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.
- 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: 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.
- 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 May 5th 2024 at 6:00:30 PM
My concern is that having a specific mention of a porn variation on the trope will result in the page getting a lot of prurient porn examples.
No, the other one.
Is a porn variation a clean example, though? It's not the same as an example from a pornography work.
Check out my fanfiction!
Lost in Space
Description is not examples. If someone adds a porn example, we just remove it and ban them if appropriate.
If the term "No End In Sight" is just something we made up and is not attracting search hits from outside the wiki, then that sentence could be rephrased, as it is mildly misleading.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Existence Weighed Against Nonbeing
As far as I can tell, not cataloging porn tropes means not cataloging tropes that are specific to porn; examples of non-porn tropes that happen to appear in pornography don't fall under that ban unless they fall foul of the "No prurient content" rule.
Reaction Image Repository
Is the "porn" variant really so distinct as to be worth mentioning considering the ban on porn examples? I don't think the sentence about porn adds anything to the understanding of fiction, apparently it does nothing for the wiki as far as attracting new readers and editors, and it only creates confusion re: what is considered acceptable content.
No, the other one.
After some consideration, I think it may be okay to just remove it. It's not really a different variation, just an explicit mention of what it implies in those cases.
Check out my fanfiction!
I don't expect I can stop the overwhelming censor-happy masses from continuing to mass-remove pages, nor to get removed ones restored, but I do wonder: would it be possible for the moderators to be cordial and, when a page is removed (in the future, and perhaps retroactively in the past, as there is time) make copies of the code in its last version (whatever most extensive, unvandalized) and make it available?
Whatever the community chooses to think of topics and their contributors, much time was put into associating information. Links were woven between ideas and media. To see pure thought eradicated in this way is most upsetting.
I would like to know if it would be possible, as a preliminary measure, to make a chronological list of all pages (tropes and series alike) as they are deleted, so that there is a record of media-which-once-was.
I think we can distinguish notable (but too-controversial) works from things that were pure spam and deleted for lack of quality rather than lack of 'taste'.
With a chronological list, this gives a launching ground if people would like to rehost the content elsewhere. So long as the disliked content is not here, there shouldn't be a problem right?
Would some be potentially opposed to this because of being perceived as 'aiding porn' or something like that? To use the work mentioned on https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheContentPolicyAndThe5PCircuit for example, the data about the controversial work once at https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KodomoNoJikan is gone. Now while that particular work has no doubt been backed up, I worry that other less notable less controversial (but bothersome enough to be deleted) works will forever have their information scrubbed. The Wayback machine just doesn't get to as much these days as it used to.
Could there be an organized effort, with mod approval, to export rather than eradicate anything removed here? Could it be co-operative?
I am pretty sure the answer to your first question is "no". I don't have time for digging out a link right now.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I believe that that has been discussed before, and was decided to be counter-productive. If we allowed such access to the content which has already been voted on to be removed from this site, that's very close to being as bad as not having removed the content at all. TV Tropes as a community has decided that it will not allow itself to be an index for unsavory works - decided by Fast Eddie as being Pornography and/or content which would primarily attract pedophiles - and having this site contain not only a list of everything we've deleted but also keeping all their page content* would essentially countermand that decision entirely.
edited 13th Jan '13 1:35:07 AM by Sabbo
And no, we can't distinguish "notable" works from "spam". After all, a) this distinction is meaningless for our purposes and b) it's even more subjective than the "porn/paedopandering" one.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
In uffish thought
For the record, I oppose the public existence of that list, under consideration of the content policy. Yes it doesn't say why they were cut & locked, but it does give a tidy list of "everything TV Tropes doesn't want". Even the examples of cut works on trope pages don't say that they're stuff we don't want to catalogue further.
We have that list in order to prevent confusion.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
>I don't expect I can stop the overwhelming censor-happy masses from continuing to mass-remove pages
Good news: you don't need to because we are not.
>I think we can distinguish notable (but too-controversial) works from things that were pure spam and deleted for lack of quality rather than lack of 'taste'.
Works aren't deleted for lack of quality. Works can be as atrocious as they want on other measures - if they aren't porn, they aren't removed by P5.
edited 13th Jan '13 3:51:34 AM by Adannor
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
You could just use the Wayback Machine.
Lost in Space
Thanks for the strawman, dude. I should just point out that if you're going to ask us for the source of cut pages, you might not want to jump into your request by calling us "censor-happy".
Regardless, it is our decision not to make P5-cut articles available for copying. That will not change, ever.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Of note, has the previously-mentioned moderator meeting occurred yet?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Lost in Space
Yes. We arrived at a consensus to keep non-problematic examples from P5-cut works. There was something about having those examples link to a "we don't want this work article" message, but I'm a bit fuzzy on the details.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I'll add a note about this in Content Policy - please edit as necessary.
As to the second thing, you could always make these content policy cut pages auto-redirect to the The Content Policy and the 5P Circuit page.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Doubleposting since there is now the famous box above the thread - is it worthwhile to have a link to The Content Policy and the 5P Circuit in the OP?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
Sure. I'm putting it up there...
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Hi
The page that we refer to could always be the list of works that have been P5 evaluated. Maybe that should be its own page outside the fora, with explanations for each list of works and the relevant decision.
edited 16th Jan '13 1:27:36 PM by Willbyr
This one? That doesn't point out the policy itself.
Such a page could simply be added to Content Policy, although it's partially my lumper part of the soul speaking.
edited 16th Jan '13 1:30:33 PM by SeptimusHeap
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Hi
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Yeah, that's the one. The lists could be put in a folder on the Content Policy page with asscaps headers, or in multiple folders under a heading.
edited 16th Jan '13 2:08:58 PM by Willbyr
Only pertaining to this specific example, and perhaps unrelated to policy altogether: if the page "No End In Sight" no longer exists, and the term wasn't used outside TV Tropes in the first place (at the very least, I haven't seen it used), is there a point in keeping it in Offscreen Inertia's description? (As I understand, the current stance is that it would be fine to mention, as an example, that this happens in porn.)
edited 1st Jan '13 2:38:18 AM by Pyrite
Not a substitute for a formal medical consultation.