All The Tropes Wiki Project, Part XVII

[robkelk]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dost_test

This test is about whether adolescent or child nudity is or is not obscene. Is there any nudity in the film? (I don't know - I haven't seen the film.)

It's also specific to the USA, although there's a similar (but IIRC not identical) legal test in Canada. Does a similar test exist in the UK or the Netherlands, where Miraheze and by extension ATT is physically located? I think we need to know what laws apply in the places that have jurisdiction over the wiki.


EDIT: Also, is this the only test that applies? A movie with sex but no nudity would automatically pass the Dost test, just like a movie with only one character would automatically fail the Bechdel test.

[GethN7]

Now, we may not want to discuss movie this right now, because people are currently in freak-out mode about it.  And that's okay.  I doubt an on-wiki discussion about it would be all that fruitful right now.  But the point of academic freedom is to be able to discuss these kinds of works that people find problematic.

Agreed.  I found the pre-emptive locking of the page very disturbing given our academic freedom policy.  That smacks of TVTropes behavior -- "we don't approve of this so we won't let anyone even acknowledge it exists".  I thought the whole point of ATT was that we didn't do stuff like that, that we were better than TVT and their reflexive "pedoshit" declarations.

But as you point out, people are in full-blown chicken-with-head-cut-off mode.  No one's going to listen to anyone else until it all shakes out one way or the other.

EDIT:  But as a note, Geth, it is not illegal to discuss child pornography, or even a specific work thereof.  Discussion of obscenity is not obscene -- that's been pretty much solidly established for decades.  However, if you're going to unilaterally insist that a work is so eeeeevul that it cannot even be acknowledged by the wiki, let alone discussed, well...  I think I have Fast Eddie's hat around here somewhere for you.

Believe me, I didn't make this decision overnight. When I first heard of it, I thought it was skeevy like Toddlers and Tiaras but not pedophilia, but here's some sources on the contents that are pretty convincing:

https://www.lacortenews.com/n/netflix-re...pedophilia

https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/ent/ne...uties.html

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/...pedophilia

https://www.waynedupree.com/2020/09/cuti...ild-abuse/

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/...king-film/

https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/10/netlf...-doucoure/

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2...ies-worse/

https://indianexpress.com/article/explai...s-6564578/

https://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/cuties-ou...40568.html

https://www.ibtimes.co.in/cancel-netflix...ash-827910


This is just but a sample of what I found, feel free to look into more sources if you think I'm an idiot or suckered by scaremongering. If anyone wants to undo the creation protection, go for it, but I want it on record I absolutely oppose it because I DESPISE censorship as much as anyone else, I believe I have a long record on that that needs no elaboration for this but based on the preponderance of the evidence, I for one have become more than convinced we shouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole and am willing to leave ATT over this if I have to.

I consider myself politically centrist. I'm a Christian but I've not let my religious beliefs compromise my objectivity of lots of other content being covered on ATT prior. However, this is something, after checking out the controversy myself and getting descriptions from those who seen it from multiple sources that all confirm the same details, that not allowing this coverage is the only correct thing to do.

Undo my decision if you like, but I want on record if we get a page on this, I'm leaving for reasons of personal conscience from the Miraheze Branch. I'll continue to manage the Wikia Branch since I'm the only one who maintains that branch, but I will step down from ATT Miraheze and sleep at night if they cover this.


P.S. - Some tweets with clips of some of the most horrifying parts. I refuse to watch this, the descriptions are horrifying enough and match what else I read and heard.


https://mobile.twitter.com/GhostJim4/sta...2528081920

https://twitter.com/GhostJim4/status/130...48547?s=20

https://mobile.twitter.com/GhostJim4/sta...8169689088

https://mobile.twitter.com/GhostJim4/sta...9356650496

Some Youtube clips of the horror:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqqHlG5BeVs

[robkelk]

However, if you're going to unilaterally insist that a work is so eeeeevul that it cannot even be acknowledged by the wiki, let alone discussed, well...  I think I have Fast Eddie's hat around here somewhere for you.

Aaaaaand I think it's time for everybody to take a step back from this discussion. It's getting personal.


So... (searches for a topic change) ...Anybody want to help put licenses on old images? I now have a complete set of lists of which images need them.

[GethN7]

However, if you're going to unilaterally insist that a work is so eeeeevul that it cannot even be acknowledged by the wiki, let alone discussed, well...  I think I have Fast Eddie's hat around here somewhere for you.

Aaaaaand I think it's time for everybody to take a step back from this discussion. It's getting personal.


So... (searches for a topic change) ...Anybody want to help put licenses on old images? I now have a complete set of lists of which images need them.

I'm not offended, Rob, this does look like Fast Eddie style decision on the surface, Bob is right.

Thing is, I wouldn't dare want to be accused of doing anything he did unless I was quite sure I'd be able to justify it legally, and in this case, I believe my decision is firmly on the side of NOT performing necromancy on Jeffrey Epstein. If I turn out to be absolutely wrong, so be it, but one thing we agreed to since day one is we would not host content that would be considered inherently illegal, and I'm firmly convinced, regardless what Netflix thinks, this hits that threshold.

I've provided evidence of my claims for independent review and the movie itself is now available in most countries save Turkey (who have outright banned it), so anyone who wants to give it look see and take the legal risk to prove me right or wrong has what they need to do so.


EDIT:

I'd be fine with us have a locked stub giving basic information about it's existence at best, that's not unreasonable, but I'd still have to give a hard no to troping child porn.

[Bob Schroeck]

I'll review your links sometime tonight or this weekend, as time allows, Geth. I just don't want to do so on work time and work hardware.

[GethN7]

I'll review your links sometime tonight or this weekend, as time allows, Geth.  I just don't want to do so on work time and work hardware.

Fair enough. I'll abide by what consensus decision is made once everyone else has had a chance to do so and has their own take.

[Labster]

What I'm getting from all of those links is that it's okay to share literary criticism on other websites here, but not to share literary criticism about it on All The Tropes. Is that what you were going for, Geth?

Here's a take by an author, linked from one of my Twitter friends: https://twitter.com/JASutherlandBks/stat...1031018496

[GethN7]

What I'm getting from all of those links is that it's okay to share literary criticism on other websites here, but not to share literary criticism about it on All The Tropes.  Is that what you were going for, Geth?

I won't be party to troping child porn. I will leave ATT Miraheze before we do that.

It's worth noting this movie may be declared illegal if found to violate child exploitation/child porn laws:

https://www.newsweek.com/netflix-movie-c...er-1531254

And even if we DO have a page on it, the most I'd be comfortable with a locked stub with basic information about its existence that is locked from editing except by admins. Any more than that, and you have my word I will resign my position on ATT and the rest of you can deal with the Miraheze branch. I'll retain control over the Wikia version since I'm the only one maintaining it, but the rest of you can remove me from the Miraheze version because I will be ashamed and disgusted to be associated with it.

That said, you and everyone else with some say can run the risk, look at yourself, and make up your own minds. If I'm outvoted and people can trope what I have every reason to believe constitutes child pornography, I'll pack my bags and leave. If not, then I'll stay.

I have no other personal alternative that will let me sleep at night. I took preemptive action to defend against a legal colony drop of Earth-shattering proportions based on what I deemed good reason, and I'll leave if I'm outvoted and you want to bear that risk.

[Labster]

Bob, I think we need to move this thread to the Politics forum. There's no real way to continue the discussion here in General that would address all of the political issues going on here.

[Bob Schroeck]

I can copy the thread and nuke the predecessor messages in the copy. The question remains, do I leave the originals here afterward? And another question: Geth's already made up his mind, and has made it clear that nothing's going to change it. Is it even worth discussing any further?

EDIT:

Some Youtube clips of the horror:

From the way you've been ranting, I was expecting clothes flying, nudity and simulated sex acts. That was... I don't want to say "tame" but compared to the images your hysterical comments brought to my mind, it was. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, Geth, but if that counts as "child pornography" to you, why aren't you out protesting the way pre-teen gymnasts display and contort their bodies?

And why am I not surprised it was a Republican senator who turned this into an issue? I have to agree with one of the commentators I read -- if this were about boys, no one would have blinked. And if the poster hadn't triggered a good ol' Texas boy looking for an issue to make a name with, it would have been seen as a critique on Islam.

[robkelk]

I'd say leave only the non-contentious content here. If it's contentious enough to be in Politics, then it's too contentious for General.

But leave a pointer, even if you have to post a reply to make one.

[GethN7]

I can copy the thread and nuke the predecessor messages in the copy.  The question remains, do I leave the originals here afterward?

Might as well, just a leave a note those messages should be responded to in the new thread in the politics section.

[GethN7]

I'm going to save you guys some pain. I quit and surrender all responsibility to ATT Miraheze RIGHT. NOW.

I mean it. Have them take my founders rights and one of you take over. I won't dare stick around having any say over a place that condones this. I have to sleep at night, and I don't want it said I had anything to do with condoning this garbage or even passively allowing more than I stated prior.

This isn't an issue of politics, it's an issue of basic morality, and I'm appalled and disgusted at what I seeing right now that I'm the only one who sees that.

I'll manage ATT Wikia, it's run by me anyway, but I hereby disavow any further association with ATT Miraheze until this matter has been settled descively in a legal manner one way or another.

Again, I have no personal animus here, I just have to make a decision based on personal conscience, and that decision means I no longer want any power over ATT Miraheze if this is going to be condoned in any way.

Edit: Already stripped all my user rights save my bureaucrat one, Miraheze Staff need to do that, please have them do so ASAP.

[robkelk]

Geth, I'm not going to act on that until everybody has had time to cool off. If you still want to do this in 11 hours (12, minus the one that it's been since you posted), then I'll ask Miraheze to revoke your Bureaucrat and Founder rights (unless Bob or Brent beat me to it), but not before then.

As for the topic that brought us to this point...

I still haven't seen the movie, but I have read over two-thirds of the user reviews at IMDb as of this posting, especially this one, this one, and this one. I think this avoids the right-wing only-Christianity-can-serve-as-a-moral-framework bias that's present in the first seven links that you posted above.

What's the trope about doing something that you want to warn other people not to do? "Moral Myopia" comes close. And, from what I'm seeing there (even in the reviews that say it's a good movie), there appears to be a ethical myopia present in the movie. Twerking per se is not necessarily porn. Concentrating on the pre-teens' lower torsos while they twerk, however, is.

(EDIT: There's also a So Bad It's Horrible undercurrent in the reviews, and a Contemptible Covers issue with Netflix's original poster, but those are peripheral to the issues with the movie.)

If for some reason both Brent and Bob pass on taking the equivalent of the Founder rights and leave that to me, then I'll leave this page lock in place... until we can figure out how to write a page similar to our page for Salo (another work that contains child porn).

[GethN7]

Geth, I'm not going to act on that until everybody has had time to cool off. If you still want to do this in 11 hours (12, minus the one that it's been since you posted), then I'll ask Miraheze to revoke your Bureaucrat and Founder rights (unless Bob or Brent beat me to it), but not before then.

As for the topic that brought us to this point...

I still haven't seen the movie, but I have read over two-thirds of the user reviews at IMDb as of this posting, especially this one, this one, and this one. I think this avoids the right-wing only-Christianity-can-serve-as-a-moral-framework bias that's present in the first seven links that you posted above.

What's the trope about doing something that you want to warn other people not to do? "Moral Myopia" comes close. And, from what I'm seeing there (even in the reviews that say it's a good movie), there appears to be a ethical myopia present in the movie. Twerking per se is not necessarily porn. Concentrating on the pre-teens' lower torsos while they twerk, however, is.

(EDIT: There's also a So Bad It's Horrible undercurrent in the reviews, and a Contemptible Covers issue with Netflix's original poster, but those are peripheral to the issues with the movie.)

If for some reason both Brent and Bob pass on taking the equivalent of the Founder rights and leave that to me, then I'll leave this page lock in place... until we can figure out how to write a page similar to our page for Salo (another work that contains child porn).

My mind is made up. Please remove my contact information from here as well.


https://allthetropes.org/wiki/All_The_Tropes:Contact_us

[robkelk]

My mind is made up. Please remove my contact information from here as well.


https://allthetropes.org/wiki/All_The_Tropes:Contact_us

Done. (Reluctantly, but as requested.)

[Labster]

I know GethN7 wanted us to fall into line behind him, because he really feels strongly about it. Normally, we'd give him deference. But it's an extraordinary claim -- that a major television network is airing illegal child pornography, following a theatrical release of said pornography. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So we can't make a snap reaction like you expected. One random congressman calling for an investigation is not evidence, we all know we have some bad ones. My own side had Katie Hill, for instance, until she resigned.

I was an officer of the National Association of Graduate and Professional Students. So you had better believe that I understand exactly how academic freedom works. It's why I chose it as a rule at the very beginning. And the concept of academic freedom was designed for precisely situations like this one, where people may want to study concepts that are illegal or immoral. The study itself may not be immoral -- this is what institutional review boards are for. But things like studying the effects of illegal drugs, the economic impacts of communism, the security of government encryption, the sexuality of people -- these are all the sort of things that researchers should be able to speak the the truth about. If they are not allowed to speak the truth about anything, then eventually we end up with soviet-style science programs that only ever agree with the state and lead to massive famines.

> it's okay to share literary criticism on other websites here, but not to share literary criticism about it on All The Tropes

Believe it or not, this example of mine is a tenable position. If we are not mature enough to have a discussion on this, it doesn't add to the discourse of ideas. But we did this preemptively, which, again, requires extraordinary evidence.

[Labster]

Posted my politics thread here

[robkelk]

Wiki sitenotice updated.

[robkelk]

And now that I've re-read ATT:Policy for Wiki Staff, I am reminded of sections 6 and 8 of the staff policy, which I'll quote here for the convenience of anybody who's followed the link in the sitenotice.

6. We will not censor for politics, prudery or prejudice. Period. Censorship is a slippery slope, and we don't want to play that game. That's not to say that there will be no censorship at all -- even a physical commons has time, place, and manner regulations on free speech. We will only censor content that is illegal in the United States, such as: photos of child pornography, libel, harassment, and hate speech that would incite a crime. The rest of our standards are up to the community. In practice, this means that we are not a site for young schoolchildren, as there will be strong language and discussion of adult themes in the media. (In order to edit, you must legally be able enter into an agreement to grant a copyright license, so there is that.)

8. Bans and page locks are for protecting the wiki, not taking sides. Sanctions should never be arbitrary and capricious, and banning users should be a last resort. Temporary locks will be used in most cases; an Edit War is a sign that editors need a chance to cool down, not an excuse to wave the banhammer +12 indiscriminately. That said, yes, you still can get permanently banned from the wiki. But, unless you're a spammer or a lawbreaker, you really have to work at it. Permanent banning is an extreme sanction, used for only the worst cases and not as a way to ensure that administrators always win arguments. We promise that banning won't become an easy way to dispose of someone an admin doesn't like. If we give a ban, we will try to inform the user why they were banned. Instant bans can happen: if you have some sort of censorware installed, we'll need to protect the wiki from poor software that doesn't understand the Scunthorpe Problem. Automated attacks, obvious vandals and spammers are also subject to instant bans.

I can see the potential conflict between these two clauses, which Geth chose to resolve in a way that Labster and Looney Toons thought an overreaction. I might have done the same thing, myself, and then asked whether the page lock should remain in place.

[Labster]

Policy 6 only applies if we agree it doesn't meet community standards. From the beginning, I never objected to a temporary lock under Policy 8, because it was obvious that people had strong opinions from the get-go.

[robkelk]

Edit: Already stripped all my user rights save my bureaucrat one, Miraheze Staff need to do that, please have them do so ASAP.

The request has been made. I suspect that the process might go faster if you were to countersign the request; you only need User rights on Meta to do that.

[GethN7]

Edit: Already stripped all my user rights save my bureaucrat one, Miraheze Staff need to do that, please have them do so ASAP.

The request has been made. I suspect that the process might go faster if you were to countersign the request; you only need User rights on Meta to do that.

Done. Thank you for letting me know about this.

[robkelk]

ATT:History updated. Anybody want any changes in this? The "[17]" link is back to this thread.

11 September 2020
    GethN7 takes an action that he felt was necessary to protect the wiki, locking a not-yet-existent page. Subsequent discussion on Looney Toons's forums between GethN7, Labster, Looney Toons, and Robkelk – the four bureaucrats of the All The Tropes Moderation Staff at the time the action was taken – revealed that this was a controversial decision that had a perceived conflict with the wiki's stance on academic freedom. GethN7 chooses to step down from the Moderation Staff. (He continues to serve as moderator on the Wikia fork of ATT.)[17]

[robkelk]

Just did a quick fix: The "Upload file" page no longer asks for a license - it now states that a license is required.

To protect All The Tropes, select the appropriate license information from the "Licensing" menu below. THIS IS REQUIRED. Files without license information will be deleted without discussion or warning.