Page Restoration Petitions

Under the 'Is a written work that is sold in major bookstores without an "adult" or "mature" label' exception.

I've come to the conclusion that this is an extremely bad exception.

Not because it lets bad works sneak through, but because it lets bad rules sneak through.

The exception is basically an admission that our decision-making process is broken, and sometimes comes to the wrong conclusion, and this is our way of correcting for that. If anything that is cut inappropriately gets restored because of this exemption, then there's probably some other work out there that was cut just as inappropriately but, by chance, is not sold in the US and so there's no way to prove it innocent.

We're better off deciding that, if our rules say to cut something that's available on bookshelves everywhere, this shows that the rules need to be fixed. Then we should fix them—that way we'd be fixing both works that are available on bookshelves and works that are not, rather than only "fixing" the first case with an exception.

Yeah, that entire list of exemptions points to a possible flaw in the policy.

That exemption didn't stop a ten-page discussion on PG-13 rated Arcade Gamer Fubuki from happening. Or whatever it's called.

edited 7th Jun '12 1:44:21 PM by LargoQuagmire

Or it could be that Real Life has a Double Standard here, and we have to abide by that double standard willy-nilly.

So, any idea when "About Content Violations Discussions" is going to be reopened? Since I might have some things related to works currently being evaluated to post...

Or should I just do it here? That really doesn't seem right though.

Not to poke the hornets' nest any more, but... I was going to comment that the currently-under-discussion Anime/Popotan has been officially licensed and sold in North America as a non-adult work by not one, but two companies. I'd also add the following in its defense:

• Content from the original ero-game is scarcely known to the Western fanbase or mentioned in the page.
• Is there questionable content in the anime? Yes, but most if not all mentions of it on the page frame it as distractions from the story rather than attractive features.
• I guess I'm unclear on what the exact definition of "pedo-pandering" is. I'd thought it was works that sought to legitimize or glorify adult-child sexual/romantic relations, and Popotan doesn't have any of that. The closest it gets would be Ai (~20) bathing with Daisuke (~10?) in the first episode, but that was more of a pseudo-motherly thing than anything else.

Actually, under paedo-pandering, we're referring to sexualisation of underaged characters, not just adult-child relationships. The cutoffs aren't 100% set in stone as far as I know, but overt sexualisation of preteens is usually heavy evidence against keeping the material. (Not referring to Popotan specifically, as I haven't watched it.)

Concerning exemptions: I can't remember who said it (think it might've been lu), but I hold to the interpretation that said that you'd better have a damned good reason for flagging a work falling under those categories. I prefer guidelines to rules, frankly.

(Was that discussion on Arcade Gamer Fubuki really 10 pages long?)

edited 7th Jun '12 5:25:13 PM by Pyrite

Behold, the Word of Mod! (Always wanted to say that.)

Seriously, though: I suppose that part of the summary post could use a little rewording, since the way it's currently written makes it sound like it's set in stone. Trolls will flag everything regardless of the rules, and those people who have legitimate concerns about a work falling under those criteria should be directed here to discuss the matter, as per the other sections.

edited 7th Jun '12 5:48:27 PM by Pyrite

Basically, Gor was stubbed because it was decided that there was a really good reason to feed it to the incinerator, despite being sold in public without a Mature Content label.

Also. Why is Cthulhu Tech still locked?

Seriously, though: I suppose that part of the summary post could use a little rewording

Seconded. If the actual rule is that works falling under one of the "exempted" categories can be stubbed or even cast into the outer darkness - but require a "really good reason" to do so (e.g. you must make a special petition, rather than just flagging it) - then so be it. But if so, then the posted rule should more closely match the actual rule.

edited 7th Jun '12 10:10:19 PM by sablesword

I'm checking on that.

Making a claim for the examples for Comedic Underwear Exposure to be restored, I looked and there's only a couple questionable examples but otherwise all fit the trope and are non-fanservice.

Gor was stubbed because the first book is not porn, but went rapidly downhill into misogynistic fetish porn after that.

Yep.

Jumping back a bit, in regards to being sold in regular book stores without age restrictions, it's not a guarantee that a work is exempt, but simply something to be taken into consideration.

Or, as Fighteer put it in this post, a guideline. Guidelines, especially on this site, aren't "must always follow" hard-and-fast rules.

All right, but to repeat, the point needs to be clarified in the guidelines themselves. "We will not accept recommendations to purge anything that meets the following criteria" sounds set in stone.

Something like "Works can be (and have been) cut even if they do meet these criteria, but this requires an exceptional justification. If you think you have such a justification, contact us" would stop a lot of the "But [work] meets one of the criteria for being exempted!" cries.

Or to put it another way: Prima facie is an obscure way of saying that a work might still be cut despite being in an "exempted" category - that the exemption can be rebutted. But "we will not accept..." contradicts this by saying in a not-so-obscure way that the exemption cannot be rebutted.

I prefer Fighteer's way of putting it, i.e. "If you flag a work that falls under the exemption, you'd better have a damn good reason." By saying it the way you do, it sounds like a looser guideline than it's meant to be.

I'd be fine with "If you flag a work that meets the following criteria, you'd better have a damned good reason" as a replacement for the absolute-sounding "We will not accept [emphasis added] recommendations to purge anything that meets the following criteria."

Saying it the way it currently does makes it sound like an enormously stricter guideline than it's meant to be.

Are you talking about the guidelines laid out in this post?

I think it's pretty clear that's to give people an idea of what should be being reported.

Plus, at the end it says this: "That said, better safe than sorry. If it looks skeevy to you, list it here and tell us why."

So if you see something objectionable, report it.

We are just looking to make judgements rather than get bogged down in rules is the point I think.

That's another problem, actually - the guidelines are a little scattered. We're actually referring to this one.

edited 8th Jun '12 6:08:23 PM by Pyrite

I see. The stuff under "Does that mean you'll be removing Romeo and Juliet or Law & Order?" does seem blatantly different from the standards we have been using, now that you mention it.

The current standard for judgement seems much closer to ccoa's post in the Recommendations for Perusal thread.

Er... Guys, this is the thread for asking for already cut works to be reviewed/re-reviewed. Discussion about the guidelines are supposed be in the About Content Violations thread.

I think someone wanted to restore something by invoking the exemptions and then we ended up with this derail.