The Place for Purging Porn and Pedo-Pandering (AKA P5 flag evaluations)

I recall the person who flagged it there did it solely so that there could be a precedent set with it.

Argh, well if It wasn't even on the queue to begin with, I guess there's no point in worrying about it.

Well, I don't think it's arguable that It has questionable content in the form of children in sexual situations (though not pedophilia, as no adult is involved in the scene in question), but at the same time that the work is much, much huger than just that relatively short scene and culturally important besides.

So, the question, I would venture to say, is whether or not this scene has been causing problems as pedobait in spite of its intent to be disturbing, not arousing? If so, then the page perhaps should be cleaned and locked. If not, then it's probably fine, though it might merit a curator.

It really shouldn't need to be locked. Just cleaned, if it needs it.

To clarify, I wasn't thinking that we would discuss it to ultimately cut the page, but to establish whether anything should be done with the page (such as removing the mention of the event, focusing on the film instead like Komodin mentioned, etc.)

Knowing the answer to that may help us later when less famous works come up featuring the same issue, but like I said there's no need to try to slay any dragons that aren't on the queue.

edited 14th May '12 5:46:26 PM by Meeble

Personally, I would scrub all description, but not try to pretend that it doesn't happen. That seems disingenuous, to me.

Yes, there's a bit of a double-standard involved here, but I feel comfortable in saying that between King's pop-cultural status (he's listed in Small Reference Pools), and the genre being horror, that the scene has a purpose (namely to make the reader uncomfortable), and isn't just there because "hey, 12 year olds doing it".

Then again, King was probably smashed out of his mind on coke when he wrote it, so who the hell knows?

Well, It should be fine just as long as no one goes into detail about that scene. If anyone does, let's delete that example.

Wait, lack of plot is a factor on if a series stays or not?

I think that any sensible rule about plot to porn ratio should really mean "it's mostly porn". It shouldn't literally mean that a series has to have more plot than porn—it should mean that a series has more other content than porn. Claiming that a gag series has "no plot" and therefore violates the rule about plot-to-porn ratio is being overly literal. It does have something other than porn, even if that something doesn't literally fall into the category of "plot".

By this reasoning a puzzle video game with a half second of a naked woman in the credits sequence would be disqualified. It has a half second of porn and no plot whatsoever, so the plot to porn ratio comes out as 100% porn. And the puzzle content doesn't count because it's not "plot". Reading the rule this way is stupid.

Disclaimer: Collar 6 does not represent the usual sort of works I read.

That said, I have read it and can offer plot summary. I would not call it "pure porn" but I will freely admit it is on the borderline and is NSFW, and does contain explicit scenes. I care enough about it to see it has a fair hearing though and can provide plot summaries if asked. (I don't want to be presumptuous...it is freely availible for the pannel to read themselves, and it's probably a lot less painful experience than many of the other things they have to go through.)

I do want to note that there's some Early-Installment Weirdness and the plot kicks into high gear after the first 100 strips or so after the initial relationship-establishing arc.

edited 14th May '12 7:25:21 PM by Elle

What about it? It's clean.

Well its kinda true depending on what corner of the net you are in loli can in fact mean little girl with little to no sexual connotation.

That is true. We can't say the L word on the boards, but an explanation of what a 'Token Mini Moe' is is needed as only we use that term.

the page defines the words multiple meanings then tells you not to use it on the wiki, I am not seeing the problem.

well it implies it at the very least "The words still have Unfortunate Implications elsewhere which we want to avoid, hence this page being renamed from Token Loli" it also explains the name change to people who are used to the old name.

If its still an issue we can add a note explicitly saying not to use loli on the wiki.

If I am not mistaken the trope repair shop is the place for that, I would suggest taking it there.

edited 14th May '12 9:59:49 PM by Shadis

This thread has grown at more than a page a day recently. Who would have thought that trying to judge the absolute worth of every single thing ever put on this site with explicit sexuality or underage characters would turn into such a chore.

As your first post here, do you actually have anything worthwhile to say?

No, not really. I was just impressed by how fast the thread was growing. It was a comment on the thread itself, not the current topic of the thread, which to me was meaningless semantics. I didnt feel the need to add to that.

Out of curiosity, did YOU have anything meaningful to say or were you just being condescending to me?

edited 14th May '12 11:47:15 PM by Stormthorn

I'm always interested when new people show up, although my experience they're not always here to offer insight or anything of value. A common tactic was to do exactly what you just did there, showing up solely to use sarcasm in a juvenile fashion to demonstrate how upset they were rather than offer actual perspective. I just had to make sure you weren't here just to complain, I've had that happen way too many times, like during the whole Troper Tales fiasco last summer. No hard feelings.

But I wasnt upset, I was suprised...and then I realized I shouldnt be and added the sarcasm link. Then YOUR comment upset me.

The whole idea of the proceedings unnerves me, and certain people involved offend my every fiber and are anethema to my being, but Im glad certain things are gone. Others, I am not (on principle), but I dont have the power to change that.

The current topic seemed to be the word "loli" and I didnt think my input was really that important. But, to try and be brief (unlikely), it is this. "Lolita" is a book and a style of dress. A "loli" is someone that a lolicon (pedophile...or more correctly, hebephile) would be attracted to. Although "girl that a hebephile would find appealing" is very wordy, I suppose we could use that. While Gothic Lolita is a crazy name for a fashion, it is a very real thing that exists outside chatrooms. If we can use "lolita" to name a clothing choice I dont see why it is a bad thing to use it in our tropes, but neither would i be terribly bothered to have to stop.

Loli is a word. To say it is a bad word is arbitrary, since the word itself isnt supportive of hebephilia, but simply calling out the hebephiles object of (creepy) desire. It would be like saying "horse" is a bad word because zoophiliacs may be lurking around. But replacing it with "girl" is trivial so I dont see how the issue is important, one way or the other.

I knew that would be long. I suck at brevity.

I'd like to ask one last time: is a system to avoid gratuitous or accidental flagging being really worked on or at least considered, or not? Lately, there have been some instances of "why was this flagged firsthand?", and few flaggers have shown up here and explained. A form with the reason for flagging may show, once sent, a link to this forum section to invite here.

I was thinking that the reason for flagging, and even the user who does it, could be made publicly visible as another way to give more weight and responsibility, but I admit it'd be a double-edged sword - I can easily see fans of a flagged work go angry through PMs...

I also apologize for having just flagged an already cut page (hentai manga Tayu Tayu) as an experiment. I honestly thought there was another passage before it was effectively sent, something like a "Are you sure?" - which would already be something, compared to how it is now.

So... Is anyone surprised that Berserk has been flagged?

I mean, I've never seen it, but from what I understand it's just really really gritty and violent.

I suppose it wouldn't be unimaginable for it to contain some pretty ugly stuff though.

edited 15th May '12 1:14:55 AM by UltimatelySubjective