Posts

For more information, see the search syntax documentation. Search results are sorted by creation date.

Search Results

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 14

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 13

Stinkek

poser
“genitals” isn’t implied by any more specific tags, except “mismatched genitals”. I wonder if “cloaca” should imply it, considering it functions both as a genitalia and an opening for body waste release.
girls only –> females only, girl. It’s also not gray unlike similar tags of this type.
see-through –> clothing (?)
bottomwear down, pants down, shorts down, underwear down, briefs down –> clothing down
This implication should be removed: solo boy –> solo kid, because “kid” is stated to be specifically for human children.

Site and Policy » Aliasing in the nudity tags » Post 3

Dillocircus
2FA Enabled -
Uploader of the Month -

Moderator
cub appreciator
I noticed the description for “nudity” says something like “don’t use for bottomless characters”, but I find it on pictures where characters wear shirts and the like. Is this still being discussed?
I did the edit to the tag, but did not go all the way back. You gotta remember that a LOT of stuff got imported from e621 with the tag combinations of bottomless/topless + partial nudity.
Alright, here’s a more elaborate chart (I have certainly overlooked a bunch of situations, so feel free to point corner cases and confusions):

Premises

  • Nudity is defined here as “exposure of sexual bodyparts” (breasts, genitals, anus, butt…)
  • Nudity tags are relative to the normal presence of clothes and genitals in official depictions of this character.
  • Nudity tags include, for example: casual nudity, nudity, full frontal nudity, tasteful nudity, forced nudity, exposure, clothed/nude etc. and generally anything that is implied to the tag “nudity” (except for the rating tag “nude only”)
    • However, nudity tags do NOT include things like “bottomless”, “topless” and “X only” as they do not necessarily expose genitals.
  • All tags that are variants of “fully nude” and “partially nude” are aliased to “nudity”, with the exception of “full frontal nudity”, which has a specific meaning
  • This chart assumes no tag for a character like Bugs Bunny who is normally without clothes and a featureless crotch

Flowchart

(reminder: breasts alone are a suggestive rating)
  1. No genitals shown:
    • The character is depicted with a featureless crotch
      • There are boobs depicted → apply a nudity tag only if nipples are present.
        • If no nipples/areolas → Use featureless X tag(s) as appropriate.
      • Is this character depicted with less clothing than normal for this character?
        1. Yes → Use an appropriate combination of nudity and rating tag
        2. No → Use featureless X tag(s) as appropriate.
    • The genitals are implied, but not visible, and the character is completely or mostly nude
      • Is the image suggestive/seductive?
        1. Yes → Use “pinup” and “tasteful nudity”
        2. No → Use “tasteful nudity” or “casual nudity” alone
  2. The character is a feral
    • Is this character normally depicted/implied as wearing clothes? (e.g. Paw Patrol, Commission series of [url=https://inkbunny.net/gallery/TheSuperProfessor]TheSuperProfessor[/url]…)
      1. No → Do not use any nudity tag, apply featureless crotch if appropriate
        • Do not use “featureless chest” unless this feral character is normally depicted with nipples or breasts.
      2. Yes → Use the tag “clothed feral”
        • Are genitals depicted?
          1. No → apply appropriate non-explicit tags such as “featureless crotch”, “tasteful nudity” or “exposure” as appropriate
          2. Yes → Apply nudity tags as you would for an anthro character
            • Do not use “featureless chest” unless this feral character is normally depicted with nipples or breasts.

Anthro nudity:

  • Apply “nudity” only if breasts, butt or genitals are visible (including if covered by transparent, or fishnet clothing). Otherwise just the clothing-related tags such as “X only”, “bottomless” or “topless”
    • A character flashing or exposing their underwear is not nudity. Apply “underwear exposure” (this tag is not implied to nudity).
  • Tags on top of “nudity”
    • Apply “full frontal nudity” if the entire area from the crotch to the neck is functionally exposed and visible to the viewer (i.e. ignoring belts, straps, and bondage gear)
      • Except for censoring, the genitals must be fully visible and unobscured
    • Apply “ineffective clothing” only if genitals are present and not covered by the clothing, otherwise, just use use “X only” or “transparent/fishnet clothing” if appropriate. (“unconvincing armor” can be used regardless of genital visibility)

Definition of “clothing”

The following do not count as “clothing” (and thus not to be implied to clothing-related tags, nor to have X only tags created):
  • Leather straps
  • Wraps other than chest wraps or full-body wraps (currently not used)
  • Bandages
  • Glasses, goggles and other eyewear
  • Jewelry and similar accessories, such as wristbands, lanyards etc.
  • Collars
  • Cock rings
Exception:
  • certain fetish gears such as chastity cages or harnesses are not implied to clothing tags, but they can still be used as “X only”
  • Belts are clothing, but “belt only” is not a tag because no one wears a belt alone for coverage

Site and Policy » Malicious artists » Topic Opener

Stinkek

poser
Getting serious, again.
I was close to submitting a drawing when I noticed none of the user’s profiles listed on E621 were alive. I decided to look them up and found a callout post with proof of them being openly transphobic, going as far as saying that transphobia isn’t real and making suicide jokes involving specifically trans characters. To add insult to injury, they allegedly HAD BEEN friends with trans people before.
I felt a bad taste in my mouth and decided not to post it.
I also know that Shadman drew R34 of yоung characters, but they say his art also involved REAL minоrs, which is inexcusable.
I don’t know how you treat art made by such kinds of people, personally I don’t wanna knowingly post art made by sociopaths, pеdo/zооphiles and bigots.
. . .
Now that I think about it, the mindset I displayed may be counterproductive from the POV of a site that aims to archive art. You never know if someone potentially becomes (or gets outed for past actions finally revealed) an awful person. The actual drawing I considered posting wouldn’t break any rules here. I can suppress my personal (albeit justified) dislike for an artist and share their work regardless, but I would like to hear some thoughts on this.

Site and Policy » Aliasing in the nudity tags » Post 2

Stinkek

poser
I noticed the description for “nudity” says something like “don’t use for bottomless characters”, but I find it on pictures where characters wear shirts and the like. Is this still being discussed?

Site and Policy » Is the "adoptable" tag useless? » Post 3

Site and Policy » Is the "adoptable" tag useless? » Post 2

Site and Policy » MLP theming, irrelevant reasons for reporting » Topic Opener

Stinkek

poser
Since I used the report function a couple of times before, I noticed the reasons for reporting are not changed from default. Most of them seem applicable, but a couple need to be changed:
Rule #3: Image not MLP-related/obligatory pony - This isn’t an MLP Booru. Can be replaced with “Unrelated content”.
Rule #5: Underage+human/anthro-looking porn - This literally goes against the point of this site. Can be replaced with “Illegal/forbidden content”.
The following things are minor, but it feels odd to see “Background Pony” still being used for guests, pony silhouettes as placeholder avatars and “Neigh!” for downvotes.

Site and Policy » Is the "adoptable" tag useless? » Post 1

Dillocircus
2FA Enabled -
Uploader of the Month -

Moderator
cub appreciator
I have nuked the tag, yes. Based on my conversations with them, I’m fairly confident Pup will back me on this when he reappears. No doubt the only reason the tag is not blackslisted (these tags cannot cannot be aliased, because they cannot be entered/created at all. Trying to apply them will have the software silently remove them) is that the blacklist is based off the tags used on e621.
Anyway, point is that them being adoptable is no more relevant to the image’s content than whether they are commissioned art or not. If Furbooru or Derpibooru want to allow this sort of advertising (which is the only justification for this sort of tagging), that’s their business.

Site and Policy » Is the "adoptable" tag useless? » Topic Opener

Stinkek

poser
I could’ve sworn when I shared some works that were intended to be adoptables (designs that other people can buy to use themselves), I tagged them with “adoptable”, but now I can’t seem to find it. It’s not aliased to “invalid tag” either. Derpibooru and Furbooru allow the use of this tag.
Is it regarded as useless here and I should never use it again?

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 12

Stinkek

poser
I just realised the diaper implies grotesque thing has created a HUGE problem for regular users as they can’t edit tags for a picture anymore if it has “safe” and “grotesque”. I just wanted to add “full-length portrait” to that baby worm in a clean diaper without touching those tags - nope!
I can think of 3 ideas on how to solve this problem:
  1. The easy option: roll back the implication.
  2. The hard option: make it so that Safe and Grotesque don’t conflict, or the staff will have to add “Safe” to innocuous diaper pictures forever. I’ve never seen a Philomena Booru where Safe would be paired up with any other rating, every Philomena Booru tells you CAN’T combine Safe with those. Is it even possible to change this presumably hard-coded thing?
  3. Another easy option: for ALL pictures with diapers, always use “Grotesque” and never use “Safe”
With the way things are now, we’d have to report pictures with these two tags so the staff could do the tag editing for us, that we could’ve done ourselves in any other situation. More important reports could end up buried under these!
For now, I’ll stop sharing pictures with diapers.

Site and Policy » An idea for merch/cosplay i.e. "character pictured" » Post 1

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 11

Stinkek

poser
@Dillocircus
But I didn’t see the previous use of tags, the currently listed criteria for Grotesque are either gore / body horror or grossout substances with no hint of clean diapers (also I can logistically fit farts in Grotesque because they are commonly considered gross), and Derpibooru with Furbooru which have been around for much longer don’t use this implication. Hence why this came out of nowhere to me, maybe I’m not alone feeling like this, I don’t know yet.

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 10

Dillocircus
2FA Enabled -
Uploader of the Month -

Moderator
cub appreciator
@Stinkek
Since earlier this week when I looked back at the previous uses of the tags and noticed a lot of them had been tagged by Pup with “grotesque”, so it seemed clear that a full-on implication was warranted. The tag guidelines don’t have to outline in exacting details all the tags that fall under that category.

Site and Policy » Mega Alias thread » Post 7

Dillocircus
2FA Enabled -
Uploader of the Month -

Moderator
cub appreciator
@Dillocircus
Thank you! Some of these I thought meant the same things judging by images they were applied to, and I still don’t know what’s the difference between “full body” and “full-length portrait”, sorry. Why does “convenient censoring” imply “convenient censorship” though?
Because my dumb ass accidentally implied them instead of aliasing lol. Fixed both of those.

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 9

Stinkek

poser
Um… since when does “diaper” imply “grotesque”? Why are diapers grouped together with body waste, regardless of whether they actually contain those or not? Was there an agreement to make it this way without letting regular users know? Because I still don’t see diapers listed in the Grotesque criteria in Tag Guidelines.

Site and Policy » Mega Alias thread » Post 6

Stinkek

poser
@Dillocircus
Thank you! Some of these I thought meant the same things judging by images they were applied to, and I still don’t know what’s the difference between “full body” and “full-length portrait”, sorry. Why does “convenient censoring” imply “convenient censorship” though?

Site and Policy » An idea for merch/cosplay i.e. "character pictured" » Topic Opener

Dillocircus
2FA Enabled -
Uploader of the Month -

Moderator
cub appreciator
While I agree with Pup’s stance that characters being merely pictured or cosplayed as should not be tagged the same (e.g. this image should not just be tagged “Toothless”), I think it should be possible to search for some of it somehow in connection with HTTYD, so here’s my idea:
We split this stuff in a parallel tag. So there’s, say, a “digimon” tag and a separate “digimon fandom” tag. Anything indirect is tagged as, say “Miles prowers body pillow”, “kumamon cosplay”, “Toothless hoodie”, “101 dalmatians shirt” etc. and all of these feeds into the relevant parallel copyright tags (or possibly even a separate tag category, depending on what Pup decides).
So if you search for just “toothless”, you find only pics with the character toothless present and posing/interacting. But “toothless*” would find “secondary” presences, like someone drawing an image of toothless, wearing a cosplay of him, a poster of him of the wall etc.
This is a proposal, but I think it’s worth considering while we still have a relatively restrained amount of content.

Site and Policy » Mega Alias thread » Post 5

Dillocircus
2FA Enabled -
Uploader of the Month -

Moderator
cub appreciator
I have applied almost all of these except “orgasm face” and “from above” (though pup may disagree with me later).
“Orgasm face” is an expression, like ahegao, and not every images will have it (e.g. some may have a smug or straining/clenched expression, or indeed an ahegao one)
“From above/below” are used here instead of e621 “bird’s/worm’s eye view”. I’ve made a bunch of aliases/implication (and fixed a couple uses of the tags) that should help make it more clear

Site and Policy » Original species » Post 1

Dillocircus
2FA Enabled -
Uploader of the Month -

Moderator
cub appreciator
I think stuff like protogen (sergals, chakats, synths, aeromorphs…) is fairly okay (not clear if aeromorphs are okay for this site though) as they are relatively well-known within the fandom.
If someone has a unique species of their own that other people are not actually using though? We’d just tag that as whatever broader tag works, like canine/mammal/alien etc. plus original species. I’d include in the latter category most of the original species from Rick Griffin’s sci-fi work, for example. I’m personally undecided about Cobalt’s Foozles, I’d probably ask Pup for a final decision one way or another if we had more than, like, one pic of them XD.
In this case, I think the e621 approach of not tagging original species in particular way (though there’s several nonstandard tags floating about over there) is sensible, though pup may eventually decide otherwise.

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 8

Dillocircus
2FA Enabled -
Uploader of the Month -

Moderator
cub appreciator
When Pup reappears, I will suggest that the entire set of tags related to underage needs an overhauling to properly delimit them. With a particularly pressing need to coin a distinct tag for “cub as bodytype” (leaning toward “cutie” as my suggestion) so it’s not both a bodytype and an age thing at the same time.
I mean, if “cub” is “anything short and cute”, then how are we supposed to tag literal cubs so they’re distinct? When searching for solo stuff, It’s literally impossible to restrict your results to actually underage stuff because about 80% of digimon/pokemon are cubs, as are Morgana, Rocket Raccoon or Jack Frost! And like, don’t get me wrong, I like these characters (and they have made up the bulk of my uploads so far), but it’s not serious purporting to be a cub-focused website where you can’t filter to just cubs.
(as an aside, I think we need a much clearer guideline whether shota/loli is categorically okay or not and whether some of it needs to go).

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 7

Stinkek

poser
@Dillocircus
Expanding on this: The whole “ion this website, the tag ‘cub’ is a body type thing, not an age thing” is going to get us so many DNPs once people start taking notice. Like, there’s a lot of artists out there who don’t want their art associated even remotely with cub/shota/loli stuff, much less directly tagged as such…
Damn, you’re right, I didn’t even think of this… At least the first DNP entry here isn’t from an anti (it’s mine lol)

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 6

Dillocircus
2FA Enabled -
Uploader of the Month -

Moderator
cub appreciator
So “kid” has this explanation: A human shota or loli. For cubs, don’t use this tag. Okay.
The entire set of tags related to age/child/cub is a bit of a hot mess and I do want to ask Pup (the admin/owner) to draw some clear guideliens decisions for why in the upload tag list the tag indicated is “child”, a tage that is aliased to young (?!) while the wiki seems to be using “kid” instead, and the distinction between that and “cub” are poor at best. Also “cub” is sued for the generic tags like adult/cub, adding to the confusion.
However, Pup is incommunicado for almost three weeks now.
Expanding on this: The whole “ion this website, the tag ‘cub’ is a body type thing, not an age thing” is going to get us so many DNPs once people start taking notice. Like, there’s a lot of artists out there who don’t want their art associated even remotely with cub/shota/loli stuff, much less directly tagged as such
@Dillocircus
Ouch… I had some Booru-related heartbreak myself. I put too much passion into a free Booru platform that would be shut down in a month or a few.
Oh, I could have, like, gone over to rule 34 or something, but I LIKE figuring character sources and applying/fixing tags distinctions. E621 really scratched that cataloguing/documentation/ontology itch for me.

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 5

Site and Policy » UNofficial implication thread » Post 4

Dillocircus
2FA Enabled -
Uploader of the Month -

Moderator
cub appreciator
Yeah, I think I’m the only mode who checks in daily (I’ve got a lot of pent-up need for sharing/uploading/tagging stuff since being banned from e621 in 2017 XD).
BTW it’s the only reason some of your stuff hasn’t been acted on yet. I’m not super confident about it, so I was hoping to have Pup review it first. As I noted, the policies and tag definitions are… sort of a hot mess, and I also got told off about one of my upload that I really wasn’t expecting to be a problem!

Default search

If you do not specify a field to search over, the search engine will search for posts with a body that is similar to the query's word stems. For example, posts containing the words winged humanization, wings, and spread wings would all be found by a search for wing, but sewing would not be.

Allowed fields

Field SelectorTypeDescriptionExample
authorLiteralMatches the author of this post. Anonymous authors will never match this term.author:Joey
bodyFull TextMatches the body of this post. This is the default field.body:test
created_atDate/Time RangeMatches the creation time of this post.created_at:2015
idNumeric RangeMatches the numeric surrogate key for this post.id:1000000
myMetamy:posts matches posts you have posted if you are signed in. my:posts
subjectFull TextMatches the title of the topic.subject:time wasting thread
topic_idLiteralMatches the numeric surrogate key for the topic this post belongs to.topic_id:7000
topic_positionNumeric RangeMatches the offset from the beginning of the topic of this post. Positions begin at 0.topic_position:0
updated_atDate/Time RangeMatches the creation or last edit time of this post.updated_at.gte:2 weeks ago
user_idLiteralMatches posts with the specified user_id. Anonymous users will never match this term.user_id:211190
forumLiteralMatches the short name for the forum this post belongs to.forum:meta