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
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
I suspended that user and cut the page.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Fighteer, I'd like to add a proposal, in the spirit of reducing the aggravation TV Tropes might encounter when dealing with people who want to talk about subjects that are verboten here, such as works not allowed by the censorship policy.
Basically, direct them to sites where they can do that, like All The Tropes on Orain and Wikia (there is precedent for this, which is why the Troper Tales and Fetish Fuel wikis were created).
It keeps the hassle of removing and censuring these tropers down, allowing them to post their content where it is acceptable, and keeps at bay the wrath of Google. It also has the added benefit of reducing the amount of malcontents who might try evading the policy here, which I condemn and would like to help TV Tropes enforce.
And, if there is ever a future time where our sites can share content again and those works are allowed again, TV Tropes can reimport those works with proper attribution pursuant to any policy for what is acceptable here at that point in time, so win-win for all parties concerned.
Fair enough, Bestof, that was not my intention.
My intention was that there could be a disclaimer that says on certain pages something to the effect of "we don't host examples for x, here's (insert links to suitable alternatives) where that would be welcome.
You could also add: This is not an endorsement, and we take no responsibility for nor give official sanction to these offsites, they are merely here as information where pages related to topics we don't allow would be more welcome.
Wikipedia has a page where they do something similar.
![]()
You still think we want to give you free advertising and referrals? After everything?
![]()
I beg to differ:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Alternative_outlets
They even make it clear just providing links is NOT endorsement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Alternative_outlets#Directory_of_alternatives
Fighteer, this doesn't just apply to ATT, This can be used for ANY content not suitable for TV Tropes that another site could handle better that TV Tropes does not wish to host. (again, I cite the Troper Tales and Fetish Fuel precedents)
edited 7th Feb '15 3:12:48 PM by GethN7
There's something called Google. Ironically, it can be used to search for things that they won't let us talk about on our site.
edited 7th Feb '15 3:20:52 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I have a problem with A Serbian Film; the 5P decided to leave the page trope example free but someone has now cutlisted it for being a stub.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanThe issue is that that page is in violation of the stub rules by virtue of the 5P vote. Back then it didn't matter much but nowadays we are much stricter about stub articles. I want to get this problem sorted before accepting or declining the request.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanIt seems somewhat pointless to keep a work article without any examples.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Why do we have it without a list of tropes, come to think of it? At the very least, Squick and Nightmare Fuel aptly describe its content; we could just strongly emphasize that any and all entries must avoid being too descriptive of the unwholesome stuff that fill this work.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Unfortunately, both of those are subjective so they wouldn't go on the main article. Surely it has some narrative and setting tropes at the very least.
edited 9th Feb '15 11:09:25 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Regarding GethN7's proposal, can someone clarify: Is the position of 'we will not endorse [etc]' required by the agreement that was made with Google? Or is it just the whim of the administrators?
Join my forum game!I wouldn't call it a "whim". It's our official moderation policy, supported by the entire staff. It certainly isn't something that Google came down from on high and demanded.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The Second Google Incident. Read that, and the related threads in the forums.
The more prurient sites were originally created by dissatisfied tropers to transplant material cut or edited after the Second Incident.
What ticked off a lot of people was that the complaints to Google are held to be anonymous, with no right of reply to the complainer -which could just be someone whining because they'd been banned for violating site policies. Google Ads flip out and block first, then listen to appeals -which take forever to get done. Fast Eddie was paying the difference between ad money and server cost out of his own pocket as it was; he couldn't afford to pay for the bulk of the cost.
It has a lot to do with why the new admins set up the Kickstarter and are looking for advertisers other than Google.
Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry PratchettThe thing is that, while none of us are fans of Google, the current staffly people will still be behind the existing policies on pedo and porn even if Google's gone (if I'm not mistaken). We might get a restoration on Naughty Tentacles if the P5 are okay with it, but we're never seeing Chibi Usas Seventh Birthday brought back to this site.
edited 10th Feb '15 9:02:37 PM by Ramidel
