TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

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

Go To

The sub-forum is used for discussions that adjudicate possible violations of The Content Policy. Threads here can be created by flagging a page through the sidebar "report" button and toggling "The page may violate the Content Policy".

This thread is for general discussion of pages.

Edited by SeptimusHeap on Sep 10th 2022 at 11:50:32 AM

Razorback Since: May, 2012
#3851: May 25th 2012 at 4:09:31 PM

Fair enough. I considered it an edge case. That's why I flagged it.

Komodin TV Tropes' Sonic Wiki Curator from Windy Hill Zone Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: I like big bots and I can not lie
TV Tropes' Sonic Wiki Curator
#3852: May 25th 2012 at 4:12:10 PM

We aren't trying to purge the wiki of breasts that don't meet your preference for size. Nor are we trying to purge the wiki of every tasteless fanservice show out there.

Precisely. All I'm concerned about is whether or not the work is pornography and/or pedo-pandering.

Experience has taught me to investigate anything that glows.
Razorback Since: May, 2012
#3853: May 25th 2012 at 4:28:02 PM

Quick question, if mangafox (or any other online reader/player) has a series/work listed as "smut" would that qualify for review?

Komodin TV Tropes' Sonic Wiki Curator from Windy Hill Zone Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: I like big bots and I can not lie
lebrel Tsundere pet. from Basement, Ivory Tower Since: Oct, 2009
Tsundere pet.
#3855: May 25th 2012 at 4:35:16 PM

[up] Uh, looking at Mangafox's "smut" category, it seems to be "works with some sex but not as explicit as the ecchi category" (they also have both an Ecchi and a Hentai category). It seems to be mostly shoujo/BL; I see lots of "shoujo with sexy bits" like Sensual Phrase, Hot Gimmick, Black Bird, and Ai Ore Love Me, the latter three of which are 16+ in the US. I don't see anything I'd recognize as clearly porn. Mangaupdates seems to use the same categorization (i.e., three tiers of sexual content: smut < ecchi < hentai).

edited 25th May '12 4:43:16 PM by lebrel

Calling someone a pedant is an automatic Insult Backfire. Real pedants will be flattered.
shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#3856: May 25th 2012 at 4:50:53 PM

I agree with lebrel. If you're finding something labelled 'smut' on an anime site, it's probably just something with fanservice but no graphic sex. So if it's labelled smut it's probably not porn. Which is just weird but I didn't make up their categories.

edited 25th May '12 4:51:44 PM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Razorback Since: May, 2012
#3857: May 25th 2012 at 4:58:46 PM

How about the "adult" tag? I've already found an unflagged work like that. Further question: are multiple or frequent "on-screen" sex scenes enough to qualify for review? Does the work have to contain pedo-bait to justify flagging?

Komodin TV Tropes' Sonic Wiki Curator from Windy Hill Zone Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: I like big bots and I can not lie
TV Tropes' Sonic Wiki Curator
#3858: May 25th 2012 at 5:04:52 PM

Uh, looking at Mangafox's "smut" category, it seems to be "works with some sex but not as explicit as the ecchi category" (they also have both an Ecchi and a Hentai category). It seems to be mostly shoujo/BL; I see lots of "shoujo with sexy bits" like Sensual Phrase, Hot Gimmick, Black Bird, and Ai Ore Love Me, the latter three of which are 16+ in the US. I don't see anything I'd recognize as clearly porn. Mangaupdates seems to use the same categorization (i.e., three tiers of sexual content: smut < ecchi < hentai).

I agree with lebrel. If you're finding something labelled 'smut' on an anime site, it's probably just something with fanservice but no graphic sex. So if it's labelled smut it's probably not porn. Which is just weird but I didn't make up their categories.

... Heavens to Murgatroid. What the what.

How about the "adult" tag? I've already found an unflagged work like that.

Sure, flag it. If it isn't gory, it's probably porny.

Further question: are multiple or frequent "on-screen" sex scenes enough to qualify for review?

Yes.

Does the work have to contain pedo-bait to justify flagging?

Not necessarily. If the work is (or, at least, appears to be) pornographic, then it should definitely be flagged.

edited 25th May '12 5:05:26 PM by Komodin

Experience has taught me to investigate anything that glows.
shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#3859: May 25th 2012 at 5:07:48 PM

I don't get it either. I'm just reporting it.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
MarqFJA The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer from Deserts of the Middle East (Before Recorded History) Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
#3860: May 25th 2012 at 5:14:31 PM

... Heavens to Murgatroid. What the what.
I don't get it either. I'm just reporting it.
<offers some aspirin for the expected migraine>

edited 25th May '12 5:14:51 PM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
Pyrite Until further notice from Right. Beneath. You. Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Hiding
Until further notice
#3861: May 25th 2012 at 5:17:54 PM

Komodin: Most regular manga hosting sites won't host works that are clearly hentai doujin / original manga, in the same way that most regular anime streaming sites won't host obviously pornographic anime. So I'd guess that if you see a work labelled "smut", it would probably be the equivalent of, say... I don't know, one of those "bodice-ripper" romance novels of questionable quality that Harlequin turns out? (Or something like that, never actually read the latter.)

Not a substitute for a formal medical consultation.
KuroBaraHime ☆♥☆ Since: Jan, 2011
☆♥☆
#3862: May 25th 2012 at 5:21:00 PM

True. Since most of those sites don't have actual porn, things labeled stuff like Adult and Smut are probably just smuttier Seinen or Josei manga (or gorier in some cases).

Sackett Since: Jan, 2001
#3863: May 25th 2012 at 6:40:51 PM

Is it just me or has there been a recent rash of:

"I don't think there's a problem with it, but I flagged it for review anyway because someone else might think it's a problem"

That seems to me like a way to greatly increase the workload of the P5 committee for very little benefit. If someone else actually is bothered by a work they can go ahead and flag it themselves.

Why don't we just flag things that we think are over the line or near it?

Razorback Since: May, 2012
#3864: May 25th 2012 at 7:14:54 PM

@Sackett: Because no hard standard exists, the judgments of the committee differ from the judgments of the tropers, and people want to help but have to guess what the standards of those in charge are.

Arha Since: Jan, 2010
#3865: May 25th 2012 at 7:41:22 PM

Yeah, but if you bring up things you don't feel are a problem then you're just increasing their workload. They already get enough harmless stuff that someone thought was eeeeevil.

I personally am not tagging things unless I know there's an actual issue with them. I could tag things that are a light gray and then defend them at length, but that's a waste of everyone's time.

Catbert Since: Jan, 2012
#3866: May 25th 2012 at 7:57:09 PM

Mildly off topic (though related to trying to research the content of works), but has anyone figured out what Anime News Network uses as their standard for the "Objectionable Content" rating?

I mean, they have stuff everything from fanservice heavy works like Negima to the almost fanservice free Detective Conan listed as having "significant" Objectionable Content. The Comic Party manga is listed as having "Significant" objectionable content, and I just finished all four volumes and can assure people there is nothing there but some minor slapstick violence and a single one panel shower scene (with a fully grown adult) with all the "naughty bits" covered up.

lebrel Tsundere pet. from Basement, Ivory Tower Since: Oct, 2009
Tsundere pet.
#3867: May 25th 2012 at 8:02:03 PM

[up] I think all their database stuff (as opposed to the articles) is essentially a wiki, so it means at least one editor was offended. Also, I think they flag stuff like swearing, booze, drug references, etc.

Calling someone a pedant is an automatic Insult Backfire. Real pedants will be flattered.
Razorback Since: May, 2012
#3868: May 25th 2012 at 8:44:56 PM

Arha: I'd use the Millar standard for deciding these issues, they don't. If it doesn't have at least multiple instances of explicit sex or an instance of bestiality/necrophilia/pedophilia/etc., I wouldn't flag it under that standard. If I want to help, I need edge cases to look at for precedence. Side note: mangaupdates has a lolicon/shotacon tag as well as a hentai teg, so running a search there should help weed out clear-cut cases. I still say someone else should at least look at Ultimate Girls instead of dismissing it out of hand. It may just be creepy, but it's really, really, creepy.

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#3869: May 25th 2012 at 8:47:11 PM

The reason that people are setting stuff up to be shot down is because they fear that, otherwise, someone will flag it dishonestly, and they want to see it placed on the "reviewed and legal" line before then.

Also, regarding Pettanko=Lolicon: No. Just. No. We really do not want to go there. Small-breasted women in fanservice shots is not somehow automatically there to be wanked on by the pedophiles.

KrazyKopter Bitter person in the shadows.... Since: Apr, 2011
Bitter person in the shadows....
#3870: May 25th 2012 at 9:03:33 PM

I guess fully grown women who actually have flat chests are eternally children, huh?

[up]@Ramidel That's correct. There's a couple of stuff several people know isn't porn or pro-pedophilia but could be viewed this way by someone who Did Not Do The Research.

edited 25th May '12 9:25:12 PM by KrazyKopter

"Pancakes. Oh, I blew it." - Joel Hodgson Nobody better lay a Butterfinger on my 3DS!
shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#3871: May 25th 2012 at 9:24:00 PM

Flat chests on women are not paedophilia. We're not going to start censoring Tilda Swinton and Keira Knightley because they are flat as a board. They're not paedopandering. Flat adult women are not children.

edited 25th May '12 9:25:37 PM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Prfnoff Since: Jan, 2001
#3872: May 25th 2012 at 9:26:23 PM

Regarding Anime News Network's "Objectionable Content" rating, "significant" seems to be less cautionary than "intense". "Intense" objectionable content seems to include gore as well as sex.

KrazyKopter Bitter person in the shadows.... Since: Apr, 2011
Bitter person in the shadows....
#3873: May 25th 2012 at 9:30:27 PM

Sorry, I knew that. I guess I need to make my sarcasm more obvious.

Anyways, what's up with Koibana Onsen?

"Pancakes. Oh, I blew it." - Joel Hodgson Nobody better lay a Butterfinger on my 3DS!
KuroBaraHime ☆♥☆ Since: Jan, 2011
☆♥☆
#3874: May 25th 2012 at 9:41:38 PM

Seems like a pretty normal Seinen harem manga, just a bit smuttier than usual.

KrazyKopter Bitter person in the shadows.... Since: Apr, 2011
Bitter person in the shadows....
#3875: May 25th 2012 at 9:45:24 PM

From what I've seen, it looks like Porn with Plot, and an Excuse Plot at that, although genital shots are either blurred or obscured (both male and female). It's not something I miss at all if it got cut.

"Pancakes. Oh, I blew it." - Joel Hodgson Nobody better lay a Butterfinger on my 3DS!

Total posts: 14,910
Top