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
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.
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.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... Heavens to Murgatroid. What the what.
Sure, flag it. If it isn't gory, it's probably porny.
Yes.
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.edited 25th May '12 5:14:51 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.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.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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I guess fully grown women who actually have flat chests are eternally children, huh?
@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!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. DickSorry, 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!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!

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