Topic: Implied_* tag cleanup

This initiative started while I was cleaning out implied_rape. (See see topic #60409 for previous discussion.) While I was there, I noticed there were a lot of other implied_* tags that should probably be cleaned up as well.

General opinion among veteran members seems to be that implied_* tags should be avoided wherever possible. This is because they are vague, subjective, and overly broad -- an action can be implied by many different things, and what may be an obvious implication to some may not be apparent to others. This makes them ineffective at sorting posts, and conflicts with the site's tag-what-you-see policy. While I broadly agree with this analysis, I also believe that exceptions are warranted for triggering content (rape, suicide, etc.), because people have good reason to want to avoid even the mention or implication of such topics.

In my experience, most cleanups are straightforward; posts tagged with implied_* can often be simply replaced with after_*, imminent_*, or, for triggering content, *_mention tags, which have the bonus of being more descriptive. If I can't see the logic of how the thing is supposed to be "implied", or if the thing is happening explicitly within the image, I simply remove the tag entirely. I have already cleaned out most of the rare (<10 uses) implied_* tags through this method. Many of them were extremely weird and overly specific (we do not need dry_anal_orgasm, let alone implied_dry_anal_orgasm ), so I doubt they will be missed.

I found a few posts and tags that stumped me, however. Most of these cover triggering content that needs to be handled delicately, or niche kinks I'm unfamiliar with and thus unable to judge the validity of the "implications". (Anything involving feces, urine, urethral penetration, or vore is a hard no from me, and I don't want to look too closely at castration / genital mutilation either, so someone else will have to evaluate those.) I'd like to report my findings and turn discussion over to the community for further steps in these matters.

Tags I'm skipping for now:

• implied_insertion: The debate about whether to separate penetration and insertion is still ongoing.
• implied_expansion, implied_inflation, & related tags: I'm unfamiliar with this fetish.
• implied_audience: This one is just weird and confusing.
• implied_oviposition is a kink I'm unfamiliar with.
• implied_lactation: I can't come up with replacements for any of the tagged posts. We may not have the tag infrastructure to disambiguate this one yet.

Invalidation BURs are located at topic #60561. Earlier invalidation BURs that predate this thread are located at the following:

• implied_cuckold has a BUR to invalidate at forum #472678.
• implied_heterosexuality, implied_gay, implied_bisexual, and implied_lesbian have BURs to invalidate at topic #55811.
• implied_necrophilia has a BUR to invalidate at topic #55952, but opinion seems in favor of keeping it.

Note that implied_transformation comprises over 4000 posts, so I'm not going to tackle that unless I have help. implied_incest and implied_oral are also doozies at nearly 2000 posts each.

It's arguable for all of the implied_* tags since they are mostly based on one's subjective interpretation of an otherwise relatively "normal" scene.

• post #5955565 - Probably mutilation, self_mutilation, and facial_mutilation. I do not think self-harm and cutting_self are applicable here.
• post #5741395 - Tag drug_usage, drug_abuse, overdose, depression, and imminent_suicide.
• post #5685218 - Just tag noose. I do not think imminent_death or imminent_suicide are applicable here.
• post #2141224 - Tag before_and_after, censored, suicide, death/obscured_death. Maybe also forced.
• post #1238837 - Tag poisoning, suicide, and death regardless. I do not know anything about the lore, but if the hidden flower (i.e., buttercups) and poisoning symptoms (i.e., drooling) could be identified, then it could be safe to logically conclude that this is suicide as opposed to unintentional poisoning or natural death.

I've redefined the thread to be a general discussion for all implied_* tags going forward. I've added a new list of problematic implied_gangbang posts and will add more tags to the OP as I encounter them.

thegreatwolfgang said:

• post #5955565 - Probably mutilation, self_mutilation, and facial_mutilation. I do not think self-harm and cutting_self are applicable here.
• post #5741395 - Tag drug_usage, drug_abuse, overdose, depression, and imminent_suicide.
• post #5685218 - Just tag noose. I do not think imminent_death or imminent_suicide are applicable here.
• post #2141224 - Tag before_and_after, censored, suicide, death/obscured_death. Maybe also forced.
• post #1238837 - Tag poisoning, suicide, and death regardless. I do not know anything about the lore, but if the hidden flower (i.e., buttercups) and poisoning symptoms (i.e., drooling) could be identified, then it could be safe to logically conclude that this is suicide as opposed to unintentional poisoning or natural death.

Done for all except post #2141224. I don't think before_and_after is applicable since we don't see the "after", and I'm just not sure the implication is strong enough to tag death and suicide. We technically can't be certain there's a body behind the photo. It depends on exactly how literal you want to be with "tag what you see", and I'd like to get multiple users' input before making a decision on that.

beholding said:
Done for all except post #2141224. I don't think before_and_after is applicable since we don't see the "after", and I'm just not sure the implication is strong enough to tag death and suicide. We technically can't be certain there's a body behind the photo. It depends on exactly how literal you want to be with "tag what you see", and I'd like to get multiple users' input before making a decision on that.

IMO, the "before" photograph was just conveniently in the way of the "after" scene, so it is no different than if it were side-by-side but with the "after" scene be censored with a giant censor_bar.

As for death and suicide, it could be safely assumed from the composition of the scene and the context. You could argue that there is no corpse seen, but that is a different tag.

implied_gangbang

I don't think a gangbang_mention tag is warranted, so anytime this was tagged for the mere mention of a gangbang I simply removed it. That said, this one proved trickier than I expected. Most posts show only the subject of the gangbang (with other participants offscreen) in the middle of an ongoing gangbang, so after_gangbang and imminent_gangbang aren't applicable. I do not know if simply tagging gangbang is appropriate in such a scenario.

• post #5625218: One disembodied penis is present, but only one.
• post #5407873: Only implication is tally marks around a single character's orifices.
• post #4938343
• post #4845566
• post #4457529: Multiple disembodied penises. Is a gangbang tag appropriate for that scenario?

I don't believe implied_group_sex and implied_gangbang are valid and they should be invalidated.
I would even go as far as calling for imminent_gangbang and after_gangbang to be invalidated in favour of imminent_sex and after_sex.

• post #5625218 - Gangbang is completely not applicable here and any dialogue mentioning it is irrelevant. You could probably tag cum_dumpster since application of this tag seems pretty lax. In addition, also tag disembodied_penis, after_sex, duo, and solo_focus.
• post #5407873 - Not applicable. Only relevant tags are solo, tally_marks and presenting_pussy.
• post #4938343 - Tag with cum_dumpster, after_sex, offscreen_character, and solo (since offscreen characters do not count).
• post #4845566 - Tag with cum_dumpster, after_sex, mostly_offscreen_character, disembodied_penis, duo, and solo_focus.
• post #4457529 - Gangbang would only apply if there were all actively engaging in sex. This would just be group (not group_sex yet), mostly_offscreen_character, disembodied_penis, solo_focus, and imminent_sex. If there was an after_sex scene, then group_sex and bukkake would be applicable.

implied_killing

I don't think a murder_mention tag is warranted, so in such cases I simply removed the tag. I haven't gotten around to implied_murder yet but that's a similar one.

• post #5970279 & post #4326967: Replaced with after_murder. Might be a bit presumptuous, but I think the amount of blood implies a fatal wound in both cases.
• post #5937252: Replaced with blood_on_wall since that's the evidence that implies the killing.
• post #5353103: Replaced with death_threat. This one is a bit heavier than just mentioning killing (it's an instruction to kill), but I still don't think "implied killing" is necessary.
• post #4736952: No replacement. Blood-related tags (the only things to imply killing) were already present.
• post #5596901: I don't know what to do with this one. Death is explicit, but the murder is only implied.
• post #3913697 may be a genuine case. The murder appears to be shown only through imagery and symbolism.
• post #4185686 may be a genuine case. Dialogue heavily implies murder (and cannibalism), but there's nothing in the image to prove it. (This is also a case of using implied_* as a lore tag, as the murder is explicit in a parent post.)

There should not be any implied_killing or implied_murder tags.

• post #5970279 - Completely not applicable, even for after_murder (which shouldn't exist). Only tag with blood_on_weapon, blood_on_clothing, and blood_drip.
• post #4326967 - Not applicable as well. Only tag blood_on_hand, blood_on_face, blood_on_object, blood_on_wall, and maybe blood_on_floor.
• post #5937252 - Yes, blood_on_wall is the only applicable tag here.
• post #5353103 - Yes.
• post #4736952 - Yes. I would have also suggested adding psycho or psychotic but they were both invalidated, so you could probably add insane instead.
• post #5596901 - Irrelevant. You could probably add severed_hand and after_death, but the latter is redundant to death (i.e., imminent_death -> killing -> death).
• post #3913697 - I don't even know what I'm seeing here, but if the bottom right section is supposed to be a bloody eyeball with blood_from_eye, then only those tags are applicable.
• post #4185686 - Without context/parent post, this means nothing as it could be any meat. You could probably tag cooking_with_furs, but I'm not that well-versed in those kind of tags. I do not believe cannibalism is also applicable here as well.

implied_<fluid>

These are implied_cum_drinking, implied_cum, implied_breast_milk, implied_urine, implied_pee, implied_drinking_urine, implied_feces, implied_scat, and implied_scat_eating. I'm staying far away from the waste products, but from a look at the cum and breast milk ones it's... really hard to tag these. A lot of the posts imply it very strongly in a wink-wink-nudge-nudge kind of way while technically keeping it ambiguous, which is hell on TWYS. I depopulated implied_cum_drinking but in retrospect I'm not sure about some of my decisions.

• post #4737863: I replaced this with cum_as_milk, but I'm not sure if that's valid. The only indication there's anything unusual with the milk is another character sweating nervously when seeing it.
• post #5224297: A character is holding a mug labeled "milk" while another character is lactating, but there's technically no evidence the mug contains her breast milk.
• post #5708430, post #5775544, & post #5837227 all feature big-breasted women seductively offering milk. The implication is very clear, but there is technically no evidence they are offering breastfeeding or that imminent breastfeeding is about to take place. Given that this is clearly a specific fetish, I feel the scenario does deserve a tag, but I'm not sure what it should be.

There should not be any implied_<fluids> tag.

• post #4737863 - No, it is not. Without the "penis_milking" being shown in this scene, it is considered as milk as per TWYS. You can tag nervous as well (or suspicious if the other character is looking at her suspiciously).
• post #5224297 - Something having milk written on it does not mean milk is present, notice how milk_carton does not automatically imply milk. You may safely tag this as milk_container and mug.
• post #5708430, post #5775544, & post #5837227 - The correct tag is called offering_milk.

Didn't know about cum_dumpster. That's the perfect tag for those edge cases, thanks. With that, implied_gangbang is completely depopulated. Didn't know about offering_milk either, so that covers that trio of posts.

I'll do implied_murder and implied_group_sex next since they're related.

Re: after_murder, I'd like to get another opinion before nuking that one.

beholding said:
Re: after_murder, I'd like to get another opinion before nuking that one.

The murder tag is already invalid and was aliased to killing (i.e., the act of killing someone).
Thus, after_murder should really just be death (i.e., a killed character) and/or corpse (i.e., the physical dead body), whichever applicable.

The death tag is also applied pretty loosely, so it can be applied in cases such as:

• A visible recently-deceased body (i.e., corpse).
• An obscured body (e.g., remains hidden in a body_bag, skull_imprint/bone_imprints in fatal_vore).
• An obscured death (e.g., burping a skull-shaped cloud in fatal_vore, a character stepping on a landmine and disappearing in the explosion, a character killing something offscreen with excessive_blood splatter).
• A sequential scene showing a character who is still alive, then transitioning to the next scene depicting their burial/funeral.

It should not be applied to cases such as:

• A character covered in blood.
• A character holding a bloody weapon.
• A character punching someone offscreen with a "light" amount of blood splattering out.
• A long-deceased body (e.g., old skeleton or desiccated corpse).
• A static scene of a burial/funeral.

I've now gone through implied_drugs, implied_autofellatio, implied_footjob, and implied_facesitting. Problem cases have been added to the OP.

I'm looking through implied_abuse now, but I really have no idea what to do for most of the posts. Abuse is a triggering topic so it needs to be handled more sensitively, but it can be implied by just about anything.

beholding said:

implied_gangbang, implied_threesome, & implied_group_sex

Problem posts:

• post #4236859, post #4223077, post #4066565, post #3928413, post #2262550, & post #3928942. All of these have the same problem: Only two characters are pictured, but dialogue indicates additional participants.
• post #1943573 features nonverbal indicators of additional offscreen participants.
• post #2449733: Can't tell if this is before or after group sex.
• post #4953707: Not entirely sure how to handle this one. It appears to be a bunch of characters preparing to engage in parallel_sex after one has already finished.

• post #4236859 - Any dialogue is irrelevant in these cases, unless there are other visual evidence that could point to it. This would simply be duo solo_focus.
• post #4223077 - This would be a good example of other visual evidence being in the scene, i.e., tally_marks. Strictly speaking, this is also duo solo_focus but you can apply cum_dumpster here.
• post #4066565 - Another good example, i.e., cum_covered. This would also be duo solo_focus cum_dumpster.
• Should the scene depict active cumshots raining down onto the character, then it is eligible for bukkake as well. Note from the wiki: "Bukkake always requires a group. This tag is not applicable to solo or duo images, unless there are multiple off-screen cumshots."
• post #3928413, post #2262550, & post #3928942 - These would be the opposite, since there is not quite enough cum (or other evidence) to justify cum_dumpster. All of these would simply be duo and looking_at_viewer/talking_to_viewer.
• post #1943573 - Same as above.
• post #2449733 - Neither since there is no evidence of a forth character being present as well. This would just be looking_at_viewer & take_your_pick.
• post #4953707 - Technically, this would be both after_sex and imminent_sex. However, it is still not group_sex since there was only one couple who had engaged in sex at that moment.

implied_killing & implied_murder

Problems:

• post #4341313 is vore, so someone else will have to look at it.

• post #4341313 - It is straight up fatal_vore, no implication here. I went ahead and removed implied_murder here.

implied_drugs

Problems:

• post #5399295: Character indicates his present situation is because someone spiked his drink.
• post #5183997, post #4852589: Dialogue indicates a character is high, but there are no other indicators.
• post #4218708: Offscreen drugs, but character doesn't recognize it as drugs.
• post #4669733 has Korean dialogue, which I can't read.

• post #5399295 - Dialogue is irrelevant here, remove implied_drugs and maintain other tags as is. I also believe that it would be inappropriate to use substance_intoxication or drugged under this context.
• post #5183997 & post #4852589 - As mentioned numerous times already, dialogue is irrelevant. Remove implied_drugs and maintain other tags as is.
• post #4218708 - Same as above.
• post #4669733 - Korean dialogue wouldn't have made any difference. There is a recently-used medical_syringe on the pillow next to her head, which makes this post drugged, drugged_sex, and rape.

implied_footjob

• post #4439342 and post #3493981 depict a footjob taking place just out of frame. I'd prefer not to make a ton of offscreen_<sex act> tags if I don't have to, but I'm not sure what else to do here.
• post #4074730 is similar but much less explicit.
• post #3896121 features a footjob covered by convenient_censorship.
• post #4205892, post #4115317, post #3877626, post #3185450, post #1744547: These depict a character giving a footjob to a phallic object. I would tag these with suggestive, but given that it's clearly a distinct fetish, it should probably have a dedicated tag. Is there one I'm not aware of?

Firstly, don't make a bunch of offscreen_<action> tags without making a proper thread/justification for it.
In most cases, offscreen_<sex_act> would just be offscreen_sex and we do not need to expand any further than that.

• post #4439342 - It could be argued that no footjob is even happening here since the receiving character does not react to it, so I will leave out any of those tags.
• If there were more explicit "stroking" motions by the foot which causes the receiving character to make a pleasurable expression or to climax and spurt out cum into frame, then you could tag footjob offscreen_sex.
• post #3493981 - No foot_play or genital_torture/cock_and_ball_torture is happening here. The most you can tag is offscreen_character and stomping/stepped_on.
• Even then, this is already stretching it quite a bit since the only indication that another character is there would be the ahegao emoji in the background. If the post had a fully plain background, then only stomping would be eligible.
• post #4074730 - I don't even know what is going on here. None of the foot_play or genital_torture-related tags are applicable.
• post #3896121 - This would be a good example of what I mentioned earlier of having more explicit evidence with the first post. Instead of offscreen_sex, this would be footjob obscured_sex.
• post #4205892, post #4115317, post #3877626, post #3185450, & post #1744547 - One tag I can think of is footjob_on_object. However, the tag's name is not entirely accurate and this one deserves more discussion from those more familiar with the foot_fetish tags.
• Strictly speaking, the current wiki only allows foot_fetish to be used, as foot_play requires "feet ... being used to stimulate any and all of the sexual body parts, or being stimulated themselves directly" while footjob requires feet to be "used to stimulate another character's genitals".

implied_facesitting

• post #5293069: Character says "Hope your face is better than this chair." Don't know if that's enough to count for imminent_facesitting.
• post #4392237 implies it through the dialogue in the second panel and the paint on the character's face in the third. Not sure what tags to use for that.
• post #2556145 has Japanese text, which I can't read.

• post #5293069 - Unless their butt is mere moments away from colliding with the viewer's face, imminent_facesitting is not applicable here as dialogue is irrelevant.
• post #4392237 - Without the dialogue, it could also be implied that they just threw a bunch of paint at the other character's face. I would just tag this as paint_on_face.
• There is a after_facesitting tag, but I wouldn't even use that unless I see a butt_print on the character's face or the other character lifting their butt away from the other's face.
• post #2556145 - (Pro tip: Use the image function on Google Translate.) Japanese dialogue is irrelevant. However, since there are signs that she is sitting on someone (i.e., the "lines" of struggled screaming and sweat drops), you can tag sitting_on_another obscured_character. Otherwise, if those evidence are not present or not enough, then just tag sitting.

implied_abuse

This is a triggering topic, so it must be handled sensitively. I believe an abuse_mention tag is warranted.

• post #5713266, post #5713241: Replaced with abused.
• post #5833834 depicts several broken picture frames, and in some of them a character looks unhappy. I don't think an abuse tag is warranted just from that, but I'm not sure what it should be replaced with.
• post #5696080: I don't see what implies abuse here.
• post #5442144 depicts an injured character after_fight, but dialogue indicates it was with his romantic partner, making it partner abuse.
• post #5194590 depicts a character writing "Make him stop" while crying.
• post #4962833: I'm not sure if this is even considered abuse...?
• post #4625186: I can't even tell what I'm looking at. Replaced with violence.
• post #4240095: This is tagged with begging_for_mercy, but the character doesn't look terribly distressed, and there's no indication their request for a break will be denied.
• post #4210510: I don't understand what's going on here.
• post #4183814: I'm not very clear on what's going on here. The post is tagged rape, but it only shows a character masturbating. The character is injured and the other character looks menacing, but there's no proof he injured the central character let alone abused him.
• post #4149048: Character has bite and bruise marks, but is looking_pleasured, so it may just be a masochism thing...?
• post #4107918: I don't understand what's going on here.

If an abuse_mention tag is to be used, there should be extensive discussion and justification for having it.
I, for one, don't mind having such an exception to TWYS, but it should adequately cover all themes of abuse, not just that taken from dialogue.

• post #5833834 - I think torn_photo or broken_picture are the only applicable tags here. You can probably also include framed_picture and family_picture as well.
• post #5696080 - Nothing implies abuse here, it is only in the description that mentions it (which is also irrelevant in tagging).
• post #5442144 - Strictly speaking, there is no abuse here, but I'd include domestic_violence here for the sake of it.
• post #5194590 - Tag trauma/traumatized.
• post #4962833 - No abuse here.
• post #4625186 - No abuse here, only mentioned in the description.
• post #4240095 - No abuse here.
• post #4210510 - No abuse here, probably depressed.
• post #4183814 - Yes, this is a case of abuse. The "victim" is crying and looking distressed at the "abuser" while the latter seems to be content with the whole situation. This would not be a case of rape, but it is certainly a case of forced_masturbation.
• post #4149048 - No abuse here, this is just masochism. You can also tag bruised and bite_mark.
• post #4107918 - No abuse here, this is just distressed, forced, and imminent_torture.

Note that implied_transformation comprises over 4000 posts, so I'm not going to tackle that unless I have help. implied_incest and implied_oral are also doozies at nearly 2000 posts each.

Probably not going to help a lot, but try topic #23571 since that is the dedicated thread for it.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Any dialogue is irrelevant in these cases

As I have told you in the past, that is your opinion, not site policy. I'm not following this advice. The last time we got into this a moderator had to lock the thread for straying off-topic, so if you want to argue, make a dedicated thread.

Firstly, don't make a bunch of offscreen_<action> tags without making a proper thread/justification for it.

I tried doing that in topic #60409 and got crickets. The same thing has happened virtually every time I've tried. Evidence suggests that no one actually cares. I'm tired of how glacially this site moves, and history belongs to those who show up. If you disagree with a tag I've added, you can present an actual argument against it instead of telling me I have to wait until the Sun burns out because someone, somewhere, might hypothetically have an objection. (I would also like to point out that I have not, in fact, created any more offscreen_<sex act> tags precisely because I'm trying to be judicious about them.)

I respect your opinions when you back them up with reason and evidence, Wolfgang, but that requires you to actually do so. You are neither staff nor a moderator, and your personal preferences are not rules that anyone else is obligated to follow.

I've followed your suggestions for the other posts and crossed them off on the OP.

beholding said:
As I have told you in the past, that is your opinion, not site policy. I'm not following this advice. The last time we got into this a moderator had to lock the thread for straying off-topic, so if you want to argue, make a dedicated thread.

I tried doing that in topic #60409 and got crickets. The same thing has happened virtually every time I've tried. Evidence suggests that no one actually cares. I'm tired of how glacially this site moves, and history belongs to those who show up. If you disagree with a tag I've added, you can present an actual argument against it instead of telling me I have to wait until the Sun burns out because someone, somewhere, might hypothetically have an objection. (I would also like to point out that I have not, in fact, created any more offscreen_<sex act> tags precisely because I'm trying to be judicious about them.)

I respect your opinions when you back them up with reason and evidence, Wolfgang, but that requires you to actually do so. You are neither staff nor a moderator, and your personal preferences are not rules that anyone else is obligated to follow.

I've followed your suggestions for the other posts and crossed them off on the OP.

That's not opinion-based; it's something that the site staff have been drilling forever. The pull dialogue has on tags are extremely limited, and they're basically only for meta and lore-based tags. And people who have tagged based on say, story in description have gotten tagging violation citations.

versperus said:
That's not opinion-based; it's something that the site staff have been drilling forever. The pull dialogue has on tags are extremely limited, and they're basically only for meta and lore-based tags. And people who have tagged based on say, story in description have gotten tagging violation citations.

I don't know the full context, since I haven't read through this thread. It looks like it was character count-related, which is one of those "important" tagging concepts with clearly established rules, so I wouldn't want to mess around with that.

But still, if I saw a character say something like "After I make you cum another 10 times, maybe I'll let you take a break", I'm likely going to tag that as multiple_orgasms because that's the kink that's being alluded to. Some things don't translate well to still images without dialogue because the actions inherently span over time or inherently involve speaking. If that kind of thing is a violation of site policy, I don't think it's actually enforced.

crocogator said:
But still, if I saw a character say something like "After I make you cum another 10 times, maybe I'll let you take a break", I'm likely going to tag that as multiple_orgasms because that's the kink that's being alluded to.

I wouldn't, since multiple_orgasms is about images/videos showing multiple orgasms. People searching multiple_orgasms want to see multiple orgasms, not someone saying there were multiple orgasms in the past or they're happening offscreen where you can't see them. If we tag based on kinks being alluded to, then foot_fetish would be tagged for a character having conspicuously bare feet, or vore for an open detailed mouth, or bestiality for a feral in a sexy pose, depending if the tagger feels like it speaks to their fetish.

Dialog specifically also faces challenges regarding whether its being stated truthfully. And other languages/translations add more ambiguity since it can depend on how it was translated (even if not, if someone tags a kink because they can sort of make it out from their understanding of a language, for someone who can't read the language they'll just see posts tagged it for no apparent reason). It becomes too subjective and vibes-based, leading to the over-use of tags and more tag wars. Since general tags are supposed to be TWYS, it's best to rely on seeing the thing rather than a kink being alluded to through dialog or something too circumstantial.

crocogator said:
I don't know the full context, since I haven't read through this thread. It looks like it was character count-related, which is one of those "important" tagging concepts with clearly established rules, so I wouldn't want to mess around with that.

No, the argument wasn't entirely about character counts. It was about whether tags can be included through "Tag What You Read" or what is implied through dialogue.

Most of the posts linked on the first comment have ambiguous scenarios that mostly involve offscreen characters and/or contextual cues indicated through dialogue.
When I mentioned in passing that whatever is said in the dialogue is irrelevant when it comes to tagging, the OP took offence to that and brought up an old argument we had about it (which I honestly thought was an open-and-shut case) and refused to implement some of the tagging suggestions I gave that dismissed dialogue.

(P.S., In relation to counting characters offscreen, as per the solo/duo/group wiki, "If they aren't visible at all (e.g. only speech bubbles) they DO NOT count; see offscreen_character instead.")

beholding said:
I tried doing that in topic #60409 and got crickets. The same thing has happened virtually every time I've tried. Evidence suggests that no one actually cares. I'm tired of how glacially this site moves, and history belongs to those who show up. If you disagree with a tag I've added, you can present an actual argument against it instead of telling me I have to wait until the Sun burns out because someone, somewhere, might hypothetically have an objection. (I would also like to point out that I have not, in fact, created any more offscreen_<sex act> tags precisely because I'm trying to be judicious about them.)

I respect your opinions when you back them up with reason and evidence, Wolfgang, but that requires you to actually do so. You are neither staff nor a moderator, and your personal preferences are not rules that anyone else is obligated to follow.

When I said that you shouldn't add any brand new tags, I did not mean that with any hostility or with an accusatory tone.

It is based on my observation that new tags tend to be more likely accepted and not outright invalidated after it had gone through community discussion and "officiating" it with existing tags through votable AIBURs.
For example, the numerous threads that I made titled with "Tag Discussion" often drew in comments or criticisms in regard to a suggested tag/change, which can be useful in helping one gauge whether an idea is good or not.
Likewise, most of my suggested changes also end with failure, no actions taken, or a stalemate. It is just part of the process, but at least you did something about it (that you could point to in future discussions).

If your thread is struggling to get any attention, maybe consider having a more descriptive title that also showed your intent that you want to create a new tag.
If nobody else criticises/responds to it, then go ahead and implement those tags into your tagging or officially linking the tag with established tags through implications.

versperus said:
That's not opinion-based; it's something that the site staff have been drilling forever. The pull dialogue has on tags are extremely limited, and they're basically only for meta and lore-based tags. And people who have tagged based on say, story in description have gotten tagging violation citations.

You need to update the site rules and the many, many tag wiki descriptions that explicitly state dialogue are allowed contributing factors, then, because currently they're sending very mixed messages. (And I'm not talking about tagging based on descriptions, I'm talking about dialogue in the image itself.)

thegreatwolfgang said:
When I said that you shouldn't add any brand new tags, I did not mean that with any hostility or with an accusatory tone. [...]

Ah, okay, sorry, my temper got the better of me. Your points are valid. I do try to field my tag proposals on the forums, but there just isn't much response most of the time.

Anyway, this is drifting off-topic. Next on the list:

• implied_oviposition is a kink I'm unfamiliar with, so I'll be skipping it.
• implied_water: Surprisingly, this one actually has a wiki description. I don't think it's any less pointless than implied_fire, though. I've made a request to invalidate at the BUR thread.
• implied_unbirth is vore, so I'm skipping it.

I'll clean out implied_water and then start working on implied_knotting. ETA: And I have now done so. implied_knotting posts added to OP.

Though I expected implied_bisexual to be a straightforward cleanup, I've run into a particular scenario multiple times: Two male characters are having sex, but dialogue places emphasis on the fact one character has just had sex with a female and still smells or tastes like her. post #4830838 is the clearest example.

Do we have a tag for this? If not, should we make one?

beholding said:
Though I expected implied_bisexual to be a straightforward cleanup, I've run into a particular scenario multiple times: Two male characters are having sex, but dialogue places emphasis on the fact one character has just had sex with a female and still smells or tastes like her. post #4830838 is the clearest example.

Do we have a tag for this? If not, should we make one?

Not a fan of tags used based on dialog like that, so I'd say no and no.

watsit said:
Not a fan of tags used based on dialog like that, so I'd say no and no.

If it's a fetish people want to search for, we should have a tag for it to make that possible.

beholding said:
You need to update the site rules and the many, many tag wiki descriptions that explicitly state dialogue are allowed contributing factors, then, because currently they're sending very mixed messages. (And I'm not talking about tagging based on descriptions, I'm talking about dialogue in the image itself.)

https://e621.net/wiki_pages/1684

Our regulations have always been stated.

versperus said:

https://e621.net/wiki_pages/1684

Our regulations have always been stated.

Yes, I've read that. Where does it state that dialogue is irrelevant to tags?

beholding said:
Yes, I've read that. Where does it state that dialogue is irrelevant to tags?

TWYS applies only to visual elements within a post, such as objects, characters, and the actions taken by characters that are visible. [...]

For example, a solo picture of a character who appears male must be tagged male.
That remains true even if the artist or the character owner themselves state that the character is not male, or if text within the image states that the character is not male. These tags refer strictly to a character's outward appearance and nothing more.

A character saying they've had sex with a character of the other sex doesn't have bearing on TWYS. implied_* tags are just as bound to TWYS as any other general tag, and thus needing some visual element in the post and not just text within the image, to be tagged.

That remains true even if the artist or the character owner themselves state that the character is not male, or if text within the image states that the character is not male.

As I've said in the past, this only says that art takes precedence over text when the text conflicts with the art. Nothing about this states or implies that text can never have any influence on tags.

TWYS applies only to visual elements within a post, such as objects, characters, and the actions taken by characters that are visible.

Dialogue within an image is a visual element of the post. The policy is "tag what you see", not "Tag what you see, but pretend you don't see dialogue." If the policy is indeed supposed to be the latter, admins need to change the policy description to make that explicit; though if they do that, they're also going to have to revise the many, many tags that explicitly or implicitly allow dialogue as contributing factors.

To keep this on topic, I've added notes for implied_hypnosis and implied_penis.

beholding said:
As I've said in the past, this only says that art takes precedence over text when the text conflicts with the art.

That isn't what the TWYS wiki says. There's nothing in the wiki about being able to tag what the artist/character says as long as it's not contradicted in the image. Just the opposite: "only to visual elements within a post, such as objects, characters, and the actions taken by characters that are visible." There's nothing about tagging based on dialog there. If the thing to be tagged isn't a visual element within the post, it's not TWYS.

beholding said:
Dialogue within an image is a visual element of the post. The policy is "tag what you see", not "Tag what you see, but pretend you don't see dialogue."

There's a difference between the dialog itself, and what the dialog means. A character saying they had sex with a female before is just that, a character saying something. It isn't us seeing them have sex with a female, or a visual indication of them maybe having had sex with a female, just a statement of them saying they've had sex with a female.

Think of it another way: if a character says they're a herm, and you can see their penis/bulge and breasts, but the angle doesn't let you see whether they have a vulva or not, it is not allowed to tag herm even though it's not contradicted in the image (they could very well have a vulva we can't see, and what we do see would be expected of a herm character in that position). But the fact that we can't see the requisite body parts is the conflict with being able to tag herm, regardless of what they're saying and regardless of why we can't see their vulva. Similarly here, even though a character may say they've had sex with a female, we don't visually see them maybe having had sex with a female, making it a conflict with the dialog to tag them as maybe having had sex with a female before their current male partner.

watsit said:
That isn't what the TWYS wiki says. There's nothing in the wiki about being able to tag what the artist/character says as long as it's not contradicted in the image. Just the opposite: "only to visual elements within a post, such as objects, characters, and the actions taken by characters that are visible." There's nothing about tagging based on dialog there.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

There's a difference between the dialog itself, and what the dialog means. A character saying they had sex with a female before is just that, a character saying something. It isn't us seeing them have sex with a female, or a visual indication of them maybe having had sex with a female, just a statement of them saying they've had sex with a female.

This is true, but it's not what I'm disputing. I am not saying that dialogue is perfectly equivalent to a visual depiction (else I would have tagged the relevant posts with group_sex, bisexual, etc.), I am disputing the assertion that it is completely irrelevant to tags and we can't have any tags based on it at all. Dialogue can change how an image is perceived or framed, which makes it relevant to an art archive where users want to filter art according to their preferences. Because that is the point here, yes? The standards exist to facilitate user experience, not the other way around?

Similarly here, even though a character may say they've had sex with a female, we don't visually see them maybe having had sex with a female, making it a conflict with the dialog to tag them as maybe having had sex with a female before their current male partner.

This is incredibly tortured reasoning. Yeah, if you assume characters are lying then it's true you can't tag anything based on dialogue, but that's a ridiculous stance to assume. In much the same way that we assume sex is consensual by default, the most sensible option is to assume characters are telling the truth unless we have some reason to believe otherwise. Any other stance opens a can of worms I really don't think you want opened. We'd have to throw out explicitly_stated_consent and explicitly_stated_nonconsent, for starters, which would require a review of most forced content.

But even if you really do want to go that route, I don't think it actually matters in this case. Whether or not the character actually had sex with a female is irrelevant, the fetish is that he's saying he did. If it's a fetish that users want to search for, it deserves its own tag.

beholding said:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I's not an absence of evidence, but an absence of a statement. The rules are right there saying what TWYS is, that doesn't mean TWYS is also everything else the rules don't say. "The rules don't say I can't use dialog like this" isn't the same as "the rules say I can use dialog like this." Otherwise, no matter how precise the rule is made, someone could come up with some detail the rule doesn't mention and split hairs over it.

beholding said:
I am not saying that dialogue is perfectly equivalent to a visual depiction (else I would have tagged the relevant posts with group_sex, bisexual, etc.), I am disputing the assertion that it is completely irrelevant to tags and we can't have any tags based on it at all.

There are obviously some exceptions, every rule has its exceptions. There's that saying, "the exception proves the rule". The fact that there are a few exceptions, rather than it being the norm, goes to show there is a rule against and it's not the normal way of doing it. And some of us argue there are too many tags that depend on what the text means which need to be cleaned up, many of which have been created without discussion and haven't been brought up for invalidation (like most of these implied_* tags based on dialog you're helping get rid of).

beholding said:
This is incredibly tortured reasoning.

Whatever the case may be, how is it different from the herm example?

watsit said:
Otherwise, no matter how precise the rule is made, someone could come up with some detail the rule doesn't mention and split hairs over it.

My point exactly. The rule is poorly phrased. If my interpretation is not what the admins intended, they should tighten the phrasing to avoid future misinterpretations; and I'm not conceding that my interpretation is wrong until they do so.

There are obviously some exceptions

There are none that I can find. An exception has to be explicitly stated as such. The wiki page for rape explicitly says that dialogue is a contributing factor, but does not state that this is an exception to TWYS. You have settled on a personal interpretation of the TWYS policy, noticed that some tag descriptions conflict with it, and declared these as "exceptions", but that's not how exceptions work. Only the creators of a rule have the authority to dictate what is and isn't an exception to that rule. In this case, the only times they have done so are in the policy descriptions for character and lore tags, not any general tags (to my knowledge).

Whatever the case may be, how is it different from the herm example?

Similarly here, even though a character may say they've had sex with a female, we don't visually see them maybe having had sex with a female, making it a conflict with the dialog to tag them as maybe having had sex with a female before their current male partner.

The bolded part is the difference. I am not saying we should tag it male/female and penis_in_vagina; as in your herm example, those are visual elements that are not present in the image. But you are saying we can't make a different tag that allows for even the possibility that what the image describes as happening actually happened, and I don't think that's reasonable.

Look. Let me show you what happens if we apply your level of skepticism to visual elements:

post #2210064

This is currently one of the poster children for the human page. But she could be a lifelike android whose mechanical parts we can't see, or a humanoid with a short tail that's hidden by the angle. The image gives no indication of this, but we have to account for the possibility the image is misleading. Can't tag this as any species.

post #6018793

Someone tagged this as topless_male, but I don't see bulges, so they could be andromorphs. Gotta tag this as ambiguous_gender.

post #1132473

These characters do have bulges, so I can tag them as male, right? Wrong! They could be andromorphs wearing packers, or flat_chested gynomorphs, or maleherms. We just don't know.

post #1435438

This image is the poster child for male. What an embarrassing mistake. With this angle, we can't know for certain there's not a vulva hiding behind those balls. That means it's theoretically possible he could be a maleherm, so we can't tag him as male.

post #3275932

You want to tag this as rape? Not unless you can prove it's not CNC roleplay!

You have to draw the line somewhere. Outside of animations and comics, posts here only show us one angle of a single instant in time. It's impossible not to make some assumptions when we describe such images. If you insist that you have to account for every possible interpretation no matter how unlikely for every image, you'd never be able to tag anything. On this site, we assume unless given reason to believe otherwise that characters are cis, sex is consensual, and dialogue is truthful; not because those assumptions are accurate 100% of the time, but because we have to make some assumptions, and those are the most sensible ones. In order to tag what you see, you have to believe what you're seeing.

beholding said:
My point exactly. The rule is poorly phrased.

How?

TWYS states that all General category tags on a post must be directly evident from within the post itself. TWYS applies only to visual elements within a post, such as objects, characters, and the actions taken by characters that are visible.

What is poorly phrased here that's causing confusion?

beholding said:
There are none that I can find.

explicitly_stated_consent/explicitly_stated_nonconsent are obvious exceptions, depending on what the dialog says and not being "objects, characters, and the actions taken by characters that are visible". Notably, that's as far as it goes, it only requires the statement to exist and says nothing about its truthfulness/sincerity (consent given while under apparent duress is still explicitly_stated_consent, along with forced; similarly, a character saying they don't want something while apparently enjoying it and even taking control to do it is still explicitly_stated_nonconsent).

beholding said:
The bolded part is the difference. I am not saying we should tag it male/female and penis_in_vagina; as in your herm example, those are visual elements that are not present in the image. But you are saying we can't make a different tag that allows for even the possibility that what the image describes as happening actually happened, and I don't think that's reasonable.

It's what TWYS says:
"TWYS applies only to visual elements within a post, such as objects, characters, and the actions taken by characters that are visible."
What objects, characters, and the actions taken by characters indicates a character maybe had sex with a female before a male (or vice-versa)? The meaning of dialog is not "objects, characters, and the actions taken by characters". Text and the dialog itself can be, but not what the dialog means.

beholding said:
Look. Let me show you what happens if we apply your level of skepticism to visual elements:

I have no idea where you're getting this from, I'm saying the exact opposite. We can't assume stuff that isn't visible, we assume what we don't see doesn't exist, even if the dialog says so. We take what we see at face value.

post #1166082

This is not male/male and even has it locked off, even though text clearly says it is and we don't see anything that directly contradicts it being male/male.

beholding said:
On this site, we assume unless given reason to believe otherwise that characters are cis, sex is consensual, and dialogue is truthful; not because those assumptions are accurate 100% of the time, but because we have to make some assumptions, and those are the most sensible ones. In order to tag what you see, you have to believe what you're seeing.

Where is it stated that dialog is assumed true by default? And it's less that we assume characters are cis, and more that we don't tag lore tags that just duplicate a general tag, i.e. don't tag male_(lore) for a character that's already tagged male, and the vast vast majority of characters portrayed here are cis, making the usefulness of cis_(lore) tags highly questionable (lore tags are TWYK anyway, so it's not really relevant to TWYS). And we assume actions in general are consensual because it's impractical to have everything questionable_consent by default.

In comparison, since we should avoid tagging based on dialog to begin with, it's not so impractical to not assume its truthfulness in the few exceptions there are tags for it. Tags like good_boy and good_girl don't require the character actually be good, nor does thank_you require the character to be giving earnest thanks (they apply equally when the statements are made sarcastically, not sincere). The explicitly_stated_* tags I already mentioned don't require the statement to be true.

watsit said:
How [is it poorly phrased]?

The fact that we came to opposite conclusions and are arguing about it proves it is not clear and the phrasing needs to be tightened.

explicitly_stated_consent/explicitly_stated_nonconsent are obvious exceptions

Again, no they aren't. The wiki descriptions make no mention of this. You do not have the authority to decide what is and isn't an "obvious" exception to a rule, only the rule's creators do. Otherwise anyone could make any tag and declare it an "exception".

watsit said:
I have no idea where you're getting this from, I'm saying the exact opposite. We can't assume stuff that isn't visible, we assume what we don't see doesn't exist, even if the dialog says so. We take what we see at face value.

post #1166082

This is not male/male and even has it locked off, even though text clearly says it is and we don't see anything that directly contradicts it being male/male.

It's also tagged stated_gender and stated_homosexuality, because text is, in fact, a visual element we can take at face value and make tags for.

Text and the dialog itself can be [objects as defined by TWYS], but not what the dialog means.
[...]
Tags like good_boy and good_girl don't require the character actually be good, nor does thank_you require the character to be giving earnest thanks (they apply equally when the statements are made sarcastically, not sincere). The explicitly_stated_* tags I already mentioned don't require the statement to be true.

And... we seem to be in agreement on this? You agree, we can make tags based on what characters literally say without handwringing over if it's actually true? Again, I am not arguing we should tag that image with visual tags like male/female and penis_in_vagina. I am arguing we should make a tag for characters making statements like the ones in the post. explicitly_stated_* are not exceptions to this principle, so I'm not sure why you're saying they are.

beholding said:
The fact that we came to opposite conclusions and are arguing about it proves it is not clear and the phrasing needs to be tightened.

Just because some people want to read more into the text than what it says doesn't mean it's not clear. Again, anyone can come up with some detail that's not explicitly mentioned and try splitting hairs over it.

beholding said:
Again, no they aren't. The wiki descriptions make no mention of this.

How do you think they work, if not using the meaning of the text, which the TWYS wiki doesn't say counts for TWYS?

beholding said:
You do not have the authority to decide what is and isn't an "obvious" exception to a rule, only the rule's creators do.

You have been told this already by the moderators who enforce the rules.

beholding said:
It's also tagged stated_gender and stated_homosexuality

They're in the same vein as explicitly_stated_consent and explicitly_stated_nonconsent.

beholding said:
You agree, we can make tags based on what characters literally say

In some rare circumstances. As was said:

versperus said:
That's not opinion-based; it's something that the site staff have been drilling forever. The pull dialogue has on tags are extremely limited, and they're basically only for meta and lore-based tags.

Note also that the tags are explicitly_stated_nonconsent and stated_homosexuality, not implied_forced and implied_gay. In a case like
post #4830838
he's not stating he's bi for stated_bisexuality to apply, it'd be... I don't know, stated_pussy_flavor_on_penis?

Note also that the tags are explicitly_stated_nonconsent and stated_homosexuality, not implied_forced and implied_gay. In a case like
post #4830838
he's not stating he's bi for stated_bisexuality to apply, it'd be... I don't know, stated_pussy_flavor_on_penis?

Yes, exactly. What is so confusing about this? Why are you assuming the person currently depopulating and invalidating the implied_* tags is arguing in favor of keeping them?

watsit said:
Just because some people want to read more into the text than what it says doesn't mean it's not clear. Again, anyone can come up with some detail that's not explicitly mentioned and try splitting hairs over it. [...] You have been told this already by the moderators who enforce the rules.

You are acting as if I'm the only person who has ever or could possibly come to this conclusion. The fact that the post you linked is filled with highly-upvoted posts from users complaining about the policy shows otherwise. The mods can continue litigating this every time someone misinterprets the policy until the end of time, or they can take five minutes to reword their policy.

In some rare circumstances.

There is currently a full page of tags with the stated_* format, and that's not counting explicitly_stated_(non)consent or rape, whose page explicitly states dialogue is a contributing factor. That doesn't look "rare" to me. It's almost like this isn't an actual rule.

Every single time I have brought this up, I've been told "Oh, well obviously there are exceptions." Every time I ask "What are these exceptions and why do they exist?" I get useless non-answers like these. You can't just say "There are some exceptions, but your proposal isn't an exception because I say so." Exceptions are (or at least, should be) made for logically consistent reasons that set precedent for what can and can't be made a valid exception in the future. (And as I keep saying, they need to be explicitly stated so that people don't think they can make, e.g., any stated_* tag they feel like.)

Even the moderator in this very thread provided zero citations or evidence for their claim that the staff has been "drilling this forever". I'm sick of playing Calvinball on this. I make my decisions based on evidence, not hearsay.

beholding said:
Yes, exactly. What is so confusing about this? Why are you assuming the person currently depopulating and invalidating the implied_* tags is arguing in favor of keeping them?

Because you are arguing for being able to tag based on inferences from dialog as long as it doesn't contradict what you see, and say we should be able to tag things when there are users that like the concept, which is what many implied_* tag uses rely on.

beholding said:
You are acting as if I'm the only person who has ever or could possibly come to this conclusion.

I apologize if I sounded like I was singling you out as the only person to think this. I said "some people".

beholding said:
The mods can continue litigating this every time someone misinterprets the policy until the end of time, or they can take five minutes to reword their policy.

Do you have a suggestion for how to reword it? Given moderator statements that they've been trying to drill this into peoples' heads would suggest they've tried to write the rules to be as clear and unambiguous as possible (noting that trying to be too specific can end up creating more ambiguity, implying things they didn't intend to imply or making people more expectant for details where they would be redundant and wordy, only for people to have more to pick apart and fight it over), it doesn't sound like an easy five minute job to do. I'm sure they'd accept help from someone who can make a better description for the rule.

beholding said:
There is currently a full page of tags with the stated_* format

Only four of which have more than 1,000 uses, or 16 with more than 100. Compared to the total number of general/TWYS tags, this isn't even a drop in the bucket.

In either case, anyone can create a tag without checking if it's a good tag. A good number of these would likely be invalidated if they were brought up (stated_unwashed? stated_pooping?). The fact that people thought to tag these in the first place is likely a consequence of seeing the few allowed exceptions and assuming they could make their own (which other people saw and made their own, etc; which speaks to concerns brought up in the past about creating precedent from allowing exceptions to tagging rules).

beholding said:
Every single time I have brought this up, I've been told "Oh, well obviously there are exceptions." Every time I ask "What are these exceptions and why do they exist?" I get useless non-answers like these. You can't just say "There are some exceptions, but your proposal isn't an exception because I say so."

More that, "I don't think your proposal should be an exception because your argument for making it one isn't convincing." Your argument in favor of it so far has been:

beholding said:
If it's a fetish people want to search for, we should have a tag for it to make that possible.

If someone tagged something, they at least think that it's something that people want to search for, but that alone isn't a good reason to break TWYS.

beholding said:
Even the moderator in this very thread provided zero citations or evidence for their claim that the staff has been "drilling this forever". I'm sick of playing Calvinball on this. I make my decisions based on evidence, not hearsay.

A moderator statement is the evidence. They're the ones tasked with enforcing the rules, so what they say goes. Unless you can show that there's a disagreement between moderators that needs clarification from the higher ups, ignore it at your own peril.

watsit said:
I apologize if I sounded like I was singling you out as the only person to think this. I said "some people".

That wasn't really my point. My point was that I'm not an isolated problem. Even if you get me to agree to back down on this, you're inevitably going to have to go through this whole song-and-dance again when someone else comes to the same conclusions and has a similar objection down the line. I am advocating for a proactive solution rather than a reactive one, because that will be better for the site and community.

Do you have a suggestion for how to reword it?

Explicitly state that dialogue should not be considered when assigning tags and also list which tags are carved out as exceptions, why they are allowed exceptions, and why other similar tags should not exist.

In either case, anyone can create a tag without checking if it's a good tag. A good number of these would likely be invalidated if they were brought up (stated_unwashed? stated_pooping?). The fact that people thought to tag these in the first place is likely a consequence of seeing the few allowed exceptions and assuming they could make their own (which other people saw and made their own, etc; which speaks to concerns brought up in the past about creating precedent from allowing exceptions to tagging rules).

This is exactly why I keep insisting that exceptions need to be stated explicitly. Right now, a user who only reads the wiki and not the forums (to say nothing of users who don't even read the wiki) has no reason to believe there's anything wrong with creating more stated_* and implied_* tags. This is precisely the reason we have so many, and the reason we need to perform this badly overdue cleanup in the first place; there has been zero enforcement of this supposed sacred precept for years, and as such this festering tumor has been allowed to grow unchecked. If certain tags are supposed to be exceptions and not precedent, that needs to be stated explicitly. That's the only way to curb this.

I'm really, genuinely gobsmacked that I'm getting resistance on this. If you want people to follow your rules, you need people to understand them and you need to enforce them consistently. This is not an unreasonable request, it is the absolute bare minimum required to manage any kind of community.