porn.
edited 15th Apr '12 1:29:34 PM by FastEddie
Goal: Clear, Concise and WittyThis is exactly the type of mindset that has me worried. Anyone making willing to claim that a given work is not pornography, or says that we should be careful to make sure we aren't deleting works based on false accusations, must be "pro porn"
Just like anyone arguing for the jury system and fair trial must be "pro crime".
edited 15th Apr '12 1:30:07 PM by Catbert
![]()
![]()
Exactly. "We should keep this page because it's not about a pornographic" is not pro-porn, even if you honestly believe the work is pornographic.
![]()
Well, that's why people want input. Maybe not ten days' worth (though if we're assuming the wiki will still exist in 100 years — and I certainly am — a few days more or less isn't a big deal) but a chance, early on. Again, not to say "we should keep our page on this porn" but to say "this work is not porn"
edited 15th Apr '12 1:35:33 PM by HersheleOstropoler
The child is father to the man —OedipusI'm still working through page 32, but I would just like to offer my thoughts on "shima's" idea.
As far as I can tell, there would be 3 "sections" to the discussions:
- One for the general discussion of a work being looked at
- One for the council/mods to talk on
- One for people to post overall arguments for/against a work being on the wiki
I'm not sure why people are complaining about that "one post only" rule you mentioned as my understanding is that it would only apply to the last category. You would be able to post freely in the first, so that argument would not apply.
I would also recommend re-purposing the "blog" feature for the 3rd category. That way people will be able to directly respond to a particular person's argument while keeping the argument clearly separated.
edited 15th Apr '12 8:56:14 PM by Belian
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!We are picking people for the panel that have the integrity to base a decision based on information rather than some sort of crusading agenda. If they do not have the information, they call for the community to marshall the facts. They will also get some opinion mixed in with the facts, but separating the two is why this is being done by people, rather than a program.
Goal: Clear, Concise and WittyWhat is our assurance the panel won't make decisions based on erroneous certainty?
The child is father to the man —OedipusDoesn't it require more time and trouble and mod energy to have people appeal wrongly cut works after the fact than to let them have a non-binding say before?
The child is father to the man —Oedipus

The way things are likely to go, why don't you just cut the site down to one page: "We like stuff; stuff is good."
Then everyone is happy.
Don't you try anything, you baked good you.