Okay, so, we know that we're not supposed to use outside information here unless we're tagging character names. My question is, should this image be tagged incest?
post #522402
I don't think it should be, but I'm curious what you guys think.

Nah

Thank you. :)

TheHuskyK9 said:
Nah

That is one very dapper avatar!! =) I seriously did a double-take when I saw it.

Then what shall be tagged incest? Nothing but the images where the characters are loudly telling "Oh yes, how I do enjoy having sexual intercourse with my relative, Jolly good!"?

Peekaboo said:
Then what shall be tagged incest? Nothing but the images where the characters are loudly telling "Oh yes, how I do enjoy having sexual intercourse with my relative, Jolly good!"?

Basically. Anything that makes it obvious, in that piece, that the two characters are related.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Basically. Anything that makes it obvious, in that piece, that the two characters are related.

Then we can safely untag 90% of the stuff that's currently tagged with incest. I've thought about this before, and it seems to be a nearly impossible to use tag if you strictly apply TWYS. Usually only twincest is indisputably incest when going by visual cues and nothing else.

It gets even worse when you're forbidden to use information provided by dialogue in the picture, which if I remember correctly we are. One of the reasons I don't entirely agree with that footnote.

Jugofthat said:
Then we can safely untag 90% of the stuff that's currently tagged with incest.

I'd help with that project.

Peekaboo said:
I'd help with that project.

I figured that much, there's a reason you got that Privileged status. X)

Jugofthat said:

It gets even worse when you're forbidden to use information provided by dialogue in the picture, which if I remember correctly we are. One of the reasons I don't entirely agree with that footnote.

Can you link me the post that stated that? I'd like to bring that up for discussion.

I think I can, but it could take me a while to find it back. I'll get on that after dinner.

Jugofthat said:
I think I can, but it could take me a while to find it back. I'll get on that after dinner.

I can help. I remember that it was brought up in this thread a couple of times.

I'm also seconding the notion that the incest tag is almost useless under TWYS. I remember seeing somewhere on the wiki, long ago and far away, that leeway could be given in the case of pooled comics as long as the relationship is mentioned at some point in the comic, since otherwise the tag wouldn't be able to be used unless the relatives are addressing each other as relatives in almost literally every other panel while they're doing the deed. I searched as best as I could, but couldn't find it again, so the wiki page it was on has likely been changed or removed since back then.

Since most comic writers (hopefully) know better than to write terrible, unnatural dialogue like that, the incest tag ends up relying heavily on outside information (even if that "outside information" is from a previous page in the same comic) to even exist. If it's true that we can't use text in an image at all (I'm not sure if that's what was being said in that particular thread, but still), then it seems that we can almost nuke the tag entirely, if it weren't for a few rare cases.

Blodsho said:
I can help. I remember that it was brought up in this thread a couple of times.

Whelp, that's the one! Thanks. :)

If it's true that we can't use text in an image at all (I'm not sure if that's what was being said in that particular thread, but still), then it seems that we can almost nuke the tag entirely, if it weren't for a few rare cases.

Well, it's literally said by 123Easy (the main reason apparently being ambiguity in some cases) and implied by Halite, and since the latter's of privileged rank, I thought that made it being an actual part of the rules pretty definitive. You know, because those people tend to know what they're saying.

And indeed, that would be deadly to the Incest tag since there would be almost nothing left to legitimately tag it by. Again, you can only safely say that something's incest with visual information if the two participants are identical twins. But since text is part of the image and can often provide useful contextual information, I would allow it to count, rare misleading dialogue be damned.

Sounds to me like we need to revisit the incest tag, and decide on whether it should be used freely from the TWYS rule, to some extent.

Peekaboo said:
Sounds to me like we need to revisit the incest tag, and decide on whether it should be used freely from the TWYS rule, to some extent.

We are discussing this in Committee now.

Jugofthat said:
And indeed, that would be deadly to the Incest tag since there would be almost nothing left to legitimately tag it with.

Yep. Which is why I've tried to overlook those.
Over 95% of images tagged as incest aren't such by TWYS rules, but it's a major kink for some users... and untagging them doesn't seem all that useful.

It's just one of those tags that doesn't mesh well with TWYS, and I dunno what to do with those.

Genjar said:
Yep. Which is why I've tried to overlook those.
Over 95% of images tagged as incest aren't such by TWYS rules, but it's a major kink for some users... and untagging them doesn't seem all that useful.

It's just one of those tags that doesn't mesh well with TWYS, and I dunno what to do with those.

Same here, agreed. All these points are exactly why I largely leave it alone. I only tag it when there's a lot of evidence to make me go, "hey, I think this is incest" but otherwise I just let it be. It's a TWYS grey zone, but I haven't seen a good solution yet. At least leaving it the way it is leaves those with an incest kink something to search.

So we had a bit of a discussion over it and I think we can shed some light on this.

Text and dialogue are perfectly allowed to determine incest. If one character implicates the other as a sibling, incest is allowed. If not, incest would never get used because it would be near impossible to determine incest without being told in some way.

As far as visual cues (characters of different species claiming to be in the same family), that will still be considered incest. There's nothing wrong with making something like a "incest_roleplay" tag, but it probably won't get used very much and might cause problems in the end.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
As far as visual cues (characters of different species claiming to be in the same family), that will still be considered incest. There's nothing wrong with making something like a "incest_roleplay" tag, but it probably won't get used very much and might cause problems in the end.

For me, and others I presume, the problem is not two characters of different species claiming to be performing the act of incest via dialogue/text - It's the fact that the majority of the posts tagged with incest are just two characters of the same species, fucking, with no dialogue or text hinting of incest; Out-of-site info being the only source of the information naming them as relatives.

Peekaboo said:
For me, and others I presume, the problem is not two characters of different species claiming to be performing the act of incest via dialogue/text - It's the fact that the majority of the posts tagged with incest are just two characters of the same species, fucking, with no dialogue or text hinting of incest; Out-of-site info being the only source of the information naming them as relatives.

You don't need me to tell you what to do with that :P

Peekaboo said:
For me, and others I presume, the problem is not two characters of different species claiming to be performing the act of incest via dialogue/text - It's the fact that the majority of the posts tagged with incest are just two characters of the same species, fucking, with no dialogue or text hinting of incest; Out-of-site info being the only source of the information naming them as relatives.

This is kind of tricky, the way I see it. Because one person will just see "two of the same species" while another person will see "strong family resemblance". For instance, if I see two characters with similar markings to each other, I start to wonder if there's an incest element. There's obviously shared genetics, but does that just mean they're the same species, or does it mean they're even closer related and are in fact siblings/cousins/parent-child, etc? I tend towards thinking it's "family" when it's not species-standard markings that they have in common. Two regular foxes? Probably just the same species. Two raccoons with purple eye markings and a blue tip on the end of both their tails? I start thinking they're probably related (unless it's a whole roomful of them or something and then I think "species version AU"). This is especially true of cub art, because if there's an age difference and a strong resemblance, the chances of it being incest is much higher.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
You don't need me to tell you what to do with that :P

I just want to make sure you're giving a "go ahead" to me starting on clearing out the incest tag, as furrypickle have mentioned previously it is a tricky subject. But if you are alright with it, I'll start cleaning the tag up.

furrypickle said: Two raccoons with purple eye markings and a blue tip on the end of both their tails? I start thinking they're probably related (unless it's a whole roomful of them or something and then I think "species version AU"). This is especially true of cub art, because if there's an age difference and a strong resemblance, the chances of it being incest is much higher.

That still leaves out a large portion of the incest posts on the site. Looks like we have quite a clean-up project ahead of us.

Personally (read: not a Committee decision), if there is room for doubt, I would just leave it alone.

But if it's clear that they are a family because someone said they are, or there are other plainly obvious and indisputable cues as to being a family, then tag it.

If it's clearly not incest based on a complete lack of evidence (on the post itself), then off goes the tag.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
If it's clearly not incest based on a complete lack of evidence (on the post itself), then off goes the tag.

What about cases like I mentioned above where the "outside information" of the two characters being related is from a previous page in a comic's pool? If the sex scenes in those comics can't always reliably be tagged as incest without having godawful dialogue like the example above, then inevitably someone's going to come across a page from one of those comics, go back to read the whole thing, and then whine that their blacklist wasn't working when they find out they were related all along.

And what about well-known characters?

'lion_King incest' is a good example of that. Without any outside information, they're just random toony lions; but most furries do know who's related to who, and those will almost certainly keep getting tagged as incest. Not to mention that some users probably would want to keep those on blacklist.

Genjar said:
And what about well-known characters?

I was thinking the same thing.

For characters from shows like street_sharks and tmnt for example the whole plot of the show is based around them being brothers. Would those get an incest tag regardless of the TWYS rule?

Genjar said:
And what about well-known characters?

'lion_King incest' is a good example of that. Without any outside information, they're just random toony lions; but most furries do know who's related to who, and those will almost certainly keep getting tagged as incest. Not to mention that some users probably would want to keep those on blacklist.

I think it'd be kind of silly if we didn't tag those incest.

tony311 said:
I think it'd be kind of silly if we didn't tag those incest.

I agree.

Blodsho said:
What about cases like I mentioned above where the "outside information" of the two characters being related is from a previous page in a comic's pool? If the sex scenes in those comics can't always reliably be tagged as incest without having godawful dialogue like the example above, then inevitably someone's going to come across a page from one of those comics, go back to read the whole thing, and then whine that their blacklist wasn't working when they find out they were related all along.

I was speaking about this in committee, and there doesn't appear to be anything in place for this instance. I would treat those as individual posts for the time being.

Personally, I'd reather err on the side of caution and leave incest tagged in most cases, rather than strip it down. But then, it's a kink of mine that I do so dearly love, and sometimes you get multiple species where they are actually related, according to Weird Furry Genetics(tm), like a bunny and a mouse, or more odd combinations.

Also, this is a new, and frankly worrying, change. We've never before allowed text to alter what we tag by what is visible (think of it like this: No matter how From claims that the Butchers from Dark Souls are female... they really, really don't look it, and don't fit what people are generally looking for when searching the tag, either) unless it's one of the various tags that are defined in such a way (since they usually have ambiguous visual cues, text has been used as a *supporting* piece of evidence). I'd rather not see a purge of tags that are relevant to people's kinks/interests (and not just my kinks/interests) because of this.

123easy said:
We've never before allowed text to alter what we tag by what is visible

We have used text in tagging before.

For instance, it's one of the definitions for tagging impregnation: if a character says that they'll get pregnant, then it gets the tag. Even though we really can't see it. I think tagging incest based on text works the same way: it doesn't (usually) contradict anything that's actually visible.

Genjar said:
We have used text in tagging before.

For instance, it's one of the definitions for tagging impregnation: if a character says that they'll get pregnant, then it gets the tag. Even though we really can't see it. I think tagging incest based on text works the same way: it doesn't (usually) contradict anything that's actually visible.

Read the whole post next time please.

The remainder of the sentence, which continues after the brackets, is, "...unless it's one of the various tags that are defined in such a way (since they usually have ambiguous visual cues, text has been used as a *supporting* piece of evidence). I'd rather not see a purge of tags that are relevant to people's kinks/interests (and not just my kinks/interests) because of this."