Posted under General
I'm not sure if I'm the only one with this problem, but I think this needs some clarifications. Examples with pictures would be best.
To start, thoses 2 pics might be around the border maybe, since one is loli and other is not. I would think bubbles don't make that much difference.
Updated by kumarei
Both of those pictures are loli. The first was mistagged. They aren't even close to any definition border I'm aware of - she's clearly young and/or flat enough to be prepubescant.
Loli is used for girls who look younger than about 14, so they should have small or no breasts and little or no pubic hair (not that pubic hair is ever drawn on anyone but you get the point). Older girls who are flat aren't loli (use pettanko), and young girls with overdeveloped chests probably shouldn't be either.
Boco said: Loli is used for girls who look younger than about 14, so they should have small or no breasts and little or no pubic hair
Who are in a sexual situation. That's important. If it's not sexual (in a general sense, it doesn't have to involve sexual acts), it's not loli.
post #154704 for example is *NOT* loli by any definition. (I removed the tag, before anyone says "but it wasn't tagged loli!")
And yes, the two posts in the OP are simple to tag loli. She's naked, and it's meant to be more or less sexually arousing.
jxh2154 said:
Who are in a sexual situation. That's important. If it's not sexual (in a general sense, it doesn't have to involve sexual acts), it's not loli.
So by that logic, loli+rating:safe should give 0 hits, and that's duplicating rating information in a tag that doesn't imply rating:questionable nor rating:explicit. If it's useful to ahve loli+rating:questionable return at least one hit, we should trust that users who want young girls who aren't being objectified to look at rating:safe without needing some tag that means "little girl but in a nonsexual situation".
Use loli even if there's no sexual content. We can throw technicalities of language use away if they're not convenient for storing and categorising information (at least, we can when tagging images).
Boco said:
So by that logic, loli+rating:safe should give 0 hits, and that's duplicating rating information in a tag that doesn't imply rating:questionable nor rating:explicit. If it's useful to ahve loli+rating:questionable return at least one hit, we should trust that users who want young girls who aren't being objectified to look at rating:safe without needing some tag that means "little girl but in a nonsexual situation".Use loli even if there's no sexual content. We can throw technicalities of language use away if they're not convenient for storing and categorising information (at least, we can when tagging images).
well loli = lolicon here anyways, and I by no mean wanted to fall in a discussion about safe posts being tagged loli.
Leaving that aside, the pics I suggested could be anywhere between 12 and 20 years old, and if you look at post #89837 she looks pretty much like a flat chested adult to me. I would not think rorikon includes that (imagining she had no clothes on that pic).
I'm not familiar with the source material but the original two pictures definitely look loli to me. If you stumble across another and you're not sure what to tag it, try just putting pettanko (= flat_chest after the Great Anglicisation) on since most people looking for loli will look for it as well / instead anyway.
Boco said: So by that logic, loli+rating:safe should give 0 hits
Yes, exactly. It *should*. We had a thread on this exact thing just recently. But there are certainly many hits because 1) lots of older posts weren't tagged as precisely as they are now and 2) some people still don't get it. There was talk about coming up with a new tag that will accurately represent the images (which loli does NOT), but I don't think anyone settled on one. Not that one is even necessary, if you ask me. We don't tag every image of an adult woman or post-pubescent teenage girl.
If it's useful to ahve loli+rating:questionable return at least one hit, we should trust that users who want young girls who aren't being objectified to look at rating:safe without needing some tag that means "little girl but in a nonsexual situation".
Loli can be questionable, because questionable can be sexual. As I already noted, loli does not have to mean hardcore intercourse. So, loli does not automatically = explicit rating, if you thought I was saying that.
Use loli even if there's no sexual content.
No.
...why should loli+rating:safe give 0 hits? Why have a tag that means "loli-but-rating:safe" when "loli+rating:safe" does the same thing? Is it to aid in making tag blacklists? I mean, throw the actual word's meaning out for a second - we've been using it for years just to refer to prepubescant girls regardless of the preence or lack of sexual situations, because it's easier to tag images that way, and once the rating system was implemented it was easy to separate the "safe" loli images from "everything else". So why remove the loli tag from them? It's useful for categorisation even if it's not precise usage of the actual word.
Boco said: ...why should loli+rating:safe give 0 hits?
Because if it's loli it isn't safe. Round and round we go...
Why have a tag that means "loli-but-rating:safe" when "loli+rating:safe" does the same thing?
Note that I said I did not personally think we needed this tag at all, so I'm not saying we need it now either. We do not need a tag that just means "young girl", but some people want it anyway. And for them it's easier to search 'some_tag' than 'tag_that_isnt_correct +rating:safe'
Is it to aid in making tag blacklists?
That's one advantage. I've considered blacklisting loli before, but that would also block hundreds of (older) images that should NOT be blocked.
we've been using it for years just to refer to prepubescant girls regardless of the preence or lack of sexual situations
Imprecise (and incorrect and usually facetious) colloquial usage is not always a good thing to base tagging on.
So why remove the loli tag from them?
Because they are not loli.
Round and round we go...
Updated
Boco said: I'd like other moderators' opinions.
In case you have the wrong idea, the fact that I'm a mod has nothing to do with this, because I don't set tag policy. Only Albert does that. I do remove loli from images where it doesn't belong, but only as I find them in the normal course of browsing, something that ANY user can do (I have refrained from using mod access to mass edit loli+safe into oblivion, even though I've wanted to to so), so we're talking like... 1-2 a week if that. Because generally people have been pretty good about not misusing the tag, which I think further illustrates why this shouldn't be treated as an urgent issue.
There WAS a thread about it, and no solution was come to in the end. That means that we're losing information by your removing the loli tag from safe images.
I still have the same opinion as I did then. I don't care whether loli means only sexual images, or whether it includes other pictures, or where you draw the border, but there should be some kind of consensus view before anyone goes around changing all the tags.
With cute, we lost no real information, with this we stand to lose 14 pages worth.
I don't care about explicit loli as I'll never upload anything like that, but I have tagged safe images with "loli" before (well, one image) cause I assumed it was just the catch-all word for "cute little kid" around here.
I'll keep an eye on this thread and any official word from albert on what is loli and what isn't. What should I use for images with little kids though, assuming he agrees with jxh? "child", "children"? "kiddy"? What's the "loli+safe" tag?
The earlier thread, for reference:
Okay, so the first thread died off because no one really seemed to care. The situation has changed, since jxh2154 has now mentioned a good practical reason to not use loli safe. It would be beneficial to be able to blacklist sexual loli pictures.
I think that a good way to deal with this would be to say that the people who want to preserve the non-sexual loli information have seven days to come up with a new tag. During that time, no images tagged loli safe will be changed. On the 19th, loli safe will cease to be.
Also, as a personal plea, do not use the words "child", "kid", "kiddie", or any tags containing any of these (e.g. the proposed "childlike" tag). There's no point in inviting trouble.
I meant to post this in the earlier thread, but never got around to it:
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/489/loliyq7.jpg
This is a cap from Shugo Chara, a mahou shoujo anime that, as far as I know, is marketed towards young girls (despite contrary evidence: http://zepy.momotato.com/2007/10/17/many-male-adults-at-shugo-chara-event/ ). I don't think they'd be using the word loli so openly if the sexual connotations were as strong as they are elsewhere. See also: gosurori or gothic lolita, which is more like a 'look' than anything.
But then again that's Japan and the Japanese language, not English.
The loli from Sweet Loli and Goth Loli is a different word. It's deliberately disconnected from the word loli, which is short for lolicon.
Edit: In fact, that loli is often spelled differently than the lolicon loli (although not in this case). They both come from Lolita, but they're different things now.
I think the idea behind using loli only for young anime girls with sexual content is to be easy to blacklist or remove from search by those that really don't want to see that. Anyone that wants to see young anime girls in questionable or explicit poses can easily search for loli and flat_chest with rating:q or rating:e as they wish.
What I would suggest to avoid confusion from new members would be to simply put an alias loli⇒lolicon and an implication lolicon → flat_chest. That way, anyone that tag loli and is so sure loli is for any young anime girl, will realize the tag changed for lolicon and remove it, and see the new flat_chest tag on their post.
I understand the reasoning behind using loli only as an explicit tag and I agree with it. However, that still leaves unresolved what tag to use for images of children that aren't explicit/questionable.
kumarei said:
Also, as a personal plea, do not use the words "child", "kid", "kiddie", or any tags containing any of these (e.g. the proposed "childlike" tag). There's no point in inviting trouble.
What? I was proposing it for safe images only. What part of that is trouble?
I mean, I want to find images like this: post #154508 (I removed the loli tag)
I would say that "child" is a fine tag for this, but any other suggestion would be fine too, maybe the Japanese "kodomo".
