TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Content Policy Change

Go To

BrentLaabs from Planet Eris Since: Jun, 2010
#1626: Apr 16th 2012 at 10:36:51 PM

I might be late in coming to this this discussion, and I'm certainly not going to read all 65 pages.

But replacing Literature.Lolita with a message saying, "We do not want a page on this topic" — that is positively shameful.

encrypted12345 Since: Jun, 2010
#1627: Apr 16th 2012 at 10:38:07 PM

[up] Don't worry. In all likelihood, that's one of the first things to come back.

Full Battle Mode
Catalogue A pocketful of saudade. from where the good times are Since: Sep, 2009
A pocketful of saudade.
#1628: Apr 16th 2012 at 10:44:57 PM

Well, that was raised many, many times, but I see why you don't want to read them all.

The answer is: Those cuts are temporary. Lolita is perhaps the first work to be released when the cleanup begins.

The words above are to be read as if they are narrated by Morgan Freeman.
condottiera from Chicago Since: Oct, 2011
#1629: Apr 16th 2012 at 10:50:12 PM

[up] And that's good.

But the banner is still insulting.

And That's Terrible.

More pluck than an Alabama banjo festival
BrentLaabs from Planet Eris Since: Jun, 2010
#1630: Apr 16th 2012 at 10:51:19 PM

Is there a page out there on the wiki that summarizes what's going on, like Administrivia.The Situation? It's kind of hard to keep track if you haven't been keeping track of the discussion from the beginning.

And yeah, it probably will come back, but the dismissive message in the banner...[up] exactly.

Catalogue A pocketful of saudade. from where the good times are Since: Sep, 2009
A pocketful of saudade.
#1632: Apr 16th 2012 at 10:54:23 PM

[up][up] The Second Google Incident covers the Second Google Incident although not yet including this new move.

I think the banner is a temporary solution.

EDIT: Nin-nin.

edited 16th Apr '12 10:54:47 PM by Catalogue

The words above are to be read as if they are narrated by Morgan Freeman.
encrypted12345 Since: Jun, 2010
#1633: Apr 16th 2012 at 10:55:31 PM

[up][up][up] In case you want a list of things that were cut and appealed, you can find them here: Pages Cut Under The Policy Change

edited 16th Apr '12 10:55:46 PM by encrypted12345

Full Battle Mode
greatdivorce ghost from field Since: Aug, 2011
ghost
#1634: Apr 16th 2012 at 10:58:01 PM

Going off what One More mentioned about the quality of the page, not the work, being most important, I looked up the TV Tropes page for Alan Moore's Lost Girls.

First off, Lost Girls is pornography. Alan Moore has admitted and openly called it pornography. It was sold as pornography and celebrated as pornography. It is also considered one of his best pieces, has been vindicated by publishers despite accusations of obscenity and child sexuality, and is considered an influential piece of graphic literature.

Second off, TV Tropes still has a page for Lost Girls. It is tasteful so far as I can tell. No outside links to anything potentially offensive. It discusses openly the potential controversies of the book but also the artistic merit that keeps it in print and discussion. There is reference to sexual content, but it is done with only the bare minimum, not going into graphic or otherwise obscene detail.

Again, Lost Girls is pornography, but it's not treated as such by anyone except the author. But forgetting the work itself for a moment, the TV Tropes page is tasteful and open about both its merits and its problems.

If something is on the slab, this should be the compromise sought. If a page like the one for Lost Girls can be reached, a page that is open and useful for study without being obscene, then there should be no problem in keeping it. If a work is not worth keeping, it will likely show itself by being unable to produce such a page without delving into the obscene or otherwise undesirable. I don't mean simply making reference obscene topics (Virginia Woolf does that). I mean the page will obviously produce nothing worth merit or study. And by definition, a page that produces nothing worth studying is not worth having.

Eddie referenced the court decision that porn is something you "know when you see it." Well trope pages will reveal porn when its there. Lost Girls is worthwhile literature. It produced a worthwhile, useful page. TV Tropes is about study of what makes stories stories and why they work etc etc. A piece worth studying will prove itself so. And, even if the author meant it to be "just porn" if something proves itself worth studying, it ceases to be "just porn" despite the author's intentions.

bury me deep cover me with snow
HersheleOstropoler You gotta get yourself some marble columns from BK.NY.US Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Less than three
You gotta get yourself some marble columns
#1635: Apr 16th 2012 at 11:04:04 PM

Moore doesn't have the exclusive privilege of deciding whether it's pornography. That's a discussion for elsewhere and elsewhen, however.

The child is father to the man —Oedipus
feotakahari Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer from Looking out at the city Since: Sep, 2009
Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer
#1636: Apr 16th 2012 at 11:08:23 PM

It's almost a tautology that Lost Girls can be analyzed, regardless of whether it's porn, because it's a fictional setting created by a human, and it necessarily displays that human's thought processes and biases. We could just as easily analyze any other form of porn that has a narrative and a setting (in other words, almost anything except hardcore videos.) If we're cutting porn, it's not because we can't analyze it, but because for one of several possible reasons, analyzing it has been deemed to be not part of the wiki's mission.

edited 16th Apr '12 11:09:38 PM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful
Catalogue A pocketful of saudade. from where the good times are Since: Sep, 2009
A pocketful of saudade.
#1637: Apr 16th 2012 at 11:08:59 PM

It is a good point though. A writer who produces smut comics can claim that his/her works are worthwhile literature (by conventional standards), and a writer who produces worthwhile literature (by conventional standards) can claim that his/her works are pornography. It's definitely up to the general public (and experts) to make the call.

The words above are to be read as if they are narrated by Morgan Freeman.
condottiera from Chicago Since: Oct, 2011
#1638: Apr 16th 2012 at 11:11:19 PM

Death of the Author is what I think we should remember before people start talking about cutting because it was "intended" to be porn, regardless of other qualities good or ill.

edited 16th Apr '12 11:11:32 PM by condottiera

More pluck than an Alabama banjo festival
Pyrite Until further notice from Right. Beneath. You. Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Hiding
Until further notice
#1639: Apr 16th 2012 at 11:12:56 PM

[up][up]To be fair, the definition of "literary / artistic value" is extremely subjective. Was, is, and ever shall be, arguments without end, Amen.

EDIT: Note that this is not an endorsement or rejection of a particular point of view. I'm just saying that in some cases, it's going to be a difficult job.

edited 16th Apr '12 11:19:56 PM by Pyrite

Not a substitute for a formal medical consultation.
djmaca Secret Character from Philippines Since: Apr, 2010
Secret Character
#1640: Apr 16th 2012 at 11:13:45 PM

[up]This... LOL.

edited 16th Apr '12 11:14:06 PM by djmaca

...a little brother should belong to his older sister, right? - Orimura Chifuyu
OneMore Since: Oct, 2010
#1641: Apr 16th 2012 at 11:13:48 PM

What greatdivorce said. So much.

[up][up]Indeed. But some still use "no literary/artistic value" as an argument.

edited 16th Apr '12 11:14:48 PM by OneMore

greatdivorce ghost from field Since: Aug, 2011
ghost
#1642: Apr 16th 2012 at 11:15:01 PM

Good points, but I was concerned more on the TV Tropes page these works would inspire rather than the works themselves. It's easy to cut something if it looks like porn, uses the conventions of porn, is accepted as porn, and is marketed as porn. By every subjective angle it's still porn. No one's going to defend it except a very scant few who would defend anything, and there is little that can be gained from studying it as a story. The difficulty comes in weeding what has artistic merit that lifts it out of the "just porn" category.

My point was Moore's opinion doesn't matter in this case because Lost Girls, as a work, proved itself to be more than "just porn." It did so, on TV Tropes specifically, by producing a page with worthwhile content. Obviously, that page was made by intelligent, thoughtful editors, of course, but unless the content of Lost Girls was worth studying to begin with, those editors wouldn't have had anything useful to base such a page on.

Speaking strictly in terms of TV Tropes, a piece that's worth studying will have a page worth studying (provided, of course, editors to bring that page to life). If there's content worth discussing, it WILL be discussed. That's just what happens on the Internet. Will some be borderline and hard to decide? Yes. But I feel that if a work is in the air, the question of "what will it's page look like" should be the foremost question to consider when deciding what to do about it.

edited 16th Apr '12 11:15:10 PM by greatdivorce

bury me deep cover me with snow
Catalogue A pocketful of saudade. from where the good times are Since: Sep, 2009
A pocketful of saudade.
#1643: Apr 16th 2012 at 11:24:28 PM

I agree. Artistic value is subjective, of course, but in a democratic system usually the opinion of the public + (weighted) opinion of experts will be aggregated.

If it is objective, we could simply use an... artisticometre. And set a lower limit of, say, of 3.5 kilobeauty. tongue

edited 16th Apr '12 11:24:59 PM by Catalogue

The words above are to be read as if they are narrated by Morgan Freeman.
Pyrite Until further notice from Right. Beneath. You. Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Hiding
Until further notice
#1644: Apr 16th 2012 at 11:26:00 PM

[up][up]Good point. I'm sure the council will have their own criteria, but one of my personal ones would be, "If I took out all the objectionable material, how much would be left to: 1.) view; 2.) discuss?"

[up]And that's why I'm grateful for having the option of a council which can (and hopefully, will) consider relevant public input. Doesn't help when the base gets broken - again, even expert opinion is can be divided about certain works - but it's a step.

edited 16th Apr '12 11:56:55 PM by Pyrite

Not a substitute for a formal medical consultation.
RhymeBeat True colors from Eastern Standard Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: In Lesbians with you
condottiera from Chicago Since: Oct, 2011
#1646: Apr 17th 2012 at 12:24:15 AM

So, if we agree that artistic merit is subjective, we shouldn't be able to justify banning anything.

More pluck than an Alabama banjo festival
Catalogue A pocketful of saudade. from where the good times are Since: Sep, 2009
A pocketful of saudade.
#1647: Apr 17th 2012 at 12:28:22 AM

You can make that argument against banning in general, but I don't think we're trying to be strictly objective; rather, it seems we try to represent the general consensus on the subject.

I mean, morality isn't objective either, but we have law.

The words above are to be read as if they are narrated by Morgan Freeman.
encrypted12345 Since: Jun, 2010
#1648: Apr 17th 2012 at 12:29:12 AM

[up][up] Whether or not sex is shown is pretty much objective, so if you completely ignore artistic merit because of it's subjectivity, a lot of things will be deleted.

edited 17th Apr '12 12:29:24 AM by encrypted12345

Full Battle Mode
abstractematics Since: May, 2011
#1649: Apr 17th 2012 at 12:31:11 AM

I thought we weren't considering artistic merit, but whether it's porn or not.

After reading pages and pages we're still split on this. Some say yes and some say no. So we're left confused and arguing back and forth because we're not sure what the stance is.

edited 17th Apr '12 12:33:03 AM by abstractematics

Now using Trivialis handle.
encrypted12345 Since: Jun, 2010
#1650: Apr 17th 2012 at 12:34:06 AM

[up] Strictly speaking, Fast Eddie said that we are ignoring artistic merit for anything with pedo. I'm not as sure for Plot With Porn without loli.

I REALLY don't like it, but it is his website.

Full Battle Mode

Total posts: 2,191
Top