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

Hershel is saying that he knows some works he'd pre-emptively flag for review if things stayed locked unless appealed in a thread.

Flag reasons would really make it much easier to catch the real paedopandering. Porn is going to be obvious from the start. Paedopandering, not always. We can't watch the entirety of every series after all and that makes it easy to miss things without flag reasons.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. What I meant was if P5 passes (or kills) a work, the page is no longer open for flagging. If someone has new information they pass said information on to mods (by posting here or PMing them, say) who can then re-open it at their discretion (or just flag it themselves). This can work in conjunction with other systems, as well (Marq's for example).

P5 themselves should be able to reopen cases if they're given new information in this thread as well.

Right. In fact, there are things I already flagged assuming P5 would vote to keep them, but wanting to get them out of the way.

Oh-kay...I get it now. No issue with any of that.

Perhaps after a decision has been made we could create some sort of grace period before any attempts to re-appeal could be made.

Or at least attempts that aren't posting new facts and new information about the work in question.

If appeals are to go through this forum, I propose that there should be a clear statement - somewhere - from 5P members detailing the reasoning for their vote, so that those who attempt to appeal can see the evidence that has actually been considered previously.

edited 8th May '12 7:49:51 PM by Pyrite

That would seem to just invite more arguments about whether our reasons were good enough or not.

I agree with that one. It's hard to sum up all your reasoning especially on media. A lot of it is fairly obvious just from looking at a work, but the things in those works don't really need to be described on this forum in graphic detail.

Good point, but how will those appealing know what information counts as "new"? Unless you're suggesting that the onus is now on the 5P to filter out the appeal requests (either in this thread or via PM) regardless of whether or not any new information is included, which could also work... but that will end up creating even more work for the panel.

edited 8th May '12 7:58:41 PM by Pyrite

The Supreme Court of the United States has a process where it decides what cases to hear. I don't see any problem with granting P5 the autonomy to decide which works to re-review.

@Pyrite - We've only seen one appeal for a "keep" vote so far. Appealing a cut that the 5P voted on is pretty useless because we voted to cut it for a reason, but those are the appeals we've been seeing anyway. No reason why the very rare appeal to reverse a keep vote shouldn't be posted in this forum.

edited 8th May '12 8:01:44 PM by Martello

The ones I understand appealing are the ones that got caught in the initial cuts before P5 was formed. Those are the ones most likely to be wrong. There were things there that were cut that shouldn't have been. Those can be appealed. Kn J, not so much.

edited 8th May '12 8:04:07 PM by shimaspawn

Martello: That's the point of allowing it to go both ways. You may have had reasons to cut, but they may have been based on misinformation given to you by someone with an agenda. I'm not saying that most, or even any of the decisions so far fall under that category, but there have been a few threads where someone had to clarify that there is nothing objectionable about the work in the first place, and the tropes page is simply misleading.

edited 8th May '12 8:05:49 PM by BadWolf21

True, and so far we've caught those before they were cut. Once again, it's a matter of you need to bring up new information, and P5 has to reopen it. It's rarer that they're going to do that for a cut work.

I agree with shima/Tomu/others that discussions should be reopened IFF at least one P5 member wants to reopen them. That doesn't seems like a system that could be prone to much abuse.

What if the P5 "defaults" to not re-reviewing, so that in order for a work to be re-reviewed, a given P5 member has to actively select a petition for re-review? So that there's no "duty" to re-review works, but if a given P5 member takes something as a pet project, then the P5 can then decide collectively whether to re-review it or not?

For those not familiar with the jargon, IFF means If and Only If.

edited 8th May '12 8:08:50 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

@Shima - Right, I should have been more clear on that. Works cut in the Great Pedopurge are still valid for appeal. I think we've covered most of those though.

@Bad Wolf - The problem with that is we'll get disgruntled fans of cut works claiming that all our cut reasons are misinformation, or "just the art style," or a "Western bias," or whatever.

@Silverfire - Good idea, and we already pretty much work like that. I set the precedent with the recall vote thread on that Monster Girl Encyclopedia thing.

edited 8th May '12 8:11:33 PM by Martello

You covered the most popular of them. I know Under Grand Hotel and a couple of others are still waiting on appeal when you guys get enough time for them.

Martello: There's nothing that says that you have to re-review if someone brings something up. It's not fair, and is actually quite closed-minded to say that there's no point in appealing cuts because you're not going to change your mind, though. If someone on the panel is swayed by an appeal, and would have voted to keep the work, had they known it, that should be just as valid as if someone alerts the panel that a work is worse than they thought.

Not to mention that works that get kept may have disgruntled haters who inundate the panel with minor issues that they blow out of proportion in an attempt to get them cut. This is a two-way street.

I get what you're saying, I'm just pointing out the problems with repeated appeals to cut votes. Again, if one of us decides to start a thread to give a work another look, that's fine. I just don't want this forum to be inundated with appeals from the aforementioned disgruntled fans.

Oh, if someone doesn't get the point, they can be thumped. If you need the mods to put their feet down, we will. No worries there.

Can't we create an appeals list? That's not just a seperate "Hey post in this thread for appeals" or something. And people can list reasons under the listed works, and the P5 can decide to go out of their way to choose a work to re-review.

edited 8th May '12 8:33:37 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

You mean Page Restoration Petitions?