Like I said, I was still a few pages back, before The Fast One had made any comments.
So here is the process as I understand:
- A work is proposed/flagged to the council for review
- They converse/debate about it.
- If necessary, they open a thread with a post summarizing the points they want elaboration on and asking for input and no general arguments allowed.
- They come to a decision and make an announcement summarizing their reasons.
Things like showing the actual discussion that the council has should be unnecessary to the process.
As for an appeal process, why not make it a crowner? "Do you agree or disagree with the council's decision on _____?" If there is a consensuses (not just a simple majority) that people don't agree with it, then we can spend time on going back to the work/trope to re-examine it.
(no spell check at the moment, just pm PM if there is a mistake I should fix)
edited 15th Apr '12 8:55:42 PM by Belian
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!The trouble with saying "well, if it's obviously porn, we'll just cut it" is that that's precisely what this process is meant to address.
The child is father to the man —OedipusI thought that that part might not go over well, but note that it would just be for appeals and have no effect on the decisions themselves. Not to mention the "not just a simple majority" part.
And we could always keep it down to the "one appeal per work" rule.
edited 15th Apr '12 8:54:58 PM by Belian
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!I have to agree with Hershele here. I thought that the entire point of the council was to prevent pages being cut based entirely on the understanding of a single person. If a work is obviously porn, the council will decide it should be cut. If it's just been misrepresented, the council will prevent a misinformed cut from happening. I think a delay of a few hours or days (depending on what policies are decided upon) in removing objectionable content is less harmful than the erroneous cutting of non-objectionable content.
If cutmasters are still allowed to use their own opinion to cut pages for reasons of this policy, that completely obviates both the point and the authority of the council.
If Eddie wants to go that direction (allowing cutmasters that authority), he can, because it's his site, but there's going to be a lot of upset tropers and a lot of (reasonably) very nervous tropers, worried that non-porn works will end up misrepresented and cut*. If cutmasters aren't allowed that authority, then all cuts based on the policy should be declined unless they are placed as a result of a council decision, by a member of the council.
edited 15th Apr '12 2:21:59 PM by Nocturna
I'm fine with the amicus curiae model, anyone can present an opinion, but the panel can disregard those opinions.
Again, unless TPTB are okay with each panel decision (over and above the existence and remit of the panel in the first place) being seen as imposed from on high.
The child is father to the man —Oedipus![]()
Nocturna is a lady.
I believe a significant part of the council's job will be to prevent non-porn works from being cut, for the same reasons Nocturna listed. She's right in saying that it isn't a strawman - several works have been cut that probably should not have been. However, everyone needs to be reasonable and mature about this while the process is being hashed out. It's pretty understandable that some snap decisions were made considering some of the other works pages that were cut, and rightfully so.
edited 15th Apr '12 2:25:08 PM by Martello
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.Since it went relatively unanswered last time, let me bring this up again.
Would it be against site policy if a Troper (using myself as an example, because I have the aim to do it) created an indpendent forum page to salvage the more explicit works/tropes from this site, and created a Works page linking to that site?
I just want legitimate pages, whether explicit or not, to find a place to stay depsite what Moral Guardians may say in opposition.
edited 15th Apr '12 2:20:08 PM by KingZeal
King Zeal, I can't imagine that this wiki would have any authority at all over a truly independent website, so what you want to create depends on what resources you are able and willing to invest in such a project.
@ King Zeal: I've been trying to talk to the people at the Fetish Fuel Wiki, but I'm not getting a lot of response. That would be the logical place to put everything.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.@Martello: I understand why those cuts happened, and agree that legitimately objectionable stuff was cut as well. And while I'm not pleased that mistakes were made, I'm not that upset. It's a time of major flux, a lot of decisions were made in the heat of the moment, and it spurred the process of working out some necessary rules, limits, guidelines, and processes. I just don't want to see such mistakes keep getting made, as I believe that will legitimately harm the wiki, both internally and reputation-wise.
@Nocturna - Sorry, I should have been more clear. I didn't mean to indicate that you weren't being reasonable and mature. I just wanted to build on your point and help put in perspective for everybody else.
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.Hulu and You Tube also have some anime show legally broadcast there, as well as other types of shows.
@ the "works being cut on the say of a single person": It was mentioned in the other thread that Eddie and Janitor are two of those "single people." So if they are the ones who cut the pages/works in question... Well, we won't have much of an argument against it.
Also, the warnings posted here were more about work pages that got put on the Cut List but were not cut. And because they were not cut, we can't tell exactly how bad the Cut List items were. People are making assumptions without having access to all the pertinent information.
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!This couldn't have come at a worse time for the Cut List either, it's getting so much traffic due to all the new web-original name spaces.
Sorry I just realized I'm having sympathy for an inanimate program again.
edited 15th Apr '12 2:47:46 PM by Vyctorian
Rarely active, try DA/Tumblr Avatar by pippanaffie.deviantart.com

edited 15th Apr '12 1:45:26 PM by SeptimusHeap
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman