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

That's a quick conclusion to come to based on one image, Martello. Have you done other research? There's an awful lot of strategy based gameplay.

I won't deny that that girl looks underage, but I will deny that it's really a large part of the story. Hence my question.

edited 26th Apr '12 6:03:56 PM by Arha

@447 Martello: I thought the standard for "porn" that was being used here was "consists almost entirely of sex". I don't see how you can prove that with one image. And frankly, she looks like a typical bishoujo character to me.

If something can be grounds for removal due to one image then there is gonna be a whole lotta things removed...

Move discussion of Big Bang Age to the relevant thread here please.

Indeed. Let's not derail this any further.

We can keep this on topic.

What is grounds for pornography? Obviously things like Boku No Pico should be removed but...Cthluhu Tech ?

The people who decide these things need to look deeper before removing the pages.

Martello: I don't mind moving the discussion of the game itself, but the specific question hasn't been answered. I merely request clarification on whether or not the policy is 'absolutely none at all, ever.' It's a big influence on how I can inform anyone that asks about visual novels. There are a large amount of works that contain tiny amounts of such elements that really depend on that clarification.

edited 26th Apr '12 6:07:01 PM by Arha

Right I mean...would Excel Saga be grounds for removal just because of the last episode?

If you have questions about the policy change, the criteria and what is going on and why please read this post in the General Announcements thread.

@454 Martello: I'm not talking about that one game, except in that you brought it up as an example. If you are going to use "contains at least one explicit image" as the standard for porn, then that's much, much broader than what the mods have been saying the guidelines will cover. "Contains at least one explicit image" is going to cut a hell of a lot of stuff that is not usually considered porn.

@Blackcat: .... I can't help but notice that the list of guidelines are now completely gone, in favor of a much more stringent set of criteria.

Then the much more stringent set is obviously what we work with. I'm not seeing the problem here.

People will get mad. That's the problem. -_-

Post 542 echoes my thoughts. The mods have said that a work doesn't count as Porn Without Plot unless porn is nearly the entire thing. Then Martello said that if he sees one sex scene he doesn't like, he doesn't even look at the rest of the piece at all?

I think that Martello was talking about pedo-pandering (pedo-glorifying?) sex scenes, not sex scenes in general, and he himself has said more than once that explicit adult sex scenes alone don't make porn in his eyes. So I don't think that's contradicting directly, but I still don't think it's ideal.

Yes, if a work has a scene that heavily sexualizes a child and makes it positive/titilating, that's a major red flag and the work is likely to be over the line. But I think looking at least a little at the context is important. It's possible that the scenes before, after, and for the next chapter dwell on how horrible it was from the victim's perspective, even if a rape is told from the molester's point of view. Again, that seems unlikely, but it's a possibility.

edited 26th Apr '12 6:22:29 PM by ArcadesSabboth

They Changed It, Now It Sucks!

edited 26th Apr '12 6:15:52 PM by Raidouthe21st

I'm confused. The guidelines that blackcat linked to have been the ones we've been using since they were written up by Bobby, right?

And it's probably better to cut a bit extra than to let pedo-pandering/pedoshit/whatever you want to call it remain on the wiki. No one's hurt by the wiki not listing all of the tropes in given subset of works, and it doesn't prevent anyone from enjoying the work on their own time.

Those are criteria about ratings mostly, and they've been approved by the moderation team. They were not written by Bobby.

edited 26th Apr '12 6:19:06 PM by lu127

blackcat: I brought the matter up because even with that it seemed like a bit of a gray area to me. For example, the visual novel Da Capo is up for review. It does contain some lolicon elements, yet it has at least one 'Not porn' vote to it. I was under the impression that we were being stricter with lolicon than with other forms of pornography. Are we? Is it absolutely no tolerance on that matter? I understand the way we're judging whether something is porn or not, it just seems like we're getting rid of porn and pedo pandering. Something can be one without the other, or neither but have a little bit of both inside.

I may have slightly misunderstood though. Visual novels generally don't have adult protagonists, so the situation is slightly different than the guidelines indicate.

edited 26th Apr '12 6:20:27 PM by Arha

Well said, autumncomet. That's my take on it as well.

And I got the impression we were indeed cutting pedo pandering too.

edited 26th Apr '12 6:21:39 PM by Firebert

x4

And I feel that such a fear of rampant paedoshit (which I never notice so I don't know where people get this sometimes) can remove to very well made trope pages for forms of media that only contain very little pornography, let alone those that can be considered "Pedoshit"

Should Sengoku Rance be removed because of its adult scenes, despite it being a VERY good strategy game with a diverse cast and rich backstory?

I don't like this belief "Oh we can remove a few extra to be sure." Nothing good comes of clusterbombing.

I'd like to think that P5 are smart enough to remove those that are blatant, and to see those that may SEEM like it, but are not.

edited 26th Apr '12 6:22:35 PM by Thorn14

Immense Back Story, indeed

@Lu 127: I'm talking about the "adult with adult explicit sex", "adult with teen explicit sex", "adult with teen implicit sex", etc. etc. guidelines that were first drafted by ccoa, and were later modified in a private discussion between the staff members. It's no longer there, apparently replaced by the following:

Would it do any harm if we had actual heads-up that the rules/guidelines have been changed?

edited 26th Apr '12 6:25:30 PM by MarqFJA

@ Thorn: I see that it has entries for both "Legal Jailbait" and "Lolicon".

Rance himself is not a lolicon, and the only scene that involves adult situations of a child is played VERY MUCH for Drama.

And just remove those tropes then if its so horrible from it.

But to just remove an entire trope page because of it feels like its against the spirit of this entire site.

edited 26th Apr '12 6:25:36 PM by Thorn14

Don't judge by the trope page. We had works put up for review because someone saw the word lolicon listed. That ignores the idiocy of the editors who have put it up in innocuous works. Use places other than tv tropes for your info.