post #7787026 and faux-democratic ratings in general

PersonalFowl said in forum #436076:

"Anything focused on the ass, breasts, cleavage, underboob, sideboob, feet, armpits, midriff/stomach, navel, lips, or other sexualized parts of the body."

This line in howto:rate should probably be reworded. "focus" implies a connotation this site uses for things like ass focus or foot focus, but it intends to go much further than that.

It doesn't though, at least that seems like quite an unreasonable assumption based on what I'd call a common sense reading of that clause. It seems to be a few users who are interpreting it in that very broad sense, but it's hardly universal.

I agree that the line in howto:rate should be reworded to reflect how things like cleavage have been rated since it was written; i.e., automatic S. When G was new I would follow this wording, but now I know people prefer any of these things are S even if not the focus or detailed

ANON_TOKYO said in forum #436178:

This'd be a shame because I actually think that perspective would actually be quite valuable, especially if it's over a comment by LQ (who's locked out of serious business channels on Discord because he kept having absolutely insane takes, something he's seemingly continuing here based on the nipple comment.)

i mean the main thesis of that response was me trying to get a reality check in regards to my immediate response to what i was reading in the most polite way possible ngl

Well, I have been known to underrate things in the past, so I just kind of assume that for the most part I miss things other people consider sexual and defer to the opinions of others on such topics. But I will say based on the current guidelines listed on howto:rate, the fact that non-serious amounts of blood or bruises is okay for general but the fact that apparently any non-zero amount of cleavage requires a sensitive makes me raise an eyebrow. Here I had assumed that rating post #10334941 as sensitive was correct due to the bloody spikes on her inner dress, but maybe I should have disregarded that. On the other hand, you can see a little bit of her thighs through the fishnets, so that might be too much to handle and deserves the sensitive anyways.

The fact that all swimsuits, no matter what, apparently require a sensitive is also interesting to me. I first uploaded post #9090171 under the general rating, only to have it re-rated to sensitive shortly afterwards, I assume because of Kiyohime wearing a swimsuit. I didn't fight against it because I remembered "oh yeah, swimsuits are sensitive", but do they really have to be in this case? They're chibis. There's arguably some more sensitive content happening in post #9090254 with no swimsuits involved, but nobody's rerated that one to be higher than general. post #11234060 is also currently rated sensitive because she's in a one-piece swimsuit, but does it really look all that different from a tank top? Did I really have to defer to a sensitive on this one? post #11222330 and its children I also rated sensitive because they're technically swimsuits, but again--all chibis in what basically appear to be dresses.

Sure post #11241918 has her nude, but it's not like she has any conveniently censored tatas or anything, she's basically a rectangle, but maybe I should've also similarly rated post #11234355 sensitive because he's also got pelvic curtain censoring, but maybe it doesn't count because he has a shirt on and is also a dude like how it's fine to see dude pectorals but not fine to see lady titties, so maybe I should've actually rated post #11244304 general also? But maybe the boob window makes it too titillating, but also he's a dude so who cares?????????????

Is the fact that the dress is slightly see-through to view bare legs in post #9234027 worth a sensitive? Are the bare legs on post #9311388 really all that different from post #9269702 just because one is swimwear with a midriff and one isn't? Was I correct in rating post #11236701 sensitive for the male-presenting nipples on Kintoki? Should I re-rate post #9127633 to be sensitive instead of general for the same reason?? Should I re-rate post #9233351 to general instead of sensitive because the amount of blood is mild??? Is the cleavage in post #11260066 really going to result in that much more titillation compared to post #11249183 or post #11268096????? Am I the wrong person to ask an opinion about all this in the first place because I actually prefer lightsaber-ed art to uncensored when I do partake in smut????

And that's not even mentioning that while tiny bit of cleavage is apparently a no-no, in addition to minor injuries mild profanity and middle fingers are fine for general, based on the rating criteria, which doesn't align at all with how G-rated versus PG-13 rated media works. Disney is fine with having Ariel in a bikini bra but draws the line at Sebastian saying shit.

Basically--I think there's a clear disconnect between what I personally would consider sensitive versus general content, what media corporations consider sensitive versus general content, and what Danbooru considers sensitive versus general content, and it goes far beyond an occasional midriff or bare shoulder.

I would upvote the post if I could but that very passionate response encapsulates a lot of my concerns about ratings as well, so I've been far less aggressive about giving advice on ratings, reverting ratings I think are wrong and try and avoid asserting any opinion about how posts should be rated. I also use G a lot less to avoid upsetting anyone so most of my posts end up at S.

I have to tune my brain in a Danbooru sense but even that gets weird. Some of the same people in this topic who are saying midriff and a little peek of panty is S (the original prompt for this topic) are also the same people who previously argued that pussy if not a detailed drawing or not the focus of the image can be Q. We're all over the place on this.

Hello from the other side, fellow ace flagbearer.

Ylimegirl said in forum #436039:

They pointed that exact clause out in the forum post you're replying to. The way it's phrased implies a close-up or a a significant amount of cleavage is required for it to qualify for sensitive; other people's responses in this thread indicates that any amount of cleavage is a dealbreaker, because post #11093893 is really not a "focus on cleavage" any moreso than any other portrait image.

Ah, my bad. I misunderstood.

Ylimegirl said in forum #436252:

Basically--I think there's a clear disconnect between what I personally would consider sensitive versus general content, what media corporations consider sensitive versus general content, and what Danbooru considers sensitive versus general content, and it goes far beyond an occasional midriff or bare shoulder.

Three pages of doom scrolling later, this entire post basically summed up what I myself have been thinking about this rating system.

The way I look at it is... if we go with the original three examples in the OP, my self-imposed question will be "is this actually ecchi, risque, etc?" Personally, my answer will be immediately "hell no", but I also know if I actually showed that coworker, or even a random stranger, I know not damn one would care about the immediate content. They'll rhetorically ask "what is this? anime?" after I just randomly shoved it in their face, and no I didn't actually do this but the point's been made: if the supposedly "S" content isn't even capable of even eliciting even a modicum of an emotion, then is already hasn't reached the broad aspect of the guidelines.

Broadly speaking, these categories are:

rating:sensitive - Ecchi, sexy, suggestive, or mildly erotic. Skimpy or revealing clothes, swimsuits, underwear, images focused on the breasts or ass, and anything else potentially not safe for work. Mild violence.

My thinking here is that I don't believe things were ever meant to get this far by design, but we've collectively over-complicated it probably probably a handful of situations, which has gradually increased or ballooned the actual scope of problematic posts. We fruitlessly focus something in the art and not intent that would normally (and non-negotiably) go along with that art. The ratings don't read like they were meant to be acknowledged in a vacuum, that's what tags are for. Yet somehow, some way, these concise lines have contributed to more division, rather than actual consensus.