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

So what do we do with the pic on 1000 Origami Cranes?

Why should we do anything about it? Nobody was particularly against it in the IP thread.

edited 29th Apr '12 6:53:17 AM by OneMore

Isn't our picture for Class Rep from a porn doujin? On that precedent it seems like so long as the image itself is SFW it would be allowed to stand, but I don't know if we intend to be consistent on that. The issue in question here, after all, is quite a bit more serious.

....How is having a little girl just making origami cranes paedoshit?

Just remove the link and keep it a flat image?

edited 29th Apr '12 7:30:08 AM by Thorn14

I think he means should the image stay since the work it is from was cut.

Exactly. I'm fine with keeping both pics and just noting on the pages to not pothole them to their respective works, but I'd like to get some kind of ruling one way or the other.

Ninja'd.

edited 29th Apr '12 9:21:32 AM by Willbyr

My question still stands, though. Class Rep's image similarly comes from a source we won't have an article for, so the precedent is that KNJ images are okay so long as they're SFW. My question in turn is whether we're going to be harsher towards KNJ due to being gone for different reasons.

Personally, it seems okay to me. I probably would not have known it was from KNJ without being told. Another image would probably be better and easy enough to find, but I'd say it shouldn't be pulled outright with the page left blank.

edited 29th Apr '12 10:49:12 AM by Arha

I think the limits of fair use may imply that we have to have some kind of information about where a pic is from, and if that's the case, it'd rather be like indexing the various series.

It would seem to me that, as a rule of thumb, it'd be safer to not use pictures from prohibited series, just to err on the side of caution.

We could just leave the name of the series in the code but comment it out. That way people could still find the image source if they wanted, and we wouldn't have to cut otherwise usable images.

We don't need to remove images based on their source. As long as the image isn't porny, that is. Leaving a comment in page source about where it came from should work.

The fast one has spoken. All hail the fast one!

What about images going forwards? as a rule of thumb, should someone avoid posting "safe" images from, say, Bible Black if they fit tropes? Or is that fine too?

edited 29th Apr '12 11:11:20 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

Posting this here since I've checked the announcements and discussions and can't see anything on it - what of examples for works cut under the new policy on trope pages? Where a work doesn't exist, could it still be listed as an example on a trope page, if appropriate to do so?

I would think that using cut articles as examples rather undercuts the idea of "TV Tropes is not a porn index."

As would I, but just wanting to check as it raises the prospect of a future project that will need to be embarked upon, to remove the existing examples. Special Efforts will certainly be required for it.

By the way, I notice on these things getting cut per p5, they all have low inbounds and low wicks. Which means the interest in them by the greater internet is a lot lower than you might guess from all the fuss and fury they've been generating around here of late.

edited 29th Apr '12 11:42:04 AM by FastEddie

Vocal minority a go go.

Vocal Minority. It's unsurprising really.

edited 29th Apr '12 11:46:00 AM by encrypted12345

Actually, several of us who have been unhappy have been worried because we couldn't easily predict which works would be cut, and worried about more mainstream works.

People probably aren't looking to discover the literary merits of Virgin Roster. I can't imagine why.

I am not, despite the insinuations of some of the mods, upset that I can't fap to TV Tropes anymore (because I never did, that is). The predictability thing is why people are asking for rules and guidelines, even subjective ones, that are more specific than "I know it when I see it".

How do you go about requesting that a discussion thread be opened? I see Okane ga Nai has two "red" votes; it's not porn, and although the uke is notoriously uke-tastic, he's not underage.

I'm not sure if this is the right place to talk about this, but I noticed that once a work has been cleared and declared "Not Porn", the button to ask the P5 evaluate it is active. Even though it's been evaluated.

Is this a problem worth noting?

That seems more like a feature than a bug. Unless we decide to have an entirely new council look at all of the pages (which seems incredibly unlikely), disabling the button on pages that have already been cleared eliminates the problem of multiple submissions of the same page.

Or someone deliberately putting something through over and over again until they get the result they want.

I'm guessing the 5P would quickly dismiss something they've already seen once if nobody posts a coherent appeal of their earlier decision, and nobody indicates that new material has been published.

It would still be a trolling problem, of course.