Was going to reply to the earlier post,

What counts as "sexualized" enough to cross over the "A rating or opt out" barrier, is something that needs a good eye. There are plenty of obvious contenders, but there are also some wildcards.

As an example, Friday Night Funkin's Week 5 has Mommy Mearest wearing a suggestive Santa-themed outfit with an inner sideboob showing.

In the original game it's not trying to be that much of a focus, it's not really the 'heart' of the entire content. it's 1 character design found in 1 of 7 playable stages, and she doesn't even use it against Boyfriend or the player.

If it were instead a 10 second fan-animation loop where it's just Mommy in that outfit, I can see an argument to be made.

But here, Mommy's Santa suit, as it appears in FNF itself, just doesn't seem as "weird" as the cats in Mesmerize with their boobs and butts, even though they're showing a different type of skin. Did I meantion the butts before?

My point is, what clothes (or lack thereof) one is wearing, alone is not the only factor to consider when categorizing something as "sexualized". There are other nuances you need to be able to identify, such as how it's stylized (this includes how it's shaded, lighted, shaped etc), how it's animated (ie. do they jiggle for the sake of jiggling, or are they reasonably balanced, and in what context?) Are all the author's other works like that?

My point was not about correct or incorrect classification of posts but that the categories on NG are de facto wider on NG than on sites that have larger moderation teams and utilise machine learning and that as a result you have to be more prepared to see things you do not enjoy.

As an example, consider images of men and women in swimsuits. Both have the same age rating. On NG, you will always see both if you are browsing with the T age rating enabled. On a site like TikTok your preference for one or the other will be noticed by the automated system (fed by a behind the scenes human tagging) and you will simply stop seeing the one that's not your thing. Replace men and women with R-rated sex versus violance and you see the issue: both are rated identically in terms of age brackets. People need to accept the limitations of NG technically and economically and be more tolerant of material they dislike that does not violate any rules.

If a post wins and does not violate any rules, thinking that another one was more deserving is exactly a matter of personal taste.

As for guidelines less objective than "has nudity", you're right. Guidelines that need a "good eye" as you say have historically always devolved into in-group/out-group politics. You're right that phrases like "sexualised" are ripe for this kind of subjectivity. Best to keep the guidelines objective. Is there nipple or bush? Etc.

Forget about other sites for one minute, they're not relevant.

...Replace men and women with R-rated sex versus violance and you see the issue: both are rated identically in terms of age brackets. People need to accept the limitations of NG technically and economically and be more tolerant of material they dislike that does not violate any rules.

The swimsuit alone, or the person wearing, alone do not warrant a T-rating, it's how it's being portrayed.

Take for example, this illustration of Shantae, which is E-rated and drawn by someone who normally doesn't post NSFW art on here.

And compare it with this illustration, also of Shantae. Note how it appears more sexualized. These include:

Shine marks on the breast + ass, the look on her face, the amount of what I hope is sweat, and how it's rendered, the exaggerated "in your face" look. In other words, you just know it's supposed to be horny just by looking at it. You just know

However, these examples are on the Art Portal, where a. the rules regarding rating are more detailed and clear, and b. there are no awards attached (not since 2009). The same features can apply to stuff the Movie Portal, but the Guidelines regarding this would need to be a bit more restrictive because of the awards system in place.

If exploiting a bug or using a poorly balanced overpowered character in a game not technically against the rules, especially online of competitive games, and it's not intended by the developers, shouldn't there be a responsibility for said devs to fix said bug or oversight, or to ban it outright if the former isn't applicable?

Apply this outside of games, is this not how new rules/laws get made in the first place, because existing rules/laws don't cover a new type of crime or wrongdoing?

Yes, there are some examples of subjectivity that would require judgements on a case-by-case basis, but there are also far more cases where all doubt is lost and you can say 100% that this is meant to be horny.

Is there nipple or bush? Like you said, obvious choice.

What about where it's made by a porn artist and he made it suggestive based on how it's drawn? Most porn artists always do this, and in the case of tansau's video, all doubt is lost.

(the M-rated Shantae drawing from earlier also counts, if it were in movie form, it should not be allowed on the top 5.)

Even if it's still technically elibigle for an M rating, should it then still be eligible for awards? (spoiler: a hard no, it has a technical advantage against SFW movies/games)

@Anonymous-Frog

I think I have to be missing something here. If I may (somewhat reductively) summarize what I think are your positions:

1) "Horny" content (A-rated or not) should be excluded from P-Bot awards

2) The current movie guidelines agree with this, but are somewhat poorly written

3) The rules can go further to drawing a line between horny and non-horny content

4) These extensions should be implemented and the site has the resources to do so

What I don't understand is that the observed reality is that "Mesmerise" has not had its award rescinded. That means that either:

a) it is within the guidelines (contradicting your point #2)

or

b) it violates the guidelines but somehow slipped through (contradicting your point #4)

I also... and this may be such a deep seated value in yourself that you can't answer, but I don't understand why provocative content must not be rewarded? You compare it to cheating or "a new kind of wrongdoing" and that just seems... extreme? "Mesmerise" could easily air on network television.

Yes, it slipped through, but why it did, I don't know. But what we do know is that Tom stated that the tool needed to rescind the award is limited.

1. Once it's done, it can't be undone.
2. It has to be done within a short time window (ie before the next awards)

The fact that the tool exists at all shows that NG does not endorse "this" type of content in "that" space (to some capacity), but Tom only really uses it about 6 times that I can recall. He wants to be very careful with how he uses it, which doesn't make it a fully viable solution. The site needs to take preventative measures rather than fall back on a dodgy reset button, and that includes clearing up any doubt in how the system is supposed to work.

For all intents and purposes, horny content is second class smut that already gets buttloads of views and attention, they already got what they wanted. It can stay, provided it follows the rules, but all we want is for them to stay out of our spaces (this includes the Daily Top 5).

Outside of being a piece of fodder to jerk off to (which itself gets more views and stronger votes), they usually have no other redeemable values, or the values they do have are being outweighed by disgusting degeneracy, which puts them more in line with their older stepsister, the A-rated porn movie (oftentimes made by the same people), than they do with the oftentimes equally M-rated Madness episode.

TL;DR It's a 100% different type of content that gets higher metrics through sexual appeal, which itself is often frowned upon and viewed as "the easy route" (for good reason), and aside from just using the site, rarely does any other good for normal people (a dying breed).

Breaking news: A degenerate lobbyist caught drinking with TV executives HOURS before controversial short airs on Nickelodeon: Someone's getting fired.

Thank you for the detailed and honest answer, I especially respect your admitting to a sense of entitlement to the top 5. That's quite the rhetorical bullet to bite.

There isn't much to discuss, as we've obviously hit the difference of base values.

To be a bit poetic about my own perspective, I find it fitting that "Mermerize" supposedly hails from 1999, the same year as the Columbine massacre and "Pico's School". Talking about counter-programming NG loves. I have nothing against edge, in-jokes, or collabs, but I have a hard time seeing them as having inherently more or less value or being less cheap for clicks than boobs.

Not just me though. I might not be around to voice my concerns, but I've seen plenty of other people have in my absence.

Don't be fooled. I think it's just called that for aesthetic purposes.

:I have nothing against edge, in-jokes, or collabs, but I have a hard time seeing them as having inherently more or less value or being less cheap for clicks than boobs.

That's what happens the moment you give in, or become desensitized to porn to the point where it feels normal.