Edit | Leave a Comment | Favorite | Pool Relationships
More Like This: (Beta Temporary Feature)
User Comments:
Heraeus commented at 2014-06-03 15:18:33 » #1545376
Did a quick decensored version of:
gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=2165661
Came out quite well, for 5 Minute work, but i can do better next time :)
39 Points
Flag
Did a quick decensored version of:
gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=2165661
Came out quite well, for 5 Minute work, but i can do better next time :)
39 Points
Flag
Jerl commented at 2014-06-04 12:16:08 » #1545831
Since there is no futanari tag on this image and therefore no such question mark, I'll give a simple summary here: any character with both male and female genitalia. This means that characters without a vagina are not considered to be futanari, and should instead be tagged as "newhalf" or "trap".
We have a tag-what-you-see policy. Our default assumption for characters that look like this is that they are a trap, so unless a vagina is clearly visible, "futanari" should not be used for characters like this.
5 Points
Flag
Since there is no futanari tag on this image and therefore no such question mark, I'll give a simple summary here: any character with both male and female genitalia. This means that characters without a vagina are not considered to be futanari, and should instead be tagged as "newhalf" or "trap".
We have a tag-what-you-see policy. Our default assumption for characters that look like this is that they are a trap, so unless a vagina is clearly visible, "futanari" should not be used for characters like this.
5 Points
Flag
Daijin commented at 2014-06-04 14:16:49 » #1545898
The logic does apply. Just because an image is tagged incorrectly does not mean we approve. There are near countless images on this site and only a handful of staff. It is impossible to fix the thousands of images that are tagged improperly, but we do what we can.
6 Points
Flag
The logic does apply. Just because an image is tagged incorrectly does not mean we approve. There are near countless images on this site and only a handful of staff. It is impossible to fix the thousands of images that are tagged improperly, but we do what we can.
6 Points
Flag
Jerl commented at 2014-06-04 14:38:52 » #1545916
Nope. It applies to this one because the characters' body types are that of children. Because of this, the default assumption is that they are traps. We generally do not use futanari at all on child characters unless you can clearly see a vagina.
It does not apply to those wokada images, because the character's body type is clearly female, just with a penis. In such cases, our default assumption is futanari, though newhalf may also be used and would generally be left alone if someone tagged an image with it unless there was evidence to the contrary.
It also doesn't apply to most of the images in the futanari tag because of the same reasons. I'm certain that there are some images tagged futanari which shouldn't be, but we have no realistic way of hunting them down, since there are over 20,000 posts in the tag and fewer than 20 active moderators to actually go through it.
Maybe. But in reality, there's no reason for you to have thought that these are futanari in the first place, except for maybe the image having been mistagged when you first found it.
3 Points
Flag
Jerl, that logic should apply to the latest 20+ pics by wokada. And probably more than 50% of the pics under futa anyway.
Nope. It applies to this one because the characters' body types are that of children. Because of this, the default assumption is that they are traps. We generally do not use futanari at all on child characters unless you can clearly see a vagina.
It does not apply to those wokada images, because the character's body type is clearly female, just with a penis. In such cases, our default assumption is futanari, though newhalf may also be used and would generally be left alone if someone tagged an image with it unless there was evidence to the contrary.
It also doesn't apply to most of the images in the futanari tag because of the same reasons. I'm certain that there are some images tagged futanari which shouldn't be, but we have no realistic way of hunting them down, since there are over 20,000 posts in the tag and fewer than 20 active moderators to actually go through it.
"or images where it's ambiguous whether the character has two sets of genitalia or not, as is often the case with full-package futanari"
better change those definitions again to suit this pic
better change those definitions again to suit this pic
Maybe. But in reality, there's no reason for you to have thought that these are futanari in the first place, except for maybe the image having been mistagged when you first found it.
3 Points
Flag
Anonymous commented at 2014-06-04 14:54:23 » #1545935
My assumption that they're futa is based on the artist the pic is attributed to. But by the definition you apparently wrote 2 months ago, "if you can clearly see that the character does not have a vagina" doesn't apply to this pic because you cannot clearly see what's behind those balls. That said, you haven't proved there is no vagina (intended or depicted) where a vagina would be, so either the tag applies here (by its definition) or the definition for the tag needs to be worded to reflect the assumptions of this image, no?
15 Points
Flag
My assumption that they're futa is based on the artist the pic is attributed to. But by the definition you apparently wrote 2 months ago, "if you can clearly see that the character does not have a vagina" doesn't apply to this pic because you cannot clearly see what's behind those balls. That said, you haven't proved there is no vagina (intended or depicted) where a vagina would be, so either the tag applies here (by its definition) or the definition for the tag needs to be worded to reflect the assumptions of this image, no?
15 Points
Flag