Posted under General
josicret said:
new to this thread but I'm tired of seeing untagged loli. I somehow have editing priveleges and meant to suggest adding the tag to post #7262958, but I actually ended up editing. I'll leave it up to y'all to decide if it's merited but please keep in mind that people like me really don't wanna see this stuff.
Indeed looks loli. Just remember that tagging mistakes happen, that's what this thread is for.
josicret said:
new to this thread but I'm tired of seeing untagged loli. I somehow have editing priveleges and meant to suggest adding the tag to post #7262958, but I actually ended up editing. I'll leave it up to y'all to decide if it's merited but please keep in mind that people like me really don't wanna see this stuff.
i personally don't see how this wouldn't be loli
c_spl said:
If this is loli then post #4723843 is as well.
c_spl said:
I really can't fathom what Veraducks is thinking sometimes with these loli edits. Nothing in that post is even remotely sexual enough to be tagged loli.
c_spl said:
Not loli.
Blank_User said:
I think even disregarding the proportions, it wouldn't count. The most suggestive thing in the image is a side slit and, while it's easily noticeable, there's not really that much focus on it.
All account holders can edit tags here.
I'm not really seeing how this is loli by our standards. She doesn't seem any younger than her normal appearance, which is very much not loli. The only argument I could give in favor of the loli tag is that her foot blocking the view of her proportions makes it slightly more ambiguous, but I'm not convinced that's enough of a justification on its own, especially since it's been used to argue against adding the loli tag in some cases.
I don't know how to stop this post from evading your blacklist without unnecessarily blocking other posts, but remember that adding loli or shota will prevent most viewers from being able to see it. The main purpose of these tags is to appease potential payment processors and prevent the site from being blocked outside of the US. At the same time, if we block every single post that might cause problems, we would have a lot less content available, so we need to maintain a balance. That means we may have content some users may consider to be loli (low lolicon, for example) but can't be tagged as such and thus is harder to blacklist properly.
I'll wait a couple days before removing the tag so others can weigh in unless someone beats me to it.
my standards are "if they look like a child I don't wanna see lewds" and this depiction looks like a child. It's also pretty telling when the artist draws a bunch of loli. Is there some sort of tag we can add for something like "near loli" that for whatever reason is considered "debatable?"
Updated
josicret said:
my standards are "if they look like a child I don't wanna see lewds" and this depiction looks like a child. It's also pretty telling when the artist draws a bunch of loli. Is there some sort of tag we can add for something like "near loli" that for whatever reason is considered "debatable?"
Yes. The petite tag is commonly used for that (forum #254782), but I don't think it would apply to the post in question. There's also flat chest and aged down, but since they can also be used for other kinds of posts and only apply to specific body types/characters, they are more hit-or-miss. I recommend including a rating on the same line in your blacklist (rating:q, rating:e, or is:nsfw, for example) so you can still see the SFW posts. You can also add rating:s to be extra safe.
However we tag this post, the parent will probably need to be tagged the same way since the foot focus and pose would still likely be enough to meet the "sexually suggestive" criterion.
Blank_User said:
However we tag this post, the parent will probably need to be tagged the same way since the foot focus and pose would still likely be enough to meet the "sexually suggestive" criterion.
I don't really agree, it's mostly the bare pussy and ass that are drawn in a very loli-esque fashion here that make it loli. Both aren't visible in the parent, so it's mostly just a simple ass + feet pic.
Blank_User said:
Yes. The petite tag is commonly used for that (forum #254782), but I don't think it would apply to the post in question. There's also flat chest and aged down, but since they can also be used for other kinds of posts and only apply to specific body types/characters, they are more hit-or-miss. I recommend including a rating on the same line in your blacklist (rating:q, rating:e, or is:nsfw, for example) so you can still see the SFW posts. You can also add rating:s to be extra safe.
However we tag this post, the parent will probably need to be tagged the same way since the foot focus and pose would still likely be enough to meet the "sexually suggestive" criterion.
hmm petite is a general body type that many adults have, and a lot of the art with that tag doesn't seem very loli (although still a lot of it unfortunately does). I'd think it would be the same for "flat chest" but clicking on that tag is pretty much nothing but loli. Thanks for the suggestions though. I'm gonna blacklist flat chest
josicret said:
my standards are "if they look like a child I don't wanna see lewds" and this depiction looks like a child. It's also pretty telling when the artist draws a bunch of loli. Is there some sort of tag we can add for something like "near loli" that for whatever reason is considered "debatable?"
This site isn't just for you so you must tag according to the site's standards rather than your own.
viliml said:
This site isn't just for you so you must tag according to the site's standards rather than your own.
Tagging sexualized characters that look like children with loli is the site's standard. I may not have agreed with the user's conclusion for that one post, but it was clear to me the intent was to tag according to the guidelines.
Blank_User said:
Tagging sexualized characters that look like children with loli is the site's standard. I may not have agreed with the user's conclusion for that one post, but it was clear to me the intent was to tag according to the guidelines.
Yeah that's fair, I think I had some weird assumption of what that user meant/wanted in my head but the complaint about post #7262958 is warranted, I'm sorry.
are post #7327971 , post #7325659 , post #7325698 , post #7325625 loli? I don't think these pictures are sexually explicit or sexually suggestive.
It's important to remember that there are groups more powerful than us that refuse to acknowledge the distinction between sexual and non-sexual female nudity. Having any topless female character that young-looking poses a risk regardless of context, so it's better to be safe than sorry.
Blank_User said:
It's important to remember that there are groups more powerful than us that refuse to acknowledge the distinction between sexual and non-sexual female nudity. Having any topless female character that young-looking poses a risk regardless of context, so it's better to be safe than sorry.
I find it funny that those groups are totally fine with people selling that sort of material (in the form of gold memberships).
