Mutisija said:
but foreskin tag would apply to circumcision images where character's foreskin is not attached to body anymore but still visible in image. this is exactly why it doesnt work as replacement for uncut tag.

There isn't many images where characters are performing circumcision on another individual, but you do have a point there. However, you could just use the tag circumcision_scar, and make another tag like "unattached_foreskin", but the situation where we have to create a new tag like that seems very rare.

Mutisija said:
but foreskin tag would apply to circumcision images where character's foreskin is not attached to body anymore but still visible in image. this is exactly why it doesnt work as replacement for uncut tag.

Seriously its not that big a deal because in all fairness there are very rare cases where this is even a remote issue (as someone who has that particular kink) Its unreasonable to have this as the only fallback.

There is no single image on this site where uncut does not mean foreskin in some way and arguing that point is not only based purely in semantics its outright wrong.

Furthermore, the argument that it doesn't work as a "replacement" because of that is the very reason it SHOULD be the replacement in the first place.

Uncut DOESNT always work. especially involving cbt and genital mutilation but you can always tag what you see, and foreskin and the frenulum are (often) reliable indicators of being intact. Its almost like foreskin needs to be present for you to tag uncut.

And again as has been brought up before, uncut is a terribad tag as it is as it asserts circumcised as the norm, at least "intact" would be fine but I digress.

There are a few circumcision pics on the site right now.

90% are uploaded by me.

NONE of them have even got the issue that you suggest is a reason to not have this change or require a new tag.

Please stop using an argument that simply isnt there.

Seriously. Point 4 from last night. When your concern is that you don't want to see it detached, you aren't looking to not include what uncut doesn't include. You're looking to not include what genital_mutilation and/or guro and/or cbt do include. You could search uncut genital_mutilation right now and receive 21 pictures of blood and torture. Change the first one to foreskin and negate or blacklist the second, and you'll get zero. The problem never exists in the first place.

And let's stress, again, that all body parts are removable, Tagging them by their name doesn't open you to the possibility of seeing them removed. Neglecting to filter out gore does.

Also, one more thing. Theres no way to tell whether a penis has been intact forever or gone through foreskin restoration. Meaning that UNCUT as a word is outright wrong. Thats NOT even considering circumcision which is a primary reason to outright change the word.

If foreskin is in the image. Tag foreskin. Tag what you see.
Furthermore, there's no reason to have 2 tags for the same thing.

Foreskin simply tags, Foreskin, its as simple as that.

It also helps make tagging erect humanoid penises easier! Right now there are also issues I've noticed with people actually tagging uncut and cut on things. Especially in the case of erections.

Now I know we don't tag lore but, please bear with me to get a couple points across very clearly.

post #968029 post #644618

This character Tito has canonically been cut (as a teen) and restored his foreskin. You cannot tell that he's done this. At all, but the word Uncut is wrong. By lore yes, but it is still a possibility for the word being wrong.

Let's talk about the issue of Circumcision!

In this image, the character Yarne, who is uncut, has a circumcision clamp on his penis. It hasn't been cut into yet but the damage is basically half done already. The art is clearly depicting exactly what you've been complaining about. But by the standards of the tag he's no longer UNcut.
post #1004437

Followed up by post #1004431
You can tag foreskin in both, and uncut in both despite it technically being wrong.

Let's go deeper.

post #924771 post #543064

These can be tagged with foreskin. But should not be tagged with uncut because they are very clearly being sliced into.

There is blood and skin separation they are not uncut. They do have Foreskin however.
Arguing this point is semantics. And wrong.

The chracter in the second image is shown with a long and tight foreskin, and partially_retracted_foreskin. But adding any of those tags will add uncut, as it just did when I added them. See the problem there?

Lets get really pedantic and shallow now,

post #4902

This is tagged with "retracted_foreskin"

Man that does not look like it.
There's wrinkles but there's a clear divide in skin colour, something synonymous with circumcision. There's clearly little/no frenulum which is a standard of being cut. There are wrinkles but I know I've seen MANY, MANY cut dicks with that amount of wrinkle or more. I've seen cut dicks that look like they're intact when fully soft. The literal only argument for this being "uncut" at all is, the possibility that the wrinkles are foreskin.

post #16569

You can clearly see frenulum, sulcus and foreskin here. it's an uncut dick. How can I tell? I can see the damn foreskin.

You cannot tag "uncut" without foreskin

You cannot.

And lastly, I bring up again Lanaya.

post #966757

He has a sheath that ends in a foreskin with the typical preputial ring associated with tight/phimotic foreskins.

Would you tag that as uncut? Because unless you're taking very specific fantasy measures to specifically circumcise a sheath for fetish reasons, its unreasonable for me to at any point think that Uncut (a word that asserts cut as the norm) would ever be applicable. For any reason.

I was just about to mention the "tag what you see" ordeal. That post up there is totally correct. Uncut isn't always fit for all tagging situations as theres different things to do with the foreskin and many different tags for it.

Tag What You See means that if it's an uncut penis, it's an uncut penis. Foreskin may primarily be used for uncut penises, but not only that. An implication is fine, but not an alias.

Furrin_Gok said:
Tag What You See means that if it's an uncut penis, it's an uncut penis. Foreskin may primarily be used for uncut penises, but not only that. An implication is fine, but not an alias.

I dont think you seem to understand. Uncut literally means foreskin. And we cannot implicate foreskin because it was alias'd away INTO uncut, so either A: One has to imply the other and they need to be separated (pointless) or we change the word uncut to foreskin.

We've been over this exact point so many times its ridiculous.

GDelscribe said:
We've been over this exact point so many times its ridiculous.

Then start listening.
The uncut tag is for intact foreskin, opposite of circumcised. Not for foreskin in general.

It was discussed in the committee way back when this thread was started, and no, we're not going to mess up blacklists by aliasing it into something more generic. Not to mention that it'd then no longer be a paired tag for circumcised. I suggest you forget about that and move on.

Genjar said:
Then start listening.
The uncut tag is for intact foreskin, opposite of circumcised. Not for foreskin in general.

It was discussed in the committee way back when this thread was started, and no, we're not going to mess up blacklists by aliasing it into something more generic. Not to mention that it'd then no longer be a paired tag for circumcised. I suggest you forget about that and move on.

Frankly it seems you havent listened to a single word written in this thread even once. Every time it gets brought up you bring up the same "well its this and thats how it is too bad."

Thats not an argument. And the last time I checked, no offense but you're not a moderator so please don't get high and mighty with me.

They don't need to be paired tags. Appeal to tradition is not an excuse for ignoring a clear and glaring flaw in the system. Instead of repeating yourself over and over and telling others to get over it, actually read the damn discussion.

There is no logical reason not to change the tag. And there are MANY arguments as to why it should be changed.

Read the damn thread for once. I'm not the only one who's making points here while people continue to ignore them in favour of repeating "This is how it is."

Genjar said:
The uncut tag is for intact foreskin, opposite of circumcised. Not for foreskin in general.

Beyond the fact that it forms a paired tag with circumcised, why is this the case though? What makes the idea that a penis still has a certain part more compelling for a descriptive tag than just that part itself?

gaunt0 said:
Beyond the fact that it forms a paired tag with circumcised, why is this the case though? What makes the idea that a penis still has a certain part more compelling for a descriptive tag than just that part itself?

Because people would rather search for a certain kind of penis than a certain feature of a penis.

GDelscribe said:
the last time I checked, no offense but you're not a moderator so please don't get high and mighty with me.

He's a lot higher on the food chain than you are.

BlueDingo said:
Because people would rather search for a certain kind of penis than a certain feature of a penis.

I'm sure most visitors would rather search for "gay" than male/male. Is this really a valid reason on its own to keep a tag the way it is? The male/male change was made even so.

gaunt0 said:
Beyond the fact that it forms a paired tag with circumcised, why is this the case though? What makes the idea that a penis still has a certain part more compelling for a descriptive tag than just that part itself?

Like BlueDingo said, it's for search purposes: the state of foreskin is more important than foreskin itself. Users prefer either uncut or cut, so the tags exist to make it possible to search for (and blacklist) one or the other.

Neither of them is getting aliased away, and that won't change no matter how many times some users complain about it. Though again, renaming uncut to something like intact_foreskin might be an option.

That is literally what were doing here and people would still be able to search for "uncut".

You are a janitor you know how the system works. You have to.
You have somehow failed to grasp that despite it having been said at least 8 times now. Foreskin is aliased to uncut.

Just swap the names around.
While I like adding intact_foreskin as a tag yeah its still wrong for multiple reasons mentioned earlier.

Seriously read the goddamn thread for once.

You cant search for "cut" anymore since it was disambiguated. You physically have to search circumcised now. Theres NO REASON to keep uncut outside of some shallow desire to maintain a status quo.

If you search cut right now it will bring you to a page that doesnt even MENTION circumcised which means you cannot reliably search for them that way.

The tags are no longer paired already. Your argument is not only invalid by design but yourr legitimately literally just outright wrong

Read the actual arguments people have brought up for once.

Your argument is based entirely on "oh well people dont want to see circumcision art" then use the goddamn blacklist that is not an excuse.

It was never an excuse.

The state is NOT IMPORTANT.

The fact the "state" is often wrong leads me to believe that this tag and all variations are fundamentally flawed.

This is a clarity issue. Front and centre. Uncut is unclear. Foreskin is clear.

BlueDingo said:
Because people would rather search for a certain kind of penis than a certain feature of a penis.

He's a lot higher on the food chain than you are.

1: No lmao

Im looking for foreskin. Because thats the aspect of uncut dicks that matters you dont seem to understand the most basic principal. For a penis to be "uncut" at all it needs foreskin.

When I search I use the word Foreskin because rhats what im goddamn looking for.

2: And he is not a moderator. He really isnt that much higher up on the chain so no. Dont pull that shit with me. His job is to approve or deny images on the site based on the AUP. Thats it. Hes not up the chain from me. Hes sideways from all regular users. So no.

Im not going to be bullied by someone telling me to not care about something thats worth discussing because they find it trivial.

GDelscribe said:
That is literally what were doing here and people would still be able to search for "uncut".

No, GDel. THey wouldn't. Uncut would automatically result in having any state of foreskin, including foreskin in the act of being circumcised, something we don't want.

I'm not sure what you think personal attacks are going to get you so stop while you're behind, thanks.

It was explained over and over again now that yes, state does matter, so the alias is not something we want. I don't know why it matters whose mouth you hear it from, but here you go.

this thread

Furrin_Gok said:
No, GDel. THey wouldn't. Uncut would automatically result in having any state of foreskin, including foreskin in the act of being circumcised, something we don't want.

You still have not explained how that is relevant when blacklisting tools exist.

Furthermore as I have said multiple times due to the tagging system adding any tags related to the state of the foreskin IN those circumcision pieces will add uncut anyway. And furthermore defeats the whole purpose of your argument.

I dont seem to understand why you cant follow this. The word is innacurate and ill suited.

Ratte said:
I'm not sure what you think personal attacks are going to get you so stop while you're behind, thanks.

It was explained over and over again now that yes, state does matter, so the alias is not something we want. I don't know why it matters whose mouth you hear it from, but here you go.

My comment was not directed in response to the argument itself but being told to basically sit down and shut up by someone who is in no position of power. Apologies if I seem crass but Im rather tired of the same tired response when the massive amount of points to the contrary are constantly ignored and then people are told to stop dicussing it at all because, someone isnt interested in having a civil debate??

Having someone whos not a moderator literally telling people to shut up and stop discussing because they dont like the discussion is typically against the rules. Isnt it?

When the argument is broken down there is no reason outside of "this is how it is" that has actually been presented to me. Notnobody and flyvyper have also commented on this I am not the only one bringing up the inherent flaw here.

I made this thread six months back and took a break from it because any arguments made were met with the same "we tag uncut because its paired with this other tag"

Thats not true anymore.

"We dont tag foreskin because uncut is the state of the penis and thats what people search for"

In the case of circumcision thats not always the case. Which you argue shouldnt have those rags at all.

But if you tag anything with "foreskin" in the tag. Uncut will be added. As per tag what you see you should be adding those tags as well.

Its a flawed tag. Foreskin is more reliable. And more accurate as a tag. And simply arguing "this is the way it is" is not an argument as to why something should stay the same.

Nobody has made an argument yet as to why this is the case. Or why it might be better than foreskin as a tag. Repeating the same "it just is" doesn't mean anything :/

No personal attacks are intended. Being told to sit down and shut up by someone definitely rubs me the wrong way but I didnt figure it would be worth reporting/intervention at the time.

GDelscribe said:
My comment was not directed in response to the argument itself but being told to basically sit down and shut up by someone who is in no position of power. Apologies if I seem crass but Im rather tired of the same tired response when the massive amount of points to the contrary are constantly ignored and then people are told to stop dicussing it at all because, someone isnt interested in having a civil debate??

Having someone whos not a moderator literally telling people to shut up and stop discussing because they dont like the discussion is typically against the rules. Isnt it?

When the argument is broken down there is no reason outside of "this is how it is" that has actually been presented to me. Notnobody and flyvyper have also commented on this I am not the only one bringing up the inherent flaw here.

I made this thread six months back and took a break from it because any arguments made were met with the same "we tag uncut because its paired with this other tag"

Thats not true anymore.

"We dont tag foreskin because uncut is the state of the penis and thats what people search for"

In the case of circumcision thats not always the case. Which you argue shouldnt have those rags at all.

But if you tag anything with "foreskin" in the tag. Uncut will be added. As per tag what you see you should be adding those tags as well.

Its a flawed tag. Foreskin is more reliable. And more accurate as a tag. And simply arguing "this is the way it is" is not an argument as to why something should stay the same.

Nobody has made an argument yet as to why this is the case. Or why it might be better than foreskin as a tag. Repeating the same "it just is" doesn't mean anything :/

No personal attacks are intended. Being told to sit down and shut up by someone definitely rubs me the wrong way but I didnt figure it would be worth reporting/intervention at the time.

Nobody 'literally' said to "sit down and shut up". Stop using 'literally' unless it actually happened.

We don't tag foreskin because it is less descriptive as uncut, because uncut refers to the state of the penis rather than the fact that foreskin is in a picture at all. The foreskin could be on a penis, in your bowl of soup, or on your lampshade, and is thus not as useful a tag as uncut. Personally I would prefer aliasing uncut to intact_foreskin because that seems like a better alternative as it describes both the presence and the state of the foreskin.

Ratte said:
...uncut refers to the state of the penis rather than the fact that foreskin is in a picture at all...

To this moment, still not a single one of you arguing against the change has answered how that's any different from any other body part that gets accurately named. Foreskin seems to be the one and only thing that you assume will appear on the floor at any given time, even though that's a ridiculous starting point.

post #455261

Oh my gosh! I wish those silly e621 taggers would've remembered to use uncut to refer to un-removed clitorises and labia! Don't they know they're likely to show up on the floor or in a bowl of soup?! My mind will never be the same again! If only they would tag them like penises and start from the assumption that their natural state of not being chopped into pieces was odd and needed to be tagged as a special state!

notnobody said:
To this moment, still not a single one of you arguing against the change has answered how that's any different from any other body part that gets accurately named. Foreskin seems to be the one and only thing that you assume will appear on the floor at any given time, even though that's a ridiculous starting point.

post #455261

Oh my gosh! I wish those silly e621 taggers would've remembered to use uncut to refer to un-removed clitorises and labia! Don't they know they're likely to show up on the floor or in a bowl of soup?! My mind will never be the same again! If only they would tag them like penises and start from the assumption that their natural state of not being chopped into pieces was odd and needed to be tagged as a special state!

That's why I would prefer the suggestion I offered since it just makes more sense to me. It describes both the presence of the foreskin as well as its condition. I don't really like the default being the "cut" state since that doesn't make sense to me and much of the world but whenever I've brought this up it's gone nowhere.

We also have disembodied_* for other appendages as well as circumcision for foreskin removal. Whether you like it or not, state of what's being tagged as well as the presence of it in the first place still does matter.

I think Ratte's idea is going to be the best.

Aliasing foreskin and uncut to intact_foreskin is much more descriptive. And all instances of removed foreskin could be changed to disembodied_foreskin to bring them in-line with all the other disembodied tags (https://e621.net/tag?name=disembodied_*).

A quick look through the aliases and implications also seems to show no problems with switching any of them over, they would still work as they do now, they'd just be more intuitive.

NotMeNotYou said:
I think Ratte's idea is going to be the best.

Aliasing foreskin and uncut to intact_foreskin is much more descriptive. And all instances of removed foreskin could be changed to disembodied_foreskin to bring them in-line with all the other disembodied tags (https://e621.net/tag?name=disembodied_*).

A quick look through the aliases and implications also seems to show no problems with switching any of them over, they would still work as they do now, they'd just be more intuitive.

Don't you mean severed_*? Disembodied means the rest of the body isn't shown whereas severed refers to parts that have been removed from the body.

Compare disembodied_head with severed_head.

NotMeNotYou said:
I think Ratte's idea is going to be the best.

Yep. The increased tag length is the main downside, and that's not a major problem. Should be fine, as long as the alias transfer doesn't time out. With over 27000 posts, I'm a bit worried about that.

BlueDingo said:
Don't you mean severed_*? Disembodied means the rest of the body isn't shown whereas severed refers to parts that have been removed from the body.

Compare disembodied_head with severed_head.

True, those can be difficult to keep straight.
disembodied_* is when only a part is drawn but is implied to be connected to the rest of the body.
severed_* is for parts that have been forcibly removed. Dismemberment, etc.

Then there's the floating_* group, for body parts such as floating_hands that seem to function as normal even though they're not visibly connected to the torso. Usually applies to ghosts and such. And Rayman.

And the fourth group is detachable_*, for parts that can be removed and reattached without harming the owner. That one usually applies to robots, living dolls, and such. Detachable_head is the most common one.

Genjar said:
...And the fourth group is detachable_*...

I woke up this morning with a bad hangover, and my penis was missing again. This happens all the time. It's detachable...

...Anyone?

Throwing this out there... What if we just removed the tag uncut entirely? Penis is penis. Circumcised is a special kind of modified penis (or other things, but this for the moment in this suggestion). If a penis isn't tagged with circumcised, it's just a penis, which naturally implies it has foreskin, be that by being unaltered or being restored, which technically wouldn't be true but visually would be basically the same. If it's tagged with circumcised, it doesn't have foreskin. You don't need to care why or how. We could add a tag of something along the lines of severed_foreskin or something to indicate those one in a million cases where you do see a body part sitting there separate from a body, and we already have properly used tags for how that happens, e.g. genital_mutilation, cbt, circumcision, etc. I wonder if this argument is slightly misdirected because we're arguing that the body part needs to be pointed out, when in reality, since it's the natural state, it can be assumed to be there unless we specifically say otherwise. That is, I guess my suggestion would be to alias uncut to invalid_tag, thereby negating the need to tag anything when a penis is in its unaltered natural state. That not only removes the conversational implication that natural is unnatural, but simultaneously solves the problem of people worrying about seeing unattached foreskin when all they wanted was to not see it in any state whatsoever.

notnobody said:
Throwing this out there... What if we just removed the tag uncut entirely? Penis is penis.

There's plenty of non-humanoid penises, the humanoid_penis tag is undertagged, and many are drawn so undetailed that it's impossible to tell whether they've intact or not. So keeping the tag is useful for both searchability and for tagging projects.

We're not going to just remove a tag that people actually use, that's a poor idea. The "Sausage Penis" and the "Mushroom Penis" are two different types of penis that both fall under humanoid_penis, but people usually prefer one over the other. That's why we have glans and foreskin, as those are the proper tags for describing those two penis shapes.

notnobody said:
I woke up this morning with a bad hangover, and my penis was missing again. This happens all the time. It's detachable...

I would have made the exact same joke if I was on at the time. Oh well.

Furrin_Gok said:
"Mushroom Penis"

post #30829

Furrin_Gok said:
"Mushroom Penis"

That's an odd thing to know it as. I knew it as the helmet, or Sergeant because "he's the one wearing the helm, not the hood".

As I implied, though, intact_foreskin would be a solve-all because I can't see much way to fuck it up.

I definitely do agree with intact_foreskin.

Siral_Exan said:
I knew it as the helmet, or Sergeant because "he's the one wearing the helm, not the hood".

Or Fireman, a la Cartman.

Great googly moogly we have a lot of tags for types of penises. I just tag searched *penis, and there're seven pages worth...

True, just leaving the tag out of the picture would remove the ability to see it when it's not on all of those other types to begin with, assuming humanoid isn't tagged consistently. Somehow for a moment I apparently forgot what site I was on... But that just brings me back to the previous position that we should tag it as what it is, and create and use an extremely, extremely rare tag of severed_foreskin to point out those few cases where it actually does appear non-attached. Some people looking for it could search for it explicitly that way, and people already filtering out the various mutilation tags would never know the difference, because the same set of pictures would already be filtered. The assumption would be the same, in this case that foreskin does by default mean intact foreskin - i.e. why would you ever assume it's not attached by default - and a separate tag, severed_foreskin, would mean the only other way it ever appears, which is way, way more rare.

notnobody said:
Throwing this out there... What if we just removed the tag uncut entirely? Penis is penis.

worst idea anyone has had for a while.

i find uncut dicks hot and i do use it frequently for my searches. and i doubt that im the only one who is into uncut dicks. removing the tag would make finding them really hard. sure, excluding some tags from results would bring some results but i would need to search penis -circumised -animal_genitalia -tapering_penis -circumicion and it still brings fuckton of results that do not match what im looking for and it hides those unusual animal genital / humanoid penis hybrids. and if i want to find specific kind of characters or scenarios with uncut dicks, i would hit the tag search limit pretty fast.

Mutisija said:
...unusual animal genital / humanoid penis hybrids...

Right. Like I said, forgot about that for a moment. So back to the good idea - tag foreskin as foreskin and make a severed_foreskin tag to point out those extremely rare images and fit the model that we use for other severed parts.

Furrin_Gok said:
We're not going to just remove a tag that people actually use, that's a poor idea.

you know, in that other thread, i'd easily disagree with your side of the debate, GDelscribe (this quoted line is exactly why). in this case however...i think i actually do agree with your side of the argument.

Okay - I finally got around to going over this stuff. After digging around in tags and posts, I'm exactly where I was before I started looking. Here're a few tags we have and their post counts...

We have lots of tags for various body parts of note, covering appendages, areas, and even bones internal organs in some cases. None of them that I've found so far have any corresponding tags, let alone tags they're aliased to, that indicate states of non-removal. They're just tagged as what they are. Here's a small sampling:

We also do, very frequently, refer to foreskin as what it is. In none of these combined 20,409 posts at the time of this compilation do we find ourselves fighting against the notion that, for instance, we expect a retracted or pierced foreskin to be unattached to a character. Actions upon body parts are always just tagged as such, just the same as we don't expect hand_on_butt to refer to a hand on a severed butt cheek on a platter... Which does actually exist in the world of fur art.

And when we do have images showing body parts in a state of being removed, we tag it as such.

Likewise, we have plenty of tags describing the aftermath of those actions, where already-removed parts are shown in images.

Those, if anything, are underused, because for the most part, we seem to usually just allow the gore-related tags to encompass them. Apparently people just don't care enough about specific parts laying around to tag them all that much.

I searched around as well as I could manage, and I was only able to find post #208429 showing a foreskin that wasn't attached. And that one, as expected, is rife with tags that would be blacklisted by anybody not willing to see it. So for all of the bluster, we have exactly the same number of posts on this site showing foreskins that are not intact as we have posts showing characters being butt raped with cheese graters. But nobody suggests that we should alias anus to intact_anus. Circumcised has 2,463 entries right now. Given the multitude of penis types that may or may not have ever had foreskin to begin with, that's a much more accurate term to use positively, and it's obviously not something that would have to be started from scratch.

So to recap, it's clear we should make this change, because:
1.) We're currently being inconsistent with other body part tags by using a roundabout description of the part not being removed, rather than just naming the part.
2.) We're currently being inconsistent with other foreskin tags by the same token.
3.) We introduce no risk of breaking blacklists or negations by being accurate.
4.) We introduce no risk of making searching more difficult because of alias functionality and because everyone who knows what uncut means knows what a foreskin is, and people from areas where FGM is common, and/or where MGM is not common actually have some lessened likelihood of automatically knowing exactly what uncut means.

Thank you for putting it very very well. Much better than I could have with tons of evidence and reasoning to support

notnobody said:

<nicely laid out tables>

I'm convinced. Flipped tag

Edit: I'm leaving the penis implication off for now to simplify things. After all it's way more likely to get tagged penis than foreskin anyways, so the implication isn't really needed.

parasprite said:
I'm convinced. Flipped tag

I think you've just made a hasty decision... I'm gonna shoot the dark and say that the lack of opposition did not mean there is no opposition.

At least let other people agree, or send it to the committee of staff.

Siral_Exan said:
I think you've just made a hasty decision... I'm gonna shoot the dark and say that the lack of opposition did not mean there is no opposition.

At least let other people agree, or send it to the committee of staff.

For what it's worth, I've been wanting to flip this one for a long time now but never got around to it.

I'm choosing to take back what I said and ask: would you reconsider if a strong opposing argument is made?

That was hasty.

Siral_Exan said:
I'm choosing to take back what I said and ask: would you reconsider if a strong opposing argument is made?

Of course. None of this is set in stone.

parasprite said:
Of course. None of this is set in stone.

That's good to hear.

Considering this has been brought up to the staff more than once and started 6 months ago I wouldnt say its exactly "hasty"?

GDelscribe said:
Considering this has been brought up to the staff more than once and started 6 months ago I wouldnt say its exactly "hasty"?

I hate to call you out, but this would be a definition of a hasty decision. Suddenly, a new point is made, and before anyone decides to contribute (for or against; at all) it is accepted... without anyone to voice against.

Mind you, that is being dramatic. In literal terms, they didn't give the opposition, or the third party, a chance to discuss. A decision without listening to all, or even any at all, parties is hasty by default.

If Parasprite gave a week, or even a day, it wouldn't be hasty because I am willing to assume that someone would of spoken against.

Siral_Exan said:
I hate to call you out, but this would be a definition of a hasty decision. Suddenly, a new point is made, and before anyone decides to contribute (for or against; at all) it is accepted... without anyone to voice against.

Mind you, that is being dramatic. In literal terms, they didn't give the opposition, or the third party, a chance to discuss. A decision without listening to all, or even any at all, parties is hasty by default.

If Parasprite gave a week, or even a day, it wouldn't be hasty because I am willing to assume that someone would of spoken against.

Actually,

parasprite said:
For what it's worth, I've been wanting to flip this one for a long time now but never got around to it.

She already intended to change it. She just so happened to get around to it shortly after that "new point."

Siral_Exan said:
I hate to call you out, but this would be a definition of a hasty decision. Suddenly, a new point is made, and before anyone decides to contribute (for or against; at all) it is accepted... without anyone to voice against.

Mind you, that is being dramatic. In literal terms, they didn't give the opposition, or the third party, a chance to discuss. A decision without listening to all, or even any at all, parties is hasty by default.

If Parasprite gave a week, or even a day, it wouldn't be hasty because I am willing to assume that someone would of spoken against.

Listening to what?

All opposing oppinions are in this thread and easily read through. They said theyd meant to do it in the past and it had been brought up to them in the past as well.

The thread is 6 months old and the 4th page alone has enough debate from the opposite side as well.

Theyre all clearly written here. And is this really much different from any other aliases here?

Are you really saying that an admin who has been doing mainly tag/alias work for ages is suddenly wrong on something because???

Personal investments aside. Its not any more hasty than other alias changes.

-edit-

I really shouldn't be posting this late. But yeah I want to echo Furrin Gok's post and leave it that.

I do wonder why we have to use this now confusing tag instead of Uncut_Foreskin or Intact_foreskin though.

Furrin_Gok said:
I do wonder why we have to use this now confusing tag instead of Uncut_Foreskin or Intact_foreskin though.

In what way is it confusing?

Again as has been said multiple times before in the thread, what makes this tag any more confusing than intact foreskin especially when notnobody's post perfectly exemplifies and explains why the term is fine as a single word. (Again as Ive explaines multiple times using the term uncut at all is errant on any related genital torture art; etc)

And while intact_foreskin is a nice codifier its ultimately a redundancy at best and an incorrect tag at worst.

Furrin_Gok said:
Actually,
She already intended to change it. She just so happened to get around to it shortly after that "new point."

Then, to parrot Ratte (quip towards Gel, but nothing personal to either of you), "that was hasty."

No one had a chance to say anything, even after they (NotNobody) imply a dedicated amount of time, until it appeared too late. No one had a chance to act until they (Parasprite) acted, and it was only hours...

That is why I'm glad that it isn't set in stone. Back to being dramatic, allow people to retort as have been given courtesy before... I may be lethargic about this topic, but I'm willing to say that the decision wouldn't be fair (if it was set in stone).

I am watching this discusion since approximadely 2 months ago and readed the previous arguments, but I opted for not intervene; however this thread already is disnecessarily long and apparently any relevant statment was already made.
Sincerely, I guess that Parasprite should have waited a day or two for a contraargument, but under this circumstances I can't blame him/her.

i still think changing uncut to foreskin is terrible idea. since uncut is now aliased to foreskin and foreskin includes foreskins that have been cut off the body, when person writes uncut in search bar, they might end up having detached foreskins in their search results :/

Mutisija said:
i still think changing uncut to foreskin is terrible idea. since uncut is now aliased to foreskin and foreskin includes foreskins that have been cut off the body, when person writes uncut in search bar, they might end up having detached foreskins in their search results :/

Precisely why the other two tags, with one extra little word added to them, would have been better.

Echoing the above. This was a hasty decision and I would at least personally like a reevaluation. :|

Mutisija,Furrin Gok, Ratte said:
...they might end up having detached foreskins in their search results

Not plural. I pointed out that we only have one such image on the site. And if you were bothered by gore like that, you'd have gore blacklisted, and you wouldn't get the result anyway. The same goes for penis. If all you search is penis, you actually do get not just one image but whole pages of them laying bloody on the ground, but we don't tag that as attached_penis. You're worrying about a problem that doesn't exist. One that actually exists less for the tag in question than it does for a number of other ones you're not trying to impose the same restriction on. Avoid gore by avoiding gore, not treating body parts like Voldemort.

notnobody said:
Not plural. I pointed out that we only have one such image on the site. And if you were bothered by gore like that, you'd have gore blacklisted, and you wouldn't get the result anyway. The same goes for penis. If all you search is penis, you actually do get not just one image but whole pages of them laying bloody on the ground, but we don't tag that as attached_penis. You're worrying about a problem that doesn't exist. One that actually exists less for the tag in question than it does for a number of other ones you're not trying to impose the same restriction on. Avoid gore by avoiding gore, not treating body parts like Voldemort.

im not talking about people getting results of content they do not like. im talking about the fact that this can potentially bring incorrect search results. when person looks for uncut, they are not looking for detached foreskins. and just because we do not have currently many images like that doesnt mean that we will not have them in future either.

The thing is, you just can't reasonably impose this weird test on only one body part when we don't do it on any other one, and we don't do it on that same one any any of the twenty other ways we refer to it. There's no other part among the many we tag that gets any attention for potentially being shown removed, and if that were something we had a habit of doing, you'd think it'd be done sooner to one of the many other ones that actually do frequently show up that way. Coincidentally enough, the only post that has a severed foreskin in it doesn't even have foreskin tagged. If you want to be accurate, and you think it's even worth the five seconds, make it fit the mold by creating the one and only use of a new severed_foreskin tag, and let foreskin act the way every single other body part tag does.

notnobody said:
The thing is, you just can't reasonably impose this weird test on only one body part when we don't do it on any other one, and we don't do it on that same one any any of the twenty other ways we refer to it. There's no other part among the many we tag that gets any attention for potentially being shown removed, and if that were something we had a habit of doing, you'd think it'd be done sooner to one of the many other ones that actually do frequently show up that way. Coincidentally enough, the only post that has a severed foreskin in it doesn't even have foreskin tagged. If you want to be accurate, and you think it's even worth the five seconds, make it fit the mold by creating the one and only use of a new severed_foreskin tag, and let foreskin act the way every single other body part tag does.

you still do not understand what the problem is. things getting tagged with foreskin is not a problem in any way or form. the problem is that uncut is aliased to foreskin.

i try to make this very simple and easy to understand:

• all instances of foreskin are not uncut. this makes the alias bad
• foreskin =/= uncut
• the alias will bring up incorrect results when you search for uncut
• uncut is extremely popular term and used widely everywhere so it will be what people will be writing in the search bar when they want uncut dicks
• people who search for uncut are not looking for all possible instances of foreskin. they are looking for images of characters with foreskin attached to dick
• most of users wont understand that the tag is aliased to a tag that also includes severed foreskins
• most people do not understand that they will need to include special search conditions to bring up only uncut dicks when they type uncut in search bar

foreskin includes foreskins that have been cut off the body ... they might end up having detached foreskins in their search results :/

This is usually rare. Isn't this the purpose of the blacklist? As I recall, the rare circumcision fetishist would sometimes tag uncut anyway, or they would show a before and after. So reverting the tag to uncut wouldn't subvert this problem.

Foreskin, as a term, is actually describing the body part of interest, as compared to uncut which is (american?) slang and refers to being "uncircumcised" or, in other words, "not cut" or "circumcision, not having been done (yet)."

Do you think it would be better to refer to the body as a whole rather than refer to a "surgery not being done?" This is the only body part referred to as such.

(but to be fair, these are only minor issues)

Personally, I think the biggest change (or problem) will be getting used to using foreskin as compared to uncut, which really shouldn't be that big of a deal.

I'll just trust the admin's decision on this one... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

TuttiFrutti said:
This is usually rare. Isn't this the purpose of the blacklist? As I recall, the rare circumcision fetishist would sometimes tag uncut anyway, or they would show a before and after. So reverting the tag to uncut wouldn't subvert this problem.

Foreskin, as a term, is actually describing the body part of interest, as compared to uncut which is (american?) slang and refers to being "uncircumcised" or, in other words, "not cut" or "circumcision, not having been done (yet)."

Do you think it would be better to refer to the body as a whole rather than refer to a "surgery not being done?" This is the only body part referred to as such.

(but to be fair, these are only minor issues)

Personally, I think the biggest change (or problem) will be getting used to using foreskin as compared to uncut, which really shouldn't be that big of a deal.

read my other comments. im not going to repeat this same shit again:
https://e621.net/forum/show/222367
https://e621.net/forum/show/222381

also one admin already said that the decision was hasty and reevaluation would be in place

Even if something is rare, even one case of misstag because of alias and/or possibility of it, renders alias incorrect and should be unaliased.

TuttiFrutti said:
I'll just trust the admin's decision on this one... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Just a reminder that admins are just persons sitting next to computer screen, even if they have more power on case, doesn't mean they can't be wrong. I have corrected admins before.

We presently have exactly zero instances of tag usages that are rendered incorrect by this alias. Not one single usage of the word uncut has been changed such that it now refers to something that it does not. And it never could. Because nobody would have tagged a severed foreskin as uncut. So the charge that "it has been aliased to a tag that also includes severed foreskins" is wrong. The only severed foreskin we have is one that doesn't even have the tag. If we want to add a tag for that, that's fine. But you're pretending this problem exists when it doesn't, just to justify your hangups.

That said, yet again, just because a body part is not attached to a body does not mean it is no longer that body part. If that were the case, we would not be tagging severed penises as penises. But we do. Because they're penises. When you want to see a body part and you don't want to see it removed... Search the body part and don't search for its removal.

You cannot be more predictable and correct than perfect consistency and preciseness. We finally have that. Now you can search exactly what you would expect, and it works the same way as every other body part tag on the site works. That wasn't the case until last night.

notnobody said:
We presently have exactly zero instances of tag usages that are rendered incorrect by this alias. Not one single usage of the word uncut has been changed such that it now refers to something that it does not. And it never could. Because nobody would have tagged a severed foreskin as uncut. So the charge that "it has been aliased to a tag that also includes severed foreskins" is wrong. The only severed foreskin we have is one that doesn't even have the tag. If we want to add a tag for that, that's fine. But you're pretending this problem exists when it doesn't, just to justify your hangups.

That said, yet again, just because a body part is not attached to a body does not mean it is no longer that body part. If that were the case, we would not be tagging severed penises as penises. But we do. Because they're penises. When you want to see a body part and you don't want to see it removed... Search the body part and don't search for its removal.

You cannot be more predictable and correct than perfect consistency and preciseness. We finally have that. Now you can search exactly what you would expect, and it works the same way as every other body part tag on the site works. That wasn't the case until last night.

do you understand that because the change has been made, all current and future instances of severed foreskins will need to be tagged as foreskin and this will bring the severed foreskins to uncut search results. they are not currently tagged as such because the change is very recent and absolutely nobody has been tagging severed foreskin as uncut for obvious reasons.

I've shown you that every other body part tag has the same "problem" you're imagining. I've shown you that this one doesn't have it now, and appears to be less likely to have it in the future than the others. I've shown you that even if the problem you're imagining did actually exist, the remediation would be perfectly functional and identical to the same one for the rest of the tags that exist. I've shown you that even for the other tags where that problem already exists and you're not complaining about it, it's still completely accurate and the only issue is that you're not happy about it. What more could you possibly want? You're absolutely fixated on inventing a problem here.

notnobody said:
I've shown you that every other body part tag has the same "problem" you're imagining. I've shown you that this one doesn't have it now, and appears to be less likely to have it in the future than the others. I've shown you that even if the problem you're imagining did actually exist, the remediation would be perfectly functional and identical to the same one for the rest of the tags that exist. I've shown you that even for the other tags where that problem already exists and you're not complaining about it, it's still completely accurate and the only issue is that you're not happy about it. What more could you possibly want? You're absolutely fixated on inventing a problem here.

One thing we might want is avoidance of a False Analogy used as a fact when it's a common enough error to have its own category.

Good idea. If somebody commits that fallacy at some point, be sure to point it out.

notnobody said:
Good idea. If somebody commits that fallacy at some point, be sure to point it out.

Not "at some point". It's the entire basis of your argument. Even your Appeal to Hypocrisy managed to be based on False Analogy. If you want people to stop pointing out the flaws in your argument, then stop making them.

Unnecessarily capitalizing common nous doesn't give them special power. If you think I've said something wrong or inconsistent, go ahead and explain it. Everything I've said seems logically sound to me.

notnobody said:
Unnecessarily capitalizing common nous doesn't give them special power. If you think I've said something wrong or inconsistent, go ahead and explain it. Everything I've said seems logically sound to me.

It's not unneccessary common nouns. They are specific errors wrong enough to have their own category of error. But good job adding quotemining.

I said the capitalization was unnecessary. Logical fallacy names aren't proper nouns, but you're capitalizing them like it adds some sort of authority. Explain yourself or don't bother throwing out useless terminology.

notnobody said:
I said the capitalization was unnecessary. Logical fallacy names aren't proper nouns, but you're capitalizing them like it adds some sort of authority. Explain yourself or don't bother throwing out useless terminology.

And yet you base that on semantics. Not only don't I have to, you just did it yourself by adding another one. I think I'm done here.

You were done before you started. Jotting down lists of fallacy names with no supporting evidence, like they're magic spells, adds nothing to the discussion.

notnobody said:
You were done before you started. Jotting down lists of fallacy names with no supporting evidence, like they're magic spells, adds nothing to the discussion.

I don't remember the definition of "done" changing.

Feel free to start explaining your charges at any time. I'm happy to have something wrong pointed out if it's there, but this useless nonsense isn't helping anything.