Rating Tags General

@Somedragonguy  
Hey there!
 
All three images do not look like they breaking rule #5 as there’s no sexualization going on, they can be seen as parental figures naturally.
 
 
@Anonymous #1287  
Hey!
 
Both images can stay as tagged suggestive.
 
The first one has a little bit of detail to the remains but still nothing extraordinary, the dark part of being eaten/digested has already passed and like stated skulls and alike are mostly inoffensive to view, there’s no more suffering in the actual image.
 
Suggestive over safe simply because of the kinky nature of the theme.

Looking for a rating call for:  
>>31844
 
I’ve put it as suggestive now, due to the implication of something “Naughty” is about to happen, with how Marble is acting all nervous and setting up the camera. But should it be set to a different rating?

Considering similar images (>>3507, >>11906), shouldn’t this be Suggestive rather than Grimdark?  

 
Similarly, shouldn’t this be Suggestive rather than Questionable?  

Some more with the same issue:  
 

@Twifan  
I’d say Suggestive is fine, right at the end of the animation she goes highly suggestive on what she’s up to.

@Anonymous #1287  
Hello there!
 
Yes all these cases shouldn’t be rated Grimdark. We did a small revision on the first criteria for the Grimdark rating to help iron it out. The primary understanding with imminent death is about how graphically violent it gets and in all those cases there’s not enough of it.
 
Animals eating animals is part of nature and it’s a concept mature audiences are familiar with, there’s nothing dark on it alone so ‘clean’ portraits of it like those are fine to stick to sexual rating only.
 
Cases of predation are only going to be Grimdark when they become sufficiently graphically violent, such as this example (grimdark)
 
Cheers!

@Fleetfoot  
I see. Well, I’ve gone over things and I think I’ve dealt with most of what I think were incorrect taggings of Grimdark. There’s some other cases listed below I’m not sure on (stuff with no internal view but with a pretty good idea of bad stuff going on from the outside).  
 
 

Checking on rating tag change for >>32209
 
I put the image on explicit because of vaginal secretions, which are listed as explicit images on tagging help. Another user has changed the image to questionable. Are images that have vaginal secretions explicit, or have I misunderstood the tag help/the tag help page hasn’t been updated and is incorrect?
 
 
And it is Fluttershy you want to look at for why the image has that tag.

@Twifan  
Images with vaginal secretions should be explicit. The user who change the tags probably didn’t notice them. I changed it back to explicit.

Should this be Grimdark, given the crunching of the insect’s shell?  

 
So, this isn’t as much of an issue for this particular image, but for future reference, how would udders on a cow be treated by themselves ratings-wise? Suggestive like nipples on other animals are? Safe unless sexualized? They’re really no different from teats, imo
 
Also, is milk from udders “breast milk” or “milk”?

@Somedragonguy  
I would think whether it looks nipple-like or teat-like matters, and the latter is generally Safe on Derpi. Of course, that image has some pretty messy milk, so I’d not be super surprised at Suggestive for it.  
Pretty sure the tag should be “milk” considering it’s not coming from a breast.

@Anonymous #1287  
Derpi has to abide by the “if it’s on the show, it’s safe” rule. Furb presumably has no such restriction.

Whoops, realised it’s a topic for another thread. Nwm.

@Anonymous #1287  
Sorry a reply took so long.
 
In cases where there is no actual graphic depiction of digestion, the grimdark tag would not apply. If there are bones being disposed of, but the bones are clean and do not still have tissue attached, the grimdark tag also would not apply. If the character is shown in the stomach but is not in distress or otherwise being harmed, no grimdark tag. There are likely going to be edge cases that will need to be done case by case using one’s best judgement. Hope that helps!

 
Is suggestive correct for this one? I wanted to tag it safe because you can’t really see boobs, but the touching made me thing it’s gotta be at least suggestive.

@Anonymous #7754  
Suggestive is adequate, while perfectly harmless image the lip kissing and head going for breasts indeed provide enough ‘sexual context’ for the rating.

 
Put to “grotesque” just to be safe.

Body horror is part of grotesque.

The “semi-grimdark” tag still has a chance to be let loose into the image in this site somehow.

I don’t why this is safe instead of grimdark. I just saw it in default filter.  
>>41888 >>41885

@Radomila Radon  
Yeah, some people misread the rules, I fixed, you can check the tag history.

Question for tagging translucent clothes images like >>43481
 
Because the nipples are not visible, does it count as Safe? Or is the fact the character poses with translucent clothes count as “Characters presented in a ‘saucy’ manner” and thus stick with Suggestive?

@Twifan  
Safe is fine, nothing outright sexual about her pose besides featureless breasts are safe and it feels applicable here.

@Fleetfoot  
Good to know for future pictures. Thanks!