Posted under General
BobTheBuilder_v1 said:
... blah blah blah tag loli, retard blah blah blah ...
... blah blah blah wikis are not to be trusted blah blah blah...
Woah, how stupid of me! I would've never guessed! It is such a shame that no one thought to discuss updating the wiki to align with current standards, so that even the dumbest, most retarded lolicons like me (or, god forbid, anyone whose name is colored red) could understand what should or should not be tagged loli.
hdk5 said:
Woah, how stupid of me! I would've never guessed! It is such a shame that no one thought to discuss updating the wiki to align with current standards, so that even the dumbest, most retarded lolicons like me (or, god forbid, anyone whose name is colored red) could understand what should or should not be tagged loli.
So your brilliant idea was to keep abiding by a wiki you are fully aware of has issues? You’d think that as a user with the most to lose over contention with loli, you’d be a little bit more invested in its reform. Or at the very least, not attempt to skirt the line at every opportunity (we have a thread explicitly to check loli/shota). But I agree that this issue has been kicked along the street for long enough, so I’ll put some time into updating the wiki sometime soon.
I’m not the lolicon hater you might assume, I upload and favorite it, but it’s really not hard to be conservative about something this contentious.
BobTheBuilder_v1 said:
So your brilliant idea was to keep abiding by a wiki you are fully aware of has issues? You’d think that as a user with the most to lose over contention with loli, you’d be a little bit more invested in its reform. Or at the very least, not attempt to skirt the line at every opportunity (we have a thread explicitly to check loli/shota). But I agree that this issue has been kicked along the street for long enough, so I’ll put some time into updating the wiki sometime soon.
I’m not the lolicon hater you might assume, I upload and favorite it, but it’s really not hard to be conservative about something this contentious.
I didn't really want to continue arguing with you at first, but now I feel compelled to respond.
Regarding my uploads specifically, let me point out that I notice far more loli tag removal edits on them that make me think "in what world she's not a loli?" than "why the fuck would you tag this as loli" additions, so I believe that your anger at me is unjustified. Of course, there are occasional obvious "why the fuck i didn't tag this loli on upload", but those are my genuine mistakes, and are very rare.
To clarify further, id:6735443,6723218,6720813,6718027,6716142,6686819,6677524,6671083,6650895,6545454,6393582,6357961 status:any (all of those are my posts that got loli added either by you or someone else), along with the previously mentioned post #6735308 - are few examples that fall into the second, not the third, category. I genuinely - and equally - see no reason for them to be tagged as loli.
But, if you believe you can somehow bring everyone - me, you, random blue, certain red, that one loli hater unres upping exclusively rating:g, or this one horny plat lurker with over 30000 loli favs - to a consensus on this matter, I'd genuinely be pleased if you could achieve that.
Updated
hdk5 said:
To clarify further, id:6735443,6723218,6720813,6718027,6716142,6686819,6677524,6671083,6650895,6545454,6393582,6357961 status:any (all of those are my posts that got loli added either by you or someone else), along with the previously mentioned post #6735308 - are few examples that fall into the second, not the third, category. I genuinely - and equally - see no reason for them to be tagged as loli.
I think you can make a fairly strong argument for 2 or maybe 3 of those posts, but I can see why a lot of them were tagged as loli, with some of them seeming especially clear-cut such as a panty peek under buruma in post #6671083 and bikini + spread legs + stubby proportions in post #6357961.
Also, one of the users adding loli to your posts also increased their ratings to Q, but I think the S rating was fine for those. The user may have forgotten that loli can now be used on S posts.
BobTheBuilder_v1 said:
...cites two posts for child that not only don’t have the tag but are also S (child solo is never)...
I'm realizing now this could cause problems with blacklisting children in swimsuits that wouldn't qualify as loli. For example, post #5592359 and post #5669723 are both rated S and tagged child, solo and swimsuit. The posts are far too innocent for loli, but they are still wearing swimsuits, which is typically enough for S. I think child is probably fine on these, especially because the one-piece swimsuits cover a lot, but suppose we decided to remove the child tag. How would a user that doesn't want to see any kids be able to blacklist those posts? The most innocent and most lewd posts would be blocked, but some of the ones in the middle would still slip through.
hdk5 said:
I can see how post #6718027 might be argued as petite on second glance (though I'm not changing it) but I stand by the Plana one. She's a twig, with a child's face, and a child's breasts. The rest I have no words for.
But, if you believe you can somehow bring everyone - me, you, random blue, certain red, that one loli hater unres upping exclusively rating:g, or this one horny plat lurker with over 30000 loli favs - to a consensus on this matter, I'd genuinely be pleased if you could achieve that.
This is an impossible feat, surely, which is why it's more sane to address the problem children (not those problem children) than to waste time sending hundreds of DMails that are destined for the digital shredder.
Blank User said:
How would a user that doesn't want to see any kids be able to blacklist those posts? The most innocent and most lewd posts would be blocked, but some of the ones in the middle would still slip through.
I would like an Evazion™ or NNT™ response on this, because it honestly beats me. My kneejerk is "child rating:s solo bad! need fix!" but we know that absolutism isn't a great idea.
BobTheBuilder_v1 said:
It blocks the first term only. Needs separation.
Use -rating:g -rating:s instead, if you want to put everything on one line.
e.g., -rating:g -rating:s ~suzuran_(arknights) ~rosmontis_(arknights) ~amiya_(arknights) ~shamare_(arknights) will work as intended.
jay19 said:
Can we simply not make "teen loli" for a girl that's actually a teenager but has the body type of a loli? That way it's extra covered.
Honestly, I just can't really care anymore. Whether y'all want to use "looks younger than legal", or "looks younger than teen", or any other you can think of definition of loli - I will agree to try my best to follow whichever you (without me) choose, and all I am really asking for at this point (in, must admit, somewhat rude manner, for which I apologize) is the better explanation, with clearer guidelines on where the lines on young/old and just cute/too sexual stand, and better examples on what should and should not be tagged as well.
hdk5 said:
Honestly, I just can't really care anymore. Whether y'all want to use "looks younger than legal", or "looks younger than teen", or any other you can think of definition of loli - I will agree to try my best to follow whichever you (without me) choose, and all I am really asking for at this point (in, must admit, somewhat rude manner, for which I apologize) is the better explanation, with clearer guidelines on where the lines on young/old and just cute/too sexual stand, and better examples on what should and should not be tagged as well.
I suppose there is always lolibooru for people to get their loli fetish on.
jay19 said:
Can we simply not make "teen loli" for a girl that's actually a teenager but has the body type of a loli? That way it's extra covered.
Petite already is the euphemism for loli-adjacent characters. Most of the posts that people are arguing about here, if they aren't loli, then they should probably be tagged petite.
