Shortly after I uploaded an image, titanmelon added a bunch of helpful tags. Then mojoman removed about half of the tags. So I reverted to the titanmelon's tags. Checked back today, and mojoman deleted them again. Dunno if this is something I can report for.

You can report him for tag vandalizing.

EDIT: But in this case from looking at the post, nothing in the post shows any anal_vore or any of the tags you re-added

TheHuskyK9 said:
You can report him for tag vandalizing.

EDIT: But in this case from looking at the post, nothing in the post shows any anal_vore or any of the tags you re-added

There are tags for "impending", "imminent" etc. Meaning things that aren't actually shown, but are obvious. In the image, there is a big person pouring lube on a small person. So this falls under the same thing as imminent and impending tags. Not to mention titanmelon, the one that added them, has a staff title (janitor) and isn't just a random member like mojoman.

So if there's a problem with tagging implied things, then all impending and imminent tags should be removed.

I'll also point out that you don't tend to pour lube onto something you intend to eat, and imminent_vore implies oral vore, and could cause confusion if it wasn't tagged as a type of vore that would actually involve lube.

So if "Obviously going to happen, but not actually shown" is NOT a valid reason for a tag, should I remove every impending_doom, imminent_vore, etc tag that I find as well?

Kinne said:
...
So if there's a problem with tagging implied things, then all impending and imminent tags should be removed....

I've been saying this for years, literally.

Halite said:
I've been saying this for years, literally.

I agree, they're very hard to quantify, very subjective, etc etc.

Halite said:
I've been saying this for years, literally.

And the outcome stays the same

Kinne said:
There are tags for "impending", "imminent" etc. Meaning things that aren't actually shown, but are obvious. In the image, there is a big person pouring lube on a small person. So this falls under the same thing as imminent and impending tags. Not to mention titanmelon, the one that added them, has a staff title (janitor) and isn't just a random member like mojoman.

So if there's a problem with tagging implied things, then all impending and imminent tags should be removed.

I'll also point out that you don't tend to pour lube onto something you intend to eat, and imminent_vore implies oral vore, and could cause confusion if it wasn't tagged as a type of vore that would actually involve lube.

So if "Obviously going to happen, but not actually shown" is NOT a valid reason for a tag, should I remove every impending_doom, imminent_vore, etc tag that I find as well?

Nothing in the images implies that there's going to be vore or not. One character pouring lube on another is not enough evidence to have the "imminent_vore" tag. Also, I don't know if you've noticed but I am part of the site staff also (admin).

As for imminent tags, Char best explains why we have them from the imminent_death thread linked above, just use the same logic for this

Char said:
As far as implying imminent_death to invalid_tag, I don't think I really agree. To the best of my knowledge it should usually be pretty easy to figure out if a character in an image is in a situation where they're about to die. The tag should probably be reserved only for such images where that's clear (as opposed to someone that's just bleeding out but otherwise does not appear like they're about to be killed).

Imminent_death describes a situation, not an object or anything tangible. For instance: http://www.photosfan.com/images/most-famous-war-photographs1.jpg This would be tagged imminent_death, I mean the dude is about to be shot in the head, his captors very clearly intending to kill him. Does the picture SHOW him dying? No, but then we also tag male or female gender without requiring that genetalia be visible (excluding herm/dickgirl/ambiguous). Sometimes you have to rely on educated guesses and common sense. If a picture shows someone about to be shot in the head, you can safely assume that their death is imminent, and therefore the tag would apply. Even if they were miraculously rescued at the last second, they were still in an imminent-death situation.

"The tag should probably be reserved only for such images where that's clear."
And what isn't clear about a large person lubing up a small person?

"Imminent_death describes a situation, not an object or anything tangible."
Also applies. Anal vore and unbirth are situations.

"Does the picture SHOW him dying? No, but then we also tag male or female gender without requiring that genetalia be visible (excluding herm/dickgirl/ambiguous)."
Does the picture show the vore? No, but it's still very clear it's going to happen.

"Sometimes you have to rely on educated guesses and common sense."
I really can't make this simpler.

"If a picture shows someone about to be shot in the head, you can safely assume that their death is imminent, and therefore the tag would apply."
If the picture shows someone getting prepared to be inserted, you can safely assume there is either anal vore or unbirthing imminent, and therefore the tag would apply.

So pretty much, if "impending death", "imminent vore" and so on are valid tags, then putting "anal vore" and "unbirthing" on an image of someone getting prepared for it is valid as well.

Another example, there's a picture of someone mixing batter. Would it be tagged with cooking, even if there's no "cooking" shown, despite it being painfully obvious?

Kinne said:
"The tag should probably be reserved only for such images where that's clear."
And what isn't clear about a large person lubing up a small person?

"Imminent_death describes a situation, not an object or anything tangible."
Also applies. Anal vore and unbirth are situations.

"Does the picture SHOW him dying? No, but then we also tag male or female gender without requiring that genetalia be visible (excluding herm/dickgirl/ambiguous)."
Does the picture show the vore? No, but it's still very clear it's going to happen.

"Sometimes you have to rely on educated guesses and common sense."
I really can't make this simpler.

"If a picture shows someone about to be shot in the head, you can safely assume that their death is imminent, and therefore the tag would apply."
If the picture shows someone getting prepared to be inserted, you can safely assume there is either anal vore or unbirthing imminent, and therefore the tag would apply.

So pretty much, if "impending death", "imminent vore" and so on are valid tags, then putting "anal vore" and "unbirthing" on an image of someone getting prepared for it is valid as well.

Another example, there's a picture of someone mixing batter. Would it be tagged with cooking, even if there's no "cooking" shown, despite it being painfully obvious?

Problem is with your post, it's not obvious.

These are obvious:
post #542739 post #523332 post #509776 post #491126 post #296531

Please give me ONE reasonable example of why a small person would be getting covered in lube from a bigger person that doesn't involve vore.

Also notice how all your examples are of oral vore

Kinne said:
Please give me ONE reasonable example of why a small person would be getting covered in lube from a bigger person that doesn't involve vore.

Also notice how all your examples are of oral vore

Lotion Play.
Welcome to my fetish :3

Kinne said:
Please give me ONE reasonable example of why a small person would be getting covered in lube from a bigger person that doesn't involve vore.

1. How can we tell that it's lube without you saying it is?
2. Covering yourself in lube doesn't mean it ALWAYS ends up in any kind of vore.
3. Size difference also doesn't mean it'll always end up in vore.

As this Char person said, "Sometimes you have to rely on educated guesses and common sense"

And that's how you figure out that there is NOTHING it can possibly be that isn't either anal vore or unbirth

Kinne said:
As this Char person said, "Sometimes you have to rely on educated guesses and common sense"

And that's how you figure out that there is NOTHING it can possibly be that isn't either anal vore or unbirth

Common sense tells us that there's zero evidence of imminent_vore. Tags stay off

To be perfectly honest post #547615 looks like a woman giving her pet micro a bath, squirting some kind of soap on the micro from above while the little micro rubs it into their fur in a classic shower pose. I'd never get "vore" from that. Vore is about the consumption/insertion directly. That could be lube...or toothpaste, or soap, or paint, or shampoo, or cooking oil. They could be showering together, the big one could be bathing their pet, could be conditioning the fur of a micro they're babysitting, could be anything really. It's not definite enough what this is leading up to. They're both nude, there's a substance coming out of a tube that might be lube, but so far they are only naked. No vore is implied, no vore is mentioned, no vore is shown. For all we know it's oil and they're going to be nude wrestling in a minute.

It's too vague to say it's leading to any one outcome, let alone a vore-centric outcome. I appreciate that may have been your intention when commissioning it, but the image itself is less clear than whatever scenario was your inspiration in requesting it.

TheHuskyK9 said:
Common sense tells us that there's zero evidence of imminent_vore. Tags stay off

Then I'll leave the tags off, but I will add a description. People should know what the picture is about. If there is still a problem, I'll just request to have it taken down, as I don't want my character getting "misinterpreted" as a hand lotion lover or some such (no offense, halite)

Kinne said:
Then I'll leave the tags off, but I will add a description. People should know what the picture is about. If there is still a problem, I'll just request to have it taken down, as I don't want my character getting "misinterpreted" as a hand lotion lover or some such (no offense, halite)

You can go right ahead and add the description. Nothing wrong with that

furrypickle said:
To be perfectly honest post #547615 looks like a woman giving her pet micro a bath, squirting some kind of soap on the micro from above while the little micro rubs it into their fur in a classic shower pose. I'd never get "vore" from that. Vore is about the consumption/insertion directly. That could be lube...or toothpaste, or soap, or paint, or shampoo, or cooking oil. They could be showering together, the big one could be bathing their pet, could be conditioning the fur of a micro they're babysitting, could be anything really. It's not definite enough what this is leading up to. They're both nude, there's a substance coming out of a tube that might be lube, but so far they are only naked. No vore is implied, no vore is mentioned, no vore is shown. For all we know it's oil and they're going to be nude wrestling in a minute.

It's too vague to say it's leading to any one outcome, let alone a vore-centric outcome. I appreciate that may have been your intention when commissioning it, but the image itself is less clear than whatever scenario was your inspiration in requesting it.

This is the answer I wanted. Shampoo is the "reasonable doubt" that I was looking for. Now I see how it could be interpreted as something besides vore. Also, it's a great idea.

I also thought it was a soap/shower thing, besides that, slip and slide with lube is much quicker than with water, just harder to get out of clothing afterwards and more expensive.

If you can't see vore or penetration happening, it doesn't get tagged. It really is that simple. People searching vore want to see vore in their results, not pics where vore will probably happen in the future.

ippiki_ookami said:
If you can't see vore or penetration happening, it doesn't get tagged. It really is that simple. People searching vore want to see vore in their results, not pics where vore will probably happen in the future.

imminent_vore

Either that tag doesn't exist (which it does) or you're wrong on both points. If the imminent_vore tag exists, then vore DOES get tagged when it's not seen, and people DO want to see pics where vore will probably happen in the future.

This conversation is just going in circles.

Durandal said:
This conversation is just going in circles.

The conversation ended, until ippiki decided to start it back up by saying something completely incorrect

Maybe it's just me, but having arguments with Admins seems like a bad way of doing things.

This conversation reminds me of post #173496.

Kinne said:
The conversation ended, until ippiki decided to start it back up by saying something completely incorrect

Everything was fine and dandy until you found another thing to disagree with…

Question answered, drama ends