Posted under General
ion288 said:
post #125505? Looks safe and older to me.
Older yes, but not safe, IMO.
post #829205 and post #1352332 likewise seems to old for the loli tag.
Agree.
On the other side post #1513561, post #453359 and possibly post #982512 feels like they should be loli.
First one is safe by todays standards and thus not loli, I think.
Second one agree. Her panties have more details than the rest of the image (okay, besides the hair).
Third one agree, also sexually_suggestive.
post #3409366, post #3247278, post #3593151, post #3410197, post #3249542, post #3249539 must contain loli tag (at least majority of them).
Updated
melten said:
post #3409366, post #3247278, post #3593151, post #3410197, post #3249542, post #3249539 must contain loli tag (at least majority of them).
I second that. All but the last one looks loli to me. You cant really see the girl in the last one, should it get the tag for context?
post #3669787
Post is not NSFW or suggestive and should probably not need the tag but for some reason has it.
Unbreakable said:
Srsly? Yes.
inkuJerr said:
post #3660504, post #3660511, post #3660523, and post #3660555
Im gonna say no on the last two. Uncertain on the first two.
Squirrelly said:
post #3669787
Post is not NSFW or suggestive and should probably not need the tag but for some reason has it.
Their breasts seems to be touching his head, but yeah, its safe.
arisboch said:
post #3650189
Loli.
melten said:
Petite would be my guess. Not loli
post #3695449
The character dormouse_(monster_girl_encyclopedia) is not a loli
lamialover97 said:
post #3695449
The character dormouse_(monster_girl_encyclopedia) is not a loli
While correct, it depends on how she's drawn, not the canon appearance. Her proportions aren't "petite" in this artwork, and i believe she's pretty loli there.
HeartSutra said:
Instead of defining what looks like a child, why not use whether or not a character looks below Tween age to determine if they fit in the loli category?
So instead of defining what looks like a child you want to define if a character “looks below Tween age”? We’ve already got some useful hints for what looks like a child, such as breast size, waist-to-hip ratio and head-to-body ratio. How do you want to tell apart “adults” and “almost adults”, especially in anime-style drawings? Also, if teenagers would be loli, since they’re so abundant in manga and anime, probably over a fourth of all posts would be loli under that definition. No. Just no.
For all the tags, its impossible to find loli on this site and I hate it.
Whatever “all the tags” are. If you don’t like our definition of loli, try another image board. AFAIK, Sankaku Channel is using the loli tag a lot more liberally. Maybe that would suit your needs.
Also, your complaint is off-topic for this topic. If you have good arguments for why and how the loli tag usage should be changed, start a new topic. If you have no arguments and just want to complain, don’t bother. Thanks.
Lacrimosa said:
Isn't that literally the same thing?
“Tween” is 20+ and “child” is more like “looks below 12”?
HeartSutra said:
Instead of defining what looks like a child, why not use whether or not a character looks below Tween age to determine if they fit in the loli category?
Could you provide examples of posts where this would produce different tagging than the current system does?
