Content Policy Change

@encrypted I'm aware of the Fetish Fuel Wiki, but they just got in hot water, and I don't know if they will like buying what we are selling (i.e. all our porn). Creating a new site may be best. I also want to make sure all of this information isn't lost before it can be moved, because people have worked hard on some of it.

I question the value of any such things, but if you want to take it offsite, nobody's stopping you.

In practice, what you are doing when you name innocuous works as though they are in the firing line is implying a risk that, under this system, those works will be cut for being paedoshit. This is simply false, and I don't believe anyone has any reason to believe that such a risk exists. If everyone can plainly see that they aren't paedoshit, they obviously aren't paedoshit.

It's scaremongering, really, if it's not simply an excuse to rules lawyer in stuff that you know most people will rightly deem objectionable. At best it's a deliberate waste of everybody's time.

edited 17th Apr '12 12:45:20 PM by BobbyG

@Fighteeer You can question the value of such things, that is understandable, but there can be place for that. I want to know is if there is a process for doing that, but as it stands now, those pages don't exist in the public sphere.

edited 17th Apr '12 12:44:50 PM by RogueLeader

The Wiki Rule being The Wiki Rule, I have no doubt that a pornography wiki probably exists somewhere. Google it (oh the irony) if you want to find a site to move this stuff to.

@Bobby

His (legitimate) point, stems from the extremely poor initial handling of this whole issue. The mods don't have a high stockpile of faith from the general public currently, and so everyone is assuming the worst case scenario.

@1824: There are two works I can think of off the top of my head that I don't think should be cut or need to be cut, but that I think other people will think that. Once some of the restorations have been made, I'll flag them just to get it out of the way, if that's allowed. Like walking the batter up before a fast runner.

I've been holding off because right now if someone says "work X has [vaguely sex-related thing near pubescent character]" it gets locked as a precaution however innocent it turns out to be. Once I'm assured that it is only a precaution, that the system works the way I want it to it's intended to, I'll be less defensive.

@1853: It's about stuff I know people will wrongly deem objectionable. Ok, MRN is fine, what about Men At Arms? What about Ethan Fromme? What about Tropic of Cancer? What about Lolita?

That said, if it sounded like I was saying MRN was actually at risk, I worded my posts poorly.

edited 17th Apr '12 12:51:31 PM by HersheleOstropoler

@Totemic Irony There is wiki on porn, but there is no "Sexy Tropes" wiki. That could be the wiki for our Naughty Tentacles/Bible Black pages.

@Catbert - all those scenarios seem extremely specific, so I'm assuming you're referring to actual works. How about you bring them up once the panel thread is open? Throwing them out right now in a "what if" scenario isn't going to do anything for anyone.

His point is not legitimate though. its an appeal to fear and everyone can see it

Except that fear it totally valid.

Without the appeal to fear, there is no point from Hersh

Telcontar and Akagikiba have cut-requested several more pages. The main page and Fanfic Recs page for The Erotic Mind Control Story Archive, The Sagara Family, Peter Is The Wolf, and the HookerVerse as well as the Kink Meme page. These should have been flagged for review by the council so we can determine what to keep and what to nuke.

edited 17th Apr '12 12:51:55 PM by TwoGunAngel

@Martello: He did. The works in question are South Park (for almost all of it), and Weeds which I'd hesitate to call more objectionable than any show aimed at adults.

edited 17th Apr '12 12:50:41 PM by shimaspawn

@ L Mage: No, it really isn't, and this whole time we've been telling you it isn't.

edited 17th Apr '12 12:51:03 PM by BobbyG

@L Mage I agree. South Park is far from innocuous and should be under scrutiny if the site aims to be family friendly. Cutting it out is probably too far, but it should be looked at and if need may be, fixed. It's not about Google anymore.

This is just one of those things that demonstrates how prone the Internet culture is to mass panic over situations that don't call for it. What you should be concerned about is the long-term survival of the wiki, as without revenue from ads we're sunk.

Regarding those cut requests, I think some more suspensions are in order.

@ Two Gun Angel, #1863: I'm only glancing at this thread briefly from time to time. Should I keep cutlisting things which are no-brainers on if they should go, or should I hold off? I'm making sure not to do anything ambiguous, since I know the mods and cutmasters in particular are working very hard at the moment.

Oh. I promise not to do any more at all until told to do so. If there's a way to just suspend me from the cutlist, that would be preferable as I'd like to edit some fanfic rec pages as I come across ones with bad formatting and stuff. Thank you.

edited 17th Apr '12 12:55:45 PM by Telcontar

I am tempted to agree with the last paragraph. It's, what, the 4 time it happens?

Leave it off, please. This is just making a mess.

edited 17th Apr '12 12:55:08 PM by SeptimusHeap

@encrypted And here we get back to that issue of family friendly, something I never considered this site. The truth is, if we want to be "family friendly", we are going to have to cut a WHOLE lot more than porn.

And this is where I agree with the Nebula. Flag the things.

@Shima and Catbert - Okay, kind of figured South Park was the origin of that kind of insanity. I certainly won't vote to cut that, nor will I vote to cut Weeds, so no worries there. Again, I know it when I see it, and those aren't porn or pedoshit. I don't think I need to be any more specific about that.

edited 17th Apr '12 12:55:50 PM by Martello

@fighteer So as owner of the Hooker Verse and knowing about Death of the Author, I shouldn't freak just yet?

edited 17th Apr '12 12:56:01 PM by emeriin

I think we should leave cutlisting to the staff and panel, and limit ourselves to flagging stuff. If a page is totally unambiguous, then the panel won't need long to cutlist it themselves.

EDIT: mod-ninja'd

edited 17th Apr '12 12:56:24 PM by ArcadesSabboth