Altering a work in response to the Content Policy

So for context, we've had a Content Violation thread for a work that was cut and later re-opened on appeal from the author, who altered the offending parts in an attempt to restore the work's page. When the edits were deemed unsatisfactory, the author continued to solicit advice on how to rewrite the part despite being told to leave it be and let it be judged as is. This ultimately resulted in the author's suspension.

I inquired on whether or not wiki policy should be updated to address situations like this and was told to take it to its own thread. Here it is, bombs away.

Edit: Fixed the OP to (hopefully) better match what happened.

Edited by badtothebaritone on Mar 29th 2023 at 6:43:51 AM

From my perspective, this is the kind of thing that's sure to almost exclusively be an issue coming from non-mainstream online content, stuff that doesn't have an obvious central recognition of success that they can point to. So some creators in these spaces, or their die-hard fans, latch onto the idea of having a TVTropes page as having "made it". I've run into this mindset a few times as the webcomics forum herald (which is part of what informed my post in the original CV thread).

We can't do a lot about this mindset, but there's a fairly simple tweak to the content violation forum rules that could be made to address this issue. Clarify that the opening of a CV thread entails a "snapshot" of the work in question at the moment of the thread opening, and said "snapshot" is what will be evaluated. Edits made to the work in question while the evaluation is ongoing should be ignored. And in the event that access to the "snapshot" version of the work is made no longer possible, that's a further strike against keeping a page for it.

Edited by TotemicHero on Mar 29th 2023 at 6:55:52 AM

I'm a little torn here. On one hand, what happened on that thread is not something that should be repeated; the author derailed things and refused to listen when we explained what the purpose of the discussion was. They were more focused on making sure the scene was good than anything. It was a mess.

On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of the "snapshot" idea because online works can change, and we do accept works with clean versions even if they have NSFW ones as well. Had the author, say, removed the scene entirely and that just became the new version of the story, I don't technically see a reason why it couldn't have gone through.

I guess I'm just opposed to the idea of creators altering their work specifically to keep a page for their work up, and less opposed to the idea of "if a work is altered to be safe for work, leave it alone".

Edited by WarJay77 on Mar 29th 2023 at 7:04:56 AM

...Damnit, I lost my entire thing.

We shouldn't allow them to ask for advice to fix their work. That makes it problematic for us overall. It's not our job. We're reviewing the work, not giving constructive criticism. The user being heavily pressured into changing it is where some issues happened, so that was more offsite problems leaking into the appeal than an author appealing in general. Hell, calling it bias would be misleading.

There is nothing wrong with reappealing their own work if they happen to change it later. Anyone can. No big deal. If, however, they keep causing problems and trying to go for advice over and over, it's basically a Single Issue Wonk. Handle it as it comes up is the solution, imo.

We shouldn't ban a work forever if a version comes out that would fit our content rules eventually exists. If it exists, reevaluation time. But not till then. We allow tons of censored variants of works. Just cause it comes up later doesn't mean it's any different either. To me, making an exception like that is overall contradictory to the point of allowing censored works. It shouldn't matter how they come up(unless it keeps coming up).

For a semi-summary;

• No asking for advice to fix a work. It'll be whatever it is.
• It can be reappealed if it's fixed later.
• Banned forever should be completely context dependent. Some works will be, some won't. So a neutral position to start off with should be the default.

She pretty much put it better than I did.

Edited by Irene on Mar 29th 2023 at 6:25:19 AM

That's not entirely accurate. The work page was already cut which is why the author got involved in the first place. I re-opened the thread because they claimed that their work was being misrepresented so I decided to reopen the thread so that work can get re-evaluated again.

Now if the offending scenes were removed from the work organically and not just to restore the trope page that would be fine. We have re-evaluated works that ended up getting a Bleached Underpants version further down the line so I don't think that's much different.

Edited by MacronNotes on Mar 29th 2023 at 7:53:04 AM

It didn't have anything to do with sexual content, but I've personally taken down and significantly re-edited a fanfic because decided I agreed with the criticism I was getting after the fact (A Changed World FWIW).

I'm inclined to think appealing a removal after a proper cleanup of objectionable material is all right, the troper in question just went about it all wrong. I got the impression they didn't really want to clean it up, they were just trying to see where the line was on smut involving characters who are canonically minors. They were also importing some kind of FFN forum drama to excuse their behavior, which isn't allowed here either.

I have no idea what the particular thread was that prompted this (and I'd really rather not browse through locked CV threads to find out), so I can't comment on this particular situation and can easily believe the person in question was engaging in single-issue wonkery. But as a general rule I actually don't see a problem with this, because as other people have said, online works are often altered in response to a countless number of things, and getting a TV Tropes page cut for violating the content policy does not seem inherently inappropriate to be one of those things.

Well, you wouldn't have to do that because the thread is still open . It's the only one that's open right now, in fact.

While the Content Policy is primarily a defense against Googlethulhu, in practice there is some moralistic undercurrent to it. If an author whose story is reported shows up saying they didn't intend their work to be creepy pedo-pandering and asking how they could make it not creepy, I don't think that should in principle be an intractable offense- but the response shouldn't go beyond bluntly pointing out the content policy violation and politely directing them to writing resources if necessary. It's content violations, not content review.

As for the work, if the author changes it before the cut decision is made than we effectively should review the new version. Otherwise, follow whatever the procedure is for asking a cut page to be restored.

This is all conditional on the author being cooperative of course. The user in question here was very clearly dragging in offsite baggage, their strong aversion to turning off the people who had originally peer pressured them into making a smut scene between kids showed through. And that sort of disruption deserves a thumping regardless of what general policy is.

I feel like people shouldn't be altering their works just for a TV Tropes page anyway, but if we decide to cut something because of its pornographic content/paedopandering and then at some point the creator lessens or removes the explicit nature afterwards, that's no different to me then Bleached Underpants. The issue was more so that the creator seemed very defensive about their work and was trying to bring out-of-site drama to this one.

Well, that and the fact that they didn't remove the pedophilic content. They only replaced it with an erotic makeout session, which is still sexualizing minors (and when I explained this to them they seemed stumped because they were more focused on their writing ability than the rules).

I guess it's a question of intent. What does the creator hope to achieve? Are they happy to listen, or are they biased in favor of the content they already made?

Edited by WarJay77 on Mar 29th 2023 at 8:28:52 AM

I think if a creator genuinely edits their work then it's fine to re-evaluate it. The problem here was more this user being unable or unwilling to understand what we actually consider objectionable content

I think that creators should be allowed to alter a work to keep a tropes page (I mean, they do it all the time for online backlash, and honestly, TV Tropes' content policy is likely to be more sensible than some of those cases). But I agree that case looked rather disruptive, without the creator really wanting to understand what we wanted and just trying stubbornly to get it approved, and that should not be tolerated.

Edited by Piterpicher on Mar 29th 2023 at 3:09:15 PM

I think people here missed my specific use of the phrase "while the evaluation is ongoing". I have nothing against works receiving edits or new versions put out after we've made a judgment, and I fully agree a thread can be re-opened to address those, regardless of the reason for them.

What I was saying is that during the week or two that most CV threads are open, edits made to or new versions of the work released during that time frame are not considered. The state of the published work on the day of the thread opening is what the CV thread should focus on, under my proposed rule, hence my use of "snapshot". If there are multiple different published versions relevant to the content policy at that point, the thread can pick from them.

In my opinion it is not our job to tell an author how to recut a work so it’s allowed on the wiki. My stance is that if an author of a cut work wants the page back, they should either completely ax the offending scenes or overhaul the work from scratch if the offending material is too ingrained in the work to be easily cut. Then they can resubmit it as Bleached Underpants. Even though it feels wrong to rewrite a work just for the sake of a TV Tropes page, if it doesn’t violate the content policy, it should be allowed. However they should not be asking us for advice or trying to justify including it (especially if it’s something illegal like pedo-pandering).

When authors change their work in response to critiques about the amount of porn/paedo-bait it has, they are writing a Bleached Underpants version of the work. These always get evaluated separately from the original, and we have plenty of works where only the "sanitized" version can be troped.

If we allow clean cuts of otherwise ineligible works to be kept (i.e. censored Steam releases of video games that cut pedopandering content), we should allow the updated "clean" version of a story. It feels unfair and punitive to do otherwise.

I even believe an author should be allowed to defend themself in their thread, or at least explain things like intended context or upcoming chapters that would clarify certain things. Their intentions won't necessarily negate if a work comes across as creepy (which is what happened in the thread before), but it may help if there's something that a user misinterprets.

Should an author be allowed to change things specifically to appease us? Well... we can't really enforce that, can we? If an author changes their work, they can give whatever reason they want, whether it was because of TV Tropes or not and it's not our job to penalize them for that. Nobody is forced to change anything to get a page on the wiki, but they should be allowed to respond to criticism — as long as they don't pester us if we ultimately still decide to keep the work off the wiki.

There is an unfortunate "badge of honor" mentality with getting a TV Tropes page, and removing a work for violating the content policy can come across as punitive, especially since our tone is often quite harsh (which is often warranted, and sometimes not — particularly when people misunderstand what's actually allowed on the wiki). But the most we can do is remind people of the rules and try to make it clear it's not personal.

Perhaps we should mention Content Policy discussions/removals somewhere on The Fic May Be Yours, but the Trope Page Is Ours?

I would suggest adding to The Fic May Be Yours, but the Trope Page Is Ours that a creator's lack of unique rights to alter a fic's page includes them not having an inherent right for their fic to HAVE a TV Tropes page in the first place if it does not comply with our rules.

I do think we should have a statement that the Content Policy is a necessity to protect the site's functionality (see: the Google Incidents) and that we do not necessarily consider the content it forbids to be in some way a "lesser" form of media that's unworthy of analysis. But that should go on the Content Policy page itself, not The Fic May Be Yours, but the Trope Page Is Ours.

Edited by paradisedj32 on Dec 14th 2023 at 6:16:16 AM

How about something like this under the "Creator Restrictions" section?

• You may not unilaterally restore pages or entries that the community has decided to remove. Reasons for removal may include a lack of tropeworthy content in your work, the page or entry not meeting structural guidelines, or violations of The Content Policy; deletion should not be interpreted as your work not "deserving" a page on this site, as we don't operate on that mindset. You may contest a deletion in the appropriate forum thread if you suspect it to be inappropriate.

Nice

Not without a "...unless you resolved whichever issue caused the deletion in the first place", IMO.

looks good to me!

I would also suggest including a link to the deletion appeal thread.