post #7787026 and faux-democratic ratings in general

trapster77 said in forum #435783:

i don't use safebooru but if i did i'd rather that posts be over-censored than under-censored

I believe the way you are thinking about it is wrong. If you overdo the censoring then there will be nothing left and people will be forced to use Danbooru anyway. If that would be the case then there is no real meaning behind Safebooru. However I'd probably check on the site creator's opinions on the reason behind it's existence before making bold claims about how it should be, though I believe this is going off-topic a little bit at this point.

ggraphy said in forum #435785:

I believe the way you are thinking about it is wrong. If you overdo the censoring then there will be nothing left and people will be forced to use Danbooru anyway. If that would be the case then there is no real meaning behind Safebooru. However I'd probably check on the site creator's opinions on the reason behind it's existence before making bold claims about how it should be, though I believe this is going off-topic a little bit at this point.

you can blacklist S, Q, E on uncensored booru

i think if you are using safebooru it's because you want everything as censored as possible. probably because you're in public/at work

i don't think it makes sense to treat safebooru users as people who have no choice but to use safebooru

you get a relatively safe booru that you can browse in public places. in exchange some posts you wanted to see ended up censored. it's a compromise

trapster77 said in forum #435795:

you can blacklist S, Q, E on uncensored booru

i think if you are using safebooru it's because you want everything as censored as possible. probably because you're in public/at work

i don't think it makes sense to treat safebooru users as people who have no choice but to use safebooru

you get a relatively safe booru that you can browse in public places. in exchange some posts you wanted to see ended up censored. it's a compromise

Well the issue is if you blacklist S, Q, E you still get less content if you do that don't you? (that's basically what Safebooru does AFAIK) Whatever the use case is just because they picked the censored version of the site they should not be left with a handful of posts every day would be my main argument on the topic of Safebooru. We have ratings so people should use them properly.

I think it's a bit misleading from the main topic just to have this discussion around Safebooru though. Whatever the use case is (even outside of Safebooru) we probably want to keep tags and ratings proper between posts in order to ensure quality. As of now we have a confusion around the ratings so the priority would be to properly define how the ratings work. Since we are unable to omit rating from our posts it is kind of a mistag when we improperly use it.

If it's truly a black-and-white contextless issue then safebooru could just blacklist midriff; if we view images as images then I think the primary image in question should be g.

tamuraakemi said in forum #435803:

If it's truly a black-and-white contextless issue then safebooru could just blacklist midriff; if we view images as images then I think the primary image in question should be g.

No one said this was a black-and-white issue. And even if I agreed that it should be G, there are still several users with plenty of experience arguing otherwise. That is enough on its own to justify the S rating. It's not about which side has the most votes; if there are legitimate concerns about putting it in the lower rating, then the higher rating should apply.

And if that post was ruled to be S on those grounds, then it makes sense for the other two I mentioned, which are less borderline, to be S as well.

We have plenty of G-rated posts already, and not just scenery pics. Losing a few contentious posts to S is not going to have a significant effect on the donmai.moe or Safe Mode users. If there aren't enough G posts, it would be more efficient to focus on the older posts uploaded before the old Safe rating was split. There's still plenty of completely SFW posts from back then still rated S.

Blank_User said in forum #435765:

...

It's actually 6:3 (now 6:4) if you take the comments into account, but yeah, saying only one person disagreed with the G rating on that one is a huge misrepresentation of what actually happened.

It was just a tiny snapshot of the whole conversation, I had hoped that would be obvious. As shown here too, it was a lot of back and forth.

Blank_User said in forum #435776:

So the fact that I think post #11251386 can be G despite also having cleavage means nothing to you? I understand mitigating factors and that just because something is present or has a certain tag doesn't necessarily mean it needs a higher rating, despite what some users try to claim about me. But those posts look no different from your typical S post. I don't see how these would be considered part of the 1% of cleavage posts that could be rated G.

This is precisely the problem I'm describing. You (and ion288, primarily) take the time to mass-garden many obviously wrong ratings, but then also seem to have the angle that "1%" of cleavage posts can be G (I know you just made this number up, but the number you chose is revealing). Like Ylimegirl pointed out, your judgement of what's highly visible or closeup seems to be very questionable, and...

You can argue that we don't need to be so strict for posts like these, but the way our current system is set up, if the rating of a G/S borderline post is controversial, then it should be rated as S. It's better to be a little too strict than not strict enough because this could easily lead into the degradation of rating boundaries over time. The strictness for G/S is to prevent that from happening again.

Blank_User said in forum #435816:

...

And if that post was ruled to be S on those grounds, then it makes sense for the other two I mentioned, which are less borderline, to be S as well.

... any disagreement gets shut down with "well we're supposed to play it safe". No, what I am saying is that we should think about ratings. Someone should make a forum topic about this. Oh, wait...

In addition to this, many of the image features pointed out here are constantly used in completely benign usecases, both in real-life and in SFW/children-oriented media. This includes midriff, cleavage, groin, even panty peek as a fashion thing. Hence my comment about a joke "rating:halal", since that's what some people seem to want to make it. I've seen approvers argue posts are S purely based on bare shoulders, it's ridiculous how detached from reality some of these arguments are.

ANON_TOKYO said in forum #435738:

This was originally prompted by post #7787026 but it has come up again through the rating of posts like post #11251386, post #11093893, post #11244578.

Just for reference, I was one of the people saying post #11244578 should be S, which is an opinion I stand by. The other two, however, I think are perfectly fine being G. I can't see anything wrong with post #11251386, and the cleavage in post #11093893 is very understated compared to the sort of thing I'd expect to be bumped down to S.

ANON_TOKYO said in forum #435738:

I don't know what the precise goal of this was when it was written, but I doubt it was to say that a single disagreement means it has to be S, which is what people seem to try to use it for.

It's not a clause for 1-person vetos, no. It's meant to be a general guideline for "if you're unsure if it's S or G, then go with S". This also applies to groups of people; if six experienced users come to a 5:1 split on how a post should be rated, then it should probably be rated with whatever the 5 said, be that S or G. However, if it were a 3:3 split, then it's probably best to make it S.

For what it's worth, I would rate post #7787026, post #11251386, post #11093893, and post #11235458 all as G, but post #11244578 as S.

AngryZapdos said in forum #435838:

It's not a clause for 1-person vetos, no. It's meant to be a general guideline for "if you're unsure if it's S or G, then go with S". This also applies to groups of people; if six experienced users come to a 5:1 split on how a post should be rated, then it should probably be rated with whatever the 5 said, be that S or G. However, if it were a 3:3 split, then it's probably best to make it S.

This is exactly how I think the rule should be interpreted.

ANON_TOKYO said in forum #435821:

This is precisely the problem I'm describing. You (and ion288, primarily) take the time to mass-garden many obviously wrong ratings, but then also seem to have the angle that "1%" of cleavage posts can be G (I know you just made this number up, but the number you chose is revealing). Like Ylimegirl pointed out, your judgement of what's highly visible or closeup seems to be very questionable, and...

I didn't pull that number out of my ass. I was referring to evazion's statement about ratings in forum #215101. And I never claimed that number should be taken literally. That would be ridiculous.

I highly recommend everyone who hasn't done so to read that forum post and forum #215738 as they show what evazion intended for the G rating. Also, see forum #215739, which shows evazion's explanation for rating post #804674 as G despite the cleavage and under what circumstances he would've rated it as S instead.

... any disagreement gets shut down with "well we're supposed to play it safe". No, what I am saying is that we should think about ratings. Someone should make a forum topic about this. Oh, wait...

We did think about them. You just accused us straight away of basing our ratings on tags or having poor judgment instead of giving us the benefit of the doubt. I don't care how much this frustrates you; you are still expected to show basic respect to the ones you disagree with. Just because someone rates something different than what you want doesn't mean they're incompetent.

And yes, the cleavage in those posts are highly visible. You can't miss it. And there are additional factors in post #11244578 that have nothing to do with bare skin that contribute to the rating. I highly doubt anyone would put something like that on their desktop at work.

In addition to this, many of the image features pointed out here are constantly used in completely benign usecases, both in real-life and in SFW/children-oriented media. This includes midriff, cleavage, groin, even panty peek as a fashion thing. Hence my comment about a joke "rating:halal", since that's what some people seem to want to make it. I've seen approvers argue posts are S purely based on bare shoulders, it's ridiculous how detached from reality some of these arguments are.

Sure, but there are limits to this. We can't put full-body images of Ariel in S just because she's one of the few girls wearing nothing but a bikini top that's considered acceptable to show to young children.

I would say that Blank User has already expressed everything I thought on this matter, but as a direct participant in the discussion that took place in Discord, I think it would not be superfluous to leave a little of my opinion.

ANON_TOKYO said in forum #435738:

..I don't know what the precise goal of this was when it was written, but I doubt it was to say that a single disagreement means it has to be S, which is what people seem to try to use it for.

Indeed, your doubts are absolutely correct, but unfortunately this is a substitution of concepts, because during the discussion the conversation was never about just 1 person as a whole, from the very beginning there were 2 camps with a sufficient number of people.
You and I have had not just one, but several similar discussions, each with a different outcome. When I was in the minority, I had no problem accepting the results of the "votes". When you found yourself in the minority, you created a forum thread whose tl;dr sounded like, "I've been doing this for years; I've learned it's noticeably not always true; I decided to share with everyone how much I dislike it".

ANON_TOKYO said in forum #435738:

...It does make sense when an individual is trying to figure out the rating for something, but it stops making sense when there's a discussion about it going on, and is just used to shut down any discussion. This same thing happened in comment #2589387.

When you silently rerate post #11064702 and post #11093893, knowing full well that I often deal with ratings issues, does it look even slightly like you're genuinely looking for a discussion? This just looks like disregard.
Regarding the examples given, I would also like to add a note that there were 3 posts and in one of them, based on the same vote, I was wrong, but the point is that I was the initiator of the discussion each time when I saw that you had once again simply changed the rating, without even trying to get any feedback on this matter. I have given examples only of those posts that I rerated myself, obviously there are other examples like post #7787026 (for greater clarity)

ANON_TOKYO said in forum #435738:

...if rating:g should become that then by all means, it just shouldn't be decided by some builders.

That's right, because it's already decided in howto:rate by admins.
I understand that this statement requires howto:rate to be more specific, but what exactly is unclear to you about the phrase "When in doubt, use rating:sensitive"? Just as one person who is in doubt internally will lean toward rating:s, so too will a group of people, divided into two noticeable camps for the least harm, lean toward rating:s.

Come on man, given the divided opinions and the aforementioned specification in howto:rate, I see absolutely no point in fighting so fiercely over these posts. You have to understand that the majority opinion in such ambiguous situations, despite all the downsides you might imagine, is still the lesser evil (given that the rules definitely haven't changed yet).
My short advice would be to learn to be more patient with other people's opinions and not try to turn it into what is happening right now every time.

In forum #215101 evazion mentions that cleavages are S, but I don't see that in howto:rate (and it wasn't there back then). It only mentions clothes with cleavage cutout (with or without actual cleavage) and pictures that "focus on ... cleavage". Maybe someone should put cleavage in howto:rate?

reg_panda said in forum #436023:

In forum #215101 evazion mentions that cleavages are S, but I don't see that in howto:rate (and it wasn't there back then). It only mentions clothes with cleavage cutout (with or without actual cleavage) and pictures that "focus on ... cleavage". Maybe someone should cleavage put in howto:rate?

Very clearly says:

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

It is included.

Geneaux said in forum #436028:

It is included.

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.

Personally, I vote S for post #11244578 because of the finger-licking, but G for post #11093893 & post #7787026.

Blank_User said in forum #435964:

And yes, the cleavage in those posts are highly visible. You can't miss it.

The cleavage in post #11093893 isn't emphasized, is more covered than not, and doesn't account for more than a small portion of the image.

What constitutes it being highly visible? Being able to look at it and go, "Yes, this is cleavage"?

If that's too much, than your reasoning would seem to put an S (at minimum) on any image which unmistakably contains any cleavage at all.

Cute isn't mutually exclusive with sexy; those posts are easily arousing. I find all 5 posts in the OP to be obviously S. They're too risqué for me to show to other people, aside from the Emilia one which is just because of the subtle cleavage. But I imagine from your perspective, they're all as tame as the Emilia one. The Naruto one is a pretty lewd outfit to have on pinup art even if her fishnet elbow is blocking her navel; it's a lot of skin in a titillating area. Exposed midriff is just like high thigh, low chest, cleavage, etc., but the navel is like a nipple.

You can't really change how other people see the post, and you should feel confident browsing Safebooru with family members of any age. That's the impression I get when I browse it right now, even if I add tags like huge_breasts. Wholesome, peaceful, or mundane beauty doesn't make it G.

I don't think it's really worth spending much time trying to undo G->S rating changes. Does it affect your workflow or some kind of community app you've made...? I think it's fine if a few posts are filtered out; there are so many.

StarfishAtLarge said in forum #436053:

The cleavage in post #11093893 isn't emphasized, is more covered than not

Almost all cleavage is more covered than not.

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.

"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.

LQ said in forum #436070:

Exposed midriff is just like high thigh, low chest, cleavage, etc., but the navel is like a nipple.

What.

LQ said in forum #436070:

Cute isn't mutually exclusive with sexy; those posts are easily arousing. I find all 5 posts in the OP to be obviously S. They're too risqué for me to show to other people, aside from the Emilia one which is just because of the subtle cleavage. But I imagine from your perspective, they're all as tame as the Emilia one. The Naruto one is a pretty lewd outfit to have on pinup art even if her fishnet elbow is blocking her navel; it's a lot of skin in a titillating area. Exposed midriff is just like high thigh, low chest, cleavage, etc., but the navel is like a nipple.

I must be missing something on account of my asexuality, sorry. I'll just step out of this part of conversation from now on.

Almost all cleavage is more covered than not.

I personally find this clause hard to believe, but maybe I just look at too much FGO art.