The bulk update request #1489 is active.

Reason: The community uses scat for feces and mistags it very consistently. A good number of images tagged scat are not in the coprophilic sense, but just because poop exists, (Like in vore disposal posts.) Scat is pretty wildly used in the community at large to refer to feces in general, and I dont think we're going to train our users otherwise on this site.

Therefor I propose changing feces to scat and the current definition of scat be applied to scatplay or coprophila.

This will of course necessitate the wiki being updated, but I do believe the above script does preserve the current differentiation, such that it is anyways.

Once this is approved the following bur would reapply the aliases and implications to the new updated categories.
update scat -> scatplay alias coprophillia -> scatplay alias coprophilia -> scatplay alias scatophilia -> scatplay update feces -> scat alias faeces -> scat alias shit -> scat alias fæces -> scat alias poo -> scat alias poop -> scat implicate scat_inflation -> scatplay implicate scat_transformation -> scatplay implicate coprophilic_intercourse -> scatplay implicate pooping -> scat implicate hyper_feces -> scat implicate eating_feces -> scat implicate soiling -> scat implicate smearing_feces -> scat implicate messy_diaper -> scat implicate feces_on_penis -> scat implicate unusual_feces -> scat implicate glistening_feces -> scat implicate feces_in_hair -> scat implicate feces_on_body -> scat implicate feces_pile -> scat implicate hanging_feces -> scat implicate feces_in_ass -> scat implicate feces_in_pussy -> scat implicate feces_in_mouth -> scat implicate feces_on_ear -> scat implicate feces_on_face -> scat implicate feces_on_genitals -> scat implicate feces_on_tentacle -> scat implicate feces_on_ground -> scat implicate feces_on_object -> scat implicate feces_on_wall -> scat implicate excessive_feces -> scat implicate diarrhea -> scat

implication #38432 is blocking implicate diarrhea -> scat

EDIT: The bulk update request #1489 (forum #319222) has failed: Implication for scat not found

EDIT: The bulk update request #1489 (forum #319222) has failed: Implication for pooping not found

EDIT: The bulk update request #1489 (forum #319222) has been approved by @slyroon.

Is there a reason feces isn't aliased to scat (or vice-versa)? As far as I know, scat and feces are synonymous, and neither inherently gives a sexual meaning to it.

watsit said:
Is there a reason feces isn't aliased to scat (or vice-versa)? As far as I know, scat and feces are synonymous, and neither inherently gives a sexual meaning to it.

The current division on e621 according to the wiki is scat refers to coprophila/scatplay, getting sexual pleasure from scat, rather than just the presence of it.

Scat: wiki #1011
Feces: wiki #4518

gyrotech said:
The current division on e621 according to the wiki is scat refers to coprophila/scatplay, getting sexual pleasure from scat, rather than just the presence of it.

Scat: wiki #1011
Feces: wiki #4518

I don't think that distinction makes much sense. That's like separating urine for non-sexual use and pee for sexual use. But like how watersports is used to indicate a sexual aspect to the urine/pee, having scat aliased to feces (or vice-versa), and scatplay or something to indicate a sexual aspect to feces seems more appropriate.

Yep, that is exactly my point.

gyrotech said:
Yep, that is exactly my point.

Alright, I misunderstood the intent here. However, I'm not sure about the second part with update scat -> scatplay. Since you say

gyrotech said:
A good number of images tagged scat are not in the coprophilic sense, but just because poop exists, (Like in vore disposal posts.) Scat is pretty wildly used in the community at large to refer to feces in general, and I dont think we're going to train our users otherwise on this site.

Doesn't that mean a good number of posts tagged as scat aren't actually scatplay? Which would mean the mass update would cause a number of posts to be mistagged scatplay when it's not.

So there's no good solution here. There are about 1000 images that that have feces without Scat so there are some that are differentiated, though most are not. If we dont do the mass update, we destroy that much information at least. We also definitely end up annihilating scatplay tags down to 0.

If we do the mass update, then yes a large number of mistagged images will continue to be mistagged. Honestly its a project someone will have to undertake to fix it either way. To which...I'd probably not volunteer since I'm not intersted in scat play, just scatty disposal endings in vore. I'd def be willing to fix those though.

I mean, scat doesnt need all these tags. Scat is simple enough a term for the entire fetish. As far as Im concerned, scat and feces are the exact same thing. The only argument I can justify using the term defecation (the act of pooping) and scat (the visual of poop). There doesnt need to be so many different tags for the same thing. Scat is simple enough umbrella term for the entire thing.

In the real world, people use the term scat to reference the poop of living creatures (already on the ground) and we tend to use the term scat to cover the fetish. It seems people should be using the term defecation for the act of pooping and scat for just the visualization of it and not for the act of it.

watsit said:
Alright, I misunderstood the intent here. However, I'm not sure about the second part with update scat -> scatplay. Since you say

Doesn't that mean a good number of posts tagged as scat aren't actually scatplay? Which would mean the mass update would cause a number of posts to be mistagged scatplay when it's not.

I agree, they need to remove the term scat from images that dont have any. I get very upset when I see a well drawn image and its just them with a long dildo and people who dont like scat get mad because its implied. Implied doesnt mean it gets that tag because actual people into scat dont get what they want. I dont want this fetish to just be a dumping ground for overly sensitive people.

thecapedmanlloyd said:
I agree, they need to remove the term scat from images that dont have any. I get very upset when I see a well drawn image and its just them with a long dildo and people who dont like scat get mad because its implied. Implied doesnt mean it gets that tag because actual people into scat dont get what they want. I dont want this fetish to just be a dumping ground for overly sensitive people.

I mean, if you see people doing that, you should probably remove the tag, and if they consistently do that, report em for tag vandalism.

Hoping we can get more eyes on this. The consistent mistagging from the userbase isnt something we're gonna stop...and it only is going to lead to yet more work to fix up the tags once this is applied.

Hell, I even had a mod force lock the scat tag on an image where it did not apply because people were complaining. Even they hadnt realized that E6 doesnt use it in a way that is different from normal expectations.

Bumping because there has been more recent discussion about aliasing them together.

I'm adding a :| because I agree with the actual BUR, but I don't agree with the suggested follow-up. I'm a little out of my element with this fetish, but here are some changes I'd suggest and why:

1. Scat should alias to feces.

• the general preferred tag naming scheme is to use the proper "scientific/medical/neutral" term over any slang, e621 uses "breasts" and "penis" instead of "tits" and "cock", "vaginal_penetration" not "pussy_fucking"
• the scat tag might be used for both coprophillia and the presence of feces, it's an ambiguous term, IF feces were aliased to scat, users may only tag scat and leave it at that, instead of adding the scatplay tag when appropriate
• "feces" is used in multiple tags already, why have proper tags like feces_on_wall imply an ambiguous slang term like scat?

2. There shouldn't be any mass updates (I think)

• unless you've cleaned the scat tag, having that mass update means every post under it, which are going to mostly just be the presence of feces, will now be tagged as scatplay, this is going to create a mess of mistags
• when you alias a tag, that automatically mass updates every post currently tagged under X to Y (at least, if I understand it correctly), it's unnecessary to do unless you were getting rid of a tag or making it invalid

3. About pooping...

• Pooping should be aliased to defecation
• We use proper "neutral" terms for other acts - penetration, ejaculation, insertion - why is pooping the odd one out? (Peeing actually is the same, that should be aliased to urination)
• Defecation/Pooping maybe shouldn't imply Scat/Feces?
• A character sitting on a toilet and sound effects or dialogue suggesting that they're defecating doesn't mean that feces are visible, so that would be a bad implication
• On the other hand, we could have an implied_defecation tag or offscreen_defecation tag instead, and just clean out any cases where a character is clearly defecating, but offscreen or obscured by a toilet

4. Messy diaper shouldn't be implied to scat/feces

• Again, I'm outside my fetish wheelhouse, but wouldn't "messy diaper" also apply to a urine soaked diaper?

5. Scat Transformation shouldn't be included under scatplay

• Transformation doesn't mean a character is engaging in sexual acts with feces, tags like food transformation don't imply foodplay, they're different concepts

kora_viridian said:
From what I've seen, "messy diaper" almost always means that the diaper has been pooped in. If the diaper has only been peed in, it's described as "soggy" or "wet", but not "messy".

If both things have happened, it's probably more common to describe the diaper as just "messy". Sometimes you might see "soggy and messy", or something close to that. (But not "wet and messy" - that's a different kink, that usually has nothing to do with diapers!)

In that case, point four can be ignored.

There's gonna be a mass of mistagged posts either way. And I think its likely that there are posts that should have scatplay under the scat tag presently than are presently mistagged because of the precence of feces. I feel like its better to err on the side of overtagging rather than undertagging, so that people not into scatplay but still enjoy other aspects, such as disposal will be able to filter things they dont want to see.

You are correct that creating an alias does automatically update everything that would be aliased to the new tag. The point of the mass update is to preserve the tagging as it currently is, and as a consequence duplicate it to the Scat tag.

Also scat is also used in scientific liturature so it can kinda go either way there. I think it sounds nicer, but w/e. I mostly care abotu the spirit here.

Not gonna lie, I prefer having a catch-all tag to blacklist. Makes it more convenient to not see that shit.

sgtabbeyrubber said:
Not gonna lie, I prefer having a catch-all tag to blacklist. Makes it more convenient to not see that shit.

It still would be.

sgtabbeyrubber said:
Not gonna lie, I prefer having a catch-all tag to blacklist. Makes it more convenient to not see that shit.

Scatplay would imply scat, and that should already be on your blacklist. That means there would be no change for you at all.

gyrotech said:
There's gonna be a mass of mistagged posts either way. And I think its likely that there are posts that should have scatplay under the scat tag presently than are presently mistagged because of the precence of feces. I feel like its better to err on the side of overtagging rather than undertagging, so that people not into scatplay but still enjoy other aspects, such as disposal will be able to filter things they dont want to see.

You are correct that creating an alias does automatically update everything that would be aliased to the new tag. The point of the mass update is to preserve the tagging as it currently is, and as a consequence duplicate it to the Scat tag.

Also scat is also used in scientific liturature so it can kinda go either way there. I think it sounds nicer, but w/e. I mostly care abotu the spirit here.

My thinking is 1) scat is ambiguous in the context of this site, a lot of people will use it to mean "scatplay" and that second tag will get underused, 2) most other tags dealing with "scat" use the term "feces" which is entirely unambiguous, there's no question that it's specifically describing the substance, not any possible fetish/act.

I think the overtagging has less utility and means far more work than potential undertagging in this case, all posts tagged scat, regardless of whether they're actually "scatplay" or not, will have feces present. If you make all of them tagged as feces, you just have to add scatplay to the smaller number of posts that feature that kind of content, no need to worry about removing the scatplay tag from probably hundreds of posts (especially after_vore posts) with feces.

hungrymaple said:
My thinking is 1) scat is ambiguous in the context of this site, a lot of people will use it to mean "scatplay" and that second tag will get underused, 2) most other tags dealing with "scat" use the term "feces" which is entirely unambiguous, there's no question that it's specifically describing the substance, not any possible fetish/act.

I think the overtagging has less utility and means far more work than potential undertagging in this case, all posts tagged scat, regardless of whether they're actually "scatplay" or not, will have feces present. If you make all of them tagged as feces, you just have to add scatplay to the smaller number of posts that feature that kind of content, no need to worry about removing the scatplay tag from probably hundreds of posts (especially after_vore posts) with feces.

Possibly. I will admit I might be coming at this from my own personal utility. I would certainly go through and fix any of the after vore images if this change was made , and I don't know who would fix up the untagged scat play stuff in the case where we do the opposite since I know that won't be me. I have negative interest in such things myself.

Its like I said before, there is no need for all of these tags. All it will do is make it harder for those of us who want to search "scat". I shouldnt have to use any term that isnt the norm for the community that enjoys this. Even those who arent into scat know what scat is. When people make post for commissions, lots put "will not draw scat" and everyone knows what it means. While I admire wanting things to have a place, no other fetish seems to get this level of scrutiny. Like was said above, we use "breasts" and "penis" instead of "tits" and "cock" and know what these tend to mean. We arent using "shit" "shitting" or anything like that. Pooping is another term that could be use for those who dont like the word scat and it makes just as much sense. Scatplay is just another term since the image normally has the character by themselves pretty much posing for another not in the image.

If scatplay must be a term, it needs to be clearly between multiple characters but then again, no other fetish or sex act has this level of scrutiny since the term 69 might work better. Just keep the main fetish act as its own term and use sub terms. There is no reason a image of charizard shitting on lugia and lugia doing the same cant be labeled scat and 69 since that would be the best way to do it. It would be better to just have blocked keywords not show the image so if someone wanted to see only 69 content but have scat blocked, they wouldnt see that 69 content if scat was in it. There are too many keywords that make it harder to find what people want.

thecapedmanlloyd said:
Its like I said before, there is no need for all of these tags. All it will do is make it harder for those of us who want to search "scat". I shouldnt have to use any term that isnt the norm for the community that enjoys this. Even those who arent into scat know what scat is. When people make post for commissions, lots put "will not draw scat" and everyone knows what it means. While I admire wanting things to have a place, no other fetish seems to get this level of scrutiny. Like was said above, we use "breasts" and "penis" instead of "tits" and "cock" and know what these tend to mean. We arent using "shit" "shitting" or anything like that. Pooping is another term that could be use for those who dont like the word scat and it makes just as much sense. Scatplay is just another term since the image normally has the character by themselves pretty much posing for another not in the image.

If scatplay must be a term, it needs to be clearly between multiple characters but then again, no other fetish or sex act has this level of scrutiny since the term 69 might work better. Just keep the main fetish act as its own term and use sub terms. There is no reason a image of charizard shitting on lugia and lugia doing the same cant be labeled scat and 69 since that would be the best way to do it. It would be better to just have blocked keywords not show the image so if someone wanted to see only 69 content but have scat blocked, they wouldnt see that 69 content if scat was in it. There are too many keywords that make it harder to find what people want.

How does having additional categories within an overarching scat tag make things difficult for you to search for it? It makes serachign ebtter so you can see or not see what you'd prefer. You do realize this is not replacing, but 'in addition to'? THere's no change in your current seraching if you're looking for it using 'scat' right now, save for the fact that some images tagged feces and not scat (Because scat specifically refers to coprophila as a fetish on e6) Will not be affected. I dont know what you're going on about?

The bulk update request #1489 (forum #319222) has failed: Implication for scat not found

The bulk update request #1489 (forum #319222) has failed: Implication for pooping not found

The bulk update request #1489 (forum #319222) has been approved by @slyroon.

Anybody doing the part 2 for this? It's going to be quite a mess if this isn't done right

The bulk update request #7639 is active.

mass update scat -> scatplay
create alias coprophillia (0) -> scatplay (11582)
create alias coprophilia (0) -> scatplay (11582)
create alias scatophilia (0) -> scatplay (11582)
create implication scat_inflation (155) -> scatplay (11582)
remove implication scat_transformation (0) -> transformation (80071)
create implication coprophilic_intercourse (330) -> scatplay (11582)
create implication scatplay (11582) -> scat (0)

Reason: I'm not taking chances, doing this in parts

Followup:
alias scat_transformation -> feces_transformation

EDIT: The bulk update request #7639 (forum #401350) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #7640 is active.

remove alias dark_feces (0) -> feces (15387)
remove implication cumming_feces (17) -> feces (15387)
remove implication buried_in_feces (42) -> feces (15387)
remove implication peeing_on_feces (14) -> feces (15387)

Reason: Some that were approved after the BUR was made

Followup after both of these BURs get approved:
alias feces -> scat alias dark_feces -> scat implicate cumming_feces -> scat implicate buried_in_feces -> scat implicate peeing_on_feces -> scat alias faeces -> scat alias shit -> scat alias fæces -> scat alias poo -> scat alias poop -> scat implicate pooping -> scat implicate hyper_feces -> scat implicate eating_feces -> scat implicate soiling -> scat implicate smearing_feces -> scat implicate feces_on_penis -> scat implicate unusual_feces -> scat implicate feces_in_hair -> scat implicate feces_on_body -> scat implicate feces_pile -> scat implicate hanging_feces -> scat implicate feces_in_ass -> scat implicate feces_in_pussy -> scat implicate feces_in_mouth -> scat implicate feces_on_ear -> scat implicate feces_on_face -> scat implicate feces_on_genitals -> scat implicate feces_on_tentacle -> scat implicate feces_on_ground -> scat implicate feces_on_object -> scat implicate feces_on_wall -> scat implicate excessive_feces -> scat implicate diarrhea -> scat alias glistening_feces -> scat

Replaced
implicate glistening_feces -> scat
with an alias
because glistening tags should be annihilated

Removed
implicate messy_diaper -> scat
because messy diaper will imply scat through soiling

EDIT: The bulk update request #7640 (forum #401351) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #7639 (forum #401350) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #7640 (forum #401351) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #7642 is active.

create alias dark_feces (0) -> feces (15387)
create implication cumming_feces (17) -> feces (15387)
create implication buried_in_feces (42) -> feces (15387)
create implication peeing_on_feces (14) -> feces (15387)
create alias faeces (0) -> feces (15387)
create alias shit (0) -> feces (15387)
create alias fæces (0) -> feces (15387)
create alias poo (0) -> feces (15387)
create alias poop (1) -> feces (15387)
create implication hyper_feces (1800) -> feces (15387)
create implication eating_feces (1617) -> feces (15387)
create implication soiling (6720) -> feces (15387)
create implication smearing_feces (34) -> feces (15387)
create implication feces_on_penis (436) -> feces (15387)
create implication unusual_feces (219) -> feces (15387)

feces -> scat is being blocked by topic #40674 and topic #40673
Edit: Modified BUR to point towards feces. If you prefer scat as the tag we can unalias scat from feces later and apply it directly through alias request

Scat is being blocked by scatplay implication, approve the most recent BUR first

Edit 2: Removed pooping -> feces because that was already decided in topic #33355

EDIT: The bulk update request #7642 (forum #401364) has failed: Error: Alias would modify other aliases or implications through transitive relationships. (create alias scat -> feces)

EDIT: The bulk update request #7642 (forum #401364) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #7643 is active.

create implication feces_in_hair (14) -> feces (15387)
create implication feces_on_body (693) -> feces (15387)
create implication feces_pile (834) -> feces (15387)
create implication hanging_feces (22) -> feces (15387)
create implication feces_in_ass (831) -> feces (15387)
create implication feces_in_pussy (115) -> feces (15387)
create implication feces_in_mouth (1699) -> feces (15387)
create implication feces_on_ear (2) -> feces (15387)
create implication feces_on_face (474) -> feces (15387)
create implication feces_on_genitals (135) -> feces (15387)
create implication feces_on_tentacle (2) -> feces (15387)
create implication feces_on_ground (369) -> feces (15387)
create implication feces_on_object (17) -> feces (15387)
create implication feces_on_wall (9) -> feces (15387)
create implication excessive_feces (2062) -> feces (15387)
create implication diarrhea (385) -> feces (15387)

Reason: Second part

Edit: Modified BUR to point towards feces. If you prefer scat as the tag we can unalias scat from feces later and apply it directly through alias request

EDIT: The bulk update request #7643 (forum #401365) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #7644 is active.

remove alias shiny_feces (0) -> glistening_feces (2)
remove implication glistening_feces (2) -> glistening (113172)
create alias scat_transformation (0) -> feces_transformation (67)

Reason: Followup:
alias glistening_feces -> feces
alias shiny_feces -> feces

Edit: BUR left unchanged, followup modified

EDIT: The bulk update request #7644 (forum #401377) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

I believe Donovan's objections to the BUR are because they'll rather prefer feces over scat, though that's far too late now

We can use an alias request to reverse it to feces again if there's enough support for it

I'd also prefer feces over scat, it matches urine and the other *feces* tags and overall sounds nicer imo. Oh well

wandering_spaniel said:
I'd also prefer feces over scat, it matches urine and overall sounds nicer imo. Oh well

I would tend to agree, having scat apply to all instances of feces seems odd to me.

Arrgh, then why did everyone vote for the BUR tearing down the feces tree

I recommend approving this first, and set up an alias from scat to feces later

Sucks to clean up after this shitty situation

snpthecat said:
We can use an alias request to reverse it to feces again if there's enough support for it

And then we also have to reverse all of the subtags again. We need to figure out sooner rather than later which is the tag that's sticking. I'd rather not have to do this again in a few months.

donovan_dmc said:
And then we also have to reverse all of the subtags again. We need to figure out sooner rather than later which is the tag that's sticking. I'd rather not have to do this again in a few months.

No we don't need to reverse the subtags, an alias will handle them all. (And we haven't changed the names of the subtags at all)

Though if everybody is up for it I can change the alias and implication directions

snpthecat said:
No we don't need to reverse the subtags, an alias will handle them all. (And we haven't changed the names of the subtags at all)

If the subtags aren't being renamed, what's the point of renaming the base tag? That's just going to be a mismatch that looks out of place.

donovan_dmc said:
If the subtags aren't being renamed, what's the point of renaming the base tag? That's just going to be a mismatch that looks out of place.

Apparently the continual mistagging of scat for feces (while the more specific tags are left relatively unharmed), but then an alias in either direction would work fine

Bumping this BUR

snpthecat said:
Though if everybody is up for it I can change the alias and implication directions

+1 for flipping back to feces (but i agree with aliasing scat to feces)

Okay, ignoring how long it'll take to set up or the practicality of it, what is the ideal tag tree for all the scat tags?

The bulk update request #7664 is active.

remove implication scatplay (11582) -> scat (0)
create implication scatplay (11582) -> feces (15387)

Reason: Aight, here we go.

EDIT: The bulk update request #7664 (forum #401533) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

@dba_afish @Donovan_DMC BURs been changed

strikerman said:
Okay, ignoring how long it'll take to set up or the practicality of it, what is the ideal tag tree for all the scat tags?

Ideally, I think feces_on/in_[bodypart] should have an umbrella tag which then implies feces. (But then, cum_on_[bodypart] doesn't even have an umbrella tag so this wouldn't even have prior precedent)

Other than that I don't see other changes being necessary

strikerman said:
Okay, ignoring how long it'll take to set up or the practicality of it, what is the ideal tag tree for all the scat tags?

Presumably:

• scatplay is now what scat has been intended for this whole time, but it was always misused.
• scat gets aliased to feces (the mass update from scat -> scatplay is already done)
• everything else is the same as before

I'm not even going to touch this... (joke)

Bump. Any problems with this BUR?

The bulk update request #7642 (forum #401364) has failed: Error: Alias would modify other aliases or implications through transitive relationships. (create alias scat -> feces)

The bulk update request #7642 (forum #401364) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #7643 (forum #401365) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

snpthecat said:
The bulk update request #7664 is active.

remove implication scatplay (11582) -> scat (0)
create implication scatplay (11582) -> feces (15387)

Reason: Aight, here we go.

This needs to be approved first

create alias scat (11230) -> feces (13066)

This one was removed, because it failed

The bulk update request #7664 (forum #401533) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #7644 (forum #401377) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #7690 is active.

create alias scat (0) -> feces (15387)

Reason: Retry

EDIT: The bulk update request #7690 (forum #401823) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #7691 is active.

create alias glistening_feces (2) -> feces (15387)
create alias shiny_feces (0) -> feces (15387)

Reason: Followup

EDIT: The bulk update request #7691 (forum #401825) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #7690 (forum #401823) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #7691 (forum #401825) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

Well, shit

So this updated blacklists from scat -> scatplay? Since people mostly just tag stuff with scat (and thus feces) and not scatplay, this means that scat images are much more likely to slip through people's blacklists early on. Idk if there's anything to be done about this, but we might see a lot more complaints about blacklists "not working" now.

fluffypowersupreme said:
So this updated blacklists from scat -> scatplay? Since people mostly just tag stuff with scat (and thus feces) and not scatplay, this means that scat images are much more likely to slip through people's blacklists early on. Idk if there's anything to be done about this, but we might see a lot more complaints about blacklists "not working" now.

If my understanding how everything works is right (maybe), the mass update from scat -> scatplay wouldn't have changed blacklists because it wasn't an alias. But scat being aliased to feces should have updated blacklists, resulting in feces being the blacklisted tag?

I've always had an empty blacklist, so can't confirm it actually did work that way. But I think in theory it should have done.

At minimum, any people adding scat to their blacklist in the future will resolve to feces and blacklist the vast majority of the content.

faucet said:
If my understanding how everything works is right (maybe), the mass update from scat -> scatplay wouldn't have changed blacklists because it wasn't an alias. But scat being aliased to feces should have updated blacklists, resulting in feces being the blacklisted tag?

I've always had an empty blacklist, so can't confirm it actually did work that way. But I think in theory it should have done.

At minimum, any people adding scat to their blacklist in the future will resolve to feces and blacklist the vast majority of the content.

I predict this probably improves blacklists for newcomers since people might use scat when they mean feces

Also you can test it yourself even if you have an empty blacklist; try blacklisting a tag which aliases to male

faucet said:
If my understanding how everything works is right (maybe), the mass update from scat -> scatplay wouldn't have changed blacklists because it wasn't an alias. But scat being aliased to feces should have updated blacklists, resulting in feces being the blacklisted tag?

I've always had an empty blacklist, so can't confirm it actually did work that way. But I think in theory it should have done.

At minimum, any people adding scat to their blacklist in the future will resolve to feces and blacklist the vast majority of the content.

Seems mass updates do affect blacklists. Or at least, something switched mine to scatplay. I assume they work this way because it's better than blacklisted tags just becoming invalid.

In the long run it's better this way, just gonna be a fun surprise for some existing users. Solves more problems than it creates.

fluffypowersupreme said:
Seems mass updates do affect blacklists. Or at least, something switched mine to scatplay. I assume they work this way because it's better than blacklisted tags just becoming invalid.

Oh, huh. Thanks for the information.
Scatplay is what scat was before, so their blacklist in effect would've not been changed at all

Could I request that instead we keep the term scat as the dominant term instead of feces when referring to excrement. I've been in the furry "scat" community for 15 years and my argument is if you go to any social media website that supports posting imagery you will find the most scat by simply searching "scat." feces is used far less. On Bluesky you won't even see scat fetish content if you search the word feces.

dark1337 said:
Could I request that instead we keep the term scat as the dominant term instead of feces when referring to excrement. I've been in the furry "scat" community for 15 years and my argument is if you go to any social media website that supports posting imagery you will find the most scat by simply searching "scat." feces is used far less. On Bluesky you won't even see scat fetish content if you search the word feces.

I agree. I believe that scat shouldn't alias to feces and that should be reversed.

lectrai said:
I agree. I believe that scat shouldn't alias to feces and that should be reversed.

remove alias scat -> feces
create implication scat -> feces

dark1337 said:
Could I request that instead we keep the term scat as the dominant term instead of feces when referring to excrement. I've been in the furry "scat" community for 15 years and my argument is if you go to any social media website that supports posting imagery you will find the most scat by simply searching "scat." feces is used far less. On Bluesky you won't even see scat fetish content if you search the word feces.

But feces is the more commonly used word for this substance (scat refers specifically to animal droppings, usually carnivores. Yes this is a furry site but we do have humanoids and humans too). Not every image that contains feces is a scat fetish image. (ex. fluffy pony art frequently shows it in a nonsexual way)

Is this why my blacklist broke?

meatfactory said:
Is this why my blacklist broke?

it shouldn't be, the mass update should have changed your blacklist items at the same time it moved the posts over.