Loli/shota check thread.

Veraducks said:

I think we all need to remember that when something is actually borderline or that we're uncertain, it's better to leave it as loli.
...
If you're constantly saying "borderline loli", it's still loli.

That's true, but I don't think the borderline is always easy to identify, so users have varying opinions on what is considered borderline. All we have to go by is the prepubescent (3-12) guideline and some images, with many of them being very close to the border. Ideally, we'd have clear definitions of the elements that make up a loli/shota post, but then we run into the problem of people being too inflexible with the guidelines like with the rating system (not that they need them to nitpick like you've explained).

We should be applying your logic above to the examples listed in the loli wiki (interestingly, the shota wiki does not have any examples). If half of the adolescent posts are borderline enough to cause these edit wars, then they shouldn't be listed as adolescent. And many of the borderline posts people argue over don't really look too different from the adolescent posts. Sometimes they actually look older. This tells me that the examples aren't useful for identifying the borderline, and that the examples should either be replaced or removed entirely. We may need to create a new thread for this sometime in the future to work this out.

Provence said:

If something is borderline, logic would dictate to go with the more restrictive option, i.e. loli.

I feel like what happened is that this sort of thinking was has already been internalized, so when some people say "loli" they mean "either clear or borderline enough to be tagged loli" and when they say "borderline loli" they mean "not loli, but close to the border line of borderline loli".

If standards are not well defined, there's a danger of a runaway effect with the border continually expanding.

viliml said:

I feel like what happened is that this sort of thinking was has already been internalized, so when some people say "loli" they mean "either clear or borderline enough to be tagged loli" and when they say "borderline loli" they mean "not loli, but close to the border line of borderline loli".

If standards are not well defined, there's a danger of a runaway effect with the border continually expanding.

They are well-defined, but ust like with ratings, people do mental gymnastics to justiy that something falls under the less restrictive tag (or rating).
If you are still swinging between the two, it's can't be incorrect to go with loli, however you may anger people who think it is loli if you omit the tag. And these people are correct.

Provence said:

They are well-defined, but ust like with ratings, people do mental gymnastics to justiy that something falls under the less restrictive tag (or rating).
If you are still swinging between the two, it's can't be incorrect to go with loli, however you may anger people who think it is loli if you omit the tag. And these people are correct.

You can't say both "the standards are well defined" and "if anyone thinks it's loli without any justification then it's loli".
And I was never swinging between the two.

viliml said:

You can't say both "the standards are well defined" and "if anyone thinks it's loli without any justification then it's loli".
And I was never swinging between the two.

There is justification.
I don't know how you're deriving at that. In fact, the rules are so defined that there is a clear justification.
If you're however still unsure, ask here and/or use loli until it's sorted out.
If we somehow still arrive at the conclusion it's borderline, it's still advisable to use the loli tag.

Provence said:

There is justification.
I don't know how you're deriving at that. In fact, the rules are so defined that there is a clear justification.
If you're however still unsure, ask here and/or use loli until it's sorted out

Alright, I guess I'll leave it at that since it has indeed been sorted out and image is untagged.

Despite what it may look like, I don't have an agenda to undertag loli to let non-privileged users see more of them, although I do have some negative feelings towards the possibility of the definition being expanded so that posts that weren't considered loli before should be considered loli now.
I only argued because I genuinely believed that I correctly understood the danbooru standard based on the precedents that I've seen.

viliml said:

Alright, I guess I'll leave it at that since it has indeed been sorted out and image is untagged.

Despite what it may look like, I don't have an agenda to undertag loli to let non-privileged users see more of them, although I do have some negative feelings towards the possibility of the definition being expanded so that posts that weren't considered loli before should be considered loli now.
I only argued because I genuinely believed that I correctly understood the danbooru standard based on the precedents that I've seen.

The standards already changed not too long ago (topic #21641). These tags used to be only for Q and E posts. The minimum rating changed to S at around the same time as the G rating was created in part to account for sexually suggestive posts being tagged with child instead because they technically weren't blatant enough for a Q rating.

I think in most cases when the tags are applied, they're accurate. That includes the borderline cases. However, there are posts that are occasionally mistagged, whether it's due to bias based on how a character is presented, thinking chronological age is relevant, or simply not paying close enough attention. It does not necessarily mean we are allowing these posts into loli/shota. They're just less likely to be fixed because there are fewer eyes on them.

For the posts discussed above, I removed the tag once before because I was reasonably confident it wasn't actually loli. The reason I brought it up here was because it was added again, and my policy is to discuss it even if I'm certain of my decision before removing the tag a second time.

Also, the loli wiki's examples have been known to be unreliable for years. Veraducks removed the examples in the loli wiki sometime between now and my last post, so that should help prevent users from being misled.

post #7233024
Need a second judgment here.

tapnek said:

post #7233024
Need a second judgment here.

imo no, curvyness makes it look more petite

c_spl said:

imo no, curvyness makes it look more petite

Not 100% sure about the body, but the face doesn't look childlike, though that may be due to the artstyle. I agree it doesn't give an overall loli impression.

post #5700002 vs its child posts

Not loli. Curvy waist with defined hips and legs.

post #4612662

Yes, loli.

Provence said:

Yes, loli.

I'm not convinced. The girl on the left is only slightly less developed than the girl on the right and seems closer to young-/mid-teens to me.

post #7186068
that's just legs

hdk5 said:

post #7186068
that's just legs

Of a child, based on the proportions.

tapnek said:

Not loli. Curvy waist with defined hips and legs.

Assuming that was a reply to me, please feel free to remove the tag.

Maybe post #7171035 ?

denliner27 said:

Maybe post #7171035 ?

absolutely loli