EroScripts is a community for scripts that sync interactive sex toys with porn. Learn more.
To find and download scripts, create an account.
This is rather confused. While there are some prepubescent-looking animations called “loli”, the term “loli” itself does not mean prepubescent. It’s just a petite body size.
So if you want to ban the content (which is stupid, even though I don’t care for it), then ban that specific content, and not the tag, which applies to content you are not describing here.
For anyone that is interested, I can set up an account for you on HMV Mania for funscripts and also hosting of video. Shoot me a DM/message here and I can get you set up.
Hosting a video and funscript was done with Spice of Life from Nightoil, as an example.
When you have an account, you can post in the Funscripts forums: Funscripts - HMV Mania
Site may be free to use but it isn’t free to run. Somewhere up the chain there’s a transaction for server space or hosting if that transaction doesn’t happen, or isn’t accepted, the site gets shut down.
From a site logistics standpoint (outside of this specific decision), hosting in the U.S. really isn’t that great to begin with for content like this:
You can take this from someone that helps creators set up content on HMV Mania over the past 3 years. U.S. hosts are a joke.
To whoever owns EroScripts: you may want to consider an offshore host in the future.
I think I’ve made this clear before in the past, and I will make it clear again.
I personally would not mind if loli/shota was banned from this site. If one wants that kind of content, one can always find it elsewhere. No great loss for me.
However, I am concerned about the precedent this will set in further censorship in this site, especially ones that use “legality” as the basis for it. Bestiality is illegal in most places too; should we start banning bestiality and furry content as well? Some of us live in places where LGBT content is illegal, should those be banned too then? Heck, pornography is banned where I live, should I be concerned?
Again, I am not advocating we keep loli/shota content on this site. If the community wants it gone, I will support that decision. Censorship on the basis of, as one poster put it, “personal bias” is all fine and good with me. However, censorship on the basis of “legality” is something I am very concerned with, and how it will affect the future of this site.
See my post above about U.S. hosting.
Most of this boils down to what host is being used and architecture/setup of the site.
There’s another problem with this. By banning the “loli” tag, but not the content (read ahead), you’re removing the ability for people to filter out things they don’t want to see.
I did a quick check on posts with the “loli” tag in the first two months of this year. There was one or two which didn’t have any way to see the content, but there were 48 where I could see what the content was about.
Out of those 48, 27 were unambiguously not prepubescent. Of the remaining 21, I can only say maybe. Most of them were too stylized, or even inhuman, to properly say. A few of them probably shouldn’t have had the tag at all, but that’s another issue.
The point is, the kind of people who complain about loli content will likely dislike all of it. Now you’re banning a small part of a minority subset of the content, and making it impossible to use the tag to allow people to filter out the rest of it if they want to.
Trying to figure out which of my 1.000 scripts had a loli tag, maybe even added by someone else 
.
I’m sure others might face similar issues, so here’s a handy trick for finding all your posts that might be affected:
@YourUsername tags:loli in:created
@hugecat Manits-X would still be okay under the new rules, right?
(For reference: https://discuss.eroscripts.com/t/mantis-x-hmv-megamix-2/18014)
btw. typo in post:
to remove all of the tags that have the loli or shota tags.
should probably be “posts” or “topics”
sidenote:
Liquid @ 0.69%
Nice 
I’ve archived that 9.72% and will be moving it elsewhere. Also don’t use MEGA.
I had this issue - feels like with the prepubescent criteria we are more so targeting toddler-con. I untagged a few topics that were tagged loli simply because the character is petite, though I don’t think they will allude to people who dislike like the trope as a whole.
In the meantime I’ll be having real heated debates on what makes a loli per site definition.
Typical lolicon 
That’s it plain and simple. If you are one of the people who is screaming censorship or upset that they are removing said content, you need to re-evaluate yourself. Stop being selfish and understand the situation. No one wants to risk going to jail because you want to consume a certain type of porn. The website owners don’t owe you anything. You should feel lucky they even gave you a notification and a chance to collect the content before they take it down.
Aside the censorship issues, this basically will defacto stop anyone from making or being able to share this type of content because as far as I know this is the biggest site for sharing scripts.
The site should look into alternatives instead of outright banning the content, many places allow this type of content and have little issue, and as it has been said in this thread a opt-in system prevents any random person from seeing it if they don’t want to.
Because in the end this type of content is always the “canary in the coal mine” for other content that gets banned, so what will happen when it’s some other mundane bit of content that is on people’s radar for removal?
what alternative sites are there?
Your two posts in this topic betray a misunderstanding of the text.
Loli/shota is not misconstrued as prepubescent by the site. Prepubescent proportions are currently not allowed (this has been the case for some time) while other types of loli/shota are allowed for now.
Loli/shota as a whole will stop being allowed on July 6.
Just wanted to clarify the message of the announcement for you and anyone else who might be confused.
Apparently the site is changing the definitions to specifically misconstrue them as prepubescent…
well there has been a lot of beastialty posts recently
I support the decision, and admit I’ve been wondering about the legality the site in the future when seeing some of the most extreme posts with this type of content. I’m also concerned this will be a slippery slope of banning other content as well, especially if we start having arguments such as a “a short woman must have large breasts” as has happened on other sites involving pornography.
For me personally, I used to tolerate these tags as there’s content that doesn’t focus on those aspects. Loli/shota may be included among other elements and sometimes I can appreciate a video despite their inclusion.
I did eventually mute tags I wasn’t interested in, but sometimes still willingly visited topics with them via the “New & Unread Topics” section.
If anyone’s interested in reasons why someone might think people should avoid indulging in fictional representation of unethical sex acts, I would recommend this video
I think it should be a personal choice how one engages with the content and it’s unfortunate that we can’t allow opt-in engagement with these tags.
This is an understandable decision and I’m personally not affected, but I’m not happy with it.
As a follow-up point:
This might be a misread of the announcement.
Basically we are banning “loli / shota” content, and will be using “prepubscent-looking” as a dividing line for the execution.
The effect is that we’d be going over topics such as this one and discuss whether it should have the loli tag yoinked.
(so as many topics that were tagged loli before as a pre-emptive measure to prevent inflammation)
Oh! Yeah, on reading again that seems to be the case.
So is this the official announcement of the line adjustment Vlad mentioned in the lounge topic?
Kind of strange way to go about it, re-defining the tags to only consider prepubescent characters as loli/shota while allowing all other kinds of content?
Doesn’t this mean we should be going through the tags and remove it from anything that doesn’t look prepubescent?
Very messy solution if you ask me.