The sub-forum is used for discussions that adjudicate possible violations of The Content Policy. Threads here can be created by flagging a page through the sidebar "report" button and toggling "The page may violate the Content Policy".
This thread is for general discussion of pages.
Edited by SeptimusHeap on Sep 10th 2022 at 11:50:32 AM
Damn, now I have to get a ninja avatar!
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer
TV Tropes' Sonic Wiki Curator
This. Seriously, peeps, have some faith in us. We're not machines, nor are we a gang of rabid chimpanzees. We got this.
Experience has taught me to investigate anything that glows.
The SCOTUS has reduced American's trust in judicial institutions as a whole~
Wait, how many of the people complaining are Americans?
I'm an American! Where at least I know I'm freeee! And also that they've renewed Whitney for another season!
![[down]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_down.png "[down]"){kind=icon}
Man, you got a cheat card or something?
edited 11th May '12 12:48:53 PM by animeg3282
@lu: I can send you this avatar. Nel's a ninja... of some sort.
I can still send it, if you want.
I have a recolorized Mileena somewhere around here.
I will not flame, but I am unhappy with the changes ( it is not a matter of freedom of speech or anything - it simply hurts my ego that some stuff I had invested my time into writing got completely removed ). I will continue adding tropes to two work pages I recently started but other than that, I am taking a break from contributing.
You gotta get yourself some marble columns
Ok, if we can't get even a rough definition much more specific than "bad things that are naughty", can we at least get a restatement
? I'm trying to get an idea of the broad scope of what's allowed and what's not, and it looks like I'm not alone in this.
Please, please, please believe that not everyone asking for guidance intends to go right up to the edge and say "ha ha, I'm not doing anything wrong!"
edited 11th May '12 2:16:55 PM by HersheleOstropoler
The child is father to the man —Oedipus
Pretty flower
Wasn't that the entire point of the appeal argument a few pages back, that we could argue for the re-evaluation of certain works? Any work that was cut before Meeble was put on the panel and Catalogue returned should be eligible for another review; with the natural exception of the few works that Fast Eddie exercised his admin override over.
edited 11th May '12 2:25:16 PM by Spirit
#IceBearForPresident
Kodomo No Jikan was one of the ones FE exercised administrative control over, I believe.
Hammer of the Pervs
So was Lotte no Omocha. Seriously, they're both never coming back and talking about them is a derail.
Even if Eddie didn't give them the permanent thumbs-down, they were both voted on in the past two weeks so we wouldn't be ready to re-look at them anyway.
edited 11th May '12 2:32:26 PM by Martello
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.
The Fastest Man Alive
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Unless I'm mistaken, Lotte no Omocha was not Eddie's call, it was decided by vote.
Hammer of the Pervs
It was decided by a vote that included Eddie saying "It's fucked by the premise" which I take to mean "Either way we're not having this pedoshit on this wiki."
Anyway, like I said it was just voted on so it's definitely not ready to be appealed. Can we please stop talking about those two awful animes?
edited 11th May '12 2:33:28 PM by Martello
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.
The Fastest Man Alive
I interpret that as his vote (as he was substituting on the panel, at the time. If Meeble, or Catalogue has a different opinion, it should be heard. I believe Catalogue has indicated that his vote might still have been devilhead, but he didn't say for sure, so it's a fair question.
If FE had made an administrative ruling, he'd have closed the thread after that. Which in fact makes the decision even more final.
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
No more discussion about Lotte no Omocha or Kodomo no Jikan in this thread, please. There's been enough of that, and at this point it's a derail. If those cases are to be reviewed, it won't be soon (as there are higher priority issues ahead) and it'll not be through this thread.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
The Fastest Man Alive
Fair enough.
I was just using an example, actually :( I wasn't calling for a rereview.
edited 11th May '12 3:09:45 PM by animeg3282
The P5 team should all change their signatures to "Anyone speaking of <INSERT ANIME NAME HERE> in the Content Violations Discussions thread will be thumped" just so people learn to drop it :P
You gotta get yourself some marble columns
@2565: The problem is that's the opposite of guidance.
The child is father to the man —Oedipus
The P5 policy is not intended to be a moralistic guideline on how to live our lives, it's to ensure the wiki removes objectionable material. As long as wiki members don't deliberately add content that they know is objectionable, the content that is accidentally added because people don't have "guidance" over what is and isn't objectionable (because said guidance is basically impossible to impart) should be minimal.
I'm not sure I understand the issue.
Go ninja go!