The bulk update request #8545 is pending approval.

remove implication x_anus (1680) -> anus (556314)

Reason: Under our current rules, the anus tag is always rated explicit. Also, x_anus currently implies anus. Therefore, all x anuses are to be explicit regardless of context.

I think this is silly. The most absolutely innocuous images get marked as being not safe for work because of something that children's media have no issue showing.

post #4834787 post #4267711 post #4705179 post #4253894 post #4365004 post #4674615 post #4382584 post #4455766 post #4212723

Marking these as explicit just makes it harder for people to find content; unless you always keep the rule in mind, any rating:s search will miss out on these innocuous images.

Of course a cat made this suggestion. The creature most notoriously known for showing off its butthole to people.

Removing the implication won't stop x_anuses from being explicit.

https://e621.net/help/ratings

Explicit (Adult)

• genital orifices-- genital slits/vents, cloaca, and anus, including toony x-anuses

Just like sheaths, they cause the post to be rated explicit no matter how non-sexual the image as a whole is. And if they're separated, the question will inevitably come up, how much detail does there need to be to separate x_anuses from normal anuses? Would
post #4687213
be anus or x_anus?

an anus is an anus. _{You can't say it's only a half}

slyroon said:
Of course a cat made this suggestion. The creature most notoriously known for showing off its butthole to people.

Baseless ailurophobic allegations! Allegations that Strikerman specifically is not beating, judging by his pfp...

watsit said:
https://e621.net/help/ratings

You can't just cite the guidelines as an argument against a proposal to change them. They were created in a certain context for certain purposes that might no longer fully apply and some of us believe that this passage is currently a net negative for the reasons stated way up there.

gattonero2001 said:
You can't just cite the guidelines as an argument against a proposal to change them. They were created in a certain context for certain purposes that might no longer fully apply and some of us believe that this passage is currently a net negative for the reasons stated way up there.

He hasn't made an argument for x_anus to not be explicit, beyond the complaint about how it applies to innocuous/non-sexual images. A complaint that regularly crops up, and is the same issue people have with sheaths being explicit.

post #4685319 post #4761703 post #4786838

Changing this brings up the obvious problem of defining when an x_anus/sheath/whatever can become explicit.

The implication to anus isn't what makes x_anus explicit, and x_anus can be made non-explicit without removing the implication if the admins decide it. This seems to be handling two separate issues as one.

Not in support of removing the implication, am in support of not rating x anuses as automatically explicit on otherwise rating:s images.

watsit said:
He hasn't made an argument for x_anus to not be explicit, beyond the complaint about how it applies to innocuous/non-sexual images. A complaint that regularly crops up, and is the same issue people have with sheaths being explicit.

post #4685319 post #4761703 post #4786838

I have my issues with this too (I'm really annoyed that that last one is caught under my young -rating:s blacklist), but sheaths are at least actually genitals, so I'm less bothered by it than I am rating something explicit for the vague implication that there's a butthole there. That's just my opinion, though.

watsit said:
He hasn't made an argument for x_anus to not be explicit, beyond the complaint about how it applies to innocuous/non-sexual images. A complaint that regularly crops up, and is the same issue people have with sheaths being explicit.

post #4685319 post #4761703 post #4786838

Changing this brings up the obvious problem of defining when an x_anus/sheath/whatever can become explicit.

The implication to anus isn't what makes x_anus explicit, and x_anus can be made non-explicit without removing the implication if the admins decide it. This seems to be handling two separate issues as one.

The rest of the post should provide any necessary context for whether or not a post should have a stronger rating.

strikerman said:
The rest of the post should provide any necessary context for whether or not a post should have a stronger rating.

post #4710265 post #4684107 post #4561180 post #4353466
These should be Safe, then? Fine to have on e926? Or at most, Questionable? Take out the x_anus and they would be.

And this:
post #4241556
would only be Questionable because of boobs, and the x_anus is fine to be non-explicit?

Let's not forget the sister tag, y_anus:
post #3188719

watsit said:
post #4710265 post #4684107 post #4561180 post #4353466
These should be Safe, then? Fine to have on e926? Or at most, Questionable? Take out the x_anus and they would be.

And this:
post #4241556
would only be Questionable because of boobs, and the x_anus is fine to be non-explicit?

Let's not forget the sister tag, y_anus:
post #3188719

i never said every single post with an x_anus would be safe, context of the whole post matters you devil's advocate

strikerman said:
i never said every single post with an x_anus would be safe, context of the whole post matters you devil's advocate

Which brings up my original response:

watsit said:
Changing this brings up the obvious problem of defining when an x_anus/sheath/whatever can become explicit.

To me, this makes it much more difficult to discern what posts should be rated when they have an x_anus. Given how serious the rating can be with anuses on display, it creates unnecessary uncertainty, making it better to just say x_anus(/sheath/y_anus/etc) = explicit always.

Tbh the majority of edge cases for x-anus (and sheath) would likely be fine under 'questionable.'

There is still some value for searching and blacklisting with this implication. If someone blacklists anus, why should they get results that are clearly still an anus that are only tagged x_anus? Whenever I search or blacklist this I would expect the variations to be included. This could be worked around with more complex filters like anus x_anus, but why should that be necessary?

I'm indifferent about the suggested rating changes, but I think the implication removal is a bad idea for searching, and if the implication is kept the new rating rules would need to be more complex.

I just like having the hard guideline of genital = explicit. This would weaken that guideline, making rating more ambiguous.

scth said:
I just like having the hard guideline of genital = explicit. This would weaken that guideline, making rating more ambiguous.

Anuses aren't genitals.

nimphia said:
Anuses aren't genitals.

However, they are associated with them in that both excrete waste from the body and thus both are generally considered unclean.

watsit said:
He hasn't made an argument for x_anus to not be explicit, beyond the complaint about how it applies to innocuous/non-sexual images. A complaint that regularly crops up, and is the same issue people have with sheaths being explicit.

Explicit is for adult only artwork.
X anus's appear in childrens tv shows, thus cannot be considered explicit by itself, lest those shows should be considered explicit.

While trying to find examples of this, I literally came across an entire tumblr associated with this trend.

https://animebuttholes.tumblr.com/

deadoon said:
Explicit is for adult only artwork.
X anus's appear in childrens tv shows, thus cannot be considered explicit by itself, lest those shows should be considered explicit.

While trying to find examples of this, I literally came across an entire tumblr associated with this trend.

https://animebuttholes.tumblr.com/

I mean, if we're talking anime, you can find more than that.

but we're trying to make hard and fast rules that can be agreed upon in any context, and has:anus == rating:e is just easier for everyone, rather than trying to deal with the minutia of what the context is.

deadoon said:
Explicit is for adult only artwork.
X anus's appear in childrens tv shows, thus cannot be considered explicit by itself, lest those shows should be considered explicit.

While trying to find examples of this, I literally came across an entire tumblr associated with this trend.

https://animebuttholes.tumblr.com/

Dragonball shows young Gohan's (and young Goku's?) penis, and is considered a tv show for children. Just because something can appear in children's tv shows shouldn't implicitly mean it's okay to be non-explicit here, considering we aren't a family-friendly site to start with. Something that could be seen as innocent or child-friendly in public can take on a different tone here next to a bunch of adult artwork.

post #4341925 post #4378505 post #3879813 post #3081873

These are all x_anuses, and don't show anything else that would be explicit. Are they all rating:safe? It's relevant to note x-anuses can be fairly detailed and anuses can be low-detail without being x-shaped. Why single-out x-anuses? Even your tumblr link includes non-x-anuses.

watsit said:
Dragonball shows young Gohan's (and young Goku's?) penis, and is considered a tv show for children. Just because something can appear in children's tv shows shouldn't implicitly mean it's okay to be non-explicit here, considering we aren't a family-friendly site to start with. Something that could be seen as innocent or child-friendly in public can take on a different tone here next to a bunch of adult artwork.

I think young Gohan was the Dead Zone movie, not on tv, but I'm pretty sure they show infant Goku fully nude in the show at least once. but either way, yeah.

dba_afish said:
I mean, if we're talking anime, you can find more than that.

but we're trying to make hard and fast rules that can be agreed upon in any context, and has:anus == rating:e is just easier for everyone, rather than trying to deal with the minutia of what the context is.

watsit said:
Dragonball shows young Gohan's (and young Goku's?) penis, and is considered a tv show for children. Just because something can appear in children's tv shows shouldn't implicitly mean it's okay to be non-explicit here, considering we aren't a family-friendly site to start with. Something that could be seen as innocent or child-friendly in public can take on a different tone here next to a bunch of adult artwork.

post #4341925 post #4378505 post #3879813 post #3081873

These are all x_anuses, and don't show anything else that would be explicit. Are they all rating:safe? It's relevant to note x-anuses can be fairly detailed and anuses can be low-detail without being x-shaped. Why single-out x-anuses? Even your tumblr link includes non-x-anuses.

deadoon said:
thus cannot be considered explicit by itself

If you are going to argue against people, at least read the argument rather than glossing over it. The tumblr goes along the concept, not the specific style.

My opinion is that if something is acceptable to be put on broadcast TV for children or teenagers, it probably shouldn't have a rating above questionable/mature outside of exceptions.

Also, the dragon ball thing you brought up kind of reinforces the claim against some tags implying ratings despite that not being your goal.

deadoon said:
If you are going to argue against people, at least read the argument rather than glossing over it. The tumblr goes along the concept, not the specific style.

My opinion is that if something is acceptable to be put on broadcast TV for children or teenagers, it probably shouldn't have a rating above questionable/mature outside of exceptions.

Also, the dragon ball thing you brought up kind of reinforces the claim against some tags implying ratings despite that not being your goal.

I don't know what you're talking about saying sit and I were glossing over your argument. we're just saying that we disagree with it on a fundamental level, and then gave some examples/reasons.

I do not think that it makes sense for us to be using Japanese TV standards (or any other external source, for that matter) for how we rate our content. I mean, Dragon Ball also has a scene where a character dies from his skull getting crushed under the villain's foot as well as several people getting vored in full view, I don't think it makes sense to mark those situations as safe either.

again, concise and consistent rules are better for everyone. we don't want to have our users, let alone our admins and mods have to deal with weird edge cases more than they already do. and we don't want to have arguments where people are like "Well, I think something kinda similar to this might've broadcast on TV somewhere, at some point. so it should be rating:s, actually."

dba_afish said:
I don't know what you're talking about saying sit and I were glossing over your argument. we're just saying that we disagree with it on a fundamental level, and then gave some examples/reasons.

I do not think that it makes sense for us to be using Japanese TV standards (or any other external source, for that matter) for how we rate our content. I mean, Dragon Ball also has a scene where a character dies from his skull getting crushed under the villain's foot as well as several people getting vored in full view, I don't think it makes sense to mark those situations as safe either.

again, concise and consistent rules are better for everyone. we don't want to have our users, let alone our admins and mods have to deal with weird edge cases more than they already do. and we don't want to have arguments where people are like "Well, I think something kinda similar to this might've broadcast on TV somewhere, at some point. so it should be rating:s, actually."

deadoon said:
My opinion is that if something is acceptable to be put on broadcast TV for children or teenagers, it probably shouldn't have a rating above questionable/mature outside of exceptions.

You literally replied to a post which has my position in it, and nowhere did I say it should be rated safe. The fact you think I am saying it should be rated safe is pretty much evidence you aren't reading what I am saying.

deadoon said:
You literally replied to a post which has my position in it, and nowhere did I say it should be rated safe. The fact you think I am saying it should be rated safe is pretty much evidence you aren't reading what I am saying.

I mean, to be honest I don't think it should be rating:q either, if that's what you're saying.

dba_afish said:
I mean, to be honest I don't think it should be rating:q either, if that's what you're saying.

Let me break it down in the simplest way possible, explaining as I go.

deadoon said:
My opinion is that if something is acceptable to be put on broadcast TV for children or teenagers, it probably shouldn't have a rating above questionable/mature outside of exceptions.

"My opinion is that if something is acceptable to be put on broadcast TV for children or teenagers,"
As in, something of content similar to what could be found on broadcast tv in daytime hours with age ratings intended for underage individuals on channels which are not age restricted to access.
If something is able to fulfill that condition then:
"it probably shouldn't have a rating above questionable/mature outside of exceptions."
It's normal maximum rating should be questionable/mature as dictated by the ratings wiki. Exceptions should exist for stuff that is incidentally extreme in context, such as heavy gore, sexual fanservice, or similar.

Do you need further explanation?

A post that has no adult content being rated as explicit technically goes against the intention of explicit, and I would consider mistagging, but the current implications can cause that leading to stuff that would be fine in public spaces being considered adult only here.

deadoon said:
Let me break it down in the simplest way possible, explaining as I go.
"My opinion is that if something is acceptable to be put on broadcast TV for children or teenagers,"
As in, something of content similar to what could be found on broadcast tv in daytime hours with age ratings intended for underage individuals on channels which are not age restricted to access.
If something is able to fulfill that condition then:
"it probably shouldn't have a rating above questionable/mature outside of exceptions."
It's normal maximum rating should be questionable/mature as dictated by the ratings wiki. Exceptions should exist for stuff that is incidentally extreme in context, such as heavy gore, sexual fanservice, or similar.

Do you need further explanation?

A post that has no adult content being rated as explicit technically goes against the intention of explicit, and I would consider mistagging, but the current implications can cause that leading to stuff that would be fine in public spaces being considered adult only here.

Broadcast TV standards aren't static worldwide, they are different depending on the culture of the country. An example of this is that Denmark allows a children's show about a man with a long penis, but that definitely would be relegated to the late night hours (think Adult Swim) in the USA. The USA has no issues with showing young girls in swimsuits, but that's definitely not allowed in many countries in the middle east. And what's allowed on TV is always changing, with shows like Rocco's Modern Life being considered pushing boundaries for its time but tame nowadays.

While I personally found it a bit weird at first with the depiction of any anus being grounds for explicit, I appreciate that it makes it really easy to rate images using a concise rule rather than a flow chart.

Wierd question: can the implication system handle metatags like rating:e and autotag as explicit when someone tags penis.

demesejha said:
Wierd question: can the implication system handle metatags like rating:e and autotag as explicit when someone tags penis.

No, and it won't be implemented anytime soon

kyureki said:
Broadcast TV standards aren't static worldwide, they are different depending on the culture of the country. An example of this is that Denmark allows a children's show about a man with a long penis, but that definitely would be relegated to the late night hours (think Adult Swim) in the USA. The USA has no issues with showing young girls in swimsuits, but that's definitely not allowed in many countries in the middle east. And what's allowed on TV is always changing, with shows like Rocco's Modern Life being considered pushing boundaries for its time but tame nowadays.

While I personally found it a bit weird at first with the depiction of any anus being grounds for explicit, I appreciate that it makes it really easy to rate images using a concise rule rather than a flow chart.

The whole point of something like a flow chart or being aware of context is nuance. Just because something might exist in a picture should not automatically make it adult only or porn in nature.

You brought up swim suits and nuance is all that separates these three swim suit images.
post #4852167 post #4851731 post #4837588

None of this have genitalia, not even the outlines of genitalia, but due to presentation it's pretty easy to see why each one would have a different rating. I really don't want to have to explain this.

deadoon said:
None of this have genitalia, not even the outlines of genitalia, but due to presentation it's pretty easy to see why each one would have a different rating. I really don't want to have to explain this.

yeah, it's definitely not just how the characters are being presented in these posts that are causing them to be rated the way they are, though. there is definitely different stuff visible in each of those.

I'm- I'm not sure what you're even trying to argue.

deadoon said:
post #4837588

None of this have genitalia, not even the outlines of genitalia, but due to presentation it's pretty easy to see why each one would have a different rating. I really don't want to have to explain this.

You can quite literally see the vulva in this image be real

This would be a tagging nightmare. We need clear rules for things like this, and 'all anuses are explicit' is as clear as it can get. Remove that, and nobody will be able to agree how to rate them.

dba_afish said:
yeah, it's definitely not just how the characters are being presented in these posts that are causing them to be rated the way they are, though. there is definitely different stuff visible in each of those.

I'm- I'm not sure what you're even trying to argue.

Nuance. Like, I've responded to you multiple times, and the first two are basically the same in terms of visibility.

demesejha said:
You can quite literally see the vulva in this image be real

I admit I grabbed that one on the wrong search on my history, It was from the chain from just "swim_suit rating:e" not my later searches that narrowed it down.
"swim_suit rating:e -genitals -cameltoe -bulge"
Honestly, I checked it for "cameltoe" because that is what I would expect, because if it is covered you shouldn't tag pussy, which shouldn't be tagged for cameltoe by the wiki definitions.
https://e621.net/wiki_pages/324
https://e621.net/wiki_pages/1192
So You could argue that it is mistagged for that as well, not going to change it because apparently I've pissed off the hoard enough to have many people dogpiling me for wanting to resolve a paradox of stuff that can be both safe for general consumption, but gets tagged as adult only here.

genjar said:
This would be a tagging nightmare. We need clear rules for things like this, and 'all anuses are explicit' is as clear as it can get. Remove that, and nobody will be able to agree how to rate them.

Ironically the cameltoe wiki page has a flexible ruling on rating because of how debatable that subject is already.

deadoon said:
Nuance. Like, I've responded to you multiple times, and the first two are basically the same in terms of visibility.

well, not quite the rating:q one has nipple_outlines.

deadoon said:
wanting to resolve a paradox of stuff that can be both safe for general consumption, but gets tagged as adult only here.

it's not a paradox, two different places having different standards for stuff like this is totally normal.

dba_afish said:
well, not quite the rating:q one has nipple_outlines.

it's not a paradox, two different places having different standards for stuff like this is totally normal.

https://e621.net/posts?tags=swim_suit+rating%3As+nipple_outlines

deadoon said:
Ironically the cameltoe wiki page has a flexible ruling on rating because of how debatable that subject is already.

wait, since when? I was under the impression that camel_toe was to never be considered safe... it looks like versp changed its wording to contradict that in 2019 ... ehhh

It's probably to cover cases like post #4801941 where it very much might be just a fold.

regsmutt said:
It's probably to cover cases like post #4801941 where it very much might be just a fold.

maybe? although I feel like that post should be questionable either way...

dba_afish said:
maybe? although I feel like that post should be questionable either way...

Fair enough, I was just using it as the clearest instance of where it's actually a grey area of "is this a fold or camel toe?" since there's a lot of camel_toe rating:safe images that are either clearly seams, not visible at all, or are visible enough they should be questionable even without taking image context/posing into consideration.