"Explicit tags include any sexual body parts and acts."

post #1516493

Tagging this explicit and locking it like that degrades the meaning of explicit. The image is about as work-safe as it gets on e6.

(in case you wonder why, pull a looking glass and inspect the underside of the brown-skinned centaur dude in the foreground. that, ugh, something there got tagged "sheath")

If the problem you have with this is that you believe that isn't a sheath, then contest that. Sheaths = Explicit, no way around it.

Looks like a sheath to me, so I would say it stays explicit.

Sheaths are part of the genitalia, genitalia are explicit.

The post is to be rated explicit.

And to counter the coming argument:

While those sheaths are pretty tame, there are plenty of sheaths that are far from tame, even if there isn't a visible penis involved.

And it's very hard to draw a line and say that 'this sheath is okay' and 'this sheath isn't'... so it's easier to just say 'all sheath are explicit,' even if catches some "false positives"

I see tits too. And tits are always questionable.

FoxFourOhFour said:
And tits are always questionable.

thats incorrect. non-sexualized featureless bereasts can be safe

Nevermind

Just bumping because question is related to topic.

Should there be a tag for such posts (like a false_explicit)? Just so that people won't be thrown off from the explicit rating.

I have seen quite a few posts that needed to be tagged with explicit just because of obscure depictions of genitalia.

post #1597562 post #1641979

TheGreatWolfgang said:
Should there be a tag for such posts (like a false_explicit)? Just so that people won't be thrown off from the explicit rating.

I'd think hidden_explicit would get the idea across better, if we're going to tag hard-to-see things that cause an otherwise safe image to be marked as explicit.
"False" suggests something different entirely, and it reads more like the sort of tag edit that somebody makes just before getting banned for tagging abuse.
Besides that, even if the statue of David is artistic nudity, it's still nudity.

Edit: borderline_explicit is present on exactly one deleted post, but it was removed from the version that replaced it (and it's not exactly borderline either), so think of that what you will.

I would be fine with some sort of tag like that, but it shouldn't be called "false".

How about subtle_explicit or subtlety_explicit? The second is more grammatically correct but the first fits with other subtle_* tags. This avoids the idea that the rating is somehow wrong while conveying that the reasons for it are not immediately obvious.

Lafcadio said:
hidden_explicit
Edit: borderline_explicit

Clawdragons said:
subtle_explicit or subtlety_explicit?

Sorry, I think my examples were not proper. They were just posts with barely_visible_genitalia, so the suggested alternatives would just seem to be variations for the tag.

What I'm looking for is a tag to describe posts that are forced to be tagged as explicit just so that they can conform to rating standards.
Going through some threads (forum #261225 & forum #266340), the main issue faced is that innocent-looking posts are being tagged as explicit.

For genitalia on anthros they can simply be tagged with tasteful_nudity, but for genitalia on ferals it is impossible as nudity is typically not tagged alongside them.

And then there is the whole argument about x_anuses being explicit.

I'm thinking of calling the tag, inherently_explicit, as coined here by @ImpidiDinkaDoo.

I understood what you were going for and my suggestion took into account stuff like x_anus, which you didn't mention but I'm familiar with the discussion surrounding.

The problem is this. Any tag would need to avoid implying that the rating is wrong, so descriptors like "false", "borderline", etc., I don't think should be used.

I'm not a fan of "inherently" either because that applies to many things besides the sorts of images we're talking about. Penises are inherently explicit, for instance, but if we tagged inherently_explicit on any post with a penis it would render the tag useless for distinguishing the sorts of images above from images everyone can see are explicit.

That's why I suggested subtle_explicit. It implies that the reason it is explicit is not immediately obvious. Perhaps some other descriptor would be better, but the ones you've proposed so far seem to be worse to me.

Perhaps esoteric_explicit / esoteric_explicitness?

TheGreatWolfgang said:
For genitalia on anthros they can simply be tagged with tasteful_nudity

That hasn't been a valid tag for a couple of years, same goes for tasteful_nude and artistic_nudity. Those have already been wiped twice or thrice. They're too subjective, and there's many other problems (such as *_nude frequently getting tagged for posts that don't quality as nude).

They should be sorted into proper tags again. Mostly to pinup, some to casual_nudity, etc.

(The main reason it hasn't been fully invalidated yet is because the existing implication to nude needs to be removed first. And that's the kind of task that tends to get buried under other work.)

Clawdragons said:
The problem is this. Any tag would need to avoid implying that the rating is wrong, so descriptors like "false", "borderline", etc., I don't think should be used.

Seconded, that should be avoided if at all possible.

Clawdragons said:
Perhaps esoteric_explicit / esoteric_explicitness?

I was thinking along the lines of non-mature/graphic/sexual_explicitness, but still think we can name it better.

I think we're overusing "Explicit" if we're going to use it to tag a picture with genitalia one needs a microscope to even make out.

Even if you could say it's explicit, it's tasteful nudity at most. Your average user probably won't see it without it being pointed out.

No, this will not change. Any sort of ambiguity of "but this is artistic nudity" or "this is too small too count" is just going to end in annoying arguments we have to deal with.
Our solution is perfect in it's simplicity, if it's there it's getting tagged.

NotMeNotYou said:
No, this will not change. Any sort of ambiguity of "but this is artistic nudity" or "this is too small too count" is just going to end in annoying arguments we have to deal with.
Our solution is perfect in it's simplicity, if it's there it's getting tagged.

Hey, you guys are welcome to believe that it's perfect and I understand that I have no authority on the matter, but I don't believe it is a perfect solution. Why not compromise and say "suggestive"?

PheagleAdler said:
Hey, you guys are welcome to believe that it's perfect and I understand that I have no authority on the matter, but I don't believe it is a perfect solution. Why not compromise and say "suggestive"?

Even if it's artistic exposed genitalia is still genitalia and there for explicit content, and would still be seen as you looking at explicit content should someone happen to catch you looking at it out on the street

Versperus said:
Even if it's artistic exposed genitalia is still genitalia and there for explicit content, and would still be seen as you looking at explicit content should someone happen to catch you looking at it out on the street

Who carries a microscope on the street?

PheagleAdler said:
Who carries a microscope on the street?

"No one goes to the movies with a slide rule in his hand." ~ Harold Michelson, Production Designer for Star Trek: The Motion Picture, clearly underestimating Trekkies.

The point is, yes, there will be someone carrying an electron microscope on the street. The question is whether they have a point or are over-complicating matters. What the e621 administration has done is defined as simply and objectively as they can where the point veers too far into overcomplication, be it seeing Explicit content where they shouldn't or judging and sorting the relative artistic values of different amounts of nudity.

PheagleAdler said:
Hey, you guys are welcome to believe that it's perfect and I understand that I have no authority on the matter, but I don't believe it is a perfect solution. Why not compromise and say "suggestive"?

I said it's perfect in it's simplicity, meaning it's literally as clear cut as possible and could not be made more easy / simpler. We already use "suggestive" in the border between safe and questionable, and that's a huge fucking PITA to deal with. Our solution for genitals leaves no room for ambiguity, no room for discussions, no nothing. If it's there and visible it's explicit, that's it. An exception for artistic nudity offers absolutely nothing of value.