Content Policy Discussion

What about ones that never had a page?

If the P5 preemptively declared it can't have a page before it ever had one, then say that in the note.

1000 Origami Cranes is a good reference point as it contains the sole page image and example for a famously P5-cut work, with notes explaining not to wick to it.

I also did something similar by adding a SFW example from the very NSFW webcomic Oh Joy Sex Toy to AprilFoolsDay.Web Original, with a commented-out note not to actually link to the webcomic.

Edited by mightymewtron on Mar 11th 2022 at 2:02:45 PM

And If there was no 5p action but there is no way in hell it is going to get even one angel head?

Same thing, just say not to make a page for the work because it's NSFW.

You're making this needlessly complicated. The work is porn. It doesn't have a page and never will because it's porn. The exact bureaucratic details of whether the P5 have actually had a discussion about it yet are not the point.

Many policies already say to not create work pages for NSFW works, including Red Link. If anyone decides to "fill the red blank", clearly they'd know what the work has and likely haven't paid attention to the rulebook. If there's no note and if they're unsure what's allowed, they can always ask about it.

We have plenty of pages for Porn with Plot, and even more for Not Safe for Work content available online. Also, the comic has been described as educational and hilarious, though I don't know how the P5 approaches this kind of thing.

Edited by N1KF on Mar 11th 2022 at 7:47:51 AM

If there's any question about the work then raise the discussion here.

I would recommend folks not to say "NSFW". The term applies to many works that would pass 5P scrutiny.

I think we can replace the 1000 Origami Cranes image with an image from Paper Mario: The Origami King though that may be too spoilery.

Edited by TheLivingDrawing on Mar 12th 2022 at 1:17:37 PM

That would be for the IP forum.

You know what, this probably isn't the thread either. Sorry for my mistake.

Edited by Ymirsdaughter on Jun 23rd 2022 at 10:28:56 AM

The example is moved. The discussion about that is still ongoing. Actually may be worth bringing it up there.

And yes, this is a completely wrong place.

Edited by Amonimus on Jun 23rd 2022 at 8:31:14 PM

This has nothing at all to do with content policy. You might want to bring this up on this thread.

What is the policy on what might be called second-hand troping of what is probably a p5-violating work?

Recap.Peeking Through The Fourth Wall After Dark 1 is part of a fanfic series about Characters from The Loud House reading and reacting to Fanfics about themselves. This particular episode has them reacting to an underage (15 & 17 yo.) Sibling-Incest-Rape fic. (Said fic actually exists.) Quite a few entries on that page seem to reference the Squick-fic itself.

I think it's fine if the entire series isn't reviewing NSFW fic and the work is censored in the riffing. The Cinema Snob has reviewed literal pornography, but it's not the entire series and the reviews are usually censored, so there's jokes to discuss besides the porn stuff.

also, trope examples from non-P5 safe works are allowed as long as the examples themselves aren't in violation and the work isn't linked to.

As a point of information, these metafics typically quote a lot of excerpts from the fic being reviewed, and as such may include pornographic parts in their own body of text rather than merely talking about them.

And checking this episode in particular, yes it does include the entire sex scene. Not kosher for the wiki. We could ban the individual episode perhaps?

Edited by Adannor on Jun 30th 2022 at 10:24:05 PM

Perhaps we could just say not to link to the episode?

Well, it isn't linked on the page. The series' main page has a link to the author's DA account in general, but all of the After Dark (Raunchy) subseries is behind DA's age gate. I'm not interested in reading the thing - I ran across it while running a wick-clean. Just not sure where the policy line is here.

Entirely separate question:

When working over a trope page to add missing wikiwords, how should I handle situations where I suspect that the work would be a P5 violator? Assume that there is enough context to determine that there is explicit content that I, personally, don't want to read. Also assume that the example itself is safe for the site.

Should I Red Link it anyway, and figure that It'll get cleaned up later? Leave un-wiki-worded? Comment as probably content policy violator?

I'd go with the second option. Leave "is this gonna be P5ed?" to the future.

I'd say bring the example(s) to the P5 thread for feedback first.

Good idea. Will do.

The Content Policy and the 5P Circuit states that "non-problematic" examples from cut works can be kept, so if the example is clean then I'd think it wouldn't need review.

Having a Red Link could be helpful, since it makes the examples easier to clean, or crosswick in case the work is allowed to have its own page.