post #1059071 - I'm going to have to disagree
Posted under General
post #1059071 - I'm going to have to disagree
sgcdonmai said:
post #556086 - Fairly tame lingerie, no exposure.
Fairly tame, but still obvious erotic intent, landing it in Q territory. Two girls in lingerie blushing and looking coquettishly at the viewer. I'm inclined to tag it if someone else agrees on the age. Anyone else want to weigh in?
sgcdonmai said:
post #764959, post #764960, post #764961 - Just chibi. You can make out the flare of her hips despite the perspective-distortion.
S1eth said:
post #764959 very much loli. Even hips won't change the head/body ratio.
Tie-breaker vote, anyone?
Thanks for the look over. And thanks for the catch on Renko. It was right there in the tags, and I just didn't see.
ROMaster2 said:
post #1059071 - I'm going to have to disagree
That chest & head/torso ratio say loli to me. OTOH, her hips are wide, and perspective plays with the limb length.
In the source manga, she's 18+, but she's definitely intended to be a lolicon-friendly character design. Basically an 18+ character who can live out brother-sister lolicon (and yandere) fetishes.
I vote to keep the tag. We tag based on what you see, and that's what the mangaka intended us to see.
Next batch (3 of 6):
post #202962
post #232395 Skirt lift should meet sex content req.
post #246054
post #296306
post #298114 Surprised I didn't post this one earlier...
post #305663
post #357861 More ry ambiguity
post #413821
post #440784
post #450486 Some breasts, but otherwise...
Looks like my opinion here is "no" for pretty much all of them.
post #556086 is only q because of the fold in Kanako's panties. Otherwise, images of girls in underwear are nearly always s.
post #1059071: looks too old. hands and chocolate covering nearly her entire body doesn't make judging it easier.
post #202962: too old, actually pretty wide hips (follow the outer line of her right thigh beneath her skirt)
post #232395: We actually have quite a few child skirt_lift images.
post #246054: too tame. ....and really poorly drawn.
post #296306: If a ball_gag doesn't automatically implicate sexualization - which I think it doesn't - I would rate this safe. A girl is tied up, but that's it. She's fully clothed.
post #298114: hard to tell because of the perspective. Nitori has something resembling a waist though.
post #305663: the part of her body that's visible (thighs) doesn't look like that of a child. (Of course, the artist put her childish face on the character)
post #357861: too tame again.
post #413821: Totally safe. No idea why it was rated q.
S1eth said:
post #232395: We actually have quite a few child skirt_lift images.
And I don't think our advertisers would appreciate it. Like several of those pics, Suwako is puling up her skirt off her panties for the viewer while blushing. Sexual intent is clear, IMHO. I'd tag a number of the image under that search as loli, myself.
post #296306: If a ball_gag doesn't automatically implicate sexualization - which I think it doesn't - I would rate this safe. A girl is tied up, but that's it. She's fully clothed.
What. The. Fuck. I threw that one in purely for an age-check, and I was 80% sure on it. It never even dawned on me that ANYONE would think that someone blindfolded, sweating, with a ball-gag in their mouth, making little muffled moans could be anything but sexualized, and I'm kind of appalled by the notion. I don't know how you can defend that one as innocent.
post #357861: too tame again.
post #413821: Totally safe. No idea why it was rated q.
No offense, but I think you may have a slightly jaded sense of sexualization, particularly in the latter case. Suwako is pulling up her shirt with what looks to me like a naughty face, and there's a good argument for her not having any panties on. She isn't showing anything yet, but howto:rate does put "other assorted erotica, as long as it doesn't cross the porn line" under rating:q. I think it's got intent.
Maybe it's not "bad enough" for loli -- whatever that means, even though the tag says anything not "safe" -- but I can't see how that's not a questionable image.
BCI_Temp said:
(post #296306)
What. The. Fuck. I threw that one in purely for an age-check, and I was 80% sure on it. It never even dawned on me that ANYONE would think that someone blindfolded, sweating, with a ball-gag in their mouth, making little muffled moans could be anything but sexualized, and I'm kind of appalled by the notion. I don't know how you can defend that one as innocent.
I don't see suspicious fluids or blushing. To me, it looks like she's being kidnapped for ransom or something.
(post #413821)
Suwako is pulling up her shirt with what looks to me like a naughty face, and there's a good argument for her not having any panties on.
I don't know where you get the idea about her panties. I don't see that at all.
Naughty face or not, all she's baring is her belly. That is safe. If someone was lifting her shirt for her, there might be something to this, as that would have less wholesome implications for sure, but that is not the case here.
She isn't showing anything yet, but howto:rate does put "other assorted erotica, as long as it doesn't cross the porn line" under rating:q. I think it's got intent.
If we're loosening the definition for "erotica" that far, then you run into the "anything is someone's fetish" problem.
Maybe it's not "bad enough" for loli -- whatever that means, even though the tag says anything not "safe" -- but I can't see how that's not a questionable image.
Even if it was deserving of a Questionable rating, remember that not all rating:q images featuring children are going to need the loli tag.
sgcdonmai said:
I don't see suspicious fluids or blushing. To me, it looks like she's being kidnapped for ransom or something.
Yeah, but who uses a whiffle bag gag to keep someone quiet? It's not really good for that sort of thing. That's purely a sexual tool, and I think the intent is obvious. She's not actively being molested, no, but I don't think that more than a handful of people would look at that picture and not think that something sexual (and kinky) is in her future.
If she were just gagged with cloth, I think there'd be an argument, and you might even look at the sweat and muffled moans as signs of fear at being kidnapped, but the ball gag is just too strong of a sexual indicator.
If we're loosening the definition for "erotica" that far, then you run into the "anything is someone's fetish" problem.
Alright, alright, I'll back down on that one, but...
Even if it was deserving of a Questionable rating, remember that not all rating:q images featuring children are going to need the loli tag.
Then someone needs to fix the loli tag to give a better, firmer definition of what it means. "Safe" already includes many things which aren't work-safe. Loli seems to exist as some sort of fourth division between "questionable enough" and "not questionable enough," and it's maddeningly vague.
It splits the rating system into a set of 4 tiers not described by howto:rate, and if the concern is trying to avoid pissing off our advertisers (who are not necessarily fans of Japanese works and Japanese cultural mores on age), then we need to err more towards false positives than false negatives.
post #1060641
somewhat leaning towards not loli but im not sure.
On some posts I noticed that the user Haborym took the loli tag off and when I had a look at his tag history it seems like he does that a lot. I checked some of his edits to questionable images and while I agree with some edits, I disagree with most more or less strongly.
For example, I put the tag back on for post #1035125, post #877071, post #932379, post #507106, post #686037, post #870777 and post #872366.
Unfortunately, most of his edits are on explicit images and I don’t want to check loads of (potential) explicit loli pr0n, so I’m hoping for someone more inclined to do so.
S1eth said:
The problem here is that Haborym found out that, even though he cannot look at images tagged loli because he is only a member, he can remove the loli tag and then look at them.You can see that he put the loli tag back on on some of those images (about a minute later).
If abuse of the tag editing system like that isn't a bannable offense, it ought to be.
I though it wasn't possible to edit images tagged loli as member.
I mean, why would that other guy (forum #65379) use "revert to" on the tag history page if he could have simply removed the tag.
Looks like someone already updated the trac ticket with this case.
post #927835
Changed to loli to be on the safe side, but a second opinion would be nice.
Algasir said:
I didn't think you were allowed to edit tags of an image as a member if the image was loli/shota. Or at least I wasn't when I was a normal member.
I seem to remember that being the case.
Mysterio006 said:
post #927835
Changed to loli to be on the safe side, but a second opinion would be nice.
Torso is less than 2x head size. Wide pelvis and slightly long legs for it, but I lean in favor of loli there. At most she's at the 13/14 border.
Continuing from last week... 4/6.
post #508256
post #609793 Borderline age. Leaning no.
post #651478 Ass-hugging panties.
post #733364 Cirno looks okay. Not sure about Suwako.
post #757724
post #792167 Going on the face..?
(Sorry for the delay. I got food poisoning for Christmas.)
Now for two potentially contentious ones. What do you do when it doesn't particularly look loli, but the text in the images explicitly says that they are?
I did the translations on both, and I can personally vouch that the word kodomo for child is explicitly used in both.