Content Policy Change

@ccoa: Looks good to me.

Chances are, they'll be an vague ratio between porn and plot that is the cutting point.

edited 17th Apr '12 12:23:01 PM by encrypted12345

Has a way to flag pages that we think don't really need to be on the wiki, for being porn or pedophilia, been set up yet?

edited 17th Apr '12 12:23:14 PM by LMage

Mister Rogers Neighborhood will not be deleted because it is not paedoshit. If you really, honestly think there is any ambiguity there, I don't know what to say, but quite frankly, I'm tired of these obvious non-controversies allegedly surrounding Romeo And Juliet or A Song Of Ice And Fire or Pokemon or whatever being brought up as though there is somehow any risk that they might be deemed unsuitable. Everyone here knows perfectly well why a work like Eiken might not be permitted, and everyone knows perfectly well why one like My Neighbor Totoro certainly will be.

There has always been a way to flag pages. It's under the tools menu.

Is that the method we'll continue to use?

@ Fighteer I'm just saying that we shouldn't namedrop anything that should be considered until we get the okay to do so.

To answer the question directly, there is a specific reason why its not going to be cut. I don't know why but probably because of its massive cultural impact on the United States. Also, what Bobby G said, Mr Roger and his neighbourhood wasn't full of porn and paedoshit

I'm asking because their is a page with a slight bit of ambiguity to it (though not much, just enough to wear it gave me pause), and while there is a thread to bring up specific names for Restoration, there doesn't seem to be one for Termination.

If you're honestly not sure, flag it to be on the safe side.

I deliberately picked something non-controversial because it should be obvious that a system that makes it possible for Mister Rogers' Neighborhood to lose its page is as flawed in one direction as a system that might not cut the page for Big Bangjob Theory is in the other.

Any defense of the latter stronger than "it exists, and the wiki should have a page for every work that exists"*

Just trying to minimize surprises. ccoa's list achieves that.

edited 17th Apr '12 12:33:47 PM by HersheleOstropoler

@Rhyme Beat

Keep note, they are just guidelines. In reality judging works is more complicated than following a set of rules.

That's why we have the council in the first place.

To be honest, it appears to be like you're trying to get rule lawyering in early.

I'm assuming that this is not extending to "torture porn," except that was the cited reason for removing something named Agony In Pink.

Can we please have clarification whether or not we should flag pages for Torture Porn Without Plot?

Also: are we supposed to use the method on the Tools menu, or wait until a different flag button is installed?

edited 17th Apr '12 12:31:34 PM by ArcadesSabboth

Torture Porn without plot is still porn, just for a different kind of audience, is it not? Did Agony in Pink have any plot beside torture porn?

Yes, please flag torture porn.

Edit: Anyone who nominates innocuous works for review with the intention of playing rules lawyer or trolling the system will be treated like a troll and dealt with appropriately.

edited 17th Apr '12 12:32:09 PM by Fighteer

I'm not even an American and I know that Mister Rogers' neighbourhood isn't "squicky as hell".

Yeah, famous well know works on American TV are probably safe.

But suppose I mention works that have...

• Sex between a kindergartener and his teacher, and shows them in bed together
• Shows children jacking off a dog on screen
• Shows children sending out another child to a horde of pedophiles about to rape them
• Shows a teacher teaching sex positions to kindergarteners
• Has a child having a crush on a adult, and masturbating, though no sex happens in between them
• Has an uncle take his 12 year old nephew to a shady massage parlour to for a "happy ending".
• Has preteen children working at a Fanservice with a Smile restauraunt.

I'm sure I could convince someone to say "Burn the pedo porn!".

I just hope that panel members give as much of a benifit of a doubt to raunchy material they may not be familiar or that may be from other countries as they would to South Park, Weeds and "Stacy's Mom".

Look, if you're referring specifically to shows designed to play such things for Dead Baby Comedy and Squick, consider that they can get shown on network TV. If networks can run them in prime time, then Google should not have a problem with us having articles for them.

edited 17th Apr '12 12:34:07 PM by Fighteer

South Park is pretty sketchy. If I had any reason to believe the council would cut it because satire wasn't a valid excuse, I would bring it up.

edited 17th Apr '12 12:34:13 PM by encrypted12345

@ccoa That's a pretty good set of guidelines, even if there is still a lot of subjectivity. My idea of creating a separate wiki for more objectionable material still stands.

On the torture porn question, I think this goes back to how we are going to treat violence on this wiki and how "family friendly" we want to be. I suggest we wait to cross that bridge.

K, I've flagged it.

Will their be a new tool for flagging things specifically about thew new Content Policy change, or will he keep using the "Contact Moderator" one?

@Rogue Leader The Fetish Fuel Wiki is happy to take them. There are some Unfortunate Implications that some may get mad by, but that's the way it is.

edited 17th Apr '12 12:36:52 PM by encrypted12345

We dunno yet.

@catbeth (sorry if I misspelled your name) I know a film which has some of those things and yet its a completely theatrical film that deals with the dangers and effects of child molestation and does not actually show children having sex at all.

Edit: Ninja'd a mispeak on my part

edited 17th Apr '12 12:41:04 PM by RogueLeader

I know there was mention of a "Work Que" system for the Council/Panel/Whatever we're calling it now.