TV Tropes' "New Content Policy"

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by BigT

You really are dense, aren't you? The enemies are the reason the site keeps getting attacked. It's why they get hacked

That sounds like criminal activity to me. If that's what's going on, TV Tropes should report it to the FBI and then get a lawyer to bring claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

[BigT]

FYI, for my comments here, I've been banned. Yip, because I use the same name here, and he got mad at me.

And people wonder why I think the guy is evil.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by BigT

And people wonder why I think the guy is evil.

You've said he's evil no less than four times in this thread, why wouldn't he ban you?

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

You've said he's evil no less than four times in this thread, why wouldn't he ban you?

Cecil Adams is evil.

Cecil Adams is evil.

Cecil Adams is evil.

Cecil Adams is evil.

Ed Zotti is evil.

Ed Zotti is evil.

Ed Zotti is evil.

Ed Zotti is evil.

? I await my banning.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

? I await my banning.

BigT is actively railing against a policy that TV Tropes has enacted to save its business. Not the community as it currently stands, but the business. As the businessowner, he has a right to ban anyone he sees fit for any reason he sees fit.

So does the SDMB for that matter. The infamous "Don't be a jerk" rule.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

Cecil Adams is evil.

Cecil Adams is evil.

Cecil Adams is evil.

Cecil Adams is evil.

Ed Zotti is evil.

Ed Zotti is evil.

Ed Zotti is evil.

Ed Zotti is evil.

? I await my banning.

I think he's talking about being banned on TV Tropes. This is not to say that Cecil and Ed are not evil ...

[digs]

Originally Posted by BigT

FYI, for my comments here, I've been banned. Yip, because I use the same name here, and he got mad at me.

And people wonder why I think the guy is evil.

Maybe you got banned for saying "Yip"...

Yippers, skippers, ah thinks that twas the dealio.

But seriously, are you saying a TV tropes maven (Fast Eddie his own bad self?) has been reading this thread, and banned you from his site because you're criticizing it over here? That is one paranoid, autocratic response.

[bouv]

Originally Posted by BigT

And people wonder why I think the guy is evil.

I'm trying really hard to follow the logic that someone who is trying to remove content about rape, pedophilia, incest, and other un-savory things is evil...

I guess it's "evil" because he's only doing it to make some money, right? And making money is always evil!

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

BigT is actively railing against a policy that TV Tropes has enacted to save its business. Not the community as it currently stands, but the business. As the businessowner, he has a right to ban anyone he sees fit for any reason he sees fit.

So does the SDMB for that matter. The infamous "Don't be a jerk" rule.

People have rights to do all sorts of things. However you can still legally be a dick. The community as it stands obviously represent something important to some people. You take someone important away from someone you're either delusional, or cruel, if you expect them calmly accept it.

[digs]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

... However you can still legally be a dick.

And thet right thar is what's wrong with the entire frickityfrickin' world, by gum!

Dadburn pesky dick-bein' varmints...

[Acsenray]

He's also tacitly supporting capitulation to those who would employ or threaten of technological attacks to cripple the site.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by bouv

I'm trying really hard to follow the logic that someone who is trying to remove content about rape, pedophilia, incest, and other un-savory things is evil

I think it has something to do with anime fans being intellectually stunted sexual predators.

[Carmady]

Originally Posted by BigT

FYI, for my comments here, I've been banned. Yip, because I use the same name here, and he got mad at me.

And people wonder why I think the guy is evil.

How do you know BigT wasn't banned at TV Tropes because, unbeknownst to you, someone else is using the name BigT on another forum somwhere, saying truly offensive, banworthy things?

[Myrnalene]

Originally Posted by BigT

FYI, for my comments here, I've been banned. Yip, because I use the same name here, and he got mad at me.

And people wonder why I think the guy is evil.

Maybe you were banned because you are as annoying and lacking in perspective in that community as you are here.

Evil? Really, dude?

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by Myrnalene

Maybe you were banned because you are as annoying and lacking in perspective in that community as you are here.

Evil? Really, dude?

Sh-yeah.. "evil". It's the right word...geez. Don't you know anything?

The hierarchy of evil goes:

• Satan
• Hitler
• Stalin
• People who stop BigT from reading kiddie porn, incest porn and tentacle rape porn stuff on their site--because he really enjoys reading that stuff.
  
• < big gap--everyone below this is much less evil...though...still evil >
  
• Pol Pot
• Chairman Mao
• The bad girl (Misfit?) from the Jem and the Holograms cartoon who made a joke that BigT thought was really, REALLY mean!
• Vlad the Impaler
• Ghengis Kahn
• The Cookie Monster because BigT resents the fact that "Cookies are now a Sometimes Treat!" and that's CENSORSHIP!!!!!!!!11!!!!!

So....I hope that taught you a few things, Myrna...if that IS your real name and you're not just a shill for FastEddie who's stalking BigT.

[Smapti]

People who stop BigT from reading kiddie porn, incest porn and tentacle rape porn stuff on their site--because he really enjoys reading that stuff.

I keep seeing this assertion - "TVTropes is a wretched hive of kiddie porn etc. and that's why they have to crack down", but in six years playing around on the site pretty much every day I have never once ever seen any such thing.

Cite?

Even if they deleted it all, the archived version ought to be on Wayback still.

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by Fenris

[*]The bad girl (Misfit?) from the Jem and the Holograms cartoon

No, the Misfits were the name of the bad girl band on Jem and the Holograms. (Can't believe she still remembers this stupid shit)

[Trepa Mayfield]

Originally Posted by Smapti

I keep seeing this assertion - "TVTropes is a wretched hive of kiddie porn etc. and that's why they have to crack down", but in six years playing around on the site pretty much every day I have never once ever seen any such thing.

Cite?

Even if they deleted it all, the archived version ought to be on Wayback still.

Originally Posted by Trepa Mayfield

There used to be unlabelled links to furry torture porn on small trope pages just sitting there (holy god was that disturbing), which I understand they at least make an effort to hide now.

Check the history on the page "Hellevator". But don't say I didn't warn you.

[magnusblitz]

The pages for Lolita and Nightmare Fuel are still up, and Les Yay redirects to Ho Yay.

[Smapti]

Originally Posted by Trepa Mayfield

Check the history on the page "Hellevator". But don't say I didn't warn you.

I see a single deleted reference to a video game where one of the villians is a pedophile, in an article about elevator malfunctions.

Stating that such things as pedophiles exist hardly qualifies as "kiddy porn".

[Hero From Sector 7G]

Originally Posted by BigT

FYI, for my comments here, I've been banned. Yip, because I use the same name here, and he got mad at me.

I think it is more likely you got banned because you are a disgusting human being.

[Hero From Sector 7G]

For those who are actually interested in the real words of the real people doing the cleaning, you can see a very clear and detailed outline here. It directly addresses many of the absurd claims being made here by pedophile apologists.

In summary, we will no longer be hosting articles, forum conversations, reviews, trope examples, or recommendations about pornography. Similarly, we will not permit articles for material designed to appeal to paedophiles or any variation thereof, which we colloquially describe as "paedoshit".

To those who rally against the change: you are unhealthy in mind and should seek help.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Hero From Sector 7G

To those who rally against the change: you are unhealthy in mind and should seek help.

One could argue it's not the forum for it, but discussing pornography is evidence of mental disturbance?

[Fenris]

If the porn is kiddie porn, yes, it's evidence of mental disturbance.

Hence, BigT.


Also, for whoever, upthread, said that the Lolita page was disappeared. If it was, it isn't any more

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by BigT

No. it isn't his site. That's the entire problem. The entire concept of wiki is the contributor owns the content. The fact that he sees it as his site is the reason the site sucks so bad.

I don't know why people bring this up. The idea "This is mine so I can do whatever I want" is the way children think. It's something you're supposed to grow out of as an adult. Why do so many people think this is remotely convincing?

Adults have to think "How does what I do affect everyone else?"

Originally Posted by BigT

FYI, for my comments here, I've been banned. Yip, because I use the same name here, and he got mad at me.

Putting these two posts next to each other is making me laugh like a maniac. Oh, BigT...

[Smapti]

Originally Posted by Hero From Sector 7G

For those who are actually interested in the real words of the real people doing the cleaning, you can see a very clear and detailed outline here. It directly addresses many of the absurd claims being made here by pedophile apologists.



To those who rally against the change: you are unhealthy in mind and should seek help.

What's it called when an arguer asserts that they're right because only a crazy person would disagree with them?

I repeat my request for evidence that this supposed problem of kiddy porn and "pedophile apologists" actually existed or that there was anything on the wiki more explicit than an acknowledgement that works of fiction exist that involve pedophiles.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Trepa Mayfield

Check the history on the page "Hellevator". But don't say I didn't warn you.

Okay, I'm genuinely curious now: is this representative of the kind of content that Fenris and Hero From Sector 7G and various other people in this thread think is so disturbing? Because characterizing the one deleted entry that I saw that had to do with pedophilia as in any way prurient, let alone "child porn", reflects a complete disconnect from reality.

[Fenris]

I've never seen the so-called kiddie porn either. But even if it's not there and the TVTropes guy's comments are just statements about how he won't tolerate it in the future, it doesn't explain why BigT is getting so freakin' hysterical about the alleged kiddie porn/incest/rape stuff being removed.

That said, the TVTropes guy (the "evil" one) doesn't want it there, now or in the future.

So either:

A) It's there and BigT is upset that the tentacle baby-rape porn will be gone
or
B) It's not there but BigT wants there to be tentacle baby-rape porn and he's upset that it won't be allowed there in the future.

Either way, the owner making a statement that kiddie-porn won't be allowed is hardly unreasonable or "evil"

[Grumman]

Originally Posted by Fenris

I've never seen the so-called kiddie porn either. But even if it's not there and the TVTropes guy's comments are just statements about how he won't tolerate it in the future, it doesn't explain why BigT is getting so freakin' hysterical about the alleged kiddie porn/incest/rape stuff being removed.

That said, the TVTropes guy (the "evil" one) doesn't want it there, now or in the future.

So either:

A) It's there and BigT is upset that the tentacle baby-rape porn will be gone
or
B) It's not there but BigT wants there to be tentacle baby-rape porn and he's upset that it won't be allowed there in the future.

Either way, the owner making a statement that kiddie-porn won't be allowed is hardly unreasonable or "evil"

Or C) The TVTropes guy is removing things that aren't tentacle-baby rape porn and calling it that after the fact.

See also: Stephen Conroy.

[Myrnalene]

Originally Posted by Grumman

Or C) The TVTropes guy is removing things that aren't tentacle-baby rape porn and calling it that after the fact.

For example?

They seem to be adding back pages that were removed in their initial fervor (Lolita, as several people have mentioned, is back now). I hate The Man as much as anyone but the new policy seems completely reasonable to me. What's gone that shouldn't be gone? And I mean pages for the actual works, because to be honest fanfic recommendations always struck me as being outside the scope of the site.

[Bosstone]

I think it's mostly just a 'hard work/information shouldn't be thrown away' sentiment, regardless of the content. I'm ambivalent.

[Ranchoth]

Originally Posted by Myrnalene

For example?

They seem to be adding back pages that were removed in their initial fervor (Lolita, as several people have mentioned, is back now).

Um...the pages that were removed in the initial fervor, for example?

And whoa...

One side here uses hyperbole to call someone dastardly,
The other side uses hyperbole to call the protesters dangerous sexual deviants and/or insane.

C'mon, guys, I *know* this is par for the course for an election year, but they haven't even held the party conventions, yet!

[Myrnalene]

Originally Posted by Ranchoth

Um...the pages that were removed in the initial fervor, for example?

Um. So some pages were removed because the mods were overly cautious and then restored.

That's a non-issue. Seriously.

I am asking if anyone has any examples of works that were removed and not restored, that should have been.

[Smapti]

Originally Posted by Myrnalene

They seem to be adding back pages that were removed in their initial fervor (Lolita, as several people have mentioned, is back now). I hate The Man as much as anyone but the new policy seems completely reasonable to me. What's gone that shouldn't be gone? And I mean pages for the actual works, because to be honest fanfic recommendations always struck me as being outside the scope of the site.

A Serbian Film is still gone, and so is Salo, or The 120 Days of Sodom (though de Sade himself still has an entry).

[Trepa Mayfield]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

Okay, I'm genuinely curious now: is this representative of the kind of content that Fenris and Hero From Sector 7G and various other people in this thread think is so disturbing? Because characterizing the one deleted entry that I saw that had to do with pedophilia as in any way prurient, let alone "child porn", reflects a complete disconnect from reality.

I wasn't referring to child porn, I was referring to furry torture porn*. It was in the fanworks section, not (or perhaps cursorily) labelled NSFW, and was normal for a chapter before suddenly randomly turning into incredibly disgusting pornography. It's silly to split hairs like that though, because once you reach a certain level of disturbing it doesn't exactly matter what kind of disturbing it is.

*Erotic beheadings, vore, copulating while being flayed, etc.

[Jragon]

I've been looking up a lot of supposedly nuked pages and they're back up with the examples removed (such as "lolicon"), which I suppose is a reasonable compromise. I think it's a little bit of an over-reaction (I don't see anything wrong with noting that, yes, some published, famous works have lolicon in them) and would argue that nuking works that focus themselves on paedophilic content (with an exemption for the culturally significant such as Lolita or 120 Days of Sodom) would be sufficient, but what are you gonna do?

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Trepa Mayfield

I wasn't referring to child porn, I was referring to furry torture porn*. It was in the fanworks section, not (or perhaps cursorily) labelled NSFW, and was normal for a chapter before suddenly randomly turning into incredibly disgusting pornography. It's silly to split hairs like that though, because once you reach a certain level of disturbing it doesn't exactly matter what kind of disturbing it is.

*Erotic beheadings, vore, copulating while being flayed, etc.

Okay, I don't really understand what you're talking about, then, because I looked on the history of "Hellevator" and there was nothing even vaguely resembling that.

[Jragon]

Originally Posted by Jragon

paedophilic content (with an exemption for the culturally significant such as Lolita or 120 Days of Sodom) would be sufficient, but what are you gonna do?

Er "Paedophilic or otherwise objectionable content"

[Smapti]

Originally Posted by Trepa Mayfield

I wasn't referring to child porn, I was referring to furry torture porn*. It was in the fanworks section, not (or perhaps cursorily) labelled NSFW, and was normal for a chapter before suddenly randomly turning into incredibly disgusting pornography. It's silly to split hairs like that though, because once you reach a certain level of disturbing it doesn't exactly matter what kind of disturbing it is.

So it's not actual furry porn content on the Wiki, just a reference to the fact that it exists or there's a link to it? That's a pretty weak basis for demanding censorship.

I don't know about anyone else, but I personally always just ignored the fanfic recs sections because fanfic doesn't interest me, and I certainly didn't go around clicking on every link that was up on a page. (I don't even click most links on this board.)

[Jragon]

Originally Posted by Smapti

So it's not actual furry porn content on the Wiki, just a reference to the fact that it exists or there's a link to it? That's a pretty weak basis for demanding censorship.

In fact, wasn't that pretty much the exact reason people freaked out about SOPA?

[Trepa Mayfield]

Originally Posted by Smapti

So it's not actual furry porn content on the Wiki, just a reference to the fact that it exists or there's a link to it? That's a pretty weak basis for demanding censorship.

I'm not demanding censorship, I'm just not surprised that it's being demanded. I would also rather like it if all the fanfic and Survival of the Fittest examples were removed, just so that it would gain some veneer of respectability instead of being considered totally degenerate by outsiders. And I'm a little sad that I've outgrown fandom, and have been looking back with it with a combination of nostalgia and horror. And I called out BigT as a drama queen, before he got banned for trying to start inter-fora wars. And, due to this thread, I recalled the searing visceral disgust that I felt when finding shockingly depraved pornography on the internet back when I was a pure innocent lamb, so I shared it with the thread.

That's been the entirety of my contributions to the thread.

[Ranchoth]

Ugh...as much as I hate to dredge up this whole dreary mess again, I just had to add this.

Apparently, due to someone else complaining, in the last few days, the site site decided to censor all tropes involving rape. Including rape as used (or overused) as backstory; "Mind Rape" (as in, psychic violations, often treated the same or as a standin for physical rape); rape as being considered exceptionally vile even by villains, etc. So for everybody's peace of mind...

I just...eech. Words fail me.

[Der Trihs]

Predictable; once they decided to go the censorship route the self-gutting of the site was pretty inevitable. I expect most content will eventually be erased, given that virtually everything offends someone, and they'll be left wondering why almost no one visits the burnt out husk of their site.

[Leaper]

The pages are still there (albeit unreachable at the moment). One of the mods says they're discussing this with Google.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Predictable; once they decided to go the censorship route the self-gutting of the site was pretty inevitable. I expect most content will eventually be erased, given that virtually everything offends someone, and they'll be left wondering why almost no one visits the burnt out husk of their site.

Without pedophilia, is life even worth living?

[John DiFool]

Can I go to their Website Decay page and add them?

[Smapti]

"Due to the seventh Google incident we will no longer be allowing pages relating to television, as they were unacceptably offensive to our Amish and Luddite readers."

To reiterate what I said in April - when did the ads stop existing to help the Wiki, and the Wiki came to be a deliver medium for the ads?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

Without pedophilia, is life even worth living?

The isn't about indulging in or watching portrayals of pedophilia, rape, or other objectionable activities; the is about refusing to mention them even if a character opposes them or it's an important plot point. Which will make any synopsis of various shows incomprehensible; why did Jane shoot Bill? We can't say! Apparently, she just killed him for no reason, and everyone else went along with it for no reason, and the law let her get away with killing him also for no reason.

[Smapti]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

The isn't about indulging in or watching portrayals of pedophilia, rape, or other objectionable activities; the is about refusing to mention them even if a character opposes them or it's an important plot point. Which will make any synopsis of various shows incomprehensible; why did Jane shoot Bill? We can't say! Apparently, she just killed him for no reason, and everyone else went along with it for no reason, and the law let her get away with killing him also for no reason.

And let's hope the gun control lobby doesn't complain that tvvtropes is glorifyng violence, because then we won't even know WHAT she did. I'm reminded of the "Prince Charles has been accused f doing something, and I can't tell you what, but trust me, it's not true" incident a few years back.

[Trepa Mayfield]

Originally Posted by Smapti

To reiterate what I said in April - when did the ads stop existing to help the Wiki, and the Wiki came to be a deliver medium for the ads?

Presumably, it was the exact moment when the cost to maintain the website exceeded the spare income of the website administrators.