Most likely because of the underwear tag.
Posted under Bugs & Features
post #5704911 is rated g but for some reason it's blocked on donmai.moe.
Updated
Blank_User said:
It was tagged with bloomers, which implicates underwear. I wonder if we should consider removing the implication since there are many posts with bloomers that can still be rated General.
I was told on the Discord Server a few months ago that bloomers were always S-rated since it's still underwear.
Perhaps the standards need to be clarified? I'd agree bloomers are usually innocent but the are not consistently rated at the moment.
Blank_User said:
It was tagged with bloomers, which implicates underwear. I wonder if we should consider removing the implication since there are many posts with bloomers that can still be rated General.
Not only are some bloomers so long that referring to them and rating them in all occasions as if they were underwear becomes somewhat odd. Bloomers are also occasionally worn as shorts, both in art and in real life, like in post #5641815, post #3505691, and post #3623241. I'm not sure if I agree with removing the implication as in most cases, they are underwear and should be tagged as such but I don't have any other idea how to fix it.
BUR #20211 has been approved by @evazion.
remove implication bloomers -> underwear
As above. Bloomers can be styled/worn like normal clothing, and even if it's used as underwear doesn't mean it can't be sfw, they often look more like pyjamas compare to other underwears. And this is affecting their display on safe mode.
The bulk update request #20211 (forum #255607) has been approved by @evazion.
I removed underwear from some of the G-rated posts tagged with bloomers. For anyone wanting to help, I think we should focus on unquestionably SFW posts (for example, bloomers ending farther down the leg or barely visible under a medium-to-long skirt). There's always the possibility of posts misrated as G, so we should exercise caution and check whether a post should be rated S instead. This is under the assumption we are not going to make bloomers and underwear mutually exclusive tags; we'd need another BUR for that, and I think there are still cases where tagging bloomers as underwear could be justified.
Edit: I wasn't considering the arguments for keeping bloomers and underwear mutually exclusive for categorical purposes that wispydreamer and magcolo mentioned; there are other ways the more sensitive posts can be filtered out.
Updated
I missed this BUR and I would have downvoted it. Bloomers being worn as underwear should not have the underwear tag removed just because “muh safe mode”; if that’s really an issue then safe mode needs to exclude bloomers from its filters rather than there being mass tag vandalism to “fix” the “problem”.
AngryZapdos said:
I missed this BUR and I would have downvoted it. Bloomers being worn as underwear should not have the underwear tag removed just because “muh safe mode”; if that’s really an issue then safe mode needs to exclude bloomers from its filters rather than there being mass tag vandalism to “fix” the “problem”.
The arguments for removing the implication weren't just about safe mode. As wispydreamer and magcolo said, the appearance is so different from typical underwear that it doesn't make sense to treat them the same in every case. There are plenty of posts with standing characters with skirts of a decent length that get tagged underwear simply because the very bottom of the bloomers is peeking out from underneath. I don't think users searching with the underwear tag are going to be interested in those kind of posts.
I have to assume evazion took all of that and the filters into account when approving this BUR. However, if this was a hasty decision on his part, it can easily be reverted by readding the implication.
The implication was originally created in forum #85005 where it was done with no discussion or reason given. If it were proposed today I don't think it would have gone through.
evazion said:
The implication was originally created in forum #85005 where it was done with no discussion or reason given. If it were proposed today I don't think it would have gone through.
If that's the case, does that mean we should remove underwear from all posts that only show bloomers?
Blank_User said:
If that's the case, does that mean we should remove underwear from all posts that only show bloomers?
I think what evazion meant is that this implication is another one of our old none future-proof decisions that wouldn't be done today, that justifies the implication removal. They can still have some overlaps, there's no need to remove all of them. Though at which point do they start becoming underwear is still up for discussion, personally their appearance of victorian puffy shorts makes me hesitate on tagging underwear.
magcolo said:
I think what evazion meant is that this implication is another one of our old none future-proof decisions that wouldn't be done today, that justifies the implication removal. They can still have some overlaps, there's no need to remove all of them. Though at which point do they start becoming underwear is still up for discussion, personally their appearance of victorian puffy shorts makes me hesitate on tagging underwear.
Got it. I'll stick to removing it from non-upskirt long-legged bloomers for now.