Rating tags general

@Princess Luna
I.e. the more it resembles a pair of human breasts in shape, arrangement, and proportion, the more likely it is to be treated like human breasts?

@saby
It's a bit more specific than that; in general if you can't identify it as boobs, it's not going to be treated anywhere close to them.

^{on tonight's episode of, "what am I doing with my life"…}

Could I get a second opinion whether this set of YCH results are currently correctly tagged "explicit", or whether they'd just be "questionable"? It's not clear¹ to me whether the underwear is sufficiently see-through, or just a cameltoe.

_{¹ Pun realized after the fact}

@Background Pony #4230
Based on the way the color changes in that area, it's actually see-through, and thus Explicit.

>>2555521t
Not sure how I feel about tagging this one for the low-detail drawing on the sheet of paper.
questionable, breasts, nipples, human, armpits, arm behind head
Thoughts?

@Background Pony #4230
It's enough to distinguish what they are, so Questionable I say.

Hyper crotchoobs and lactation just qualifies this for "questionable", right? I don't see any genitals or sexual fluids.

@radpanic
Correct

@radpanic
Hyper in general qualifies as "questionable".

//edit


Shouldn't this be suggestive instead of questionable?

@saby
Definitely suggestive.

Currently tagged "questionable". Even if they intended it to be a fetish thing, it looks like something you could see on the show. The shudderlines are around the lower body which might imply arousal with the blush but considering holding one's breath takes some physical effort there's nothing in here above safe IMO.

@saby
Absolutely not questionable. At least for now, I'm going with suggestive because those lines and blush feel more like arousal than physical effort to me, and that on DA, this is titled "A bit of adrenaline~".

I'm looking at some images and… the ratings confuse me

This is suggestive? looks safe to me >>1154154

This is explicit? >>2574883 supposed to be urine, I think

This is questionable >>1156445 but this is safe >>2574890?

edit: oh wait, in the first one I linked is she peeing? my bad.. thought she was just really needing to go.. that probably changes things

@Rainboom Dash
>>1154154 You're right that there's visible urination, so it's suggestive.

>>2574883 Yeah that's urine. Given the context, I changed it to questionable.

On the last two, I changed the safe one to suggestive. The questionable one is more erotic, so I think that rating can stay.

@Litrojia
Context? What context.. it says vlatch or ulatch with urine (you can't even tell it's urine) spewing out
How is that one worse than the suggestive ones?

@Rainboom Dash
The context of the comic. Truth be told, I'm not too familiar with rating tags for pee, so it might be suggestive.

@Litrojia
what? I was told ratings don't follow previous images and are only based on the one image..

@Rainboom Dash
Then I guess I'm not sure, and we'll have to wait for someone else to answer your question.

@Litrojia
You're overcomplicating things; the ratings guidelines are in this area at least pretty solid on how to approach this:
— Pee is soaking part of someone's body or worn clothes? Questionable.
— No, but pee is visibly coming out or it looks sexualized? Suggestive.
— No? Safe, pee alone isn't anything.
Now, the comic does make things hard because there's urine pretty much everywhere and a lot of puddling involved (which can go from Safe to Questionable pretty easily). I'll have to spend some time going over the images with tag mods.

I should also note "peegasm" stuff is likely to end up Suggestive, but that's dependent on a guidelines change, so not something to take into account right now.

Uploader tagged these as "suggestive" but they should really be "explicit", right? These latex pants leave so little to the imagination, I literally thought the character wasn't wearing any pants until I saw the tags.

@radpanic
Going by the description of cameltoe, you are correct.