post #4163258

I believe this image should be labeled explicit and not questionable for the following reasons:

1. The phrases used would qualify as adult content as stated in Help: Ratings, not mature content.
2. If a user's textual comments on a post can't exceed the rating of the image, than logically, neither should the image's own text.

From Help: Ratings

All posts on e621 are one of three ratings: Safe, Questionable, and Explicit, which roughly coincide with the more commonly seen General, Mature, and Adult ratings of other such systems.

From Help: Inappropriate Comments

Comments that exceed the rating on the picture

[...]If something is rated safe nobody will want to hear about how you’d like to see the character getting lewded or fucked. Similarly goes for submissions rated questionable, nobody will want to know how you’d like them to get railed by a pack of 14 werewolves in the parking lot of an Arby’s if they’re only being suggestive or in the nude.

Phrases like:

"I'm dripping from the thought of being master's cock warmer."
"I want to be master's fertile breeding bitch."
"Forcefully claim me by cumming deep inside my womb."

Are all explicit, not questionable.

profanity rating:s

kemonophonic said:
profanity rating:s

Sure, I'll bite.

There's a difference between simple profanity and this. The text in the image exceeds the current rating by so much it's ridiculous to argue it should remain questionable. This is one of those times where the rating is just wrong on its face, and special dispensation should be invoked.

It's not just the text if you ask me. Those prominent pubes show that if the camera was even one pixel lower, there wouldn't even be any question. Especially with the text.

kyiiel said:
Sure, I'll bite.

There's a difference between simple profanity and this. The text in the image exceeds the current rating by so much it's ridiculous to argue it should remain questionable. This is one of those times where the rating is just wrong on its face, and special dispensation should be invoked.

post #626747

kemonophonic said:
post #626747

OP brought up the site's "creepy comment" rules before. That wouldn't violate those rules. The text this thread is about would. There's a false equivalence here.
If I'm not mistaken, by what you're suggesting, even a pornographic story shouldn't be rated explicit (if we allowed stories here).

lendrimujina said:
OP brought up the site's "creepy comment" rules before. That wouldn't violate those rules. The text this thread is about would. There's a false equivalence here.
If I'm not mistaken, by what you're suggesting, even a pornographic story shouldn't be rated explicit (if we allowed stories here).

e621 doesn't allow text-only stories (pornographic or otherwise) that aren't part of the image or in the description and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future so I don't know what point you're trying to make here.

If e621 did allow, it would obviously have a different system, because the rating system currently is about what the image shows, not the text within that image.

just to backup kemo's links with a bigger sample size:
suggestive_dialogue -rating:e
impregnation_request -rating:e

i was going to paste in some examples from the tags, but i ended up finding other weird dependencies and inconsistencies with ratings related to text:

post #4052359
rating: questionable
offending dialog: "are you shagging or not?"
nude

post #3965328
rating: safe
non-offending dialog: "want to have lots of unprotected vaginal sex with me? [ect]"
clothed

post #4035248
rating: questionable
offending dialog: "and if you lose..."
"a handjob, i know"
"well i hope you're ready to crank your own hog tonight, my master!"
clothed

post #1501896
rating: safe
non-offending dialog: "i-impregnate me..."
nude

and it seems like all of these examples would be rated s were it not for the suggestive dialog, plus idk about the rest of e6; but "shagging" to me is a lot less suggestive than "impregnate me" or "i want you to stuff your big shaft into my tiny hole"

dripen_arn said:
just to backup kemo's links with a bigger sample size:
suggestive_dialogue -rating:e
impregnation_request -rating:e

i was going to paste in some examples from the tags, but i ended up finding other weird dependencies and inconsistencies with ratings related to text:

post #4052359
rating: questionable
offending dialog: "are you shagging or not?"
nude

post #3965328
rating: safe
non-offending dialog: "want to have lots of unprotected vaginal sex with me? [ect]"
clothed

post #4035248
rating: questionable
offending dialog: "and if you lose..."
"a handjob, i know"
"well i hope you're ready to crank your own hog tonight, my master!"
clothed

post #1501896
rating: safe
non-offending dialog: "i-impregnate me..."
nude

and it seems like all of these examples would be rated s were it not for the suggestive dialog, plus idk about the rest of e6; but "shagging" to me is a lot less suggestive than "impregnate me" or "i want you to stuff your big shaft into my tiny hole"

Found this also.
post #2809237