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

They get far less prominent in the later issues, and the same can be said for his other two works.

Agreed with Komodin, that's really pushing it.

Eh, this is honestly the level of panty shots. They're not close ups or detailed and you'll miss them if you aren't looking for them. There's nothing there to fap to. Sailor Moon is honestly worse.

edited 16th May '12 1:38:18 PM by shimaspawn

And again, there's absolutely no sexualization of these girls through the panty shots. From what I remember, EVERY panty shot comes during an action sequence.

Anyone can find anything titillating, it should have to be intentionally porn.

edited 16th May '12 3:44:46 PM by GraySloth

Yep. Every single one of them is just plain, undetailed underwear exposed during action sequences. They're never the focus of the panel, and they're not sexualized. If the girls were wearing leotards or swimsuits they'd be showing more.

edited 16th May '12 1:42:28 PM by shimaspawn

Not how P5 measures things, I'm afraid.

edited 16th May '12 1:41:37 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Also, can someone explain Baldr Sky to me? The given reason is lolicon, but unless it's the focus of the work/the majority of the girls' "appeal", that shouldn't be enough to cut it.

edited 16th May '12 1:46:00 PM by TheFoxsCloak

@Shima: Huh, in that case, I guess it's okay to keep. Admittedly, I haven't read through the comic in a long while*

edited 16th May '12 1:44:11 PM by Komodin

Honestly, in terms of general objectionable content, Grim Tales From Down Below is worse.

I do not say that because Grim Tales should be flagged, I say that because I could probably let a ten-year-old read PPD and have them come out unscarred.

Yeah, if they were actually close ups of their underwear or something I'd be the first to say chuck it. As it stands, context and detail level really do matter. There's nothing erotic about them.

Eh, as I said before, a few panty shots shouldn't be cut worthy. What we should want is at least nudity.

I think anything a ten year old can watch and it's all cool should be fine too.

edited 16th May '12 2:17:20 PM by animeg3282

I assume you mean explicit?

Reported Onani Master Kurosawa, though I'm not exactly sure if it should go or not. Being a Devil's Advocate, I would say that the way it plays itself for a form of Death Note parody with a form of Black Comedy Rape (except not rape per se, but a form of sexual assault against a person's clothes) then turns around as a Mind Screw You Bastard! to the people cheering it on could be an argument in its defense to stay.

That said, there's also probably plenty of reasons for it to go too.

edited 16th May '12 2:37:55 PM by AGroupie

So this topic came up in the petitions thread and I thought I'd post this here rather than there to keep from derailing that thread.

~*~

On the idea that rape portrayed as something positive or intended to turn on should cause a work to be considered bad, insofar as P5 is concerned, I'd say it should—and if necessary, that such should be added to the actual rules, since the P5 seems to care very much so only about the written rules—not because of the innate awfulness of such an idea, but because such things tend to cause problems when we write about such a work.

I would venture to say that we're doing this (or should be doing this) because elements of the community as a whole has trouble having pages on these kinds of things without being frankly creepy and acting like perverted fools, and that the administration has deemed such conduct to be too much effort to try and police given the size and volume of the wiki. If we had a community that could handle negativity ("this work has pedophilia/rape apology/glorification of violence, and that's not a good thing, and we're not going to endorse it any way, explicitly or implicitly") and difficult or otherwise inappropriate topics, then having pages on these things wouldn't be a problem, since they could be kept objective and non-endorsing of such things and we wouldn't have worry about people writing with one hand on the wiki.

That is to say, the fact that generic anime/manga/comic/video game/movie/book has horrible things in it isn't why I'd say we need to not have a page on it, but rather the fact that there seem to be a lot of people who can't write about such a thing without either liking it obviously or at least failing to not endorse it on the wiki. Having a trope about panty shots isn't the problem, it's people who feel the need to talk about it in the tone of "so yeah guys those 178 panty shot scenes of Character A in Show 1 are so hot, right?" I know people seem to disdain this idea, but frankly the tone should be more like Wikipedia about such things. "There's this thing, and it usually goes like this, and it happens, usually, for these reasons," and then, ideally, such pages wouldn't have examples on them, but instead would just go on work pages as an example there.

In summation, I think saying "we can't use X as a criteria to reject a work, because then these works would be cut!" is silly, because if that's necessary then it's necessary. The whole point of this process is to cut pages, after all. But ultimately I think the specific criteria are irrelevant, because ultimately the point of all this is to stop things (usually sexual in nature) from causing trouble on the wiki for how its written about. Google ads not withstanding, that's what started all this nonsense in the first place: people writing badly about bad topics. This isn't about the idea that we can't talk about certain things; it's about the idea that we can only talk about certain things if we don't endorse them on the wiki. If you want to fetishize rape or pedophilia or whatever, or just act like a perv in general, fine, that's not any of our business (but for God's sake, don't hurt anybody, and if you think you might get a therapist), but it doesn't belong on the wiki, and because people did put it on the wiki, we have this mess to clean up.

I didn't plan on this being so long, but I hope it at least makes sense...

Flyboy. The point of this isn't to "cut works" so much as to "cut works that are nothing but porn or sexualize children" and the whole reason for the council is to judge between the two. Having an "X automatically cuts a work" criteria defeats the purpose of the council.

Well no, the idea that cutting works is the main point probably is actually a bad way to go about it. A better idea would be to have the P5 rewrite pages that present problems to be neutral POV and not awful about writing about objectionable stuff, followed by a lock of said pages to prevent regression. But since that seems to be either unfeasible or undesirable by the administration we've instead been left with "cut bad shit."

If I were setting up the rules, I wouldn't have specific "if a work has this, then it gets cut" guidelines at all. Instead I'd have an always-lengthening list of "things that tend to cause problems," and then if a page is about a work that has these things and is sloppy or causing problems, it would be dealt with. If it didn't, or it did have these things but the page was fine, then there wouldn't be a reason to do anything about it.

edited 16th May '12 3:05:41 PM by Flyboy

clean and lock is one of the things 5p can do they also have other solutions besides cutting pages.

I realize that. I am proposing that the entire procedure is flawed, but because Eddie wants it done this way, the argument presented that "rape apologism shouldn't matter because it's not in the rules" is silly because the specific rules are less important than the overall goal of attempting to clean the wiki. If it really galls people so much that rape apologism is considered bad in and of itself and is being targeted despite not being specifically in the rules, then it should be put in the rules to end preemptively any silly rules lawyering, but ultimately I think that ignores the larger issue of the fact that here we're basically treating the symptoms without addressing the root causes.

It is as if some works are not worthy of having tropes, in them or a trope existing at all because it might give someone else a boner and that makes us feel gross.

The Dont Be Creepy and Famliy Friendly rules should apply to tropers not works or tropes.  If a work has enough tropes to make a page for it and someone is willing to make that page then it deserves a page no matter how squick the work is, same goes for tropes, if enough works have a trope that someone could say You know that thing where... Then it deserves a page, even Naughty Tentacles.

I do think people gushing about there Fetish Fuel should be cut and controlled but that's just because it's Natter and does not belong not because it's morally questionable.

edited 16th May '12 3:46:21 PM by GraySloth

Well, I'd argue that it should be site policy not to trope things that are either illegal or wildly immoral. So, if somebody brought a copy of child pornography or (God forbid) an actual snuff film, etc., we shouldn't trope it on the principle that such things are utterly abhorrent, regardless if there's enough plot there to actually trope.

Well, they should apply to both tropers and our pages. Tropes should be held to standards of non-creepiness and non-slopiness, and neutrality towards tropes (so no "this is hot" implications on porn tropes), and trope pages and work pages should be held to standards of relative neutrality and cleanliness. Obviously we need not be as formal as an actual encyclopedia—for example, somebody brought up My Immortal, and I think it's appropriate to have that page note that the work is awful, and, as a troll work, is intended to be so—but we shouldn't simply be totally care-free either.

So, for the given example of a page on the concept of tentacles used for pornography, such a page should simply be about how it's a common practice, originates in its modern form from attempts by Japanese artists to get around Japanese censorship laws, and has been around for a very long time. Such a page really wouldn't need examples (partially because there's way, way too many to list), but it could simply be listed on a work's page to demonstrate that it shows up.

Well, it depends. It's irrelevant bullshit either way, but saying "I think this woman is hot" is not necessarily immoral (though still irrelevant), while saying "I think this underage person is hot" is definitely creepy and immoral. I'd venture to say that we might consider revising what tropes are allowed in works' YMMV tabs, and/or how such tropes are allowed to be presented there.

edited 16th May '12 3:48:40 PM by Flyboy

Note about the rape thing: yet again, we have to explain about women's fiction, romance novels, yaddaa, yadaa.

Again, implementing a rule like that means we whitewash A Clockwork Orange.

This is a wiki of fiction and story so such things would not be add anyway, unless your suggesting any work were anyone die should be cut because it's snuff fiction, which I don't think you are.

Other then that I agree with you the porn or fan service related tropes should just be matter of fact descriptions of what and why it is a trope

edited 16th May '12 4:12:43 PM by GraySloth

When you say "women's fiction," I assume you mean feminist fiction, in which case, there's feminist fiction that has rape apology? 0_o

And, again, this is why I said ultimately the standard shouldn't be, necessarily, "does a work contain X? If so, it goes." It should be, "does a work which contains X cause problems with wiki editors? If so, clean the page and lock it. If not but it still contains X, lock the page to be sure."

Though I highly doubt A Clockwork Orange portrays the horrible things its protagonist does as positive things. I haven't had the chance to read it myself yet, however.

In theory. In practice, we have pages on real life people (both actors and directors and people outside show business, like US Presidents [Ronald Reagan notwithstanding]) and real life historical events, though, so that's not exactly cut-and-dry, is it?

edited 16th May '12 4:11:28 PM by Flyboy