Topic: [REJECTED] Fixing gender/gender tags

The bulk update request #11675 has been rejected.

Reason: Donvovan DMC has stated the above style of tags are for genders only (when he is saying why no male_penetrating_male femboy,tag) and feral is not a genders

EDIT: The bulk update request #11675 (forum #459061) has been rejected by @FunkWolfie.

This isn't helpful

these petty BURs are really not becoming, my dude.

The bulk update request #11676 has been rejected.

create implication female_penetrating_feral (32) -> feral (705879)
create implication feral_penetrating_maleherm (0) -> feral (705879)
create implication feral_penetrating_herm (12) -> feral (705879)
create implication feral_penetrating_gynomorph (60) -> feral (705879)
create implication feral_penetrating_andromorph (52) -> feral (705879)
create implication feral_penetrating_intersex (27) -> feral (705879)
create implication feral_penetrating_ambiguous (34) -> feral (705879)

Reason: These don't have feral implicated to them

dba_afish said:
these petty BURs are really not becoming, my dude.

petty? Donvovan keeps saying femboy isnt a gender when it comes to femboy_penetrating and so I assumed that would also apply to these tags cause they arnt gender, but a janitor let me know there are also form tags that follow the same which I didnt realize cause don never explains it

The bulk update request #11675 (forum #459061) has been rejected by @FunkWolfie.

funkwolfie said:
Reason: These don't have feral implicated to them

These mixed-form penetration tags should actually be invalidated/aliased away. x_verbing_y tags for a particular thing (gender, form, etc) in general are considered bloat when the existing x_verbing and y_verbed tags are sufficient, with penetration being considered one of the few acceptable ones since they're so widely used and relied on. But verbing tags that mix different types of things (gender_verbing_form, form_verbing_gender) create even more bloat as the number of tags grows exponentially. The gender_on_form tags are enough alongside x_verbing and y_verbed, without needing gender_verbing_form and form_verbing_gender also.

watsit said:
These mixed-form penetration tags should actually be invalidated/aliased away. x_verbing_y tags for a particular thing (gender, form, etc) in general are considered bloat when the existing x_verbing and y_verbed tags are sufficient, with penetration being considered one of the few acceptable ones since they're so widely used. But verbing tags that mix different types of things (gender_verbing_form, form_verbing_gender) create even more bloat as the number of tags grows exponentially. The gender_on_form tags are enough alongside x_verbing and y_verbed, without needing gender_verbing_form and form_verbing_gender also.

wat these are just feral_pen tags without feral implicated to it

funkwolfie said:
wat these are just feral_pen tags without feral implicated to it

No, they're mixed-form penetration tags. feral_penetrating_male, for example, means a feral penetrating a non-feral male. This is superfluous given feral_penetrating, male_penetrated, and male_on_feral will largely give you the same thing. As I said, x_verbing_y tags in general are considered bloaty and is something to avoid if possible, even when they're for the same thing (e.g. gender_verbing_gender or form_verbing_form), but tags that mix different types of things (e.g. gender_verbing_form and form_verbing_gender) are even more bloaty.

See topic #42656 for pending BURs to get rid of the mixed-form gender_penetrating_form and form_penetrating_gender tags, and topic #43775 for clearing out other extraneous x_verbing_y tags aside from penetration.

watsit said:
No, they're mixed-form penetration tags. feral_penetrating_male, for example, means a feral penetrating a non-feral male. This is superfluous given feral_penetrating, male_penetrated, and male_on_feral will largely give you the same thing. As I said, x_verbing_y tags in general are considered bloaty and is something to avoid if possible, even when they're for the same thing (e.g. gender_verbing_gender or form_verbing_form), but tags that mix different types of things (e.g. gender_verbing_form and form_verbing_gender) are even more bloaty.

then make a bur invalidating them, but it seems everyone would disagree

funkwolfie said:
petty? Donvovan keeps saying femboy isnt a gender when it comes to femboy_penetrating and so I assumed that would also apply to these tags cause they arnt gender, but a janitor let me know there are also form tags that follow the same which I didnt realize cause don never explains it

In what world does any of that mean you should go make a BUR to blast your incorrect and obviously intentionally misconstrued interpretation of my words

donovan_dmc said:
In what world does any of that mean you should go make a BUR to blast your incorrect and obviously intentionally misconstrued interpretation of my words

it was not intentionally misconstrued, I legit thought these would be correct and follow what you said, if it was intentionally would I realize my mistake and reject my own bur?

also pretty sure I understand my intentions more than you,

But I digress, cause you just seem to want to start shit, I mean you replied to a bur that I rejected myself thus meaning it was no longer in play

funkwolfie said:
petty? Donvovan keeps saying femboy isnt a gender when it comes to femboy_penetrating and so I assumed that would also apply to these tags cause they arnt gender, but a janitor let me know there are also form tags that follow the same which I didnt realize cause don never explains it

creating BURs to destroy well-established tags, with implications and aliases and everything, rather than just asking someone to clarify their statement is what I'd describe as petty, yes. Donovan was not wrong in what he said, even if he didn't explain his reasoning exactly, we're all tired of relitigating this topic and adjacent ones every 3-4 months so we all can get a little terse.

the proper full expllananation of what tag particles qualify for the "special" noun treatment is a bit long and not terribly well-documented since a lot of the, like, philosophy of tagging is largely learned through comparing existing tags and sort of "getting a feel for it".

the current groups that get the full "special" treatment (i.e. adjectives, pairing, and x/p/y) are gender and form (and age, kinda*). they're all things that are rigidly defined and comprehensive** in what is covered. and usually we don't like creating cross-category pairing tags and the like because they tend to not be super useful for the potential to cause bloat and just generally be confusing.

femboy, I don't think would ever get full special noun status, but it might be possible for it to get something. but we'd need to build up concepts that are, like, parallel to it. right now we really only have it and tomgirl, I think.

dba_afish said:
creating BURs to destroy well-established tags, with implications and aliases and everything, rather than just asking someone to clarify their statement is what I'd describe as petty, yes. Donovan was not wrong in what he said, even if he didn't explain his reasoning exactly, we're all tired of relitigating this topic and adjacent ones every 3-4 months so we all can get a little terse.

the proper full expllananation of what tag particles qualify for the "special" noun treatment is a bit long and not terribly well-documented since a lot of the, like, philosophy of tagging is largely learned through comparing existing tags and sort of "getting a feel for it".

the current groups that get the full "special" treatment (i.e. adjectives, pairing, and x/p/y) are gender and form (and age, kinda*). they're all things that are rigidly defined and comprehensive** in what is covered. and usually we don't like creating cross-category pairing tags and the like because they tend to not be super useful for the potential to cause bloat and just generally be confusing.

femboy, I don't think would ever get full special noun status, but it might be possible for it to get something. but we'd need to build up concepts that are, like, parallel to it. right now we really only have it and tomgirl, I think.

*

age also is kinda in here, but with a lot of caveats, two obvious things is that it's somewhat entwined with age_difference to fill out some of it, and adult exists only as a tag particle in stuff like adult_on_young but not as a normal tag. although adult is still defined, that definition being just "NOT young".

**

form actually isn't fully comprehensive right now, there's a few character types that currently fall under what I tend to call "uncategorized form"; stuff like dire_machines, waddling_heads, and amorphous creatures don't really fit into existing form categories.

wasnt being petty was trying to help, and people create burs to destroy well used tags all the time if they deem it to be bloat, so I thought It was the same here, but now you are just beating a dead horse, the Bur got rejected enough said, if you have an issue with me then just dm me insults instead of claiming im being petty or purposely misunderstanding things (not everyone mind works in the same way as you don)

funkwolfie said:
(not everyone mind works in the same way as you don)

Jumping from "femboy is not a gender" to "all pairing tags that aren't genders are not valid, even if they have existed with full implications trees for more than half a decade" is not a line of logic many would follow

donovan_dmc said:
Jumping from "femboy is not a gender" to "all pairing tags that aren't genders are not valid, even if they have existed with full implications trees for more than half a decade" is not a line of logic many would follow

you are beating a dead horse ffs

donovan_dmc said:
."..even if they have existed with full implications trees for more than half a decade" is not a line of logic many would follow

Man, you just criticized intentionally misconstruing words. Don't do it back at them.

nin10dope said:
Man, you just criticized intentionally misconstruing words. Don't do it back at them.

I'm exaggerating yeah but just taking a few seconds to see that the tags are well established before trying to slash them would have prevented any of this from happening in the first place

Either there's a large leap in logic or it's petty spite, I don't see any other way to get here

Could I be nicer in phrasing? Sure, but I'm hardly taking something someone else said, starting a whole thing, then dragging their name through it for blame

There really has not been any good explanation for why this was started beyond "donovan said this and didn't explain it"

funkwolfie said:
But I digress, cause you just seem to want to start shit, I mean you replied to a bur that I rejected myself thus meaning it was no longer in play

funkwolfie said:
but now you are just beating a dead horse, the Bur got rejected enough said

funkwolfie said:
you are beating a dead horse ffs

This is still ongoing because the BUR is not the point, the passive aggressive bordering on hostile attitude you've displayed many times over towards me and other forum members who have differing opinions is

If you really want to be over with this that badly, just hide the topic and be done with it

donovan_dmc said:
I'm exaggerating yeah but just taking a few seconds to see that the tags are well established before trying to slash them would have prevented any of this from happening in the first place

Either there's a large leap in logic or it's petty spite, I don't see any other way to get here

Could I be nicer in phrasing? Sure, but I'm hardly taking something someone else said, starting a whole thing, then dragging their name through it for blame

There really has not been any good explanation for why this was started beyond "donovan said this and didn't explain it"

You're not wrong
But nobody's right

nin10dope said:
You're not wrong
But nobody's right

I can agree with that, I am most certainly not without fault in escalating things here
If I weren't currently bored out of my mind with nothing to do I'd have probably had the better sense to not continue replying to this topic

Keep forum discussions focused and respectful. Don't use any member's statements as a basis for your BUR or alias/implication suggestions, whether they are fellow members or even admins. We make changes based on group consensus, which is why we have discussions. If someone suggests something you like, that's great, but don't make that person the main reason for your actions. When proposing a change, do so with your own thoughts because you're the one making the suggestions to drive the proposed changes.

If your comments on the forum don't add anything relevant to the discussion or detract from it, there's no point in commenting. The atmosphere in the BURs has been too hostile lately, and it's time to rein it in. I don't like giving out records when it comes to forum discussions, but I will if I must.