NotMeNotYou said:
Are we doing personal attacks now?

Not bothering to look through the posts and just nuking the tag is lazy...idk what else to call it. Sorry.

NotMeNotYou said:
However, less than 25% correct tags is not a good basis for anything.

So...let me get this straight...if I find a small, but perfectly legitimate tag with 25 entries, then just fuck it up completely to the point where there are now 110 total entries with 85 of them being incorrect...you'll just invalidate the tag?

NotMeNotYou said:
So you're saying we should leave current problems alone, and that you're only willing to complain and wait for other people to fix it instead of fixing it yourself?

Whoa whoa whoa...I had no idea this was even an issue until the tag was already invalidated. If it had been handled in a correct manner, i.e. brought up on the forums, then I might have had a chance to correct the tag. So don't accuse me of being lazy when there was literally no way I could have gotten in front of this. That's just ridiculous.

NotMeNotYou said:
I'm not going to wait for someone to have mercy and clean up a mess that would only get worse if left alone.

Then don't leave it alone? Fix it? Or make a forum post about it so others can fix it? Idk *shrug*

CrocoGator said:
Do these urethra-blocking posts count?

Yes...I think so. That should be added to the wiki as a possible type of ruined orgasm.

CrocoGator said:
Do these dialogue teasing pics count?
Do these (physical) tease + barely get off count?

nah. Seems like they came, but the ladies are just shit-talking their loads after the fact. Second set I can only say that's a lot of precum, because they're still begging to cum.

NotMeNotYou said:
One of you advocates for this tag put in the work required to bring this a tag up to standard (proposed wiki and everything) and I'm willing the revert the decision.

Great. Revert it then cause the work has been done.