Posted under General
I'd say it definitely is, but y'all keep surprising me with what you let go, so…
Just a height chart without any sexual content, should loli be removed?
Heavily leaning towards "yes". Double checking before I add it myself.
post #1971128. I really have no benchmark for adding the tag, so I'm leaving this to someone with better judgment.
there's no way this is not, right? I'd also tag post #1593407, but knowing this website…
hemoglobin said:
I'd say that the sexually_suggestive tag makes it obvious
Need an opinion on post #1571053
Someone placed a loli tag on it, but it was then removed. Looks pretty loli to me though.
[Personally, I think Akatsuki (and most depictions of the 6thDesDiv) qualify as loli in most sexually_suggestive (or explicit) content.]
post #1624831: micro bikini, lowleg
post #1627674: same, plus nipples and clothes destruction
post #1681955: lowleg panties, upskirt, underboob
I think these are sufficiently sexual to justify the tag, but early posts in this thread suggest people with more say disagree. Is there any way I can do any convincing?
post #2019334
Fairly sure its not loli. I think it got tagged because of its parent being loli
post #2021531 looks non-loli, possibly got tagged for similar reason as above - other posts containing loli
fossilnix said:
Content-wise probably. Otherwise, not really.
HaxtonFale said:
Nothing sexual about this picture. Definitely no.
Not sure if I should tag it with loli or not.
