The tag alias #76053 vore_implied -> invalid_tag is pending approval.
Reason: implied_vore is already aliased. Although to be fair, that alias is very old and has no visible discussion: https://e621.net/tag_aliases/2667
Topic: Tag alias: vore_implied -> invalid_tag
Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
If I had to guess, vore_implied was probably someone's workaround to circumvent the alias.
Imo the original invalidation should be reversed and this aliased to it. There's definitely a place for implied vore and it's not even that uncommon- a smug cat with a feather on its mouth next to an empty bird cage is downright a cliche.
regsmutt said:
Imo the original invalidation should be reversed and this aliased to it. There's definitely a place for implied vore and it's not even that uncommon- a smug cat with a feather on its mouth next to an empty bird cage is downright a cliche.
Agreed 100%
The bulk update request #10861 is pending approval.
remove alias implied_vore (0) -> invalid_tag (0)
Reason: Alternative
Although, what's the difference between implied_vore and after_vore? I'm not a vore person
After:
alias vore_implied -> implied_vore
wandering_spaniel said:
The bulk update request #10861 is pending approval.remove alias implied_vore (0) -> invalid_tag (0)
Reason: Alternative
Although, what's the difference between implied_vore and after_vore? I'm not a vore personAfter:
alias vore_implied -> implied_vore
I'm not either but my educated guess would be after_vore is either digestion or regurgitation? They are no longer vored, implied just means you didn't see it happen but you can easily tell that it did happen
wandering_spaniel said:
The bulk update request #10861 is pending approval.remove alias implied_vore (0) -> invalid_tag (0)
Reason: Alternative
Although, what's the difference between implied_vore and after_vore? I'm not a vore personAfter:
alias vore_implied -> implied_vore
After_vore is exclusively after vore with visible tells like a belly bulge. Implied can range from post vore without surefire signs to something that's a few steps away from imminent_vore, but posing/context/expression gives implications. It could also be like. Some sort of 'vore world' situation where there's theming and threats without actually showing anything.
Many implied_* tags are ripe with misuse from when people can't tag something because it's not visually happening, but want to anyway either because it speaks to their fetish, or it may happen later on. Like this post:
post #5453745
having been tagged implied_tickling, despite tickling clearly not happening, implied or not. Nor is there any indication that tickling is about to happen (where imminent_tickling would be more appropriate anyway, not implied_tickling).
I can't speak for the admin that invalidated implied_vore about why they did, but I'd be cautious about re-validating it as people will likely try using it as vore_(lore) substitute when vore itself can't be tagged.
watsit said:
Many implied_* tags are ripe with misuse from when people can't tag something because it's not visually happening, but want to anyway either because it speaks to their fetish, or it may happen later on. Like this post:
post #5453745
having been tagged implied_tickling, despite tickling clearly not happening, implied or not. Nor is there any indication that tickling is about to happen (where imminent_tickling would be more appropriate anyway, not implied_tickling).I can't speak for the admin that invalidated implied_vore about why they did, but I'd be cautious about re-validating it as people will likely try using it as vore_(lore) substitute when vore itself can't be tagged.
I'm just replying to say that you're right about that image and the misuse of the tag
Bumping, because there are a lot of cases where vore doesn't fit by TWYS, but is still obvious (usually by dialogue). post #5558873 as an example (would be unbirthing, but doesn't fit by TWYS).
Yeah, the implied tags have misuse issues, but better than not being able to blacklist such things at all, or throwing them under the main tag incorrectly (which is usually what happens). Only relevant IMO when it's a major blacklist entry, which vore definitely is.
scth said:
Bumping, because there are a lot of cases where vore doesn't fit by TWYS, but is still obvious (usually by dialogue). post #5558873 as an example (would be unbirthing, but doesn't fit by TWYS).
For a post like that, I'd rather have something like viewer_vore to indicate the viewer is basically being subjected to vore/unbirthing/etc. Something that's clearer and less prone to misuse. implied_vore-like tags are just too prone to misuse by people wanting to say vore is or will happen despite TWYS saying otherwise, so it's better to find a tag that indicates what's being shown (e.g. asking "what about it implies vore?" and try to find or make a tag for that).
watsit said:
For a post like that, I'd rather have something like viewer_vore to indicate the viewer is basically being subjected to vore/unbirthing/etc. Something that's clearer and less prone to misuse. implied_vore-like tags are just too prone to misuse by people wanting to say vore is or will happen despite TWYS saying otherwise, so it's better to find a tag that indicates what's being shown (e.g. asking "what about it implies vore?" and try to find or make a tag for that).
There is the voring_viewer tag made for this situation, though IMO it's less valid (what distinguishes it from just a regular internal view or mawshott? It's at best still just implied, and far easier to mix up with something like prey_pov). It also doesn't solve the entire issue (see post #4550682, for instance).
scth said:
Bumping, because there are a lot of cases where vore doesn't fit by TWYS, but is still obvious (usually by dialogue). post #5558873 as an example (would be unbirthing, but doesn't fit by TWYS).
Yeah, the implied tags have misuse issues, but better than not being able to blacklist such things at all, or throwing them under the main tag incorrectly (which is usually what happens). Only relevant IMO when it's a major blacklist entry, which vore definitely is.
Voring_viewer exists which would fit that scenario.
I think an example of implied vore is something like this:
post #4105570
It's a few steps away from imminent vore (the prey isn't even physically present), but it's still obvious what's going on. This isn't what people searching vore/imminent_vore are looking for, but it is still something someone blacklisting vore would likely want to be able to block.
As a post-vore example:
post #320079
It's a guilty-looking cat with a feather on its mouth. This is visual shorthand for 'the cat ate a bird.' But again, this isn't what people searching for vore are looking for. If someone wants to avoid all implications of one character eating another, they'll still want to block this.
These are a little iffier, but there are implications with the missing posters combined with the dialog of the dragon and lip-licking dog:
post #2199490post #2218236
All of these kind of exist in a weird grey zone where they're not vore, but not NOT vore. The individual scenario types might be taggable, but there's enough diversity that a) it can be hard to think of ALL scenarios that are potentially vore-adjacent for blacklisting without encountering them and b) tags for specific scenarios may not exist or be very underused.