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

@Bad Wolf 21 It works for me. *shrug*

---

Ronfar put The Pilfered Princess on the Cut List. I PM'd him explaining the new method of treating pages for such works. As recently as it had been cutlisted, the page has been flagged (by whom I don't know).

edited 30th May '12 7:42:29 PM by FinalStarman

I'm not crazy, I just don't give a darn!

It worked for me once I realized that "%20" didn't mean "%20-and-everything-after". -_-;;

Reminder: none of the namesake five P's stands for "Godawful".

Though I suppose the people here don't need reminding.

The child is father to the man —Oedipus

I went and flagged the comicbook series Cybersix. From what issues I was able to find, there are several shots of the protagonist naked, and apparently the Big Bad's son winds up getting raped by an assassin he hired (the son permanently having the body of a ten year old). They have a dark and interesting story from what I've seen. I would keep it, but it wouldn't hurt to look at it.

The cartoon adaptation of Cybersix is perfectly safe though, and I went and watched all the episodes. It has the same story, but it's toned down to the point where stuff like the Big Bad being a Nazi is only implied.

I doubt either would get cut, just wanted to bring up something that might need a look at.

edited 31st May '12 12:11:55 AM by KrazyKopter

"Pancakes. Oh, I blew it." - Joel Hodgson Nobody better lay a Butterfinger on my 3DS!

I have a question regarding the whole point behind what were doing, but before I do, just to recap, this whole spate of page deletions was triggered by some idiots posting offsite links to porn on the still defunct "Naughty Tentacles" page (a problem we could have easily averted with a page lock beforehand IMO, much like was done with the Hentai article), and now, for reasons that seem defined as"Fast Eddie put his foot down and exercised web admin fiat" (which, granted, is his right and I don't contest that and will respect his wishes), pages are being scrutinized for porn, pedophilia, or anything else deemed abhorrent in the interest of cleaning up the site, correct?

To be fair, some of the stuff that was killed I'm glad is dead (some of those fanfics that were purged were indeed stomach churning), and while I (had I any authority over the matter) would have opted for far more liberal use of page locks and stubs (personally, I'm a little disturbed page deletion seems to be the first resort, but that's just my opinion), I will unilaterally agree that at least some of the items on the deletion list deserved to die.

However, as I've browsed this thread, I've noticed three groups of thought on this process:

1. Hardliners - If it looks remotely dodgy, Kill It with Fire.

2. Moderates - If we can't find any obvious reason to save it, kill it. Otherwise, clean and lock as need be, but if it looks too dodgy to save, kill it.

3. Liberals - Unless it is so obviously beyond the pale it fails every decency standard on the planet and is an obvious pedophile shill, find some way to save it.

I have to admit my interests align with the third group, hence why, if possible, I'd rather see outright banishment of pages be the exception rather than the rule, which is why I can say with a straight face that Kodomo No Jikan deserved to be saved as a locked stub if nothing else (I've actually read it), and while it wasn't my thing and more than a little creepy, it didn't make me want to be a pedophile (in fact, I'd have to say it actually made pedophilia all that MORE abhorrent to me), hence I feel the judgment rendered it was wrong. Same thing goes for Eiken (it was so offputting it was kinda Fan Disservice), and since I haven't seen much for Lotte No Omocha, I shall refrain from rendering an opinion at this time until I know more about it.

However, it's too late to argue for it, I'm too much of law abiding troper to raise hackles, and regardless of my personal feelings, I'm going to abide by the P5's decisions, unless evidence comes to light those decisions are in error, and then I will respectfully lobby an appeal through the proper channels.

That said, I must ask: Regardless what decisions are made here, is it really going to prevent another Google Incident?

The incident was caused by some idiot posting an offsite link to something that incurred Google's wrath, and that could happen to any page on this website, family friendly or not.

In short, while I'm sure it's probably a good thing TV Tropes is undergoing a filth cleaning (regardless of my feelings on the subject, even I'll admit I support the eradication of pervert/troll bait and more power to those doing so) is being banished from TV Tropes, and I plan to abide by the rules, though I must confess I have grave doubts this will have any meaningful impact on preventing another Google Incident.

edited 31st May '12 6:00:40 AM by Rpgingmaster

Ah, I see the source of this misunderstanding. You think it's about preventing another google incident. It's not. The no pedo stuff is because Fast Eddie said so and the no porn thing is because people make creepy edits about porn.

Regardless what decisions are made here, is it really going to prevent another Google Incident?

As long as this website is set up as a "wiki" open to instant editing by anyone with a free, easy to obtain account, we are vulnerable to everything from goons inserting objectionable material on the most innocous of pages and reporting it to Google before we can catch it, to mass vandalism of pages, to persistent misuse of tropes, Zero Context Examples, improper example indentation and annoying and misleading sinkholes.

As much as I enjoy this website, and have tried to fix problems when I can find them, I'm really starting to have doubts about the general wiki model of open editing without pre-publishing quality control as a valid means of creating a reference resource.

But that being said, have we any updates on the status of Google ads?

edited 31st May '12 4:58:03 AM by Catbert

Okay, that seems fair enough.

I still have personal misgivings regarding the direction this cleanup is going, but I plan to work with the system in the hopes this will ultimately turn out for the best.

edited 31st May '12 4:56:59 AM by Rpgingmaster

Our ads have been back for quite some time.

"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer

Rpgingmaster, as silly as I find some of the arguments that have been advanced in relation to various works, and as suspicious as I was of this process when it was first proposed, I'm finding that the majority of the staff and 5P members are at least making carefully balanced decisions, and personally I'm encouraged about the direction that things are going as far as making sure something really fits into the categories defined as unwanted material.

Now, as an archivist by training, I'm really not keen on the concept of throwing away any information on the grounds that it is unpleasant. I don't get to toss out the papers of presidents and goverment agencies that I don't like. But having seen some of the stuff that was on things like YMMV.Boys Empire (including a listing of a Crowning Moment Of Heartwarming for hardcore shotacon porn) I can at least understand why many people seem to have doubts about our ability to document these things in an encylopedic manner.

I'm also encouraged by the fact that there are still many other resources out there that do document this stuff, and seems to do a better job at doing so objectively than we have. Because even the dark side of life deserves documentation.

(including a listing of a Crowning Moment of Heartwarming for hardcore shotacon porn)

Ahem - hardcore incestuous shotacon porn.

Seriously, we've picked up some weird shit on this site in the past.

What's precedent ever done for us?

Believe it or not, I agree with you.

In fact, throwing out most of the hideous lemon fanfics and shotacon doujinshi is a move I'll gladly support.

Frankly, the WORST scum on this website has always been the sex and shock value fanworks (in which the only goal is to be disgusting and appeal only to the prurient interest), doujinshi, their western comic equivalents, and pretty much anything outright glorifying pedophilia or sex between children and yeah, I have to admit Boys Empire turned my stomach, and I won't shed a tear for its loss.

If anything, I'm breaking out the champagne over that one.

Outside of those topics, that's where my personal misgivings lie, and I must say I'm not nearly as sanguine on the direction of the deletions (and I still say we don't lock and clean enough as opposed to deleting), but I will agree, for the most part, their decisions have tended towards the rational and understandable, and I will support the people in charge and wish them well with their assigned duties.

edited 31st May '12 6:45:19 AM by Rpgingmaster

I just saw The Pilfered Princess was flagged, and since it hasn't been sent to the funeral pyre yet, I'd just like to say I've read the whole thing and want to offer the P5 my take on it.

First off, yes, it has sex, no denying it.

That out of the way, it a Porn with Plot story (pretty heavy on the plot), that's basically is dry humored snark filled Deconstructive Parody of every medieval fantasy cliche (knight rescuing kidnapped pure and virginal princess, Sauron style Evil Overlord and his demonic minions being a threat to the fairy tale kingdom, etc.), and takes them apart for laughs.

In fact, the sex is part of the plot. We know the Evil Overlord kidnaps the princess in most stories and the brave knight rescues her from a life of said overlord's Sex Slave (usually before he gets to do anything really evil in that regard), and the whole story basically mocks the very idea by having the princess be sexually repressed (and hating it), and the Evil Overlord being too stupid (for the most part) to realize she's isn't the typical "Princess Wholesome I can break and humiliate For the Evulz".

It also doesn't stop there. The Prince Charming is a lunkheaded dolt who is so Wrong Genre Savvy it's ridiculous, the cliche magical guardian of the Princess' purity is flanderized into a Moral Guardian to the nth degree (which, let's face it, would be what would happen if the three guardians of Sleeping Beauty took their roles too seriously) who herself is too serious and comes off as The Scrappy even to those who agree with her, and the The Dragon is even more unsatisfied with his boss' incompetence than Number Two was in the first Austin Powers movie, basically serving as the hilariously beleaguered Only Sane Man.

And, without spoiling anymore of the plot, it's what would happen if someone wrote a Terry Pratchett styled adult parody of all the above mentioned cliches, and while it is a dry humored parody with sex scenes, it at least was done with a considerable story and a large focus on parodic deconstruction, IMO.

edited 31st May '12 6:42:04 AM by Rpgingmaster

Build Tiger... er... is anyone here familiar with this one?

Experience has taught me to investigate anything that glows.

I know we have a thread specially to appeal pages for restoration, but I want to appeal a pardoned page to be deleted.

Specifically, Oglaf, which came very close to be deleted as porn, and, based on the below evidence, should have been regardless.

First, I applied the "What Is Porn" standards to the work, specifically the following:

• Explicit sex

Yes. There is no doubt sexual activities are being portrayed.

• Between adults

Yes

• Is arousal the primary reaction the work as a whole is going for?

Yes. It's set in Crapsack World played for laughs, but the art style is clearly designed to titillate regardless.

• Is it the sole aim of the work?

Aside from darkly humored sexual parody, yes. Even the disclaimer admits it's original intention was pure pornography, but it acquired comedy elements, meaning it's still porn, but it's supposed to be funny.

Regardless, the only point to the strip is porn. Hilarious porn, but that was the same grounds upon which the Batman XXX page was cut, and unlike Batman XXX (which has a Bleached Underpants alternative on the DVD), this has no such alternative which allows the other elements of the plot to stand on their own merits and has no plot elements that make the sex meaningful to the larger scope of the story.

• If yes to both, cut. If no to the first, probably okay. If yes to the first but no to the second, more context needed.

Yes can be answered to both, so it should be cut.

Also, after checking the page links, I noticed a severe amount of attempted Loophole Abuse in the offsite linking.

True, all the links lead to a disclaimer page, but that doesn't change the fact they lead to a clearly detailed porn comic. Granted, it has some SFW images, but those also invariably links to things that are NSFW, and I can imagine it would be hard to explain to Google the difference if they start wondering why there are offsite redirects to something TV Tropes admits is NSFW and pornographic multiple times on the trope page.

With respect, Google was angry because of offsite links to porn, so this is not wise at all.

Finally, in terms of plot, it has pitifully little to redeem itself with. The whole thing is essentially a gag comic whose recurring plot centers around the sexual adventures of the protagonists, and if you removed the sex jokes, what's left doesn't not even count as a story (the sex IS the story)

Unfortunately, the work itself damns any attempt to defend it as anything other than porn by admitting up front it's original intent was porn, but it became a sex comedy, which (after browsing the pictures long enough) means the comedy is merely a vehicle to deliver the pornographic material.

Granted, it's hilarious, but without the sex, the plot has very little else to offer (and the jokes make no sense without it), and thus the work clearly panders to the prurient interest, hence it should be re-evaluated as irredeemable pornography and treated appropriately.

edited 31st May '12 8:19:11 AM by Rpgingmaster

The answer to this one was a resounding "no", actually. It's played for comedy, and the mass reaction from everyone who had read it was "it's not even sexy".

Not porn. The primary aim is to amuse, not to tittilate. We kept Futari Ecchi for the same reason. Dude, you might want to really read through these threads and see how all this works, because right now you're killin' me. You want to restore a work that we just cut for having explicit sex with a thing that looks like a 10 year-old girl, and then you turn around and ask to cut a work with explicit funny sex between adults, a work that we already voted to keep. One of those devilheads was mine and it was a mistake, so the real vote should have been 4-2 in favor of keeping.

To be honest, that post above reads as trolling, especially considering your previous arguments to keep much more awful stuff.

edited 31st May '12 8:33:21 AM by Martello

"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.

I don't have any opinion as to whether Oglaf should be given a second look, but there is a factual error in your argument.

The text on the comic's start page says: "This comic started out as an attempt to make pornography. It degenerated into sex comedy pretty much immediately." In other words, it's not "still porn, but it's supposed to be funny"; it's sex comedy.

Also, the concept of Excuse Plot has been argued endlessly in 5P discussions: is a gag-a-day comic with a lot of sex Porn Without Plot? Is a plotless fighting game with sex scenes between fights Porn Without Plot? You could argue both ways. They're definitely not open-and-shut cases.

EDIT: Ninja'd by the power of ninja.

edited 31st May '12 8:32:49 AM by DoktorvonEurotrash

It does not matter who I am. What matters is, who will you become? - motto of Omsk Bird

Very well, my arguments may be flawed in that respect, and if so, I stand corrected.

Still, the links do concern me. They link to sexually explicit images, and I really don't think it's wise to do that when a similar situation called down the wrath of Google.

I did not intend to troll, sir. I merely had concerns it was pornography after applying the same standards used by the site itself to evaluate a work, and it seems my argument was flawed.

I'm sorry if you believe I was trolling, but I tried to keep my arguments about the work based on facts.

The arguments were flawed, and if I'm wrong, I'll accept that with grace and leave the topic alone.

edited 31st May '12 8:39:20 AM by Rpgingmaster

The problem is not with linking, it's with linking directly. We can link to SFW pages. What those pages link to after that are not our responsibility (especially if we ever get around to putting up that "You are now leaving TV Tropes" buffer when an off-site link is clicked).

edited 31st May '12 8:38:46 AM by BadWolf21

That buffer already exists (it's hidden if you have content warnings turned off however), but it doesn't displace the linking rules.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Oh. Huh. Carry on then.

Of course it doesn't displace the linking rule. Direct links need to be SFW. However, if there are NSFW links off of the SFW page, I'm fairly certain that it isn't our problem anymore.

It seems I was ignorant of how the site filtering rules work and did not factor that into my statements.

It seems I should have researched my arguments more carefully.

I thought the filter broke and Eddie never got around to fixing it? I could have sworn someone in one of these threads said it had stopped working even when they had it turned on.

I couldn't conceive a dream so wet; your bongos make me congo.

He disabled it without telling anyone, since protecting tropers as opposed to ads from going to "mature" pages wasn't an issue.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman