Topic: TWYS with regard to chastity_cage and cock_ring

Every now and then I stumble upon posts that while tagged as chastity_cage seem to be uncertain examples of such. These cases mostly happen in conjunction with the backsack tag, creating an angle where one can see the ring that goes around the scrotum but not the cage itself. For example:
post #3401310 post #5848725 post #4533607

For all we know we could be looking at a cock_ring instead, and so its not surprising that searching for backsack cock_ring -chastity_cage yields posts that can with some plausibility be tagged as chastity_cage even if they aren't. For example:
post #3664444 post #4711328

Which leads me to think that tagging what you see here can lead to somewhat inconclusive results. In some cases it can be argued that the artist's word can be used to settle these ambiguities in TWYS without contradicting it, so if an artist says the image is portraying a cock ring it is a cock ring and so on. Sort of like how an artist's word can narrow down a character's species even if it isn't clear from the visuals alone. But this still sounds far from comprehensive and would leave many other posts to be tagged by vibes.

Im wondering what is the general view on this matter. Is there any value in doing something about this or is it more like a non-issue

The artist's words have zero weight on what is tagged on any given post, as far as the general tags go with TWYS.
You tag whatever tag that it visually appears to be, i.e., chastity_cage, cock_ring, ball_ring/testicle_cuff, etc.

If the post only features a generic ring over the balls without any visible cage, consider using ball_ring/testicle_cuff and removing any tags that violate TWYS.

EDIT: Meant to say ball_ring, not cock_ring though the latter can be used in cases where the ring is over both the cock and balls but w/o any cage.

First off, context occasionally gives hints.
post #4424499
The fox is wearing a chastity cage, and the wolf is most likely also wearing a chastity cage (not cock_ring) given the context.

Facing ambiguity and no helpful context, the unspoken rule is to break TWYS if possible. It would be dumb to remove a bunch of chastity content from search results just because they contain a rear_view--a fairly common situation.

When that's not an option, I guess go for cock_ring.

thegreatwolfgang said:
The artist's words have zero weight on what is tagged on any given post, as far as the general tags go with TWYS.
You tag whatever tag that it visually appears to be, i.e., chastity_cage, cock_ring, ball_ring/testicle_cuff, etc.

If the post only features a generic ring over the balls, consider using cock_ring/testicle_cuff and removing any tags that violate TWYS.

Right, I forgot that only species and character tags are a bit more relaxed in their application.

Anyway, I would be glad to see the chastity_cage tag removed from all the uncertain cases similar to those I presented. I just hope to hear more views on the matter before starting to do anything.

crocogator said:
First off, context occasionally gives hints.
post #4424499
The fox is wearing a chastity cage, and the wolf is most likely also wearing a chastity cage (not cock_ring) given the context.

Facing ambiguity and no helpful context, the unspoken rule is to break TWYS if possible. It would be dumb to remove a bunch of chastity content from search results just because it's a rear_view--a fairly common situation.

When that's not an option, I guess go for cock_ring.

I did stumble upon a few posts similar to that where one character is clearly wearing a cage while another only has a ring visible. Since there is already at least one chastity_cage clearly shown in these images no content would be lost from the search results. mutual_chastity may be impacted though but perhaps we can give it a bit of leeway, thus avoiding the need to add cock_ring to these cases like you said.