Posted under Tags
This was uploaded six days ago.
Today it was tagged as loli.
It shouldn't have been. There's no reason for it to be unless we're going to go and mark every flat chested character as a loli now. It's not even an explicit image.
Users who are not high level moderators should not be able to lock other users out of content and fundamental change their access to tags, and should not have access to the "loli" and "shota" tags.
tapnek said:
It's marked as questionable. Those kinds of images still need the shota and loli tags. Also, the image is already one meant for a body pillow with what appears to be a very young girl.
Really? Because if that's actually the case there's a few dozen thousand images of flat chested characters marked questionable that need to be locked up.
Like literally every single picture of one of them in a bikini.
tapnek said:
It's all about body shape and size.
I honestly don't disagree. But yeah my problem is this character both looks old enough and is actually old enough to not be a loli (she's more teenage imo). And there are way more lewd images with the same body type that aren't marked as loli, which is silly lol.
But I still think those two tags, that do change huge chunks of access to normal users, should only be able to be used by very specific people in charge of the moderation of images, and if an image qualifies for that tag, should be added at or around the time of approval.
Neonie said:
But I still think those two tags, that do change huge chunks of access to normal users, should only be able to be used by very specific people in charge of the moderation of images, and if an image qualifies for that tag, should be added at or around the time of approval.
That would increase workload on mod staff significantly, so I don't think that's going to happen. If the post was tagged as loli/shota by someone and you disagree, there's always topic #8650.
Type-kun said:
That would increase workload on mod staff significantly, so I don't think that's going to happen. If the post was tagged as loli/shota by someone and you disagree, there's always topic #8650.
Oh thank you. I looked for that in the "useful threads" and couldn't find one that addressed this.
Type-kun said:
there's always topic #8650.
That.
Well, this post here is borderline. I wouldn't tag it loli, but I wouldn't remove the tag either.
So is the contention that the character doesn't look like a child, or is it that the image isn't sexual? I'm honestly befuddled that anyone objects to the tag. She's lying on a bed topless and in tiny, fancy panties, looking up at a viewpoint suspended above her looking down. She has a childish face, a disproportionately large head (which is a cartooning technique for making someone look small), and no breasts. Seems downright unambiguous.
e:
Is it a broadly held opinion here that an image can never be sexual if it doesn't directly show any nipples or genitals? I have gotten that impression, seeing what's not tagged loli and/or is rated safe. That opinion would be insane if anyone does hold it, mind.
Updated
hemoglobin said:
So is the contention that the character doesn't look like a child, or is it that the image isn't sexual? I'm honestly befuddled that anyone objects to the tag. She's lying on a bed topless and in tiny, fancy panties, looking up at a viewpoint suspended above her looking down. She has no breasts and a childish face. Seems downright unambiguous.
e:
Is it a broadly held opinion here that an image can never be sexual if it doesn't directly show any nipples or genitals? I have gotten that impression, seeing what's not tagged loli and/or is rated safe. That opinion would be insane if anyone does hold it, mind.
-Her face is relatively not that childish.
-The look on her face is actually not sexual.
-Her body, which is the most important part, is not a loli body. She is too tall and more of a teenager in size.
-Lingerie does not imply sex is about to happen, as that would imply women never wear lingere just to make them selves feel sexy.
-Context is also important, I think. If you look at other images of this same character, it is VERY clear in other images of her when she is acting lewd or wants to do the sex. This is not the body language or face she uses for that.
You are right in that it is unambiguous... in that it is unambiguous she isn't looking for sex in this picture.
If your befuddled someone objects to this tag, that kind of makes it sound like you need to actually learn what a loli is first and foremost. Whether or this picture counts as sexual, there is a clear distinction between a purely flat chested character (Like this, or say, Minase Iori who has a similar body type and face), and an actual loli, which is smaller and more child-like.
It's not a distinction that is as important on a site like Sankan or Gelbooru, but on Danbooru specifically where it hides the image and access to tags, it matters a lot.
Updated
