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

It's not even on the Cut List - should it be added?

There's been enough discussion about Bliss Stage that it probably merits its own thread.

I'm pretty sure that mistakes will be made both ways (pages that should be cut being erroneously kept, and pages that should be kept being erroneously cut) and it's important to have a re-review system for both.

The question is, what are the benefits of avoiding persisting false positives and false negatives versus the extra friction that a system utilized to do so generates.

I mean, we don't have to go False Dichotomy here, it's probably possible to have a system that has the ability to re-review without getting totally inundated with petitions to re-review or persistent questioning of the P5's judgment, but I'll be damned if I have anything in mind.

Bliss Stage has three devils and a "cut" disposition on the voting queue. The cut masters have probably just not gotten around to it yet.

That's an interesting point-from a procedural stance, does three Angels or Three Devils mean "Decided" or do arguments persistent until all five have voted?

It's not on the Cut List. Somebody needs to add it if it has 3 devilheads.

Three heads out of five count as quorum, I think.

edited 8th May '12 3:21:37 PM by SeptimusHeap

My thoughts on double jepoardy: I'm leery of having a hard and fast rule in this case, because of course mistakes happen. I think something like this would be a fair guideline though: a work may be considered for re-review if both of the following are true:

• New facts are presented which were previously unknown to the panel
• At least one panel member can state "If I had known this before, I would have voted differently."

edited 8th May '12 3:22:28 PM by Elle

@Tomu - It means it's decided, since at that point the other two votes won't swing it one way or the other. We've already cut a number of works with only three votes, especially when there were only three of us plus Fast Eddie.

Edit: Ninja'd, and by a very good point from Elle. I agree with that idea.

edited 8th May '12 3:50:11 PM by Martello

I think that is a fair enough ruling. The issue with the Monster Girl Encyclopedia was new information coming to light after all.

edited 8th May '12 3:23:59 PM by shimaspawn

Is there a policy on deciding what works should be flagged?

For example, if someone feels that the work is in line with current policy, but also feels in good faith that there is questionable content worthy of review. I can think of at least one work that I feel this way about.

I'm increasingly wondering if we really want the voting to be open anyway. It strikes that if some of the judges vote first, then it creates a situation where further judges votes may be changed on the basis of the earlier votes. More to the point, I worry that if two or three of the judges are more prone to voting first, this creates a situation where it appears the court is polarized or something.

It's probably a non-issue in the long run though. I'm only concerned because of similar concerns about RL political institutions and the like I suppose.

If you wanted that, you'd really have to sequester the panel members altogether and keep them from discussing it with each other altogether.

I don't feel that the dangers from lack of transparency are worth the potential upside.

Seconding Shimaspawn.

Good point. Still, it's a little offputting always seeing three devils or three angels. It'd be nice if the P5 crew would always officially vote, even if something has been decided.

Speaking for myself, I've had no problems voting Keep even when there are two Cut votes already on the queue, so I don't think that previous votes cast is much of an influence on my decision. I try to take each work on its merits, and trust in the other members of the panel to agree or disagree as they see fit.

Yeah, in retrospect, I'm probably just creating problems in my head that don't exist.

I feel that's not inaccurate here.

Any official word on what I spoke of a few posts up?

It's in the FAQ linked on the first post of this thread...

Here, I think

What I'm saying is whether works containing sufficient questionable content that do not run afoul of official policy as stated should be flagged for purposes of getting an official review.

Huh. If the forum isn't to have threads about pornography, doesn't that kind of include the fetishes thread?

Fetishes is a sole exception specifically written into the rules.

Where is it written? I mean, the "take it to Fetishes" policy predates the General Announcements post, and the GA post does not appear to mention the Fetishes thread.

That would be The Forums Rules. Those still hold true.