Loli/shota check thread.

Unbreakable said:

post #3346580

No so I removed it.

post #10366535

Blank_User said:

post #10366535

I'd say yes

Blank_User said:

post #10366535

it's subtle, but besides the general vibe i get, the skirt lifts to reveal what looks like the lines of a groin with seemingly no underwear, so yes.

Blank_User said:

post #10366535

No.

wingdings said:

it's subtle, but besides the general vibe i get, the skirt lifts to reveal what looks like the lines of a groin with seemingly no underwear, so yes.

The "groin" you see is just a skirt frills fold.

you're right, it's colored in with the same color as the rest of the frills. i need to get my eyes checked.

still though, that skirt is a little too short for me to be comfortable calling it not loli.

post #3943786

A certain genius had the bright idea to link this in a wiki so now that I know about it, check please.

WRS said:

post #3943786

A certain genius had the bright idea to link this in a wiki so now that I know about it, check please.

No.

id:10357016,10357014,10357010,10356996,10356989,10356982,10356976,10356949,10356919,10356911,10356902,10356899,10356895,10356876,10356866,10356861,10356857,10356855,10356835,10356832

These are part of the same CG set. I originally posted them without the loli tag, but then they were tagged as loli, which I kind of doubt. So do they need to be tagged as loli?

CommentaryRequest said:

id:10357016,10357014,10357010,10356996,10356989,10356982,10356976,10356949,10356919,10356911,10356902,10356899,10356895,10356876,10356866,10356861,10356857,10356855,10356835,10356832

These are part of the same CG set. I originally posted them without the loli tag, but then they were tagged as loli, which I kind of doubt. So do they need to be tagged as loli?

does not look suggestive enough for the tag imo

They were added over a discussion regarding how to blacklist them and some things were brought up such as the skin-tight impossible dress one of them is wearing looking like not wearing/barely wearing anything when zoomed out. That seems like more than enough to qualify for the tag. Anyway, it'd be nice to have one common way to blacklist all of those because they got dumped en masse and I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't want to see them. I don't want to have to keep blacklisting new ones every time they show up under a new tag and tag real estate for blacklists is limited nowadays.

Need a check on user #1446162's recent use of loli. Most of them looked too tall and slender to count despite the flat chests so I removed the tag from them, but I left it on a few I wasn't completely sure of.

1llusori loli

post #10369455

is this suggestive or even small-looking enough for shota?

Not suggestive enough, if it was sexual I would call them shota.

I don't think it is, but it's close enough that I want to ask here. post #10409499

Placeholder1996 said:

I don't think it is, but it's close enough that I want to ask here. post #10409499

Not erotic enough.

Freshblink said:

Not erotic enough.

didn't think so, still wanted to ask. Thanks

post #10412044
I was going to add child until I saw his hand on her thigh. Not sure whether it's enough to warrant keeping shota.

Blank_User said:

post #10412044
I was going to add child until I saw his hand on her thigh. Not sure whether it's enough to warrant keeping shota.

it does seem benign for shota; child is probably disqualified though.