in the tag wiki for vore, it says

With few exceptions, posts tagged as Vore should at least be rated Questionable - unless graphic or sexual content in the post prompts an Explicit rating.

what are those exceptions, why aren't they documented in the tag wiki page, or am i just a dumbass and missed them when they're in plain sight?

post #2976753

update: i did some cleanup on

vore rating:s

now there's only about 100 (80 of which i have blacklisted and will thus not be helping with) probable misrates left

blah346 said:
in the tag wiki for vore, it says what are those exceptions, why aren't they documented in the tag wiki page, or am i just a dumbass and missed them when they're in plain sight?

When I wrote that originally, I was thinking there could be an exception for edge cases where there's "vore" in a completely humorous and otherwise entirely sfw context, or just barely fits as "vore", but objectively involves someone or something being consumed or absorbed whole and alive (or in this third image's case, ghosts are getting sucked up by this spirit monster?)

post #2065078 post #335669 post #2696067

These kind of posts are inevitably going to be tagged as vore, but they're not fetish content, nor do they have anything questionable in them, so they're the kind of select few posts that fall under vore rating:s

The wiki page for vore is a bit bloated (ha-ha) at the start, I'll rewrite it at some point and give some examples of what exceptions there could be.

blah346 said:
update: i did some cleanup on

vore rating:s

now there's only about 100 (80 of which i have blacklisted and will thus not be helping with) probable misrates left

A number of those posts either shouldn't be tagged as vore, or aren't really "safe" enough by the above standards to fall under the exception, so now it's down to 40.

maplebytes said:
A number of those posts either shouldn't be tagged as vore, or aren't really "safe" enough by the above standards to fall under the exception, so now it's down to 40.

This right here is why I hate this tag, any drawing that even dares to show a character sitting in the mouth of another character risks being tagged vore because some people want to extend the definition past what is stated on the damn wiki. Anything involving the Flapjack tv show for example. The 2 main characters live inside a whale.

I don't want to invalidate this tag becourse vore is an important theme in the furry community, but it should be highlighted in bold letters on the wiki that a character should, at least, make a real attempt at eating another character to warrant this tag.
Also it'd be great to separate vore as a sexual fetish and vore as a predator feral char hunting another wild animal like we have for foot_focus/foot_fetish. That distinction needs to exist.

wolfmanfur said:
[...]Anything involving the Flapjack tv show for example. The 2 main characters live inside a whale.

are you saying that shouldn't be counted as vore? because that should fit comfortably within the "has consumed"/"has been consumed" parts of the definition.

sipothac said:
are you saying that shouldn't be counted as vore? because that should fit comfortably within the "has consumed"/"has been consumed" parts of the definition.

Except the whale doesn't consume them and add to that they live in her mouth, not her guts, not her stomach and nothing's too explicit is ever shown on-screen. Now I reckon there are things that have happened with the whale that could count as vore, again not visibly shown, so it is TWYK terrotory.

This is the problem with this tag and exactly what I said earlier, folks will take the definition far further than what is stated on the wiki. Because of that, the tag is bloated, full of posts that shouldn't be there.

wolfmanfur said:
Except the whale doesn't consume them and add to that they live in her mouth, not her guts, not her stomach and nothing's too explicit is ever shown on-screen. Now I reckon there are things that have happened with the whale that could count as vore, again not visibly shown, so it is TWYK terrotory.

This is the problem with this tag and exactly what I said earlier, folks will take the definition far further than what is stated on the wiki. Because of that, the tag is bloated, full of posts that shouldn't be there.

it seems to me like it'd be TWYK to assume that a character who is in_mouth isn't in the process of being vored unless there's some obvious maw_play going on.

_{also, semi-related since I realized this while trying to find stuff related to this: do we not have any tags for characters carrying a a character or object in their in their teeth (like how mother cats and whatnot carry their young)? also there don't seem to be any oral cavity_storage tags.}

thegreatwolfgang said:
post #2976753

I wish i could upvote forum posts, very funny 👍

wolfmanfur said:
[…]
Also it'd be great to separate vore as a sexual fetish and vore as a predator feral char hunting another wild animal like we have for foot_focus/foot_fetish. That distinction needs to exist.

Fair, but a vore_fetish tag would feel a bit… redundant? There is a lot more vore fetish posts than there are safe ones, so the tag would be like "orange fire", in the sense that it’s already considered the "default setting", and therefore, aliased away.

I think we should instead have a tag specific to non-sexual vore. It’s not the same as "vore rating:safe" because it could still go along with rating:explicit and hard vore in the context of gory predator/prey scenario. I think we could fit a lot of posts in such a tag, and still make it imply vore as the umbrella term.

wolfmanfur said:
Also it'd be great to separate vore as a sexual fetish and vore as a predator feral char hunting another wild animal like we have for foot_focus/foot_fetish. That distinction needs to exist.

In my experience, tags like foot_fetish are heavily abused. People will tag it on anything that has the focus on feet, because they're into feet and it activates their fetish, where it otherwise looks completely normal to anyone else. foot_focus sometimes gets treated that way too, where someone who's into feet focuses on feet themselves and tags it, even though objectively the feet aren't the focus of the image. Given how over-tagged vore can be, I would expect similar problems.

sipothac said:
it seems to me like it'd be TWYK to assume that a character who is in_mouth isn't in the process of being vored unless there's some obvious maw_play going on.

And since you're talking about that, um yes maw play is also likely to be tagged vore by editors. I told you, folks will take any definition you give them further than it should be.

_{also, semi-related since I realized this while trying to find stuff related to this: do we not have any tags for characters carrying a a character or object in their in their teeth (like how mother cats and whatnot carry their young)? also there don't seem to be any oral cavity_storage tags.}

No, they don't exist, but you can make them.

watsit said:
In my experience, tags like foot_fetish are heavily abused. People will tag it on anything that has the focus on feet, because they're into feet and it activates their fetish, where it otherwise looks completely normal to anyone else. foot_focus sometimes gets treated that way too, where someone who's into feet focuses on feet themselves and tags it, even though objectively the feet aren't the focus of the image. Given how over-tagged vore can be, I would expect similar problems.

Your comment reminded me of a post whose tags I kept forgetting to fix. Somebody added foot focus when that wasn't the focus of the post. I just fixed it now before I forget it again.
post #4519673

Fair point, but I don't know how else to make this system better.

Bumping the thread since it was already knocked down to page 3 on my end

Featuring a silly safe vore post
post #4518365

wolfmanfur said:
And since you're talking about that, um yes maw play is also likely to be tagged vore by editors. I told you, folks will take any definition you give them further than it should be.

No, they don't exist, but you can make them.

mouth hold? The tag page specifies objects, but it's frequently used for characters carrying another in their mouth or ferals carrying dead prey.

post #4484827

Maybe a mouth_carry tag could be made, so there's less ambiguity?