It has come to my attention that there is no catch-all tag for under-age material on e621. I had initially operated on the assumption that "cub" was this catch-all tag, because all underage anthropomorphs and feral-form creatures are tagged with it even when they are obviously not cubs (fish, birds, reptiles, to name a few). A mod was kind enough to point out the error of this assumption, when I was upset to find that an image of an underage human was not tagged with "cub." Apparently, the only solution at the moment is to also blacklist "loli" and "shota." This is unintuitive, and therefore a ticking time bomb for less-informed users living in areas of the globe where underage material is illegal.

My solution is simple: Add tag implications from "loli," "shota," and "cub" to "underage." At the moment, the "underage" tag contains only 16 posts, despite the site having 357 posts in the "cub" category, 315 posts in the "loli" category, and 304 posts in the "shota" category. Many posts in these categories overlap each other, which is why I incorrectly assumed "loli" and "shota" were already implicating "cub."

"Underage" is a much more intuitive tag for blacklisting purposes. Quite frankly, when people want to blacklist underage material, it makes the most sense if they can simply blacklist the tag "underage."

"young" is the more used tag. good thing for blacklist is: young shota loli cub. the only problem i see is people not caring to tag them as such. just tag it when you see it and hope for the best.

And report chronic up-loaders who don't properly tag controversial/extreme kink images.

i support the 'underage' implication

Implications are great; if people use tag their uploads. No tags, no implications.

I'm in favour of this. It helps searching if you don't care whether you find human or furry images and aids blacklisting if you don't want to seek out each version of cub, shota, loli or whatever other tags there might be.

I gotta admit, young scares me, as a tag. Why? Because there are at least two images here that contain both the young tag and the real tag... and one of them has tits clearly on display.

I've never used young much as a tag anyway... but I suppose it's not a bad tag.. hmm..

My vote would be for:

Implications:
Loli -> Underage (also 'female'?)
Shota -> Underage (also 'male'?)
Cub -> Underage

Alias:
Young -> Underage

Young and underage are pretty much the same thing... so it makes sense to alias them to the most clear cut and BLUNT label... hence my preference towards 'underage' rather then 'young'. It's less ambiguous. And that's what this discussion is ultimately about.

As for loli, shota and Cub... Hmm... I'd been tagging as loli/shota = humans and cub = furry, but a bit of searching shows that they DO have some overlap (ie cub+loli has about 22 pages of images, even though cub has 105 and loli has 47)

I *guess* the most efficient way would be to try and get people to tag as follows:

loli - Underage females
shota - Underage males
Cub - Underage furries, regardless of gender

that way, under age characters are all clearly marked, people can search for the underage characters of the gender they're looking for (as underage+male is NOT enough to search efficiently, as it will turn up both shota characters, but also any loli-with-males also, which would be very clearly NOT what was wanted).

I suppose 'cub' could be replaced by excluding 'not-furry', but given that 'cub' is the furry version of the word, and will be what a new member wanting to see cub art searches for, it makes sense to continue to maintain it.

and, ultimately, 'underage' should be on everything appropriate, thus allowing people to blacklist 'underage' and only 'underage' in order to hide such art.

The only problem then is getting people to tag.... >_<

SnowWolf said:
The only problem then is getting people to tag.... >_<

Good thing there are a lot of us who add more tags to images. And I think people are more motivated to do it when there's something they object to in the image.

But what if the picture is not a porn picture? Will it still be tagged as underage and thus banned from the view of users even if its not porn? That seems kind of unfair seeing as there are tons of cute furry pictures that look underage but are clean, do we really want to make it so they can't see those either?

baracuda boy, i don't think you understand how blacklisting works. people choose to blacklist certain tags, there is no blacklisting by default.

baracudaboy said:
But what if the picture is not a porn picture? Will it still be tagged as underage and thus banned from the view of users even if its not porn? That seems kind of unfair seeing as there are tons of cute furry pictures that look underage but are clean, do we really want to make it so they can't see those either?

we don't have porn and not-porn tags. Loli, shota and under age all mean "under age character" not "underage character being fucked". While there may be some arguments for cubporn as a tag, it'd be redundant.

If you want to view images of cute little cubs NOT in sexual situations search for: "rating:s cub" or similar. That's what the rating system is for.

SnowWolf said:
we don't have porn and not-porn tags. Loli, shota and under age all mean "under age character" not "underage character being fucked". While there may be some arguments for cubporn as a tag, it'd be redundant.

If you want to view images of cute little cubs NOT in sexual situations search for: "rating:s cub" or similar. That's what the rating system is for.

I believe that this also works in the Blacklist; if one were to make it as so:

"underage rating:explicit
underage rating:questionable"

Then it would prevent all pics that are Underage and explicit or questionable from showing up in searches, but underage and clean pictures would still be allowed.

At least, I'm pretty sure this works. I may be wrong.

If I had my way, we wouldn't need the tags at all :-)

deadjackal said:
If I had my way, we wouldn't need the tags at all :-)

Yes, but i dont think banning all users is the right way:)

Ghosti said:
Yes, but i dont think banning all users is the right way:)

It is the BEST way.

Ghosti said:
Yes, but i dont think banning all users is the right way:)

I was more or less referring to deleting the images in question, but banning works too ;-)

No movement on this issue; should I assume the admins don't think it's a good idea and shut up about it?

Uhm...

You say "hey, we should have catch all tags for under age material!"

We say "Why, we do! Please see: Cub, Underage, young, loli and shota"

We also say, "The hard part is getting everyone to tag properly..."

and then we all nodded sadly.

..I, for one, look at the tags on many of the images I view and add the appropriate tags to the proper images when I can. I know many others do also. What more would you like?

But, I guess, I'll go do what everyone else can go and go do the thingies to request alias and implications.

Brb. :P

There. Did I miss anything?

I just wantd to say.... "Underage" implies they are REAL things, things that CAN age.

temporal_crux said:
I just wantd to say.... "Underage" implies they are REAL things, things that CAN age.

Yes. And feline suggests that they are REAL things that have DNA, and fur, and can meow and purr.

SnowWolf said:
Yes. And feline suggests that they are REAL things that have DNA, and fur, and can meow and purr.

Not so, my friend. "Feline" is a standpoint that doesn't change. Something can't stop being feline (realistically), though something does stop being Underage. Even unrealistically, there are situations that age isn't exhibited in physical/visual evidence. That is to... something can appear feline, but nothing can actually appear "underage". There is no demarcation

Things can appear to be "underage". There's several succubi pictures on this site that are of a demon who is canonically several thousand years old, but marked as "loli" because they appear to be extremely young. "Underage" doesn't imply real children any more than "faucet" implies that I can turn on the pictured tap.

Aurali said:
It is the BEST way.

deadjackal said:
I was more or less referring to deleting the images in question, but banning works too ;-)

i back you guys on this 110% on this

Temporal.... You're right. Realistically, cats don't stop being cats, but children grow up. Absolutely. But these are drawings. Drawings do not age (except in the obvious way). An 8 year old, in a drawing, was 8 the day the lines were first put down for them, and will be 8 still when the last scraps of paper disintegrate into nothingness.

That said, absolutely, the story behind the character may show that the 8 year old is in actuality a 500 year old elven blooded pathfinder. Or a mage who's dabbled in time magics to stay youthful. or the unfortunate result of a time machine gone wrong. Or a member of a race that actually ages in reverse. Or someone who swallowed a potion, or .. or.. or.. or...

But none of these things matter. What matters here, for tagging is appearances. If it looks underage, then it's tagged underage.

Likewise, it doesn't matter if the wounds will heal in a moment's time, and nothing actually hurts, an image of someone torn into shreds is still guro. Even if it's not actually blood, but is simply 'an appearance' It could be slabs of bear with red koolaid, or fake movie props. doesn't matter. it's what it appears to be that matters.

Thus...

SnowWolf said:

But none of these things matter. What matters here, for tagging is appearances. If it looks underage, then it's tagged underage.

Likewise, it doesn't matter if the wounds will heal in a moment's time, and nothing actually hurts, an image of someone torn into shreds is still guro. Even if it's not actually blood, but is simply 'an appearance' It could be slabs of bear with red koolaid, or fake movie props. doesn't matter. it's what it appears to be that matters.

Thus...

Then consider that "young" is still a more acceptable term than "underage". The standard for "underage" is much more societal than the term "young". One can see "young" and "old" as separate concepts, but "underage" is, legally, 17 to be photographed (hell, some states use personal journals detailing the act of sex with a minor as evidence of child pornography), and 16 and younger to have actual sex... though this varies from place to place, even in the great US-o'-A. So, if a character is 17, they are young by fact, but underage by location.

Get where I'm going with this? "Young" is still the best tag to use in place of "Underage", given the flimsy concept.

temporal_crux said:
Get where I'm going with this? "Young" is still the best tag to use in place of "Underage", given the flimsy concept.

stop trying to rationalise a creepy fetish please

Yes. Young IS a more acceptable term. That is exactly the reason I feel the tag should be underage. There's no ambiguity. The phrase underage carries connontations of jailbait, of illegalities and wrongnesses. It is, very clearly, refering to characters who may not be sexually mature yet.

'Young' is a great big vague idea. I'm 28. You're 23. To me, you're young. To you, I'm older. To the 50 year old, we're both young, while we thing the 50 year old is 'older'. While the 90 year old things we're all pretty damn young. and the 10 year old thinks we're all ancient, and that his 9 year old sister is a baby.

Young, as a tag, would apply to 99% of art on the server. Young... children? check. teenagers? check. Young adults? check. and... really, how many clearly middle aged, or old characters are there on e261? Very few.

Underage is blunt. Which is good. we want a nice, simple tag that says "beware! cub porn lays within."

Also, you're trying to take the term and apply the legalities to it. look at the word. It's made up of two words: Under. Age. Under the Age. The age of what? Adulthood. Most cultures have a 'coming of age' ceremony of some sort to celebrate the journy into adulthood... Coming of age, under age... two sides of a coin. Under age is not so much 'under 17'... as it is "unadult"

And that's a good thing. we want people to beable to find this tag and be able to blacklist it.

thought:
put a warning when you sign up for this site that says something like...

WARNING:this site contains underaged material. if you are not allowed to view it in your area, you may want to blacklist the following.

underaged
cub
shota
loli

followed by instructions on how to blacklist.

We could just tag everything with 'potentially illegal'. Would that work?

deadjackal said:
We could just tag everything with 'potentially illegal'. Would that work?

Every tag would have that somewhere ._.

I think, in the end, that "underaged" still doesn't serve a purpose. Unless there is a sexual act going on, then "young" and "cub" aren't exactly "underaged" for anything. They are qualifying tags, where-as the implication of "underage" works on the assumption that there is sex or obvious sexual intent of some kind, which may not be the case. I'm too round-about in my talking to get that across the first time, so I apologize.

i think a universal tag, like pedophilia, would work wonders

temporal_crux said:
I think, in the end, that "underaged" still doesn't serve a purpose. Unless there is a sexual act going on, then "young" and "cub" aren't exactly "underaged" for anything. They are qualifying tags, where-as the implication of "underage" works on the assumption that there is sex or obvious sexual intent of some kind, which may not be the case. I'm too round-about in my talking to get that across the first time, so I apologize.

You can block by the rating, so blocking questionable or explicit materiel is quite easy to do. The characters themselves would still be underage, even if there's no sex involved.

banana_milkshake said:
i think a universal tag, like pedophilia, would work wonders

That'd do it, and 'jailbait' could be used for teens.

They are underage, because underage is a state of being. If I'm too young to buy cigarettes, then I'm underage, even if I'm not trying to, or buying cigs, or smoking them.

While admitedly, no, it doesn't matter if it's just a cute cub picture, we can't really hem and haw over each picture to see if the artist had any sort of sexual intent or not. Sometimes it's pretty straightforward (cub playing in a sandbox with a bulldozer)... while other times it's more questionable (cute 'pose', or.. playing in a bathtub) and sometimes, the sexualness of it would be debated depending on who you asked (diaper changing picture)... some pictures are 'fetish material' even if there isn't anything sexual in it... (example might be a cub with a soiled diaper.)

It's far easier to, yes, use a blanket term. But I think most people are inclined towards 'young' or'underage' as the blanket term in question. All pictures SHOULD have ratings on them, so those seeking cute cub art could search rating:s cub and be fine.

Banana... you've made it quite clear you dislike this fetish, and I respect that, but please try to keep in mind that 1) we all have our own odd fetishes, and it's best if no one begrudge another just because my kink is not your kink. 2) Some kinks are attractive ONLY in the realm of the imagination. 3) We generally do not use *philia words to describe kinks. Or *ity words. The only exception I can think of off hand is zoophilia. So, pedophilia would not only be inaccurate and wrong, it wouldn't fit with our general tagging scheme.. while underage DOES. In any regard, we don't NEED another "universal tag like pedophilia", as we already have one in underage/young. The problem would still remain in that people need to apply the tag.. and that's true no matter what.

Anyway, in regard to jailbait, I think we had a jailbait tag before, but it seems to have disappeared.

I know some boorus have several levels of 'underage'... loli/shota (which is also a blanket term), toddlercon (for... er... todders >_<) and the unfortunately named 'babyfuck' tag. Personally, I think we're doing good enough jsut to keep it 'underage' and 'not' without adding in the extra trouble of a jailbait tag. Then you have debate s on if she's a cub or if she's jailbait, or if she's legal, or what.

snowwolf, lately you have been the one providing the most info on most topics, and saying it simple enough so stupid people like me can understand..... thx =P

SnowWolf said:
Banana... you've made it quite clear you dislike this fetish, and I respect that, but please try to keep in mind...

actually i was being serious, but i see your point with the illia suffix. of course, it doesn't have to be a pedophilia tag, since people have the potential to get butthurt about it, but there could be a similar that could cover everything and people can just put it on cub images that are pornographic.

I think the bases got covered for now with the TAG implications for *** -> young. Lets see how that goes for a month and review the topic again if it continues not to work.

The biggest thing still will always come down to proper tagging/scoring.

luvdaporn said:
snowwolf, lately you have been the one providing the most info on most topics, and saying it simple enough so stupid people like me can understand..... thx =P

Aw shucks. t'wern't nothing ;)
But no, seriously, I just love the chance to 'debate' an idea... and I like being able to try and make something like this 'better' however I can. I'm not very good at super-tagging images, so.. forum mongering it is! :D

Banana -- Sorry for the, hm, hostility. :) And you have a good point with that honestly,... except it's covered by rating:e and/or rating q + cub/underage/loli/whatever. I've half-suggested a 'cubporn' tag before but then you get into that gray area I was mentioning before.. where does cute become porn? where's the line between cute, subjective and explicit? If we add a cubporn tag, should we add a suggestivecub tag? I would say no, because all of these 'levels' are covered by the ratings system. Explicit, questionable, and safe.

If peopel are doing it right, "rating:s cub" (or underage, or whatever) should never turn up porn. And the fact that you can put ratings in your blacklsit tags makes this work even better. All you've got to do is put "rating:e underage" on one line and you'll never see cubporn again, unless it was JUST posted and poorly tagged. :D

though, I think I read that the implication/alias adding system's broken, so until they get it fixed... :(