.

what's the difference between "faux_gaping_<orifice>" and spread_<orifice>?

.

Why does gaping require there "[not be] fingers spreading to keep it open"? That's still gaping even if held open by something.

watsit said:
Why does gaping require there "[not be] fingers spreading to keep it open"? That's still gaping even if held open by something.

It makes sense in a certain way, but yeah it's better to define gaping as just "an orifice hanging open/with inside visible" and then specify if it's open on it's own or with some help.

There has to be something better than faux_gaping though. spread_agape? assisted_gaping?

I vote for all "faux_gaping_*" tags to be deleted and invalidated.

1. they pretty much are overly specific
2. no one would use them just like that / on their own / without knowing about them before.
3. tag clutter: a post tagged Faux_gaping_pussywould also be tagged gaping_pussy would it not? -> the pussy part is pretty much redundant.
4. the umbrella tag faux_gapingwould be required anyway.

This might make sense with a attribute/context(?) based tagging system but not so much with e6's I think.

waydence said:
It makes sense in a certain way, but yeah it's better to define gaping as just "an orifice hanging open/with inside visible" and then specify if it's open on it's own or with some help.

There has to be something better than faux_gaping though. spread_agape? assisted_gaping?

I second that ^^

.

~_~2 said:

1. Faux_gaping has been used almost a thousand times. I've used it a lot, which is part of the reason I don't want them gone (a lot of hard work down the drain,) but most of it isn't me. One way or another, people are finding out about it.

It seems that out of 990 entries only 10 were not tagged by you.

~_~2 said:

This is why I didn't want to use the forums-I was worried people would try to remove the tags instead of helping with implications. I guess I was right.

It's pretty much an inevitability, I already noticed a couple of tags you made that I feel don't need to exist and with the sheer amount of tags you have been creating it would have only been a matter of time before other people would notice as well. If you need a tag for blacklisting purposes you should really only have to make one overarching tag, to avoid tag clutter.

I would suggest that next time you want to make a new tag you should bring it up in the forum before putting in all the work so you can see if other people agree with your ideas, and so they can suggest alternative solutions if they don't.

Trying to restore some context to this. Doing this hidey shit just pisses people off.

The nuked posts, in order:

user_386154 said:
Tags that. I'd like to implicate faux_gaping, because they describe a specific form of it:
Faux_gaping_anus
Faux_gaping_cervix
Faux_gaping_cloaca
Faux_gaping_mouth
Faux_gaping_navel
Faux_gaping_nipple
Faux_gaping_nostril
Faux_gaping_pouch
Faux_gaping_prolapse
Faux_gaping_pussy
Faux_gaping_sheath
Faux_gaping_slit
Faux_gaping_urethra
Hyper_faux_gape

user_386154 said:

sipothac said:
what's the difference between "faux_gaping_<orifice>" and spread_<orifice>?

Faux_gaping_orifice can apply to other concepts besides spreading, like posts where a transparent body part (ex. post #4338163) is penetrating someone and showing off their insides. I don't think that would count as an orifice being spread open (like many spread_* tags require) unless every post with a orifice being penetrated counts. Basically, it's for orifices that appear to be gaping but aren't.

user_386154 said:

kalider said:
I vote for all "faux_gaping_*" tags to be deleted and invalidated.

1. they pretty much are overly specific
2. no one would use them just like that / on their own / without knowing about them before.
3. tag clutter: a post tagged Faux_gaping_pussywould also be tagged gaping_pussy would it not? -> the pussy part is pretty much redundant.
4. the umbrella tag faux_gapingwould be required anyway.

This might make sense with a attribute/context(?) based tagging system but not so much with e6's I think.

I second that ^^

kalider said:
I vote for all "faux_gaping_*" tags to be deleted and invalidated.

1. they pretty much are overly specific
2. no one would use them just like that / on their own / without knowing about them before.
3. tag clutter: a post tagged Faux_gaping_pussywould also be tagged gaping_pussy would it not? -> the pussy part is pretty much redundant.
4. the umbrella tag faux_gapingwould be required anyway.

This might make sense with a attribute/context(?) based tagging system but not so much with e6's I think.

I second that ^^

This is why I didn't want to use the forums-I was worried people would try to remove the tags instead of helping with implications. I guess I was right.

1. I don't see how they're overly specific. I actually made the tags because I have most gaping tags blacklisted, but I'm uncomfortable with the orifices hanging open on their own, not faux_gaping stuff. I figured out that a lot of stuff was being hidden from me that didn't fit the gaping definition for this site, so didn't seem like it should be blacklisted, but did have its own specific concept that seemed like it deserved a tag.
1. Faux_gaping has been used almost a thousand times. I've used it a lot, which is part of the reason I don't want them gone (a lot of hard work down the drain,) but most of it isn't me. One way or another, people are finding out about it.
3. Not if people tag it right.
4. I don't understand what you mean.

In faux_gapping posts you can see the things spreading the hole open or the transparent penetration in an image without needing context. If not, and it looks like gaping, tag it as gaping.

kalider said:
I vote for all "faux_gaping_*" tags to be deleted and invalidated.

1. they pretty much are overly specific
2. no one would use them just like that / on their own / without knowing about them before.
3. tag clutter: a post tagged Faux_gaping_pussywould also be tagged gaping_pussy would it not? -> the pussy part is pretty much redundant.
4. the umbrella tag faux_gapingwould be required anyway.

This might make sense with a attribute/context(?) based tagging system but not so much with e6's I think.

I second that ^^

If you haven't already, make a BUR and link it here, I'm sure we can get the ball rolling on that one way or another, I'd also like to see them nuked from orbit

topic #40783 somewhat relevant - the implications to have been rejected, so aliases should likely be made

user_386154 said:
Faux_gaping has been used almost a thousand times. I've used it a lot, which is part of the reason I don't want them gone (a lot of hard work down the drain,) but most of it isn't me. One way or another, people are finding out about it.

I didn't register this when this thread was originally up, but this bolded part is just a lie, faux_gaping had been added by this user 999 times, and by other users 10 times.

Woah, they quit the site over this stuff?

magnuseffect said:
Woah, they quit the site over this stuff?

From the looks of it they also had a history with getting their feelings hurt over their art not meeting the quality standards.

sipothac said:
I didn't register this when this thread was originally up, but this bolded part is just a lie, faux_gaping had been added by this user 999 times, and by other users 10 times.

Yup, I brought this up and they deleted the thread pretty much immediately after i posted my reply.

themasterpotato said:
Yup, I brought this up and they deleted the thread pretty much immediately after i posted my reply.

Deleting all the evidence! Haha, found that old ED article for D.F.E. and it has a huge list of deleted examples. This is an ancient meme from like 2003.

alphamule said:
Deleting all the evidence! Haha, found that old ED article for D.F.E. and it has a huge list of deleted examples. This is an ancient meme from like 2003.

a practice as old as time, and as relevant as ever