Fair warning, I'm not an admin or anyone. Just a random user.
Global site rules: https://endchan.net/.static/globalRules.html
Rule #2 is what you are interested in. That said, the rules were good in general for the time. Easily generated photorealism is a thing these days. Caution is advised as you know certain people will always strive to push past boundaries, or just cause trouble.
My own general impression: Endchan is comfortably open, but not without minimum standards. Rule #3 can also be interpreted as don't do anything that attracts the attention of law enforcement such that it puts the rest of the site and users in danger.
Clearly, cartoon loli was posted on 4chan without problems. Same here.

Well then I reply here.
Law says:
>a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
>is obscene; or
>depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;

Here's how they define graphic:
>(3) the term “graphic”, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted.

In case of drawn/cartoon/painted characters, which is the topic here, sometimes it's hard to tell if the depicted is a minor. Some other law talks about "childlike characters" (I think the obscenity law), so that's what we keep ourselves to.
Anyway those images that are erotic but not depict vaginal/anal/oral sex and naked genitals should be fine by the law. Like hugging, kissing and other intimacies.
What I removed depicted vaginal sex between naked childlike characters. So it was unambiguous.

As for lolicon. There are no laws specifically to that genre, they belong to the drawing/cartoon/painting etc. group. So everything written above applies.

>>29105
As for Global Rule #2, I rather think of it that we take a harder stance on photos of human bean children.
One can find many images of children with the help of Google, just by searching "child" even in underwear, or on Facebook proud parents taking photos of their kids on vacation at the beach and uploading it. In that context that is fine, on an imageboard it does not look good.

Anyway I take a look at your board, OP, time to times and I rarely find anything that could cross the line.

>>29107
>doesn’t look good

HAHAHAHA

Seeing you faggots suck off the government is incredible. I want to fuck children, mark me nigga

>>29106
Okay, thank you for clarifying. I will post this on my board if you don't mind so that the users know better going forward. We'd all been under the assumption it was ostensibly anything goes so as long as it's fictional, so it initially seemed like we'd just gotten on your nerves. Sorry for the confusion.

I'm going to assume that characters who would be teens in-series but could feasibly be interpreted as 18 or older in fanart are fine, since most artists just say they're 18 in the drawings anyways.

Does being logged in affect this at all? I just wanted to say, don't mistake the self identifying sex offender for me, thanks.

>>29109
Mark you the 100 teeth pitbull.

>>29110
>I will post this on my board
Sure. Feel free to link the thread too.
>who would be teens in-series but could feasibly be interpreted as 18 or older in fanart
Not easy to answer that. The key probably is the "childlike characters", which is kinda hard to say in case of drawn characters. Anime is especially bad in this.
One problem is if I try to write here a concrete definition some tard will appear who will push the boundaries and tries to rulelawyer it. Sometimes young looking but 18+ porn actresses are posted in context that implies underage content. Then the troll fake complains for the content was deleted.
Use sensible judgement.

>>29111
That's okay. I reply to posts, not to users. At least the general aim is that, and anonymity should be about this anyway.