Content Policy Discussion

Created Content Policy as a beta (the formatting is still weird and there are several Walls of Text) for a policy page for the content policy as derived from the forum threads. I took most of the posts' content more or less identically, except:

• I removed the ALLCAPS, as there is no need for shouting.
• lolicon and shotacon have several meanings unrelated to out content policy and just invite misflaggings, so I removed them from the Q&A bit. It they do neverthless belong, readd them.
• I replaced any "p(a)edoshit" with "p(a)edopandering" as per the discussion earlier.

Looks good for the most part, but do away with that redlink to KnJ, please.

Unredlinked it, since it's a likely scenario to happen here.

Also, the Q&A was taken from a rather wordy GA post. I think we can shorten some of the entries; permission to proceed?

For the record (not that I'm suggesting reviewing all of these), here are the "Pages Pending For Perusal By P5" that were not formally resolved:

• Addergoole: page is pretty sparse (little more than a bare trope list), but does contain a lot of sex tropes.
  • Defense: While there are sex tropes involved, the story itself is not pornographic & the sex is a small part of a very large story
• Batman In the Bowels of Hell: Porn with bare threads of plot
• Bakemonogatari: Sexualization of several underage female characters.
• Boku Wa Tomodachi Ga Sukunai: Maria and Kobato are very much underage.
• The Brown Bunny: Porn with Plot, but the only explicit scene is a blowjob scene.
• Cannibal Ferox, Cannibal Holocaust: Gorn that averts No Animals Were Harmed
• Cats N Cameras: page says "NC-17 rated" and that it has "copious amounts of Fanservice."
  • Defense: "but has more plot that sex. It's just that when sex happens they don't skip past it."
• Chester 5000 XYV: identified as erotic and explicitly sexual.
  • Defense: "Erotic, but deep and focuses more on showing how relationships develop and love than just on sex. Might qualify is borderline erotica, but wouldn't count as porn."
• Chimneyspeak: Gory violence, nudity, non-explicit sex, page has links to artist's other NSFW (and much more porny) works. Child prostitution is referenced but not shown, and is a Berserk Button of one of the main protagonists.
  • Proposal: Cut all direct links, lock page.
• Chintsubu: Described as "a manga about boys with talking penises", contains sexual humor involving possibly-underaged characters. The person submitting it does not know how explicit the manga actually is but still feels that it should be looked over. Context: Smutty gag comedy, characters are identified as second- and third-year high school (~16-18), but one is young-looking enough that the author feels the need to add a little "note: high school student" label during his first sex scene.
• Chugworth Academy: stub article, but calls it a "sexist comic" and alludes to "sexual exploits."
• Corruption Of Champions: Sex and fetish transformation game. The premise seems to involve rape a lot.
• Dumbledore's Army and the Year of Darkness: Rape as Drama twice
  • Defense: As with many of these entries, the rape is not the main focus of the fic
• The Idolmaster: Several underaged characters depicted in sexualized fashion.
  • Defense: No actual sex is shown
• IT: There's one particularly infamous scene where a bunch of underage kids have sex. The trope page mentions that they are so underage that it's highly unlikely that they could have even performed the sexual acts they're said to perform in the book.
  • Defense: This appears to be another test case of sorts of what is going to pass by this council, as IT is very much a legitimate work in the Stephen King collection of horror novels.
• legolas by laura: Lolicon, according to the trope page (main character is 10).
  • Defense(?): The most explicit this gets is "and then one of the Orcs striped her and then he raped her". Not erotic in any way.
• Lovemagic: described as an "adult webcomic" and "very NSFW"; apparently also contains Naughty Tentacles prominently in one section.
• The Mating Frenzy: Plotless porn.
• Neo Armageddon Evangelist Looks to be a porn fic centered around rape as a Deus Sex Machina, plus it seems some characters are under 16 when raped. Also has Naughty Tentacles involved. The recommendation for this fic was removed for the aforementioned reasons when the "no Lemon fics w/under-16 characters" was introduced.
• Seikon No Qwaser: Borderline hentai with Audience-Alienating Premise (namely, that magic powers in this universe are powered by sucking on womens' breasts).
  • Defence: No sex at all, a heavily censored TV version is available that puts Censor Bars over any nudity and heavy on the plot.
• South Park: To be fair, it does need cleaning.
  • Defense: A clean-up thread in Special Efforts is underway.
• Starfighter: page says "NSFW for graphic sex, but has a SFW filter page."— how do we handle these sorts of things?

Some comments: I recall IT being zapped off the list, but that one scene was discussed. The P5 seems to make a point of not cutting South Park or anything else like it; the page cleanup is probably already done by now. Corruption Of Champions was cut during the initial purge, but seems like a terrible candidate for restoration.

^That goes into the other thread; The Place For Purging Porn and Pedo-Pandering. Or flag them all.

Bakemonogatari and The Idolmaster were looked at and found to be harmless.

Cannibal Holocaust was looked at as well, and I cleaned up most of South Park myself a few months ago.

EDIT: Because South Park is not a live-action show. XD

edited 30th Aug '12 1:12:59 PM by LargoQuagmire

@Septimus: Permission granted.

OK, trimming underway. Will report back.

EDIT: Did the first pass, will come back later.

Edits:

• Under the "is this endorsement" section, I cut out the lenghty description to just a reference to Greedy Jew, Mein Kampf and Adolf Hitler (Godwin's Law, ahoy!), since theys probably work just as well.
• The Wikipedia bullet was mostly wrong, so I just added the actual rules in.
• Authorial intent is not important, just the outcome. Trimmed down the section.
• I removed the "loli" bit since it's tangential to the topic.

There are a few things that need more trimming, but I didn't dare touch them before, so I will ask for discussion.

• The first and eight Q&A can get into another folder ("The longer explanation")
• Q&A 3 can probably be just a link to Five P
• Q&A 4 is probably the most controversial: It's the core bit of the policy, and the because an adult having sex with an underage person is wrong in just about any society bit is walking on the edge of being both irrelevant and incorrect.
• Q&A 5 ("Exceptions") can go in the "asking for review" folder.
• Q&A 6 seems to be explaining semantics. I think it can safely be rolled into Q&A 4.
• Q&A 7: Someone else will have to decide here.

edited 30th Aug '12 1:43:24 PM by SeptimusHeap

I put the list of works from the sandbox in the P5 thread.

Bakemonogatari, Boku wa Tomodachi ga Sukunai, IT and The Mating Frenzy were all reviewed and found to be okay, from what I recall.

Edited because I am abusing Firefox tabs.

edited 30th Aug '12 3:47:59 PM by LargoQuagmire

Mate, this is the policy discussion thread, not the work discussion thread.

I am so mixed up in threads. I'll move over there, sorry.

Applied some more expansion to Content Policy. Now, what we need to do is:

1. Proof-check that I accurately reflected all passages (especially on my summary of the rules in the description and on the scanlation links thing).
2. Add a folder concerning the history of the policy.
3. Cut down on the now-useless elaboration in the FAQ section.
4. Pick a name and launch the sandbox.

Making some very minor tweaks to the sandbox. Will update when complete.

• Added the disclaimer on En. Wikipedia's occasional inaccuracy about manga demographics
• Deleted the line on the "ccoa test" as the criteria is listed elsewhere on the page in a better place
• Deleted "No pressure, lads :p" as it's a leftover from copypasting Bobby G's post
• Removed a stray asterisk, assumed it was a typo
• Changed "point 4" to "point 3 and 4"
• Fixed scattered punctuation errors and other typos

Before any sort of official launch, it would probably be best to hear back from the other P5ers.

edited 30th Aug '12 5:32:21 PM by tdgoodrich1

I added the folder about the history, and another for further reading. Now (apart from proofchecking by the other 5P) it's only about further shortening of the FAQ.

Also, Discar, I removed the links to lolicon because the page's description does not at all match common usage of the term. So, barring any last-day objections, I'll repull the link.

edited 31st Aug '12 11:06:05 AM by SeptimusHeap

Whoops, sorry. I should have brought that up here first.

Re-pulled.

For the record, I wasn't objecting to you editing the page (Sandboxes Are A Free Edit), but the fact that the actual description of lolicon doesn't matter.

EDIT: Sorry, wrong thread.

edited 31st Aug '12 12:26:47 PM by DoktorvonEurotrash

^Again, wrong thread; use the The Place one.

I created a glossary folder and trimmed away at the redundant pieces, moving them to better sections. To wit:

• The sections about minors and whether we want paedophiles are probably just trivia.
• Google Incident is explained in the policy history.
• I changed 14 to 12 in the "OK in culture X" section, since a) in fact, it's OK in a few countries and b) sexualization can also refer to fanservice, and that is often OK of 14-year olds.
• I have completely rewritten the Wikipedia entry, as it was painting the other wiki inaccurately in some places (understaffment and resulting issues exist there as well, for instance).

If any of these should be kept, let me know.

Moved glossary to directly above "Further reading" tab. Having it in the middle was just awkward. Apart from that, I don't have any problems with the sandbox.

I'm not sure the difference between guro and gorn is clearly illustrated in Content Policy. Someone who knows what guro is already might get it, but others will find it rather obtuse.

The main difference between Guro and Gorn is that Guro is a lot more sexualized than regular Gorn, and it's meant to appeal to a fetishistic interest. Gorn, on the other hand, is over-the-top violence and gore that's primarily seen in horror and the more violent action movies, and it's primarily meant to appeal to the audience's craving for "blood, blood and more blood."

edited 1st Sep '12 8:54:10 AM by TwoGunAngel