watsit said:
That would cause difficulty finding consensual and non-consensual posts, then. If you want to blacklist non-consensual posts, you couldn't just blacklist forced for instance, because some may also be consensual_(lore). If you want to search for non-stuff, you couldn't just search for forced either. It would also mean posts like post #1205088 wouldn't be tagged consensual_(lore) because it's not and shouldn't be tagged forced/non-con, even though that seems to be the kind of case it's trying to cover (even if forced is changed to not indicate non-con anymore, then we're back to presuming consent, and consensual_(lore) is still unneeded as there would be no tags indicating non-consent to contradict it).

IMO, all the consent-related tags should be together, whether it's as general questionable_consent/forced tags, or lore dubious_consent_(lore)/non-consensual_(lore) tags. And while I can see the argument for making them lore tags, since it's hard to really "see" (non-)consent, it is occasionally possible, like with post #3062567. And splitting them between general and lore tags would make them unwieldy for their purpose.

Genuine apology for quoting a two year old post, but this is the most pertinent place I could find to chime in, since I asked this a little while ago in the "Do we have a tag for that" thread. If this discussion was picked up elsewhere or a final verdict was dropped (couldn't find in a search), let me know and I'll take a look.

I'd genuinely appreciate a lore tag for cases where characters are nonconsenting without satisfying TWYS, for people like me who would really benefit from the ability to blacklist it. It's most common in comics/pools or other sequences, but sometimes also in included stories that go along with an image. Especially in cases where a character is drugged/coerced such that TWYS would imply the acts were actively consensual (but the character is unable to consent). Blacklisting forced and related tags removes most of this, but sometimes a few images from a pool/sequence "leak through" as a result of there being no lore tag.

For instance, I found post #4134746 in a search recently and really enjoyed it out of context, and wanted to read the rest of the pool until I realized that the context was, uh, really bleak/genocide-y (not to invalidate people who enjoy the fiction). On a good day, I just blacklist the artist and move on (blacklisting pools isn't possible AFAIK, and blacklisting all posts piecemeal isn't practical for large pools). On a bad day, it can lead to an anxiety attack that'll cost me some sleep. I understand this ain't the average person's experience.

Here are some other examples. These are all forced-fem since it's the most common culprit here, but you get the idea--even though in context the characters involved aren't consenting or are unable to provide valid consent, the drugged/coerced characters would be considered consenting by TWYS standards. pool:26542 pool:27483 pool:26598

There are a lot of challenges involved, mostly with where to draw the line on what's "appropriate evidence"--I'd say that it's reasonable to draw the line at public stories/descriptions directly paired with the public post as well as any images that are related to it in a comic/sequence, without factoring in deeper lore than that (since that opens up a whole can of worms for debate, such as whether the artist's canon applies to the image, etc.)

I know that there's an issue of ergonomics if there was a split between nonconsentual as a lore and non-lore tag, but I also think it makes sense to keep the non-lore tag as some people only care if the nonconsent is explicitly present (especially those seeking noncon content). Perhaps the lore tag should be named differently to distinguish it as being based on the context of the image itself? "contextually_nonconsensual_(lore)". Kind of a mouthful, but something like that is what I'd really appreciate.

IMO the lore tag would be here to serve people who want to blacklist the content, far more than those interested in actively searching for it (they'd probably prefer to search directly for forced). Hope I did an OK job of explaining my position on it--thanks for reading.

I second what m-b said. I think consentual_(lore) and non-consentual_(lore) would be extremely helpful. I often run into this from a different perspective because I enjoy stories that emphasize themes of consent and have rape blacklisted. Sometimes certain bdsm is non-consent by twys, but in the larger context of a comic it's clear that the characters are consenting.
The best example I can think of is No More Kings by Leobo, which isn't revealed to be enthusiastically consentual roleplay until page 43.

oopsitripped said:
I second what m-b said. I think consentual_(lore) and non-consentual_(lore) would be extremely helpful. I often run into this from a different perspective because I enjoy stories that emphasize themes of consent and have rape blacklisted. Sometimes certain bdsm is non-consent by twys, but in the larger context of a comic it's clear that the characters are consenting.
The best example I can think of is No More Kings by Leobo, which isn't revealed to be enthusiastically consentual roleplay until page 43.

Oh, that's a great point, the opposite case happens too! And that comic is a perfect example of that, I forgot how fun that reveal at the end was! Thanks for pointing that out!

m-b said:
Especially in cases where a character is drugged/coerced such that TWYS would imply the acts were actively consensual (but the character is unable to consent).

That can get tricky, for cases like post #4415669 where characters are drugged/drunk and looks consensual, but are technically unable to properly consent due to being drunk. And given the hubbub that a tag like sleep_sex causes regarding (non-)consent, I could see a non-consensual_(lore) tag adding to the tag wars. IMO, if a tag like that were to exist, it would have to be based on expressed (non-)consent elsewhere, be it by the artist/creator or another page in a series, rather than otherwise inconclusive visual clues.

watsit said:
That can get tricky, for cases like post #4415669 where characters are drugged/drunk and looks consensual, but are technically unable to properly consent due to being drunk. And given the hubbub that a tag like sleep_sex causes regarding (non-)consent, I could see a non-consensual_(lore) tag adding to the tag wars. IMO, if a tag like that were to exist, it would have to be based on expressed (non-)consent elsewhere, be it by the artist/creator or another page in a series, rather than otherwise inconclusive visual clues.

Ah yeah, that's fair, I probably should've phrased it to be a bit more definitive; that phrasing was shit on my part—your suggestion was closer to the point I fumbled. Like you were saying, I'm talking about things that are explicitly nonconsensual in the context of a larger work or the author's own statements attached to that specific work or related work. The "drugged" example was only meant to point out how something that is explicitly nonconsensual in context (i.e. previous pages tagged "forced" by TWYS) can appear enthusiastically consensual without that context.

As far as tag wars go, I'm down for establishing a higher "burden of proof" than "forced" has. Usually, if an artist is creating noncon content, they're not exactly subtle about it. Since this is a lore tag, anything not explicit can be assumed "open to interpretation", and by default shouldn't be considered forced.

I would like to request a few lore tags around a fictional universe described by the author Iain M Banks in his books about the “Culture”.

Iain_M_Banks (the author)

Culture_Series (the common name for the series of science fiction books set in this universe)

Special_Circumstance (a fictional organization within the Culture universe)

Thanks!

sibeorhusky said:
I would like to request a few lore tags around a fictional universe described by the author Iain M Banks in his books about the “Culture”.

Iain_M_Banks (the author)

Culture_Series (the common name for the series of science fiction books set in this universe)

Special_Circumstance (a fictional organization within the Culture universe)

Thanks!

series (and brands and the like) are handled by the copyright tag category.

hey, i noticed brother_penetrating_sister (and other similar tags) haven't been converted to lore tags but i think they should be

gemmatale said:
hey, i noticed brother_penetrating_sister (and other similar tags) haven't been converted to lore tags but i think they should be

They might get aliased to brother_on_sister_(lore) or just brother_and_sister_(lore) to avoid tag bloat

uh, i'm still not exactly sure what the correct methodology is for making a request for tags, but i just saw this post:

https://e621.net/posts/4976071
post #4976071

and i'm wondering if imminent_death_(lore) should be made for it...?
following the description of lore tags, it'd make sense for it to be there, since the context required to know what happens is beyond whats shown in the image
i just thought id shoot out a replylet you guys know and see what comes of it

I would like to suggest the infidelity tag to be moved into lore tags. It is a tag which requires contextual lore knowledge to properly apply the tag to an image in the first place. Just like you can't know if two characters are siblings on image alone, who may be doing romantic or sexual things to each other thus incest, you can't tell if a character is engaging in infidelity alone, at least not without text explicitly stating such (much like with the other relationship tags). Even the wiki page for infidelity itself says:

Note: Don't use without context. Post descriptions do not apply to the tag what you see policy.

Does the context have to be in the image itself like this? post #5065639 because if so then this would have to mean this tag is greatly misused along with siblings and many other relationship tags. And if outside lore context is good enough for the tag then I feel that's all the reason needed to make infidelity into a lore tag.

Some examples to prove the point:

post #5078872 If you don't know anything about My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic characters then you can't know who is the adulator in this scenario (its Cadence, the pink character in this)

post #5045872 Who is Zill? Is that Kayla's son? roomate? manager? Can't tell from this image. I'm genuinely not familiar with these characters so I can't honestly tell you if this is tagged with infidelity correctly or not.

post #5098703 At best the lack of wedding ring on the male character can imply the female is not having sex with her spouse which would count as context within the image, but there could be many reasons why the male doesn't have a wedding ring on. He's a werewolf, maybe the ring broke off during transformation? And even then...

post #4267113 The wedding ring still isn't good enough because now they BOTH have wedding rings. Did Millie actually marry Chaz in this picture? Is that Moxxie's ring Chaz is wearing or his own? Did Chaz actually marry Moxxie but then came around and fucked Millie? If you don't know who either of these characters are you can very well be confused as to why two characters in wedding attire and wearing matching wedding rings is tagged as infidelity AND married couple.

With all of that in mind I think there is good enough reason to change infidelity into a lore tag.

We have mother and father (lore), should we have father and father (lore)/fathers (lore)? What about other non-standard family units?

snpthecat said:
We have mother and father (lore), should we have father and father (lore)/fathers (lore)? What about other non-standard family units?

Even mother_and_father_(lore) probably shouldn't exist; it's nearly exactly equivalent to mother_(lore) father_(lore) but often misused (used without a child).
The others might actually be more helpful, I suppose.

scth said:
Even mother_and_father_(lore) probably shouldn't exist; it's nearly exactly equivalent to mother_(lore) father_(lore)

That might be due to it implying both (comparing the results, it seems pretty undertagged)

snpthecat said:
That might be due to it implying both (comparing the results, it seems pretty undertagged)

It is, but it's also unnecessary. I meant identical in function, not current use.

scth said:
It is, but it's also unnecessary. I meant identical in function, not current use.

If we're going down that route, then a ton of tags are redundant. son = parent_and_son, mother = mother_and_child, parent = parent_and_child, etc

snpthecat said:
If we're going down that route, then a ton of tags are redundant. son = parent_and_son, mother = mother_and_child, parent = parent_and_child, etc

Yes, they are. son_(lore) is literally identical by wiki to parent_and_son_(lore), because we don't tag relationships without both characters present.