Loli/shota check thread.

post #7217132

Not sure about this one, because the character has a ton of pictures in the same proportions/style which aren't tagged loli.

Edit: And since we are here, I went through my favourites, and wanted to ask if you would consider any of the following pictures loli (some of them I think definitely are, but most of them are quite old pictures, and since no one has tagged them as such before, I thought I ask):

post #2074550
post #3225683 (this one has a short picture series as well)
post #5410967
post #225665
post #134706
post #419030
post #237848
post #61832
post #8792
post #207960
post #282314

post #7220235

idk if it's sensitive enough to warrant it (or even S at all). I went with yes for now just in case

CasualStan said:

post #7217132

I'm leaning toward no for that one. As for the others:

post #2074550 yes
post #3225683 yes
post #5410967 yes
post #225665 no
post #134706 yes
post #419030 not sure
post #237848 probably not
post #61832 leaning toward no
post #8792 not sure
post #207960 not sure
post #282314 no

I added the tag to the ones I answered with "yes" and defer to others for the borderline cases.

c_spl said:

post #7220235

idk if it's sensitive enough to warrant it (or even S at all). I went with yes for now just in case

I don't think it needs the loli tag, but the outfits of the two girls on the sides of the image are revealing enough to warrant an S rating.

Blank_User said:

I'm leaning toward no for that one. As for the others:

post #2074550 yes
post #3225683 yes
post #5410967 yes
post #225665 no
post #134706 yes
post #419030 not sure
post #237848 probably not
post #61832 leaning toward no
post #8792 not sure
post #207960 not sure
post #282314 no

I added the tag to the ones I answered with "yes" and defer to others for the borderline cases.

I don't think it needs the loli tag, but the outfits of the two girls on the sides of the image are revealing enough to warrant an S rating.

Thanks a lot for the help! :)

post #7222674

hdk5 said:

post #7222674

I'm leaning towards "not loli".

post #7223319
Does it count as loli or just small breasts

post #7223439 and children
Why were these put into loli? The breast development and overall proportions make petite seem more appropriate for these.

Jar_of_Flies said:

post #7223319
Does it count as loli or just small breasts

With what little we can see of the body, I don't think the loli tag is needed.

Blank_User said:

post #7223439 and children
Why were these put into loli? The breast development and overall proportions make petite seem more appropriate for these.

When I opened them, my first thought was "oh that's loli", that's basically it. There's hardly any breasts, the pose and angle exaggerate them (intentionally).

岩戸鈴芽 said:

When I opened them, my first thought was "oh that's loli", that's basically it. There's hardly any breasts, the pose and angle exaggerate them (intentionally).

The lighting shows both the inner curvature of the breasts and the amount of area they take up on the chest. They're small, but still significantly developed, and don't look any different from any other small-breasted adult.

As for the angles, I think they're exaggerating the loli appearance. The viewpoint is looking down at the character at an angle slightly below horizontal. Combined with her sticking her butt out, it makes her proportions appear shorter than they actually are.

Blank_User said:

The lighting shows both the inner curvature of the breasts and the amount of area they take up on the chest. They're small, but still significantly developed, and don't look any different from any other small-breasted adult.

As for the angles, I think they're exaggerating the loli appearance. The viewpoint is looking down at the character at an angle slightly below horizontal. Combined with her sticking her butt out, it makes her proportions appear shorter than they actually are.

I personally think this degree of "scrutiny" (so to say) kind of goes against the point of loli. We shouldn't be getting out measuring charts to determine whether something *looks* loli, as basically everybody else won't be doing that either. It shouldn't be important whether her breasts are 1 centimeter too large, it should be important whether the image looks like loli to the casual observer, which I'd say it does.

Blank_User said:

post #7223439 and children
Why were these put into loli? The breast development and overall proportions make petite seem more appropriate for these.

I also don't feel like these fall into loli, borderline as they are.
(I'll refrain from explaining my position seeing as ICJ believes that would be conflict with 'the point of loli')

bipface said:

I also don't feel like these fall into loli, borderline as they are.
(I'll refrain from explaining my position seeing as ICJ believes that would be conflict with 'the point of loli')

I'm not saying it should be entirely subjective, that should be obvious, but if you're zooming in and basically measuring minute details, then it feels like you're falling into the same trap as what happened in topic #22285, where your definition just becomes way detached from reality (and that's taking into account we already have our own specific definition of loli).

岩戸鈴芽 said:

I'm not saying it should be entirely subjective, that should be obvious, but if you're zooming in and basically measuring minute details, then it feels like you're falling into the same trap as what happened in topic #22285, where your definition just becomes way detached from reality (and that's taking into account we already have our own specific definition of loli).

And what is that specific definition?
I cannot trust the wiki saying "girls who appear to be preadolescent (roughly between the age of 3 to 12)" since the subject of the image in question clearly looks older than 12, and the "non-loli" examples in the wiki are subjects of constant edit wars with people adding and removing the loli tag.
Is there a new definition de-facto in force?

viliml said:

And what is that specific definition?

You quoted it yourself: "girls who appear to be preadolescent (roughly between the age of 3 to 12)"
So if a girl looks preadolescent, loli should apply. Feel free to disagree with me regarding post #7223439, that's what this thread is for, but the definition has always been with about how the image looks, not the exact bodily dimensions.

岩戸鈴芽 said:

I personally think this degree of "scrutiny" (so to say) kind of goes against the point of loli. We shouldn't be getting out measuring charts to determine whether something *looks* loli, as basically everybody else won't be doing that either. It shouldn't be important whether her breasts are 1 centimeter too large, it should be important whether the image looks like loli to the casual observer, which I'd say it does.

Everything I mentioned were things I noticed within a few seconds of looking at the image. It probably took about the same amount of time for you to determine the angles were exaggerating the curves. If it needed as much scrutiny as you claim, I wouldn't have removed it the first time.

We don't need to analyze every detail to the point of exhaustion, but I do believe some users could stand to scrutinize the image a bit more. Judging a post too quickly doesn't just result in loli/shota mistags (thus unfairly blocking content from basic Members), but also loli/shota posts not being tagged when they should.

岩戸鈴芽 said:

post #7223439

I wouldn’t tag this loli based on the body proportions which all show development consistent with a petite adult like Blank said. The face is what made me do a double take, but we don’t tag sexual posts like this loli based purely on a third of an image.

I think this one is somewhat borderline, but I'm also leaning towards it being petite, not loli.

Blank_User said:

We don't need to analyze every detail to the point of exhaustion, but I do believe some users could stand to scrutinize the image a bit more. Judging a post too quickly doesn't just result in loli/shota mistags (thus unfairly blocking content from basic Members), but also loli/shota posts not being tagged when they should.

I think we all need to remember that when something is actually borderline or that we're uncertain (I don't think the Mutsuki pic that started this is loli, tbh, even though there is a lot of loli Mutsuki and a lot of non-loli Mutsuki that should be tagged loli), it's better to leave it as loli. It's similar to ratings:
We too often want to keep the rating "lower" for some weird reason; we too often want to desperately shout "it's not loli!" (with the intonation of "it's not cringe! you're cringe!")
This kind of unusual resistance to tagging loli is part of why we had to completely rewrite our rating system and nuke the male/female child tags.

I see too many people in this thread fighting tooth and nail to not tag loli for technical reasons or "well her hips have a more acute angle than that of the average 11-year-old, so she's probably 13 or 14 instead of 12 and thus not pre-adolescent!". And then someone has to post the image in the flag vandalism thread when it gets an "illegal content" flag.

Just like what was said last time we had a thread about this:
There is no borderline rating:g. It goes in rating:s.
If you're constantly saying "borderline loli", it's still loli.

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