Content Policy Change

Hm, I don't see why we shouldn't; I mean, the members of the PPPPP Posse are practically staff members, right?

PPPPPP? Sounds like a certain indie game soundtrack. I like it...

Sorry 'bout that...

edited 17th Apr '12 10:40:26 AM by EarlOfSandvich

@Akagikiba & Best Of: That's why I said "general" instead of "specific". What I'm concerned with here is clarity of the rules/standards, and their fairness. "We don't host pedoshit", for example, doesn't tell me anything useful, as what counts as "pedoshit" is extremely subjective from one person to another; neither does "fanservice involving children is pedophilia, therefore a big nono", since that would technically include cases of a little girl wearing a Sexy Backless Outfit in a genuinely innocent imitation of grown-up women, or to highlight her in-universe unusual mental maturity (I've seen this in several artworks before, both official and fan-made; I think I've seen in actual works, but I can't name any off the top of my head). And then there's the matter of Plot With Porn (which, I note now, is an inaccurate usage of "porn", just like Gun Porn and Scenery Porn).

However, a rule saying "fanservice involving preteens/prepubescents that is clearly objectifying them sexually = pandering to pedophiles, and thus not allowed here" is clear, and IMO fair and flexible.

edited 17th Apr '12 10:43:54 AM by MarqFJA

Alternate name for the council:

The Panel to Purge Pornography, Paedophilia and Perversity.

Ninja'd.

edited 17th Apr '12 10:44:12 AM by BestOf

Come on, I'm sure we can stick more alliteration in there!

I too am unclear as to the boundaries of "pedoshit":

• A work celebrating a relationship between an adult and a child almost certainly is.
• A work condemning such a relationship probably is not.

• A work celebrating it sarcastically?
• A work celebrating it ironically?
• A work beigely describing it, without overt celebration or condemnation?
  • ... in order to portray it as normal?
  • ... in order to portray, not necessarily positively, a world in which it is normal?
  • ... in order to condemn it, or underscore the horror of the victim's life?

I recognize that these are judgment calls. But my understanding is that they are the sort of judgment calls 5P is for; it doesn't preclude having hard and fast rules once the judgment is made.

In fact, that's exactly what now happens with porn: the hard and fast rule is "pure porn with no other reason for existing is out"; 5P decides whether a given work is pure porn. So I guess what I'm asking is, what, assuming it's more specific than "I know it when I see it" — and I think it should be — are the criteria that will be used to determine if something is "pedoshit."

5P will put you on the fourth line of the periodic table.

edited 17th Apr '12 10:47:46 AM by TheOneWhoTropes

"Fanservice involving preteens/prepubescents that is clearly objectifying them sexually = pandering to pedophiles, and thus not allowed here"

This is actually great. We could go with this.

See? We're getting somewhere!

Of course, I only intended that as a starting point. Other tropers could weigh in and point out if it still has some glaring flaws in it.

edited 17th Apr '12 10:48:11 AM by MarqFJA

Yeah, that definition is great.

A work in which there's no sexual relationship at all, and it's father-daughter?

Or for instance... What if the work appears to be pandering, but then deconstructs the hell out of it, and ends with the aesop of "An adult-child sexual/romantic relationship cannot work IRL, only in an ideal fantasy world."

And yeah, I've seen a few of the latter, some which have the kids as the dominant partners in the relationships! (No, I don't know how that works. The story was quite a heartwarmingly sappy romance, FYI.)

I don't follow.

edited 17th Apr '12 10:49:47 AM by MarqFJA

So if the material in question is not fanservice, it's not pedoshit?

It's also "paedoshit" if it glorifies it, or if it has explicit sex.

edited 17th Apr '12 10:54:53 AM by SeptimusHeap

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Not all fanservice involves true sexual objectification of the character that is the subject of fanservice. Most fanservice doesn't, actually.

I was following Herse's points with another one

According to the definition of fanservice that the wiki is using, it does.

From the same page:

edited 17th Apr '12 10:59:17 AM by Butterfinger

But all fanservice is about titillating the reader and if that is done to kids then its been said that is not allowed.

Do you understand now?

To clarify:

Some fanservice is a continuity nod, or the reappearance of a fan favorite character. In other cases, fanservice can just be outright cuteness.

It's just that the most well-known kind of fanservice is the sexual variant.

No. That's Pandering to the Base according to OUR definitions or Moe for the last one.

Trope Decay: Do your part to stop it.

edited 17th Apr '12 11:08:12 AM by TheOneWhoTropes

I honestly don't see the difference between the two. It's more or less specifying two different types of fanservice, as opposed to "one is fanservice, one is not".

Speaking of Fanservice, the subpages are probably going to have to be cleaned up. Or would it be better to just cut all examples?

Do you mean "one is sexual, one is not?"

edited 17th Apr '12 11:08:43 AM by Butterfinger

Fanservice to us IS sexual stuff. It's not just "anything for the fans" - a side effect of overusing Double Entendres, methinks.

No, because I'm saying that Pandering to the Base is a type of fanservice.

"One is sexual, one is not" is true, since they are both fanservice. However, the incorrect assumption is that "one is fanservice, one is not".

They're both a kind of fanservice, when it boils down to it.