Posted under General
loli tag was removed by mods twice, and yet it's still there?
post #15: Doesn't belong.
post #59: Looks like it could, if you squint hard at it, but not under any real scrutiny.
post #96: What the fuck? No.
post #912: There's hardly anything even slightly sexual about this one. Removed and Safe-rated.
post #1355: The detail on the cameltoe - especially re: the girl on the right - does make this one a candidate. Leaving it.
post #1385: Not loli as far as I can tell, but that's some very bad animation. Flagged for low quality.
post #2250: I don't think that's a loli body, there. Removed.
post #2415: Poking nipples and cameltoe with detail on a childlike body. It stays.
post #2468: Wrong gender - that's Killua, from Hunter X Hunter, crossdressing. Does a bulge count far enough to tag for shota?
post #2895: I would leave this Questionable, but child, not loli.
post #3093: Pushing the borderline, but no.
post #3734: I don't think that's suggestive enough to earn it.
post #3746: Doesn't look loli, really.
post #3788: Not getting a loli vibe from this one.
post #3802: This one's a no...
post #3803: ...but the nipples earn it for this one.
post #3893: How is that even slightly loli? Removed.
post #3941: Also pushing the borderline, but it doesn't actually show or imply much of anything. I'm inclined to a no.
post #4106: The wide-open legs, crotch-in-your-face camera angle, the teasing look on the girl's face, and the cameltoe earn it.
post #4222: Questionable, but not explicit enough or suggestive enough, I think. Waiting on a second opinion.
post #4347: Arguably loli body, inarguably not explicit enough. Removed.
post #4560: There's not much really shown; however, one girl having stripped her panties off makes it suggestive enough that it's too tough for me to call it.
post #4564: Didn't we already have this one? Removed. (Parenting corrected, greater weight given to the one with a source link (albeit a non-working one), duplicate marked)
post #4686: The bondage element, skirt lift, and cameltoe make it suggestive enough.
post #4992: We definitely had this one already. Parented and tag removed.
post #5351: I think this calls more for the child tag than loli. Changed for now.
post #5692: Uncertain whether that qualifies as childlike in body or not (I'm thinking early teens). Either way, not explicit or suggestive enough.
post #5766: Definitely not explicit enough.
post #5821: This one I would leave, due to the likely toilet fetish thing.
post #5844: Not even close to explicit. Removed and re-rated.
post #5995: I thought to remove it at first, but then I noticed the hard nipples. That earns it.
post #640341, post #640342: That's an anatomy set that is grossly mismatched. Loli elements in the face, hands just small enough to be too small, flat chest, wide hips, and a very oddly-drawn thigh gap. I want to say it's not loli, but I would like another opinion.
sgcdonmai said:
post #4560: There's not much really shown; however, one girl having stripped her panties off makes it suggestive enough that it's too tough for me to call it.
I looked at it as being a tiny bit beyond a pantyshot. You can't see anything regardless.
sgcdonmai said:
post #640341, post #640342: That's an anatomy set that is grossly mismatched. Loli elements in the face, hands just small enough to be too small, flat chest, wide hips, and a very oddly-drawn thigh gap. I want to say it's not loli, but I would like another opinion.
Hadn't even noticed the hips, I was just recommending it because of the fact her breasts were covered. If that's the case, and it gets revoked, the other two can probably get untagged too, though the two smaller ones should probably get removed due to being duplicates.
And what about the content of forum #38186?
Then to assemble the "More opinions necessary posts"
post #640341
post #640342
post #4222
post #4560
Dogenzaka said:
post #639214
post #641388
post #641397
post #641415
no, yes, yes, yes. They're already appropriately tagged.
Dogenzaka said:
post #641415
The torso looks too long to be loli.
Bastille said:
(post #4560) I looked at it as being a tiny bit beyond a pantyshot. You can't see anything regardless.
Except a bare ass, which did raise the level a little bit. Still not enough for me to say one way or the other.
And what about the content of forum #38186?
post #640622: It seems to be pushing the borderline a little bit, but it just doesn't seem to have a very sexual tone, despite the open shirt. Looks a bit too innocent for the tag, I'd say. Removing the tag, but leaving it rated Q.
As for the others, I've made my stance clear. If jxh or Hazuki (still) disagrees, I'll step aside on those posts.
post #542796: Removed.
post #390083: Also removed.
post #283347: Same.
post #104299: That too.
Dogenzaka's
post #639214: Lilith pushes it over the edge here.
post #641415: Agreed with Hillside Moose; she doesn't look very loli at all here. Oddly slender in the torso, yes; flat chest, yes; but loli? Not really.
others: fine as-is.
sgcdonmai said:
post #639214: Lilith pushes it over the edge here.
I'm not quite sure I agree. I think it's more the matter of a strange angle / pen slip giving her wider waistline than actually trying to be loli in any way.
I like how this is the third image of Lilith that sgc has been the only person saying it's loli for.
And then these posts need the verdict of someone not named Bastille or sgcdonmai.
post #640341
post #640342
post #4222
post #4560
葉月 said:
post #4222: Fairly loli
post #4560: Very much loli
Any particular reasons for the rulings on the last two? I would have thought the former would be closer to deserving the tag than the latter.
Bastille said:
Any particular reasons for the rulings on the last two? I would have thought the former would be closer to deserving the tag than the latter.
Apparently, they both do (though I'm a little puzzled on post #4222; is it the liquid on body?).
As for post #4560, I'd say it's probably the bare-assed child lying over the table.
post #641484: More a case for child than loli.
post #641422: Same here, and innocent despite nudity.
post #641418: This one, I think, deserves the tag, due to the liquid.
post #640343, post #640340: Much like their parent posts, I'm disinclined to say it is, on account of the out-of-place anatomy. Call?
葉月 said (re: post #post #639214):
I'm not quite sure I agree. I think it's more the matter of a strange angle / pen slip giving her wider waistline than actually trying to be loli in any way.
That could be, but she just looks to me like a prepubescent girl with a bit of baby fat left over in the chest as it is.
Were there a few more anatomical details, or a bit more of the image off-screen to the right, I think this might be clearer. Going only off of what is visible in the image, though, that's the impression I get.
Also, having just checked the pixiv page, there's no helpful artist commentary or tagging to clear it up, either.
Bastille said:
I like how this is the third image of Lilith that sgc has been the only person saying it's loli for.
That's really how I see it in those specific images, though.
I don't go tagging all posts of her in sexual situations as loli. Some artists draw her as loli outright, others leave her looking more like a flat-chested teen (as was the case in the games, where she had roughly the same height, and the same figure below the waist, as Morrigan); I call it only where I see it appropriate.
sgcdonmai said:
Apparently, they both do (though I'm a little puzzled on post #4222; is it the liquid on body?).As for post #4560, I'd say it's probably the bare-assed child lying over the table.
See below for my thoughts on water, and from what I recall, we've let the tag slide on images with more ass showing.
sgcdonmai said:
post #641422: Same here, and innocent despite nudity.
post #641418: This one, I think, deserves the tag, due to the liquid.
It's water... If it were something else, I'd be less inclined to say it's completely innocent, but I think it should be the same as the other image I left in the quote.
sgcdonmai said:
That's really how I see it in those specific images, though.
I don't go tagging all posts of her in sexual situations as loli. Some artists draw her as loli outright, others leave her looking more like a flat-chested teen (as was the case in the games, where she had roughly the same height, and the same figure below the waist, as Morrigan); I call it only where I see it appropriate.
Don't read too much into it. It was just a funny observation given what had gone on so far.
Bastille said:
(post #641418) It's water... If it were something else, I'd be less inclined to say it's completely innocent, but I think it should be the same as the other image I left in the quote.
On further reflection, I retract my previous position. child, not loli.
Don't read too much into it. It was just a funny observation given what had gone on so far.
I imagined so, but I thought it better to clear the air, just in case.
