The bulk update request #5618 is active.

create implication endosoma (1501) -> safe_vore (2114)
create implication full_tour (445) -> safe_vore (2114)

Reason: Endosoma and Full_tour are tags that describe situations where prey is not digested. By implicating them to Safe_Vore, the tag should become more useful.

Regurgitation is not included, because the regurgitation tag includes the regurgitation of objects, which are often proof of digestion instead of proof of it's absence.

EDIT: The bulk update request #5618 (forum #377970) has been approved by @slyroon.

There also does seem to be a considerable amount of mistags in safe_vore.

Some of them are quite obvious. You can't see a lack of digestion before prey gets past the throat.
post #4149218 post #3887902

Others are less clear. There's nothing suggesting or contradicting endosoma in the images here, so safe vore should be removed.
post #4282362 post #3830044 post #3636296

The bulk update request #7796 is pending approval.

create implication safe_vore (2114) -> vore (71676)
remove implication endosoma (1501) -> vore (71676)

Reason: Safe vore should imply vore, and if the above BUR passes endosoma would imply vore through safe_vore

I was wondering if full_tour should imply endosoma, but endosoma requires an extended stay

Also is safe_vore a subset of soft vore? If so the implication might need to be redirected

"safe vore" feels like a bit of a misnomer since when I see it I think of the rating, where vore is almost never safe

Better rename it to rating:innocent then

The bulk update request #5618 (forum #377970) has been approved by @slyroon.

This is not good. There's plenty of instances of full tour where the prey is ether partially digested, pseudo-digested, or 2 prey are present where one gets digested and the other doesn't. I wouldn't classify any of those scenarios as safe_vore.
A prey surviving doesn't necessarily make it safe. literally just search full_tour and digestion together and you'll find a ton of crap like this.

This has resulted in a lot of images with contradicting tags on them that can't be removed.

snpthecat said:
The bulk update request #7796 is pending approval.

create implication safe_vore (2114) -> vore (71676)
remove implication endosoma (1501) -> vore (71676)

Reason: Safe vore should imply vore, and if the above BUR passes endosoma would imply vore through safe_vore

I was wondering if full_tour should imply endosoma, but endosoma requires an extended stay

Also is safe_vore a subset of soft vore? If so the implication might need to be redirected

Endosoma doesn't require an extended stay. Endosoma and safe_vore are practically the same thing. One creature being inside another with no threat of digestion or harm. A lot of people try to tack on all this extra BS to endosoma and I don't really understand why. It often results in confusion that gets endosoma and digestion tagged together a lot which defeats the whole god damn point. Some people don't like Endo and vore being associated at all because vore is too closely associated with digestion and it disgusts them so much they'd rather it be considered an entirely separate thing. So removing the vore implication from endosoma isn't necessarily incorrect. I consider it a subset of vore personally but I more than understand that sentiment. It would be impossible to keep people from tagging endo images as vore tho so I think it's a wasted effort.

pollexmessier said:
This is not good. There's plenty of instances of full tour where the prey is ether partially digested, pseudo-digested, or 2 prey are present where one gets digested and the other doesn't. I wouldn't classify any of those scenarios as safe_vore.
A prey surviving doesn't necessarily make it safe. literally just search full_tour and digestion together and you'll find a ton of crap like this.

This has resulted in a lot of images with contradicting tags on them that can't be removed.

We're defining full_tour as where they go through safe and sound. Full stop. There has been an attempt to widen the definition, see topic #53995.

pollexmessier said:
Endosoma doesn't require an extended stay. Endosoma and safe_vore are practically the same thing.

Looking at it, if we disregard extended stay, then yeah they are the same thing, hmm.

One creature being inside another with no threat of digestion or harm. A lot of people try to tack on all this extra BS to endosoma and I don't really understand why.

When you have two terms for the same thing, you might want to add some extra detail to one to distinguish them, or add extra granularity to what you mean.

Some people don't like Endo and vore being associated at all because vore is too closely associated with digestion and it disgusts them so much they'd rather it be considered an entirely separate thing. So removing the vore implication from endosoma isn't necessarily incorrect. I consider it a subset of vore personally but I more than understand that sentiment. It would be impossible to keep people from tagging endo images as vore tho so I think it's a wasted effort.

You're a bit off. I'm removing the vore implication because endosoma will imply safe vore which will in turn imply vore. Think of it as rerouting the path, but it still leads to the same destination.

snpthecat said:
We're defining full_tour as where they go through safe and sound. Full stop. There has been an attempt to widen the definition, see topic #53995.

is transformation_through_vore "safe"?

like, prey gets ate and is still alive when coming out the other side, but during that time the prey gets, let's say assimilated, should that still be considered safe? I feel like that'd still potentially be full_tour but I'd find it difficult to really call it "safe".

dba_afish said:
is transformation_through_vore "safe"?

like, prey gets ate and is still alive when coming out the other side, but during that time the prey gets, let's say assimilated, should that still be considered safe? I feel like that'd still potentially be full_tour but I'd find it difficult to really call it "safe".

That's a pretty tough question to answer. As a whole, i think it can't always be safe, but I wonder if there can be instances where it is ("it" meaning tf through vore)

snpthecat said:
That's a pretty tough question to answer. As a whole, i think it can't always be safe, but I wonder if there can be instances where it is ("it" meaning tf through vore)

I feel like something like this would be a good example of safe, full tour, tf vore. the prey character is mostly unharmed and remains recognizably the same character but the species _{(or ummm... domain?... biological basis?)} has been altered. safe, sound, unharmed, but still changed.

I feel like the argument against considering instances of vore resulting in "unsafe" transformations full_tour is it could be argued that the character isn't really getting the "full tour" since the character that went in and the one that came out aren't really the same individual.

snpthecat said:
We're defining full_tour as where they go through safe and sound. Full stop. There has been an attempt to widen the definition, see topic #53995.

Ok but there's scenarios where one prey goes through safe and another doesn't
Or the same prey goes through twice, coming out safe the first time and not the second.

As much as I would love for full tour to be safe vore only. It's not inherent.

pollexmessier said:
Ok but there's scenarios where one prey goes through safe and another doesn't
Or the same prey goes through twice, coming out safe the first time and not the second.

As much as I would love for full tour to be safe vore only. It's not inherent.

I mean, there's still an instance of safe vore in both of those examples. general tags are for individual actions/traits/objects not the work as a whole, if we were to handle stuff like this it'd be pretty much impossible to have implications that function for more than the most basic of stuff.

dba_afish said:
I mean, there's still an instance of safe vore in both of those examples. general tags are for individual actions/traits/objects not the work as a whole, if we were to handle stuff like this it'd be pretty much impossible to have implications that function for more than the most basic of stuff.

Ok but does safe_vore and hard_vore being tagged on the same image make any sense?
No. Because that's not how those work. The two are mutually exclusive terms.
Another example would be a prey escaping from being digested. That's not safe vore ether, but it's still full tour, and only involves the one prey on one pass-through.

My whole argument is just that Full_tour shouldn't implicate safe_vore. That's not more complicated. It simpler. Just don't have the implication, because it doesn't work. It's false.

pollexmessier said:
Ok but does safe_vore and hard_vore being tagged on the same image make any sense?
No. Because that's not how those work. The two are mutually exclusive terms.

I mean-- I don't see any reason why hard_vore _couldn't_ be safe. I've seen weirder stuff than a character being torn apart, chewed up, eaten and then reconstituted and returned perfectly fine on the other end.

soft_vore and hard_vore are mutually exclusive terms for a single act, but again, while there are tags that are mutually exclusive for a single act or a single character or a single scene, there are no general tags that ate mutually exclusive for an entire post. that's just not how tags work.

pollexmessier said:
Another example would be a prey escaping from being digested. That's not safe vore ether, but it's still full tour, and only involves the one prey on one pass-through.

My whole argument is just that Full_tour shouldn't implicate safe_vore. That's not more complicated. It simpler. Just don't have the implication, because it doesn't work. It's false.

what about endosoma, then? should that also not imply safe_vore?

I don't even necessarily disagree with your statement that something within the definition of full_tour could fall outside of safe, but saying that two things can't exist in a single post is silly.

dba_afish said:
I mean-- I don't see any reason why hard_vore _couldn't_ be safe. I've seen weirder stuff than a character being torn apart, chewed up, eaten and then reconstituted and returned perfectly fine on the other end.

soft_vore and hard_vore are mutually exclusive terms for a single act, but again, while there are tags that are mutually exclusive for a single act or a single character or a single scene, there are no general tags that ate mutually exclusive for an entire post. that's just not how tags work.

I was gonna bring up the character count tags but... yeah multiple images (does it also allow for tagging both simple and detailed backgrounds on the same post too?) (Wait I found it: not_furry anthro). Also I guess there goes my plan to imply safe vore to soft vore if safe just means they come out fine afterwards no matter what.

what about endosoma, then? should that also not imply safe_vore?

they said:
Endosoma and safe_vore are practically the same thing.

snpthecat said:

they said:
Endosoma and safe_vore are practically the same thing.

but also said:
Ok but there's scenarios where one prey goes through safe and another doesn't

which would mean that a post containing an unbirthed prey sleeping comfortably in the pred's womb (which would be endosoma) while a cock vored prey is being churned into cum in the same pred's balls (or is being digested in some way in a second pred) wouldn't be safe vore under this logic.

dba_afish said:
which would mean that a post containing an unbirthed prey sleeping comfortably in the pred's womb (which would be endosoma) while a cock vored prey is being churned into cum in the same pred's balls (or is being digested in some way in a second pred) wouldn't be safe vore under this logic.

I would consider that to be the case yes. The image as a whole is not safe therefore safe_vore doesn't apply. In the same way you wouldn't tag a porn image sfw just because it has people casually having dinner together fully clothed in the same image.

dba_afish said:
I mean-- I don't see any reason why hard_vore _couldn't_ be safe. I've seen weirder stuff than a character being torn apart, chewed up, eaten and then reconstituted and returned perfectly fine on the other end.

Safe and non-fatal are not the same thing. Would you consider chopping your arm off safe if you knew if could be sewn back on and heal back to normal?

dba_afish said:
what about endosoma, then? should that also not imply safe_vore?

No, it shouldn't. If anything they're Aliases. But it'd be reasonable to keep them separate as some people consider endo and vore to be separate fetishes. I think that's a bit of a cope personally, but it's a valid opinion. They're not mutually exclusive ether tho.

pollexmessier said:
I would consider that to be the case yes. The image as a whole is not safe therefore safe_vore doesn't apply. In the same way you wouldn't tag a porn image sfw just because it has people casually having dinner together fully clothed in the same image.

Except tags like safe_vore apply to specific elements/acts in the image, not the image as a whole. A depiction of safe vore is still safe vore, even if there is also non-safe or fatal vore. A fully clothed character is still tagged fully_clothed, even if the image also contains a completely nude character, so too, a character that is safe vore'd is still tagged safe_vore, even if the image also contains a character that was fatal_vore'd.

pollexmessier said:
I would consider that to be the case yes. The image as a whole is not safe therefore safe_vore doesn't apply. In the same way you wouldn't tag a porn image sfw just because it has people casually having dinner together fully clothed in the same image.

No, it shouldn't. If anything they're Aliases. But it'd be reasonable to keep them separate as some people consider endo and vore to be separate fetishes. I think that's a bit of a cope personally, but it's a valid opinion. They're not mutually exclusive ether tho.

tags don't work like this, they _can't_ work like this. almost all tags define a single element, a single character, or a single scene; the only tags that define an entire post are in the meta category and they're for intrinsic qualities of the post itself, like its dimensions. if we had general tags that were fully mutually exclusive like this it'd break everything. I mean, how would we even decide which tags are the "more important ones" and should supercede other tags?