Not sure I like the sound of that. Not because I don't agree with the moral standpoint, but because as you already pointed out, this is pretty much all about taste and how any given tease is perceived. All in the eye of the beholder so to speak. And in the cases where that's not the case, there are concrete evidence to go by.seraph0x wrote:Now along comes a tease like the one we're discussing here. Nothing in it or around it states that the character is underage. But looking at the tease one can't help but get any eerie feeling that she may be. I've spoken to Alison about this and we developed a possible new policy to deal with the teases that blatantly circumvent our existing rules by simply suggesting an underage character without ever saying it outright.
I see no need for any policy on this beyond the hard fact of things. Laws regulate this just fine.
When it comes to the finer points of perception, that should not be the basis for any action at all.
The tease Allison used as an example serves as a perfect example for me too: I had coincidentally done that tease (long while ago, can't even remember it) and in full honesty the thought of that model being under-age or portrayed as such never occurred to me what so ever. Perfect example how this is all up the reader and not the author at all.
I don't like rules that are based entirely on the perception of a few select people. Like we have demonstrated perfectly already in this thread, how we perceive things is just as diverse as taste.seraph0x wrote:I'd like to hear you guys' take on this. Again, the idea is to delete any tease that uses any kind of props (like children's toys), setting (like a child's room), accent (using baby talk), model's appearance (child-like clothing), etc. with the obvious intention of suggesting that the character is very young or possibly underage. I don't like rules that are hard to pin down, but I like it even less when teases deliberately circumvent the rules by being vague.
