Maybe a weird question, but this is tagged as "3boys". But how do we know if any of the attackers are boys at all - or if there are three of them? Is there any guideline in such a case?
Maybe a weird question, but this is tagged as "3boys". But how do we know if any of the attackers are boys at all - or if there are three of them? Is there any guideline in such a case?
AFAIK there is no firm policy about how to use the counter tags for out_of_frame characters, or if there is one, we certainly aren't enforcing it. The site owner has expressed annoyance at the expansion of 1other and related tags to include off-screen characters, but by now those tags are so polluted that it's practically impossible to use them for search in the way they were originally intended.
Personally, I'm of the view that counter tags shouldn't apply to off-screen characters at all, much as we don't apply them to blurry figures in a distant crowd (e.g. post #6524569). But I'm not going to bother fighting a losing battle against users who I know are adamant that every hand or dick in an image deserves to be counted.
AFAIK there is no firm policy about how to use the counter tags for out_of_frame characters, or if there is one, we certainly aren't enforcing it. The site owner has expressed annoyance at the expansion of 1other and related tags to include off-screen characters, but by now those tags are so polluted that it's practically impossible to use them for search in the way they were originally intended.
Personally, I'm of the view that counter tags shouldn't apply to off-screen characters at all, much as we don't apply them to blurry figures in a distant crowd (e.g. post #6524569). But I'm not going to bother fighting a losing battle against users who I know are adamant that every hand or dick in an image deserves to be counted.
Thank you a lot for the well thought out answer. I see the problem with either approach to be honest...maybe this would/should warrant the creation of a dedicated tag?
Like, not trying to be the "projection of preconceived notions"-guy, but in cases like this where there really is no indication of gender of the attackers, its somewhat jarring that they are automatically assumed to be guys. Like, frankly, since they are wearing the same uniform as the victim, I think there is a stronger indicator of them being women (because of gendered uniforms), but truthfully we just don't know it. I mean, common, the picture is even explicitly tagged with "male hand".
Like, not trying to be the "projection of preconceived notions"-guy, but in cases like this where there really is no indication of gender of the attackers, its somewhat jarring that they are automatically assumed to be guys. Like, frankly, since they are wearing the same uniform as the victim, I think there is a stronger indicator of them being women (because of gendered uniforms), but truthfully we just don't know it. I mean, common, the picture is even explicitly tagged with "male hand".
Disregarding the debate on how counter tags should be used, identifying the number and gender of these hands is pretty strightforward. The hands on the right and bottomleft can't possibly belong to the same person, and the two topmost hands are a matching right and left, meaning there's at least three assailants.
As for the gender, they just look like guy's hands. They have a rough, masculine shape typical of male hands, with a skin tone also typical of male characters. I don't think it's at all reasonable to claim we can't know for sure that these hands belong to men when we have tens of thousands of images that depict male hands like this. The uniforms don't really contradict this, either, as even gendered uniforms rarely are so different that the sleeves don't match.
As for the gender, they just look like guy's hands. They have a rough, masculine shape typical of male hands, with a skin tone also typical of male characters. I don't think it's at all reasonable to claim we can't know for sure that these hands belong to men when we have tens of thousands of images that depict male hands like this. The uniforms don't really contradict this, either, as even gendered uniforms rarely are so different that the sleeves don't match.
Given the hands at the top are the same size as her own and the fingernails are shown jutting out a little on the thumbs like her own, I'd be more inclined to believe they belong to a female character(s).
Regardless, it's unfortunately impossible to know unless someone has played the game as none of the CG or character sets appear to display any obvious male students in the game to know if there are uniform differences.
As for the gender, they just look like guy's hands. They have a rough, masculine shape typical of male hands, with a skin tone also typical of male characters. I don't think it's at all reasonable to claim we can't know for sure that these hands belong to men when we have tens of thousands of images that depict male hands like this. The uniforms don't really contradict this, either, as even gendered uniforms rarely are so different that the sleeves don't match.
GreyOmega said:
Given the hands at the top are the same size as her own and the fingernails are shown jutting out a little on the thumbs like her own, I'd be more inclined to believe they belong to a female character(s).
Regardless, it's unfortunately impossible to know unless someone has played the game as none of the CG or character sets appear to display any obvious male students in the game to know if there are uniform differences.
I think both of you bring forward well-thoughtout arguments towards the attackers gender. But ultimately that just confirms for me that we still lack a definite confirmation when you theoretically can argue either case pretty convincingly; at least thats my humble opinion.
