Rating tags general

Safe or Suggestive? Celestia is blushing to you LOL.  

@Melisareb  
Safe.

@GenericArchangel  
Thanks!

@Background Pony #6691  
I think this is borderline, with the look and the crack showing.
 
@Melisareb  
Well she’s not presenting any sexual part of her, so she may very well just want literal bellyrubs.

Safe or suggestive? These OC’s are blushing.  

@Melisareb  
Ponies blushed on the show. Looks safe to me.

@Melisareb  
Shipping in and of itself is not Suggestive; Suggestive is for actual sexual stuff.

@Princess Luna  
These characters are father and daughter and one of the characters is underage.

@mjangelvortex  
This has nothing to do with whether something’s sexual or not, and thus does not change anything. As well, Spike blushing with Rarity is a common thing from the show, and he’s underage.

Regarding Rarity’s eye – Safe or Semi-Grimdark?  
>>2250085t (deleted)

@Frustration in Excelsis  
I’m tempted to say Safe based on a strict reading of the guidelines, but don’t quote me on that.

@Frustration in Excelsis  
The eye kinda creeps me out a little but I’m with GenericArchangel on this. I’d keep it as Safe.

@Frustration in Excelsis  
Borderline, but I’d say within Safe. It’s a bad idea to get too strict on areas with missing body parts in particular cause of how it affects real life photos of people.

@Princess Luna  
That’s what I’m thinking. Plus there have been disabled ponies on the show before too. So it seems safe to me. It’s not like any blood or guts is shown in the image or anything.

@Melisareb  
@Princess Luna  
Does it affect anything that it has the text “Original story by: Clopficsinthecomments” in it?

@Background Pony #2909  
As a fellow tagger, you tag based on the contents of the image, not the description.

@Damaged  
Yes, that text is in the image, not the metadata.

@Background Pony #2909  
Ok so the picture itself contains and displays metadata about who wrote the cover art’s relevant story. That’s not suggestive/questionable/explicit. All it says is that other parts of the related work may be NSFW. And even that is an implication. And even that implication requires the assumption that a handle like that would mostly or only write NSFW stories. I’m pretty sure the wird “clop” is not inherently non-Safe either. It’s used as an euphemism/code word for good reason.
 
You wouldn’t classify the cover of, say, 50 Shades of Grey non-Safe just because the title and/or author credit informs you via pop cultural osmosis or personal knowledge that the cover is for a story that has more or less explicit scenes. The cover itself is a pefectly SFW stylised close-up of a necktie.

@Background Pony #2909  
Well that’s messy; I think “clopfics” is pretty borderline on Safe/Suggestive to begin with though, so it’s not a big problem to disregard it being in a name of someone credited.

@saby  
@Princess Luna  
OK, good to know.

Normally I try to avoid making a post about an image in here unless it really stumps me. Seeing the following tagged explicit has done that. Am I missing something obvious that should result in this being anything but suggestive?
 

@Damaged  
It could be classified as a description of a sexual act, which would make it questionable. Other than that it’s pretty much suggestive, I think.

@Damaged  
Seems Suggestive.
 
@Napsack  
Questionable requires more than this, something like “put a stallion’s cock deep in my ass”. In this case, it’s referring to sex without describing anything, and even does its referencing via a euphemism (“get off”).

 

 
Are these safe or suggestive?

@mjangelvortex  
First one, without any additional context, I guess is Safe, although currently it’s still an unresolved question how to treat that sort of thing.  
As for the second, I’d more firmly call it Safe because nothing about that underwear or the look of it is sexual. Upskirt shots do even sometimes happen in EqG.