The title says it all, Ratte sat down yesterday and reworked the Ratings wiki to better reflect our actual guidelines on ratings.

Please let us know if you feel we've missed anything, or if something doesn't look quite right.

wouldnt extreme amounts of blood fit under explicit?

I disagree with adults wearing diapers = acceptable questionable , I believe that there should be a ratings difference for ageplay and infantilism / diaper fetish. I can go into more detail if necessary.

Also, doubleposting because it can be irrelevant, would an adult suckling on tits be questionable or explicit?

Ledian said:
wouldnt extreme amounts of blood fit under explicit?

Added.

Siral_Exan said:
I disagree with adults wearing diapers = acceptable questionable , I believe that there should be a ratings difference for ageplay and infantilism / diaper fetish. I can go into more detail if necessary.

It's almost always a fetish in art. In fact so often that it's negligible to make a distinction for non-fetish art.

considering you noted obvious fetish content being under explicit, i would think adults(older characters)in diapers would go under explicit too, not questionable :-?

Also i do think there should be a note added regarding the depiction of cub characters sence it does tend to be a heated subject within the community.

NotMeNotYou said:
It's almost always a fetish in art. In fact so often that it's negligible to make a distinction for non-fetish art.

There are entire ongoing comics displaying otherwise, that I had intended to upload.

Ruku said:
considering you noted obvious fetish content being under explicit, i would think adults(older characters)in diapers would go under explicit too, not questionable :-?

Also i do think there should be a note added regarding the depiction of cub characters sence it does tend to be a heated subject within the community.

Made it more explicit with "extreme" fetish purposes. We don't mind some minor fetish stuff in questionable, but anything past "innocent" handcuffs or similar flying around shouldn't be under questionable.

Also, age of characters has no bearing on ratings applied, so they aren't mentioned on purpose.

Siral_Exan said:
There are entire ongoing comics displaying otherwise, that I had intended to upload.

You can still upload them? Just give it the proper rating and move on.

Seems solid, this will make it considerably easier to rate posts.

I'm unsure about bondage, though. BDSM is listed as explicit, but light bondage as questionable. Which feels somewhat vague. Could use some examples.

Especially since sex toys are automatically explicit regardless of usage, and various bondage paraphernalia (such as gag balls) are often listed as sex toys. But there's currently pages and pages of those in Q.

And what about condoms? Used ones are of course explicit, but what about something like:
post #643432 post #585762
Definitely fetishy, but enough to push those into explicit?

NotMeNotYou said:
You can still upload them? Just give it the proper rating and move on.

I wish it was that simple, but when one page of the comic (singular) specifically states that the contents is not to be mistaken with infantilism (in context, to a new person who is hesitating to explore ageplay), it would insult the artist to allow the the comic to be lumped in the same group as infantilism.

But I'm more starting to realize that maybe infantilism would be tagged explicit over questionable, and borderline cases and ageplay being tagged questionable would be more acceptable then.

Genjar said:
Seems solid, this will make it considerably easier to rate posts.

I'm unsure about bondage, though. BDSM is listed as explicit, but light bondage as questionable. Which feels somewhat vague. Could use some examples.

Especially since sex toys are automatically explicit regardless of usage, and various bondage paraphernalia (such as gag balls) are often listed as sex toys. But there's currently pages and pages of those in Q.

And what about condoms? Used ones are of course explicit, but what about something like:
post #643432 post #585762

Light bondage (anything Q) would be household items being used for bondage. So for example silk scarves as handcuffs. Actually designed BDSM toys are E. I'll add some examples for it once I'm done with the mod queue.

Also, unused condoms are q.

Siral_Exan said:
I wish it was that simple, but when one page of the comic (singular) specifically states that the contents is not to be mistaken with infantilism (in context, to a new person who is hesitating to explore ageplay), it would insult the artist to allow the the comic to be lumped in the same group as infantilism.

But I'm more starting to realize that maybe infantilism would be tagged explicit over questionable, and borderline cases and ageplay being tagged questionable would be more acceptable then.

This literally tells me nothing.

Tag what you see has not changed at all with us clarifying the ratings. I have no idea how any of this relates to the ratings wiki.

Also, if it looks like a young character it gets the tag for it. This hasn't changed in the past 7 years.

NotMeNotYou said:
This explains nothing.

Basically, heavy infantilism is obviously explicit, light infantilism is usually explicit but can sometimes be questionable due to lack of severity, and ageplay can be questionable by site standards, and sometimes explicit due to an unintended fetish.

And, to your edits, I'm arguing that it mistakes ageplay for infantilism due to the lack of context, visually ageplay is distinguishable from infantilism. TWYS is ignored between the two, and is instead lumped together by a diaper rating. If they really are so indistinguishable, there shouldn't exist two tags...

Okay, I knew cameltoes are generally questionable, but "blatant cameltoes" are explicit. To be honest, I don't know what makes the difference. A while back I uploaded a picture of Roseluck from MLP and rated it questionable. A user did point out that he thought the post should be rated explicit, but I argued in this case questionable is the proper rating. Now I'm wondering if he was right, so for clarification should the post at the bottom actually be changed from questionable to explicit?

post #1254805

Note: Because of the Tumblr "_raw" situation I reposted the same picture with the higher res version, so the user's comment is no longer visible on the deleted post. In fact, you were the one to approve the repost, NotMeNotYou.

Siral_Exan said:
Basically, heavy infantilism is obviously explicit, light infantilism is usually explicit but can sometimes be questionable due to lack of severity, and ageplay can be questionable by site standards, and sometimes explicit due to an unintended fetish.

And, to your edits, I'm arguing that it mistakes ageplay for infantilism due to the lack of context, visually ageplay is distinguishable from infantilism. TWYS is ignored between the two, and is instead lumped together by a diaper rating. If they really are so indistinguishable, there shouldn't exist two tags...

Let me see if I understand you correctly. Infantilism is a sub section of age role playing. While infantilism isn't inherently sexual the fact that we require diapers and heavy fetish stuff (including role play) tagged as explicit is an issue because of some stigma attached to it?

I'll be perfectly honest, if the role play is visible and very light in theme it might be okay under questionable. But past that it must adhere to the other standards where heavy fetish content is explicit.
Some bondage stuff like Shibari is acceptable in mainstream media by now, so we are full well capable of having distinctions between questionable and explicit fetish usage.

But no, diapers are almost never safe unless they're attached to actually infantile characters.

UnusualParadox said:
Okay, I knew cameltoes are generally questionable, but "blatant cameltoes" are explicit. To be honest, I don't know what makes the difference. A while back I uploaded a picture of Roseluck from MLP and rated it questionable. A user did point out that he thought the post should be rated explicit, but I argued in this case questionable is the proper rating. Now I'm wondering if he was right, so for clarification should the post at the bottom actually be changed from questionable to explicit?

post #1254805

Note: Because of the Tumblr "_raw" situation I reposted the same picture with the higher res version, so the user's comment is no longer visible on the deleted post. In fact, you were the one to approve the repost, NotMeNotYou.

Depends on how well the genitalia behind it are visible. If it's a light camel toe and very stylized it's fine as questionable. If the cloth literally clings to every curve it's explicit. In your example I would rate it as explicit. It's a bit too detailed for questionable.

NotMeNotYou said:
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Infantilism is a sub section of age role playing. While infantilism isn't inherently sexual the fact that we require diapers and heavy fetish stuff (including role play) tagged as explicit is an issue because of some stigma attached to it?

I'll be perfectly honest, if the role play is visible and very light in theme it might be okay under questionable. But past that it must adhere to the other standards where heavy fetish content is explicit.
Some bondage stuff like Shibari is acceptable in mainstream media by now, so we are full well capable of having distinctions between questionable and explicit fetish usage.

But no, diapers are almost never safe unless they're attached to actually infantile characters.

Infantilism is inherently sexual. Ageplay is not... at all. People can take ageplay sexually, but that situation is just as easily reversed for infantilism.
Ageplay involves role play (unless specifics not easily listable), so please explain very light.

I believe that ageplay and infantilism should be noted as questionable (usually) and explicit (usually), respectively, along with the statement involving diapers. This is to prevent either or being mistaken for one another.

NotMeNotYou said:
Depends on how well the genitalia behind it are visible. If it's a light camel toe and very stylized it's fine as questionable. If the cloth literally clings to every curve it's explicit. In your example I would rate it as explicit. It's a bit too detailed for questionable.

Alright, thanks. I'll have it changed in about two minutes. Perhaps I should review my other posts just make sure I didn't screw up the rating elsewhere.

(Surprised it wasn't caught sooner and corrected.)

Edit: Nevermind, looks like you did it for me this time. I'll still review my own posts when I have some time.

All nipple bulges are always questionable if I read the wiki right, right? So for example
post #1228872 post #1240786 and post #803078 should be questionable then?
(changed last one to questionable due to bulge alone but the nipple question still stands for that example)

The pedantry is astounding.

Ledian said:
wouldnt extreme amounts of blood fit under explicit?

You mean like this?

post #89300

Ratte said:
The pedantry is astounding.

e6 tagging in a nutshell.

Siral_Exan said:
Infantilism is inherently sexual. Ageplay is not... at all. People can take ageplay sexually, but that situation is just as easily reversed for infantilism.
Ageplay involves role play (unless specifics not easily listable), so please explain very light.

I believe that ageplay and infantilism should be noted as questionable (usually) and explicit (usually), respectively, along with the statement involving diapers. This is to prevent either or being mistaken for one another.

LARPing vs rape role play. One is a fetish (and either questionable or explicit), and the other is not. The same applies here. If any sort of role play is used as a vehicle for a fetish it's at least questionable.

Either use your best judgment or bring actual examples so we have something we can judge directly. But having more theoretical discussions on this isn't going to help any.

Still trying to get a handle on the sexy poses and such. Which rating would be the better fit for this, safe or questionable?:
post #1241588

It has flip-flopped between those, so I'm not the only one unsure about it. Covered breasts, no prominent nipples, but seductive look and it could be argued that the focus is on the breasts.

Also, is blood always at least questionable? Even simple anime-style nosebleeds, or bloody bandages? What about unusually colored blood, such as cartoony pink blood?

Some things to think about.

Genjar said:
Still trying to get a handle on the sexy poses and such. Which rating would be the better fit for this, safe or questionable?:
post #1241588

It has flip-flopped between those, so I'm not the only one unsure about it. Covered breasts, no prominent nipples, but seductive look and it could be argued that the focus is on the breasts.

I see that as a pose that accentuates cleavage. In some instances, that exact pose is used to seduce, attract, or show off. If one felt that was the character's or artist's intent, then I would say the rating should be questionable. If the act were deemed innocent, then perhaps posts like that should be rated safe. In that post, I don't see enough evidence to confirm intent either way.

There's competing cliches on how to deal with that: innocent until proven guilty and better safe than sorry (i.e., rate upward to questionable to lower "risk"). Since e621 is an American site, we can default to America's sensitivity toward sexuality and always rate "significant cleavage" questionable.

Also, is blood always at least questionable?

I don't think it has to be. Non-violent, relatively harmless blood or bleeding doesn't have to be questionable. A single droplet or tiny spatter of blood shouldn't warrant a questionable rating. Somewhere, there are boundaries between questionable and safe. I say that as someone who, three years ago, said, "My most important blocked tag would be blood" and then expounded on why.

Even simple anime-style nosebleeds

I later amended my blood blacklist line to blood -nosebleed, because they're a very small detractor if at all. Depends on the amount of blood.

or bloody bandages?

Depends on the severity of the bleeding. Normal bleeding for a normal wound would be fine. Soaked through or insufficient bandaging is less so. The aforesaid "harm" is more recent, the injury more worrisome.

What about unusually colored blood, such as cartoony pink blood?

Off-color blood is less shocking. Depends on the severity of the bleeding and wound(s), as well as level of detail and visceral malice. Here's a good contrast from something I'm in the process of watching. If we ignore that the character in the first image has been gored in some areas, I would still want that rated questionable for the bleeding because I hadn't noticed the gore until just now. The second image doesn't even register. I'm sure the change in the character's blood color came from "early art" for the first picture, taken from the anime's opening sequence, to directorial reconsideration during the creation of the show itself.

In situations where gore isn't involved, what's the minimum rating for exposed muscles and internal organs?

post #561792

^ in relation to BlueDingo's question, are eyes out of their eye sockets considered gore under normal context? i'd provide context, but there aren't any posts with a searchable tag.

BlueDingo said:
In situations where gore isn't involved, what's the minimum rating for exposed muscles and internal organs?

Gonna second that question.
And what about non-organic living creatures such as robots? Is this safe, regardless of being tagged as gore?:
post #1172168

Another thing: how should dialogue affect the rating? For example, this is currently rated safe:
post #113742
...is that correct?

Oh, and most of ~gore ~vore ~bondage rating:safe has been sorted out. But I'm having trouble figuring out what to do with the tickling fetish posts. Such as:
post #1038686 post #1081923 post #833619
Bondage is questionable at minimum. But do those count as bondage, despite how 'safe' some of them seem?

Genjar said:
Gonna second that question.
And what about non-organic living creatures such as robots? Is this safe, regardless of being tagged as gore?:
post #1172168

In regards the exposed muscles, itl have to depend on the context:, are they just there, are they the focus of the image, do you see blood, are tairs in the muscle present or see torn skin or other torn flesh covering parts of the exposed muscle. Its not clear cut because of cases like titans in attack_on_titan who often naturally have no skin and just exposed muscle,tendon and bone or Xenomorphs that have naturally exposed bone like structures...
In regards to the gore it is never safe(only 8 entries under the tag) and whether it inanimate or organic does not appear to matter but rather how much what is seen resembles actual organs and specific types of tissue in regards to rating...

Another thing: how should dialogue affect the rating? For example, this is currently rated safe:
post #113742
...is that correct?

Just a opinion but considering we dont use text in a post to define gender, species or any other anatomical traits, nether should it define rating. its worth noting that there are 100s of other posts that contain other profanity like bitch or shit that is rated:s and we even have tags literally composed of profanity themselves like cuntboy or bitchsuit...not even counting artist names that are slurs or profanity and their signatures in the posts...

Oh, and most of ~gore ~vore ~bondage rating:safe has been sorted out. But I'm having trouble figuring out what to do with the tickling fetish posts. Such as:
post #1038686 post #1081923 post #833619
Bondage is questionable at minimum. But do those count as bondage, despite how 'safe' some of them seem?

i would say yes they do count as bondage as they are bound and being treated in a fetishistic way as well as a foot fetish being present in the 3rd post...

IMO.

Imperfect rule of thumb: are the insides inside? If not, then it's probably questionable.

abadbird said:

You brought up a lot of good points, and I concur with almost all of them.

I don't have time to go into full detail, but here's a few notes:

I would change this to questionable, though.

post #1023355

A skinless exposed_muscle body is too unnatural. Although taken for granted, skin is "comforting" or "reassuring", so a lack of skin is unsettling at a deep, primal level. With no skin to border the outside, neither can the inside exist for the insides to reside within. The exposed_muscle does not replace the skin as the new hardy exterior casing.

This does bring up the related problem of how creepypasta and nightmare_fuel should be rated. Many of those are currently rated Safe, but in many cases I feel like the rating should be higher. However, the concept of 'nightmare fuel' is subjective, so it'd be hard to make simple guidelines for those.

If exposed muscle is deemed to be questionable, that'd clear up many of the ones that don't quite seem to fit in Safe.

For simplicity's sake, a pure skeleton character shouldn't be grounds for the questionable rating.

Yes. Especially since most of the recent animated skeleton posts are of the friendly ones from Undertale.

post #1172168

The ribbon is reminiscent of entrails. Even though the anatomy doesn't match, the imagery does. Questionable for that reason.

Good, so I'm not the only one who thinks that the tape resembles entrails. Even with the candy-colored blood, questionable seems like the best fit to me.

Racist and other controversial content

post #113742

Racism or racist themes aren't mentioned in the guidelines, but that should be added. Honestly, although hurtful, racist themes should still be safe. That can extend to all posts with controversial content that's otherwise safe. Most of that would, strictly speaking, not be safe for work (NSFW) while still depicting rating:safe content.

Probably for the best. It'd be troublesome to try to determine which words are 'safe' and which aren't, and I suspect that it'd cause a lot of arguments.

Tickling

post #1038686 post #1081923

I would make both of those questionable. Bondage + tickling + multiple characters is enough to establish a BDSM-motivated intent. They aren't "heavy BDSM and BDSM toys", so they aren't explicit.

post #833619

The last one is kind of weird because there's only one character, so intent is difficult to ascribe. Still, the deliberate foot bondage + foot tickling is probably enough to establish a non-innocent intent. It's like the bondage is presenting by proxy and the tickling requites the presentation.

Noted. I'll bump those up to questionable. It just seems like such an 'innocent' fetish to me, especially when the characters don't even seem visibly aroused by it (no bulges, etc). But a fetish is a fetish, I suppose..

Interestingly, most or all of bdsm rating:s tickling featuring foot tickling also has the feet bound in some fashion.

That might be because I've already cleaned most of bondage and bdsm (and numerous other misrated posts) from Safe. Almost all of the remaining ones are the ones that I wasn't sure about, which is why those are the only ones left..

I'm mostly done with ~gore ~vore ~bondage rating:safe and am currently sorting through rating:safe blood. ...there were a lot of posts like these:
post #289924 post #148778

Can we get a little more specific clarification on explicit things that are unseen, implied or mostly hidden in some way?

Example: masturbation -rating:e currently has over 200 posts. Some of these are mistagged, but the majority convey something happening out of frame or with convenient_censorship.

Is there any line between humor-related images and porn? How much weight do text onomatopoeias get in deciding a rating? (fap, clop, etc). This ties in to a brief discussion about text above.

I've tried looking back through the forums and wiki pages, but the only thing I'm sure of at this point is that this is the first time I've written the word onomatopoeia since highschool.

Ijerk said:
Can we get a little more specific clarification on explicit things that are unseen, implied or mostly hidden in some way?

Example: masturbation -rating:e currently has over 200 posts. Some of these are mistagged, but the majority convey something happening out of frame or with convenient_censorship.

Is there any line between humor-related images and porn? How much weight do text onomatopoeias get in deciding a rating? (fap, clop, etc). This ties in to a brief discussion about text above.

Again, I still believe that text can provide evidence to justify some tags.

Beyond that, we start moving away from the purely Tag What You See domain toward using interpretive human intuitions to tag some things you know.

The guise of humor should not matter when rating the content of a post. If the post depicts sexual activity or themes, even if comedic attempts make light of sexuality, sexual content is nonetheless present and should be rated as such.

I feel as though Tag What You See should be amended to assume that the viewers doing the seeing are furries, adults, and have average adult intelligence, just so we can bypass foundational conversations like "What does sex sound like?" and "How do jokes work?" It's common practice for governments, businesses, legal mechanisms, and documents to assume the groups of persons interacting with them have basic sets of competencies specific to each group, so that services and rules can be better specialized to those groups.