Read the rules before proceeding!

Topic: Loli/shota check thread.

Posted under General


As we all know, making sure an image is correctly tagged as loli or not is rather important, though it can be rather dubious at best. I'm starting this thread in hopes of getting a centralized point of checking.

If you're unsure whether or not a certain image or set of images warrants the loli tag, post it here (in "post #******" format, without the qoutes) and hopefully someone more knowledgeable will clear it up.

Let me start it off with post #594502 and post #584872

[mod edit: updated thread title to include shota - jxh2154]

Updated by GiveUpTheGhost

  • ID: 33650
  • Permalink
  • AZD-A9S

    Going by the current wiki here on loli, I would say those two do need (keep) that tag.

    Then again you did say you are looking for someone more knowledgeable on the subject.

  • ID: 33653
  • Permalink
  • jxh2154

    Keeping it on those is okay I guess, especially the second.

    You're definitely going to get diverging opinions on a lot of images, though.

  • ID: 33656
  • Permalink
  • shipixiv

    When in doubt, tag as loli, for albert's sake.

  • ID: 33657
  • Permalink
  • eric.carson

    I know that this would involve a significant amount of development time, but what if....

    Image was tagged loli It then becomes something of a un-viewable item to the general public. If the people who could view the image vote it out, with a possible end result of it being removed?

    On the other hand, restricting the people who can "see" loli would reduce rampant vandalism...

    On the third hand (i know...) diverging opinons might result in a voting war....

    Well, anyway, now you have my thoughts.

  • ID: 33658
  • Permalink
  • glasnost

    Images tagged loli or shota are already hidden from the 'general public', i.e. anyone below Privileged. See forum #4987. I'm not sure what you mean by 'vote it out', either; we already have unapproval for that sort of thing, and it's not as though the tag vandalism of late is really centered around loli in the first place.

  • ID: 33659
  • Permalink
  • Algasir

    I tagged it loli due to the general lack of curves. I was mostly being on the safe side with it, so if you want to remove it, be my guest. The only reason I re-added it earlie was because the user who took it off originally was of the member level. Not trying to be prejudiced with that last statement, it's just that when I was a member, I was locked out of changing the tags for loli/shota posts, and I wasn't sure if that was changed or he used some kind of script to do it.

  • ID: 34463
  • Permalink
  • glasnost

    Given the lack of any really distinctive childlike features and that it's non-sexual nudity of a fairly tame nature, I removed the tag again. Strange about a Member-level user being able to remove the loli tag, though; I'm pretty sure that's not supposed to happen.

  • ID: 34464
  • Permalink
  • evazion

    It was probably someone using the view loli script.

  • ID: 34469
  • Permalink
  • parasol

    Member-level user being able to remove the loli tag

    They probably used the "undo" option in the tag history.

  • ID: 34491
  • Permalink
  • Log

    bored_man said:
    post #584571

    No nudity, no loli. Questionable is the most that image will be given.

  • ID: 35027
  • Permalink
  • sgcdonmai

    Agreed. Too much hip-to-waist variance, and the face doesn't look loli at all.

  • ID: 35031
  • Permalink
  • Bastille

    Might as well get a few out of the way.

    post #608869 I went vigilante on that one, but given how things are in my other thread, I might as well get confirmation on it.

    post #608597 post #608589 post #608586 I don't particularly feel these are loli, but a more neutral view point would be beneficial.

    bored_man said:
    post #584571

    It's sad I was able to guess who was responsible for tagging it loli before checking the tag history.

  • ID: 35033
  • Permalink
  • jxh2154

    post #608869 - Not loli. Well formed breasts, curves from torso to wide hips and defined legs.

    post #608597 post #608589 post #608586 - The first is borderline. The second and third I'd definitely keep loli due to the straight line down the torso, lack of curves, flat chest, very small stature, and of course sexual content.

  • ID: 35035
  • Permalink
  • sgcdonmai

    post #608869, not loli at all, except possibly via the somewhat cutesy art style.

    post #608597, at that angle, it's pretty much impossible to discern whether or not she has matured features. The length of the leg from hip to knee throws doubt on it being loli, however.

    post #608589 is much less of a grey area. The overall slenderness, the lack of matured physical features, and the overall small size seem to point toward this deserving the tag.

    post #608586 - dubious. More or less the same as post #608597 in this regard.

  • ID: 35038
  • Permalink
  • Bastille

    jxh2154 said:
    post #608869 - not loli

    post #608597 post #608589 post #608586 - The first is borderline. The second and third I'd definitely keep loli due to the straight line down the torso, lack of curves, flat chest, very small stature, and of course sexual content.

    Figures that it's the two images that are still pending mod approval too. I'm assuming borderline isn't enough to have it removed. Also, following my thought process that if one rendition of the character by that artist is safe, the rest might be.
    post #608869 -> post #523687 post #515896

  • ID: 35039
  • Permalink
  • <<
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • ...
  • 102