Posted under General
nonamethanks said:
I unlocked them and changed the rating, but I don't know why they were like that. It's probably related to the fact that their tag histories show no rating record until a certain time period. Someone who's been on this site for longer than me might know more.
The 3rd should definitely stay Q, though.
Nude chibis are still nude.
Chiera said:
Spread legs, only underwear, from behind and she doesn't look all that happy.
Q is correct.
I don't know, there's no visible sexual features. It doesn't even look fully human.
I don't think that pic warrants a questionable rating - it's an upright creature trying to get back a piece of clothing.
Also nude doesn't immediately imply a questionable rating.
ion288 said:
post #103161 post #103164 post #110033 and post #109301 locked to Q. Why?
Old 'Booru shenanigans, a lot of old posts are rated Q/locked even though they should be Safe, I think it's from before the rating system existed.
I agree with the first commenter in that I think it should be questionable.
Also post #1141392.
kittey said:
I agree with the first commenter in that I think it should be questionable.
Also post #1141392.
Wow that's a contentious post.
Having said that, IMO it's safe. It's all about the presentation. She's just lifting her skirt and showing her panties. There's nothing sexual about that.
Now if she was looking at you seductively while licking her lips and had one of her hands down pulling at her panties, then yes, that would be questionable.
Also post #1141392.
That's also safe. It looks to me as if she's just adjusting her bra and lingerie, and not grabbing at her breasts or thighs.
I would say that a simply dress/skirt lift exposing panties without a cameltoe or stuff that BE98 mentioned is safe.
I guess that's what the "tasteful" in howto:rate wants to express, but io it should get more fleshed out with content.
Chiera said:
-> Clearly rating e.
Yeah, agree. Locked the rating on that post for now due to the flux.
The question has been raised on post #2896649, where the only primary factor affecting the rating is object insertion. Unfortunately, the current rules in Howto:Rate do not spell out what do do in these circumstances. It does mention object insertion in concert with BDSM, however how should an image be rated without that particular aspect?
I still think that an image should be marked Explicit, but what do others think? The idea is to come up with a concensus and then update the Howto:Rate wiki.
BrokenEagle98 said:
The question has been raised on post #2896649, where the only primary factor affecting the rating is object insertion. Unfortunately, the current rules in Howto:Rate do not spell out what do do in these circumstances. It does mention object insertion in concert with BDSM, however how should an image be rated without that particular aspect?
I still think that an image should be marked Explicit, but what do others think? The idea is to come up with a concensus and then update the Howto:Rate wiki.
The important part is where you can see the "sex play" link.
There you can see a long list of sex play related tags, including the insertion tags.
I’d say if it’s obviously object insertion, it should be rated explicit.
Though I can’t find any examples immediately, I’ve seen posts that strongly imply that a butt plug tail is involved but are ambiguous enough that it could be passed of as a tail affixed to panties/bikini bottoms. Those should be rated questionable, I guess.
Chiera said:
The important part is where you can see the "sex play" link.
:-?
kittey said:
I’d say if it’s obviously object insertion, it should be rated explicit.
Though I can’t find any examples immediately, I’ve seen posts that strongly imply that a butt plug tail is involved but are ambiguous enough that it could be passed of as a tail affixed to panties/bikini bottoms. Those should be rated questionable, I guess.
:-?
Fuu, not sex play but sex acts <<.
Openly and unambiguously portrayed sex acts (including intercourse, oral, fingering, handjobs, masturbation, etc).
The "sex acts" is a link to tag group:sex acts and every insertion tag is listed there.
Chiera said:
The "sex acts" is a link to tag group:sex acts and every insertion tag is listed there.
I guess that's about as unambiguous as you can get. Given the strong support for this, I'm going to update the wiki to spell out specifically that object insertion necessitates an Explicit rating.
post #2607760
post #2643841
post #2686426
post #2686788
Q or E? They seem pretty borderline to me ("non-blatantly exposed genitals").
Chiera said:
-> Clearly rating e.
If the insertion was even a little subtle, like completely covered by her panties, then it could be Q. That post isn't subtle though.
worldendDominator said:
post #2607760
post #2643841
post #2686426
post #2686788
Q or E? They seem pretty borderline to me ("non-blatantly exposed genitals").
Q. They may be exposed, but the subjects are in fairly neutral poses and there's no extra details to push it over the edge like labial lips, pussy juice, or full-blown gaping.
post #1993339
I know she is supposedly wearing a bodysuit but you cant really see that in the image. Should it have the covered* tags? And regardless should it be Q?
Also post #1928236 post #1907597 and post #2057277. I can see nipples here with some effort. Should the be taged with that and should the be rated Q?
Edit: post #1746729 is an even better example.
Finally I cant see a thumbnail on post #2191269. Where do I report this?
Hillside_Moose said:
If the insertion was even a little subtle, like completely covered by her panties, then it could be Q. That post isn't subtle though.
I agree with that.
I think the wiki also says something like "umambigiously".
I think if we'd look from the front at her then it might be only q.
@ion288
I'd tag all as rated q. But I'm also more prone to use the q rating.
But post #199339 isn't really concentrating on sexuall content (maybe it is, but it is rather subtle)
