viliml said:
Does something really need to be done about it? Does post #7786072 really need to be hidden from the general public?
No. The child is not sexualized in any way so adding loli would be bad tagging practice regardless of its status as a censored tag. If we don’t want these to show up in child searches, the best solution would simply be to remove the tag.
Nonamethanks himself tagged post #3410029 with child and it's never been tagged loli, to me that looks like a signal that it's a-okay.
Then again, evazion tagged post #5329038 with child just two months before saying
So maybe we should "do as they say, not as they do".
Evazion tagged that post two years ago, not two months. And it was a couple days before topic #21157 was started, which was a bit before the G rating was created and S posts could be tagged with loli.
Also, admins can make mistakes just like everyone else. We should not automatically assume an admin tagging something contrary to policy means there was a change in said policy.
I thought so too until now. If I were to hazard a guess as to what is going on, I'd imagine that that was a missed nuance because of the bias towards 1girl solo on danbooru, and what was actually meant is that the appearance of the child specifically in the image must be "G-worthy", and not necessarily the image as a whole.
Maybe another, clearer admin statement is needed.
I strongly believe that is the case. All of the conversations about this I’ve seen were held with the context being sexualized children. If we were to follow the “child is G only” rule all the way, we would be removing it from posts that have a higher rating due to violence or death (post #7324856), or because there are older characters in swimsuits (post #7963236). Remember that it doesn’t take much for a post to be rated S even when the characters are all adults.
Now about voyeurism, one could make the argument that the kids are engaged in a sex act even if they’re only peeping, and thus not eligible for child. It would be good to get a clear statement on those images, and whether posts presenting it as purely comical instead of sexy (like Crayon Shin-chan) would get a pass.
lopi999 said:
Is this one really a loli? post #3409137
No.
