• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Deletion of MGQ

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm off the belief (obviously impossible to prove) that the marketing of the games are like, intentionally misleading to throw off players and surprise them with an actual story later.

Don't get me wrong the first game is absolutely almost entirely **** but as of Paradox the sex scenes are all 100% optional.
 
Pages have been deleted before. If a user wants they can copy the contents of those pages to another place off-site.
 
Ionliosite said:
As someone who tried the game, I can correct this statements: Luca is an adult, he's not 14, we're explicity told this. This is just being mixed up with Redo, the other series that got brought up on during the discussion, which DOES have rape involving a 14 years old.

On the topic at hand, I agree with deletion of the verse.
Click to expand...
Can you make that exact same argument if a character is stated to be an adult, but does not look like one?

What I said applies to the opposite side of the gender spectrum as well.
 
I will say that in the last thread, I said we could keep it on a trial basis, and if people are having issues again, then by that precedent we should delete it. I had concerns about Fandom not approving and if it's cracking down then the pages have to go, I don't care about arguing semantics about how much this counts as **** when compared to anything else.

And, to restate a point from the last thread, complaining about MGQ being morally reprehensible is a dogshit argument and isn't worth anything. There's plenty of terrible and morally unacceptable shit on the wiki already. What matters is the adult content.
 
Crabwhale said:
Obviously I agree with the removal, and please, Matt, stop embarrassing yourself buddy. These aren't even arguments.
Click to expand...
I don't see why its cause for embarrassment? I would rather not base the deletion of a verse based on what a person finds or doesn't find objectionable and immoral, and this includes the existence of sex scenes with characters which may or may not be underage.

Art is something that should be defended under free speech. If you want to oppose the verse being here do so arguing whether or not the scale of the sexual content is acceptable under wiki standards, not because there's rape scenes.
 
Normally I'd still prefer to remain neutral, I pretty much agree that judging from the first game; it is deletion and nukage worthy. But iirc, it comes from the sequals is where all the content about it being more okay comes from. But as I said, I strongly prefer to stay away from **** verses for religious/spiritual reasons; but at the same time, I strongly refuse to let that be the reason for getting rid of verses of such nature. Which is why I'm neutral.

However, a more recent thing brought up for me is the involvement with characters who are minors. I pretty much agree that any verse with CP should be outright nuked as that's just downright illegal internationally. Hence why "Where the Dead Go to Die" is a perfect example of a verse that should never be featured here for those reasons. Although, there is a huge difference between actual minors and adult characters who just look young. The character's physical age should definitely still be in adulthood regardless.

I would prefer to give Matt or other defenders a chance to defend it via the sequels, but I think both sides should stay on best behavior as usual. Also, I agree with Prom that calling it "Gross, Immoral, or of the Devil" are all horrible reasons to nuke it. Just that whether or not it is legal based on Fandom's TOS is the primary concern.
 
Last edited:
Matthew_Schroeder said:
I don't see why its cause for embarrassment? I would rather not base the deletion of a verse based on what a person finds or doesn't find objectionable and immoral, and this includes the existence of sex scenes with characters which may or may not be underage.

Art is something that should be defended under free speech. If you want to oppose the verse being here do so arguing whether or not the scale of the sexual content is acceptable under wiki standards, not because there's rape scenes.
Click to expand...
Because you're basing your whole argument on "other people in the past said it was fine so it's fine", which is not only false, but piss poor. Also literally nothing in the OPs states we're deleting it for moral reasons, and if that were the case I wouldn't agree to it either.

I don't give a flying **** about the morality of what happens to fictional characters, but when something breaks the rules it breaks the rules and that's about all there is to it. So, yes, this is embarrassing.
 
@DarkDragonMedeus What exactly would be considered CP? I don't think fictional characters fall under that, though i could be wrong cause i remember stuff about like Australia or some other such countries trying to ban certain series cause of such things, which are actually not really CP, but people interpreted it as such, at least that's what i remember.

Point is different countries have different laws on this. Think in the US the law is basically that it's fiction, just art, so it's not illegal.

I don't think anyone would really defend sex involving minors in fiction besides from the fact it's art. If we go done that route where would the line be drawn is the question, the plot of many VN involves basically 16-17 year olds getting in relationships and eventually having sex. Like do we delete Arifureta cause it's stated Hajime who is 17, had sex with other ppl that age?

As for rape and other such things, i don't think that alone means something should be deleted, it's just whether or not they meet our standards here, ie not being ****.
 
ShieldsPlus said:
Can you make that exact same argument if a character is stated to be an adult, but does not look like one?

What I said applies to the opposite side of the gender spectrum as well.
Click to expand...
I think he was just trying to clear up a misunderstanding there.
 
@Celestial_Pegasus Basically any character who is physically a minor; this doesn't include canon adults who happen to be midgets with childlike faces. But they're considered children by the biological development of their species. And there are visual depictions of them being engaged in sexual activities whether animated or still images. Fiction or not, the image of a full grown adult inserting their blank inside a minor should not be something that exists. However, I wouldn't consider backstory or off panel descriptions CP. If, "This character was a victim of rape when they were young" was nothing more than part of their backstory, then I wouldn't consider the entire verse nuked from those details.
 
Crabwhale said:
Because you're basing your whole argument on "other people in the past said it was fine so it's fine", which is not only false, but piss poor. Also literally nothing in the OPs states we're deleting it for moral reasons, and if that were the case I wouldn't agree to it either.

I don't give a flying **** about the morality of what happens to fictional characters, but when something breaks the rules it breaks the rules and that's about all there is to it. So, yes, this is embarrassing.
Click to expand...
I was not responding to you in particular, but to the wider discussion of where people brought it up a character's age or the fact that it has rape as the justification for deleting it. As I said in the very post you are replying to, if you want to argue over whether or not it breaks Wiki Rules that's fine. But don't make it a "Holier than thou" debate.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
@Celestial_Pegasus Basically any character who is physically a minor; this doesn't include canon adults who happen to be midgets with childlike faces. But they're considered children by the biological development of their species. And there are visual depictions of them being engaged in sexual activities whether animated or still images. Fiction or not, the image of a full grown adult inserting their blank inside a minor should not be something that exists. However, I wouldn't consider backstory or off panel descriptions CP. If, "This character was a victim of rape when they were young" was nothing more than part of their backstory, then I wouldn't consider the entire verse nuked from those details.
Click to expand...
The character's stated age doesn't matter. The reason why Child **** is illegal is because it involves the abuse and harm of real children who are thus unable to consent, and are manipulated by evil adults into participating in acts that will have serious and long-lasting damage to their mental health for the rest of their lives. It's child abuse and its rape. Whatever is depicted in a ficticious environment is entirely irrelevant because it affects no real children.

There is 0 difference between this argument and saying that Grand Theft Author is "the devil's game" because you run over and shoot innocent people in the streets. To use a similar example, there is a very obvious very real distinction between real life sexual asault and rape-themed ****. The later is staged and unreal, and performed by adults who are consenting to it, whereas the prior is very obviously terrible and brings harm to real people. What is or isn't considered Child **** in the context of ficticious examples also varies wildly between countries where different legislations apply. In the United States, Japan, and several European countries fictional depictions are considered art and are protected under free speech, whereas in other countries they can put you in Jail. Similarly, there are countries with even more severe restrictions on Pornography such as Australia where even something as banal as BDSM is severely restricted in Pornography because old conservative politicians see it as an affront on good morals.
 
@Matthew_Schroeder I think this flew over your head a bit. It makes the wiki look worse when what is considered basically everywhere to be a **** game. it does not help that alot of countries are against even drawn **** depicting young-looking characters. And it does not help that Luka, the main character Does not look older then 12.
 
DaReaperMan said:
And it does not help that Luka, the main character Does not look older then 12.
Click to expand...
Luka's appearance is actually wildly variable depending on the artist tbh. There's like four different artists working on the CGs in the game. In some he looks 10 in others he looks like a teenager. In either case it's irrelevant.

Shield Hero has the main character end up in a relationship with a mentally-immature 10 year old girl who is also his slave and nobody cares. Araragi from Monogatari kisses three different lol*s in the same story arc and nobody cares. There are dozens of Ecchi Anime, Manga and Novels that include full-on nudity and even sex scene between underage highschool students and nobody cares. The main character in Persona 5 is underage and yet he can get in relationships with four different adult women and nobody cares. Maid Dragon has a 10 year old boy who is constantly sexually harrassed by a grown woman as a running gag and nobody cares. All of that qualifies as "objectionable content". What makes MGQ worse other than the fact that its pornographic?

For the record, if MGQ is considered removable because it qualifies as pornography that is one thing, but people shouldn't act that the character's stated or apparent age is what makes it so bad.
 
While i do think MGQ shouldn't be here cause imo it fits all the definitions of ****, gonna have to agree with Matt here about CP, not cause i support it, but because this gets real murky when considering the different laws different countries have, gonna fall on the free speech side, that it's art and hurts no real children, though it's disgusting.

A lot of things in fiction are reprehensible, torture, killing, but nobody argues for the removal of such things, cause it's fictitious.
 
So after everything has been said, I think we all agree that it is still a **** game? A level 4 according the our standards, making its existence against the rules, which means it should be deleted.

It seems like a waste to delete the pages as someone took the time to play the game, scale all those characters and then make all their pages also the verse page.
Click to expand...
I feel bad for the amount of work people put into making the pages and for the supporters who contributed, but if it violates the rules, it has to go. I can only offer my apologies. The source code exists and it can be taken elsewhere if people want. But we are not allowing pages for **** or **** games on the wiki.
 
2021-02-09.png

Okay, I would like to say something before it's removed, thanks to @Omnitraxus100 (Aka, SuperBearNeo) for this stuff I'm going to quote, although I'll remove some profanity:

"The reasoning is (censored)'d and is based on an internal bias, not any objective reasoning as to why MGQ can't be on VBW

It fundamentally doesn't matter whether it's a **** game or not... It has a story, feats to scale and really that's all that should matter. By all indexing accounts, if your reasoning for why a verse can't be scaled doesn't derive from those two requirements, then it's fundamentally wrong and falls on personal bias
The second argument of "It's immoral or (censored)'d up"
Ignoring that it's fiction, it doesn't matter because fictionality doesn't correlate to reality significantly
but let's see here, we have so many verses that are just (censored)'d beyond belief
Dies Irae, Fate and so many verses have (censored)'d up situations, premises and other things that by this same logic, shouldn't be allowed. For gods sake, they even have SCP, which has a story where a mother has to be continously r*ped to prevent a child from being born and also destroying the planet
Side Note: Entire wikias on series like this, such as Monster Girl Quest itself or even Monster Girl Encyclopedia exist and has been on Fandom for years without any issues. If entire wikias that also mention rather explicit descriptions can remain, then VBW needs to stop being paranoid as clearly Fandom doesn't care"

Now, on my part, it seems the only issue left would be the Acceptable Scale Rating, now if that should be given priority or not is beyond me, I would suggest editing it a bit if consistency is an issue, as any other issue simply isn't really a thing beyond personal bias.
 
Last edited:
It fundamentally doesn't matter whether it's a **** game or not... It has a story, feats to scale and really that's all that should matter. By all indexing accounts, if your reasoning for why a verse can't be scaled doesn't derive from those two requirements, then it's fundamentally wrong and falls on personal bias
Click to expand...

Just because something can be indexed, doesn't mean it belongs on the Wiki.

Suggsverse is banned from the wiki.
 
It fundamentally absolutely matters whether it is a **** game or not. All past threads have made this a clear consensus- the only argument has been whether or not this is actually classified as one. People have been misled and deceived into thinking it is not, into thinking it is simply plot with **** inside of it (one of the silliest damn arguments I've heard).

This part is also false. Violence in fiction is pure fantasy and has been at multiple points shown to be not significantly influential on the partaker of said fantasy (playing Call of Duty doesn't make you go out and shoot your neighbor). I don't think I really need to point out or get into how deeply addicting shit like pornography is, on the other hand. We aren't inherently moral arbiters on this wiki, I'll grant you, but to make this point demands the counterargument. I can't speak on those verses- if that is truly the purpose and focus of them, I'd advocate their deletion, too. But truly the purpose and intent of Monster Girl Quest is to
continuously be raped and molested for the entire duration of the game with story tacked on
. I certainly won't defend that being on the wiki any longer.
 
Damage3245 said:
Just because something can be indexed, doesn't mean it belongs on the Wiki.

Suggsverse is banned from the wiki.
Click to expand...
That's fair, although in the case of Suggsverse, the reasoning for that are far too different to relate to this case (most notably lack of notability), with that being said, I really don't have much else to say if we're going to give more priority to the Acceptable Scale Rating.
Also...
"A series that was created by a known powerscaler meant to spite and created with no artistic merit is different from something that while bizarre, still has artistic merit to it and was created as a genuine passion
Not to mention, Suggsverse is borderline hard to quantify, which is also a legit reasoning as to why it can't be on the wikia + MGQ has actual feats that are applicable to the tiering system"
 
Last edited:
ShieldsPlus said:
Can you make that exact same argument if a character is stated to be an adult, but does not look like one?
Click to expand...
I mean, obviously yes? I don't really see your point, and it isn't relevant to the discussion anyway, so I don't get the need to bring it up.
 
I still agree with AKM and Bambu about deleting this verse.

Also, Lina/Shields Plus, feel free to PM me about your deleted accusations against me. I genuinely do not remember what you describe, but admittedly recurrently have an awful sense of judgement regarding social drama situations. I have gradually grown better over time though.
 
Last edited:
"The point of the game" point is fake. The stuff about rape scenes are all non-canon and optional. They do exist but you don't need to act like the story is "tacked on" when at the current level its more emphasized than anything else.
 
Matthew_Schroeder said:
"The point of the game" point is fake. The stuff about rape scenes are all non-canon and optional. They do exist but you don't need to act like the story is "tacked on" when at the current level its more emphasized than anything else.
Click to expand...
Literally every community outside of this one disagrees. The intent of the game is pornographic. It has a game attached, sure, and you can attempt to ignore all of the debauchery involved, but that doesn't change the intent nor the fact that the **** is present.
 
Just a brief mention that aside from that a hentai game centered around rape is strongly against our rules, I remember seeing a MGQ character page that had a female lower body and either a fish or an amphibian as the upper body, which is inherently even more ridiculous than Barney or The Teletubbies, which we do not allow either, and was apparently supposed to be sexual in nature on top of that.

The combination of all of the above factors gives our wiki a bad reputation if we keep the verse, and likely makes our visitors question our sanity, so given that the verse is not notable either/brings no actual benefit to the wiki, I much prefer if we delete these pages. It definitely isn't worthwhile to keep them just to make some sort of pointless social statement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Mr. Bambu
The Afterlife of SCP
Replies
23
Views
5K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Clarification Of Sentence Phrasings And Addition Of Expected Punishments For Each Type Of Rule Breach For All Rules Pages
Replies
19
Views
2K
GarrixianXD
GarrixianXD
Mr. Bambu
  • Locked
The Death of SCP
8 9 10
Replies
361
Views
87K
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
DarkGrath
Proposal for Site/Forum Image Standards Revision
3 4 5
Replies
175
Views
9K
CloverDragon03
CloverDragon03
TheOrangeGuy09
Verse deletion
Replies
4
Views
676
TheOrangeGuy09
TheOrangeGuy09
Back
Top