FANDOM


  • Antvasima
    Antvasima closed this thread because:
    https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3681982
    22:13, November 5, 2019

    See here; should Corruption of Champions, a porn-centric game, be allowed to have pages on the wiki? Is it any different from Monster Girl Quest!, a porn game which is on the wiki? Should either be allowed? Where should the line be drawn, and how should this be judged?

    All the points already made can be seen on that thread, and I'm sure the majority of the people who can comment on this one know how the debate's gone so far. There's no need to completely reiterate your arguments and keep on debating when everyone initially involved has made their opinions clear.


    • This is on the Staff Discussion Board, and is thus Staff Only. If you are not staff and have something new to add, ask for permission before posting. If all you have to offer is agreement with another user, just give kudos.
      • It's best to not clog this up too much at all, so that goes for staff too, so long as you have nothing new to offer.
    • Given that the topic got pretty heated, stay civil. No name-calling, personal attacks, or starting petty fights.
    • There's no need to post NSFW screenshots - anything that is shared, for whatever reason (such as to support a point), should be censored, even if it's hosted off-site. It's best not to take chances with Fandom on that.
    • Eroge already on the wiki, such as Fate or Tsukihime, are irrelevant to this discussion and are completely different than either CoC or MGQ, in which sexual content is part of the gameplay and plot.
      Loading editor
    • On the topic of Corruption of Champions specifically, here are a few screenshots from the very first acts of the game to enlighten outsiders:

      Edit: The image links have been removed, as I don't want to provoke the Fandom staff.

        Loading editor
    • Kep, would you do us all a favor and be so kind as to find some screenshots from MGQ to compare?

        Loading editor
    • As I said, I was specifically talking about CoC with that post with no intention of comparing it to other sex-based verses.

        Loading editor
    • This is going to be the same thread all over again, isn't it?

      CoC can't be allowed. I vehemently refuse accepting it under any circumstances. That was already established on the Message Wall thread and I find it painful that it has to continue here.

      MGQ is very different in several ways and it was already accepted on past threads and confidently defended I feel.

        Loading editor
    • Kepekley23 wrote: As I said, I was specifically talking about CoC with that post with no intention of comparing it to other sex-based verses.

      That seems a little biased dont you think?

        Loading editor
    • Kepekley23 wrote:
      As I said, I was specifically talking about CoC with that post with no intention of comparing it to other sex-based verses.

      I too would like this to be discussed solely on its own merits rather than people having to use other series as shields.

        Loading editor
    • As I've said:

      CoC: Excuse for porn. There is plot yes, but it's usually just a way to introduce new scenes or stuff related to said scene.

      MGQ: Features large amount of story and yes, many h-scenes, but they are rare enough compared to the verse's actual story and lore.

      The line for me is the duality between mainly story with porn vs porn with story in-between, and CoC fits definitively in the former.

        Loading editor
    • WeeklyBattles wrote:

      Kepekley23 wrote: As I said, I was specifically talking about CoC with that post with no intention of comparing it to other sex-based verses.

      That seems a little biased dont you think?

      No, it's not. It's giving it fair treatment. The truth of the matter is that Corruption of Champions is a Porn Game that is entirely about sex, with any story or lore it may posess being merely a backdrop excuse for sex. The whole game is built around sex and centered on it.

      Your main and only defense for it being allowed throughout the past thread was "But MGQ is allowed" which fails to acknowlege the differences between both series, acknowledge that one series has undeniably more plot and less emphasis on sex, particularly over time, and that there's more than enough precedent to allow it. Besides the thread that got it approved on the wiki.

      There is no purpose in bringing it up here other than to use it to hide the big ugly elephant in the room.

        Loading editor
    • Matthew Schroeder wrote: I too would like this to be discussed solely on its own merits rather than people having to use other series as shields.

      How are we supposed to judge what is okay and what is not if we have nothing to compare and contrast?

        Loading editor
    • I'm neutral on the matter. As long as the NSFW content of the game remains off the profiles, I'm good.

        Loading editor
    • Hey guys!

      "There's no need to completely reiterate your arguments." If you're going to do so, keep it brief, and if any of you regress back into being petty children I'm gonna be pretty angry.

      Matt, you can't just reject any other conclusions anyone else came to just because you and some others don't agree. Past threads are also completely irrelevant. If you're going to make a case for MGQ, it can't be "well, it was accepted before". It was also rejected before.

      This is a new thread. I could not care less about how the last one went.

        Loading editor
    • Prom would it be okay to show what the profiles would look like if they were allowed here? Should i post my prototype?

        Loading editor
    • Yes.

        Loading editor
    • Well but pointing to past threads can be very good to make points clear specially if I feel I got an idea across well enough there. The only other option is to just repeat my arguments beat for beat. 

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3157082

      This is the main thread people need to check. In it this was agreed upon as an Editing Rule:

      "Preferably avoid adding character profiles that may be inappropriate or perceived to be in poor taste. This may include characters, weapons, etcetera, that are ill-suited for a statistics-indexing wiki, due to having no reliable feats, or ones from media which may be too controversial or otherwise unnecessary to be featured. This includes pages that would strictly be written as a joke, and as such more suitably belong in the Joke Battles wiki. Although pages for mature verses like Berserk and Demonbane are allowed, they must have coherent stories that are not strictly focused on sex, and the pages have to be kept clean, without erotic images."

      Bolded and underlined for emphasis. Corruption of Champions is a serious entirely structured around sex, advertised solely as sex, with a bare minimum plot that exists only to justify pornography around it. It has no business whatsoever being here. As you can see in screenshots from Kep and from people that can admit to having played it, it's just porn. Defending it as anything but is rather ludicrous.

      Meanwhile MGQ, while a series that does indeed have a lot of explicit sexual content, is a legitimate fantasy RPG with its own world, gameplay, and a story complex enough to stand on its own. Most of the sex in the game is entirely optional, particularly in the sequel series Paradox which actually distanced MGQ from it's porny roots.

      Have no doubt. If all there was to MGQ was Chapter 1 of the original Game, I would 100% be against its inclusion in the wiki. But as it stands, with the whole original series completed and 2/3rds of Paradox released? It can perfectly stand on its own grounds.

      At the way MGQ is now, it's less a Porn Game and more an Indie Fantasy RPG Series that happens to have a lot of sex on top. It's more concerned with talking about parallel universes and branching timelines and cosmic conflicts than it is about doing the nasty.

        Loading editor
    • It's a different thread, is the thing. This isn't about just MGQ. It's also about CoC, and more broadly, other verses with high sexual content that aren't yet on the wiki. We need to decide on where to draw the line.

      Also, any arguments revolving around "but this is gross and/or morally bad" aren't worth much. There's plenty of morally reprehensible verses on this wiki already.

      This is a question of the sexual content, its place in the relevant story / game, any effects these things may potentially have on the wiki, and, again, where to draw the line when it comes to the first two things.

        Loading editor
    • Also, if the question is Sexual Content...

      Masou Gakuen Hybrid x Heart has a profile here. It also has An All-Ages FANDOM Wiki.

      Hybrid X Heart, for the uninitiated, is a Action Harem Light Novel series centered around a protagonist whose primary ability centers around having sex with girls to enhance his and their power level through the act itself. Literally, the more girls the MC fucks the bigger his and their power levels are. And if they engage in orgies the benefits will be exponentially greater.

      The sexual content is rampant and explicit in the Light Novels themselves. Though, when compared to the amount of volumes and the text in said volumes it admittedly makes up a small percentage of the text, and I do think that there seems to be more of a plot to that series than CoC of all things. It definitely has an actual story with heroes and villains and character development, thought the quality of it is debatable at best. But this is not a matter of quality. It's a matter of legitimacy.

      The fact of the matter is that Hybrid X Heart, for its absurd premise and high-octane sexual content in every volume, isn't Porn. It's not classified as porn nor is it sold as porn. At best is counts as Fiction with Erotic Elements. And it is accepted to have its own FANDOM wiki where all the sexual content is described in far more detail than I'm giving here.

      Monster Girl Quest also has its own FANDOM Wiki, albeit an Age Restricted one for safety measures. But this is because they actually go in-depth into the many many sexual elements of the series that can be found in it. Meanwhile our profiles for it are 100% clean. MGQ is an actual series with plot, characters, gameplay, a kickass soundtrack, and other elements. It has a real fandom that is interested in it for reasons beyond the porn. In fact, in any discussion of the series that I see anywhere (Amidst people who actually played it), the sex tends to be the last thing that's brought up, if at all.

      But do you know what doesn't have a FANDOM Wiki, even an age-restricted one, what doesn't have an actual fandom that cares for the world or characters or plot of the series? Corruption of Champions, which is literally nothing but porn all the way through. It has nothing that makes it elegible for even considering into the wiki. Any plot it may have is just an excuse. It has plot in the same way that the average superhero porn parody has a plot. Just an excuse for people to bang eventually, and sooner than later. 

      The whole game is designed around having sex and there's no penalty for your character losing fights and getting raped over and over. The very concept of the game is conveyed in the title, namely that it is about sexual Corruption, primarily of the player character (The Champion) as they fight against monsters, creatures, etc.

      TL;DR. Monster Girl Quest is Plot with Porn on the side. Corruption of Champions is Porn with "Plot" blanketing it.

        Loading editor
    • Promestein wrote:
      It's a different thread, is the thing. This isn't about just MGQ. It's also about CoC, and more broadly, other verses with high sexual content that aren't yet on the wiki. We need to decide on where to draw the line.

      Also, any arguments revolving around "but this is gross and/or morally bad" aren't worth much. There's plenty of morally reprehensible verses on this wiki already.

      This is a question of the sexual content, its place in the relevant story / game, any effects these things may potentially have on the wiki, and, again, where to draw the line when it comes to the first two things.

      I am neutral.

      But, assuming this point is true: Also, any arguments revolving around "but this is gross and/or morally bad" aren't worth much.

      I think we can draw the line as long the profiles are clean of NFSW and the story is coherent enough to have proper statistics then the profile can be allowed. In this sense, I am proposing all or nothing.

      In this sense, I think we won't have bias based on subjectivity.

        Loading editor
    • I mean uh yeah.

      Porn with plot vs plot with porn is the issue. It doesn't matter how "disgusting" the content is. It doesn't matter if one person subjectively dislikes it.

      Doing it this way avoids us banning eroge that only contains some h-scenes, yet avoid outright porn with only a very simple plot for context.

      And considering CoC, like I keep saying, it definitively falls on the "porn with plot" end of the spectrum.

      And if we're being real, even as a fan, I can say that MGQ contains stuff that's too fucked up for CoC in certain parts so it's not like that part works anyway.

        Loading editor
    • @Saikou The Lewd King, yeah, it is pretty much my view. I think this was supposed to be the current standard. 

      Honestly, I was disgusted with a lot mature anyways like Berserk anyway from extreme scenes but I am fine with them existing if they follows our rules.

      So subjectivity asides, I am fine with the CoC verse being accepted.

        Loading editor
    • Berserk isnt a good comparison to either case here. The story has rape but it's not really meant to be sexually gratifying.

        Loading editor
    • Sure but not everything in MGQ is either. There's a lot of H.R. Giger-tier disgusting eldritch abominations that are most definitely not meant to be sexy.

        Loading editor
    • I'd rather not get too much into this for personal/spiritual reasons. But I will say I think Matt makes sense here regarding the guidelines. Obviously I would never allow characters from Custer's Revenge or Corpse F***ing Art; those are obviously nothing but Porn. Simply having adult content in the verse doesn't invalidate it from being allowed here so as long is the profiles are clean. But as Prom said, we're discussing verses that have yet to have profiles here.

        Loading editor
    • Wokistan wrote:
      Berserk isnt a good comparison to either case here. The story has rape but it's not really meant to be sexually gratifying.

      I know; my point was meant on the subjectivity.

        Loading editor
    • Or they're meant to be sexy for a very, very weird subset of people. But I digress.

        Loading editor
    • @Dark I would recommend taking a look at the link i provided for what the profiles would look like. It is clean i assure you.

        Loading editor
    • Here is my stance on it: Personally I would be more happy if we just took the porn content and push it somewhere else. (Say, to another wiki)

      Fact is that as community and especially as staff having these content means one has to get familiar with it to evaluate CRT's on it or otherwise debate it (and as most of us are somewhat competitive about the characters we do like there is incentive to debating them).

      I can see very well why one would neither want to do that nor want to be associated with it in certain cases. (And having quotes shown doesn't always suffice either...)



      That being said, I don't mind that much either. If we allow porn than I don't see the point in distinguishing things that are more or less porn.

      In this case I would suggest giving all these pages an 18+ porn disclaimer, as well as a category just for them so that we can panic button nuke them should they ever become a problem.

        Loading editor
    • Weeky: Goblin profile is clean

      Also Weekly: C h a m p i o n  o f  I n g r a m  p r o f i l e

        Loading editor
    • Saikou The Lewd King wrote: Also Weekly: C h a m p i o n  o f  I n g r a m  p r o f i l e

      Ngl i made the Champion's profile as a joke one night but i agree that its current state is completely unacceptable and needs to be heavily revised

        Loading editor
    • @DontTalkDT, noted; the disclaimer already exist in the Site Disclaimer that was accepted from a discssion from another thread. I am okay if additions are made though.

        Loading editor
    • @Weekly, the profile draft looks alright from a glance.

        Loading editor
    • I still maintain my position that CoC is unnaceptable for the wiki. For reasons the likes of myself and Kep have already stated.

        Loading editor
    • I do dig the suggestion of making a category for MGQ and the likes. If they ever become a wiki-wide problem we can nuke them rather quickly.

      That said, I still agree that CoC is very unacceptable. I have been sinking a few hours into the game out of morbid curiosity. So far, it's been nothing but shameless and graphic smut with very sparse semblances of an actual plot. The very few enemies that did not immediately jump at you with the pure prospect of sex could be forcibly raped by the player character.

        Loading editor
    • I can agree with Kep's assessement of the game, given my own playthroughs of it.

      Other than punching goblins and imps for hours there is not much more than lewd in there.

        Loading editor
    • Speaking of which, having profiles who originate from super pornographic verses that have no images might encourage kids to google them anyway. So it does sound like a really bad idea to allow CoC. But at the very least, if where going to have such a profile; there should be some kind of warning that the character originates from an adults only verse.

        Loading editor
    • Oh, and another thing, though it should go without saying: If we make porn verses we should probably take care that they, as a whole, are properly legal in most countries. Japan takes some particular liberties and with it works originating from there.

        Loading editor
    • Alright, I'll issue an opinion. Just to start off, I've played very little of MGQ, though I've heard quite a bit about it, and know nothing of CoC outside of this thread and Zach on Discord, in which I asked about it out of morbid curiosity and instantly regretted it when he sent me something without my consent. Though from what I can see, MGQ is definitely far less of a porn thingy than CoC. For the argument to take hold, let's pretend sequels don't exist. There's no CoC2, there's no Paradox. Taking them by their base games, MGQ is Undertale but replace the 4th wall breaking with...something else. From what I've seen, my theory is that the plot synopsis is intentionally misleading. If the appeal of the game was solely about a certain word that begins with r, why would it delve into things like racism and corrupted deities? The plot seems to be very prevalent past the initial chapter, as iirc I got past there. All the monsters there run off of Gerudo logic and have a reason to be doing what they're doing, much to Ilias's chagrin. Luka is an actual character, and unlike Champion, his genitalia isn't described in detail upon his introduction. On the other hand, apparently, one of the first options to do in CoC is to well...um...

      Master sword 4
      Thisisbait
        Loading editor
    • DontTalkDT wrote:
      Oh, and another thing, though it should go without saying: If we make porn verses we should probably take care that they, as a whole, are properly legal in most countries. Japan takes some particular liberties and with it works originating from there.

      This might actually cause issues for users in places like the middle East and parts of Africa.

        Loading editor
    • @Cal I'd just like to point out that there are actually over a dozen legitimate pre-set characters that you can play as all with full backstories and different approaches to how the game is played

        Loading editor
    • @Woki Yeah but in China Winnie the Pooh is illegal.

        Loading editor
    • @Weekly. That's not what I heard. From what I've heard of from CoC, there are stories from literrotica that are less sexual.

        Loading editor
    • @Cal Then i regret to inform you that you have heard wrong lol

        Loading editor
    • Cal has the right idea.

        Loading editor
    • Weekly, simply saying that we're "wrong" doesn't make us wrong. We are like, two, Me and Kep, claiming that CoC is indeed just fancy smut despite having played it.

        Loading editor
    • Hell, even Zach said as much on Discord and in here.

      Zach.

        Loading editor
    • @Saikou Would you like me to get you the full list of pre-designed characters?

        Loading editor
    • Hell even i agree with you in regards to its content, i simply disagree with you claiming that the ONLY thing it has is smut with no story when that isnt the case

        Loading editor
    • In that case, why are you pushing it so hard? Wouldn't it be easier to just drop it and not have to worry about CoC? If you agree, there's no reason to keep arguing here unless it's an ego thing, and I mean that with the utmost respect to you.

        Loading editor
    • You have to replay the game dozens of times to even get a hint of any cohesive background lore, because the vast majority of events that can even trigger lore explanations also trigger sex scenes.

        Loading editor
    • @Cal Im genuinely neutral to it being here, im not the one pushing it being here lol

        Loading editor
    • ...Uh.

        Loading editor
    • ... I'm not sure we agree on the definition.

        Loading editor
    • I honestly dont care if its included or not im just arguing against the notion of verses not being included because 'theyre too sexual'

        Loading editor
    • Because they're porn and nothing else. We've made this clear dozens of times, Weekly. Simply stating that "No, you're wrong" and trying to pretend CoC is something else is just... Bizarre.

        Loading editor
    • The very reason why this thread exists is due to you pushing it to be here, dear. That's not very neutral of you.

        Loading editor
    • I never once pushed it lol, hell i was the one to give the suggestion of moving things like MGQ to another wiki so they wouldnt cause any trouble here

        Loading editor
    • Dont believe me? Read through the previous thread

        Loading editor
    • You practically leaped into the CoC Profile thing the moment Zach approached you with "Lol MGQ got accepted."

        Loading editor
    • Again, i made that profile months before we even accepted MGQ as a verse here as a joke because i never actually expected us to allow it here

        Loading editor
    • Anyway shall we actually settle on something.

      Like the idea that being an excuse for porn makes you unallowed but having a story with some porn sprinkled in for good measure doesn't make you unallowed.

        Loading editor
    • Saikou The Lewd King wrote: Anyway shall we actually settle on something.

      Like the idea that being an excuse for porn makes you unallowed but having a story with some porn sprinkled in for good measure doesn't make you unallowed.

      This. This is what i have been arguing lol

        Loading editor
    • I disagree with CoC being allowed for everything that has been said above.

      If CoC porn with plot gets in, where is the line? What’s to stop someone just putting in profiles for idk, any character in porn with 10 seconds of story set up? You could make the exact same argument that it has a “plot”

      Censoring the profiles and removing any direct reference to sexual stuff doesn’t help. You could do the same thing to a character from porn and it wouldn’t change that it’s coming from porn.

      Everything I have seen from CoC screenshots tells me that it is nothing more than porn with the barest thread of a plot line to link it together and get to new sex scenes. I firmly believe it doesn’t belong here.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah honestly you could technically make a profile for the pizza delivery guy in a porno and make it clean. Just because you can censor it doesn't make it okay.

        Loading editor
    • @Weekly The problem is that you've also been arguing for CoC to be on the wiki. Which contradicts with the idea I presented above. Due to what Monarch, Kep and I have presented.

        Loading editor
    • Saikou The Lewd King wrote: Anyway shall we actually settle on something.

      Like the idea that being an excuse for porn makes you unallowed but having a story with some porn sprinkled in for good measure doesn't make you unallowed.

      I think this point can work. Since a coherent story can be super-subjective. We could have the text your suggestions as the definition that would end in the Editing Rules.

      • . Although pages for mature verses like Berserk and Demonbane are allowed, they must have coherent stories that are not strictly focused on sex, and the pages have to be kept clean, without erotic images.

      The suggested text changed is welcome, of course

      This point would limit the case for verses that view as just porn from piggyback of monster girl quest verse acceptance to be accepted here.

        Loading editor
    • Saikou The Lewd King wrote: @Weekly The problem is that you've also been arguing for CoC to be on the wiki. Which contradicts with the idea I presented above. Due to what Monarch, Kep and I have presented.

      Where was this?

        Loading editor
    • https://imgur.com/gallery/6Uwne1F

      If making CoC profiles is allowed, there is no reason to not allow a profile for this guy.

      Stealth Mastery, Martial Arts and Pressure Points. 9-C AP.

      This isn't even a slippery slope, CoC is porn and if it's allowed there is no reason any other porn shouldn't be.

        Loading editor
    • Are you linking porn in this site Monarch?

        Loading editor
    • We were all doing it already, even prior to his comment, so your joke kinda fails there.

        Loading editor
    • .....shit

        Loading editor
    • Lol.

        Loading editor
    • Welp since its relevant to the topic, what are the opinions on Huniepop?

        Loading editor
    • "Athlete human level" should be "Athlete level"...I don't know it enough to speak on its allowance

        Loading editor
    • I mean seeing as the game is entirely about trying to seduce and have sex with girls and there are legitimately zero combat feats in the game...

        Loading editor
    • Huniepop is uh... Kind of a meme game? Like, whatever. There is an option to play it censored and it's just a Match 3 Candy Crush game with the occasional CG of a naked anime girl.

      It's harmless.

        Loading editor
    • Tho one of the youtubers I know did talk about how f@#%ing oriented the game is so I would be wary

        Loading editor
    • Huniepop is unironically Candy Crush with nudity and sex scenes

        Loading editor
    • WeeklyBattles wrote:
      I mean seeing as the game is entirely about trying to seduce and have sex with girls and there are legitimately zero combat feats in the game...

      I'm indifferent for it but if you guys think it should be deleted go for it.

        Loading editor
    • I am giving the creator of that profile a chance to make a case

        Loading editor
    • I’m given permission to comment real quick on my case for Huniepop. 

      I’m not gonna add every character from the game, obviously. I’m saying that right off the bat because I don’t want to give the impression I’m just doing it for the memes or to fill the wiki with stupid 10-Bs. I’m only doing the most notable characters. There are some characters here who have some very interesting abilities, such as Kyu having invisibility and flight as well as actual magic. 

      Venus, the goddess of love, likely has similar abilities and should likely have some empathic manipulation. Either way she also has immortality, and should be comparable to Kyu.

      Celeste, the profile linked, is stated in universe to be a bounty hunter and fights other dangerous and athletic criminals. If anything she’s the most combat able person in the whole verse. 

      I don’t see why there being no combat feats should be an issue personally. There’s a lot of verses with hardly any combat feats. This would be a verse that more focuses on powers and abilities either way. You can even choose to censor the game anyways if you don’t wanna see all the nasty bits. It’s very lax with its 18+ rating and I mean I don’t see a problem with it personally. I find it to be rather harmless.

        Loading editor
    • @Jacky The problem would be that the feats in the game are nonexistent and the game as a whole is made of two things: Playing candy crush to seduce girls and having sex with those girls.

      That and there is virtually no actual story

        Loading editor
    • Feats in game are mentioned, though. Celeste does mention that she’s a bounty hunter and she does mention that she’s been on missions. Some of the pictures are based around those missions, after all.

      All of Kyu’s abilities are based off what she does in game and it makes her a very interesting 10-B character in most regards. She does state things such as her being invisible to anyone she wants and to being able to change her hair color or fly.

      Besides Huniepop 2 seems like...it’s gonna have a weirdo bizarre story if the trailer is anything to go by? I’m not sure if that counts for much but it’s something to consider.

        Loading editor
    • Yes but those feats in and of themselves are extremely vague and hold no bearing to the actual story

      Plus there's the fact that the canon extension of the game is just a city sim about making all of the girls in the verse do camshows

        Loading editor
    • I...don't think having feats or not should matter when it comes to allowing profiles.

      I mean yeah it's boring, but still.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with Saikou

        Loading editor
    • So hold up yall are fine with a game that is nothing but a featless dating and sex sim? With a sequel that is quite literally just making girls do camshows and nothing else?

        Loading editor
    • So what if they hold no bearing to the story? It still happens. Just because it doesn’t have much bearing doesn’t mean they aren’t reliable or true. 

      Also technically that’s not canon but you know, I sort of get where you’re coming from. 

      Overall I just agree with Saikou and Matt. Just because it doesn’t have feats doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be allowed (and even then it does, whether they’re story relevant or not), and it’s in general a harmless game that can even be censored if one wants. It’s hardly the worst thing that could be let in, that’s for sure. 

        Loading editor
    • It's not a sex sim. There's no actual sex scenes. It's just Match 3 gameplay and static picture. Also the game has a censored mode for Streamers that covers nudity.

        Loading editor
    • Uh no, he simply said we should not just disallow a verse/profile just for lack of feats.

        Loading editor
    • WeeklyBattles wrote:
      So hold up yall are fine with a game that is nothing but a featless dating and sex sim? With a sequel that is quite literally just making girls do camshows and nothing else?

      I mean, I’m not pulling feats from that sequel. It’s essentially featless. And it does have feats of powers and abilities. They just apparently don’t count because they aren’t relevant to the story. 

        Loading editor
    • Let's not derail the thread too much, alright?

      I'm good with making a category and template to mark 18+ pages, regardless of which ones stick around.

      As I said in the original thread, I have my concerns, and I think that there's not a huge difference between CoC and MGQ. At some point, it's just semantics, and people were saying that CoC 2 is less sexual and more story-driven. If one can't get through I don't think either should, as having MGQ has already lead to people trying to push it.

      Though I think it won't get quite as bad as Monarch suggests, it's something to consider. Personally, I think we should wait on passing judgment on either of them, to see how people handle them and other pages - we shouldn't make CoC pages yet, and we should wait to do anything about the MGQ pages.

        Loading editor
    • At the very least, the lack of feat should be considered a disinct problem from the "it's lewd" part and thus isn't exactly relevent here, boys.

        Loading editor
    • Saikou The Lewd King wrote: As I've said:

      CoC: Excuse for porn. There is plot yes, but it's usually just a way to introduce new scenes or stuff related to said scene.

      MGQ: Features large amount of story and yes, many h-scenes, but they are rare enough compared to the verse's actual story and lore.

      The line for me is the duality between mainly story with porn vs porn with story in-between, and CoC fits definitively in the former.

      This is my viewpoint as well. If a story, such as Berserk, contains sex because it is necessary for the narrative, that is very different from if it is almost strictly pornography with minor elements of plot thrown in. The former is fine, whereas the latter is not.

        Loading editor
    • The only experience I have with lewd verses is DSP which is still not exactly a porn verse. I guess if sexual stuff isn't the main focus and the really reprehensible stuff is avoidable, then I don't have a problem with something's presence here

      No clue what the case of MGQ is like

        Loading editor
    • Anyway, I agree with the staff members who want us to uphold our current rules regarding the subject, i.e. not allow "porn with a plot" content.

      I also think that Kepekley23's and Promestein's suggestion to create a "Verses with sexual content" category might be useful, in case we need to quickly find and get rid of such pages in the future.

      Also, I removed the image links that Kepekley inserted, in order to not provoke the Fandom staff.

        Loading editor
    • The Fandom staff has already established they don't mind linking to images hosted off-site.

        Loading editor
    • Yes, but that was in the context of reporting slur usage via screencaptures, not linking to erotic material. It seemed unnecessary to take chances.

        Loading editor
    • 'Kay.

        Loading editor
    • My opinion from the last thread:

      If illicit content needs to be looked at to properly gauge feats or discuss VS Debates, no.

      If the illicit content can (generally) be seperated from VS Debating and feats, yes.

        Loading editor
    • So that would mean CoC is fine :P

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote:

      Saikou The Lewd King wrote: As I've said:

      CoC: Excuse for porn. There is plot yes, but it's usually just a way to introduce new scenes or stuff related to said scene.

      MGQ: Features large amount of story and yes, many h-scenes, but they are rare enough compared to the verse's actual story and lore.

      The line for me is the duality between mainly story with porn vs porn with story in-between, and CoC fits definitively in the former.

      This is my viewpoint as well. If a story, such as Berserk, contains sex because it is necessary for the narrative, that is very different from if it is almost strictly pornography with minor elements of plot thrown in. The former is fine, whereas the latter is not.

      Berserk is completely incomparable to either of those, and cases can be made that MGQ is mostly an excuse for porn and that CoC has enough plot.

        Loading editor
    • Okay. So how would you suggest that we rewrite our regulations/define where to draw the line then?

        Loading editor
    • Demonbane is a more apt comparison. As well as several Ecchi Series. There's also a lot of Obscure VNs with High Sexual Content that already have many profiles here but they never raised any issue.

        Loading editor
    • Plot with Porn: I'am Okay i guess

      Porn with Plot: I have to disagree

        Loading editor
    • Even well known verses such as God of War has sexual content; and Berserk only has very few sex scenes, it's mostly just blood and gore is what "Mature content" in those verses come to mind. I agree with Matt's point about the various visual novels and the same thing can be said about a lot of Ancient Mythology verses.

        Loading editor
    • The reason people bring Berserk up is because the few sex it has tends to be... Well, for lack of a better word, extremely *f*cked up. Like, Explicit Demon Horse Rape f*cked up.

      It's obviously not porn, but I have seen some people wonder if it is okay in the past. 

      A verse like Bastard! is similarly sexual but more for the purpose of titillation than shock value. There's also stuff like Ane Naru Mono which was a Hentai Doujin series until the author was actually approached to make a legitimate, clean serialized version of the story. But even so, she never stopped writing, drawing and self-publishing the porn version as well. It just so happened that now there was an actual story behind it.

        Loading editor
    • So how should we preferably solve this dilemma then?

        Loading editor
    • I think that our current Editing Rules spell it out pretty nicely, though I'm not sure if a little bit of tweaking to the explanation needs to be done.

        Loading editor
    • I personally believe that being able able to seperate the NSFW from the work/character really is standard that every character needs to comply with. The 18+ category idea also is a great solution for this problem.

        Loading editor
    • I'm fine with keeping the MGQ pages around on a trial basis and adjusting the specific wording for the rule, so that it's less open to interpretation.

        Loading editor
    • Not exactly familiar with MGQ. How bad does it get?

        Loading editor
    • Promestein wrote: I'm fine with keeping the MGQ pages around on a trial basis and adjusting the specific wording for the rule, so that it's less open to interpretation.

      That seems fine, although given that I am constantly very distracted and busy, I would appreciate suggestions for modifying the regulation text.

        Loading editor
    • Aren't there many characters from hentai series and porn games with several abilities like time stop and whatnot? If CoC is allowed, people will start making profiles for every gaddamn character like that.

      Yeah this is a wiki where 13 year old minors come to debate about their favorite superhero Superman because he embodies everything that's good in the world and he can't lose because justice always prevails. I don't want kids to stumble upon a page, get curious and play the game only to regret their decisions later.

      I am opposed to having anything with a "porn" tag in the wiki, it doesn't matter if the page is SFW. Ecchi should be the limit, anything beyond ecchi is where I'd draw the line. (And a legitimate story-driven series with sex scenes in it and anything tagged "porn" are two completely different things, I don't know why people were comparing them.)

        Loading editor
    • And them stumbling across something really gory like DOOM, Friday The 13th or Berserk is fine? Plus adding a tag like that would hopefully deter kids from investigating further. If not we can't really be responsible for that.

        Loading editor
    • So wait it's fine if kids stumble across MGQ and decide to investigate further?

        Loading editor
    • GojiBoyForever wrote:
      And them stumbling across something real gory like DOOM, Friday The 13th or Berserk is fine?

      I think this point is issue. Of course, we have minor present here but there are lot of verses with mature and gory contents present here which is a key reason why we have the disclaimer that mature content exists from a past discussion.

      • For our visitors, please be aware that this wiki contains spoilers for various media, so read it at your own risk. Additionally, some content may be inappropriate for younger readers.

      So, I don't think the maturity case is a proper counterarguments against mature verse lewd verse because there is cause lot of cherry-picking.

        Loading editor
    • >Gore

      >Porn

      Boi did you just compare these two? What's with the false analogy in this thread.

      @Weekly I already said I'm against anything tagged as "porn" and that includes MGQ. Anyway, that's all I'll say on the matter. That's just my opinion, I leave the decision to everyone else.

        Loading editor
    • WeeklyBattles wrote:
      So wait it's fine if kids stumble across MGQ and decide to investigate further?

      If you really want to, we can put something like a disclaimer on the game's verse page, but even there I think it would be pushing it IMO.

      Besides, it should be the source material itself to warn the potential viewers of its gory/erotic/18+ elements.

      If that doesn't work either, they face the inevitable risk and consequence of surfing on the internet. At that point, it just becomes their fault (and arguably their parent's), not ours.

        Loading editor
    • I simply think that if there is a clear disclaimer present and the series is not just an excuse for porn the content should be fine.

        Loading editor
    • I think @DMB 1 is right. We can keep the verse and mature page contents as they are allowed here as long as the page is clean but we can't prevent from checking the source material no matter we do and it is not within our responsibilities for what users do outside the wiki. I don't believe it is not outside of fandom terms of service as we discussed here if the page are cleans.

      Moreover, kids by definitions are users who were under 13+ so are refuted from Fandom Term and Service. People between 13 and 18 still required legal guardian supervision. So, any case, we are not responsible for kids, teens stumbling into the mature verses but themselves and their legal guardians are.

      The best we can do, I think we already did was making disclaimer to warn younger viewers of such contents' existence.

      2. Use of Wikia by Minors and Blocked Persons

      The Services are not available to persons under the age of 13. If you are between the ages of 13 and 18 (or between 13 and the age of legal majority in your jurisdiction of residence), you may only use the Services under the supervision of a parent or legal guardian who agrees to be bound by these Terms of Service.

      The Services are also not available to any users previously removed from the Services by Wikia. Finally, the Services are not available to any persons barred from receiving them under the laws of the United States (such as its export and re-export restrictions and regulations) or applicable laws in any other jurisdiction.

      BY DOWNLOADING, INSTALLING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE SERVICES, YOU REPRESENT THAT YOU ARE AT LEAST 13 YEARS OF AGE, THAT YOUR PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN AGREES TO BE BOUND BY THESE TERMS OF SERVICE IF YOU ARE BETWEEN 13 AND THE AGE OF LEGAL MAJORITY IN YOUR JURISDICTION OF RESIDENCE, AND THAT YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY REMOVED FROM OR PROHIBITED FROM RECEIVING THE SERVICES.

      ~ Terms of Service
        Loading editor
    • So should all of the MGQ pages get a warning label, and if so, what should it say?

      Or should we just remove them to keep things more straightforward and less ambiguous?

        Loading editor
    • If they were to get a warning it should be something like this

      Warning: This profile may potentially contain NSFW Subject Material. View at your own discretion.

        Loading editor
    • Nah, just the verse. The pages itself don't (or the ones that are yet to be made, shouldn't) contain any NSFW content.

      The verse page, despite it still not containing such stuff, would be the one to have it because of its description.

        Loading editor
    • I honestly think the discussion disclaimer and rule take of care of needing a warning for the pages in MGQ since the pages are cleans. I believe we discused notes weren't as long as the pages are clean. Editing Rules

      • Preferably avoid adding character profiles that may be inappropriate or perceived to be in poor taste. This may include characters, weapons, etcetera, that are ill-suited for a statistics-indexing wiki, due to having no reliable feats, or ones from media which may be too controversial or otherwise unnecessary to be featured. This includes pages that would strictly be written as a joke, and as such more suitably belong in the Joke Battles wiki. Although pages for mature verses like Berserk and Demonbane are allowed, they must have coherent stories that are not strictly focused on sex, and the pages have to be kept clean, without erotic images.

      Site Disclaimer

      • For our visitors, please be aware that this wiki contains spoilers for various media, so read it at your own risk. Additionally, some content may be inappropriate for younger readers.

      I do think like @DMB 1 that the verse page only should be the one to have note if needed.

      The note could be in the verse summary:

      • The verse may contain objectionable content such as depictions of violence, sexual suggestion, dark humor parody, or other materials not intended for a general audience. View at your own discretion.
        Loading editor
    • Elizhaa's suggestion looks good.

        Loading editor
    • Elizhaa seems to make sense, yes.

        Loading editor
    • I would appreciate help from the rest of the staff with solving this issue.

        Loading editor
    • I'm still very much in favour of a disclaimer and that includes on the profiles.

      Not only will not all characters have verse pages, but often you land on characters without going on verse pages first.

      In any case we should have a category. What should we call it? "Pornographic Content"?


      For the disclaimer (whether just verse pages or not), I would suggest a template, maybe simply called {{porn}} or so. Could look something like this.

      XXX P icon

      This article features information on a pornographic work of fiction.
      The page itself features no pornographic content, but it is not advised to research the fiction further if you are below the legal age for these things within your country.

      or something similar. That could that also automatically add the category.

        Loading editor
    • Should we make a category for such verses though?

        Loading editor
    • I like the idea of a template, but it depends on if Promestein finds your solution acceptable.

      Given that the content itself will not be pornographic, "Pornographic Verses" is probably better as a category name, but I am open for better suggestions.

        Loading editor
    • No category. The disclaimer template works fine - I prefer it to Elizhaa's suggestion for a disclaimer.

        Loading editor
    • I disagree with the Category Name.

      "Adult Content" would be better suited since we have already agreed that full-on porn is unnaceptable.

      A disclaimer that says "This Article discusses a series that contains adult sexual content. Though the page itself features no such imagery nor discusses such topics, viewers are not advised to research the series further if they are below legal age in their country" sounds better.

        Loading editor
    • Okay. That seems like a good solution then.

      Do the rest of the staff find this idea acceptable?

        Loading editor
    • Read this post
      Read this post removed this reply because:
      Okay nevermind
      17:20, July 19, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • I'm not sure I like DT's suggestion

        Loading editor
    • @Promesetin: I think we wanted a category just in case we ever want to remove the content, so that we can do it quickly?

      In the first place it's kinda its own thing, so a category for it makes sense.

      @Matthew: Wouldn't Adult Content also be other things than the pornographic stuff, though? Ideally we would want to separate those, no?

      I'm fine with your reformulation of the text, though.

      @Antvasima: That could work. Though the category should not just go on the verse pages, of course.

        Loading editor
    • @DT

      I would prefer it be referred to "Adult Sexual Content" than "Pornographic Content", because the later implies things such as CoC and the Gif Monarch shared early in the thread.

        Loading editor
    • Matthew Schroeder wrote:

      "Adult Content" would be better suited since we have already agreed that full-on porn is unnaceptable.

      A disclaimer that says "This Article discusses a series that contains adult sexual content. Though the page itself features no such imagery nor discusses such topics, viewers are not advised to research the series further if they are below legal age in their country" sounds better.

      I also think that this type of template disclaimer seems like a better idea.

        Loading editor
    • I don't think equating gore to porn is exactly the best analogy, simply because one's clearly more culturally accepted than the other to be publicly viewed. At least in the USA, media's a lot more lax with gore and stuff than sex. I can go into a movie rated R and see some dude get slowly tortured to death, but some nipple shows up for slightly too long and no movie there

      Speaking as a minor myself who has partaken in both, a disclaimer like that's probably only more of an enticement to look in further, particularly for the younger end of teens. If the issue is just getting liability off our backs then go for it and I personally don't really care what kids find browsing the internet so long as its legal since that's the parents job, but yeah that's my take. If we're going to have the verse, and we aren't going to have threads devolve into shitshows over it, then a disclaimer's probably the best like how Thunder McQueen (JoJo's Bizarre Adventure) has one because his file is based on suicide.

        Loading editor
    • I mean, now that I think about it a disclaimer saying "don't research this character kids, adult stuff" doesn't seem like it will achieve the result we want and stopping people from doing this isn't our responsibility anyway, so I not sure if I agree with the disclaimer

        Loading editor
    • A disclaimer is just an excuse to show that we are a responsible wiki that cares about such kind of stuff, when in reality if we cared we wouldn't allow such verses in the first place.

        Loading editor
    • Gore tends to be more accepted for another reason:

      Gore is often just a side thing, that adds to the story, never just the main thing. Berserk is a story with characters, action, while the violence is just an element.

      Porn, on the other hand, can be the main thing. You can watch something and classify it as porn, and you can watch it exactly because it's porn. Usually, it's not just an element.

      There is Gorey pornography, yes, but that gets classified as porn, not just as "side violence".

      Matt's solution kinds of brings another problem though: Basically, by that logic, you would have to put that disclaimer in every verse that has some adult content, like Game of Thrones, or Fate Stay/Night.

      If we were to follow Matt's solution, it should be just stuck to universally 18+ material, which isn't always sexual.

        Loading editor
    • If an agreement isnt fully reached yet then someone should probably highlight this.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah a Disclaimer is a hard thing to define on what should or shouldn't get it.

        Loading editor
    • The old doom games also aren't that violent by today's standards without mods

        Loading editor
    • DMB 1 wrote:

      Matt's solution kinds of brings another problem though: Basically, by that logic, you would have to put that disclaimer in every verse that has some adult content, like Game of Thrones, or Fate Stay/Night.

      If we were to follow Matt's solution, it should be just stuck to universally 18+ material, which isn't always sexual.

      That should't be what we do (though I'm not sure that's what was suggested).

      I'm fairly sure there is a legal distinction between these things. Otherwise a GoT dvd could in germany for example not be sold in any store that someone below 18 years old can enter. (And I'm 75% sure its sold in normal stores)

      In regards to the disclaimer and category we should go by the legal distinction in my opinion. (As that would also be the distinction that the people that sell wikia its adds go by)

        Loading editor
    • Laws with this aren't exactly constant across the world. I think the most important issue with disclaimers is more making sure the wiki itself doesn't get into trouble, so if we have standards there that's what we should fulfil with the disclaimer.

        Loading editor
    • Wokistan wrote:
      Laws with this aren't exactly constant across the world.

      I mean, fandom as a company is registered in the U.S.A, so US law is what would be relevant to us.

      Not that I'm suggesting to study the actual law texts to figure this out. I think there is a pretty intuitive distinction between things like Berserk or Game of Thrones and something like MGQ.

        Loading editor
    • I'm against the disclaimer. From what I understand, there are two reasons to use it,

      1. We are obligated to do so: Which isn't true, since like others have stated, making sure users below 18 don't look up inappropriate material off site isn't our responsibility, it's the guardians

      2. We want to avoid it for moral reasons: In this case we would just be using a very unreliable method of keeping kids away from material they shouldn't. People don't care about a few words in a box, if they feel like searching something they will do it anyway and we will have barely done anything to stop them

      I just don't think there's really a reason for this disclaimer to be applied or that it would solve any problems if it exists. That's my position here

        Loading editor
    • I'm actually with Andy on this honestly.

        Loading editor
    • So am I tbh

        Loading editor
    • Also agree with Andy.

        Loading editor
    • Okay. The disclaimer seems to have been voted out then.

      So should we modify and/or better clarify our regulations for this instead, and if so, do you have any suggestions?

        Loading editor
    • Because currently we seem to increasingly get verses like this in the wiki: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Huniepop

        Loading editor
    • See I brought up huniepop being an issue but everyone apparently thinks it's fine despite having very little story and being a candy crush game with scenes of full nudity

        Loading editor
    • We have Devil Daggers which has no story at all. Granted it isn't porn, but huniepop should be fine if MGQ is.

        Loading editor
    • Well, given that our current rules do not seem straightforward enough for our members to know where to draw the line, we may have to enforce stricter versions again, as I think Promestein implied.

        Loading editor
    • Do candy crush with nudity and sex scenes is fine but a text advanture with actual feats and a storyline isnt?

        Loading editor
    • There’s no sex scenes. There’s just still images, and nudity can be censored. It’s a feature but it’s not something you have to have.

      And if anything the second game seems to be going a little deeper into some sort of story.

      If MGQ is okay, which is far more sexual, Huniepop has a good reason to be here.

        Loading editor
    • Weekly, how many times will we have to explain that Huniepop has no sex scenes and the game has a clean version for youtubers and streamers to use?

        Loading editor
    • CoC has a clean version as well but it's still not allowed

        Loading editor
    • Okay. Never mind about my example then.

        Loading editor
    • >Weekly is still stuck on CoC

      I thought we were past this?

        Loading editor
    • Perhaps somebody could ask Azathoth and Ryukama to give input here? On the other hand, they have been busy IRL lately, and might get annoyed.

        Loading editor
    • Honestly, I feel like a good rule of thumb is that if the verse is straddling the line of what is acceptable and not acceptable on the wiki, it probably isn't acceptable. 

        Loading editor
    • When a double standard presents itself I will point it out

      Huniepop os fine to bave because it has a clean version but coc is not fine to have despite having a clean version as well

        Loading editor
    • Personally I feel the issue is already mostly resolved. The things Andy, Elizhaa and others said pretty much nailed it.

      @Ant

      I can try to approach Azzy today.

        Loading editor
    • Dargoo Faust wrote: Honestly, I feel like a good rule of thumb is that if the verse is straddling the line of what is acceptable and not acceptable on the wiki, it probably isn't acceptable. 

      I get what you're trying to say but this just means the line is constantly moving and eventually stuff that's once okay is now straddling the line and as such not okay.

        Loading editor
    • Dargoo Faust wrote: Honestly, I feel like a good rule of thumb is that if the verse is straddling the line of what is acceptable and not acceptable on the wiki, it probably isn't acceptable. 

      That seems to be a good point.

        Loading editor
    • @Matthew

      Okay. Thanks.

        Loading editor
    • Sooo... I think category as suggestion is still standing?

      If so which name do we want to settle on? "Adult Sexual Verses"?

        Loading editor
    • I don't think any category is needed. Just at best a warning on some verse pages. 

        Loading editor
    • 1581192

      This Article discusses a series that contains adult sexual content.
      Though the page itself features no such imagery nor discusses such topics, viewers are not advised to research the series further if they are below legal age in their country.

      How about this? A modified version of the DT One. I could just add it to the MGQ page right now and that'd be that.

        Loading editor
    • I suppose that should probably be fine.

      Should we adjust our regulations to turn more specific as well, to avoid outright pornographic verses to be added, or is that unnecessary?

        Loading editor
    • I mean we could add another phrase or two to the Editing Rule if we feel we absolutely must to.

        Loading editor
    • Okay. Any suggestions?

        Loading editor
    • Ryukama doesn't have much thoughts on this and doesn't want to get into it. But he thinks stepping into porn games is dangerous territory with FANDOM's guidelines and all.

        Loading editor
    • I'm also against including anything termed as "porn game" in the wiki. This won't be the first time the line will be crossed, and it will give rise to more threads like these later down the line. Just remove all porn games.

        Loading editor
    • Matthew Schroeder wrote:
      I don't think any category is needed. Just at best a warning on some verse pages. 

      I mean we categorize literally everything, so I see no reason not to categorize these pages in much the same way as we, for example, categorize horror characters. It's more of an exception to absolutely not do it than to just do it, IMO.

      And its handy to know which verses have pornographic content both because they are subject to special rules, where an overview might be necessary if some details are changed like it is often the case, or in case of emergency.

      Given that its 0.3 seconds of work to add a category to a page I see nothing speaking against it.

        Loading editor
    • I don’t have much of an opinion here. But I should mention that iirc, there are still wikis that cover games like this and haven’t suffered much consequence as a result.

        Loading editor
    • A category also would help if fandom switches their guidelines on us and we need to quickly find and delete things

        Loading editor
    • Well, I am not against a category for the verses.

        Loading editor
    • I think that people are being overzealous and paranoid now.

        Loading editor
    • What harm does a category even do though? Wouldn't be the first time fandom changed the rules, and like DT said it is a genre just like the others.

        Loading editor
    • As Wokistan said it would be wise to have the category in case Fandom decides to change the rules. I agree with the categories.

        Loading editor
    • If we add a category. Would things like mass effect or god of war be added to this? Because they have sexual content as well but to a lesser degree.

        Loading editor
    • Read this post wrote:
      If we add a category. Would things like mass effect or god of war be added to this? Because they have sexual content as well but to a lesser degree.

      Nope. They aren't porn.

        Loading editor
    • Ah, so basically verses with sexual content being more of a consistent theme would be categorised if that is what you are saying. Dies irae wouldnt fall under this would it? 

        Loading editor
    • Read this post wrote:
      Ah, so basically verses with sexual content being more of a consistent theme would be categorised if that is what you are saying. Dies irae wouldnt fall under this would it? 

      Dies Irae and DemonBane should under it if the category is created, too.

        Loading editor
    • Not familiar with either of those so I can't give input.

        Loading editor
    • Plenty of VN can fit there under these definitons. Where do we draw the line though i wonder, a lot of VN have clean versions, and i think considering something like Shikkoku no Sharnoth porn would be dumb.

      Off the top of head i only remember like 2 sex scenes in the entire VN and neither are explicit. In any of the series in What a Beautiful Series, the most that's showed are boobs, and the series certainty isn't about sex.

        Loading editor
    • So what is our ruling on 'it's fine if it has a clean version'?

        Loading editor
    • Weekly, please stop making this about CoC.

        Loading editor
    • Matt no offense but can you please stop and let someone else answer what the I'm asking? You've already made it perfectly clear that you dislike the verse so your opinion is not the most unbiased when determining if it should be here.

        Loading editor
    • qSo would someone else lease be so kind as to tell me what the current ruling is for 'it's fine if there is a clean version'?

        Loading editor
    • Read this post wrote:
      Ah, so basically verses with sexual content being more of a consistent theme would be categorised if that is what you are saying. Dies irae wouldnt fall under this would it? 

      I think not, though I'm also not familiar with the verse.

      As rule of thumb I would ask myself "Did a relevant amount of the consumers get to the fiction for the sex/erotic scenes?". If not you're probably fine.

      Something that doesn't even get tagged as erotic/porn on sides selling/offering its content (if they do that) should generally be perfectly fine.

        Loading editor
    • WeeklyBattles wrote:
      qSo would someone else lease be so kind as to tell me what the current ruling is for 'it's fine if there is a clean version'?

      Define your "Clean Version"

      I see no problem if he is clean enough to avoid sex scenes and pollution to his own plot.

        Loading editor
    • @Causality That is what a clean version is and what I am referring to yes

        Loading editor
    • Visual novels often have 18+ versions which has sex scenes, and all age versions without any sex scenes, sometimes have like 15+ or 17+ versions as well which only has nudity and not really sex.

      That's why i am wondering where the line is, sex scenes, or nudity, and if it's at sex scenes does it depend on if it's explicit or not, and if so does it also depend on the frequency of said scenes.

      Obviously if the entire game revolves around sex and it's in your face about it that would obviously be considered porn, if it's like what i said about What a Beautiful Series, then it's obviously not porn since not only are the sex scenes infrequent, it's not even explicit since all you see in them are boobs.

        Loading editor
    • CoC revolves entirely around sex and is completely unnaceptable in any capacity. That discussion was over before it started, all that's left is for Weekly to have the courtesy to accept it.

        Loading editor
    • Matt, once again, please let someone who isn't biased speak

        Loading editor
    • Everyone is biased, including yourself, and this is severely derailing the thread which is practically concluded.

        Loading editor
    • You could simply stop like I've politely asked you to and let someone answer my question and be done with this issue yet you continue to insist on arguing with me

      Also huniepop revolves entirely around sex and nothing else yet it's somehow fine

        Loading editor
    • Can you not turn this into a mess once again? Just let the thread continue apace, don't keep pushing for that.

        Loading editor
    • Andytrenom wrote:
      I'm against the disclaimer. From what I understand, there are two reasons to use it,

      1. We are obligated to do so: Which isn't true, since like others have stated, making sure users below 18 don't look up inappropriate material off site isn't our responsibility, it's the guardians

      2. We want to avoid it for moral reasons: In this case we would just be using a very unreliable method of keeping kids away from material they shouldn't. People don't care about a few words in a box, if they feel like searching something they will do it anyway and we will have barely done anything to stop them

      I just don't think there's really a reason for this disclaimer to be applied or that it would solve any problems if it exists. That's my position here

      Getting this back on track, this is my opinion on banners and categories and disclaimers.

        Loading editor
    • I think that any material that covers mature subject matter whether it be Gore or Nudity should have a disclaimer. That way we can take no blame at all if they find out.

        Loading editor
    • Matthew Schroeder wrote: Can you not turn this into a mess once again? Just let the thread continue apace, don't keep pushing for that.

      How about you sto trying to silence me and just let someone answer the damn question

        Loading editor
    • If a child aged 9 finds pornography on the internet after two google clicks, the fault lies not on Google or the Porn Websites themselves, the fault lies in the child's parents.

      Taking responsability for the children of others is an absurd conceit and we do not need to act like we are responsible for whatever a child may or may not see.

      We already have a brief warning in our front page, and at most we are also considering adding a specific warning rating on some verse pages. That's all that needs to be done, nothing else. How many more layers of "protection" must we addorn ourselves on? There's nothing to protect ourselves from.

        Loading editor
    • Weekly calm down.

        Loading editor
    • I've been exclusively the calm one in this entire debate lol

      i just want someone to answer my very simple question without Matthew attacking me

        Loading editor
    • Matthew Schroeder wrote:

      Getting this back on track, this is my opinion on banners and categories and disclaimers.

      Non of that really answers any of the arguments in favor of havig a category, though, as these arguments were neither about obligation nor morals.

      As said, we would have a category like this if it were literally anything else, so why would we deliberately prohibit having this category?

      It's just uneccesarily making it hard to keep track and regulate things, as well as making things difficult if there should be any changes in the future.

      And for absolutely no return.

        Loading editor
    • I am not against category. If the profiles will be delted in the future even the verse category makes the mass deletion possible, in any case. Hence, this reason is why I am not against the category and having category like @DontTalkDT and @Wokistan's points alluded will make it easier to keep track and regulate things, as well as making things easier if there should be any changes in the future.

        Loading editor
    • How many people are in favor of the categories?

        Loading editor
    • I think it's unecessary and invites ambiguity.

        Loading editor
    • Doesn't matter if it's unnecessary. It is simply a precation that helps way more than it hinders.

        Loading editor
    • I am not against the category, but idk where we draw the line for what counts as an "Adult Sexual Verse" or something like that.

      Obviously if the verse revolves around sex, it would count, but other than that idk.

        Loading editor
    • If the porn can be removed from the story without issues then it's fine.

        Loading editor
    • ^This is what im asking about^

      What is everyone's stance on this?

        Loading editor
    • My stance is to base it on how much sexual content there is as a % of the whole. The verse having an option to remove it doesn't matter.

      "The porn can be removed from the story without issues" isn't really a helpful guideline when removing the porn removes 99% of the content.

        Loading editor
    • That's what I meant by saying if it can be removed from the story wothout issues.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with DontTalk about that adding a category to verses with pornographic content would be a good precaution, in case we need to quickly find them later.

      On the other hand, I also agree with AKM and Ryukama (and Promestein?) about that if we have a poorly defined line for what is or isn't acceptable, people will likely recurrently step over it, and we will get a lot of these types of discussions in the future, due to additions of inappropriate content.

      As such, it might be better to not allow any "porn with a plot" whatsoever, to save ourselves a lot of unnecessary recurrent work. It isn't like "Monster Girl Quest" and "Huniepop" are particularly important for the wiki to start with.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, the category should not be something like Porn/Hental, as such things would give a bad impression that those are allowed. If there's going to be a category, it would just be something like "Mature Subject Matter". But I'm leaning towards agreeing with Promestein and Matt that we shouldn't have a category. But just a warning similar to Matt's suggestion.

        Loading editor
    • I agree.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote:
      Yeah, the category should not be something like Porn/Hental, as such things would give a bad impression that those are allowed. If there's going to be a category, it would just be something like "Mature Subject Matter". But I'm leaning towards agreeing with Promestein and Matt that we shouldn't have a category. But just a warning similar to Matt's suggestion.

      Yeah.

      No need to get overly paranoid and go about deleting stuff to save face. We already had this conversation about a dozen times already.

        Loading editor
    • If people really want to go with the warning thing, then I don't see why a clean CoC page won't be allowed if it has a warning. It isn't our fault if a 13 year old sees the page and plays the game, it is the internet's and their parents', right?

        Loading editor
    • CoC is nothing but porn and it was already discussed that something that is nothing but porn cannot be accepted. It need not be one extreme or the other, AKM.

        Loading editor
    • Like I said before, I fear this thread is in the midsts of severely losing its rails and that people are polarizing their opinions and making them more extreme as a result, as opposed to the mostly calm and collected beginning of the thread.

      Ultimately, I think neither a category nor warnings are necessary, and both are just a product of an overzealous, overtly-fearful staff that is worrying over nothing, in my honest opinion. 

      I am fine with adding a warning to certain verses if we absolutely feel the need to do something that only amounts to a pat on the back, though we already have a brief warning on the Site's Front Page. And really, no need to be so paranoid about anything sexual. The prudess in display is a little too much.

      However, I am absolutely against the perceived necessity of a Category, specially since the only way people are pushing for it is that they are expecting that there will be the need to delete lal these verses in the future, both of which are terrible solutions. One is making decisions based solely on irrational fear, and the second is just taking extreme unillateral solutions to get rid of a perceived problem.

      Allowing "literally anything" is a big no and I think everyone who's reasonable in this thread has agreed to this. However, making this an issue of "Think of the children!" and act like complete prudes, basically acting like any series which contains explicit sexual material intended to be pleasing in any sense of the word should be permanently banned when really we are okay with things that are objectively far worse morally, but to which we don't bat the slightest eye because it has no nipples and genitals.

      Please spare me this double standard. What makes sex so much worse than mass murder, or torture, or suicide? Why is a verse that has a lot of sex worse than a series with gallons of bloods and guts? What is it that differs Eyes Wide Shut from American Psycho? Or, why is something like Hatred, a game about an edgelord mass murderer shooting civilians at will okay, but Huniepop, a completely harmless game about playing candy crush to score at dates, not okay?

        Loading editor
    • It doesn't matter if a porn game has more story or less, at the end of the day both are the same content. I am legit surprised to see people pushing for making pages for porn games and with logic that is "this porn game has more story content and less porn than this other game so we can make a clean page for the first one but not the second one". Double standards.

      At this point you're basically saying that porn games/series are allowed as long as they even have any story worth making profiles for, except the cases where it's nothing but porn. And every porn game is "porn with a plot", not "plot with porn". That's why they are called "porn" games.

        Loading editor
    • If it's an Action or Adventure game first and foremost and Mature Content is a side line, it's fine. If it's a Porn game before anything else, it's not okay.

        Loading editor
    • There's no double standards going on, AKM. MGQ and CoC are very different materials and Huniepop hardly qualifies as porn. 

      And calling Monster Girl Quest just porn and acting like it has nothing of value / legitimacy is showing a lot of preconceived notions while also ignoring basically this entire thread.

        Loading editor
    • Saikou The Lewd King wrote:
      As I've said:

      CoC: Excuse for porn. There is plot yes, but it's usually just a way to introduce new scenes or stuff related to said scene.

      MGQ: Features large amount of story and yes, many h-scenes, but they are rare enough compared to the verse's actual story and lore.

      The line for me is the duality between mainly story with porn vs porn with story in-between, and CoC fits definitively in the former.

      Literally this issue was solved in this thread's 8th post. That it's even being discussed yet rather than a more general topic is beyond me.

      And I'll say again: If Hybrid x Heart can get an All-Ages Fandom Wiki, there's no reason for us to act like borderline evangelicals around this wiki.

        Loading editor
    • Well, I agree about that depictions of gruesome torture and murder is far more objective morally than drawn sex between consenting adults.

      I didn't get much feedback to my old story (that I finished over 11 years ago at this point), but despite that it was psychologically disturbing to the point of almost making "A Game of Thrones" look like "My Little Pony", and essentially consisted of everything in the world that made me feel sickened at the time, what I recall that people reacted most to was a brief sex scene that took up around 2% of the narrative.

        Loading editor
    • @Antvasima

      This is exactly what I mean. To quote George R.R. Martin himself:

      I can describe an axe entering a human skull in great explicit detail and no one will blink twice at it. I provide a similar description, just as detailed, of a penis entering a vagina, and I get letters about it and people swearing off. To my mind this is kind of frustrating, it’s madness.

      I also sincerely hope we're not going to suddenly start pretending to be some sort of exemplar moral guardians now, because seriously we're anything but.

      It's hypocrisy of the highest level to suddenly act like certain content is objectionable because children might see it, and then act like its OUR problem and pretend to be virtuous because of it. We have absolutely [Censored] All to do with what other people's children end up finding on the internet. It is not our concern and I want none of this on the wiki.

        Loading editor
    • "MGQ and CoC are very different materials"

      Aren't they both classified as porn games first and foremost. And now I can't call a porn game porn? Again, it DOES NOT MATTER if one porn game has more story content, it's still classified as PORN GAME for a reason.

      Anyway, according to you Matt, where would you draw the line? Not something subjective as "this is porn with plot and this is porn with more plot so the latter is allowed". I want a clear well-defined line.

        Loading editor
    • I think that the reason for the inconsistent public perception is that fictional depictions of torture and murder are generally done in a manner that aspires to horrify others (and if we sugar-coat reality too much, people in general will become unable to remotely deal with it), whereas sex is usually inserted for personal arousal purposes.

        Loading editor
    • @AKM

      Corruption of Champions is built entirely around sex. The mechanics are built around sex. 90% of the game consists of sex. Almost all interactions with enemies and NPCs end up in sex. All of the lore that exists in the world is there purely as a backdrop for sex. It takes legitimate effort to find story in the game because it's literally scattered between thousands of sex scenes. 

      Monster Girl Quest has a ton of sex scenes, but outside of about 6 unskippable events that occur over the course of three games and over 50 hours of gameplay and story, all of them are optional, skippable, and non-canonical. 

      With the sequel trilogy, Monster Girl Quest: Paradox, sex became even more secondary. Now the game isn't just a visual novel with RPG Fighting, but an actual honest-to-god RPG with exploration, party manageament, leveling up, equipment, etc. And in this case, all sex scenes are optional.

      Do you see the very clear difference?

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote:
      I think that the reason for the inconsistent public perception is that fictional depictions of torture and murder are generally done in a manner that aspires to horrify others (and if we sugar-coat reality too much, people in general will become unable to remotely deal with it), whereas sex is usually inserted for personal arousal purposes.

      Doesn't it say something deeply disturbing about our society and culture that we are more accepting of content meant to horrify, disturb or disgust us, than we are about content meant to incite arousal and happiness in us?

        Loading editor
    • I agree with Matt, he's making a lot of sense here.

        Loading editor
    • Anyway, I would appreciate if anybody who starts to get upset due to the controversial subject matter, please takes a break to calm down.

      This isn't the end of the world after all, and both sides have made valid arguments.

      Unfortunately, I am very distracted by juggling many different tasks at once as usual, and do not have the best sense of judgement regarding complicated social issues to start with, so I am afraid that I am not of much help to reach a conclusion here. Promestein and Azathoth are probably better suited for it.

        Loading editor
    • @Matt This is the issue Weekly was bringing up, sex scenes being optional in MGQ doesn't matter since they're optional in CoC if you use SFW mode. And apparently the sexual content in CoC isn't canon and constitutes a game over (i.e. it's not the actual canonical story that the protagonist goes through by the end).

      The rest of your post makes a ton of sense, but your 5 bolded words don't.

        Loading editor
    • Okay.

      "Preferably avoid adding character profiles that may be inappropriate or perceived to be in poor taste. This may include characters, weapons, etcetera, that are ill-suited for a statistics-indexing wiki, due to having no reliable feats, or ones from media which may be too controversial or otherwise unnecessary to be featured. This includes pages that would strictly be written as a joke, and as such more suitably belong in the Joke Battles wiki. Although pages for mature verses like Berserk and Demonbane are allowed, they must have coherent stories that are not strictly focused on sex, and the pages have to be kept clean, without erotic images."

      This is our current ruling on the subject. Anyone want to offer suggestions to make it clearer?

        Loading editor
    • Anyway I'm going to sleep, I hope the thread isn't concluded when I wake up lol

        Loading editor
    • Agnaa wrote:
      @Matt This is the issue Weekly was bringing up, sex scenes being optional in MGQ doesn't matter since they're optional in CoC if you use SFW mode. And apparently the sexual content in CoC isn't canon and constitutes a game over (i.e. it's not the actual canonical story that the protagonist goes through by the end).

      The rest of your post makes a ton of sense, but your 5 bolded words don't.

      According to Kep who played the game out of curiosity the thing about the sexual content not being canon is wrong. 

        Loading editor
    • Did I just post on this or no? I need to make sure I didn’t accidentally post on the KyoAni thread something I meant to put here.

        Loading editor
    • Matthew Schroeder wrote:

      Doesn't it say something deeply disturbing about our society and culture that we are more accepting of content meant to horrify, disturb or disgust us, than we are about content meant to incite arousal and happiness in us?

      I am not so quick to condemn in this case. It is a good thing that most viewers (hopefully) find torture and murder to be horrifying events after all. The issue is likely more that people have a problem with the direct personal involvement part of pornography.

      That said, I have nothing against beautifully drawn or computer-generated pornographic images depicting consenting adults, although I am very uneasy with when real human beings are reduced to slabs of meat sex objects and nothing more than that. I also think that more disgusting and less harmless form of sexuality (rape-fetischism for example) likely usually start to develop due to repressing it too much, so it starts to get messed up as a consequence.

        Loading editor
    • Matthew Schroeder wrote: Okay.

      "Preferably avoid adding character profiles that may be inappropriate or perceived to be in poor taste. This may include characters, weapons, etcetera, that are ill-suited for a statistics-indexing wiki, due to having no reliable feats, or ones from media which may be too controversial or otherwise unnecessary to be featured. This includes pages that would strictly be written as a joke, and as such more suitably belong in the Joke Battles wiki. Although pages for mature verses like Berserk and Demonbane are allowed, they must have coherent stories that are not strictly focused on sex, and the pages have to be kept clean, without erotic images."

      This is our current ruling on the subject. Anyone want to offer suggestions to make it clearer?

      Anyway, it is probably best if we refocus on this part instead, so we avoid constant incidents of people stepping over the line.

        Loading editor
    • Matthew Schroeder wrote:

      Antvasima wrote:

      Doesn't it say something deeply disturbing about our society and culture that we are more accepting of content meant to horrify, disturb or disgust us, than we are about content meant to incite arousal and happiness in us?

      Not really? Attempts to evoke any of those emotions aren't done in a malicious way or with the intent of harming the viewer, they are things people actively seek for and percieve as entertainment

      While the comparison with sexual content is valid I really do not get the idea behind calling our comparatively higher tolerance for this type of material "deeply disturbing"

        Loading editor
    • The real cal howard wrote: Did I just post on this or no? I need to make sure I didn’t accidentally post on the KyoAni thread something I meant to put here.

      I don't see any recent post from you. However, I don't see any in the KyoAni thread either

        Loading editor
    • I agree with Andy.

        Loading editor
    • Matthew Schroeder wrote: According to Kep who played the game out of curiosity the thing about the sexual content not being canon is wrong. 

      Kep played just the beginning of the game so of course he would think so

        Loading editor
    • MGQ and CoC are the same in this aspect, while there are indeed more scenes in CoC 99% of all sex scenes are completely optional, skippable, and non-canon

      And I SFW mode they're removed entirely and the story does not change at all

        Loading editor
    • >Still talking about CoC

      >Still trying to convince everyone that CoC is on the same level as MGQ despite the fact that dodging the lewd content is a task that requires you to ignore most of the game's content

      >Still claiming to be "Neutral"

      Weekly ffs

        Loading editor
    • I am neutral, im simply making a clarification

      have you played the sfw mode? it does not ignore most of the game's content

        Loading editor
    • It seems best to avoid hosting CoC pages, yes. It would likely open up the wiki for almost anything.

        Loading editor
    • Shrug mkay

        Loading editor
    • Thank you for being reasonable.

        Loading editor
    • Have we come to a conclusion?

        Loading editor
    • Well, I think that it seems best to start with focusing on making the regulations clearer to avoid future incidents.

      After that we can continue to talk about potential categories and disclaimers.

        Loading editor
    • You can also ask Promestein and Azathoth to help us reach conclusions here.

        Loading editor
    • Ok I will ask them.

        Loading editor
    • Thank you.

        Loading editor
    • No problem.

        Loading editor
    • I would appreciate help from all staff members here.

        Loading editor
    • I'm fine with this conclusion and I can write a ruling up soon.

        Loading editor
    • Okay. Thank you. Feel free to write a draft if you wish.

        Loading editor
    • I would appreciate help to finish this.

      We risk to get an increasing number of hentai character otherwise: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Akiyama_Rinko

        Loading editor
    • Others probably have raised this point before, but I feel one of the main ideas put forth forward by this thread "Porn with plot vs Plot with porn" is a heavily subjective thing that is hard to trust if it will always be decided fairly if left to case by case evaluation.

      This is mainly because I feel things like percentage of sexual content or marketing aren't being taken as the primary metric and things like reason for consuming a verse are. Just to clarify, I'm not trying to frame these as wrong attitudes, just explaining why I feel the idea is subjective

        Loading editor
    • That is a good point. It might be best to not allow any content that stems from porn-centric stories whatsoever, in order to set an easily understood standard and avoid constant misunderstandings.

        Loading editor
    • ... You know that's what I was saying before, right?

        Loading editor
    • Tell me about it

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, sorry about that. I am very mentally distracted and overexerted in general, so my sense of judgement is not at its top quality at the moment due to juggling too many tasks at once.

        Loading editor
    • Did I rip off Prom?

        Loading editor
    • So are we mostly agreed to modify our rules to not allow any porn verses at all then?

        Loading editor
    • I just have that particular problem with that particular standard, I am not really opposed to porn verses overall

        Loading editor
    • Me neither, but it seems to cause too much confusion to have regulations with very hard to distinguish exact lines.

        Loading editor
    • We should preferably continue to talk about how to adjust our regulation texts, after which the porn-centric pages should probably be removed.

        Loading editor
    • I would appreciate some help from the rest of the staff here.

        Loading editor
    • I'm not able to come up with any regulation that covers all the points objectively. If we're not able to come up with something then I vote for removing such verses altogether.

        Loading editor
    • Okay. I suppose that seems fine.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote:
      I would appreciate some help from the rest of the staff here.

      I think we can add that a CRT is needed to approve the porn-centric verse. 

      This choice would make the judgment on more a case by case judgment.

        Loading editor
    • I am not sure that would be a good idea. That way we would just be swarmed with CRTs that demand that we add more hentai.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote:
      I am not sure that would be a good idea. That way we would just be swarmed with CRTs that demand that we add more hentai.

      Oh, I see your point.

        Loading editor
    • I literally just explained this to Numbers on Discord yesterday... There is a fine distinction between a verse with sexual content, and a verse that’s primarily, if not all, sexual content. For this purpose I’ve categorized something called the “Lewd Scale” (named after Saikou obviously).

      Let’s go through the levels, shall we?

      Level 1: Suggestive - These are verses with excessive fan service such as Fairy Tail or verses that have nude art like Shin Megami Tensei. Nothing serious or overly sexual but not exactly PG either.

      Level 2: Ecchi - Verses like High School DxD and To Love Ru. These verses have mild sexual content that qualifies for a 16+ (or 17+ depending on where you live) rating. At most you’d get some breasts and some very suggestive scenes.

      Level 3: Eroge - Next there’s eroge. This is basically your R-rated movie with sexual content. Many early Nasuverse stories, Masadaverse VNs, the Silverio series, and Demonbane all fit in this category. Games like The Witcher could also be put here.

      Level 4: Hentai - Finally, we have hentai (nukige in visual novel terms). This is your x-rated porn basically. On a 22 minute episode, 18 minutes are just sex scenes.

      We can allow Ecchi and Eroge. We cannot and should not allow Hentai/Nukige for obvious reasons.

      We don’t need an 18+ rating. Because the first two levels on the lewd scale aren’t even “x-rated” and the third level can pass as 17+ since all of the above examples for it don’t even have sexual based feats. We’d be warning about content not even on the site.

      I think MGQ sits somewhere between eroge and hentai; don’t know; not knowledgeable in the verse, but as long as we don’t show or explicitly state in detail any sexual content it’s fine.

      I don’t know what the other verse even is.

      If you wish, you can incorporate this scale of some variation of it in the regulation.

        Loading editor
    • Thank you for helping out. What do the rest of you think?

        Loading editor
    • Maybe we should copy that list to an explanation page, and link to it within the general rules?

        Loading editor
    • I think Sera Ex's level system can incorporated it the rule. We would not allow at hentai/Nukige/porn verses.

      From my experience, MGQ is would be a Eroge

        Loading editor
    • Eh it's definitely more than Eroge.

        Loading editor
    • I like Sera's level system.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote: Maybe we should copy that list to an explanation page, and link to it within the general rules?

      Would this be a good idea?

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote:

      Antvasima wrote: Maybe we should copy that list to an explanation page, and link to it within the general rules?

      Would this be a good idea?

      Yeah, it would be a good idea.

        Loading editor
    • Okay. I suppose that we could call the page the "Lewdness Scale" or somesuch, as I think that Sera suggested.

        Loading editor
    • Aren't R movies already 17+?

        Loading editor
    • Wokistan wrote:
      Aren't R movies already 17+?

      Yeah.

        Loading editor
    • If we’re serious about this, we could just use the CERO scale for reference. It’s the video game rating system used in Japan (like PEGI in Europe or the ESRB in America). It’s more accurate than my rough “lewd scale”.

        Loading editor
    • Different rating systems do have different standards yes.

        Loading editor
    • Sera EX wrote:
      If we’re serious about this, we could just use the CERO scale for reference. It’s the video game rating system used in Japan (like PEGI in Europe or the ESRB in America). It’s more accurate than my rough “lewd scale”.

      Honestly, think your lewded scaled is better because it more nuanced more than the term CERO C and D. It more related to wiki, too. 

      Of course, any improvement to the name or informations is welcome.

        Loading editor
    • Well I wasn’t saying use the actual rating names, just use the age rating descriptions for reference.

        Loading editor
    • Sera EX wrote:
      Well I wasn’t saying use the actual rating names, just use the age rating descriptions for reference.

      I know what you meant I just thought that your descriptions were better, Sera.

        Loading editor
    • Okey dokey

        Loading editor
    • MGQ is Eroge.

      Corruption of Champions is Nukige to the absolute limits, considering about 99.99 out of 100 scenes are focused on a variety of sexual interactions and fetishes, with 0.1 being focused on slightly less explicit sexual interactions with some excuse for lore thrown in.

        Loading editor
    • I advise you to play it on safe mode

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote: Okay. I suppose that we could call the page the "Lewdness Scale" or somesuch, as I think that Sera suggested.

      Please don't

        Loading editor
    • Okay. That is fine. What should we call the page then?

        Loading editor