This is another case of wanting clarification for going forward, not just a single image...But, yeah, like it says on the tin. Should a picture with extremely mild gore-such as this where the "gore" is so mild, some might not even consider it gore-really be tagged explicit? That seems perfectly harmless, cute even, to me...

That picture has dismemberment, so that's why it's explicit.

"Any image which depicts ... gore, such as subjects of dismemberment, extreme amounts of blood, physical trauma, and snuff"
https://e621.net/help/show/ratings

Stuff like severed limbs and brains showing through crack in skull is explicit. Also can you stop making forum threads every single time you disagree with my ratings and tagging? Pretty sure this is fourth time you do this.

kahen_kilon_vittu said:
Also can you stop making forum threads every single time you disagree with my ratings and tagging? Pretty sure this is fourth time you do this.

I've also done it when I disagree with other people's changes to ratings/tags, this isn't about you. It's literally JUST what I said in my first post: Getting clarification for clarification's sake. You really need to stop taking this shit so personally.

Jacob said:
I've also done it when I disagree with other people's changes to ratings/tags, this isn't about you. It's literally JUST what I said in my first post: Getting clarification for clarification's sake. You really need to stop taking this shit so personally.

1. Discuss in the comments of the post itself or at discords helpdesk.
2. Report the post if admin ruling and locking is needed.

Creating new forum topic to ask for ruling or opinions of single posts is kinda pointless, especially as the rating ruling is trying to be as objective as possible. If we start to differenciate with cartoony gore, then we would need to spend even more staff time to solve even more fights everywhere for something that essentially doesn't matter other than people who use explicit rating to find porn being annoyed.

Also in the end it would be like artistic nudity, where essentially everything without sex or arousal would get tagged questionable for being artistic.
forum #277589

Mairo said:
Creating new forum topic to ask for ruling or opinions of single posts...

I'm guessing you didn't fully read the opening post on this thread...

Jacob said:
I'm guessing you didn't fully read the opening post on this thread...

It clearly was a single post which prompted this topic because you did only link one single example. Usually these kind of forum topics have multiple examples, so that all viewpoints and edge cases can be addressed.

Ratings already make it clear that gore is explicit and answer to this would've been found from wiki or asking on previously mentioned places instead of opening completely new forum topic for it.

And if you really want to talk about your or someone elses subjective opinions and viewpoints on the matter, I did also answer that as well. Ratings are kept as objective as possible for reason and explicit is not the same as pornographic.

Yeah, I wouldn't call that "explicit," since its cartoonish and unlikely to cause trauma or trigger anything because of it.

LoneWolf343 said:
Yeah, I wouldn't call that "explicit," since its cartoonish and unlikely to cause trauma or trigger anything because of it.

How likely something is to cause trauma has nothing to do with how images are rated. Also something being more cartoony version of explicit content does not make it any less explicit. Just like super toony dicks are explicit, toony gore like this is explicit as well.

Jacob said:
That seems perfectly harmless, cute even, to me...

To understand why it's tagged explicit, it may help you to consider how the image would seem to other users instead.

Think of those users who are viewing affiliated sites with only safe content from work while on break, or those who have explicit content blacklisted for reasons you may not be able to anticipate.