Rating tags general

@NeutronStar
The Rarity image seems like it should probably be Suggestive, with her tail aside and legs somewhat spread.

@Princess Luna
I see!

Well, the last two I’m not sure about are these:

>>4999
>>394440

Safe or suggestive? Contextually they’re akaname, but I’m not sure how much that matters. Also 2nd is rated suggestive while first is safe which doesn’t help.

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

your current filter.

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

your current filter.

@NeutronStar
The first looks Suggestive with the way the underwear details are. Not sure about the second.

@Brokedownandmadeone
Hmm, looking rather Suggestive, much like imminent vore/mawshot images.

>>3111750
Colored version has visible saliva while original wip only describes the tongue action. Suggestive or questionable?

@Brokedownandmadeone
Both seem Suggestive, if on very different ends of it.

>>1433255 is currently suggestive, should be safe?

@Background Pony #4230
Yes.

>>2572197 and the following images, rape + grimdark?

@Brokedownandmadeone
I think dubious consent and Semi-grimdark is more appropriate when there’s no reaction, but things are very sketchy.

>>3115832 was uploaded as safe, then changed to semi-grimdark, but I think it’s really just safe?

@Background Pony #4230
Indeed it’s just Safe.

An anon re-rated image >>600646 from questionable to safe. I noticed it when looking for safe-rated images tagged solo female. I’m wondering if that change was okay?

@JP
I’d be hard pressed to justify that image being even “suggestive”. She’s not even touching her butt, more like resting a leg across her flank.

Ratings check:
>>3117633
Was safe, keeps getting retagged as suggestive, I’m not sure that’s correct.

@JP
Safe is probably fine here, it’s maybe a little borderline, but it’s just a look and hoof placement.

@Background Pony #B065
Generally boob smothering is Suggestive.

I don’t know if this belongs here (and if it doesn’t, I would be most appreciative of being redirected to the proper venue), but I had a question about the combination tags, e.g. “duo female”. Are those like the “solo female” and “solo male” tags where they are only to be used on suggestive-and-above images, or are they fine to be used on safe images? I interpreted the tag guidelines as the former, but I noticed a lot of people do the latter.

Either way, perhaps it could be given a little clarification on the tag guideline page, like “this applies also to tags such as ‘duo female’, etc.” or “this does not apply to any other dual tags, such as ‘duo female’, etc.” so that people (such as myself) are not confused by it.

@Jonny Manz
This was discussed recently in the General Tag Discussion thread; this post and the two replies immediately following it

>>2824755
Shouldn’t this be grimdark?

@Background Pony #4230
Thanks, will reply further in that thread

@Brokedownandmadeone
Barely (it’s a lot of weird blood smears when it’s trying to imply things cut off), but yes.

Hello, someone says this is grimdark but I don’t think this is nightmare including, its pretty mild graphically. The topic is Derpy and someone too much likes Derpy, triggers for dark scenes with Derpy. I dont think its abuse, because the main topic is a Derpy soldier that is attacked by Tirek and I dont think its grotesque, there is a little blood but really mild. Just because its not that horror gore or nightmare including. I need a moderator if any changes needed in tagging, because the Derpy defenders will trigger if I do any changes.
>>3120005

>>2133712 is currently “suggestive”, should it be “safe”?
>>3118660 same question

@platinumdrop
It’s certainly on the Semi-grimdark/Grimdark border, but I think the detail on the bone itself (blood-soaked and jagged) might push it over a bit. It’s at least not Grotesque.

@Background Pony #4230
I think so, though the former is more iffy.

>>3120998 presently “suggestive”, should be “safe”?