Viewing last 25 versions of post by saby in topic Ask the Mods Important Site Questions (V2)

saby
Magical Inkwell - Untitled ancient Pegasopolis vignette
Pixel Perfection - I still call her Lightning Bolt
Solar Supporter - Fought against the New Lunar Republic rebellion on the side of the Solar Deity (April Fools 2023).
An Artist Who Rocks - 100+ images under their artist tag
King Sombra - Celebrated the 10th anniversary of The Crystal Empire!
A Lovely Nightmare Night - Celebrated the 12th anniversary of MLP:FIM!
A Perfectly Normal Pony - Red is Sprout, yellow is Hitch, you are a lout, and also a bitch.
Speaking Fancy - Badge given to members that help with translations
Tree of Harmony - Drew someone's OC for the 2022 Community Collab
Elements of Harmony - Had an OC in the 2022 Community Collab

Moderator
Anti Fun Officer
[@Fwelin](/forums/meta/topics/ask-the-mods-important-questions-v2?post_id=5186933#post_5186933)
Sheaths don't have a one-size-fits-all rating. Partially or fully visible sheaths on non-anthropomorphic animals are fine for "safe" as long as it's not brought to viewer's attention by means such as framing, posing, view angle, amount of detail, or level of realism (the more realistic the character overall is, the better chances are that a wee bit of a sheath detail will not elevate the rating; %I think a tracing of a horse photo as a MLP character should not have a different rating than the original would%). This is so that stuff like recoloured perfectly mundane irl horse photos and unedited show screencaps don't end up being non-safe.

>>790860t >>2383914t

Obviously added focus would be able to bring the rating up to suggestive through explicit.

I don't think it's ever been established by staff whereabout the lines between safe, suggestive and questionable sheaths lie, but I'd dare to say that at least featureless little bumps between the legs such as >>2607480 would be "safely" safe. (Incidental, and matching the cartoony style for the rest of the body: simple contour, no inner detail.)

I surmise that we'll probably end up with the same rules as with anus (explicit unless simplistic enough).
No reason given
Edited by saby
saby
Magical Inkwell - Untitled ancient Pegasopolis vignette
Pixel Perfection - I still call her Lightning Bolt
Solar Supporter - Fought against the New Lunar Republic rebellion on the side of the Solar Deity (April Fools 2023).
An Artist Who Rocks - 100+ images under their artist tag
King Sombra - Celebrated the 10th anniversary of The Crystal Empire!
A Lovely Nightmare Night - Celebrated the 12th anniversary of MLP:FIM!
A Perfectly Normal Pony - Red is Sprout, yellow is Hitch, you are a lout, and also a bitch.
Speaking Fancy - Badge given to members that help with translations
Tree of Harmony - Drew someone's OC for the 2022 Community Collab
Elements of Harmony - Had an OC in the 2022 Community Collab

Moderator
Anti Fun Officer
[@Fwelin](/forums/meta/topics/ask-the-mods-important-questions-v2?post_id=5186933#post_5186933)
Sheaths don't have a set rating. Partially or fully visible sheaths on non-anthropomorphic animals are fine for "safe" as long as it's not brought to viewer's attention by means such as framing, posing, view angle, amount of detail, or level of realism (the more realistic the character overall is, the better chances are that a wee bit of a sheath detail will not elevate the rating; %I think a tracing of a horse photo as a MLP character should not have a different rating than the original would%). This is so that stuff like recoloured perfectly mundane irl horse photos and unedited show screencaps don't end up being non-safe.

>>790860t
>>2383914t

I don't think it's ever been established by staff whereabout the lines between safe, suggestive and questionable sheaths lie, but I'd dare to say that at least featureless little bumps between the legs such as >>2607480 would be "safely" safe. (Incidental, and matching the cartoony style for the rest of the body: simple contour, no inner detail.)

I surmise that we'll probably end up with the same rules as with anus (explicit unless simplistic enough).
No reason given
Edited by saby