Welcome to the Content Violations Discussion forum, where we discuss whether a work violates The Content Policy.
Remember that the forum rules apply here
, plus the following:
- You don't PM moderators about stuff pertaining to the policies, except for thread reasons;
- We tolerate links to scanlation sites unlike in the rest of the site due to its purpose, although it's preferred to remove them when they have done their jobs;
- The forum is not a soapbox for your own views on the policy or on morality. Please leave them at the door.
Violations of these rules can result in a ban from the subforum, or from the entire forum.
Otherwise:
Also, keep in mind that there are works that we don't want flagged without a really good reason as they are not likely in violation of policy:
- Is a film rated below "R" for U.S. distribution.
- Is a show that can be aired on prime time television.
- Is a video game that is rated below "M" by the ESRB.
- Is a written work that is sold in major bookstores without an "adult" or "mature" label.
- Is an anime/manga/etc. that is approved for U.S. import as a non-adult work.
- Is read/shown/taught in high school or below.
- Is in another format and meets equivalent criteria.
What we're looking for:
- Pure porn, or porn with an Excuse Plot only,
- Anything that has explicit underage sex,
- Implied sex of preteens or younger, and
- Fanservice intended to cater to pedophiles (lolicon and shotacon fanservice can count).
A couple of guidelines so the procedure can move smoothly:
- Do not list whole indexes or works just because they are on a certain index or have lolicon, H-Game or shotacon on their trope list.
- Do not list works you know nothing about without at least reading the trope page.
- Do not list works that you know are G-rated but you find creepy.
- Pages still locked or cut as a result of The Second Google Incident are not going to be unlocked or restored. As of July 2024, the site owners have been very clear about this. Do not list them here, as we're not going to review them again.
- If it's paedophile-pandering approximately how old are the characters involved? What happens? Is it graphic? Is it merely implied?
- List what objectionable content there is, and how much of the work consists of that.
- If it's entirely sex, say so. People have different ideas of what porn is. We all have the same idea of what a work being entirely sex scenes is.
- If you're not sure about a work, say so, or ask someone who does know that work. But don't make blanket accusations. Post here: "I don't know about this work, but the page says X".
- Google and Wikipedia are your friendsnote . Do a little digging on works you aren't sure about.
Also, in the case of H Games, there is this questioning to fill up:
- When are the sex scenes located?
- Are they spread out over the game?
- How much gameplay is there between sex scenes?
- Are they only at the endings?
- How hard do you have to work to get an ending?
- Are they in every ending? Every good ending?
- Are the sex scenes optional via a choice in the menu?
- Would the story make sense without them with minimal or no rewriting?
- Are the scenes made up of stills, or are they animated?
- How explicit are the sex scenes?
- This isn't a headcount. Your opinion is only considered if it explains in at least some detail how you came to the conclusion that the work is/isn't porn/paedopandering.
- When a moderator determines that the discussion has yielded a consensus, they can enact its conclusion/ask a moderator to enact the conclusion.
- The discussion is only about whether the work qualifies as porn or as paedopandering. We don't assess anything else in this process.
Q: Why is this happening?
A: Concerning the porn, it tends to attract creepy edits that have brought us into issues with the adservers while not significantly contributing to our core purpose - tropology. Concerning paedophilia-pandering, such works are just plain creepy to have pages about.
Q: What can I do to help clean the site?
A: You can flag content as unsuitable using the flag tool, which is located in the Tools menu to the right of each article, keeping the criteria in mind. Also, you can help enforce No Lewdness, No Prudishness across the wiki, possibly though cleaning pages listed in this Long Term Projects thread
.
Q. This episodic work isn't finished yet. Shouldn't we wait for the ending before discussing it?
A. No. If released instalments may violate the content policy, we want to take action as soon as that's established — we don't need to wait for the ending. We can always revisit a decision to cut or keep once the work is over, but that point might still be years or decades away.
Q: This work is not actually/primarily pornographic. Why was it cut?
A: This could be for a number of different reasons. If the work was deemed to be paedopandering, for example, it will be cut whether or not it's actually sexually explicit. Being pro-paedophilia or pandering to paedophiles is bad enough, even if the work is nominally anti-paedophilia. Of course, it's possible that there was a mistake and then you should appeal it - please check the reasons first, however.
Q: This work is being/has been cut, but it is not a violation of the Content Policy. How do I make an appeal?
A: Flag the work page using the button in the sidebar and state your reasons for restoration.
Q: This work is pretty much pure porn, but it's really good porn. Can an exception be made?
A: Nope, sorry. If it's mainly porn, it goes.
Q: Why would you cut this? In [culture x], it is totally acceptable.
A: The vast majority of our readers come from the Americas or Western Europe, so we will be adhering to what could broadly be termed "Western" standards. This means we will not be permitting works which sexualize 12 year olds, and nor will we be demanding that every picture of a woman on the site must wear a burqa.
Q: How can you possibly claim to know authorial intent? (Roland Barthes is my co-pilot.)
A: It is not important what the authorial intent was, only the outcome.
Q: Wikipedia have articles on all kinds of awful stuff. Why can't we do the same?
A: Wikipedia is a strictly academic site. They have to cite sources and a "no censorship rule". They also do not aim to be Family Friendly, and are not reliant upon third party ads for funding. Conversely, one of our stated aims is to celebrate fiction, and our generally light, non-negative tone is a reflection of this, which has led to much more gushing about inappropiate content.
Q: So should I take every article here as an endorsement of whatever it describes?
A: No, of course not. We have pages on Greedy Jew, Adolf Hitler and Mein Kampf after all. However, if we choose to focus our attention on schoolgirls' thighs or porn, it does reflect very poorly on us. Fan Fic Recommendations are a slightly different issue. If a work is recommended there, this should be taken as an endorsement by the troper who wrote it.
Q: Are we allowed to make forum threads about works processed by the Content Violation Discussions forum?
A: If it was voted "clean and keep", a forum thread is relatively safe as long as it is restricted to talking about the clean parts. Anything with a stronger judgement is discouraged on the forums.
Q. You mention that there will be no further reviews of work cut or locked after The Second Google Incident. What about the pages that have already been reviewed and unlocked or restored?
A. We're not overturning those previous decisions. However, if a restored/unlocked page causes problems again, it's very likely to be locked or cut, and it won't get a third chance if that happens.
Q: Where can I find decisions regarding a work?
A: They are linked from the discussion page. Sometimes the old list of content reviews
or the thread list in this forum can help as well.
Q: I still have some questions/concerns.
A: We will be happy to answer them. There is a thread
for this.
- Modpost in the thread to acknowledge the decision
- Lock all applicable pages and subpages
- Put an explanatory notice on the work page discussion pages, including a link to the relevant CVD thread.
- Add the work to Administivia's Content Policy page list
- Check for reviews and delete and that exist
- Check for work-specific forum threads and lock any that exist. Threads that discuss multiple works may warrant a modpost to explain that this one has been removed from the wiki.
- Submit the pages to the cut list
- Cut the pages
- Lock the thread
- Guro: Violence played for titillation. (contrast Gorn)
- 5P or P5: The panel that administered the policy prior to the review system being overhauled in 2022. See 5P.
- P(a)edoshit: Older term for "P(a)edopandering", deprecated for being inflammatory.
- Porn: A work mostly concerned with sexual arousal. Having NSFW or explicit scenes doesn't automatically make a work porn — it's when showcasing explicit scenes is the entire point of the work.
Also, questions about the policy can be asked here
. They will be added to this thread's FAQ section once answered.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 21st 2024 at 6:53:12 PM
I know Google took issue with articles describing sexual matters, like Naughty Tentacles, and those that seemed like they encouraged illegal behaviour ("Rape is OK when..."), but did they ever object to any actual series? Shows that were initially seen as promoting/exploiting paedophilia have returned based on users convincing the 5P, after all, so wouldn't that logically mean that they are going by Eddie's orders and not Google's when it comes to questionable fiction specifically?
Listen to others, think for yourself.No, Google didn't object to any series. Several tropers and Fast Eddie did, as far as I can remember, during the perversity cleanup that predates the Second Google Incident.
For the record and by my knowledge, Google is not enforcing anythign agaisnt us except for a) no ads on rape pages and b) no ads on other "mature" pages - see The Situation.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI see.
In any case, while I can't say I agree with all the decisions made and the reasoning behind them regarding this issue, I don't really have any more questions I can't figure out the answers to on my own nor anything to add that would make a difference. Thank you all for participating, it's been quite eye-opening.
Listen to others, think for yourself.Just to quickly clarify something for Lindaeus's benefit, the Naughty Tentacles page was not running Google ads at the time of the second incident. This means it was probably nailed for having wicks on other pages with Google ads (some works play it for comedy, after all), which is also against Ad Sense policy. Hence why the cuts and other new policies seem so draconian on the surface. We were a lot more vulnerable then we had thought.
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)While I don't want to go too deep into specific works, Lotte was tabled because the vote was split as of the last discussion, and there's no option to flag it for review because it's under the banner.
Most Rape Tropes are back and locked. Naughty Tentacles is currently under attempted renewal; Victim Falls For Rapist was cut and has not been brought back; I do not know why.
edited 22nd Sep '12 7:39:47 PM by Ramidel
Rotte no Omocha still works (and is a locked & blank page), and there are other workarounds for the page-covering banner Lotte No Omocha has.
edited 22nd Sep '12 8:26:05 PM by Sabbo
![]()
If you want Lotte restored, kindly state your reasons in the restorations thread. This ain't the place to discuss it.
For reference, after the last round of us being reported to Google for Double Standard: Rape, Female on Male (under its former title of "Rape Is Okay If It's Female On Male"), three of the staff members looked over the source text of the page (after it had been temporarily cut to show willingness to work with the big G—well, the big-ish G
) and found exactly one example that was possibly endorsing the double standard as a good thing—you know, if you squinted a little bit, titled your head, and were actively looking for an endorsement. If anything, the page spent too much text (in my personal opinion) explaining why each and every other example was a bad thing. In short, we got in trouble for the page's name alone, since even a casual glance at the description or examples made it very clear the wiki was in no way endorsing the behavior.
edited 23rd Sep '12 6:14:45 PM by Ironeye
I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.
Including The Grapes of Wrath.
The Rape thing was an unfortunate clusterfuck that illustrated more deeply why we need a revenue source less fickle than Google that also managed to get us publicly shamed on a female gaming site. There was little to nothing we could do about it without some input from Google, which we never actually got, and then just decided to fix things ourselves. The Rape Tropes issue is entirely separate from the P5 (though they got conflated at first), but might as well have a summary-explanation here to avoid a further derail considering it.
edited 24th Sep '12 10:13:01 AM by LargoQuagmire
The unwanted topic curtain.
That means it was part of the initial purge Eddie did. We reviewed it and upheld the cut, so it has just remained behind the "we don't want a page on this topic" curtain.
Visit my contributor page to assist with the "I Like The Cheeses" project!That strikes me as rather odd, too. I know people have petitioned for re-review, and I think it deserves another look (with no promises of a restoration of course); however that curtain says to me that Eddie has his reasons for keeping it cut.
"Polite life will fill you full of cancer." - Iggy Pop "I've seen the future, brother, it is murder." -Leonard CohenI find if kind of weird since it's at least less objectionable than Kodomo no Jikan, which Eddie flat out said would never come back, as well probably some other things.
Actually, from what I've heard about it, the anime/manga itself can be skeevy, possibly enough that it shouldn't be restored, but it felt like most of the discussion came about because of the premise.
It's also ridiculously unwieldy - it's hard to get back to TV Tropes from the White Page of Death, there's no toolbar, no way to flag it, no nothing. I have no objection to an editing note saying "please do not make a page for this work", but the whole pure white screen is problematic.
Also, I've noticed that there has been almost no petitions for the Manga itself.
The Anime was taken off due to huge amounts of panty shots.(I have no disagreement with the Anime gone) But I'd like to see the Manga closely looked at. If it's still decided it's pedophile-pandering, fair enough. I just would rather see that one given a chance.
Quest 64 thread

To put it bluntly, the porn caused problems and did a lot of damage to wiki revenue and the relationship with Google, so Fast Eddie said "Okay, this shit isn't going to fly anymore and I didn't like it in the first place. It goes."
The root of the issue lies in the perception others (namely, our ad sponsors) have towards us and from there it grew to Fast Eddie attempting to cut off similar issues from occurring in the future.