Flagging Images

Posted in

#276 by savagetiger
2020-05-13 at 11:48
< report >No cleavage, cameltoe, or lewd poses and they're obviously at the beach so that seems tame to me.
#277 by ganchan
2020-05-13 at 21:30
< report >Seeing how the new system works, would be possible for an option to hide safe/tame images as well?
#278 by Yorhel
2020-05-14 at 13:23
< report >To hide all images by default? That's possible, but...I'm not sure I see the point. It probably wouldn't save you any bandwidth, Firefox at least seems to preload the images even when they're hidden.
#279 by warfoki
2020-05-14 at 13:31
< report >It could help browsing the page in environments where you shouldn't be browsing it. Much easier to hide that you are weeb when, from a distant glance, you are seen browsing an image-less database than if you have waifus plastered all over the place. :P
#280 by fllthdcrb
2020-05-14 at 16:02
< report >Would that be a good option for the "safe" version of VNDB?
#281 by ganchan
2020-05-14 at 23:29
< report >My main reason is because I find the pages without images (or hidden because of NSFW) more aesthetically pleasing overall.

Another reason I can think is for people that think that images are spoilerish. I don't think is common, but considering that we can even hide by default non spoiler tags, I could see some people using this option for that reason.

Lastly, expanding on what warfoki says, you could argue that for some people, most of the images here are NSFW, so for them there's no difference between safe images and suggestive images.
#282 by fllthdcrb
2020-05-15 at 00:38
< report >If you want a quick temporary solution, a userscript could probably do it.
#283 by Ileca
2020-05-15 at 01:47
< report >No need for a userscript, you can add:
img {visibility:hidden}
in you custom css to hide ALL images (covers, screenshots, character's pics, etc.).Last modified on 2020-05-15 at 02:14
#284 by fllthdcrb
2020-05-15 at 13:24
< report >That does work pretty well. I was thinking it would also hide things like those icons that indicate languages, platforms, and other stuff, but no, they don't use img elements, so it's fine. Oh, but you might want to take care of the page background as well:
body {background-image: none !important;}

Of course, this will be a pain to deal with if you want to switch them back on frequently. But if it's just once in a while, /* commenting it out */ is easy enough.Last modified on 2020-05-15 at 13:25
#285 by barfboy
2020-05-15 at 19:19
< report >Sorry I wasn't clear.

I meant we could replace the image on the Guideline page
with this one

Since people were complaining earlier about the first image. Noizi Itou is a fairly well known artist and the image shows a girl in a one piece swimsuit and two girls in bikinis. Both safe and tame. I think people were complaining because the first image is loli? Whatever. Changing it on the guideline page is probably easy.Last modified on 2020-05-15 at 19:19
#286 by beliar
2020-05-15 at 20:03
< report >Yeah, ok, it's easy to make the switch. Your pic is completely innocent, so it makes sense to replace the one that was a bit controversial.
#287 by desann
2020-05-15 at 20:34
< report >I see "This image has not yet been flagged. This warning can be disabled in your account" message for some of the images (for example Nikaidou Rie), but I don't see any related settings in profile settings. How do I disable that warning?
#288 by ganchan
2020-05-16 at 19:19
< report >@283 Wow, I thought there would be a way with CSS, but I didn't know it was so easy. I'll switch very frequently so I can imagine it being a pain to deal as @284 says, but I'm happy to be able to do it. Thank you.

@284 Good point, considering that there are many skins, I didn't even think about the background image, but adds more flexibility to the skins, so it's good to have it.
#289 by Yorhel
2020-05-17 at 06:23
< report >@desann: Hmm, unflagged images should be pretty rare when the edit form has been updated, but even after that they can still occur in the edit history. I've updated the logic to show unflagged images when your preferences are to show explicit + brutal images.

@ganchan: "Hide all images" option is now available. Of course, that still only applies to character images for the moment.
#290 by dk382
2020-05-17 at 20:37
< report >Found a case that doesn't seem to be covered by our guidelines or the discussions had here thus far: link

She's on the toilet and appears to be in the process of using it. Even if you can't see anything, is this alone enough to make it suggestive? My gut instinct was to mark it as suggestive, but the other four voters didn't.
#291 by beliar
2020-05-17 at 20:51
< report >Dunno, man. Everything's covered - there is not a single peep of skin there. Even if she is sitting on the toilet, I personally wouldn't consider that fact in on itself "suggestive". I would say it's "safe" and it seems at least Traumatizer felt the same way when voting.
#292 by fllthdcrb
2020-05-17 at 21:02
< report >It's just someone sitting on a toilet. The framing, the body position, the facial expression, the lack of skin (for the most part), etc., none of it seems suggestive.
#293 by Ileca
2020-05-17 at 21:22
< report >It's about seeing her in a compromising position. You don't draw your heroine taking a dump just because you have too much time in your hands.
I mean, who is not thinking about crouching to receive the exquisite gold in their mouth when looking at such CG? It's no different than hearing your love interest taking a shower. If someone was gazing at you when doing your business, you might call that sexual harassment for a reason.Last modified on 2020-05-17 at 21:23
#294 by dk382
2020-05-17 at 21:47
< report >While I disagree with the... particulars of eacil's assessment, it is the fact that this is a 'compromised' position that led me to thinking of it as suggestive. I get that it doesn't break the existing guidelines, but I thought maybe this was an edge case.

My thought process when voting was that the act of using the toilet is a very private matter that we generally want to prevent others from witnessing. This, combined with the angle of the shot, lends the image a certain voyeur-esque quality, which for some may not be considered fully safe for work.
#295 by ganchan
2020-05-18 at 15:38
< report >@289 Works like a charm. Thank you very much.
#296 by rapi
2020-05-23 at 15:24
< report >This is oddly entertaining.
Anyways, I've been wondering; do tentacles count as tame for violence and extra 69GGGGG unrealistic breast size count as suggestive for sexual content? I usually look at what other people have voted when in doubt and I've seen people voting both ways.Last modified on 2020-05-23 at 15:24
#297 by beliar
2020-05-23 at 15:32
< report >Huge breasts by themselves are safe, so they would only be suggestive if they are popping out of the clothes or the nipples are prominently stretching the fabric.
The tentacles by themselves also count as tame if they are simply restraining or fucking the victim. In some cases the tentacles have needles to inject aphrodisiac, which would be violent if they did that. The case where the tentacles ram right through the victim (entering the pussy or anus and exiting through the mouth) has a bit of controversy, but in a fantasyland of eroge that shouldn't be violent either, unless we see blood or something to indicate they are actually hurting the victim physically.
#298 by mysterio777
2020-05-26 at 00:54
< report >Not sure if this is the place to ask, but how does one go about reporting obvious trolls who just flag every image as explicit/brutal? Either trolling or using a bot to auto vote. Not sure what the deal is but it's pretty annoying.
#299 by warfoki
2020-05-26 at 01:03
< report >Link them in this very thread.
#300 by mysterio777
2020-05-26 at 09:51
< report >Ok


Everything he flagged is explicit/brutal, even images that are anything but.