Regarding the idea that users should be able to see their own uploads, regardless of tags, perhaps you should submit a trac ticket with the suggestion to implement that feature?
Posted under General
jxh2154 said:
As a rule, completely disregard every notion you have about "characteristically portrayed..." when tagging. Tag only what you see, with no regard whatsoever to what you know about the character outside of that image.The only exception being tags that are explicitly meant to be "contrast" tags, i.e. young, adult, alternative_hairstyle, player_2 and similar. (Reading the wikis is especially important for these tags)
I find it troublesome that I remember reading all the rules months before I ever decided to upload anything and then when the time comes, the little details go right out the window. I do assert however that my viewpoint would stay the same putting prior knowledge aside. Can't live the way I do without being able to be a good judge of age.
sgcdonmai said:
Regarding the idea that users should be able to see their own uploads, regardless of tags, perhaps you should submit a trac ticket with the suggestion to implement that feature?
I was going to ask in the Danbooru 2 thread, but I suppose that works too.
Bastille said: I find it troublesome that I remember reading all the rules months before I ever decided to upload anything and then when the time comes, the little details go right out the window.
Huh? How is what I said inconsistent with what you read? Tagging what you see is right at the start of howto:tag. It's the fundamental tenet of tagging.
jxh2154 said:
Huh? How is what I said inconsistent with what you read? Tagging what you see is right at the start of howto:tag. It's the fundamental tenet of tagging.
This might be viewed as a semantics issue, but oh well. It says to not factor in opinion into how we tag things, and then provides the example of tagging a picture as sexy purely because we feel that way. Extending that to also mean not applying what is characteristically associated with the person in question is a bit of a stretch. From what I recall, I do remember encountering something about basing our thoughts on what's in front of us rather than what we know about the character while looking up how tagging works though, hence little details.
Not "Not Nude".
It was "Not Engaged in Sexual Activity"
We can use simple logic actually.
-Looks like a child, but it's doing sexual things children shouldn't be supposed do, tag it loli.
-Looks like a child and has no sexual ativity/blatant inuendo, tag it child.
Perhaps it's just me, but I don't think it would be hard to differentiate "lolicon" content from "child" pictures...
jxh2154 said:
The "looks like a child" is the tough part.
I think I understand that one.
But as mentioned before, is it not about the image?
We shall tag what we see, if the girl is tiny, flat-chested, big-eyed and is naked and/or having sex, loli she is, even if she is supposed to be a 500 years old mother of two...
On the other hand, if she has those developed tits, is actually slender instead of small, has that developed mature look on her face, she is not a child anymore, is she?
I never said you did.
I must admit I am at a loss as to wich would be considered gray areas.
I can't even catch up to the pics that are shown on the other topic, the "loli check thread"...
would gray areas be about teenager characters? That's all I can think about as confusing, as it is hard to tell whe the character is more developed and not a child anymore.
Sigfried666 said:
would gray areas be about teenager characters? That's all I can think about as confusing, as it is hard to tell whe the character is more developed and not a child anymore.
Flat chest, not very developed hip structure, but still not loli.
Fencedude said:
post #602473Flat chest, not very developed hip structure, but still not loli.
If that's not loli, it's pushing the boundaries very very hard.
I agree it's an extremely borderline post, but I think I agree with Fencedude on this one.
If you consider the overall proportions (especially head to torso), these seem to be flat-chested, very slim teens rather than pre-adolescents (which is the accepted definition for loli). Believe it or not, not all adolescents or adults have well developed breasts.
That said, it is very borderline, and probably indicates something close to the limits on the slim side of things for -loli.
Shinjidude said:
If you consider the overall proportions (especially head to torso), these seem to be flat-chested, very slim teens rather than pre-adolescents (which is the accepted definition for loli).
I agree. Thus, why I didn't tag it such.
Believe it or not, not all adolescents or adults have well developed breasts.
In the real world, yes...