Requesting a second opinion on post #623136.
Posted under General
Requesting a second opinion on post #623136.
Hillside_Moose said:
Requesting a second opinion on post #623136.
She has some fairly noticeable hips so I'd probably say no, but it's tagged as such on Pixiv so... I dunno. Do we normally abide with Pixiv's definition of loli?
Hillside_Moose said: Requesting a second opinion on post #623136.
That's a pretty definite no in my book. Removed.
As for pixiv tagging, no we don't pay much attention to it. Their tagging is pretty terrible and the only time I really use it for a guide is for characters or series. Besides, our definition of loli is our own, not every place will use it the same.
ultima said:
(post #623146)
She has some fairly noticeable hips so I'd probably say no
I'm pretty sure that's just the camera angle giving that illusion. Taking that into account, she's got no breasts or hips to speak of.
However, the composition of the pic in general just doesn't seem loli to me at all. Considering all other possible signs of physical maturity have been obscured in one way or another, I'm with jxh2154 on this.
I never specified which Friday I'd be back, but here I am and properly capable of what I was doing before. Might be some overlap from before since I'm starting from the beginning again. Only image I didn't bother including was the one image of Flandre we already discussed to death.
post #622945
post #612353
post #611124
post #608869 I removed the tag on this one again based on a prior ruling, including for the sake of record keeping.
post #591800
post #591166
post #581682
post #577889
post #577886
post #570726
post #534992
post #530442
post #528137
post #527213
post #516908
post #504577
post #502445
post #473354
post #465430
post #465427
post #451905
post #442839
post #441745
post #440068
post #415473
post #412381
post #408037
post #400564
post #372409
post #365297
post #353114
post #349476
post #346769
post #339022
post #315751
post #310040
post #308515
post #307339
post #294003
post #291827
post #286345
post #276440
post #275929
post #265286
post #265285
post #261405
post #255604
post #254525
post #253920
post #242919
post #242579
post #233092
post #230779
post #224202
post #220978
post #216835
post #163793
post #158467
post #135239
post #132580
post #121751
post #90316
post #84458
post #80606
post #77790
post #73361
post #52689
Well, a bunch of those could be removed due to not being borderline in the slightest and going by decissions, the removal could be easily justified but I'd prefer that I don't commemorate becoming privileged by removing the loli tag of 40~ images by myself and then asking about the rest. Doubt I have the trust to remove the tag by myself and not have anyone care.
If you do want me to separate the ones where I don't have enough prior cases to go by, and remove the obvious ones myself, putting them into a separate section in case someone wants to check them out to verify things, I can.
I'll just tackle 'em all, since I have time at the moment.
Part 1
______
post #622945: That's slightly suggestive at the most. Definitely not enough for the tag.
post #612353 & post #611124: I tagged these because of the art style and the head-to-body proportions, primarily.
(Ignore the multiple tag changes on #612353. My connection spazzed out and I had to fix what went wrong.)
post #608869: Doesn't really deserve it, though the artist seemed to be aiming somewhat for it.
post #591800: Questionable, but not explicit enough for it. Tag removed.
post #591166: This one I would say does deserve it. Suwako's not showing anything more risque than her panties, but she's kissing (or is that licking?) a naked Sanae, rubbing a knee in Sanae's crotch, and there's a trickle of suspicious liquid trailing down Suwako's thighs.
post #581682: Wriggle's not loli enough for the tag in that one. She looks to be physically not much smaller than the obviously fully-grown Yuuka.
post #577889: I would contest this one, as it's not immediately obvious to me whether or not she's wearing panties, and a mere pantyshot (and a conveniently censored one at that) isn't enough to earn the tag.
post #577886: Again, I honestly can't tell here. The umbrella shaft and panty pull makes it questionable due to suggestiveness (and where did the E rating come from, there?). I'm not sure whether that's a crotch rub or just convenient censoring, nor can I tell whether Kogasa is supposed to be drawn loli in this.
post #570726: Not sure based on the art style and proportions.
post #534992: In the same camp as the earlier Momiji pics.
post #530442: Not much different from your everyday pantyshot. Removed.
post #528137: Childish body, so that's a check. I think the obviously suggestive pose, plus the detailed cameltoe, earn it the loli tag.
post #527213: Childish body, no panties, lifting her skirt for the viewer/cameraman/Aya/whatever. Tag should stay.
post #516908: Okay, this one's a little tricky. It's obvious lolicon bait with a style of drawing like that. The presence of breasts on the figure (despite no other mature features on her body) and the possibly-innocuous pose and situation push it into a gray area for me, though.
post #504577: Skinny girl, loli face, only other part of body not concealed by baggy clothes are the nipples. I'd say it stays.
post #502445: That'd be jailbait in my area, at least. No mature features visible, and no scale to compare it against. I think the tag should go back here.
post #473354: Tagged because the head-to-body proportion looks childlike, the subject is mostly nude, and there is a line suggesting visible labia.
Part 2
______
post #465430: Head-to-body (though that could be the hat), plus fakepucco has a weird grasp of anatomy that makes this one at least dubious enough to keep the tag.
post #465427: Same as previous, only looking even more freakishly thin.
post #451905: Nipples not visible, cameltoe lines too faint, swimsuit still mostly worn. Tag removed. Barely (if at all) qualifies for a Q rating.
post #442839: ...odd, I don't remember tagging that. Anyway. The flat chest and bandaid over the nipple is the only thing that really says "loli" to me, here, what with the wider hips. Removed.
post #441745: Same as previous. Futa loli would still be loli, but this is no more loli than its parent post.
post #440068: The head-to-body ratio and suggestive pose says loli, but there don't seem to be enough details to earn the tag, to me.
post #415473: Flan's neither committing sexual acts or suggestions thereof, nor showing anything important. Removed.
post #412381: I mistagged a few last year, it seems. Nothing particularly loli about it except the slim bust and hips.
post #408037: Same, but even less so.
post #400564: At first glance it's not, but the details are in fact visible behind the ball of dark.
post #372409: The body earns it. Considering the head is too small for the body size anyway, I can't use that as a metric. I'll default to leaving it here.
post #365297: Obvious loli groping someone. I'll leave this one to the yuri fans: if it deserves the yuri tag, the loli tag should go with it.
post #353114: With a body size difference like that between the two subjects, I'm inclined to think this is an age-regressed Sakuya or somesuch.
post #349476: Loli body styles, plus bondage, knee rubbing the crotch, and suspicious fluids. It stays.
post #346769: Still looks like loli when you take the camera angle into account.
post #339022: Obviously loli girl engaged in tongue-kiss with older man, with saliva dripping down her cheeks and heavy breathing. That seems sexual enough for tagging purposes.
post #315751: Looks like a loli, and is having sex. The genitalia being off-camera is irrelevant, given the flagrant nudity and sexual dialogue.
post #310040: I think it's a gray area here.
Part 3
______
post #308515: It could be the camera angle making Sakuya's head look larger than it is, but I'm inclined to leave the tag on given that Sakuya's body also shows no other signs of maturity either. The face is childishly rounded as well.
post #307339: Oh, that's not an easy one. Toddlercon appeal in body size and shape, but she's wearing panties and there's no defined cameltoe. I'll have to leave this one to the admins.
post #294003: Loli body. The shibari gives the illusion of more chest development than there is, and the vibrator just hurls it over the line. Definitely applies.
post #291827: Not much is clearly defined, but her body is definitely loli in size. The way Rinnosuke is manhandling her and opening her legs like that pushes it over the line, to my eye.
post #286345: Nevermind the face. No loli ever has hips that wide. Removed.
post #276440, post #275929: Flan's bare ass in garters gets the tag.
post #265286, post #265285: ...I really have no idea. Seems more "chibi" than "loli" here.
post #261405: Yes, definitely. Cylindrical torso, child's head-body ratio, and wet panties through which the vulva is discernible. The pose, too, is unmistakably suggestive.
post #255604: Only "Questionable" due to the pose. The panties depict none of the features beneath.
post #254525: I see where this is coming from - visibly small body and loli face - but the bust-waist ratio looks to override that. I'll leave it for now, but my vote is against.
post #253920: Still just a pantyshot, so no tag, but the low-rise panties showing off the thigh creases pushes it close.
post #242919: The head-body proportions say loli, the transparently wet panties earn it.
post #242579: Again, pantyshots close to - but not - over the line. Removed.
post #233092: Loli body + no panties + skirt lifting. Tag stays.
post #230779: Not loli, just shrunk-down. What can be discerned of Alice's figure indicates not-loli, and Marisa's figure can't be accurately discerned.
post #224202: Loli body, wet shirt, and that cameltoe looks to be molded around the clitoris.
post #220978: Nothing visible, nothing implicitly sexual. Removed.
post #216835: Neither subject's figure can be discerned, save Reimu's sideboob under the clothes. Removed.
post #163793: Nothing explicit going on. Looks innocuous enough to pass. Chen's sucking of Cirno's wing crystal seems no more suggestive than a fruit-ice pop.
post #158467: Not even remotely.
post #135239: Hmm, I'm inclined to leave it based on how much those panties are molded to Tewi's ass.
Part 4
______
post #132580: Loli face and head, clothing might be a little baggy. I'd leave it.
post #121751: Not explicit in any notable way.
post #90316: Pose and blush suggestive, but that's about it - there's nothing saying this is or isn't a loli.
post #84458: The no_panties are obvious and suggestive, here, even if nothing's shown. However, this one I'm not close enough to 100% on, so I'll leave it alone for now.
post #80606: Shibari gives the illusion of bigger breasts. Large head and small, cylindrical body, plus the crotch rope and suspicious fluids. Loli.
post #77790: child, not loli. Pic is perfectly innocent in tone and suggests nothing sexual.
post #73361: The chibi deformation makes it hard to tell, and there's nothing explicit going on, so... no. Not this one.
post #52689: The pants are half-down, but I see panties worn there. Barely Q, if that; certainly not deserving of the loli tag.
______
Please keep it to ten or less per post from now on!
Fine, fine.
post #504577: Her propotions don't really scream loli though either.
post #465430 and post #465427: I envision her as being at the height of the average teen in these pictures based on her propotions.
post #372409: I can't even look at this image without shuddering long enough for a counter.
post #365297: But there's nothing... The sexuality isn't directed at Suwako.
post #349476: Breasts, even with rejecting the others due to shibari making them look bigger, that isn't just the shibari creating them.
post #315751: Yet another in my ongoing series in images of Cirno I bring up for questioning because I felt she was drawn to look more like a teen rather than a child
post #291827: Yeah, but it's just her panties, and it's already been established that panties don't require the tag.
Rounding up the ones you were unsure of for others opinions on them
post #577889
post #577886
post #307339
post #265286, post #265285 Assuming these two aren't deleted at least
post #254525
post #84458
And for new ones
post #624853 Its children definitely deserve it, but not so much this one.
Given masiroke's other Suika pics it's borderline (most of those pics give her some measure of curves). On it's own, hard to tell. Then again, Suika is practically loli by default.
post #504577: Her propotions don't really scream loli though either.
Her face does. I wouldn't mind it too much either way, to be honest.
post #465430 and post #465427: I envision her as being at the height of the average teen in these pictures based on her propotions.
Again, I went by head-size and facial features with those. fakepucco has a very very strange sense of proportions, which - in any loli character he draws - causes their limbs and torsos to be drawn very much elongated and painfully thin-looking, so I intentionally did not use those proportions as a basis.
Meh. I'll leave it up for consideration.
post #365297: But there's nothing... The sexuality isn't directed at Suwako.
Suwako is performing the sexual act. Assuming this pic (a mere skinship grope, IMO) is even considered sexual enough to count, then that's enough. Same as if a fully-clothed loli were seen sucking a dick.
Again, though, I'll leave it to the yuri fans to decide.
post #349476: Breasts, even with rejecting the others due to shibari making them look bigger, that isn't just the shibari creating them.
I contend that it's the "chubby loli" style, based on the amount of flesh squeezed out around the tight spots elsewhere - Marisa's arms and Alice's thighhighs and buruma, for example.
post #315751: Yet another in my ongoing series in images of Cirno I bring up for questioning because I felt she was drawn to look more like a teen rather than a child
"just barely into puberty" doesn't disqualify the loli tag, to me. And her head size compared to the breadth of her shoulders seemed to give me that impression.
It is on the borderline, though. If more of her was visible below the waist, it might be disqualified.
post #291827: Yeah, but it's just her panties, and it's already been established that panties don't require the tag.
Again, if it was just a pantyshot, I would have said it wouldn't apply. However, her being manhandled in that suggestive way screams "molestation", which to me puts it under the "so suggestive it applies even when clothed" heading.
post #624853 Its children definitely deserve it, but not so much this one.
I agree - there's no detail even drawn in there.
I can't really get a good handle on the proportions on this one, but it doesn't seem like she's loli in this one - at least, not visibly enough to earn the tag.
sgcdonmai said: Suwako is performing the sexual act. Assuming this pic (a mere skinship grope, IMO) is even considered sexual enough to count, then that's enough. Same as if a fully-clothed loli were seen sucking a dick.
Again, though, I'll leave it to the yuri fans to decide.
Tagging loli on the basis of a pretty innocent, non-explicit onsen breast grope seems like it'd be very extreme to me.
umhyuk said: pool #1302 have started popping up in the notes again. Any big opposition to me tagging post #598447 and post #610646 loli as well to prevent vandals from too easy access to the rest of the pool trough ">>" and "<<"? They are part of a loli pool after all.
I don't think we're particularly concerned about people being able to circumvent the block here and there. There are already plenty of ways around it.
I am rather concerned about flat out incorrect tagging, though, and tagging those as loli would be completely incorrect. So please don't.
If note vandalism is the worry, please just give negative reports and it'll be handled like any other note vandalism.