otaku_emmy said:
What about characters who are drawn like lolis even though they're older? Like Futaba Anzu?
Kiho said:
We should not be using backstory as a reason to tag loli or not. Does the character look loli? then it is loli regardless of the backstory.
Kiho's post was very clear and I agree with it.

In cases where a character is older but looks loli, we already tag those loli, don't we?

But as I said, that's just my opinion. If we are going to change our methods at this point, we would need to get approval from the admins (since it would affect what is tagged as explicit loli).
Zolxys said:
(since it would affect what is tagged as explicit loli).
That's my point. A lot of characters who aren't technically loli fit our defintion of loli, and so we'd ostensibly have a lot more rating Q and rating E loli.

For example, Yuuki Mikan has never looked like a loli, not even in the anime. But she's 12. So you'd be allowing explicit images of a 12 year old character on the site.

Anzu is 17, but is pretty much always looks like a loli in fan art. So all of her explicit and questionable posts would, due to ya'll's method, also be carrying the loli tag.

I don't want to create a loophole for lewd loli. "Oh, well she doesn't quite look loli (even though she's in elementary school lol), so it's okay if I post an image of her getting a dicking."
otaku_emmy said:
I don't want to create a loophole for lewd loli. "Oh, well she doesn't quite look loli (even though she's in elementary school lol), so it's okay if I post an image of her getting a dicking."
The backstory does not matter and should not matter. In an image, if the character looks loli, it is loli, if the character does not look loli, it is not loli. Most people will not be familiar with the backstory. Case in point: I knew nothing about the plot of eromanga-sensei and had no interest in pursuing such information until this discussion erupted. I had no idea izumi_sagiri was not your typical anime high schooler. I doubt that I am unique in this sense.

The only people who count/matter wrt loli posts and ratings are regulators, prosecutors and insufferably intolerant middle aged biddy morality crusaders that scour the internet to make trouble. None of these individuals will bother to research the backstory on an image. It either looks loli or it doesn't.

If some hikikomori otaku wants to imagine that some character generally drawn with an adult figure is 12 years old, whatever. Such individuals could do that with any image, for example miku is drawn all over the map wrt body figure and age; from full figured adult post #240590 to loli grade schooler post #141997.

If we are going to go strictly by backstory age, to_aru_kagaku_no_railgun for example, the 4 female main characters are all middle schoolers - grades 7-9 | 12-14 years old. However the only character drawn loli in the series is the adult teacher Tsukuyomi_Komoe and possibly index. You can see that following the backstory path can quickly get out of hand.
You're still not getting my point, but that's fine. You guys can do what you want.

P.S. Ignorance is no excuse when it comes to accurately tagging images, by the way.
Emmy, to use your logic, Tsukuyomi_Komoe should not be tagged loli, because "we know" she is an adult because of the backstory?
Nope. I hate that logic. If something looks like a kid, it's a loli. But something is also a loli if it's literally an actual child in whatever show it's from. If it's 12, it's a loli. If it's a centuries old dragon in a five-year-old's body, it's a loli.

My POINT is that there are characters like Mikan who are lolis and should be tagged as such despite how they look. My POINT is that there are characters like Anzu who are older but are always drawn like lolis.

You haven't worked out a decent way to properly apply the "loli" tag to these images. Because if we're gonna go by "looks like a loli", we are going to have a LOT MORE rating E and rating Q loli on the site, both due to preexisting images needing the tag and new images being introduced based on the fact that someone doesn't quite look like a loli but is a loli.
IMO, using a character's supposed age to label them loli is just as bad as using a character's supposed age to label them non-loli. I see no difference there.

But is there really any point to this discussion? This policy has been in effect for several years. And this isn't the first time this has come up. I don't recall if our current admins have ever weighed in on this topic. But the way discussions like this always go, I doubt we'll be making any big changes to our banned content definitions.
THANK YOU.

I don't see how Izumi (the character who started this) doesn't strike Kiho as a loli in the first place. Nothing about her says "high school student", and a simple Google search of the show or character will explain her whole deal. Not knowing about the face value plot of a show isn't a valid reason to say she's not a loli.

Like, I've never seen the show and I know the basics of what it's about. So Kiho saying it's too much for us to expect people to know even a little about a series is silly. All someone would have to do is look it up.
@Emmy, it is your lack of consistency with which I am having trouble.

otaku_emmy said:
I don't see how Izumi (the character who started this) doesn't strike Kiho as a loli in the first place.
Just what makes a loli???
A loli does not have developed hips like post #240258 or thighs like post #240494 Izumi also does not have a loli face. This is a bonafide loli: post #238241 - loli facial features, undeveloped hips, flat chested and little.

Lack of consistency:
For a backstory of: Izumi is a 12-year-old first-year junior high school student. which by your rules must be tagged loli regardless of appearance, but when a character with the backstory of: Attending middle school as either a 1st or 2nd year (to_aru_kagaku_no_railgun), (from which we can deduce an age range of 12-13 years old) does not automatically get tagged loli?

Using other sites as references:
Several other sites either don't tag izumi_sagiri, loli (eg: gelbooru, safebooru), even thought the tag exists on these sites, or use it only for specific images (yande.re) where there are 65 images of izumi_sagiri, only 9 of which are tagged loli, 23 of which are not rated safe. (The tag however is not used consistently on yande.re as this could be loli, but this is definitely not.)
There are different ways to draw lolis. You are being very narrow minded in what a loli should look like. There's even a sub genre of lolis with large breasts, so saying ALL loli must have big heads, big eyes, flat chests, and no curves at all is silly. Not all of them are drawn that way, especially by people doing erotic fan art. Just because an artist chooses to give a loli a fat ass or something doesn't automatically mean it's not a loli anymore. People are going to deviate when drawing. Not everything is going to look the same or like you THINK it should look.

And I'm out.
... I think this is getting off topic. It almost looked like the topic was changing to a discussion on what visually defines a loli. Though reading carefully, that doesn't appear to be the case.

Defining loli by age or by appearance are just two methods that are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It's not uncommon for people support whichever one suits their motive at the time. Be that to allow an image on a site that bans explicit loli or to label a site that hosts such content. Many people will use whatever they can to support their own personal motives.

From the perspective of a website admin, I can't blame them for taking the safest route with respect to both definitions. You can say what you want about how ridiculous it is in practice. I agree with you. IMO, only appearance should be used. But the fact remains that our policy uses both definitions.

This discussion is going nowhere. Everything that everyone has said can easily be summed up in a couple of lines:
  • Kiho & Zolxys: Sensibly, only appearance should be considered.
  • Emmy, gnarf & site policy: Both the character's appearance in the image and their age as given in the core material should be considered. Tag loli when either one applies.
If you want to try to change the policy, this discussion is not the way to do it. Nothing that either of you are saying contains any reasoning that is likely to sway the other party. And no matter what, this isn't something we can change without the approval of our admins.

It's pointless to continue this without input from an admin. Either get their opinion or just drop it.
off topic
e-shuushuu.net is a reliable site? on the site says that the author of these wallpapers is annin_douhu
I'd say go for it if there's not a better, more concrete source as to who drew those images.
akisorapx and aki_(akisora_hiyori) are the same artist

when this happens, and the artist has a lot of post, there any criterion like, the artist with more post stays? or some other criterion? or none?

Edit: or it's better just report and leave with the mod's?
Go with the second one. It's what other boards use.
So, a member started tagging a number of posts depicting girls restrained by tentacles as bondage. But then he figured that was wrong and removed the tag from even more such images than he had tagged.

He also changed the wiki replacing
with
  • Tentacles binding should be excluded since binding is usually implied. This tag refers to bdsm only.
I don't see a problem with that except that I think it was wrong to remove that line from the wiki.

*Edit
Though, the wiki does say "Most instances of bondage on Konachan are depictions of BDSM". So I would probably change "This tag refers to bdsm only." to "This tag is only used for binding by tools."
Huh. I've never thought about that before. He's not wrong, but he should've brought it up first.
In his defense, the wiki does start out by saying "Bondage is the physical restraint of a character achieved via the use of objects or tools (such as shackles and chains, rope, straight jackets, or stocks).". And despite the lengthy write-up, no mention was made of allowing tentacles. So it wouldn't necessarily require mentioning just to add a line like that to the wiki.

I've edited the wiki, re-adding the line he removed and changing the line he added to:
  • Do not tag when the subject is only bound/restrained by tentacles, monsters or people without the use of tools.
Fair enough, Zol. :)