Unaliasing straight_shota → young
Link to alias

Implicating straight_shota → young
Link to implication

Reason:

The usual "All X is Y, but not all Y is X". These tags would make much more sense as an implication instead of the current aliasing. Compare with related terms like shota, loli, cub, etc., which all correctly imply "young" rather than alias to it.

This is getting silly.

Straight_shota is an amalgam of two tags AFAICS, and should remain aliased because of this; amalgam tags are bad and should feel bad.

Just search for "straight shota".
The only reason it doesn't get many results is because shota wasn't considered a valid tag until recently, and there's currently only 100 images tagged as such.

Perhaps it would better if, instead of being aliased to young, we aliased straight_shota to shota? I'm guessing the implication to young is from back when shota wasn't considered a valid tag itself. Shota would be a more accurate target, and the young tag would still get added through the shota -> young implication.

zgranger said:
That's almost as bad -- shota grew out of yaio and remains a de facto m/m type, while straight shota is pointedly m/f. They involve the same subjects (young guys) but in completely different situations with little search interest overlap. Forcing an explicitly straight topic tag to return large amounts of gay material like that is just silly. It would be like aliasing "lesbian" to "gay" -- it's accurate in that they both mean same-sex activity, but in common usage "gay" connotes m/m homosexuality, with "lesbian" meaning f/f exclusively. It's the same deal here: shota is nominally orientation-neutral but refers to m/m by default, with straight_shota being a necessary distinction adopted by the community. The only difference is it doesn't yet have a unique term like "lesbian" and makes do with a straightforward modifier (lol pun), but it does refer to a large and well-represented subgenre.

Also, there might not be a lot of content with these tags here now, but that's because they're relatively new and have lacked a term here to properly categorize until now. The much larger footprint of this tag on other imageboards demonstrates the value of having an equivalent tag here going forward.

If we alias it to shota, you can just search "shota -gay".

zgranger said:
People generally won't tag relevant submissions that way though when the convention everywhere else is to use "shota" for m/m stuff. Better to leave m/f shota its own discrete tag and simply implicate it to shota rather than forcing them under the same roof with an alias. There's a clear difference here between gay and straight content, so I don't see why we shouldn't use separate tags to aid searching and categorizing.

We do. Straight and gay.

Mitigating bad tagging problems is an absurd reason to create obscure tags.

zgranger said:
It's not obscure. In fact, e621 is the only XXX-centric imageboard I'm aware of that doesn't have this tag in some capacity with many hundreds or thousands of posts attached. See Pixiv, Hentai Foundry, TBIB, Gelbooru, Rule34, and dedicated /ss/ boards on 7chan and iChan. Even Wikipedia mentions it by name. And really -- while some take it to kinky incest or D/s places, as far as lived experience goes, "straight teens having sex" is about as commonplace a phenomenon as it gets.

Shota is already a tag. Straight_shota is just a combination of straight and shota, which you can just search for.

The reason we don't have thousands of results for shota is because this is a furry image board, not an anime image board.

zgranger said:
It's not obscure. In fact, e621 is the only XXX-centric imageboard I'm aware of that doesn't have this tag in some capacity with many hundreds or thousands of posts attached. See Pixiv, Hentai Foundry, TBIB, Gelbooru, Rule34, and dedicated /ss/ boards on 7chan and iChan. Even Wikipedia mentions it by name. And really -- while some take it to kinky incest or D/s places, as far as lived experience goes, "straight teens having sex" is about as commonplace a phenomenon as it gets.

...Sorry, did you just name all those other, shitty boorus as an example of why we should use it? >_>; There's a reason that e6's tagging system is held in such high esteem- because we don't do stupid shit like that. Though Char seems to be doing his damnedest to get us started on that...

As others here have said, searching for "straight shota" is the way to go here. So all that needs to happen is changing the alias away from "young" and point straight_shota to just "shota".

123easy said:
...Sorry, did you just name all those other, shitty boorus as an example of why we should use it? >_>; There's a reason that e6's tagging system is held in such high esteem- because we don't do stupid shit like that. Though Char seems to be doing his damnedest to get us started on that...

When the site has obvious problems with the way it operates, I like trying to come up with solutions that work for as many different types of users/contributors as possible, as long as it's not fundamentally undermining the site's goals. And I can assure you that e621's tagging system is definitely not held in such high esteem among everyone, particularly content creators such as artists and character owners. The only thing I'm trying to do is find ways to resolve their concerns and complaints while making sure that e621's tagging system's goals aren't being compromised.

As mentioned in the post you're obviously referencing, please try to keep your responses to it civil and constructive.

123easy said:
...Sorry, did you just name all those other, shitty boorus as an example of why we should use it? >_>; There's a reason that e6's tagging system is held in such high esteem- because we don't do stupid shit like that. Though Char seems to be doing his damnedest to get us started on that...

Careful. Those "shitty boorus" you're referencing are run by people that we know, and who are trying to do a good job. Just because they're not like e621 doesn't make them shitty.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Careful. Those "shitty boorus" you're referencing are run by people that we know, and who are trying to do a good job. Just because they're not like e621 doesn't make them shitty.

Even so, the quality of R34's tagging is hilarious.

SirAntagonist said:
The reason we don't have thousands of results for shota is because this is a furry image board, not an anime image board.

Well, f**k... I already tagged shota to a pair of dozens furry pics.

zgranger said:
fewer tags

You're funny.

NotAPervert said:
Well, f**k... I already tagged shota to a pair of dozens furry pics.

That's fair and fine, so long as they qualify as having a young male in a sexual situation- the only acceptable usage of the tag.

Char said:
When the site has obvious problems with the way it operates, I like trying to come up with solutions that work for as many different types of users/contributors as possible, as long as it's not fundamentally undermining the site's goals. And I can assure you that e621's tagging system is definitely not held in such high esteem among everyone, particularly content creators such as artists and character owners. The only thing I'm trying to do is find ways to resolve their concerns and complaints while making sure that e621's tagging system's goals aren't being compromised.

If people can't take that their art doesn't look like what they're trying to claim it is and get buttmad about it, don't care one whit. Draw what it's supposed to be, NOT what you feel like, and then slap a misleading label on it.

So far your changes have been mostly met with dislike or at least apathy (especially since we are continuing down the slipper slope you promised you would not do- That's where most of my ire about it comes from, though I do not want ambiguous gender to be removed- It is a fetish of mine after all), because so far when you're changing something it ends up just creating more problems than it solves. The TWYS exception to names just gave more fuel to the fire to the people that cry "But the ARTIST said...!!!", which led to this whole debacle of a second change you're suggesting in the first place.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Careful. Those "shitty boorus" you're referencing are run by people that we know, and who are trying to do a good job. Just because they're not like e621 doesn't make them shitty.

Don't care if they're run by people that you know, or if they're trying to do a good job- 'A for effort' and all that jazz, but they still get a D/F for actual results depending on the site. It's not about whether they are E6-like or not in their tagging, but rather that their tagging system is simply bad in general. Some have some things that are better that we lack, like the tags denoting numbers of characters, or allowing tagging trees so we can isolate specific genders of specific species in multi-character images. One good thing doesn't outweigh the rest of the bad.

123easy said:
If people can't take that their art doesn't look like what they're trying to claim it is and get buttmad about it, don't care one whit. Draw what it's supposed to be, NOT what you feel like, and then slap a misleading label on it.

The change I proposed is primarily targeted at resolving the tagging conflicts that users themselves get into with each other, not users vs artists/character owners. At no point did I say "the source overrules what the users say", I said that the source of the image should be referenced when it's not clear how the post should actually be tagged on e621. If we can't figure it out, why not just tag it with what the source says at that point, as long as the tag makes sense?

123easy said:
So far your changes have been mostly met with dislike or at least apathy

That has not been what I've seen at all. I honestly have no idea what's giving you this impression.[/quote]

123easy said:
(especially since we are continuing down the slipper slope you promised you would not do- That's where most of my ire about it comes from

I don't consider "reference the source if users and even admins can't agree on how something should be tagged" to be any kind of slide down a slippery slope. TWYS isn't some infallible policy, it has real problems at times, and sometimes there are ways of resolving those problems that make sense while also having very minimal, if any, impact on the overall goal of TWYS.

123easy said:
though I do not want ambiguous gender to be removed- It is a fetish of mine after all)

At no point did I ever say we were getting rid of ambiguous_gender. Again, I'm really not sure what you're referring to here.

123easy said:
because so far when you're changing something it ends up just creating more problems than it solves. The TWYS exception to names just gave more fuel to the fire to the people that cry "But the ARTIST said...!!!", which led to this whole debacle of a second change you're suggesting in the first place.

Yes, some users are going to complain about the TWYS rule (which just one post ago you were claiming was held in very high esteem; again, clearly not with everyone). Users have complained about the TWYS rule since the rule was created. A lot of those complaints require solutions that would be counter-productive to TWYS's goals, but every once in a while, a complaint can be addressed in a way that makes sense with very minimal impact on TWYS.

The response I've seen in the thread where I proposed the recent TWYS exception has been fairly positive. There are some legitimate concerns about it, but most seem to think it makes sense as long as it's done right. Even your own responses in that thread seemed to be agreeing with what I was proposing, so I'm left kind of confused why you seem to be so against it in this thread.

123easy said:

If people can't take that their art doesn't look like what they're trying to claim it is and get buttmad about it, don't care one whit. Draw what it's supposed to be, NOT what you feel like, and then slap a misleading label on it.

So far your changes have been mostly met with dislike or at least apathy (especially since we are continuing down the slipper slope you promised you would not do- That's where most of my ire about it comes from, though I do not want ambiguous gender to be removed- It is a fetish of mine after all), because so far when you're changing something it ends up just creating more problems than it solves. The TWYS exception to names just gave more fuel to the fire to the people that cry "But the ARTIST said...!!!", which led to this whole debacle of a second change you're suggesting in the first place.

Doesn't look like what it's supposed to be based on what? A particular arbitrary set of guidelines you happen to be attached to which can't possibly cover every single circumstance, has very little room for flexibility, and isn't agreed to be the best solution in all cases by everyone involved?

Char never suggested removing the ambiguous gender tag either. He only suggested that it should be used for its actual purpose, and that in those situations in which the aforementioned arbitrary guidelines aren't sufficient to come to a decision, the source would be the deciding factor. This whole "debacle" of a second change is a lot more friendly toward the people that provide this site the art that you come here to see and does no harm to the status quo, and you obviously have very selfish reasons for opposing it based on your own words.

Char said:
The change I proposed is primarily targeted at resolving the tagging conflicts that users themselves get into with each other, not users vs artists/character owners. At no point did I say "the source overrules what the users say", I said that the source of the image should be referenced when it's not clear how the post should actually be tagged on e621. If we can't figure it out, why not just tag it with what the source says at that point, as long as the tag makes sense?

"I can assure you that e621's tagging system is definitely not held in such high esteem among everyone, particularly content creators such as artists and character owners." This is specifically what I was addressing. Because it is well known that many of them get butthurt because the tagging system is based on what is seen, not whatever they wish to classify their art as.

I don't consider "reference the source if users and even admins can't agree on how something should be tagged" to be any kind of slide down a slippery slope. TWYS isn't some infallible policy, it has real problems at times, and sometimes there are ways of resolving those problems that make sense while also having very minimal, if any, impact on the overall goal of TWYS.

It's a slide down a slippery slope (and got me angry reading it) because of your stating that you'd ONLY be opening up TWYS for sources for names only (I'd get a quote, but it's nearly 3 AM and I'm tired). First it was that, next it's this, then still more as you open it up more and more (there's the slope). If you hadn't promised that names were going to be the ONLY thing to be opened, it wouldn't be.

At no point did I ever say we were getting rid of ambiguous_gender. Again, I'm really not sure what you're referring to here.

Not saying you were trying to. But as was noted, this has potential to remove characters that ARE ambiguously gendered from that tag pool because of admin intervention, as the aforementioned kobolds would be.

Yes, some users are going to complain about the TWYS rule (which just one post ago you were claiming was held in very high esteem; again, clearly not with everyone). Users have complained about the TWYS rule since the rule was created. A lot of those complaints require solutions that would be counter-productive to TWYS's goals, but every once in a while, a complaint can be addressed in a way that makes sense with very minimal impact on TWYS.

THe people that complain are for the most part those that stalk the artists and get buttmad for them about their herm tagged as dickgirl because the vagina isn't visible, and whatnot, because they don't bother learning what the words "tagging what you see" mean.

The response I've seen in the thread where I proposed the recent TWYS exception has been fairly positive. There are some legitimate concerns about it, but most seem to think it makes sense as long as it's done right. Even your own responses in that thread seemed to be agreeing with what I was proposing, so I'm left kind of confused why you seem to be so against it in this thread.

Anger about you breaking your word and suggesting another change after promising you wouldn't, and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't still harbouring a grudge about how shittily the admins have handled things regarding Ponies (Seriously, how hard is it to just give a straight answer rather than being evasive? Even if it was something as crappy as "because ponies are popular and we want to keep that userbase so you don't matter as much to us" would have been better than what we got), but aside from that not that against it.

I just know that it's going to bring about yet more complaints because people have seen that complaining that their art or their favourite artist's art isn't being represented right has caused capitulation towards their wishes (and thus they can just complain enough and keep making junk accounts and changing tags until an admin goes to the source and changes it to whatever the source claims rather than what it looks like visibly) because you guys seem to love bending over backwards for the artists rather than keeping the integrity of the tagging system.

Yes, without artists we wouldn't have any art, I'd be stupid to try and say otherwise- but if they can't handle that how their art looks isn't how they imagined it, I say too damn bad for them. If that makes them request removal, oh well. Better to remove a (tiny) portion of the art on the site than compromise the integrity of tagging for everything else.

otterface said:
Doesn't look like what it's supposed to be based on what? A particular arbitrary set of guidelines you happen to be attached to which can't possibly cover every single circumstance, has very little room for flexibility, and isn't agreed to be the best solution in all cases by everyone involved?

Char never suggested removing the ambiguous gender tag either. He only suggested that it should be used for its actual purpose, and that in those situations in which the aforementioned arbitrary guidelines aren't sufficient to come to a decision, the source would be the deciding factor. This whole "debacle" of a second change is a lot more friendly toward the people that provide this site the art that you come here to see and does no harm to the status quo, and you obviously have very selfish reasons for opposing it based on your own words.

Based on whatever it is that they're basing their art off of. Wolf female anthro? Breasts (even if they're next to nonexistant), vagina (if they're clothed, obviously not always visible), wolfish features, feminine form is optional, drawn with a bipedal humanoid skeletal structure. Pretty damn simple. Can't tell the gender based on sexual characteristics (like most animals unless you splay them out to see their sexual organs) or body shape? Ambiguous gender, because you can't tell the gender by looking at it. You need to ask them or someone else that already knows to find out. Again, pretty damn simple. It's not arbitrary, it's tagging whatever is shown in the image IS.

I feel like I've already addressed many of the points you just brought up again, so I'm going to go ahead and lock this thread now. This is absolutely not the place to be voicing all these concerns regarding the TWYS exception. I'll let you have the final word here in this thread, but if you want to question this TWYS exception idea, bring it up in the thread where this is supposed to be discussed so we can keep track of it.