My Rating Tags Problem.

So, hi. It’s my second attempt to write this one. It turned out to be more complicated that I thought.
 
I’ve been on this site since the very begining, but in last couple of years I’ve notices that a tag use started to shift and I don’t like the way it’s shifting. Things that used to be tagged “questionable” are now spilling into “suggestive” (>>1854154 >>1849354 >>1825738 >>1770393 (deleted)), “suggestive” things are spilling into “safe” (like half of screencaps from recent “The Other Side”). And I know that there are always those borderline cases that you can’t clearly say how they should be tagged, but from my impression “back in a day” those borderline cases were dealt with by putting those images on the more explicit side of the tags (like, if it could be safe or suggestive, it would end up being suggestive), and now it seems like we are letting those borderline cases to spill onto the safer side.
 
When it comes to safe/suggestive tags I would say that the culprit here is the show itself. Since when the show started it was made for small children and now it’s leaning towards being for teenagers (and EQG is clearly for teenagers). The tags we are using were made back when it still was for small children, but now the show have changed and yet people are still acting like “if show did it - it’s safe”. It’s not true. Those years are behind us. Current show does suggestive things from time to time and it should be tagged as such, because otherwise it opens floodgates to adding all sorts of other borderline suggestive images (or even not borderline) to be tagged as safe. You can’t just stretch a definition of the safe tag to include everything in the show. It isn’t right. “If show did it - it’s safe” is not an axiom and not a rule. If the show does suggestive things then they are still suffestive. That’s just the reality.
 
Problem with suggestive/questionable tags is different. I don’t know where it’s comming from exactly. My best guess is that - we used to judge images by the context and now they are judged by the visual content. “Back in a day” if an image is clearly erotic or clearly showing that the context of it is sexual (like undressing in front of someone, for example) - it would be questionable, even if it hadn’t all that much nudity. But now it feels like suggestive tag is just “questionable but without a nipple”. And that’s sad, really.  
I also don’t agree with putting fetish images in the suggestive tag, since the context of a fetish image is always sexual, even if there’s no nudity whatsoever. There are some fetish images that could just be taken as normal images (like pictures of giant ponies or very fat ponies), so to them I would give a pass, but most fetishes are very up in your face with what they are about.
 
I think it’s pretty obvious that if I have problems with all of that I would like it to change. But I’m not here to fight for it, I’m not a very assertive person that has to have everything exactly how they like. I just want to say what I think is right. And I think, at the very least, it would be right to tip the scale of “where do we put borderline cases” back to “put them into risquer tags”, or maybe even go back to judging images by their context and not just by the visuals (I understand that it’s simpler to just judge based on the visuals, but, you know).
 
And as a final and probably completely pointless part, I would like to tell you what I think would be ideal. And as I’ve said, I’m not here to fight for it, I just gonna say what I think and… probably nothing will change, but I’ll say it anyway.
 
The short version of it:  
-explicit is porn  
-questionable is erotica (images that have a clear sexual context)  
~~suggestive are sexual jokes, innuendos, images that could be taken in a sexual way if you want, and “too sexy for a safe tag” images.  
-safe is nothing sexual whatsoever.
 
I could write a longer version or even work with someone on making it into an actual applicable tag guildelines, but I don’t really expect enough people and mods to get on my side. But, you know, if you people want to get into the details ~~ I’m down.
 
To be completely honest, my “ideal” system is a bit more strict even then what we had 6 years ago, but I never was all that bothered by the way everything was tagged. It’s just in last couple of years the shift towards putting risquer art in safer tags started to grind my gears enough to be bothered. (and I also was contacted by a mod, like a month ago, saying me to stop changing rating tags, cause apperently the way I change them is no longer “the way of the site”, so, that also added to my confusion and botheredness).
 
So, yeah. And now I sit and wait.
 
P.S.: Also some borderline semi-grimdark images are sometimes end up being safe (>>1854346 >>1782098). I’m throwing it in at the end, because I want this post to be focused on sexual rating tags, since it’s the main thing I wanted to say. But yeah. That’s also bothers me a bit.

 
False both ways (Over a Barrel is S1 episode for example), also, slippery slope. “Unedited show screencaps are always safe” does not lead to “things that resemble show screencaps are also safe”.  

It is and it is. If you want to context it being so, “LOLITISNT” is not a favorable argument.  

Appeal to nature fallacy.
 
Your argument is bad because it’s riddled with bad logic.  

Suggestive/questionable have a _definition, if someone isn’t using it you can report it and fix the tags. Again, if you want to contest the definition you’ll need a better argument than this.  

Appeal to emotion.  

Bad logic. You’re contradicting yourself on top of contradicting basic logic (it doesn’t matter that picture has fetishes in it, but how they’re presented).
 

THEENK OF THE CHEELDREN!!11oneoneone  

I fail to see how these are semi-grimdark same way I fail to see how “fuck” in text on image would make it suggestive (unless actual image applies, it’s “safe,vulgar”).

With regard to anything that is an unedited screencap from an episode, it is “Safe”.
 
“My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic” is rated TV-Y.
 
A program being rated “TV-Y” means the “program is designed to be appropriate for all children. Whether animated or live-action, the themes and elements in this program are specifically designed for a very young audience, including children from ages 2-6. This program is not expected to frighten younger children.” [ source ]
 
Hasbro takes their corporate Social Responsibility very seriously, and as a part of that they are committed to ensuring their programming is age appropriate for the TV-Y market.
 
So, I personally think that saying that anything Hasbro created for the TV-Y demographic is, by definition, “Safe” is a pretty safe bet.
 
That doesn’t mean that people woun’t read things into it, or find their personal fetishes represented in the show. Humans, after all, can see virtually anything as “suggestive”, from a dirty diaper to a lamp.
 
And while the show does have Easter eggs for older viewers, from Benny Hill references to the “sexy eating” scene you linked, those Easter eggs are always presented in a way that doesn’t violate the TV-Y rating.
 
And being able to see an image as suggestive, or being able to imagine a way in which an image might be suggestive to someone, doesn’t make a product designed, reviewed, audited, and then critiqued by parents groups across the planet for compliance with standards ranging from broadcaster guidelines to actual FCC rules backed by the authority of U.S. laws as being suitable for the TV-Y bracket as anything other than “Safe”.
 
2LDR: Safe doesn’t mean that no one will ever masterbate to it or interpret it sexually.
 
All of what I’ve just said is only with regard to unedited images or animations from the show or other official content and products created or authorized by Hasbro or its licensees.

@Ciaran  
Well, the problem with this argument is that - we don’t tag things “TV-Y”, we tag them “safe” and “suggestive”. Those tags have logic behind them and I think we should rely on that logic instead of relying on institutionalised ratings, because the vast majority of what we’re dealing with here is art produced by fans that we will have to rate relying on the logic that we understand.
 
edit: What I mean is that, if safe tag as we knew it didn’t tend to include pictures of suggestive eating, them maybe we shouldn’t include them, even if they came from the show, even if they are complient with TV-Y.

@Background Pony #2FF6  
If it’s from an official Hasbro product or broadcast, it is “Safe”.
 
You provided examples of unedited screencaps from the show as things that you think should not be rated “Safe”.
 
But those images are “Safe for work and children.” From the creators of the franchise through all the layers of ratings and standards review for children’s programming, they have been deemed “Safe”.
 
That rating work has already been done by others, at great expense, with literally billions of dollars riding on getting the consistent answer “Safe”, and doesn’t need to be redone just because you feel a show that is rated TV-Y in the U.S. is somehow “unsafe for children”.
 
And please don’t pick on Nootz. Seriously, what the fuck.

@Barhandar  

I don’t see why it couldn’t.  

I don’t understand how you not see my point here, but sure, I’ll explain myself better. What I ment is that if show did things that we can count as suggestive - we should count them as suggestive instead of moving our understanding of safe tag so it could include everything the show does.  
||

Really dude? It was just a turn of phrase. I’ve made my argument in a previous sentense. I was just playing with my words here.||  

Definition that was writen by people. And I’m here to present my point to those people. I don’t understand what are you getting at here.  
||

Again with this. You do not understand fun, do you?||  

Just saying that my logic is bad, but then not explaining why and how is it bad does not make me think that my logic was bad.  

Are you just dissing me for no reason? Are you a troll? Or is it how you have fun with your words? :3  

From tag guidlines:  

Grimdark implications
Non-serious grimdark situations (dark comedy)

@Ciaran  
Well, okay. So I understand that you (and probably the mods as well) value the results of the rating system more then a sort of “homebrewed” logical approach. That if we thought something was suggestive, but then an episode of MLP came out with something like that, then we were wrong in our understanding of safe and suggestive tag, because… all of the reasons that you’ve brought up (it went through the layers of ratings, and came through, and so on). And this is just something that we would have to disagree on. As I said, I’m not here to fight for my ideas, I’m here to just exclaim them. So, I don’t really think that we should put an equal sign between safe tag and TV-Y rating. We can have our own understanding of what safe tag should and shouldn’t have, and authority of ESRB and others mean nothing to us, until we want it to mean something, until we want to argee that they right and we should follow them. And based on what they have given TV-Y rating to I don’t want our safe tag to follow their lead. But, you know, it’s just something that we will have to disagree on and go our ways.

@Ciaran  
Also, when I was picking on Nootz? I have nothing against Nootz.

@Ciaran  
Also I do honestly think that as an episode “Simple ways” overall is safe, and it makes sense that is does comply with TV-Y, definitely. But that particilar moment is pushing the extent of that rating. It’s a short moment that children won’t pay enough attention to and won’t have enough context to understand, but it does go a bit over the edge. And if I would have to rate the entire episode, I would give it “safe”, no doubt. But if I was rating that particular moment in it, I would gave it “suggestive”. And the thing is - we aren’t rating entire episodes, we are rating pictures and short clips.  
So that’s basically why I’m not into idea of relying on episode ratings.  
Just trying to explain my logic here.

So your issues with the ratings system appear to be these:  
1 - You want “Safe” restricted to TV-Y (show and original EqG) and not include TV-Y7 (EqG series stuff), PG (MLP: The Movie), or whatever the comics are  
2 - You want its overall divide with Suggestive based on when things become too appealing (to straight American guys)  
3 - You want the Suggestive/Questionable divide based on context instead of content, with fetishes Questionable with exceptions by content
 
On 1, I think it’s completely ridiculous to have official content (or artwork that is no more intense) spoilered by the default filter for being too sexy/dark; it would just cause incredible annoyance for the average show-watcher without being at all necessary.  
I think we can live with things like Sombra’s death scene and Rarity laying on her belly smiling at the camera seen by kids, as long as we also make sure to cut things off before the skimpy outfits get too skimpy or there starts to be bending over at the camera (both of which EqG would probably never do).
 
The parenthetic I put in 2 is important because it highlights the subjectivity issue of “too sexy”. Put simply, we’ll argue on ratings to no end (regardless of any “if both possible, choose this one” approach, as it just changes where the goalposts are, not our ability to come to a conclusion in general) without some objective approach.  
We have a staff member who is female and very straight and pretty much without fail, she will not see something like Rarity on her belly as sexy.
 
3 is interesting because I’m not sure what specific content you’re taking issue with; the vast majority of fetish content that has been interpreted as Suggestive is inflation and fat fetish. Are we talking about non-messed diapers, mawshots/prevore, showing feet to the camera, or something else?  
This is the one area where everything is far less certain, as I’m quite sure there has to be content-based splitting (pretty much nobody objects to sneezing fetish largely rated safe, but diapers and bodily functions are both contentious if placed below questionable).  
If I were able to redo the ratings system from scratch back in the day, I’d probably make a rating between Safe and Grotesque spoilered by the default filter, and the contentious fetishes (which all seem to be contentious because they’re gross) would be rated it and Suggestive. For that matter, it would probably cover urine and feces in their entirety, whether fetishized or not; currently both can be in Safe if not sexualized and in the case of the latter, not detailed at all.

@Princess Luna  
You’re slightly missing the main thing that I was getting at, and that’s my fault actually. I got carried away with all the various things I wanted to write about, instead of focusing on my main issue. The main issue that I have is that nowadays borderline cases are being resolved in favore of putting risquer images in safer tags and that didn’t used to be the case. Things that used to end up “suggestive” are now sometimes tagged “safe”, things that used to end up tagged “questionable” are now end up tagged “suggestive”. That’s the issue. Everything after that are my speculations about as to why that’s happening and what could be an ideal way to stop it and/or prevernt it from happening in the future. Thanks for reading the entire thing, but yeah, it appears to me that my main gripe was somewhat lost in that block of text I’ve produced (I had a lot to say on the issue and didn’t organized it in the best way).
 
But to answer your points, since you wrote them.  
1 - Yes, you’re pretty much correct, I think ideal would be to not include TV-Y7 and PG. And no, I don’t find that ridiculous. Of course I don’t know how the vast majority of people is using the site and how the average show-watcher is using it, but even if we tag some things in the show suggestive, all we need to do for all of it to show up in default search is change default filter to include “suggestive, screencap, ~~edit”. But sure, if it bothers you for whatever reason ~~ make an exception for the show and have it all tagged safe, I don’t really mind that part. The problem is that for whatever reasons for a couple of years I’m seeing more and more suggestive images being tagged as safe. I blame show appealing to a growing audience and think that rating screencaps accordingly would solve the problem, but I don’t know, and if there’s another way to solve it - I’m open to all suggestions.
 
2 - Well, as I said, it was a short version. If you want I can get into details and specifics that will remove ambiguity in more or less the same way current guildelines do. But I don’t know if we really should be getting into it, since my final suggestion was more of a “I wish it could be this way”, kind of thing, that reworks the tag system entirely, which is not necessary to solve my main problem here.
 
3 - Diaper fetish, fart fetish, foot fetish, tickle fetish, vore, and others that I’m maybe forgetting. But again, that’s not my main problem here. It’s just my opinion. If you want to keep fetishes in suggestive - sure. I disagree with that logic, but I’m just one guy and I’ll live. But can we not have nudity and erotica in suggestive? Cause it’s spiling in.
 
And again, all of these points aren’t my main problem here. I hope I’ve explained that now. Sorry for organizing my original post in such a way that it seemed to get everyone confused about what my actual problem is. It was my second attempt already, and it was a lot better then the first one, so I decided to go with it.

@Background Pony #2FF6  

 
No. I appear to not be communicating with you yet. Anything Hasbro makes is rated safe. There is no assessment involved - that is a rule. There is absolutely zero review of anything made by Hasbro. It is simply rated Safe for Children.
 
Fan made content, which is literally everything else on the site, are all rated based on our site’s ”‘homebrewed’ logical approach” which has grown out of 6 years of crowd-sourced peer review and input based on guidance from the rating wizards here on staff.
 

 
That isn’t how it works. We don’t change our ratings based on what is in the show.
 
You appear to be trying to get us to ask; “Based on what Hasbro has done, what is safe?”, with the expectation that “If something appears in the show that is similar to something that was previously rated ‘Suggestive’, then we have to rethink what ‘Suggestive’ means for all images on the site”.
 
Instead, this is a given:
 
If Hasbro made it, it is ‘Safe for Children’.
 
Hasbro isn’t a ruler against which we measure ratings. They are the Ruler of their Assets. Put the rule “If Hasbro made it, it is ‘Safe for Children’.” in a compartment and seal it away from the rest of the discussion of ratings.
 
Content from Hasbro is a solid unit of product that we receive without a rating review. Everything that comes out of the “Hasbro’s Assets” box comes with one and only one label on it and it gets put on the shelf, and we don’t touch that label.
 
Everything else that comes in is fan made and subject to review and assessment, based on our site’s ”‘homebrewed’ logical approach”.
 

 
That only applies to Hasbro’s assets.
 
If some other show made by some other company makes something that is used on the site then it is rated based on what is in the image, not based on the rating of the show that the crossover image was based on.
 
ESRB and other rating systems do inform the growth of the tagging guidelines, but they don’t dictate it - except in those cases where it is a legal requirement for the continued operation of the site. For example, if France or Germany say; “The rating of this image is that it is illegal to host it and make it available to others”, then that’s not open for debate.
 
After all, this site doesn’t operate in a vacuum, and it only continues to exist because of the good graces and enormous generosity of Hasbro. I’m just speculating, but Disney would probably have shut this down by now.
 

 
Have fun with your new site where you’re going to be rating individual screencaps from Hasbro one by one, and the rating system will be based on subjective criteria like ‘context’ rather than on what’s in the image. When it’s up and running let me know what it’s called and I’ll check it out.
 
Seriously - I wish you the best possible success.

@Ciaran  
As I said, this is just something we will have to disagree on and go our ways. We’re not gonna convince each other here.
 
I like logic and idea of deciding for myself, instead of relying on other’s opinions, even if those opinions come from multibillion industries and long established intitusions. Everyone can be wrong. Both, industries and their regulators were wrong in the past. And I’m just way into freethinking to even bother to care what they have to say unless it speaks to my logic. You not gonna convince me to change my ways, and I’m not gonna convince you to think like I do. And that’s just the end of that story.
 
I don’t really understand why you should be so bitter about it, with the obvious “not gonna happen” suggestion to have my own site at the end. I like this site. I’m having a bit of a problem with it right now, but I want to talk about it and find some way to resolve it. Am I not welcome to do that?

@Background Pony #2FF6  

 
This site depends on its community for proper tagging. If you are not ok following the site & the community’s guidelines, please do not change the rating tags on images.
 

 
I’m not bitter - and the rating of Hasbro assets isn’t going to change.
 
You said we should “both go our own ways”, but if that means you’re going to tag images as you see best, then you’re going to be breaking our rules. I hope you won’t do that.
 
Because the community and rules aren’t going to “go it’s own way” if you tag Hasbro assets as anything other than “safe”.
 

 
Feel free to discuss it. But until such time as you convince the community and site to subjectively rate images from Hasbro’s show rather than treating them as “safe” as it currently does, or rate images based on context rather than content, please follow our rules.

@Ciaran  
As I said to a mod that asked me to stop changing rating tags (which I did) - I’m not a criminal that wants to go on a rampage. You can just talk to me and ask me. You don’t have to try to beat me into a pulp to demotivate me. Like, I’m a reasoanble person. I wasn’t breaking any rules until they have changed without me knowing it. I’m not gonna go and break them, just because I don’t agree with the change. It’s gonna be worse for me if things will stay as they are now or even will go further into “including risquer art in safer tags”, but if no one cares and it will end up being just my problem, I’ll deal with it on my own. You don’t need to try to stop me, because I’m not gonna do anything bad. Okay?
 
I’m just here to say what I think. That’s all.

@Background Pony #2FF6  
I’m not trying to demotivate you. I also get the sense that “what passes for suggestive or questionable” has been moving around over time. The only think I’m disagreeing with you about is whether Hasbro created content should always be tagged “Safe”.
 
Like, I’m not aware there was ever a time when images from the show were not rated as “safe” by default - I don’t think that’s something that changed. So I guess I also disagree with you about that also.
 
I don’t disagree with you about really anything else. Except that Nootaz image that you keep asking about. That’s cute. And I think it’s perfectly safe. Nootaz: srs bzns.
 

 
So - please talk about what the Suggestive and Questionable tag changes are that you would like to see. But please take the whole “Should Hasbro created content be tagged safe?” question off the table.

@Ciaran  
If a type of content is Safe according to Hasbro, it is safe by our standards, the show does carve out things sometimes as safe that we’d assumed were higher-rated in the past (however, this is almost always in the semi-grimdark direction, and very rarely in the suggestive direction*).  
Safe is a measure of acceptability of media to show to children, and content in the show gives us a minimum idea of what content that is (without giving us a maximum, we have to figure that part out ourselves).
 

@Ciaran  
Well, I don’t know if you’ve read my answer to Princess Luna here, but the Hasbro thing isn’t what I care about really. The whole reason why I brouhg that up is because it was my guess as to why safe/suggestive tagging is shifting (people are seeing that show is still tagged safe even when it’s doing things that’re borderline not and they follow), but I don’t know if that’s the reason. If I knew that people will react so aggressively to me questioning Hasbro’s actions, I would’ve gone a completely different way when talking about safe/suggestive tags.
 
P.S.: But on the back of the Noot it says “how to kill people and eat flesh”. It’s seems like a bit of dark comedy to me. Like, I’m not saying that it’s a bad thing. There’s nothing wrong with it. It’s cute and funny. I’m just saying that it looks dark comedy enough to me to be tagged “semi-grimdark”.

Well, now I’m looking at my first post and the outcome that it brought, I almost want to restart. Because that first post is a result of me spilling all I had building up for years about this, and it’s a mess. I should’ve just gone with “hey, let’s talk about “safe/suggestive” and “suggestive/quetionable” borderline cases and why are they now resolved less conservatively”. I almost want to ask to delete this thread and start a new one. Or we could just try to ignore all that confusion and move onto the borderline case discussion.

@Background Pony #2FF6  
They’re resolved less conservatively in large part because we now have a ton of actual definitions so that people don’t have to argue for hours with no real resolution. Additionally, sometimes artists get mad if their work is considered porn when it’s not (and having actual definitions with more objective measures changes the semantics behind that, removing the reason to be mad, which is unfair treatment and assumption of intentions).  
In regards to why people would still argue for hours even with “if in doubt, rate higher”, that’s because you just change goalposts, but are playing the same crazy game. It doesn’t matter if the 50 or 40 yard lines are where the touchdown happens if you still have to have the whole Football game and the starting point’s determined by the image (you can always find another image that’s a little less Suggestive and be right back to square one).
 
Additionally, I’ve personally discovered that some people (like you in particular) have incredibly aggressive views of what’s sexual that would put an innocent scene interpretation of parts of the show Suggestive, and having an “if in doubt, rate higher” clause thus leads to inconsistent ratings (because, remember, the show being Safe is non-negotiable) which upset people without any benefit (as people aren’t protected from the stuff if the show version of it’s Safe, and yet people are also restricted from it if the show version’s non-Safe).  
Additionally, someone malicious could even untruthfully say that an image should be rated higher, at which point we must either rate higher by the rule, or say no, breaking the rule, as we cannot read minds.  
Going with some kind of midpoint makes outliers much easier to deal with than going with a maximum or minimum.

@Princess Luna  

Oh, I got a good long whiff of it not being negotiable with two staffers, one here, one in my messages, yelling at me about it. I won’t forget, don’t you worry. I still don’t agree with it, but I will not negotiate, cause it doesn’t lead anywhere other then getting a bunch of people to yell at me.
 
Like, the thing is, I’m not a prude or against porn or anything like that. I just like when things make sense. And it’s not just about safe/suggestive tag, it’s also happening with suggestive/quetionable tags. Tagging used to make sense to me and now it doesn’t.  
Basically, I get a feeling that “lewds are spreading”, jokingly speaking. And I’m not against porn or lewds, I just like things to be separate. And they feel less and less separate as time goes on. Which is weird, because weren’t tags made to separate things? That’s the logic that doesn’t checks out anymore in some cases.
 
And yes, at the end of a day it’s all just a gradient that we are just putting some lines on to split it in parts. But it seems that the logic behind these lines is getting more complex, confusing and jumbled.

@Background Pony #2FF6  
I think you’re lacking perspective on the changes to ratings over time. That is, while things have definitely drifted down in ratings, I don’t think they were ever so simple (nor completely in line with what you think on ratings). So, here are the rating guidelines as they were before the major rewrite (ignore that Semi-grimdark is missing…this was a flaw in the guidelines and I don’t think we’ll get to talking about issues relating to it specifically):  

 
Now, as an exercise, I want you to first rate a series of images (chosen for them being the more sensitive areas involved here) based on the above, and justify why each is the chosen rating in a short sentence, then do the same under the current guidelines. I will do the same without reading your response first, and we will compare our solutions (especially how much they match, how much we agree with them, how easy they were to come to, and how justifiable they are). Then, we can have a somewhat more informed discussion on the nature of the changes. Here is the list of images, in order of current rating from Safe to Questionable and in suborder of most recent to least recent:  
Safe:  
>>1852847  
>>1852371  
>>1850961  
>>1845585  
>>1819448 (deleted)  
>>1762305  
>>1652614  
>>845208  
>>9337  
>>1949  
Suggestive:  
>>1853900  
>>1853038  
>>1826635  
>>1826476  
>>1824916  
>>1759596  
>>1690675  
>>1680299  
>>448146  
Questionable:  
>>1806602  
>>1695272  
>>135288

@Princess Luna  
Now we’re talking! :3  
Okay. Here we go.
 
Old guidelines:  
(As I was writing this I realised that my current confusion is messing with me a bit. It’ve been awhile since I was judging things purely on how it was back then. I don’t know if I was spot on in some cases).
 
Safe:  
>>1852847 - Safe. Pose, gesture, expression and lolipop are used in a fun, joky kind of way. Clothes are on a bit on a revealing side, but nothing overt about them.  
>>1852371 - (oh, it’s getting difficult already). Questionable? Subject matter is strongly imlying either a fetish or a blowjob.  
>>1850961 - Suggestive. Bedroom eyes, sexy pose.  
>>1845585 - Safe. From the thumbnail it could look like Diamond Tiara is naked, but she is just in a suit.  
>>1819448 (deleted) - Safe. There’s nothing explicitly fetishistic about it. It could just be a fart joke.  
>>1762305 - Suggestive. A deep tongue kiss, both are blushing heavily.  
>>1652614 - Safe. AB is refering to her flanks as a turn of phrase “watch yourself” and not as “look at my butt”.  
>>845208 - emm… This one is tough. Suggestive. It could be a crude joke or a fetish material, but whichever one it is, an image of a public urination could perturb some people.  
>>9337 - Safe. There’s a bit of a bedroom eyes going on, but it could be just a gental smile. It doesn’t seem to imply sexual context.  
>>1949 - Suggestive? I think it has enough going on to be suggestive: bedroom eyes, maid outfit, the plot.  
Suggestive:  
>>1853900 - Suggestive. Butt is front and center, and clearly that’s the main focus of the image.  
>>1853038 - Suggestive. It is a fetish material, but there’s nothing even remotely sexual going on.  
>>1826635 - Safe, actually. You really need to be in a fetish mindset to see it as anything other then an innocent slice of life moment.  
>>1826476 - Suggestive. Reference to sex.  
>>1824916 - Questionable. Overtly sexual fetish material.  
>>1759596 - Questionable? I would actually give it “suggestive”, but rules say sloppy kissing is questionable.  
>>1690675 - Suggestive. Fetish material without anything sexual.  
>>1680299 - Questionable. Bottomless, partial nudity, clearly sexually revealing.  
>>448146 - Suggestive. Fetish material without anything sexual. I’m less sure about this one.  
Questionable:  
>>1806602 - Questionable. It’s not any more sexual then the ones I’ve given “suggestive”, but there so much more fetish material. It’s strong with this one.  
>>1695272 - Questionable. Fetish material with strong sexual implications (from the fact it’s a living sex doll).  
>>135288 - Questionable Fetish material with a panty shot.
 
New guidelines:  
(And here is where me not understanding of current tags is kicking in. I half the time just want to give the same rating).
 
Safe:  
>>1852847 - Safe. For the same reasons.  
>>1852371 - Suggestive. Sexually emphasized body areas. “Presenting a throat” if you will.  
>>1850961 - Safe. Cause sexy poses or bedroom eyes are no longer suggestive.  
>>1845585 - Safe. For the same reasons.  
>>1819448 (deleted) - Safe. For the same reasons.  
>>1762305 - Suggestive. Because tongue kissing is still suggestive.  
>>1652614 - Safe. For the same reasons.  
>>845208 - Does a stream of pee counts as a reference to genetalia? I’m gonna say it does. Suggestive.  
>>9337 - Safe. For the same reasons.  
>>1949 - Safe. Cause bedroom eyes are safe now.  
Suggestive:  
>>1853900 - Suggestive. Presenting.  
>>1853038 - Suggestive. For the same reasons (Fetish material without anything sexual).  
>>1826635 - Safe. For the same reasons.  
>>1826476 - Suggestive. Reference to sex.  
>>1824916 - Suggestive. Sexually emphasized body areas. “Presenting a throat”.  
>>1759596 - Suggestive. Because tongue kissing is still suggestive.  
>>1690675 - Suggestive. For the same reasons.  
>>1680299 - Suggestive. Presenting a butt.  
>>448146 - Suggestive. For the same reasons (Fetish material without anything sexual).  
Questionable:  
>>1806602 - I… honestly have no idea with this new guidelines where this one should go. I guess Questionable. Gross out scenarios.  
>>1695272 - Questionable. Sex toys.  
>>135288 - Suggestive. “Feet worship”.
 
Also. I now have read tag guidelines over and over, and the lack of any discription for safe tag, other then “safe for children” and “everything from the show is safe” does not help to understand what should and shouldn’t be safe. No wonder it feels like people are just following what the show is doing, it’s like a half of the guideline for safe.
 
Also, I didn’t understand the part about anuses (I’m laughing as I’m writing this): “Moderately detailed anuses (such as a star in a circle), note that simple anuses (such as just a star) are like any normal body part (safe, suggestive if sexualized)”. Is it refering to like a japanese representation of an anus (just a cross)? What counts as moderately detailed? What is a simple anus? And if it’s a simple anus exposed front and center, then what? It’s suggestive? (I don’t know why it’s so funny to me X3).
 
I also think that in general we can go a lot further in specifying what goes where, in terms of tags. New tag guidelines have a lot more of a description now, but there’s still a lot of room for ambiguity. It’s also interesting how in some thing it’s very strict and clear (like, tongue kissing is suggestive and that’s it), but some things aren’t even mentioned (like urine or some other fetishes). It’s also hard to understand where some things should go, like panty shots or partial nudity or even full on nudity but with no nipples/genetalia showing. Based on what I’m seeing on the site, it’s all counted as suggestive, but I can’t figure it out based on guidelines.
 
Honestly going through this made me want to write a very detailed guidelines and logically explain each thing that I’m doing, because what I’ve learned is what I’ve suspected, which is - guidelines are a bit of a mess.

@Princess Luna  
Here are mine:  
Safe:  
>>1852847 Suggestive under old for revealing outfit on humanized (ish); Safe under new.  
>>1852371 Suggestive under old for unwritten “kitchen eyes” rule; Suggestive under new (tongue and drool like that sexually emphasizing the mouth).  
>>1850961 Suggestive under old for sexy pose on humanized; Safe under new.  
>>1845585 Same as above.  
>>1819448 (deleted) Safe and Safe.  
>>1762305 Suggestive under old for unwritten makeouts rule; Safe under new ).  
>>1652614 Safe and Safe.  
>>845208 Safe and Safe.  
>>9337 Suggestive under old for bedroom eyes; Safe under new.  
>>1949 Same as above.  
Suggestive:  
>>1853900 Questionable under old for revealing outfit on pony; Suggestive under new for sexual emphasis on plot.  
>>1853038 Questionable under old for fetish content (lack of clarity on context could put it at Safe); Suggestive under new for sexually-emphasized adults in diaper scenario (could still also be Safe).  
>>1826635 Safe and Safe.  
>>1826476 Suggestive under old (or Questionable, unclear which due to insufficient wording, could be seen as overt); Suggestive under new for reference to sex.  
>>1824916 Suggestive under old for unwritten “kitchen eyes” rule; Suggestive under new for sexual emphasis.  
>>1759596 Questionable under old for sloppy kissing; Suggestive under new for tongue-kissing.  
>>1690675 Suggestive under old for bedroom eyes; Safe under new (nothing special going on).  
>>1680299 Questionable under old for nudity on human; Suggestive under new for mostly-bare butt.  
>>448146 Questionable under old for fetish content (could be Safe instead); Questionable under new for sexually-emphasized scenario (could still also be Safe).  
Questionable:  
>>1806602 Questionable under old for fetish content; Questionable under new for sexually-emphasized gross scenario.  
>>1695272 Questionable under old for fetish content; Questionable under new for sexually-emphasized scenario (could be Suggestive instead if we don’t think wetting is gross, guidelines unclear).  
>>135288 Questionable under old for fetish content; Suggestive under new for sexually-emphasized scenario.

@Princess Luna  
Can I play too?
 
Safe:  
>>1852847 - Suggestive  
>>1852371 - Questionable  
>>1850961 - Safe  
>>1845585 - Safe  
>>1819448 (deleted) - Safe  
>>1762305 - Suggestive  
>>1652614 - Questionable  
>>845208 - Questionable  
>>9337 - Safe  
>>1949 - Safe  
Suggestive:  
>>1853900 - Suggestive  
>>1853038 - Questionable  
>>1826635 - Safe  
>>1826476 - Questionable  
>>1824916 - Questionable  
>>1759596 - Questionable  
>>1690675 - Questionable  
>>1680299 - Questionable  
>>448146 - Questionable  
Questionable:  
>>1806602 - Questionable (and grotesque and grimdark)  
>>1695272 - Questionable  
>>135288 - Questionable
 
 
Fix the ratings, stop downrating shit, fucking tired of it, and you know it.