Rating tags general

@Blissful690
All look Safe to me.

Safe or Suggestive?

(It’s been safe until a couple of years ago)

@NeutronStar
It seems a little close to the line, but Safe.

That’s good, because since it got made suggestive, I had it removed from my “Cute Glimmy” gallery, which is strictly safe images.

>>3196510
Does this count as rape or left as dubious? Latter was tagged by other users and artist hadn’t replied.

Edit:

Questionable or explicit? More detailed mare cameltoe

@Brokedownandmadeone
Hard to say on crying without any bondage or threats or such.

And that cameltoe level seems just Questionable.

The pic is rated suggestive, though I don’t see anything sexual or saucy, other than the two wearing swimming clothes only and Pinkie wearing a bikini and being slightly chubby here. Unless it has with them being partially clothed, I think it should be re-rated to safe.

@Panko Pai
Looks like uploader just wanted to be extra safe. Normal beach gear (so excluding micro bikinis etc.) is safely on the “safe” side.

@saby
Probably, considering there’s also the alternate edit where they’re completely nude (which is tagged Explicit as expected)

Is this one questionable or explicit? The uploaded tagged questionable, but based on what’s showing, I think it should be explicit. What say you?

@Jonny Manz
Questionable should be fine, it’s mostly just cameltoe down there.

@Princess Luna
That’s funny, my little eye definitely spies a full detailed bunghole with a string across.

@saby
It’s way too messy to really be sure, a lot of that looks like hair and just a continuation of the weird wavy shading from above.

Looks like it’s nonsexual drinking; a casual drink order being fulfilled. This is questionable, right?

@Princess Luna
It’s not hair. It’s some “sensitivity liquid” that’s dripping from the faucet above each of the openings. Das definitely inner booty wrinkle.

@Brokedownandmadeone
Questionable regardless of whether it’s sexual.

>>2752876 is currently explicit and semi-grimdark; is anything actually semi-grimdark about it?

@Background Pony #4230
No, looks to have been rated such because the pony is crying (dubious consent scenario) in the uncropped version.

Safe or Suggestive?

There’s nothing happening, though we can see what’s going to happen (a lot of BDSM equipment Celestia bringing with her magic, while holding Luna by her ear).

I think this is the right place.

Seems to be a lot of debate in the tagging history on whether or not this actually counts as vore and fetish.

By basic description, it is technically vore (which is “A living being mostly in another or otherwise being eaten.”, i.e. in every sense of the word), but I don’t see anything related to the fetish of vore. And it’s really messing with my filters.

.

That said, is there not a vore fetish tag that can focus on that specific aspect of it?

I don’t mind seeing characters eating stuff in a cartoon screencap or something, but to not hide that and hide other vore stuff takes several complex filters and it doesn’t always apply right. Doesn’t help most that uploaders don’t seem to know the ‘inside stomach’ tag exists.

@NeutronStar
Leftmost thing looks like large anal beads, I’m thinking Suggestive, but will have to bring it up with other staff.

@Chopsticks
Not the right thread, this is ratings only. Image shouldn’t be tagged fetish given nothing is being sexualized in-universe or by presentation.
The matter of a specific fetish tag is something that’s eventually going to be handled, but isn’t priority. Your current best bet would be complex filtering with “vore, fetish”.

@Princess Luna
Pardon me then, but, where does one go to discuss tags of specific images? Comments about tagging in an image itself get deleted, and the General Tagging topic thread looks like it’s only for the tags themselves.

And, related, where to go on images being tagged that might need added/subtracted en mass?

@Chopsticks
There’s a general tag discussion thread.

@Chopsticks
If it’s not ratings related, Tagging general. If it’s ratings related, this thread.

>>2393621 is currently explicit; if I’m not missing anything, it might properly be suggestive?