post #7787026 and faux-democratic ratings in general

PersonalFowl said in forum #436076:

"Anything focused on the ass, breasts, cleavage, underboob, sideboob, feet, armpits, midriff/stomach, navel, lips, or other sexualized parts of the body."

This line in howto:rate should probably be reworded. "focus" implies a connotation this site uses for things like ass focus or foot focus, but it intends to go much further than that.

It doesn't though, at least that seems like quite an unreasonable assumption based on what I'd call a common sense reading of that clause. It seems to be a few users who are interpreting it in that very broad sense, but it's hardly universal.

I agree that the line in howto:rate should be reworded to reflect how things like cleavage have been rated since it was written; i.e., automatic S. When G was new I would follow this wording, but now I know people prefer any of these things are S even if not the focus or detailed

ANON_TOKYO said in forum #436178:

This'd be a shame because I actually think that perspective would actually be quite valuable, especially if it's over a comment by LQ (who's locked out of serious business channels on Discord because he kept having absolutely insane takes, something he's seemingly continuing here based on the nipple comment.)

i mean the main thesis of that response was me trying to get a reality check in regards to my immediate response to what i was reading in the most polite way possible ngl

Well, I have been known to underrate things in the past, so I just kind of assume that for the most part I miss things other people consider sexual and defer to the opinions of others on such topics. But I will say based on the current guidelines listed on howto:rate, the fact that non-serious amounts of blood or bruises is okay for general but the fact that apparently any non-zero amount of cleavage requires a sensitive makes me raise an eyebrow. Here I had assumed that rating post #10334941 as sensitive was correct due to the bloody spikes on her inner dress, but maybe I should have disregarded that. On the other hand, you can see a little bit of her thighs through the fishnets, so that might be too much to handle and deserves the sensitive anyways.

The fact that all swimsuits, no matter what, apparently require a sensitive is also interesting to me. I first uploaded post #9090171 under the general rating, only to have it re-rated to sensitive shortly afterwards, I assume because of Kiyohime wearing a swimsuit. I didn't fight against it because I remembered "oh yeah, swimsuits are sensitive", but do they really have to be in this case? They're chibis. There's arguably some more sensitive content happening in post #9090254 with no swimsuits involved, but nobody's rerated that one to be higher than general. post #11234060 is also currently rated sensitive because she's in a one-piece swimsuit, but does it really look all that different from a tank top? Did I really have to defer to a sensitive on this one? post #11222330 and its children I also rated sensitive because they're technically swimsuits, but again--all chibis in what basically appear to be dresses.

Sure post #11241918 has her nude, but it's not like she has any conveniently censored tatas or anything, she's basically a rectangle, but maybe I should've also similarly rated post #11234355 sensitive because he's also got pelvic curtain censoring, but maybe it doesn't count because he has a shirt on and is also a dude like how it's fine to see dude pectorals but not fine to see lady titties, so maybe I should've actually rated post #11244304 general also? But maybe the boob window makes it too titillating, but also he's a dude so who cares?????????????

Is the fact that the dress is slightly see-through to view bare legs in post #9234027 worth a sensitive? Are the bare legs on post #9311388 really all that different from post #9269702 just because one is swimwear with a midriff and one isn't? Was I correct in rating post #11236701 sensitive for the male-presenting nipples on Kintoki? Should I re-rate post #9127633 to be sensitive instead of general for the same reason?? Should I re-rate post #9233351 to general instead of sensitive because the amount of blood is mild??? Is the cleavage in post #11260066 really going to result in that much more titillation compared to post #11249183 or post #11268096????? Am I the wrong person to ask an opinion about all this in the first place because I actually prefer lightsaber-ed art to uncensored when I do partake in smut????

And that's not even mentioning that while tiny bit of cleavage is apparently a no-no, in addition to minor injuries mild profanity and middle fingers are fine for general, based on the rating criteria, which doesn't align at all with how G-rated versus PG-13 rated media works. Disney is fine with having Ariel in a bikini bra but draws the line at Sebastian saying shit.

Basically--I think there's a clear disconnect between what I personally would consider sensitive versus general content, what media corporations consider sensitive versus general content, and what Danbooru considers sensitive versus general content, and it goes far beyond an occasional midriff or bare shoulder.

I would upvote the post if I could but that very passionate response encapsulates a lot of my concerns about ratings as well, so I've been far less aggressive about giving advice on ratings, reverting ratings I think are wrong and try and avoid asserting any opinion about how posts should be rated. I also use G a lot less to avoid upsetting anyone so most of my posts end up at S.

I have to tune my brain in a Danbooru sense but even that gets weird. Some of the same people in this topic who are saying midriff and a little peek of panty is S (the original prompt for this topic) are also the same people who previously argued that pussy if not a detailed drawing or not the focus of the image can be Q. We're all over the place on this.

Hello from the other side, fellow ace flagbearer.

Ylimegirl said in forum #436039:

They pointed that exact clause out in the forum post you're replying to. The way it's phrased implies a close-up or a a significant amount of cleavage is required for it to qualify for sensitive; other people's responses in this thread indicates that any amount of cleavage is a dealbreaker, because post #11093893 is really not a "focus on cleavage" any moreso than any other portrait image.

Ah, my bad. I misunderstood.

Ylimegirl said in forum #436252:

Basically--I think there's a clear disconnect between what I personally would consider sensitive versus general content, what media corporations consider sensitive versus general content, and what Danbooru considers sensitive versus general content, and it goes far beyond an occasional midriff or bare shoulder.

Three pages of doom scrolling later, this entire post basically summed up what I myself have been thinking about this rating system.

The way I look at it is... if we go with the original three examples in the OP, my self-imposed question will be "is this actually ecchi, risque, etc?" Personally, my answer will be immediately "hell no", but I also know if I actually showed that coworker, or even a random stranger, I know not damn one would care about the immediate content. They'll rhetorically ask "what is this? anime?" after I just randomly shoved it in their face, and no I didn't actually do this but the point's been made: if the supposedly "S" content isn't even capable of even eliciting even a modicum of an emotion, then is already hasn't reached the broad aspect of the guidelines.

Broadly speaking, these categories are:

rating:sensitive - Ecchi, sexy, suggestive, or mildly erotic. Skimpy or revealing clothes, swimsuits, underwear, images focused on the breasts or ass, and anything else potentially not safe for work. Mild violence.

My thinking here is that I don't believe things were ever meant to get this far by design, but we've collectively over-complicated it probably probably a handful of situations, which has gradually increased or ballooned the actual scope of problematic posts. We fruitlessly focus something in the art and not intent that would normally (and non-negotiably) go along with that art. The ratings don't read like they were meant to be acknowledged in a vacuum, that's what tags are for. Yet somehow, some way, these concise lines have contributed to more division, rather than actual consensus.

Ylimegirl said in forum #436252:

...

Yeah basically what WRS said. From your response and examples I feel like your judgement on what makes something SFW vs NSFW is actually very reasonable and also supported by logical real-world examples. I do understand both of your feelings that sometimes it just doesn't make sense, because it doesn't. post #9090171 is a great example of something that's made "safe" by the chibi/cuteness. I thought this was already widely accepted, and from a quick poll on discord yesterday this seems to be actually the case, but I think people see these ratings or get notice their ratings get edited over it, and then play it safe and assume that's "correct", even though it leads to a lot of dumb inconsistencies as you've pointed out. This is also how you get the aforementioned rating:halal-esque rating advice (like forum #436233)

I don't blame anyone for just going along with it, since it's easier and doesn't really change anything (until people start sending feedbacks over it but I don't think this has happenmed yet). The ratings thing is in part just a pet peeve of mine, so I often do take the time to challenge people's edits, and I think this thread does show that I'm no exactly alone in this (if it really was a me vs the world thing every time then we wouldn't be here since I'd just be wrong).

Geneaux said in forum #436276:

...

My thinking here is that I don't believe things were ever meant to get this far by design, but we've collectively over-complicated it probably probably a handful of situations, which has gradually increased or ballooned the actual scope of problematic posts. We fruitlessly focus something in the art and not intent that would normally (and non-negotiably) go along with that art. The ratings don't read like they were meant to be acknowledged in a vacuum, that's what tags are for. Yet somehow, some way, these concise lines have contributed to more division, rather than actual consensus.

I think you probably have a point. This is also why I mention people seemingly tagging based on tags and not on the the actual image (thus not taking the image's context into account in the slightest). post #7787026 was a really good example of this, because if you say "look, she's showing her panties, that's S!" (comment #2589103) then I really don't think you're taking the actual image contents and context into account, no matter how much you say you are.

Blank_User said in forum #435964:

I didn't pull that number out of my ass. I was referring to evazion's statement about ratings in forum #215101. And I never claimed that number should be taken literally. That would be ridiculous.

I highly recommend everyone who hasn't done so to read that forum post and forum #215738 as they show what evazion intended for the G rating. Also, see forum #215739, which shows evazion's explanation for rating post #804674 as G despite the cleavage and under what circumstances he would've rated it as S instead.

I made this specific thread because either the guidelines aren't clear or ratings are being applied in a way that gives us a lot of illogical and inconsistent ratings (as also pointed out by Confetto). From the numerous replies here it seems like there's varying levels of disagreement on where the exact line is, but 2 sentences in a random 4 year old forum topic regarding a single 15 year old sketch isn't going to suddenly resolve that.

We did think about them. You just accused us straight away of basing our ratings on tags or having poor judgment instead of giving us the benefit of the doubt.

...

And yes, the cleavage in those posts are highly visible. You can't miss it. And there are additional factors in post #11244578 that have nothing to do with bare skin that contribute to the rating.

It's hardly "straight away", this is far from the first time it's brought up. And that point of basing it on tags is also because it seems to keep happening.
Something like post #7787026 is a great example of an image that isn't about the tiny line of underwear being visible, not even a little bit. Yet it's brought up in comment #2589103. This is followed by comment #2589108, "Navels are generally seen as S", I don't know how I can read that except "there's a navel so it should be S". howto:rate specifically mentions "Anything focused on ..., cleavage..., navel...". The cleavage in post #11244578 is hardly obscured, and the navel in post #7787026 is plainly visible, but like, okay? "Visible" and "focused on" are completely different degrees of exposure. post #11268522 has a visible navel, post #11273271 puts significant focus on it. post #11244578 and post #11251386 have visible cleavage, and post #11259239 actually puts some focus on it.

The cream in post #11244578, was also mentioned, but like, it's on her hair, face, shoulder, dress. It's not doing anything suggestive.

NerveControl said in forum #435994:

...

When you silently rerate post #11064702 and post #11093893, knowing full well that I often deal with ratings issues, does it look even slightly like you're genuinely looking for a discussion? This just looks like disregard.

What is this "silent rerating" even supposed to mean, do you think I don't know post versions and EL exist? When I rerate something, I don't do that without justification, and I've explained you those justifications plenty of times. Just because you "often deal with rating issues" doesn't mean you're any more right or wrong than me, or anybody else.

That's right, because it's already decided in howto:rate by admins.
I understand that this statement requires howto:rate to be more specific, but what exactly is unclear to you about the phrase "When in doubt, use rating:sensitive"? Just as one person who is in doubt internally will lean toward rating:s, so too will a group of people, divided into two noticeable camps for the least harm, lean toward rating:s.

My problem isn't with the phrase but with how it's being used. It's not an unreasonable approach at all, but it keeps being brought up in questionable contexts.

ANON_TOKYO said in forum #436365:

comment #2589108, "Navels are generally seen as S", I don't know how I can read that except "there's a navel so it should be S".

What about: "Navels are generally seen as S, unless there are strong reasons otherwise but there aren't"

I'm not sure whether you mean that as a potential reading (which I wouldn't really see as a logical reading), or a proposed amendment. In the latter case, it'd need way more input obviously, but it'd be too strict IMO. "X unless Y" rules usually just get reduced to X because it's easier to not have to think about it.

. . .

The function of the word "generally" is to rule out your interpretation.

"Navels are S" ---> "there's a navel so it should be S"
"Navels are generally seen as S" ---> it's NOT that "there's a navel so it should be S", rather, there's a navel and it is S.

I believe with the help of this thread we could add many examples and edge cases to howto:rate so people can get a feel to what counts as S and what counts as G instead of merely going by name with just a single skim.

Alright, here's my slightly more organized question list regarding rating boundaries and my own understanding of the current rating system.

General: appropriate for all ages
Sensitive: potentially not so good for general audiences, slightly suggestive if you're looking for it
Questionable: nudity featuring female-presenting nipples/areola or near-nudity barely covering sensitive areas, implied sex/convenient censoring, probable sex fluids
Explicit: THEY FUCKING!!!!!, close-ups of genitalia/female-presenting nipples/ass, undeniable sex fluids, visceral gore/violence

I think the boundaries between sensitive/questionable and questionable/explicit are much less debatable than the dreaded general/sensitive, but here are my questions based on the current guidelines on howto:rate:

• How Much Titty Is Too Much Titty For General? any amount of cleavage bad? does the cleavage need to take up less than 10% of the image? Does it need to be a wide shot/at least a full-body? Does the size of the tatas affect these boundaries?
• Do swimsuits always have to be sensitive? I understand why bikinis are, but I imagine some art of one-piece swimsuits such as post #10905450 could be fine for general.
• Are topless men okay for general? Do they need to have no nipples or are male-presenting nipples okay?
• What counts as trivial violence? How much blood or injuries are worth a sensitive?
• Covered nipples can apparently qualify for either questionable or sensitive; what's the exact cutoff on moving one up to questionable? Do the clothes need to be wet? An areola slip visible?
• Does the middle finger really qualify for general? I'm not sure what counts as "mild profanity" in the rating guidelines i mean i thought crap was a bad word when i was 10 but I imagine fuck warrants at least a sensitive... but slurs and hard drugs don't need to be rated any higher than sensitive?
• How much stomach is too much for general? Does the presence of the stomach nipple navel affect this determination? Are midriffs okay but fully uncovered from hips to underbust bad? (This also does tie into where topless male lies on the spectrum... I can excuse male pectorals but I draw the line at female navel)
• Nothing about the amount of visible skin on legs is mentioned anywhere on the ratings page, which makes some sense when you consider how little people care about the amount of exposed arms people have when it comes to rating. However I'd argue there's something to be asked about how high up a hemline is fine for characters to wear without something underneath. Would we be fine with an equivalent to post #7000634 in the general rating if he wasn't wearing pantyhose?
• Surely we don't care about the visibility of bra straps, right. I hope bra straps (wherein the actual cup of the bra isn't visible in any form) that peak out from underneath a shirt are fine. I could be wrong though.
• How much underwear visibility is bad? Where do boxers fit into this, especially when they can be just about as long as short shorts? Is a topless male in boxers the same or worse than a lady in boxers and a short-sleeve shirt?
• Do we need to consider pajamas/sleepwear that isn't lingerie anywhere in this equation? Is the fact that something is worn specifically in the context of a mimir make it more risque than something worn on the street?
• Leotards are basically one-piece swimsuits skin-coverage wise, so should something like post #11277315 be in sensitive instead? Or is the fact that one is worn in the context of swimming make it inherently more risque?
• Do non-detailed chibis cancel out most of these considerations? Can chibis generally heh be rated general if there's no detailed booba/bulge/genitals/etc?
• Does scat really need to be explicit no matter what? I mean I don't like it but I find it weird that it's a definite E when implied suicide is apparently sensitive at worst.

Basically, I think we've figured out where nudity/sexual content lies in the split of sensitive/questionable/explicit (even if the general/sensitive line is sometimes wavy when it comes to clothed content), but I feel like there's room for discussion on where things should be rated when it comes to objectionable content and violence. And we still don't know how much cleavage is no good, how much stomach is no good, or how much bare shoulder is no good.

FWIW, here's my internal idealized vision of how danbooru ratings/a four-point rating system would work:

Ylimegirl said in forum #436548

Surely we don't care about the visibility of bra straps, right. I hope bra straps (wherein the actual cup of the bra isn't visible in any form) that peak out from underneath a shirt are fine. I could be wrong though.

Speaking as someone who tends to be more conservative with their ratings (for better or worse), I don't consider visible bra straps to be sensitive.

Ylimegirl said in forum #436548:

• How Much Titty Is Too Much Titty For General? any amount of cleavage bad? does the cleavage need to take up less than 10% of the image? Does it need to be a wide shot/at least a full-body? Does the size of the tatas affect these boundaries?

I'd say if it's a closer upper body shot where the cleavage takes up a lot of space, or if the cleavage is very defined and noticable I'd probably say it gets S. post #11275776 and post #11252187 strike me as absolutely reasonable rating:general images despite the cleavage since the cleavage is neither defined nor noticeable, and the breasts themselves are not pronounced which helps.
Speaking of, I'd also say size absolutely matters; every huge breasts/gigantic breasts instance should get the S rating and even if the character is fully clothed, and while large breasts isn't inherently S it does contribute to other factors, for example whether any visible cleavage would drop the rating.

• Are topless men okay for general? Do they need to have no nipples or are male-presenting nipples okay?

If the focus is specifically on sensualizing the male character's torso and emphasizing its features that would warrant an S but otherwise they should be fine for G, nipples or not. For example post #11276621 is rightly S since the intent of the image is pretty clearly emphasizing character's physique in a way that's meant to be sexy, whereas most images of Son Goku without his top like post #10031047 or post #10953058 are G and rightly so I say since there's no focus on being sexy, but rather the focus is on action, being cool, and showing off how badass and strong the character is. I see imagery like the Goku ones posted often in Christian servers often with nobody taking issue or giving them shirt emote reactions, so if that type of shirtless imagery is good enough for G rated wholesome Christian servers, and it's good enough for your five year old nephew who watches DBZ and his grandma, it should be good enough for danbooru's G rating.

Those are the issues I had the most to say about, as for the others I have comments on: for blood/injuries, deep wounds or blood that covers most of the character's body is S, skin deep cuts and moderate blood stains are fine for G. I agree that for G midriffs okay but fully uncovered from hips to underbust bad, specific emphasis on the bare stomach also bad. Bra straps are acceptable. Nightwear isn't any more inherently risque than other clothing that covers the same amount. Leotards should be treated the same as one-pieces. I'm sure scat is fine being contained in E, we have poop for more innocent usages.

I think your idealized vision of the ratings and how you describe them is perfect, the only thing I disagree with is off-shoulder clothing being inherently sensitive since there's plenty of examples like post #11273128 or post #11271967 where it's done in a way that's completely G-rated.

ANON_TOKYO said in forum #436365:

What is this "silent rerating" even supposed to mean, do you think I don't know post versions and EL exist? When I rerate something, I don't do that without justification, and I've explained you those justifications plenty of times. Just because you "often deal with rating issues" doesn't mean you're any more right or wrong than me, or anybody else.

Fine, if you don't understand, I can try to explain it again.

ANON_TOKYO said in forum #436365:

doesn't mean you're any more right or wrong than me, or anybody else.

1. You upload a post with rating:g
2. I don't agree with this and I'm changing it to rating:s
3. If we've each given our opinion and we can't come to a compromise, it's obvious we need to ask someone else's opinion, but all you did was just rollback the rating.
If you rate, someone rerates it, but then you rollback it without asking anyone, how is this different from provoking an edit war? Or did the situation seem so obvious to you each time that you didn’t even think it was necessary to ask?

I really tried to find messages from you where you drop the post ID and ask about the rating, but I don’t have a single piece of evidence that you consulted with anyone when rollbacking the rating.

Like you, I absolutely don't understand why you mentioned post versions and an event listener. I don't have an event listener, and it's not mandatory. I don't have pop-up notifications like you do when someone interacts with my edits. This argument doesn't even make sense, since the main complaint isn't that I didn't know you changed the rating, but that you decided not to ask anyone for a third opinion.

If I'm wrong and you did ask someone else about the ratings on these posts, can you confirm it? I can do my part; just search (in Discord) for the IDs of all the posts where this happened. The first mention is always mine, in the #tagging or #danbooru channels.
I hope I have now cleared up all the misunderstandings.