Posted under General
Bastille said:
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
That's a sketchy way to think of it, but in these particular instances, you're correct. The faces/heads are loli, and the smaller bustlines lowers the maturity factor compared to post #608869, but a waist:hip variance of that magnitude pretty much defeats the loli tag's applicability there.
Bastille said: I'm assuming borderline isn't enough to have it removed.
For me, borderline means I'm not going to add or remove it of my own volition. In short, it doesn't matter to me which way it goes and I'd only step in if people were starting a stupid edit revert war.
Also, following my thought process that if one rendition of the character by that artist is safe, the rest might be.
Not necessarily. Artists can draw a character very different ways from image to image, both in terms of design and whether or not the image is explicit.
Once again, tag what you see. Not based on artist, or storyline, or anything else.
That said, yeah, I agree with sgcdonmai. They're less obvious than post #608869 but I'd err somewhat on the side of not loli for those.
Sketchy thinking is what I do best. Just ask anyone who's gotten into a debate with me over the application of the word lolicon in the real world :∨
Might as well keep at it. If gambling has taught us anything, it's that there are no repercussions to keep trying until you completely hit rock bottom. post #553998 post #522525 (Questioning these two can't go wrong!) post #554729 post #586060 post #522217
The forum is here for just this kind of thing. And the only truly stupid question is the one you fail to ask.
post #553998: Satori's flat chest is the only thing that makes it even remotely loli-ish. Tag removed.
post #522525: ...honestly, I can't see past the bad anatomy to tell. It's almost Cubist.
post #554729: I'm going to tentatively say that it doesn't, since the only visible details of the characters there are the clothes and the faces. I could go either way, here.
post #586060: Not at all. I can only assume that was a tagging error. Removed.
post #522217: Can't tell with clothes like that, and even if I could, it's not even questionable enough. A mere pantyshot does not a sexual activity make.
sgcdonmai said:
The forum is here for just this kind of thing. And the only truly stupid question is the one you fail to ask.post #553998: Satori's flat chest is the only thing that makes it even remotely loli-ish. Tag removed.
post #522525: ...honestly, I can't see past the bad anatomy to tell. It's almost Cubist.
post #554729: I'm going to tentatively say that it doesn't, since the only visible details of the characters there are the clothes and the faces. I could go either way, here.
post #586060: Not at all. I can only assume that was a tagging error. Removed.
post #522217: Can't tell with clothes like that, and even if I could, it's not even questionable enough. A mere pantyshot does not a sexual activity make.
Given who it was that tagged the 4th, I'm inclined to think it wasn't an error. For the third, all prior examples given by me dealt with them exposing genetalia so was wondering how that one would go. As for the first, did you get a chuckle out of undoing a tag that you had set yourself?
As for new images, let's see, going by previous decisions... post #565458 post #509266 post #80606 post #168326 post #610115 post #608664 post #605871 post #604215 post #602434 post #598966 post #591166 post #590837 post #590834 post #590831 post #586697 post #581981 post #577895 post #577891 post #577890 post #577889 post #577885 post #556671
That covers the first 15 pages of touhou loli, as well as some specifics of Suika since I checked her first. Might as well get those out of the way before pressing on. There are probably more, but my ability to judge hip to waist ratio isn't as great as it could be.
Wow, long list. Okay.
post #565458: Naughty bits concealed, but the sexually suggestive content is thick as cold butter. Compensating for perspective, the figure is still childish. Definitely deserves the tag.
post #509266: The angle here makes the hips seem deceptively wide. Suika's body size and observable build screams loli to me. I tagged it such before.
post #80606: Tempted to flag it for low quality. That aside, her body is a straight line, and the head-to-body size comparison makes it even more childish. With the bondage and the pussy juice, it's definitely suggestive enough for the tag.
post #168326: Loli in body, but not in the content of the image. Tag removed.
post #610115: She's slender and small-breasted, sure, but a closer look shows her to be of comparable size to the (visibly adult) male she's riding. Further, the face and overall style don't seem to be going for the loli look. Tag removed.
post #608664, post #605871: Not enough sexual or suggestive content in either of these to qualify for the tag. It's just a pantyshot, for Pete's sake.
post #604215: A bare ass makes it questionable, but there's no sexual content to this one. Tag removed.
post #602434: Just a pantyshot. Removed.
post #598966: The arms and head look childlike, but that's as far as it goes for this one. Removed.
post #591166: Suwako's quite loli in this, and has clearly been deep-kissing Sanae, whose tits are out, but Suwako herself is fully clothed, and the fact that those panties aren't visibly wet makes it look like that fluid on her thigh is just sweat. I'm not really sure how to call this one.
post #590837, post #590834, post #590831: Akin to a pantyshot. Removed.
post #586697: She does look like a little girl with some baby fat, she is nude, and her pose is quite suggestive. Tag stays.
post #581981: Suggestive pose, including vaginal fluid, plus childlike body. Tag stays.
post #577895: The semen makes it most definitely sexual, but there's no indication at all of her figure. Tag removed.
post #577891: Somewhat iffy on the overall proportions that can be seen, which suggest a prepubescent body. However, there's no visible sexual content here. Removed.
post #577890: Child-sized and childishly proportioned body with no visible mature features, giving some dude a handjob. Tag stays.
post #577889: Tough one. The body's obviously child-sized, and the artist even gave her a randoseru (backpack for elementary school kids) to drive it home. I'm not certain whether it has suggestive enough content to deserve the tag or not, though. Leaving it alone for now.
post #577885: Can't determine the body proportions at a glance, and the sexual content is dubious. Removed.
post #556671: At first glance, it's not, but loli Alice being restrained with pussy juice dripping down her thigh... yeah, it's loli. Tag stays.
(edit: I went and reduced the rating from Q to S in the case of the innocent pantyshot ones.
Also, Bastille, would you mind putting a hard return in between the post links next time? It's more convenient to review them that way.)
Good intentions, erroneous execution. Meh.
I'd extend the "tag what you see" rule to including the image itself, and excluding the fact/idea that it is part of a set (except for pooling purposes). Swimsuits are safe, nudity is not. Panties are not inherently questionable, semen-spattered panties are.
Really, lots of those images didn't even qualify for the Questionable rating in my eyes.
Sorry ummhyuk, I know I said I'd leave the image alone, but with the loli tag being a hot topic right now, I'm tempted to give this another shot.
umhyuk said:
Using the logic that "if whoever uploaded this considered it not Rating:s, chances are others might consider it not Rating:s as well."
The problem with that logic is that Q is the default rating when uploading an image. It could just as easily be simple laziness, or lack of observation, rather than intent that causes a Q rating. I know I often neglect to change an incorrect rating because I just wasn't paying attention to it (bad of me, I know).
As for cameltoes and low-leg panties, I judge that based on how much flesh is left visible.
If the cameltoe is only a simple line and/or some shading, it's probably fine, but not so if the clitoris/hood or other parts of the vulva are clearly delineated, or if the panties are wet.
Low-leg panties are on the borderline to Questionable, that I can agree. However, just showing that they're being worn isn't enough for a Q rating; it's how they're shown that matters. I take these on a case-by-case basis.
bored_man said:
post #592264
I'd leave the tag there. Her having her hands in her panties - both of them, even - plus the amount of exposed flesh, is enough to make it Questionable, and that's enough to earn the tag.
Going to be a tiny bit before I can get back into this. Had the primary HDD in my computer die on me while taking a nap. Thankfully, I have a back up from a few months ago in prep for an upgrade I was going to do but kept delaying so overall, it isn't a total loss, but I was going to upgrade to Windows 7 64-bit from XP so I'm also going to have to tinker with the new changes this brings forth. Probably won't be up and scrutinizing until Friday at the earliest, and sorry for the lack of line breaks.
sgcdonmai said:
I'd leave the tag there. Her having her hands in her panties - both of them, even - plus the amount of exposed flesh, is enough to make it Questionable, and that's enough to earn the tag.
Might as well attempt something on this though while I wait for Windows 7 to burn. The flip side of this, in my eyes, would be to ask of the image, "What if she was wearing a swimsuit instead?" as with that line of thinking, the image wouldn't be so bad nor would we question the amount of skin shown. I doubt an image of Flan in a bikini would deserve the loli tag so neither would this.
It still wouldn't change the placement of her hands. One of her fingers is right at her crotch, even, in a way that looks a tad suspicious.
Now, if she hadn't had her hands inside said lower-body garment, then it wouldn't be an issue.
I will say, though, that that particular image is only just barely on the Questionable side.
Her hands aren't really in her panties in a way that would make the loli tag sensible though. The right hand is negligible, and the role of that lone finger is indeterminate. If it were lower, then its role would be clear, but it could just be the artist enjoys putting hands under fabric whenever possible. Without an artist tag, that can't be determined, though that might fall under using material beyond what we see to determine a judgement.
At this point, getting a fifth opinion would probably be best since we're at 2 for, 2 against. I will agree the image could be classified as suggestive, but based on prior rulings, or at least my take on some of those rulings, a questionable sexually suggestive image shouldn't be enough to trigger the loli tag.
