Content Policy Change

Little Miss Sunshine is more risque than what you're talking about as part of the point of the finale was to condemn the creepiness of the actual beauty pageant world. Not to the point of pole dancing though.

Intent is a dirty word.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:41:07 PM by condottiera

@2125: Which is why we're not drawing bright lines.

If we've got pages we think the 5P or whatever should look at, do we keep 'em in our heads until the button thing goes live?

@Hershele Yeah. Let me bluntly say what I believe what Fast Eddie means.

If it's creepy sexualization of a little kid, no matter the reasoning or what people think is the reasoning is behind the mentioned sexualization, it will be banned from TV Tropes.

Feel free to correct me if I am somehow misguided. Because I wish I wasn't.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:43:47 PM by encrypted12345

And here we are with circular arguments and strawmen being tossed around. Remember when I said we should just wait until the panel thread is up and then everyone can prevent their points? Because right now nothing is being accomplished.

@Super Lurker Guy - go to this thread.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:45:35 PM by Martello

Yeah, I was thinking the other way (i.e., cut).

I believe the non-pedoshit rules should be qualified by context, but under much more scrutiny, such as the ones that would ban Brave New World. As a piece of literature that is introduced to high school students, I feel that it is not creepy in the way that someone would get off on. Reading the book would reveal as much.

Right, well, we don't have a thread for that yet. Send me a PM with the recommendation for now, but I'll see if I can get one of those put up.

and to anyone making the "ban this so ban that" argument, notice nobody on the panel has suggested they are wanting to ban Brave New World or anything like that.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:48:15 PM by Martello

@2130: Hmm. That's slightly broader than what "sexualization of children" means to me.

And notice there is no one actually saying "ban this so ban that" for quite some time here either. You are misunderstanding the argument. The point is we can't have some zero tolerance rule if we are clearly not applying zero tolerance to it.

Fast Eddie modified ccoa's guidelines to say that anything with any explicit or implied sex between preteens is automatically cut, regardless of context. So if Brave New World features this (I don't know if it does), then according to those guidelines it would be cut. This is why people are asking about it. I don't think they're intending that as straw arguments.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:52:28 PM by ArcadesSabboth

I for one am counting Fan Disservice. It's intentional negative creepy sexualization as a trope.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:52:16 PM by encrypted12345

@Mertello: I was not suggesting a cut. I was making a point about the rigidity of the new policy.

Although Aldous Huxley was almost certainly invoking Deliberate Values Dissonance, Moral Guardians still object to it. Conversely, someone could create something only to appeal to pedophiles (God knows why) and people other than the target audience could like it.

@Butterfinger: People get off on anything. We can't stop them.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:54:22 PM by condottiera

Sounds more like "minimal tolerance" to me.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:52:22 PM by CaspersWish

"The point is we can't have some zero tolerance rule if we are clearly not applying zero tolerance to it."

This. And this is why people are pointing out works that clearly shouldn't be cut, but would be cut according to a zero-tolerance application of the principles that we've established (e.g. "absolutely no underage characters having sex").

edited 17th Apr '12 4:54:35 PM by Silverfire526

Martello, if someone says "I think we should ban all private ownership of military weapons" and I say "So I shouldn't be allowed to own a Beretta M9?" you can't come back and say "Stop strawmaning, I was talking about artillery, not personal firearms" because a Beretta M9 is a weapon used by the military.

If someone says "Nothing with peanuts is allowed" you can't come back and say "Of course I didn't mean peanut butter isn't allowed."

If people make sweeping statements, it isn't strawmaning to point out that their statements if taken at face value could potentially include things they were not intending to cover, and therefore needs to be more carefully nuanced.

Some people seem to think there is some "Reasonable man standard" where I should take a look at the words of a total stranger to me and say "Well of course he never meant that because a reasonable man would never mean that." Personally I find it unsafe to assume that total strangers share my standards, so I can only judge them by what they've done (delete stuff that shoudn't have been deleted) and what they say.

And it isn't just people like me suggesting Eddie needed to be clearer. It was members of the staff like ccoa and shimaspawn.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:58:50 PM by Catbert

@ Caspers Wish It's still pretty damn strict. Enough to completely eliminate anything common sense said was creepy. Little Miss Sunshine is safe, but Brave New World isn't.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:56:19 PM by encrypted12345

@Arcades Sabboth: I have read it, and there is a scene where adults watch a bunch of naked children doing things to each other. I still like the book. Some people might like it for the wrong reasons, but we can't change that.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:58:23 PM by condottiera

No, it is zero tolerance, for the way it was worded.

Is minimal tolerance.

Is zero tolerance.

edited 17th Apr '12 5:01:14 PM by Heatth

That's why I said minimal tolerance instead of zero tolerance. Minimal tolerance allows for exceptions.

You're misreading me; I'm not calling what 'zero tolerance' is 'minimal tolerance', I'm suggesting we enforce "minimal" over "zero" in order to reduce confusion and rules lawyering.

Wait, why not just add a "no rules lawyering" rule?

edited 17th Apr '12 5:03:08 PM by CaspersWish

This is where judging based on context would come in handy. I think Brave New World is one of those really rare instances of this being the case, though, so it should be noted as such.

Look, I think we all know that nobody is going to convince anyone of anything and we are accomplishing nothing. I'm just saying that it's possible to lock pages for so called "pedosh*t" and list tropes that have nothing to do with sex.

How can we judge exceptions based on what we think the audience is supposed to feel?

edited 17th Apr '12 5:01:51 PM by condottiera

It's minimal enough to complain about. Almost everyone here wants Lolita back. It can't comeback due to the guidelines.

edited 17th Apr '12 5:01:30 PM by encrypted12345

Again, the way it was worded, it does not allow exceptions. That was the main change from ccoa writing, actually, so I think it was very intentional.

Yeah, I misunderstood you, it seems, sorry. I agree with you.

But, again, for now, the guidelines are proposing zero tolerance, not 'minimal tolerance'. Which is bad, since we are clearly not intending to actually apply zero tolerance.

edited 17th Apr '12 5:03:36 PM by Heatth