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

That "hard line" is only for Fanfic Recs. We haven't universally axed Piers Anthony.

Well, yeah. We have a rule that mainstream and "classic" works get a pass. That said, I don't recall Piers describing his characters' lust for underage girls in explicit language, like a porno.

That, too. Fanfic recs are held to different standards because they are explicitly telling people they should read something.

Edited by Fighteer on Oct 12th 2018 at 3:50:56 PM

Oi. The recommendation rule is because these are recommendations, we are explicitly praising them. Ergo, tougher standards apply to recommended works to works we merely trope.

Well, the work in question never explicitly gives the characters ages soooo...

The one example of that that I remember was And Eternity, which had some explicit purple scenes between a fifteen-year-old and an older man (a judge, specifically), but was passed on grounds of "being sold in bookstores without shrink-wrap."

Edited by Ramidel on Oct 13th 2018 at 9:52:52 AM

I have a question about the Valkyrie Drive: Mermaid work. Recently the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) posted a report regarding the work in which requires cuts of the content, because it's implying that two of the main characters are described as being 15-years-old and 16-years-old respectively and they find it skeevy and they say that they consider that the characters are engaging in sexual activity. Regarding this, I was thinking... do you think this work deserves to be cut?

https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2018-10-23/bbfc-demands-cuts-to-valkyrie-drive-mermaid/.138502

This is the news regarding the situation.

Valkyrie Drive was discussed about two years ago but sort of ho-hummed.

What's bizarre about the BBFC is when they cut anime, they tend to be the odd ones out. Valkyrie Drive had no problem with the censors in Australia or Germany. Same case with the last anime they cut, Sengoku Otome (which I'm sure would make it past the P5).

Hmmm, there's a problematic anime this season. Uchi no Maid ga Uzasugiru!. The synopsis itself is quite....telling.

That show is really tame, the maid may be a crazy ex-military stalker type maid with abs for days but the 'lolicon' thing is more an obsession on all things cute and girly.

Edited by Memers on Nov 13th 2018 at 3:42:18 AM

Someone reported Nightmare Fuel with the listing "contains offensive content"

I'm going through the page now. Some of its kind of dubious, there's a link to the reveal at the end of Sleepaway Camp where the character is naked and a penis is visible. I should probably cut that. Others have some standard scare stuff. Body Horror, image of a girl cutting herself, etc. I think those are to be kept.

Shame about the end of Sleepaway Camp. It may be NSFW, but it's definitely not pedo-pandering and is one of the most iconic horror scenes of all time.

Edited by Assassin-sensei on Nov 17th 2018 at 3:25:10 AM

P5 is only about sex right? Violence (fictional, not actual shots of dead bodies), gore, scary stuff is all good right?

Apparently it's only about sex and pedo-bait, based on me recently bringing up Chiller.

Edited by rjd1922 on Nov 21st 2018 at 10:07:50 AM

Right. Gore is only an issue if it's fetishized (such as Demonophobia).

Shadman needs a look at, his works a notorious in certain places as extremely sexually explicit including minors (you want to be careful when searching)

...Is that just written literally today, by a single guy? Though I won't say they're a troll as they have a nicely filled editing history.

Edited by Adannor on Nov 26th 2018 at 1:49:19 PM

I don't think it's trolling, but my gut says cut it.

I also don't think it's trolling, but since I have seen Shadman's work and it's definitely obscene, I'd recommend cutting.

Yep, this guy almost exclusively draws porn (at least under that pseudonym, afaik). And I'm not sure how much it matters, but the article itself seems to be written in a very "Look how shocking this is!" kind of tone, imo.

Agreed. We adopted a low-key way of doing that to save F.A.T.A.L. but this is almost over the top in its presentation.

There's a clear line that we can draw between describing something awful and wallowing in it.

Yep. The previously existing trope entry on Overshadowed by Controversy is plenty sufficient information to have on him on the wiki.

Annd I've went and put up a proper report.

I'd say that's sufficient as well.

The page outright admits several times that what it’s troping (Shadman's art) is porn, so I don't see any way it could pass muster.

Potential pros to keeping Shadman:

• Whoever wrote the article at least wasn't gushing over the art
• Has a very small percentage of non-explicit, non-pedophilic art, such as this◊ wholesome comic that made the rounds on Twitter

Cons:

• Majority of work is pornographic in nature
• Some of this pornography sexualizes children
• Non-pornographic comics tend to have jokes which allude to sexual activity involving minors

I don't really think there's any way to make a Shadman page appropriate for TV Tropes, unless it was a very simple, locked explanation page about him being a controversial artist.