- Tasteful panty shots are rated Safe, but this one is alarmingly unsubtle. Isn't the image focused enough on her crotch to be Questionable?
- If the rating is changed, should this be loli as well?
Posted under General
iridescent_slime said:
- Tasteful panty shots are rated Safe, but this one is alarmingly unsubtle. Isn't the image focused enough on her crotch to be Questionable?
- If the rating is changed, should this be loli as well?
Q and loli, IMO.
I am the illustrator of this work, and I request a check because I deliberately depicted ishigaki_(kantai_collection) with a more mature physique than one that would warrant a loli tag. I noticed that the tag application was done only a significant amount of time after the post went up.
Thank you.
ArcieA said:
I am the illustrator of this work, and I request a check because I deliberately depicted ishigaki_(kantai_collection) with a more mature physique than one that would warrant a loli tag. I noticed that the tag application was done only a significant amount of time after the post went up.
Thank you.
Doesn't look like a child's body so I fixed it. The person who added loli probably wasn't aware that the tag only applies on a per-image basis.
I'm not entirely sure if this is still a child or already an adolescent, what do you think?
^ Nagatoro is more shorttank than loli, I say no.
The angel looks more like a petite teenager to me. And is this sexual/revealing enough to be Questionable, anyway?
Flopsy said:
The angel looks more like a petite teenager to me. And is this sexual/revealing enough to be Questionable, anyway?
My bad, the loli tag was a typo for lollipop, I agree it doesn't fit.
Any thoughts on post #3585293?
iridescent_slime said:
Any thoughts on post #3585293?
From what's visible I wouldn't tag it as loli.
The girls look more like slender teenagers, height and shape-wise.
I'm not sure about the loli tag on this one either. Even the rightmost girl has significant breasts.
A check of post #3291891 please, not so sure if loli.
The loli tag was recently added to post #1076220. It wouldn't have occurred to me to use it there. What do you think?