If there is a image where there is a fully nude person, its given the exploit rating right? What if there is a censor bar over the naughty bits? does that still warrant the same rating? (note: some censor bars like from japan dont cover up anything). What about if its pixlated rudeness but with enough pixels left out to tell what it is?

Should these images have a questionable rating? Or is it by a case to case? ...Just asking as I am not sure "questionable" is the right rating for this image, and I wanted to check before I change it or something.
post #391926

Questionable.

Safe if no naughty bits or violence is shown.

Explicit for visible genitalia, obvious sexual intercourse/action and high amounts of violence/gore.

Questionable everything else, like visible nipples, adult humour, moderate amount of violence and/or blood.

Cameltoes and bulges from penises and the likes are on a case by case basis, the more pronounced both are the more likely that it should be explicit instead of questionable, and never safe.

NotMeNotYou said:
Questionable.

Did you look at this censoring? Its pixlated but clear enough to make out a penis...but not as clear as Japanese censorship. So what would you rate it keeping that in mind?

Conker said:
Did you look at this censoring? Its pixlated but clear enough to make out a penis...but not as clear as Japanese censorship. So what would you rate it keeping that in mind?

NotMeNotYou said:
Questionable.

Seriously, it is censored, you do know what is there but that is already enough censoring for questionable.

NotMeNotYou said:
Seriously, it is censored, you do know what is there but that is already enough censoring for questionable.

If it was Japanese pixel censorship, I'm guessing it wouldnt be questionable then? Okay then, just wanted to check

Conker said:
If it was Japanese pixel censorship, I'm guessing it wouldnt be questionable then? Okay then, just wanted to check

You mean the pixels only censor the penis itself? Yeah, explicit.

NotMeNotYou said:
You mean the pixels only censor the penis itself? Yeah, explicit.

No, I mean when japanese animation makes pixels so clear you can make out pussys, assholes, penises ect.

Conker said:
No, I mean when japanese animation makes pixels so clear you can make out pussys, assholes, penises ect.

Yeah, also for cases like that.

Questionable also applies to drug use I believe.

NotMeNotYou said:
Explicit for visible genitalia, obvious sexual intercourse/action and high amounts of violence/gore.

Hmm. What about images such as these?:

post #394827 post #325657 post #287531

They're currently rated as questionable. No visible genitals, but... well, obvious sex.

Genjar said:
Hmm. What about images such as these?:

post #394827 post #325657 post #287531

They're currently rated as questionable. No visible genitals, but... well, obvious sex.

Questionable is the default rating. Those should all be rated explicit. Whomever uploaded/tagged them either didn't realize they should change it, or didn't know, or worse yet, didn't care.

123easy said:
Questionable is the default rating. Those should all be rated explicit. Whomever uploaded/tagged them either didn't realize they should change it, or didn't know, or worse yet, didn't care.

Well.. I used to rate such images as explicit, but have noticed that they often get re-rated as questionable.

Here's one example:
post #104599
It has changed rating between questionable and explicit... nine times, if I counted correctly.

The above are definitely explicit, the last one could be questionable humor.

However, I go with tony's judgement and lock it at explicit.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

So, how about this:
post #372436

I'm thinking that really ought to be safe, since the idea that they're actually having sex is a complete assumption based on the image.
Certainly not explicit.

Halite said:
So, how about this:
post #372436

I'm thinking that really ought to be safe, since the idea that they're actually having sex is a complete assumption based on the image.
Certainly not explicit.

Rules said:
any sort of sexually suggestive pose are NOT safe

If it can be tagged with sex, then it isn't safe.

DrHorse said:
If it can be tagged with sex, then it isn't safe.

Personally, I don't think that pic should be tagged with sex.
How do we know that it isn't an innocent pokemon picture of 2 pokemon bumping their butts against each other?

Halite said:
How do we know that it isn't an innocent pokemon picture of 2 pokemon bumping their butts against each other?

Because both of those pokemon are usually bipedal.

Halite said:
Personally, I don't think that pic should be tagged with sex.
How do we know that it isn't an innocent pokemon picture of 2 pokemon bumping their butts against each other?

Most people will have seen dogs fucking at one point in their life and should know that they often tie like that for a time, so I would go out a limb say that this isn't such obscure knowledge to not get it.

Which in turn means to me that it should get explicit as well.

NotMeNotYou said:
Most people will have seen dogs fucking at one point in their life and should know that they often tie like that for a time, so I would go out a limb say that this isn't such obscure knowledge to not get it.

Which in turn means to me that it should get explicit as well.

Yet Mario with a cube is an E rating? wtf...how does that make sense when there is no nudity?

Conker said:
Yet Mario with a cube is an E rating? wtf...how does that make sense when there is no nudity?

The clear humor and parody of it.

NotMeNotYou said:
The clear humor and parody of it.

So Humor now makes it an adult rating? ...where does humor and parody come up when rating a image thats not nude what so ever? There is nothin said about this in the "how to rate" part of the site.

Conker said:
So Humor now makes it an adult rating? ...where does humor and parody come up when rating a image thats not nude what so ever?

Teaches me right for only reading what you said once.

Mario with cube is rated E because we can assume he has sex with said cube.

I have literally no idea how my quoted explanation and your response in https://e621.net/forum/show/89639 relate to each other but that isn't of importance right now.

NotMeNotYou said:

Mario with cube is rated E because we can assume he has sex with said cube.

But the site says only to make images with E if it has nudity....which this does not, no breasts, no penis and not even an ass is shown.

Conker said:

But the site says only to make images with E if it has nudity....which this does not, no breasts, no penis and not even an ass is shown.

NotMeNotYou said:
Explicit for visible genitalia, obvious sexual intercourse/action and high amounts of violence/gore.

Either you are nitpicking usage of logical "and" here, or you just don't read things carefully.

--

Okay, now I looked how wiki/help defines ratings and there's still outdated definition there (without gore). It's also a much less clear. But still IMO it should be obvious that sex should be explicit.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Either you are nitpicking usage of logical "and" here, or you just don't read things carefully.

--

Okay, now I looked how wiki/help defines ratings and there's still outdated definition there (without gore). It's also a much less clear. But still IMO it should be obvious that sex should be explicit.

Please tell me how a cube can be shown having obvious sexual intercourse when it has no genitalia.

Conker said:
Please tell me how a cube can be shown having obvious sexual intercourse when it has no genitalia.

Really?
...
You've been registered on this site for 3 years. All that time you were watching various shit from shitting dicknipples to sandwich with pussy. And after all of this you have no idea how cube can be shown having obvious sexual intercourse because "it has no genitalia"? What are you? Normal person without any mental disorder?

But more seriously, look at the picture again. Context is rather clear. Mario lying naked in bed with cube telling other cube that it's not what it thinks. It is obvious that they had sex. How they had sex is another question which you don't have to answer.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Really?
...
You've been registered on this site for 3 years. All that time you were watching various shit from shitting dicknipples to sandwich with pussy. And after all of this you have no idea how cube can be shown having obvious sexual intercourse because "it has no genitalia"? What are you? Normal person without any mental disorder?

But more seriously, look at the picture again. Context is rather clear. Mario lying naked in bed with cube telling other cube that it's not what it thinks. It is obvious that they had sex. How they had sex is another question which you don't have to answer.

I was actually going to bring up that sandwich...Oh and I have "shitting dicknipples" on my blacklist, so I havnt been watching that bit of the site.

Now back to the point, the sandwich at least has a pussy, the cube does not. At least with the sandwich you can make it as E as it does have genitalia, but the cube does not have any of that at all, so I dont think it should be marked as E, and should be questionable. There is a difference between them after all.

Ad for the image, how do you know mario isnt giving the cube a no shirt back rub? or cube rub in this case? But no matter what is going on, there isnt any visible genitalia, and mario isnt even fully nude as he could be wearing shorts for all you know. But that is besides the point.....without visble genitalia of some kind, I dont think it should be given an E rating and remain questionable. Besides, having sex with a cube? thats questionable as hell XD

Conker said:
I was actually going to bring up that sandwich...Oh and I have "shitting dicknipples" on my blacklist, so I havnt been watching that bit of the site.

Now back to the point, the sandwich at least has a pussy, the cube does not. At least with the sandwich you can make it as E as it does have genitalia, but the cube does not have any of that at all, so I dont think it should be marked as E, and should be questionable. There is a difference between them after all.

Ad for the image, how do you know mario isnt giving the cube a no shirt back rub? or cube rub in this case? But no matter what is going on, there isnt any visible genitalia, and mario isnt even fully nude as he could be wearing shorts for all you know. But that is besides the point.....without visble genitalia of some kind, I dont think it should be given an E rating and remain questionable. Besides, having sex with a cube? thats questionable as hell XD

One of the admins, maybe Char? said in anotehr thread that depictions of obvious sexual intercourse, even if it's implied between an inanimate object and another subject, are still explicit, because they depict sexual interactions. Mario is obviously nude under the sheets, the companion cube is between his legs/in front of him with him on his knees, telling a shocked ? Block, "It's not what you think!" (which, btw, is covered by the 'caught' tag). It's obvious what's going on, even if you can't directly see cock entering pussy, like some of the legs-wrapped-around-waist-moaning pictures, where it's obvious visually they're having sex even though you can't see actual direct penetration.

Not to get off topic but YES, my sandwich is famous :) Ignore me.

TheHuskyK9 said:
Not to get off topic but YES, my sandwich is famous :) Ignore me.

Any chance you can source it?

123easy said:
Any chance you can source it?

Got it from R34 and it didn't have a source on there either so it's a dead end

123easy said:
"It's not what you think!" (which, btw, is covered by the 'caught' tag). It's obvious what's going on, even if you can't directly see cock entering pussy, like some of the legs-wrapped-around-waist-moaning pictures, where it's obvious visually they're having sex even though you can't see actual direct penetration.

I added the caught tag, but that could mean he got caught giving a shirtless back rub to a cube. So none of that helps your argument. Also the cube mario is with, is refereed to as a male char in the series, not female.

Conker said:
I added the caught tag, but that could mean he got caught giving a shirtless back rub to a cube. So none of that helps your argument. Also the cube mario is with, is refereed to as a male char in the series, not female.

Substitute anus then. And if you're going to use the two instances where GlaDOS calls the Weighted Companion Cube a 'he/him' when you are busy destroying parts of it, and it's already gone insane, just no. Every other instance of reference keeps it neuter.

123easy said:
Substitute anus then.

That goes against Tag what you see...

123easy said:
And if you're going to use the two instances where GlaDOS calls the Weighted Companion Cube a 'he/him' -

The companion cube has always been refereed to as a male. Its not female.

would posts showing dialogue, but dialogue covering explicit topics be rated which?

K91 said:
would posts showing dialogue, but dialogue covering explicit topics be rated which?

Could you give us an example?

NotMeNotYou said:
Could you give us an example?

I cant find an image, but im guessing the user means a safe rated image where someone is asking another to suck their dick or something. Yet they are fully dressed doing no such acts

K91 said:
would posts showing dialogue, but dialogue covering explicit topics be rated which?

What? Can you link an image for an example

Edit: What NMNY said...

Oh, you mean something like this?

post #44769

Currently rated safe.

Genjar said:
Oh, you mean something like this?

post #44769

Currently rated safe.

Then fix it, thats clearly questionable

Genjar said:
Oh, you mean something like this?

post #44769

Currently rated safe.

Conker said:
Then fix it, thats clearly questionable

Dialogue covering explicit contents are safe.

NotMeNotYou said:
Dialogue covering explicit contents are safe.

That image I quoted has questionable scenes, I didnt mean anything about dialogue.

Conker said:
That image I quoted has questionable scenes, I didnt mean anything about dialogue.

The scenes aren't questionable.

NotMeNotYou said:
The scenes aren't questionable.

So skimpy nearly nude scenes dont count? ._.

Also there is blood/murder at the end...doesnt that count as not safe?

Conker said:
So skimpy nearly nude scenes dont count? ._.

Also there is blood/murder at the end...doesnt that count as not safe?

Flamedramon is naturally nude without anything showing. While the pose is designed to increase sexiness, it's not actually covering anything- there's nothing there to begin with. The horn stabbed in at the end does seem rather tame by America's standards for violence as well. It seems more of a comic relief sight gag than actual murder.

Secondly, the companion cube has always been refered to as "it" in all official media *except* that one line at the end when fighting GlaDOS. Fanon =/= canon. One of the reasons I loathed the scootabuse etc. tags in their inception.

Conker said:
So skimpy nearly nude scenes dont count? ._.

Digimon and Donald Duck do not count as skimpy.

DrHorse said:
Digimon and Donald Duck do not count as skimpy.

Skimpy does not mean half dressed, its a tag used for skimpy clothing....there is a difference.

123easy said:

Secondly, the companion cube has always been refered to as "it" -

Again, no. The cube was always refereed to as a "he", end of subject.

Conker said:
Skimpy does not mean half dressed, its a tag used for skimpy clothing....there is a difference.

Conker said:
So skimpy nearly nude scenes dont count? ._.

Do you ever read your texts?

Like the others said, those scenes aren't "skimpy nearly nude scenes", all of that is tame enough to be on the american TV and even the "violence" at the end is nothing that wasn't on a child show during prime time.

NotMeNotYou said:
Could you give us an example?

TheHuskyK9 said:
What? Can you link an image for an example

Edit: What NMNY said...

https://e621.net/post/show/394394/
wouldn't this be safe because of no explicit anatomy? Or Explict/questionable because it mentions it?

K91 said:
https://e621.net/post/show/394394/
wouldn't this be safe because of no explicit anatomy? Or Explict/questionable because it mentions it?

I think that that is an exception because it's a roleplay game imo

K91 said:
https://e621.net/post/show/394394/
wouldn't this be safe because of no explicit anatomy? Or Explict/questionable because it mentions it?

That is different from the other example, the little comic is more small talk about explicit content while the game IS explicit content, as it describes actual sex scenes and related things in great detail.