# TV Tropes' "New Content Policy" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 16, 2012, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-tropes-new-content-policy/618936 "2012-04-16T09:43:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/65b543/32.png) [@Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hero_From_Sector_7G)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-tropes-new-content-policy/618936/121 "2012-04-30T06:37:28Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/65b543/32.png) [@Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hero_From_Sector_7G)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-tropes-new-content-policy/618936/122 "2012-04-30T13:33:50Z")
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](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=kiqoyj58taihfp8hpbezck0s&page=2#46). 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. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-tropes-new-content-policy/618936/123 "2012-04-30T14:50:00Z")
> [@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? ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-tropes-new-content-policy/618936/124 "2012-04-30T17:06:07Z")
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](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/Lolita) ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-tropes-new-content-policy/618936/125 "2012-04-30T17:46:27Z")
> [@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?” > [@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… ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-tropes-new-content-policy/618936/126 "2012-04-30T22:12:30Z")
> [@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](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=kiqoyj58taihfp8hpbezck0s&page=2#46). 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. ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-tropes-new-content-policy/618936/127 "2012-04-30T22:24:28Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-tropes-new-content-policy/618936/128 "2012-04-30T23:23:27Z")
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” ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2012, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-tropes-new-content-policy/618936/129 "2012-05-01T02:30:20Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Myrnalene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c4cdca/32.png) [@Myrnalene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Myrnalene)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2012, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-tropes-new-content-policy/618936/130 "2012-05-01T02:47:52Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2012, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-tropes-new-content-policy/618936/131 "2012-05-01T03:11:18Z")
I think it’s mostly just a ‘hard work/information shouldn’t be thrown away’ sentiment, regardless of the content. I’m ambivalent. ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2012, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-tropes-new-content-policy/618936/132 "2012-05-01T03:24:21Z")
> [@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! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Myrnalene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c4cdca/32.png) [@Myrnalene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Myrnalene)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2012, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-tropes-new-content-policy/618936/133 "2012-05-01T04:20:18Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2012, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-tropes-new-content-policy/618936/134 "2012-05-01T05:46:34Z")
> [@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). ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2012, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-tropes-new-content-policy/618936/135 "2012-05-01T15:29:04Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2012, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-tropes-new-content-policy/618936/136 "2012-05-01T15:30:40Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2012, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-tropes-new-content-policy/618936/137 "2012-05-01T18:50:06Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2012, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-tropes-new-content-policy/618936/138 "2012-05-01T19:56:07Z")
> [@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” ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2012, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-tropes-new-content-policy/618936/139 "2012-05-01T20:05:01Z")
> [@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.) ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2012, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-tropes-new-content-policy/618936/140 "2012-05-01T20:57:15Z")
> [@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? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-tropes-new-content-policy/618936.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-tropes-new-content-policy/618936.md?page=8)