Ratings check thread

Cyberia-Mix said:
While we're at it, how should that post be rated?
Hazuki set it to s, but maybe he's the one who set it back to q after that. Both s and q seem fine to me so I don't know.

I wouldn't have set it to s, it has huge, barely covered breasts on head. Must be a glitch, but it's definitely q.

Also, post #359651 is a bit loli-ish but not enough to warrant a q rating imho.

I'd say it's q. She's blushing, the panties are very much exposed, shirt is open, and she's in a very compromising position overall.

Cyberia-Mix said:
Something weird happened with post #468060.
The tag history says I changed the rating from s to q, but the rating was q already when I started editing the post. Another case of posts changing ratings with no trace in the history. Anybody knows the reason?

There was a bug where using the drop down menu above the tags to rate images wouldn't make them show up in the tag history. This lead to a lot of vandalism that has yet to be completely cleaned up (because we don't know what all posts were hit).

post #646809 and its child post post #579860.

These post were tagged with sex related tags previously but I believe somebody used the threesome tag and that initiated the chain of implications. Now that the tags re gone, do these posts still warrent the explicit rating?

One of them was questionable and I switched it to explicit. Whether I was right in doing that or not, I'll let someone else decide, but I think breast_sucking could use a bit of clean-up either way. As it stands I can't tell if we consider it generally questionable or explicit by browsing.

It's not explicit by itself, and these posts are questionable.

post #608537
q would suit more than e imho.

I think the explicit rating should stay. I consider the fingering in that post pretty explicit.

I agree with q. It's pretty minor and not very explicit as far as portraying sexual activity goes.

post #612474
post #590366
post #645921

All q.

葉月 said:
I agree with q. It's pretty minor and not very explicit as far as portraying sexual activity goes.

Yeah, I was pretty unsure about changing the rating to e in the first place. It's borderline.

May I change post #562733 from e to q?

legga said:
May I change post #562733 from e to q?

Those are, very clearly, testicles.

So, no.

Bapabooiee said:
Those are, very clearly, testicles.

So, no.

I see this as a contradiction with what Hazuki said right before about post #612474.
And I disagree with it btw. The girl is ok but the boy is an obvious case of "blatantly exposed genitals". Counting this as q sets a precedent likely to make us rethink (read: debate) a lot of stuff not even previously considered borderline.

And post #645921 emphasizes the genitals area and detail a bit too much for a q rating too imho.
(On a totally unrelated note however, does her hair style count as a hime_cut?)

I could say I meant post #56273, but that would be a lie.

For the curious, my line of reasoning:

• toying with breasts would be q
• testicles alone seem no more sexual than breasts <- WRONG
• the focus-on-genitals clause of howto:rate might not apply to images that are too silly to be erotic <- PROBABLY WRONG, MOOT

Sorry.

I still like the old objective ratings system, but we've gone too far with the revised system to go back now. As for how to tell what's q and e when there's no actual sex going on, I'm not really all that sure.

post #562733 is a clear e in my book due to the presence of testicles and clear sexual contact.

post #645921 is at least borderline q/e in my opinion. Had I posted it, I'd have thrown it in e, but i can see it going either way with the new rating system. As for hime_cut, the sidelocks are right, but the bangs are too uneven for me to consider it as such.

post #612474 is the least ambiguous to me even if there is full frontal nudity. There is clearly nothing sexual going on or innuendo beyond the fact that they are nude. By the new rules, it's a pretty clear q.

Cyberia-Mix said:
And I disagree with it btw. The girl is ok but the boy is an obvious case of "blatantly exposed genitals". Counting this as q sets a precedent likely to make us rethink (read: debate) a lot of stuff not even previously considered borderline.

Howso? Just because penises are by their very nature more protruding? There's absolutely no difference between the girl's and the boy's nudity in this picture, so if you accept one as being questionable, so is the other. Stop treating penises specially and it'll be easier.

And they're just running, not fucking, so it's not explicit.

Shinjidude said:
I still like the old objective ratings system, but we've gone too far with the revised system to go back now. As for how to tell what's q and e when there's no actual sex going on, I'm not really all that sure.

It was never objective. Just as our moderation and voting aren't objective.

It was mostly objective in that I could rate via flowchart:

sex, body fluids, genitalia -> rating:e

else:

breasts, pubic hair, strong innuendo -> rating:q

else:

rating:s

You could argue whether it was perfectly meaningful or suited to our purposes (which I'm sure we have). But you can't really say that wasn't about as objective as it reasonably could be.

I'm fine with the new system, since that's what we've agreed to go with. I'm just not as comfortable making the subjective judgments with it yet as I was with the old formulaic approach.

post #210374
post #648054
post #646753