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
@Flyboy No, women's fiction has rape-as-a-kink. Not because we're sick in the head or want to be raped or anything, but have an attractive guy being the subject of slashy I Have You Now, My Pretty-dom and gals will eat it up.
I cut up one dozen new men and you will die somewhat, again and again.
I may have no authority but I hereby declare all discussion of banning rape as being redundant and that those who argue it are bananas.
If I meant feminist fiction, I'd say 'feminist fiction'. I mean everything from romance, chick lit, yaoi, shoujo manga. No clue what's with all the rapey guy rapes! Oh, now we're in love! stuff, but it's really common. And most of this stuff is rated R at MOST.
Decemberist
The thing with A Clockwork Orange is that it's so densely written - and in another freaking language, almost, that requires reader decoding - that it could be advocating or merely presenting EVERYTHING in the book. Hell, the Aesop of the British version seems to be that men grow out of being violent assholes in time. And the film version is even worse. But do we really want to blank out an undeniable classic?
They exist, yes, and we can have pages on them if we write about them in a mature fashion, not "oh my god look at this it's so hawt." Though Eddie doesn't seem to want porn on here at all, so maybe not.
As to A Clockwork Orange, from what I've read I don't think that was the theme of the novel. However, as I've been saying repeatedly, I don't think cutting pages is the answer. What should happen, in this example, is that we check A Clockwork Orange's page to see if it's well-written and nobody is endorsing horrible things or writing with one hand, and then lock it so it stays that way.
"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."
sick of it all
"Not to trope things that are illegal" well, there goes any work that features The Stoner or worse or our page on Erowid, a site anyone who writes about drug use really needs to read to avoid Artistic License – Pharmacology, Did Not Do The Research, Marijuana Is LSD, and similar fail.
And "immoral" = Values Dissonance can of worms THAT is. Seeing as some places and people consider everyone LGBTQI to be immoral and deserving of death?
Personally, I think we should limit our focus to removing pedophile-glorifying or pedophile-attractant material and Porn Without Plot alone, and we should use the lesser measures (cleaning and curation, Example Sectionectomy, locking) in borderline cases if there is any possible way to make those work instead of an outright cut.
edited 16th May '12 4:16:46 PM by AGroupie
?
I personally think we should all just shut up and let the P5 work, and assume they'll handle it.
That way, when every last page gets cutlisted, we'll pull our heads out of the sand and say "What the fuck happened?!" No, I kid, but in all seriousness, I get the sense we're really looking into things too much.
Decemberist
As I understand it, it has more to do with Publican Standards than anything else.
I'm not saying this stuff to be against the five P.
We really need a rule abut trying to ban rape/general immorality. We have had this discussion a hundred times before and 5p's goal has not changed at all.
Decemberist
Except that's not exactly what I'm advocating for. I'm arguing that the methodology we're using here—thing contains X, so it gets cut. Thing doesn't contain X, so it doesn't get cut—is flawed.
Edit: Though to clarify, under the current methodology, not having rape apology as one of the things under the "bad shit" classification is rather undermining to the goal of cleaning things off the wiki deemed as bad by Fast Eddie.
edited 16th May '12 4:29:53 PM by Flyboy
"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."
TV Tropes' Sonic Wiki Curator
This. Seriously, fellas, I'm not a stupid mon, a machine, nor a rabid chimpanzee; Would I've been considered for the job if I didn't know how to think and understand the concept of nuances?
Experience has taught me to investigate anything that glows.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I agree. I thought they were supposed to decide if things were pornos or went too far with the sexy stuff with people too young.
edited 16th May '12 4:28:34 PM by animeg3282
"Thing contains X so it's up for review" is our current criteria.
The actual P5 crew-in my mind-shouldn't be bound by hard and fast rules.
Decemberist
Eh. Whatever, then. At least I've proven my point sufficiently. Or at least, I think I have.
@Tomu,
I agree, as to hard-and-fast rules, though probably for different reasons entirely.
"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."
sick of it all
What the fuck, I wasn't trying to support rape apologism OR pedophilia by saying that some people consider LGBTQI people immoral, I was only trying to say that "immoral" is a loaded word!
Anyone who's seen me post around here knows I don't support rape in the slightest, and I'm in favor of the pedoshit being removed.
edited 16th May '12 4:50:47 PM by AGroupie
?
Hammer of the Pervs
@Flyboy - I think you definitely misread A Groupie's post. I can back HIM up and say that HE's pretty straight on this stuff.
edited 16th May '12 4:57:11 PM by Martello
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.
Not wanting to whitewash rape doesn't make you a rape apologist. So says the rape survivor.
sick of it all
He (username tends to fool people), but thank you
I'm sorry if I seemed to overreact there. Loaded word usage with Unfortunate Implications (and while I think "pedoshit" is kinda loaded, I'm okay with its usage because it at least tends to define child sexualization, "immoral" is a far more loaded word that can go to all kinds of Values Dissonance and Flame Bait) tends to make me call it out, and the thought that someone might think I'm defending pedophiles and rapists while just trying to point out a minefield word made me seriously go "what the fuck"
?
Given we're an international wiki, this covers about every work here no?
"When you cut your finger, I do not bleed." Response of a man who lived on the outskirts of a concentration camp.
I think we can all agree we're against rape and pedos irl.
American standards.
Yes, let's all show off our "I hate child molesters!" bona fides.
It's always kind of awkward when this sort of thing shows up. Someone accuses someone else of being a defender of whatever. Though, we do have rules against witchhunts.
In this case at least, it seems to be an honest misunderstanding.
edited 16th May '12 4:59:25 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Hammer of the Pervs
@A Groupie -Ha ha, sorry, I thought I remembered you saying you were a chick.
edited 16th May '12 4:58:08 PM by Martello
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.
sick of it all
Hahaha is cool. 
Visual Kei, not just for the stage anymore ;)
edited 16th May '12 5:01:34 PM by AGroupie
?
No, we're talking about romance novels, bodice rippers, etc. Those kinds of novels definitely exist.
The thing with A Clockwork Orange is that it's so densely written - and in another freaking language, almost, that requires reader decoding - that it could be advocating or merely presenting EVERYTHING in the book. Hell, the Aesop of the British version seems to be that men grow out of being violent assholes in time. And the film version is even worse. But do we really want to blank out an undeniable classic?
edited 16th May '12 4:12:00 PM by LargoQuagmire