Ratings check thread

@Flopsy: > ion288 said: > > post #3664670 > Does the...

2020-02-12T14:53:14-05:00

ion288 said:

post #3664670
Does the guroines of this post somehow make it safe?

I think it's a reasonable, although not crystal-clear, case of Safe nudity. It depends on whether one perceives the exposure of her (weird) internal anatomy as sexually charged.

@ion288: post #3664670 Does the guroines of this post...

2020-02-08T11:20:24-05:00

post #3664670
Does the guroines of this post somehow make it safe?

@kittey: > ion288 said: > > post #3716916 > This could...

2019-12-16T07:17:27-05:00

ion288 said:

post #3716916
This could be safe, questionable or explicit...

Not safe, IMO. I think it should be tagged anal_insertion, which should be rated explicit, but it’s not every explicit at all, so I’d probably go for questionable.

@ion288: post #3716916 This could be safe, questionable...

2019-12-16T00:58:44-05:00

post #3716916
This could be safe, questionable or explicit...

@Flopsy: Can you see anything Explicit in post #3701340?...

2019-12-08T08:05:39-05:00

Can you see anything Explicit in post #3701340?

Lacrimosa said:

When in doubt, it's always better to go with the more strict rating because, believe it or not, you can use Danbooru at work.

By the way, this is not how the ratings are supposed to be used. They are intended to classify levels of sexual content, not to provide a protective barrier when content is being viewed in the presence of others.

As has been pointed out before, there is no universal standard for what kind of content is "safe" to view at work (assuming that any kind of Danbooru use (instead of, you know, working) is acceptable), so classification based on the SFW/NSFW criterion will always be arbitrary.

@ion288: > kittey said: > > post #117197 - Was q until...

2019-10-06T07:55:31-04:00

kittey said:

post #117197 - Was q until recently.

Shes exposing her navel. How is that Q?
I missed the loli tag though, or I would have asked in the loli/shota thread first.

@kittey: post #117197 - Was q until recently.

2019-10-05T15:15:31-04:00

post #117197 - Was q until recently.

@Lacrimosa: Both s.

2019-09-30T12:11:52-04:00

Both s.

@ion288: post #112787 Are naked homunculi S? Also still...

2019-09-30T12:07:50-04:00

post #112787
Are naked homunculi S? Also still want to know if ↑ is Q or S.

@ion288: post #101551 Inocently sexual?

2019-09-22T16:57:05-04:00

post #101551
Inocently sexual?

@Lacrimosa: Kittey is right for pretty much all of them....

2019-09-17T14:47:24-04:00

Kittey is right for pretty much all of them.
When in doubt, it's always better to go with the more strict rating because, believe it or not, you can use Danbooru at work.

However, post #80183 is something i wouldn't rate as q, either. She looks rather pissed and not aroused at all.

@kittey: > ion288 said: > > 491 and 511 where...

2019-09-16T10:02:26-04:00

ion288 said:

491 and 511 where misclicks. My bad.

I hope there aren’t that many “misclicks” that I don’t catch because they don’t result in invalid safe+loli combinations… Considering the huge amount of posts you re-rate, 25% (or even 10%) misclicks would be kinda bad.

post #81037 is a girl sitting in a guys lap, nothing sexual about it. And I dont think it should qualify as loli even if she was doing "sexy stuff", though thats for another thread.

A girl sitting in the lap of a faceless male, getting felt up by him. I don’t understand how there’s “nothing sexual about it”. Faceless males aren’t really common outside of “sexy stuff”, I believe, so I consider it to be too sexually suggestive for a safe rating.

I would like a judgment on post #92817, post #92266 and post #92826. I can agree its uncertain what rating is appropriate here.

post #92817 and post #92826: Clearly visible cameltoes are enough for a questionable rating.

post #92266: Randoseru + underwear is a common lolicon fetish combination, AFAIK, and the figure is clearly meant to shove her butt right into the viewers face. Not safe, IMO.

I’m also not sure why you consider post #80183 non-sexual despite the pose and the girl’s face.

@ion288: > kittey said: > > Really safe enough for a...

2019-09-16T07:54:40-04:00

kittey said:

Really safe enough for a safe rating?
post #92266
post #92491
post #92511
post #92558
post #92749
post #92817
post #92826

491 and 511 where misclicks. My bad.

post #81037 is a girl sitting in a guys lap, nothing sexual about it. And I dont think it should qualify as loli even if she was doing "sexy stuff", though thats for another thread.
post #92558 and post #92749 seems really safe to me, the second one only got the loli tag because of the kono lolicon domome tag afaik.

I would like a judgment on post #92817, post #92266 and post #92826. I can agree its uncertain what rating is appropriate here.

@kittey: Really safe enough for a safe rating? post...

2019-09-15T16:30:08-04:00

Really safe enough for a safe rating?
post #92266
post #92491
post #92511
post #92558
post #92749
post #92817
post #92826

@kittey: post #81037 Safe enough for a safe rating?

2019-09-08T12:34:17-04:00

post #81037
Safe enough for a safe rating?

@feline_lump: double post, delete

2019-09-08T00:25:19-04:00

double post, delete

@feline_lump: > Flopsy said: > > I agree with Unbreakable....

2019-09-08T00:25:09-04:00

Flopsy said:

I agree with Unbreakable. Tagging and rating policy should not be about being or not being desensitized to anything. As defined, the loli tag applies to erotic pictures of prepubescent girls, not to any girl who looks underaged in the "under 18" sense. And scanty clothing of the kind seen in post #3307007, no more revealing than ordinary swimwear, does not in itself merit the Questionable rating.

My rationale for giving this a Q + loli was that at least one of these characters is definitely prepubescent, and the image text spells it out as erotic clothing.

kittey said:

post #80183
post #80191
Really safe enough for a safe rating?

First one is slightly suggestive, but there's no way to say for sure from what's visible. Second one is unmistakably clothed presenting, however.

@kittey: post #80183 post #80191 Really safe enough for...

2019-09-07T15:34:07-04:00

post #80183
post #80191
Really safe enough for a safe rating?

@Flopsy: I agree with Unbreakable. Tagging and rating...

2019-08-28T16:22:38-04:00

I agree with Unbreakable. Tagging and rating policy should not be about being or not being desensitized to anything. As defined, the loli tag applies to erotic pictures of prepubescent girls, not to any girl who looks underaged in the "under 18" sense. And scanty clothing of the kind seen in post #3307007, no more revealing than ordinary swimwear, does not in itself merit the Questionable rating.

@Unbreakable: > kittey said: > > Fully desensitized to...

2019-08-28T10:54:52-04:00

kittey said:

Fully desensitized to scantily clad underage girls, I see. :P

I mean, it's not particularly revealing or anything, and they're just standing there, I'd have to stretch quite a bit to consider it q.