Topic: Does anyone else remember what this site used to be like?

Posted under General

i remember when you didnt have to have a gold star on your vest to edit tags

srsly someone fix queen_chrysalis_(mlp) to be connected to queen_chrysalis searches

ive been a member for a long time but ive never participated in the community

Updated by anonymous

Rincevent said:
i remember when you didnt have to have a gold star on your vest to edit tags

srsly someone fix queen_chrysalis_(mlp) to be connected to queen_chrysalis searches

ive been a member for a long time but ive never participated in the community

That could be easly done with an alias request, unfortunately they are currently not working... just wait a little bit. Just keep looking at the news header

Updated by anonymous

Xch3l said:
That could be easly done with an alias request, unfortunately they are currently not working... just wait a little bit. Just keep looking at the news header

well used to be able to add alias as just a normal user

i did it before..

i only used this site to jerk off since 2010 and i just now see theres a forum. mind blown

Updated by anonymous

Rincevent said:
well used to be able to add alias as just a normal user

i did it before..

Imagine, for a moment, the abuses people could commit with that power.

That's why you can't make aliases anymore.

Updated by anonymous

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
So, you mean, that if an artist draws an orange and claims that it's apple, we should tag it as an apple?

I'm talking about animal genders, not fruit.

Aurali said:
what about the poor regards of our search system @.@ too many times a character switches genders and suddenly every image out there is suddenly gotta be switched to make up for it. I forget who it was, but a chick got really offended and took down her art because she changed her characters gender to a female and it.. well it had a penis! Im sorry. Some people just want to watch the world burn.

Sadly, some people will be difficult regardless of what system is in place such as this particular person you mentioned.

As for everyone else, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I stand by what I've said. All I'm saying is if you know what gender a character is (male, female, herm, etc.), then tag it as such. If a character's gender cannot be determined for what ever reason, why not just use the ambiguous_gender tag? Is it not better to use ambiguous_gender while at the same time using tags to describe other characteristics (genitals, breasts, etc.) rather than use an incorrect gender tag?

Updated by anonymous

Syndarkis said:
All I'm saying is if you know what gender a character is (male, female, herm, etc.), then tag it as such. If a character's gender cannot be determined for what ever reason, why not just use the ambiguous_gender tag? Is it not better to use ambiguous_gender while at the same time using tags to describe other characteristics (genitals, breasts, etc.) rather than use an incorrect gender tag?

The users of this website are not always privy to the special magical backstory of a given character. If it looks like a female, it's going to be tagged female, regardless of whether it is "supposed" to have a penis, or whatever. We tag based on only the information available visually in the image itself. Just because an artist says "that is male" doesn't make it so; that argument could be extended to insisting a circle is a square.

When the users of this website put "male" into the search box, they want to see things that look like males. They don't want to see things that are "supposed" to be male, but appear female.

Updated by anonymous

Syndarkis said:
I'm talking about animal genders, not fruit.

It was an incredibly simple analogy, and yet it still managed to fly past your head. Let me try to simplify it for you:
An artist draws this
post #296973
Someone posts it here, tags it as male. Artist comes in and says "no no, this is a female, she just has a flat chest and a penis because of furry demon voodoo."

You're saying that we should tag it female just because the artist says it is? Don't you think it would make more sense to keep it tagged male so people searching male will see it in their results?

Updated by anonymous

ippiki_ookami said:
It was an incredibly simple analogy, and yet it still managed to fly past your head. Let me try to simplify it for you:
An artist draws this
post #296973
Someone posts it here, tags it as male. Artist comes in and says "no no, this is a female, she just has a flat chest and a penis because of furry demon voodoo."

You're saying that we should tag it female just because the artist says it is? Don't you think it would make more sense to keep it tagged male so people searching male will see it in their results?

It didn't fly past my head at all. I just don't tolerate smartasses such as you and Gilda_The_Gryphon.

If you manage to post something that doesn't insult me, I will be civil in return. Until then, you and I have nothing more to talk about.

Updated by anonymous

Syndarkis said:
It didn't fly past my head at all. I just don't tolerate smartasses such as you and Gilda_The_Gryphon.

If you manage to post something that doesn't insult me, I will be civil in return. Until then, you and I have nothing more to talk about.

You're deliberately and disingenuously misunderstanding our analogies and throwing up an "I'm offended" smokescreen in order to avoid acknowledging our point.

You're right. We don't have anything more to talk about.

Updated by anonymous

null0010 said:
You're deliberately and disingenuously misunderstanding our analogies and throwing up an "I'm offended" smokescreen in order to avoid acknowledging our point.

You're right. We don't have anything more to talk about.

It's unfortunate that you see it that way. I've stated my opinions on the tagging system in a civil manner only to have a user and an admin get shitty with me.

As for acknowledging a point, the only point I will acknowledge is that the "tag what you see" rule is flawed and is resulting in improperly tagged images.

And regarding your analogies and examples, yes, I deliberately misunderstood them. I found them ridiculous and only take into account the fringe elements of the furry fandom. Really, how many furry artists are going to try claiming that the picture
ippiki ookami posted is anything but male? Most wouldn't. That's why I don't take your analogies seriously.

It's obvious that arguing about this will accomplish nothing, so I will remove myself from this debate. I've made my point about the tagging system and I'm sticking with it.

Updated by anonymous

Syndarkis said:
Really, how many furry artists are going to try claiming that the picture
ippiki ookami posted is anything but male? Most wouldn't. That's why I don't take your analogies seriously.

Hey, smart one.
Did it occur to you that we do this entirely because people have gone and done just that?
No? Not yet?

You're applying your own fairly sane (if really pretentious) logic to the situation, instead of looking at how other people will/would react.

"No, naaah, there's no way they'd do that" is what you're saying, when what you should be saying to even be considered is "Nah, they wouldn't do that again."

Updated by anonymous

lol, maybe we could have two sets of tags for each post
- what people see when they look at the pic
- what the artist intended

then artists can draw pink pineapples and say that they're really purple unicorn herms

Updated by anonymous

Munkelzahn said:
lol, maybe we could have two sets of tags for each post
- what people see when they look at the pic
- what the artist intended

then artists can draw pink pineapples and say that they're really purple unicorn herms

I have suggested this before.
Didn't fly well with the admins :3

Updated by anonymous

If we ever managed to get this guy to even acknowledge the point of "they've done stupid shit like that before, which is why we have these rules", then all he'd say is we're making it up to turn the argument in our favor and support our decision.

Just don't waste your time with a closed mind. Go eat a sandwich or something: You'll at least gain a benefit from doing so.

Updated by anonymous

Munkelzahn said:
lol, maybe we could have two sets of tags for each post
- what people see when they look at the pic
- what the artist intended

then artists can draw pink pineapples and say that they're really purple unicorn herms

We should have different set of tags for all users. And for example Gilda_The_Gryphon:stupid would mean that I think that image is stupid.

And maybe we should go further. Gilda_The_Gryphon:Foobaria:Stupid would mean that I think, that Foobaria thinks that image is stupid.

Updated by anonymous

This can never be discussed without someone getting thier knickers in a twist it seems. The rule makes so much sense in a site run by searching tags. I'm starting to see Foob's point . . .

:(

Updated by anonymous

...the only point I will acknowledge is that the "tag what you see" rule is flawed and is resulting in improperly tagged images.

Our point is that "tag what the artist says" is equally flawed.

You're arguing that we should tag images with what the artist wants users to see. We're arguing that we tag images with what users see. It's a simple post-modernism debate.

There's no right side to this; there's simply the one chosen. If you don't agree with us, you're free to not use the site. If an artist doesn't agree with us, it's entirely within their power to not use the site and ensure their art isn't hosted here.

Updated by anonymous

Char said:
But to address your point, no, artists are NOT given "preferential" treatment on e621. However, we do expect you guys to simply not be dicks in general, whether it's to the artists or not (and we expect the same of the artists; don't think we're afraid to ban or give negative records to them when necessary).

Ha...hahaha, ahahahahaha, oh god that joke was hilarious char.

Updated by anonymous