|#101 by beliar|
2020-03-30 at 20:06
I want to be in hell with wakaranai and vote it safeIt's warm in there and no Corona-chan. And all the torture and burning brimstone is for religious folk anyway.
The hell for us godless perverts is a 24/7 bar with free beer and futa waitresses. :-)
|#102 by eacil|
2020-03-30 at 20:18
|Sure you will go to hell if you don't stop discriminating against delicious flat chest, Skorpion.|
See-through clothes (regardless whether they are like that by design or because they are wet like in this example) that allows underwear / naked body to be seen is always at least suggestive.I don't know what is hard to understand here. Also, this is not an outfit for going on a beach so the comparison to swimsuit is void. Do you go to school in bikini?
|#103 by skorpiondeath|
2020-03-30 at 20:51
Sure you will go to hell if you don't stop discriminating against delicious flat chest, Skorpion.I'll burn without regrets then... speaking of heresy, I would rather jerk off on a male naked chest at this point.
I don't know what is hard to understand hereIn fact there is nothing that I don't understand...simply I fail trying to accept it. Years and years of hentai, tentacles, extreme sexual practices to fall so miserably on a bodysuit... nope eacil my mom won't be proud of meLast modified on 2020-03-30 at 20:53
|#104 by eacil|
2020-03-30 at 21:58
|Yeah, you need to go back to fundamentals. Two weeks of abstinence and then you can only fap on napes of the neck, ankles, navels and armpits. That should restore your sensitivity balance.|
Exceptionally, I will allow it, but your sensitivity balance might irreversibly shift.
|#105 by skorpiondeath|
2020-03-30 at 23:35
|Shit, not only it backfired but you also brilliantly took me offguard...god knows if I love this site...respect eacil <3Last modified on 2020-03-30 at 23:36|
|#106 by savagetiger|
2020-03-31 at 11:27
Remember to look at the entire picture before voting, that vibe seems to have slipped by some people.
|#107 by lucumo|
2020-03-31 at 13:51
|At least they got it mostly right there.|
Meanwhile: "See-through clothes (regardless whether they are like that by design or because they are wet like in this example) that allows underwear / naked body to be seen is always at least suggestive." link
No one got that right before I came along...
|#108 by skorpiondeath|
2020-03-31 at 15:29
Remember to look at the entire picture before voting, that vibe seems to have slipped by some people.And now a pussy cannot listen to ipod...
No one got that right before I came along...Thanks for saving us, from...yes from what? I'll teach my 2 years son not to get suggested by a picture like that. I hope yorhel will be lax in his filters or there will be no characters to show in the safe version of VNDB
|#109 by lucumo|
2020-03-31 at 16:54
|Pretty useless response. Either people follow the guidelines or they are pointless. Alternatively, change the guidelines because it's 100% in one certain category and if people, including what counts as moderators here, ignore the guidelines, why are we even doing it? |
As for a safe version of VNDB, reading helps. Linked in the first post: link
|#110 by skorpiondeath|
2020-03-31 at 17:03
|@lucumo: that's barely see-through clothes. I find your answer pretty useless tbh, expecially funny going on my moderator status...I just moderated by telling you that I find it safe.|
|#111 by sakurakoi|
2020-03-31 at 17:07
Thanks for saving us, from...yes from what?Mind, lucumo isn't pedantic... but being stu... simply not the best in language, in general.
Obviously see-through should be considered as "not there" i.e
if it just covers an arm, it does not matter,
if it covers so much of whatever/all sides, it makes clothes "skimpy" and hence suggestive
while when it covers explicit bits, it ranges from suggestive to explicit depending on the transparency/if bits are shown or mosaiced
the example does not come close to the 2nd, to becoming skimpy
|#112 by beliar|
2020-03-31 at 17:15
|I'm with Skorpion and strangely Sakura here. Lucumo, you are looking at the exact wording, but missing the actual spirit of the guidelines. The transparent clothing only reveals what is essentially a cleavage here. Everything else, including the totality of breast area, is covered by a fantasy style suit.|
Now, the picture does lend on the border between the "safe" and the "suggestive", but I would personally vote "safe", as the pose, the angle we look at and the covered area makes the image look that way to me.
|#113 by lucumo|
2020-03-31 at 17:20
|@110: "Barely see-through", except from basically the neck down, excluding 1/4 of the breasts. It's even more see-though than the example used for "Suggestive,Tame", just no blushing and well, she wears no bra in the first place. Not funny mentioning moderators (not specifically you, as beliar voted the same for instance), considering that usually moderators are supposed to lead by good example and also read forum rules and guidelines. But I guess in your case, that was expecting too much.|
@111: Whatever wording I chose, it always sounded meh. So I went with balancing it out in the end (aka make the first part sound less bad by adding a second, not ideal, part).
@112: The issue is that the wording is extremely clear. "See-through clothes [...] that allows [...] naked body to be seen is always at least suggestive."
If we kept it to underwear being seen, I would have no issue with it (the see-through part at least). For cleavage and the like, tame/suggestive is different from person to person after all.
But even with underwear being seen via see-through, people rate it safe: linkLast modified on 2020-03-31 at 17:42
|#114 by skorpiondeath|
2020-03-31 at 17:23
|@113: I did read them. I'm sorry I can't get you in your good side. Big hugs.|
|#115 by beliar|
2020-03-31 at 17:42
The issue is that the wording is extremely clear. "See-through clothes [...] that allows [...] naked body to be seen is always at least suggestive."Wait, what? Are you telling me, that you assume that the guidelines encourage you to use "suggestive" for any transparent clothing that exposes some part of a naked body? Because that's not the case, or otherwise if a character wore transparent thigh-high stockings or had transparent sleeves on a blouse, they would also qualify for "suggestive". Naked body, if it wasn't clear, in this case refer to naturally explicit or suggestive areas, like breasts, crotch area, buttocks, etc. Also could refer to situations where the whole cloth is transparent, but the char covers her explicit areas with hands or somesuch, so the pose only becomes suggestive, instead of explicit
For the character in question, the transparent cloth covers the cleavage, and as you have said, the revealed cleavage is very subjective and wildly depends on the user voting.
|#116 by lucumo|
2020-03-31 at 17:50
|@115: Yeah, I thought about clarifying that but refrained from it in the end. Obviously, not just some small or some "unimportant" part, hence me writing "basically from the neck down, excluding 1/4 of the breasts". If it were like half the breasts or something, no issue but it being really skimpy in that area + the whole stomach makes it definitely fall in the category where see-through is relevant.|
Also, see my edit, last line.
|#117 by beliar|
2020-03-31 at 17:56
But even with underwear being seen via see-through, people rate it safe: linkWith that I agree with you at least. The pic seems rather suggestive for me. It's both partially transparent and so short on the bottom that it reveals underwear.
|#118 by skorpiondeath|
2020-03-31 at 18:06
|@116: Ok trying to be serious since situation requires it. link yes this case is on another level, since we said panty shots must be considered suggestive. Not only transparency here, but a bit of underwear revealed.|
Probably it should have been wise to follow rampaa advice and actually revise cleavages too into the guidelines.
I personally stopped voiting like I said, because not agreeing to some part of the guideline doens't mean I'm going to ruin other people effort if we are aiming for a child's degree of safeness...
Not that I agree but I'll follow if that's the case.Last modified on 2020-03-31 at 18:13
|#119 by lucumo|
2020-03-31 at 18:18
|@118: Personally, I prefer the guidelines to be as clear as possible. After all, I'm voting after the guidelines, not what I personally think would be safe or suggestive. |
And yeah, that's the apparent goal after all. Personally, I have an issue with the guidelines when it comes to this: "Both characters are fully clothed, but "proper", mouth-to-mouth kissing should be flagged as suggestive." link
Now, the example is a pretty suggestive example, saliva dripping and all...but there are enough innocent "mouth-to-mouth kissing" pictures around. And everything being suggestive would be weird, unless we are not going for "child's degree of safeness" but "American degree of safeness".
|#120 by beliar|
2020-03-31 at 18:42
|I personally also do not agree with that part of the guidelines that makes all mouth-to-mouth kissing suggestive, but it would be very hard to formulate what separates "innocent" kissing and "lewd" kissing, thus leaving a great degree of subjectivity.|
Our guidelines are already pretty subjective, so maybe not separating "degrees of kissing" is the better way to go...
@Skorpion: i don't think you should stop voting just because you don't agree with how some people vote. I think it's even better to have more diverse opinions expressed through votes, and Yorhel seems to agree with that too. I also sometimes don't agree with other users' votes, but that doesn't stop me from voting myself.
Probably it should have been wise to follow rampaa advice and actually revise cleavages too into the guidelines.I think that's a bad idea, as I have expressed in t13727.48 already.
tl;dr Voting will take care of it - no need to fret ;-)Last modified on 2020-03-31 at 18:42
|#121 by horrorizer|
2020-03-31 at 19:57
|About my previous statement @54|
I found this extreme Example
I wold love to hear what is this if way down to explicit, or way up to safe.
Note that I have no research of the character in question is male of female as I should not have to.
|#122 by skorpiondeath|
2020-03-31 at 20:00
|@121: female, explicit.|
|#123 by beliar|
2020-03-31 at 20:14
When in doubt, it's often best to choose the more conservative option.If it's unclear from the image if the half-naked character is male or female, you should treat them as a female, because that is the more conservative option. hence Skorpion is right - the picture is Explicit.
|#124 by eacil|
2020-03-31 at 20:18
|I am with Lucumo on this one (because I am a good mod). You remove the fishnet and that is definitely a skimpy outfit. We see as much breast skin as if it was a micro bikini minus the underbreast, also most of her abdomen. Moreover, fishnet per se tends to have a sexual connotation.|
It's more the fact she is stone-faced and not designed as character of nukige that makes us forget that we would be plenty suggested if we met her in the street.Last modified on 2020-03-31 at 20:18
|#125 by skorpiondeath|
2020-03-31 at 20:18
|I think that trap male at this point should be considered explicit too, so if it was male or female it did not count. Just look at my signature picture...it's male but it's kinda explicit...|