blindVigil said:
Well that's not what you asked, you asked if nudity implied exposed genitals, which it doesn't.
That's my fault. I should have clarified better.
Posted under General
Erm, is there any particular reason my post #5350877 got rated as "sensitive"?
Is it because they're... h-h-holding hands? 😳👉👈
KalpacMuskoxen said:
Erm, is there any particular reason my post #5350877 got rated as "sensitive"?
Is it because they're... h-h-holding hands? 😳👉👈
It was probably "safe" to start with, then all safe stuff got rebranded to sensitive.
KalpacMuskoxen said:
Erm, is there any particular reason my post #5350877 got rated as "sensitive"?
Is it because they're... h-h-holding hands? 😳👉👈
It was tagged Safe, right? Safe is Sensitive, now. Just change it to G.
blindVigil said:
Well that's not what you asked, you asked if nudity implied exposed genitals, which it doesn't. Imo your example is E, and always should've been E. That doesn't look like a "subtle" pussy to me.
post #5239598 is Q. It's incidental exposure by the fact that she's nude, not because she's outright displaying it to an audience. "Unsubtle" would be something like post #4668508.
The Q/E divide was discussed to death in topic #3626, so I'd rather this thread stay on topic.
Hillside_Moose said:
post #5239598 is Q. It's incidental exposure by the fact that she's nude, not because she's outright displaying it to an audience. "Unsubtle" would be something like post #4668508.
The Q/E divide was discussed to death in topic #3626, so I'd rather this thread stay on topic.
That sounds like a terrible way to define that. Of course someone taking a shower isn't (usually) displaying themselves to an audience, that doesn't change the image clearly being drawn with sexual intent, and her pussy being given more attention than just a single line. I don't know if a 12 year old topic is the best thing to fall back on when even evazion has, within the last year or so, expressed concern over how often plainly visible genitalia in clearly sexually charged images is dismissed as questionable. Iridescent_slime's post #1124546 is a great example of nonsexualized nudity with visible genitalia, post #5239598 is not.
Just so we're all on the same page, pubic hair is still Q, right? Or is it getting downgraded to S along with "subtle" cameltoes, and howto:rate just hasn't been updated yet?
To be clear, I'm not talking about blink-and-you-miss it stuff like post #887647, I'm talking about blatantly exposed pubes like post #3091703 and post #5208322. And yes, these are all posts that were long tagged as S even though according to the wiki they should have been Q.
kittey said:
https://donmai.moe/ is already up and running. Feel free to use it, I guess.
OK. Looks like the Safebooru site might not last much longer with the new one running and improving over time.
blindVigil said:
That sounds like a terrible way to define that. Of course someone taking a shower isn't (usually) displaying themselves to an audience, that doesn't change the image clearly being drawn with sexual intent, and her pussy being given more attention than just a single line.
If casually taking a shower (no low angle, no masturbation, no groping, etc.) is "clearly sexually charged" to you, then we're not going to have a productive discussion.
iridescent_slime said:
Just so we're all on the same page, pubic hair is still Q, right?
Yes.
With skin-tight pilot suits, I understand that they should be under S with female characters, but does the same apply with muscular male characters? Specifically using post #5032191 and post #4999164 as examples, I'm not sure whether these should stay in S or move to G.
the post #5350877 above points out that the default blacklist should probably be updated, since it gets caught in the "furry -rating:s" entry even though it's rated lower than that
seemingly the is:nsfw metatag doesn't seem to work here, don't know if that's expected or not though.
HeeroWingZero said:
With skin-tight pilot suits, I understand that they should be under S with female characters, but does the same apply with muscular male characters? Specifically using post #5032191 and post #4999164 as examples, I'm not sure whether these should stay in S or move to G.
The former I'd say G, but the latter stays S. It's just trying way too hard to show off every contour of his body.
Hillside_Moose said:
If casually taking a shower (no low angle, no masturbation, no groping, etc.) is "clearly sexually charged" to you, then we're not going to have a productive discussion.
A close up of a fully nude girl washing her self with clearly visible genitalia and nipples is sexually charged, yes. Are you really going to argue that it's not intended to be sexually arousing? This kind of downplaying of very obvious artist intent to sexualize is exactly why our ratings are a mess.
In the internal context of the image, it's innocent, but it obviously wasn't drawn to be viewed innocently, the composition is sexually charged.
Member since 2009, yet I embarrassed myself today...
I embarrassingly chastised two folks today for marking their scenery uploads as "sensitive" just to realize my own past uploads were also "sensitive" which led to quick apologies.
While I am onboard with the general concept (no pun intended), the default system change defeated the purpose. 99% of my uploads fall under what should be general. I love scenery art, yet my uploads are apparently all "sensitive" now.
If you think I'm going back to retag 10 years worth of safe/general uploads, folks have another thing coming.
It is better to rethink everything rating-related, and not fall back on discussions 12 years earlier, when a lot of the userbase also was much less experienced and/or mature.
I would be in favor of having clear cut definitions, if there are genitals it is e.
Otherwise we end up in fringe cases and these arguments get super heated for whatever reason.
In other words, having blurry lines in guidelines where they don't beed to be should be avoided at all cost.
@Tsumanne said:
While I am onboard with the general concept (no pun intended), the default system change defeated the purpose. 99% of my uploads fall under what should be general. I love scenery art, yet my uploads are apparently all "sensitive" now.
If you think I'm going back to retag 10 years worth of safe/general uploads, folks have another thing coming.
I think it's because statistically, the average SFW upload is S rather than G, so it's the safest bet.
Even in your current state, ideally you (or someone else upon request) could ideally use a script or the public API to set ALL your uploads to G, that way it's much less work to fix the ones that aren't G. Then you'd have 99% correct and only 1%. This probably could have been done via a site prompt, but it would probably result in a lot of mistagged posts with that sort of honour system.
Either way, S is still a pretty good default since its meaning is similar to S before and the default "not sure if G" fallback rating.
If it's common enough, perhaps for a bit there could be a thread for users with many G uploads (like me and you) to have a moderator bulk convert all their S uploads to G. Maybe you could even provide a fav group of posts you don't want included as an exception if it's a small amount like 1%.