When does the display of breasts push an image into rating:q territory?
It's borderline often, like post #138409. I'd say about when you can see "half" of them, and in that particular post's case, the very skintight suit pushes it into questionable.
I'm trying to be consistent, but I don't have time to go through every single post anymore.
I'm trying to be consistent, but I don't have time to go through every single post anymore.
I don't agree on that one, actually. The bodysuit covers most of her breasts, and it's thick enough that you can't see any trace of nipples. Combined with an overall lack of exposure anywhere else, this keeps it in "safe" territory.
But otherwise, yeah, that seems like a good guideline to go by.
But otherwise, yeah, that seems like a good guideline to go by.
if post could be shown to my grandma then it is safe anything else is q or e
You can see half any time you watch an awards ceremony or open most newspapers.
I'd put post #138409 cleanly in safe.
I'd put post #138409 cleanly in safe.
There isn't anything that you could show to your grandma on this site.Imbir said:
if post could be shown to my grandma then it is safe anything else is q or e
haha, well I haven't seen many safe things that would be questioned but personally many rating:q should be rated e
|･ω･｀)ｺｯｼｮﾘ
I have a point. Currently, images where pubic_hair is visible but not anything beyond are being rated "q" (for example post #125896): I thought maybe someone disagrees with this, so if that's your case I'd like to know.
post #138409 has nothing of Q content. If that pic deserves to be Q, then post #138986 deserves to be E (I think it should be E anyway).
Even though "explicit" means to show something that tells us what's exactly happening, a picture doesn't explicitly need to show a lot so we can clearly know what's going on, like in, again, post #138986.
Save space
This has a lot to do with one's point of view...
Imbir, nice avatar.
Even though "explicit" means to show something that tells us what's exactly happening, a picture doesn't explicitly need to show a lot so we can clearly know what's going on, like in, again, post #138986.
Save space
This has a lot to do with one's point of view...
Imbir, nice avatar.
In my mind I always end up trying to create a binary rating system when thinking about rating images, which is a strangely frequent occurrence in my mind...
The easiest would be safe and not-safe, but you could flip that I suppose. From a work-safe point of view the last bit wouldn't be a good idea. Shortly after coming to that conclusion I go "but three ratings works fine too and it allows for easier blacklisting and what not so it's al right" and I'm back where I started.
But aside from the broken inner workings of my brain, I suppose the main thing in rating an image is that the rules for rating need to be clear and easy and preferably short. No exceptions, no frills, but pure crystal clarity. So what is this mystical boundary...
Well an easy one would be as follows and I think it would work:
Explicit : Exposed genitalia.
Questionable : Visible nipples, areola etc, visible facsimiles of genitalia, covered visible genitalia.
Safe : Everything else.
Elaboration
It leaves some gaps, suggestive acts for one. You can fix that either with the already used general tags for the acts or you can choose to not fix it and let the viewer deal with what is effectively whatever the hell they think it is.
Guro is another 'problem area' I suppose, but a lot of the stuff that really wants non-safe ratings is usually questionable anyway...
Another solution there would be a quick list of tags that warrant a certain rating, but that would add clutter to clarity. I'd keep that list short, very short. Preferably length 0.
That leaves one thing bugging me to no end. The social acceptance of the unclad male torso that the unclad female torso does not have. The one main problem, a beach scene would be questionable by default with this system if it had male characters in it. That's pretty fair and I could live with it, but to avoid changing much from current rating, rate q only on female nipples, the rest would stay the same.
So to answer the second post, a safe breast would be questionable when it is
1. Exposed down or up to the nipple
2. Female
P.S.
The easiest would be safe and not-safe, but you could flip that I suppose. From a work-safe point of view the last bit wouldn't be a good idea. Shortly after coming to that conclusion I go "but three ratings works fine too and it allows for easier blacklisting and what not so it's al right" and I'm back where I started.
But aside from the broken inner workings of my brain, I suppose the main thing in rating an image is that the rules for rating need to be clear and easy and preferably short. No exceptions, no frills, but pure crystal clarity. So what is this mystical boundary...
Well an easy one would be as follows and I think it would work:
Explicit : Exposed genitalia.
Questionable : Visible nipples, areola etc, visible facsimiles of genitalia, covered visible genitalia.
Safe : Everything else.
Elaboration
It leaves some gaps, suggestive acts for one. You can fix that either with the already used general tags for the acts or you can choose to not fix it and let the viewer deal with what is effectively whatever the hell they think it is.
Guro is another 'problem area' I suppose, but a lot of the stuff that really wants non-safe ratings is usually questionable anyway...
Another solution there would be a quick list of tags that warrant a certain rating, but that would add clutter to clarity. I'd keep that list short, very short. Preferably length 0.
That leaves one thing bugging me to no end. The social acceptance of the unclad male torso that the unclad female torso does not have. The one main problem, a beach scene would be questionable by default with this system if it had male characters in it. That's pretty fair and I could live with it, but to avoid changing much from current rating, rate q only on female nipples, the rest would stay the same.
So to answer the second post, a safe breast would be questionable when it is
1. Exposed down or up to the nipple
2. Female
P.S.
Pantsu. What does this do for ratings? I'd say that it should be an auto-questionable, but post #138956 is, as of this writing, rated safe. I'm...really not sure if it deserves questionable or not. It's only in one part of the image, and the rest of it is clearly safe, but it's still highly visible, so...
I'm not sure. Input pl0x?
I'm not sure. Input pl0x?
post #138956...even though the whole image is safe, Suwako just makes it not really safe.
I still say that one is questionable but only the higher-ups can rewrite decisions.
I still say that one is questionable but only the higher-ups can rewrite decisions.
imo post #138956 is safe as pants is not there to catch your eye and only in perverted eyes of moe-imouto's inhabitants pantsu on a child wake up some unhealthy thoughts.
I don't think fixing any tags to rating good idea, as for example some posts have nudity but are questionable at best because they have only artistic values.
as for now I think mods have generally same idea about rating system so unless there is no doubt let posts be rated questionable until mods get around to check on them.
we could have tag unrated or posts could be uploaded unrated that would be same as questionable just easier for mods to spot.
I don't think fixing any tags to rating good idea, as for example some posts have nudity but are questionable at best because they have only artistic values.
as for now I think mods have generally same idea about rating system so unless there is no doubt let posts be rated questionable until mods get around to check on them.
we could have tag unrated or posts could be uploaded unrated that would be same as questionable just easier for mods to spot.
Heh. That's one way to put that.Imbir said:
imo post #138956 is safe as pants is not there to catch your eye and only in perverted eyes of moe-imouto's inhabitants pantsu on a child wake up some unhealthy thoughts.
Questionable until further notice.Imbir said:
as for now I think mods have generally same idea about rating system so unless there is no doubt let posts be rated questionable until mods get around to check on them.
we could have tag unrated or posts could be uploaded unrated that would be same as questionable just easier for mods to spot.
Is it bad idea most pics can be categorized both safe & questionable, or questionable & explicite, which dosn't matter which rating are selected. only problem I see is when explicite is rated as safe.
anyway I can't remember strict rules, just only tag holds, or ask someone to upload my scans instead of me if I need to rate strictly
(-ω-*)ゞ
anyway I can't remember strict rules, just only tag holds, or ask someone to upload my scans instead of me if I need to rate strictly
(-ω-*)ゞ
so... how is it with the pantsu tag? I didn't quite understand from the conversation here should it be rated q or s or is it completely up to situation? there's pics with pantsu rated both q and s
If there is visible cameltoe then it should be Q. Remember to take the whole image into context.
Radioactive
Image Rating: Explicit vs Questionable vs Safe