Hillside_Moose said: Haaa, no, that's not how it works here.
Re-adding the bottomless tag, since this particular image has Nico appearing bottomless, even if it is just illusion.
Removing bottomless tag, if you look between her legs you can still see part of her pants, as well as near the top as part of it looks like a shadow until further examination. By definition, this does not count as bottomless as part of the pants are visible.
I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't been told, either, but the fact is that it is visible. I'm for keeping the bottomless tag off, unless there's a more compelling argument.
If you have to be told that Nami is wearing hotpants in this picture, and had to be shown where it was, then that's reason enough for me to keep the bottomless tag. You simply would not have known unless if you have seen the parent post and was trying to find it.
Also, there isn't enough pants showing to make a definitive conclusion; who's to say that what's showing is hotpants fabric anyway? It could be a pimple for all we know, assuming you didn't garner the meta-knowledge from the parent.
Hillside_Moose said: If you have to be told that Nami is wearing hotpants in this picture, and had to be shown where it was, then that's reason enough for me to keep the bottomless tag. You simply would not have known unless if you have seen the parent post and was trying to find it.
Also, there isn't enough pants showing to make a definitive conclusion; who's to say that what's showing is hotpants fabric anyway? It could be a pimple for all we know, assuming you didn't garner the meta-knowledge from the parent.
In the end this is an edit of the parent image, thus is should have close to the same tags and shouldn't be treated any differently if nothing is really changed.
Your way of thinking is also flawed as it would mean people would start removing trap and or crossdresser tags from work safe images of Jun Watarase for example since no one would know it was a male character and could assume its just a flat chested girl or would even question whether Jun was in fact female in that images as Jun had turned female in a episode of Happiness just to make things even more complicated.In short your half asses logic causes a huge problems with the tags on this site. Don't assume things or tag images fully knowing the edits you've made where wrong.
According to "tag what you see" guideline bottomless should be removed. Even if picture layout is hinting (falsely in this case) at "bottomlesness". Objections? I am not doing any changes for the time being.
And BTW, why q rating? Image is actually safer then it's parent in my opinion.
Botomless tag should be removed, we just can't see if she got any pants or she doesn't. Assuming that she's not wearing pants would be sensless since we can't see if she's wearing them or not. BTW what does it mean if psot is safe questionable etc?
Gotta love the internet for arguments like this. Anyway, just to join in, the "tag what you see" thing seems to be contradicted by several tags - for example "trap". You SEE a woman, so the "trap" tag is innately paradoxical.
