Rating tags general

@Liggliluff  
If you consider plush fluff “horror”…
 
Body-horror, particularly relating to transformation art, is highly subjective.

@Damaged  
When I read this quote:  

 
I took the conclusion that what is visible is the inside of the flesh/muscles. That the fluffy stuffed suit turned into his actual body, actual meat and bone.
 
The body horror comes into having zippers on your actual body, that you can open up to access the internals. Like semi-grimdark or just plain grimdark?

This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

your current filter.

 
Does anyone know what should be the rating of this? I tagged it as “explicit”, but fimfic allows it as a cover, and a comment is questioning if it really is explicit.

@Background Pony #5187  
There is no sex or nudity. Sperm approaching an egg doesn’t even necessarily imply sex because it doesn’t happen immediately during coitus, and it could happen following an AI or even on a petri dish. I’m no staff but I’m 100% confident it’s at most a “suggestive”. Possibly even “safe”, considering all that’s shown is just two types of cells interacting.

@Damaged  
Descriptions don’t matter, only how what they made comes across.
 
@Liggliluff  
I think you’re massively overthinking this. We don’t tag Semi-grimdark for that time the villain trio tore apart stuffed dolls of the mane 6 and Starlight.
 
@Background Pony #5187  
I think generally an egg being attacked by sperm by itself is Suggestive (if even that). It implies sex, but that’s about it.

I’m not seeing why this is tagged suggestive.  

@AngriestPone  
Might be because of the detailed sweat and boobies.

@mjangelvortex  
i suppose there is some cleavage going on, but this really doesn’t look that sexual to me.

@AngriestPone  
Yeah, it doesn’t to me either but maybe the person who tagged it did so just to be on the safe side.

@AngriestPone  
Likely the tagger going “WHOA THIS GIVES ME A BONER” and thus rating it up just because there’s an attractive individual in view, as happens quite regularly with a userbase full of straight males from a society that’s still rather sexist. It can be quite a chore to find and deal with these.

A user wonders if this is too detailed and crossing the border into explicit. It’s currently tagged as questionable, which states “Moderately-detailed genital or anus outlines in clothing”, but is this moderately? What are your takes on it?  

@Liggliluff  
Honestly that’s beyond “moderately detailed outline” and straight into “might as well color it blue and it will be her own bits instead of panties”.

@Liggliluff  
Seems fine within Questionable, although the little bits of detail around the inner line are really pushing it.

 
Locking someone who’s claustrophobic in a locker and shaking it. Should this be grimdark?
 
In short, for whom does “nightmare inducing/PTSD” apply, the characters or the viewer?

@Damaged  
Originally it was meant to apply to the characters, but at this point I think the entire phrasing is wrong and it should be more thought of in terms of impact on audience.  
Anyways, that’d be more Semi-grimdark territory as it’s not nightmares/PTSD-inducing usually…but then again, it’s no worse than some things we’ve seen on the show (e.g. >>984588, poor AJ), so Safe seems more reasonable.

@Princess Luna  
Thanks. I tagged it safe to begin with anyway, since it wouldn’t immediately be horrifying to readers. Thanks for the clarification on it. :)

@Damaged  
In general, the idea is immediate horror with the dark ratings, yeah. If you could get away with it on Saturday morning, it’s probably fine at Safe (maybe One Piece excepted).

>>2260778 (Questionable)
 
Is the cameltoe explicit enough?

@Background Pony #5187  
Asked earlier, I think it’s fine at Questionable, if on the high end of such.

Safe or suggestive?  

@Melisareb  
Generally we rate addition of a Brazzers logo Suggestive, as it’s saying that the image is porn, regardless of what’s actually in the rest of the image.

Given that the substance on the lightbulb in >>2264244 is highly implied to be ||vaginal secretions|| due to it being a sequel to >>2264241, should the rating be bumped up?

@Napsack  
Images are only rated according to what’s in the image. The image itself has nothing to suggest a sexual origin for the little puddle.

@Napsack  
Hmm, I’d say safe since the context isn’t exactly put into the image.

@Princess Luna  
Ok  
It is like screencap. So the Brazzers logo affects the rating.