Going by the current wiki here on loli, I would say those two do need (keep) that tag.
Then again you did say you are looking for someone more knowledgeable on the subject.
Keeping it on those is okay I guess, especially the second.
You're definitely going to get diverging opinions on a lot of images, though.
When in doubt, tag as loli, for albert's sake.
I know that this would involve a significant amount of development time, but what if....
Image was tagged loli It then becomes something of a un-viewable item to the general public. If the people who could view the image vote it out, with a possible end result of it being removed?
On the other hand, restricting the people who can "see" loli would reduce rampant vandalism...
On the third hand (i know...) diverging opinons might result in a voting war....
Well, anyway, now you have my thoughts.
Images tagged loli or shota are already hidden from the 'general public', i.e. anyone below Privileged. See forum #4987. I'm not sure what you mean by 'vote it out', either; we already have unapproval for that sort of thing, and it's not as though the tag vandalism of late is really centered around loli in the first place.
I'm not seeing how it's loli.
I tagged it loli due to the general lack of curves. I was mostly being on the safe side with it, so if you want to remove it, be my guest. The only reason I re-added it earlie was because the user who took it off originally was of the member level. Not trying to be prejudiced with that last statement, it's just that when I was a member, I was locked out of changing the tags for loli/shota posts, and I wasn't sure if that was changed or he used some kind of script to do it.
Given the lack of any really distinctive childlike features and that it's non-sexual nudity of a fairly tame nature, I removed the tag again. Strange about a Member-level user being able to remove the loli tag, though; I'm pretty sure that's not supposed to happen.
It was probably someone using the view loli script.
Hillside_Moose said:post #602891
I'm not seeing how it's loli.
Definitely not loli.
Member-level user being able to remove the loli tag
They probably used the "undo" option in the tag history.
bored_man said:
post #584571
No nudity, no loli. Questionable is the most that image will be given.
bored_man said: post #584571
Definitely not loli.
Agreed. Too much hip-to-waist variance, and the face doesn't look loli at all.
Might as well get a few out of the way.
post #608869 I went vigilante on that one, but given how things are in my other thread, I might as well get confirmation on it.
post #608597 post #608589 post #608586 I don't particularly feel these are loli, but a more neutral view point would be beneficial.
bored_man said:
post #584571
It's sad I was able to guess who was responsible for tagging it loli before checking the tag history.
post #608869 - Not loli. Well formed breasts, curves from torso to wide hips and defined legs.
post #608597 post #608589 post #608586 - The first is borderline. The second and third I'd definitely keep loli due to the straight line down the torso, lack of curves, flat chest, very small stature, and of course sexual content.
post #608869, not loli at all, except possibly via the somewhat cutesy art style.
post #608597, at that angle, it's pretty much impossible to discern whether or not she has matured features. The length of the leg from hip to knee throws doubt on it being loli, however.
post #608589 is much less of a grey area. The overall slenderness, the lack of matured physical features, and the overall small size seem to point toward this deserving the tag.
post #608586 - dubious. More or less the same as post #608597 in this regard.
jxh2154 said:
post #608869 - not lolipost #608597 post #608589 post #608586 - The first is borderline. The second and third I'd definitely keep loli due to the straight line down the torso, lack of curves, flat chest, very small stature, and of course sexual content.
Figures that it's the two images that are still pending mod approval too. I'm assuming borderline isn't enough to have it removed. Also, following my thought process that if one rendition of the character by that artist is safe, the rest might be.
post #608869 -> post #523687 post #515896
Bastille said:
Also, following my thought process that if one rendition of the character by that artist is safe, the rest might be.
post #608869 -> post #523687 post #515896
That's a sketchy way to think of it, but in these particular instances, you're correct. The faces/heads are loli, and the smaller bustlines lowers the maturity factor compared to post #608869, but a waist:hip variance of that magnitude pretty much defeats the loli tag's applicability there.
Bastille said: I'm assuming borderline isn't enough to have it removed.
For me, borderline means I'm not going to add or remove it of my own volition. In short, it doesn't matter to me which way it goes and I'd only step in if people were starting a stupid edit revert war.
Also, following my thought process that if one rendition of the character by that artist is safe, the rest might be.
Not necessarily. Artists can draw a character very different ways from image to image, both in terms of design and whether or not the image is explicit.
Once again, tag what you see. Not based on artist, or storyline, or anything else.
That said, yeah, I agree with sgcdonmai. They're less obvious than post #608869 but I'd err somewhat on the side of not loli for those.
Sketchy thinking is what I do best. Just ask anyone who's gotten into a debate with me over the application of the word lolicon in the real world :∨
Might as well keep at it. If gambling has taught us anything, it's that there are no repercussions to keep trying until you completely hit rock bottom. post #553998 post #522525 (Questioning these two can't go wrong!) post #554729 post #586060 post #522217
The forum is here for just this kind of thing. And the only truly stupid question is the one you fail to ask.
post #553998: Satori's flat chest is the only thing that makes it even remotely loli-ish. Tag removed.
post #522525: ...honestly, I can't see past the bad anatomy to tell. It's almost Cubist.
post #554729: I'm going to tentatively say that it doesn't, since the only visible details of the characters there are the clothes and the faces. I could go either way, here.
post #586060: Not at all. I can only assume that was a tagging error. Removed.
post #522217: Can't tell with clothes like that, and even if I could, it's not even questionable enough. A mere pantyshot does not a sexual activity make.
sgcdonmai said:
The forum is here for just this kind of thing. And the only truly stupid question is the one you fail to ask.post #553998: Satori's flat chest is the only thing that makes it even remotely loli-ish. Tag removed.
post #522525: ...honestly, I can't see past the bad anatomy to tell. It's almost Cubist.
post #554729: I'm going to tentatively say that it doesn't, since the only visible details of the characters there are the clothes and the faces. I could go either way, here.
post #586060: Not at all. I can only assume that was a tagging error. Removed.
post #522217: Can't tell with clothes like that, and even if I could, it's not even questionable enough. A mere pantyshot does not a sexual activity make.
Given who it was that tagged the 4th, I'm inclined to think it wasn't an error. For the third, all prior examples given by me dealt with them exposing genetalia so was wondering how that one would go. As for the first, did you get a chuckle out of undoing a tag that you had set yourself?
As for new images, let's see, going by previous decisions... post #565458 post #509266 post #80606 post #168326 post #610115 post #608664 post #605871 post #604215 post #602434 post #598966 post #591166 post #590837 post #590834 post #590831 post #586697 post #581981 post #577895 post #577891 post #577890 post #577889 post #577885 post #556671
That covers the first 15 pages of touhou loli, as well as some specifics of Suika since I checked her first. Might as well get those out of the way before pressing on. There are probably more, but my ability to judge hip to waist ratio isn't as great as it could be.
Wow, long list. Okay.
post #565458: Naughty bits concealed, but the sexually suggestive content is thick as cold butter. Compensating for perspective, the figure is still childish. Definitely deserves the tag.
post #509266: The angle here makes the hips seem deceptively wide. Suika's body size and observable build screams loli to me. I tagged it such before.
post #80606: Tempted to flag it for low quality. That aside, her body is a straight line, and the head-to-body size comparison makes it even more childish. With the bondage and the pussy juice, it's definitely suggestive enough for the tag.
post #168326: Loli in body, but not in the content of the image. Tag removed.
post #610115: She's slender and small-breasted, sure, but a closer look shows her to be of comparable size to the (visibly adult) male she's riding. Further, the face and overall style don't seem to be going for the loli look. Tag removed.
post #608664, post #605871: Not enough sexual or suggestive content in either of these to qualify for the tag. It's just a pantyshot, for Pete's sake.
post #604215: A bare ass makes it questionable, but there's no sexual content to this one. Tag removed.
post #602434: Just a pantyshot. Removed.
post #598966: The arms and head look childlike, but that's as far as it goes for this one. Removed.
post #591166: Suwako's quite loli in this, and has clearly been deep-kissing Sanae, whose tits are out, but Suwako herself is fully clothed, and the fact that those panties aren't visibly wet makes it look like that fluid on her thigh is just sweat. I'm not really sure how to call this one.
post #590837, post #590834, post #590831: Akin to a pantyshot. Removed.
post #586697: She does look like a little girl with some baby fat, she is nude, and her pose is quite suggestive. Tag stays.
post #581981: Suggestive pose, including vaginal fluid, plus childlike body. Tag stays.
post #577895: The semen makes it most definitely sexual, but there's no indication at all of her figure. Tag removed.
post #577891: Somewhat iffy on the overall proportions that can be seen, which suggest a prepubescent body. However, there's no visible sexual content here. Removed.
post #577890: Child-sized and childishly proportioned body with no visible mature features, giving some dude a handjob. Tag stays.
post #577889: Tough one. The body's obviously child-sized, and the artist even gave her a randoseru (backpack for elementary school kids) to drive it home. I'm not certain whether it has suggestive enough content to deserve the tag or not, though. Leaving it alone for now.
post #577885: Can't determine the body proportions at a glance, and the sexual content is dubious. Removed.
post #556671: At first glance, it's not, but loli Alice being restrained with pussy juice dripping down her thigh... yeah, it's loli. Tag stays.
(edit: I went and reduced the rating from Q to S in the case of the innocent pantyshot ones.
Also, Bastille, would you mind putting a hard return in between the post links next time? It's more convenient to review them that way.)
Bastille said:
It's sad I was able to guess who was responsible for tagging it loli before checking the tag history.
My ears are burning.
I guess a little explanation is on it's place. I'm not too fond of loli posts for much the same reason advertisers are, thus I make a quick appraisal and tag it as such if I find it applicable so my member account/blacklist is effective.
For how much sexuality it needs to be a candidate I follow what 葉月(mod) and jxh2154(admin) said in towards the end of forum #34971. i.e. everything not Rating:s = loli if it is a child.
A lot of those contested and reverted because of not-a-child reasons appear to me as part of a set of the same character in my thumbnails. And thus if I deem one loli the chances of the rest of them getting the tag also rises. And yes, I [i]tag what I see[i/] namely a picture set.
The others reverted for not-a-child reasons I might have been a bit quick in the appraisal, so meh. I prefer to err on the safe side of Albert's income anyway.
Good intentions, erroneous execution. Meh.
I'd extend the "tag what you see" rule to including the image itself, and excluding the fact/idea that it is part of a set (except for pooling purposes). Swimsuits are safe, nudity is not. Panties are not inherently questionable, semen-spattered panties are.
Really, lots of those images didn't even qualify for the Questionable rating in my eyes.
sgcdonmai said:
Really, lots of those images didn't even qualify for the Questionable rating in my eyes.
Beyond cameltoes and lowlegs being rated as safe(this annoys me as I've yet to come across one that truly is) I usually just use whatever rating already there for the sexuality assessment(unless it's obviously misrated). Using the logic that "if whoever uploaded this considered it not Rating:s, chances are others might consider it not Rating:s as well." Thus leaving up to the Privileged and above who care enough to make a second opinion.
Sorry ummhyuk, I know I said I'd leave the image alone, but with the loli tag being a hot topic right now, I'm tempted to give this another shot.
umhyuk said:
Using the logic that "if whoever uploaded this considered it not Rating:s, chances are others might consider it not Rating:s as well."
The problem with that logic is that Q is the default rating when uploading an image. It could just as easily be simple laziness, or lack of observation, rather than intent that causes a Q rating. I know I often neglect to change an incorrect rating because I just wasn't paying attention to it (bad of me, I know).
As for cameltoes and low-leg panties, I judge that based on how much flesh is left visible.
If the cameltoe is only a simple line and/or some shading, it's probably fine, but not so if the clitoris/hood or other parts of the vulva are clearly delineated, or if the panties are wet.
Low-leg panties are on the borderline to Questionable, that I can agree. However, just showing that they're being worn isn't enough for a Q rating; it's how they're shown that matters. I take these on a case-by-case basis.
Ars
over 2 years agoLoli/shota check thread.
As we all know, making sure an image is correctly tagged as loli or not is rather important, though it can be rather dubious at best. I'm starting this thread in hopes of getting a centralized point of checking.
If you're unsure whether or not a certain image or set of images warrants the loli tag, post it here (in "post #******" format, without the qoutes) and hopefully someone more knowledgeable will clear it up.
Let me start it off with post #594502 and post #584872
[mod edit: updated thread title to include shota - jxh2154]