Let's not stop on removing male, female and other tags about sex. Let's remove gay, and lesbian tags. It's just unnecessary labeling. What if character on picture is not gay, but bisexual. Or is straight and they're just having straight manly fun in bathtub full of oil? It's hurting their feelings. Just look at all those poor confused people like in forum #67165 Do we need such an aggressive labeling? I don't think so.

So... we can fix character names.. but nothing else?

"YOU CAN NOT USE EXTERNAL INFORMATION to tag gender, species, or virtually anything else."
This bugs the ever living shit out of me... I've seen many pieces of characters I recognize listed as male, or female, or as nothing because it is from an obscure angle... regardless of what the artist or character information says.

Obviously getting character NAMES is important... but I'd think getting the character's gender correct goes along with that... Personally if I saw my character listed incorrectly I'd be rather annoyed, especially if I fixed it and got into another argument with a user until a mod said to stfu.

I understand the point of making tagging appropriate as many people were just putting crap in the tag fields but this is absurd.... the whole point of tagging is to tag what you see... and if the piece on the host site shows different information to correct as necessary. A fine example would be Tsampkos' female character with no chest which gets tagged incorrectly many times simple because she lacks a chest.

Meh.

terminal_mango said:
Pertaining to known characters and gender tagging, I still think the TWYS rule is a joke. "This very same character is intersex in this picture, but totally a female in that one. Because you can not see the penis at this particular moment, it does not exist."

Furries do this ALL THE TIME though. Some furries very often will have their gender changed between pictures, so you can never assume that a character's "default" gender is the same as what their gender is in any particular picture. Again, this is why TWYS is needed.

And again, the tags describe what can be seen in a post, not what actually "is". The tags say "this looks like", they do not say "this is".

Jaxinc said:
Obviously getting character NAMES is important... but I'd think getting the character's gender correct goes along with that... Personally if I saw my character listed incorrectly I'd be rather annoyed, especially if I fixed it and got into another argument with a user until a mod said to stfu.

I understand the point of making tagging appropriate as many people were just putting crap in the tag fields but this is absurd.... the whole point of tagging is to tag what you see... and if the piece on the host site shows different information to correct as necessary. A fine example would be Tsampkos' female character with no chest which gets tagged incorrectly many times simple because she lacks a chest.

Meh.

Same as above. E621 assumes that if you are searching for herms, then you're wanting to see pictures where you can actually tell that they're herms. If you want to make sure you see only herms and no dickgirls in your search results, you shouldn't have to do any extra work to achieve that; these should be completely separate gender types on the site. If we do not abide by TWYS, then the distinction between tags such as herm and dickgirl become almost meaningless unless you can see that there's NOT a vagina on the dickgirl (rather than ASSUMING the vagina is there on a herm).

Again, this is why tagging character names with the help of outside information isn't as big of a deal as tagging gender with the help of outside information; you're CHANGING one tag to another when tagging gender, whereas you're more than likely only adding a tag when tagging a character, not replacing one.

I think with this rule in effect we need to dealias names from anything else. Can't seem to remove equine from

post #321563

and I'm sure other such issues exist

CamKitty said:
I think with this rule in effect we need to dealias names from anything else. Can't seem to remove equine from

post #321563

and I'm sure other such issues exist

This is tagged with pegasus which implies equine.

And is fixed

MintyFur said:
The dispute causes so much drama that I suggest we delete the gender tags (male, female, androgenous, herm, dickgirl, cuntboy, etc.) entirely and only tag visible anatomical characteristics (breasts, penis, pussy, etc.)

Nartan said:
I was almost going to suggest this as well.
You beat me to it!

terminal_mango said:
I could get on board with that as well. A good example would be the fact that filtering/searching by gender often doesn't work due to the numerous possibilities and combinations.

This would be a bad idea since search terms are limited to 5 (or 6?) for members. Searching "male" is a whole lot easier and more efficient than "penis -breasts -pussy". Gender tagging isn't so much "you are this" as it is shorthand for genital combinations.

Snowmew said:
This would be a bad idea since search terms are limited to 5 (or 6?) for members. Searching "male" is a whole lot easier and more efficient than "penis -breasts -pussy".

Also, it makes it impossible to do some searches that are currently possible.

For example, please show me a search that can find images with a male and a herm, using only visible anatomical characteristics.

NotMeNotYou said:
This is tagged with pegasus which implies equine.

And is fixed

Somehow missed pegasus. Bah

Thanks

I think the artist should be the one to correct any errors in tagging. It solves most of the problems since the artist knows what he/she wanted to present in their art. =D

OliveBomb said:
I think the artist should be the one to correct any errors in tagging. It solves most of the problems since the artist knows what he/she wanted to present in their art. =D

I don't think you understand the point of tags on an image archive site

OliveBomb said:
I think the artist should be the one to correct any errors in tagging. It solves most of the problems since the artist knows what he/she wanted to present in their art. =D

But what if a random person, who does not know the character and just saw it once or twice, comes in and wants to see it again?
Here's when TWYS comes in handy. How do you remeber stuff? By simple tagging. Remember that random place where you ate some nice food? (not saying you actually do, it's just a hypothetical situation) It had this and this and that.... See? Now you have some information to find that place, and maybe recommend it to a friend (or not). And you can differentiate between a ton of places.

This is what people don't understand. Tagging is to help find stuff (anywhere). That e621 enforces it, is to avoid mistagging. You can't tag a picture of the Taj Mahal and say it's The Leaning Tower of Pisa (unless you're begging for attention, which is bad).

I'm not saying it to OliveBomb (sorry if it felt like an attack or something), but to all users in general. Even admins. Hey! That can be added to the rule to help other users understand the purpose of TWYS.

OliveBomb said:
I think the artist should be the one to correct any errors in tagging. It solves most of the problems since the artist knows what he/she wanted to present in their art. =D

Personally, I think the artist (or commissioner) should be the last person to correct tagging disputes. Yes, they know what they wanted to present in their art (usually), and yes, their input should be important to a final determination. But they can also have too much emotionally invested and their egos too wrapped up in the picture and the contents to be properly objective about it. Hence why any such disputes should be made by an objective third party such as the moderators or administrators, hopefully before everyone gets so caught up in their fight that they lose sight of more important things, like making more art to share. Or breathing.

It seems to me that the "Cryptid Project" section of the Tagging Projects thread advocates using outside information to tag species. Is that a misinterpretation, or does the listed procedure need to be revised to bring it in line with TWYS?

confused said:
It seems to me that the "Cryptid Project" section of the Tagging Projects thread advocates using outside information to tag species. Is that a misinterpretation, or does the listed procedure need to be revised to bring it in line with TWYS?

I think it's fine as it currently reads. At the very end it still tells you to look back at the post and determine whether or not the character's species actually does look like what the claimed species is. The advocation for using outside information there is for your own education, not necessarily just for trying to decide between species.

For instance, Clawstripe's avatar right now is post #277688. Assuming it didn't have the text on it that it does, I might not know what species is being depicted in the image. I would then need to rely on gathering external information in order to learn what species tag should be added to the post; that information can come directly from the artist, or it could come from wikipedia, or wherever. Afterwards, that's when you say "Ok, the artist says it's this species, so does it look like that species in the image?".

So again, it's less about the artist having final say in what the apparent species is, and more about educating yourself so you can make the most informed decision.

Afterwards, that's when you say "Ok, the artist says it's this species, so does it look like that species in the image?".

What about situations in which a character looks like the species the artist says, but it could equally well be a different species? For example, without outside information, I wouldn't know whether to tag post #231052 with wolf or husky, not because I don't know what those species look like, but because, especially with a fictional fur coloration like that, they're close enough that it could be either. Tags like werewolf are particularly problematic-it's perfectly plausible that post #4476 is a werewolf, as the artist says, but it could just as easily be a plain old anthropomorphic wolf.

confused said:
What about situations in which a character looks like the species the artist says, but it could equally well be a different species? For example, without outside information, I wouldn't know whether to tag post #231052 with wolf or husky, not because I don't know what those species look like, but because, especially with a fictional fur coloration like that, they're close enough that it could be either. Tags like werewolf are particularly problematic-it's perfectly plausible that post #4476 is a werewolf, as the artist says, but it could just as easily be a plain old anthropomorphic wolf.

Just saying, a werewolf is an anthropomorphic wolf, as stated by the fact that they are humans with wolf like treats.

.... wow this forum has turn from new TWYS rules. To what gender or species this is... come on, aren't you adult man or women? Can't you figure things out on your own to some degree? Or do some of you just need something to complain about?

NotMeNotYouMobile said:
Just saying, a werewolf is an anthropomorphic wolf, as stated by the fact that they are humans with wolf like treats.

...yet not every anthropomorphic wolf is a werewolf. The fuzziness of that distinction is my point.

Still, we really, really need to respect ALL of our artists, not because we have to but because we want to show them courtesy

I have no problem with TWYS rules, because I am a searcher, not an artist, and TWYS helps searchers.
The only thing that could make TWYS bad for a searcher is if you are specifically looking for pictures of good crossdressers. While searching for crossdressing will get you all of the obvious (I.E. Bad) crossdressing, under TWYS a woman dressed well as a man would be tagged as a man, and not as a crossdresser.
But because it makes everything else simpler, TWYS is great for a searcher, and it is one of the reasons that this site is good.

However, exceptions are a horrible thing. Once you make any exception to any law, that law is doomed. First you say the exception is to look up the character name. But who's to say someone looking up the obvious character's name is surprised to find the obvious character's gender and tags it as such, which starts a new war, and artists, knowing now that E621 is willing to change the rules, start pulling pictures and then now we have to add an exception for gender.

Exceptions are a bad thing, they open the door for more exceptions until the rule itself is nothing but holes. You have to stay full TWYS or none at all, there is no in between.

This is just my opinion, though, I like the site either way, and support whatever decision the owners make for the site. I hope that everything works out best for the site. I just felt like tossing my opinion in.

Do the terms "false dichotomy" and "slippery slope" mean anything to you, Klovia?

Snowy said:
Do the terms "false dichotomy" and "slippery slope" mean anything to you, Klovia?

Slippery slope fallacy is all fun and games until people actually start tagging other things from the source because they thought "TWYS rule update" actually meant "TWYS rule removed".

I've caught it 5 times so far.

Char said:
For those who are unaware, there has been a lot of discussion and complaints recently regarding the very strict nature of our "Tag What You See" rule, which states (with very few exceptions) that the tags that are added to a post MUST be directly verifiable within the post itself, and that external (off-site) sources of information about the post can NOT be used.

While this rule helps keep tagging clean and relevant on e621, it also leaves some room for disagreements over what exactly IS contained within a post. Example: post #318662. Under our current TWYS rule, this post would not receive the character tag "rainbow_dash" because there's nothing differentiating this character from any other human character with rainbow hair. However, the artist clearly intended for it to be a humanized Rainbow Dash, as evidenced by the source of the image and the artist's own claims at that source. This very often leads to heated disagreements between users, and has lead to artists requesting the removal of artwork from the site as well (usually also including posts where there were no tagging disagreements at all). Although we realize that it will be impossible to completely avoid such disagreements and takedowns, we really need to do something to try to minimize them at this point.

As a result, effective immediately, we are amending the TWYS rule to try to account for these cases. The change is small but important, and is worded in such a way as to keep as much integrity for "Tag What You See" as we can while also allowing "common sense" when tagging characters.

For reference, the old TWYS rule read as follows:

The updated TWYS rule reads as follows:

For those who missed some of the discussions regarding this proposed rule change, please reference the discussion thread here: http://e621.net/forum/show/66521

No, I don't expect everyone to be happy with this decision, but the issue has reached a boiling point on the site, and thus requires administrative attention. For those who have been so adamant about following the site's TWYS rule to the letter, I ask that you please try to exhibit the same determination and resilience with adhering to and enforcing the updated TWYS rule. :)

And no, this obviously is not going to solve all of our tagging problems. It's a change meant to address one very specific tagging issue, but we'll still need to handle things on a case-by-case basis. We're just hoping that the number of those cases is going to decrease (or at least be settled much easier) with this updated rule, while also having character tagging make more sense instead of being "blissfully ignorant" at times.

As always, your feedback is welcome below, as well as questions or concerns.

this is a little confusing to someone who only tags rarely and im sure this was because people got tired of looking a mlp pictures which makes it even more stupid but i'll give it a try i guess.

If you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're after you, and it also doesn't mean they're not after you. "Slippery Slope" is a thing that is applied way too often, but is still a thing that can happen.

Imaderule34 said:
this is a little confusing to someone who only tags rarely and im sure this was because people got tired of looking a mlp pictures which makes it even more stupid but i'll give it a try i guess.

It's not really all that complicated, though.

Tag what you see and tag the character if it is verifiable. That's all there is to it.

Foobaria said:
I don't consider it "winning" when it's bending-over backward and relaxing rules that make the most sense for the greatest majority of people to effectively condone stuck-up attitude. In my OPINION, if an artist is so uptight about their art/gamemod/music/whatthefuckever that they have to control it like it's their first-born child (note I'm talking about situations that do not involve money changing hands, therefore ego is the only consideration), the world is much-better-off without their art and they should stop posting it entirely and go see a psychiatrist about their mental problems instead.

The Minecraft modding community is the most vitriolic and controlling cesspool of ever-living shitstorm for just this very reason, that this kind of behaviour is not only endorsed but encouraged. I hate to see any other medium drop to that disgusting level.

If a person is not physically, professionally, or financially harmed by an action, and their own deserved freedoms and rights are not impacted by that action, they need to get the fuck over it or get the fuck out.

In my opinion.

Sadly, I know exactly what you mean about the Minecraft community. *ahem* FlowerChild *ahem*

So, for clarification: if character has breasts, but NO genitalia is showing, external sources prove character to be herm, it wouldn't be acceptable to tag as female? Seeing as breasts are not a sole female indication. Correct?

Dermutha said:
So, for clarification: if character has breasts, but NO genitalia is showing, external sources prove character to be herm, it wouldn't be acceptable to tag as female? Seeing as breasts are not a sole female indication. Correct?

You are not allowed to use the source for gender tagging, so regardless of what the source says the picture would need the female tag, as you can't see the herm.

It is stated in the rules that this change affect only the name of characters and nothing else.

Dermutha said:
So, for clarification: if character has breasts, but NO genitalia is showing, external sources prove character to be herm, it wouldn't be acceptable to tag as female? Seeing as breasts are not a sole female indication. Correct?

You tag that female.
Always.

Dermutha said:
So, for clarification: if character has breasts, but NO genitalia is showing, external sources prove character to be herm, it wouldn't be acceptable to tag as female? Seeing as breasts are not a sole female indication. Correct?

Incorrect. Tag as female.

Think of male and female as the default options, the ones you automatically start with and fall back upon when tagging a picture. The other genders become options only if supporting features can be seen in or inferred from the picture itself. Outside sources are irrelevant in this regard.

Character identity is a good one to have. With so many characters that look exactly the same as other characters, and characters constantly undergoing transformation, "tag what you see" was made to fail for character identity.
In addition to this revision, when the image is not obvious about gender, sexuality, or intersexuality, we should refer to the image source. As I've observed, when there's a disagreement about these kinds of tags, it's between common sense and a narrow interpretation of imperfect rules.

Clawstripe said:
Incorrect. Tag as female.

Think of male and female as the default options, the ones you automatically start with and fall back upon when tagging a picture. The other genders become options only if supporting features can be seen in or inferred from the picture itself. Outside sources are irrelevant in this regard.

And what about images where there is evidence for more than one gender in the same character? Say there is a femboy, dick visible, with slightly protruding nipples which makes people wonder whether it is a male or dickgirl.
Here's the thing. The reason TWYS has given us problems is because what we see does not exist in the image we're looking at. What we see is an interpretation manufactured in our brains of what we're looking at. Two people look at the same image and see two different things. That's why we have disagreements about images. I can't hop in your mind and see what you're seeing, so the way to deal with disagreements about images is to focus on what individual perception can't ruin. Artists' descriptions are things individual perception can't change and therefore individuals can't argue about.

Eclectric said:
Artists' descriptions are things individual perception can't change and therefore individuals can't argue about.

The artist's perception of his own work is just as flawed as ours, just in a different way.
And sadly, way too often far from objectivity.

Eclectric said:
And what about images where there is evidence for more than one gender in the same character? Say there is a femboy, dick visible, with slightly protruding nipples which makes people wonder whether it is a male or dickgirl.

Male.
Big nipples don't make females, now if he had breast growth it would switch to dickgirl, but never to herm unless there is evidence for a pussy.

Eclectric said:
Here's the thing. The reason TWYS has given us problems is because what we see does not exist in the image we're looking at. What we see is an interpretation manufactured in our brains of what we're looking at. Two people look at the same image and see two different things. That's why we have disagreements about images. I can't hop in your mind and see what you're seeing, so the way to deal with disagreements about images is to focus on what individual perception can't ruin.

No, the way to objectively interpret a picture is to take a step back and look at it properly, we tag what is visible based on shared rules, not what is interpreted, if you look at a human beeing with a feminine bodybuild, penis and slightly bigger nipples and you say "oh boy, a herm!" then you are already interpreting, you see only a feminine male with a penis and some nipples.

You just have to ask yourself "What am I looking at?" and not "What do I want to see here?".

Eclectric said:
And what about images where there is evidence for more than one gender in the same character? Say there is a femboy, dick visible, with slightly protruding nipples which makes people wonder whether it is a male or dickgirl.
Here's the thing. The reason TWYS has given us problems is because what we see does not exist in the image we're looking at. What we see is an interpretation manufactured in our brains of what we're looking at. Two people look at the same image and see two different things. That's why we have disagreements about images. I can't hop in your mind and see what you're seeing, so the way to deal with disagreements about images is to focus on what individual perception can't ruin. Artists' descriptions are things individual perception can't change and therefore individuals can't argue about.

One of the responsibilities of the e621.net admin team itself is to attempt to resolve such disagreements over tagging, or to at least make a final decision about the tags for a post.

One major issue with trying to use outside information instead of TWYS though is that the tags on posts will likely be changed back and forth between users who "know" and users who don't. Not to mention that, if the source for the picture ever disappears (happens VERY often), now we don't even have that original information anymore that people were using to tag. What would the defense be then? "Well the source for the image USED to say that the character was a herm." We just can't work with that, that's not a reliable method for tagging because the source itself will almost certainly disappear one day, and the end result is you'd still just have people tagging what they see at that point.

Walking into this thread for the first time.

TheTundraTerror said:
Walking into this thread for the first time.

It's actually fairly controlled, so no

Digital_Kindness said:
And by 'discussion' you meant 'I asked what people thought of this idea on the forum and the response was almost universally "That's retarded", so we decided to make the change anyway'.

But by all means, go ahead and go against everything that TWYS stands for. All in the name of quelling the occasional childish artist temper tantrum/hissy fit, right? Wouldn't want to step on any artist's toes, that'd be really super bad and stuff.

This is essentially a spit in the face of everyone who has been an ardent supporter of the TWYS rule. "Thanks for all the hard work keeping tags neat and within the purview of the site's rules, and making this the best repository of furry art on the internet, but we've decided to cave in to crybabies and undermine all your hard work and the integrity of our tagging system. Better luck next time."

Besides you nagging our ears off, what downside is there to this slight alteration? I know I've had to deal with many pointless tagging arguments where the identity of the character was obvious to me, but plenty of annoying users kept changing the tag and saying I couldn't cite the artist's website as proof of the character's identity. This change will make those silly arguments go a lot smoother.

The only issue I see with this is specific characters, like Tsampikos' character Mikhaila. She's obviously female, even if she's dressed in a pant suit. Would she be tagged as androgonyous or male in this case? I don't mind the additional 'cuntboy' tag, but aren't more tags good?

Certain people will lose posts due to blacklisting, but otherwise we'll be seeing more based on our searches. For example, the first post listed for MLP, http://e621.net/post/show/318662. If this is labeled My_little_pony and Rainbow_Dash, and people are looking for that, it'll show up. It'll be blacklisted to people who don't want to see MLP, but I'm sure that the few pics they'll miss out on are more than worth the price of blacklisting, a feature not offered many other places.

I understand that's not a particulairly good example, but still. I think we should include gender roles in tagging, even if we tag multiple genders on a single character, such as the Rainbow Dash picture posted above. You can tag female, cuntboy, tomboy, and whatever other 'gender affiliations' work with it, in addition to the stated sex by the author, if there is one. The author(hopefully) knows best what sex the character is. We use author for species as well, when we can't decide. Why not use the author for sex?(I apologize if that last statement sounded particulairly dirty, but I hope you understand what I mean

drgnalexandrite said:
The only issue I see with this is specific characters, like Tsampikos' character Mikhaila. She's obviously female

She is becoming more and more man each pic lol

I have to agree with drgnalexandrite. An example being a recent Strype picture - http://e621.net/post/show/324284. If I was a straight man looking to find blowjob pictures, I'd want to see this. She definitely looks female, but we can not confirm that.

As for incest, how do we tag that? Just if two characters look the same? Or if the artist states they are related?

Tjk said:
As for incest, how do we tag that? Just if two characters look the same? Or if the artist states they are related?

Usually, incest comes with what we know (like, really known sources, popular tv shows [TMNT, Family Guy, The Simpsons, etc.] or explicitly stated in a text inside the image [-Dad? -Yes, son? -Thank you thx furballs!]) or when the post in question is from a comic. (like the one I just quoted)

Tjk said:
I have to agree with drgnalexandrite. An example being a recent Strype picture - http://e621.net/post/show/324284. If I was a straight man looking to find blowjob pictures, I'd want to see this. She definitely looks female, but we can not confirm that.

As for incest, how do we tag that? Just if two characters look the same? Or if the artist states they are related?

If that image is one you would want included, then you should include "ambiguous_gender" in your searches because that it the tag we use when there's no evidence either way.

You can then imagine all those images to be female to your hearts content.

Bend over for bronies D:

Honestly the picture in this example shouldn't even be on e621 since it's not anthropomorphic in any way, shape, or form...

Nativus said:
Bend over for bronies D:

Honestly the picture in this example shouldn't even be on e621 since it's not anthropomorphic in any way, shape, or form...

You mean, like over 2500 other pictures tagged not_furry?

Fuck the rules. Anarchy!!

grave said:
Fuck the rules. Anarchy!!

But fucking The Rules is unhealthy and weird. Plus, I bet the pages are sharp too :I

CamKitty said:
I don't think you understand the point of tags on an image archive site

I'm still kinda new here. =/ I just wish things could be less complicated.

Clawstripe said:
Personally, I think the artist (or commissioner) should be the last person to correct tagging disputes. Yes, they know what they wanted to present in their art (usually), and yes, their input should be important to a final determination. But they can also have too much emotionally invested and their egos too wrapped up in the picture and the contents to be properly objective about it. Hence why any such disputes should be made by an objective third party such as the moderators or administrators, hopefully before everyone gets so caught up in their fight that they lose sight of more important things, like making more art to share. Or breathing.

True, true

Xch3l said:
But what if a random person, who does not know the character and just saw it once or twice, comes in and wants to see it again?
Here's when TWYS comes in handy. How do you remeber stuff? By simple tagging. Remember that random place where you ate some nice food? (not saying you actually do, it's just a hypothetical situation) It had this and this and that.... See? Now you have some information to find that place, and maybe recommend it to a friend (or not). And you can differentiate between a ton of places.

This is what people don't understand. Tagging is to help find stuff (anywhere). That e621 enforces it, is to avoid mistagging. You can't tag a picture of the Taj Mahal and say it's The Leaning Tower of Pisa (unless you're begging for attention, which is bad).

I'm not saying it to OliveBomb (sorry if it felt like an attack or something), but to all users in general. Even admins. Hey! That can be added to the rule to help other users understand the purpose of TWYS.

You mean like if I ate at J. Alexander's (where they sell fancy foods of all types) and I told someone they sell veggie burgers there, there would be a mental tagging of vegan even if it's not, but just used as a reference?

I look forward to searching for 'adult' and get lolis all over the first page because "LOOK THE ARTIST SAID SHE'S AN ACTUAL 100 YEARS OLD VAMPYRE"

Because this is what this rule change will bring. First the names, then the genders, then blah blah blah, all the way until the e621's search box becomes about as useful as FA's (that means useless, in case you didn't know).

How fucking complicated was it? Tag what you bloody see. Only bronies could fail to understand such a simple rule and get butthurt about how a picture of an eyebrow is not tagged properly as twidumb_spidiotkle even though the artist CLEARLY MENTIONS it's this character's right eyebrow.

Ugh. I want to punch people in the face.

redisdead said:
I look forward to searching for 'adult' and get lolis all over the first page because "LOOK THE ARTIST SAID SHE'S AN ACTUAL 100 YEARS OLD VAMPYRE"

Because this is what this rule change will bring. First the names, then the genders, then blah blah blah, all the way until the e621's search box becomes about as useful as FA's (that means useless, in case you didn't know).

How fucking complicated was it? Tag what you bloody see. Only bronies could fail to understand such a simple rule and get butthurt about how a picture of an eyebrow is not tagged properly as twidumb_spidiotkle even though the artist CLEARLY MENTIONS it's this character's right eyebrow.

Ugh. I want to punch people in the face.

I would rather punch in the face people who haven't read whole thread, and are using slippery slope fallacy.

What if the artist says his pic shows rape, and later decides that it's not rape after all, do we then have to change the tags?

Munkelzahn said:
What if the artist says his pic shows rape, and later decides that it's not rape after all, do we then have to change the tags?

Since change is only about characters then yes, we have to change tags on artist's pictures from rape to rape_(character).

I'm going to have to create a character named Rape just to mess with people...

Hammie said:
I'm going to have to create a character named Rape just to mess with people...

Your attempts will be useless. The most awesome name for a character is already taken.

Hammie said:
I'm going to have to create a character named Rape just to mess with people...

It must be a female character, preferably a gothy underage girl.

Nope, fat ugly, hairy man with a tiny penis, tiny eyes, giant ears and big fish lips.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
I would rather punch in the face people who haven't read whole thread, and are using slippery slope fallacy.

Whatever, brony.

I don't care how much you stupid bronies whined to get your rule change.

The same "problem" (as if there was one in the first place, other than bronies duking it out about wether or not it's actually Stupid Cakes or some other pony in the picture) happens with herm/dickgirl picks, maleherm/flat chested female pics, etc., etc.

Giving bronies what they wanted because they couldn't understand a simple rule as "tag what you see" (which isn't a surprise, really, adults obsessing over a cartoon made for little girls aren't very smart) is just giving a legitimate argument to the people claiming a female pic is actually a herm even though no dicks is visible or even hinted at because the artist said so.

Besides, punching me in the face would require you not hitting like a little girl who enjoys her sunday cartoons

redisdead said:
I don't care how much you stupid bronies whined to get your rule change.

Actually, one of the last people whining about this was someone who wanted exclude mlp from his search.
So, people like you also contributed to this change.

The same "problem" (..) happens with herm/dickgirl picks, maleherm/flat chested female pics, etc., etc.

No it does not. Tagging herm instead of dickgirl harms searches for both tags. Tagging character does not.

Giving bronies what they wanted because they couldn't understand a simple rule as "tag what you see" is just giving a legitimate argument to the people claiming a female pic is actually a herm even though no dicks is visible or even hinted at because the artist said so.

First of all, if you have actually taken your time to read this thread you would know that this is about pictures where are hints that said character is on the picture.

Secondly, no this is not the case of binary options like penis visible/penis not visible. This is about cases where there was disagreement about how much traits of character can be changed before it's not a said character. And before rule change it was an admin who decided. This was not really TWYS already. Now, in difficult cases (So no, chocolate cake would not be tagged as <any_character>.) artist intention would be taken into account. I don't see how this is less TWYS than trusting first admin who saw tag war.

Lastly, google slippery slope fallacy, and stop doing it.

redisdead said:
-snip-

You sure enjoy jumping to conclusions, not only bronies are in favor of this change, there won't be a change for genders ever (as stated by char multiple times), Gilda is actually one of those people who properly tags genders based on TWYS and not what others say and lastly, lashing out at one of the most trusted taggers on this site will surely make the admins reconsider their stance.

No really.

NotMeNotYouMobile said:
-manchild whining-

Lol, TRUSTED TAGGER. Is this even a thing? There's thousands and thousands of people who tag shit appropriately. I don't know how one gets to be a TRUSTED TAGGER, but it's probably got to do with spending way too much time attention whoring on the forums here compared to people who just upload, tag, and move on with their lives.

I don't even know why I posted here in the first place, it was obviously going to be full of manchilds trying to justify their inability to follow a simple rule.

Tell you what, you've won an internet argument, congratulations.

How does one gets their characters on the DNP list?

-- My entire argument can be summed up here:

http://e621.net/post/show/326499

Oh look, a woman with a horsedick and multicolor hair. MUST BE RAINBOW_CRAP(MLP) OBVIOUSLY

redisdead said:

-- My entire argument can be summed up here:

http://e621.net/post/show/326499

Oh look, a woman with a horsedick and multicolor hair. MUST BE RAINBOW_CRAP(MLP) OBVIOUSLY

Well there is no need to be an ass, this last part has a point. If that is appropriately tagged MLP, I worry about the new change again :P

redisdead said:
Lol, TRUSTED TAGGER. Is this even a thing? There's thousands and thousands of people who tag shit appropriately. I don't know how one gets to be a TRUSTED TAGGER, but it's probably got to do with spending way too much time attention whoring on the forums here compared to people who just upload, tag, and move on with their lives.

Aww, gee, I dunno.

Probably something along the lines of 20k+ tag edits, upgraded account one step below moderator, the ability to approve posts, use a single tagging script to fuck up every single tag on every picture on this site and endorsed by char himself.
But I obviously have no idea.

redisdead said:
-- My entire argument can be summed up here:

http://e621.net/post/show/326499

Oh look, a woman with a horsedick and multicolor hair. MUST BE RAINBOW_CRAP(MLP) OBVIOUSLY

Congratulations, you found an ambiguous post. You want a couple dozen more where people whine about it not being tagged as rainbow crap?

Also, manchild whining.

lol

NotMeNotYouMobile said:
Aww, gee, I dunno.

Probably something along the lines of 20k+ tag edits, upgraded account one step below moderator, the ability to approve posts, use a single tagging script to fuck up every single tag on every picture on this site and endorsed by char himself.
But I obviously have no idea.

Oh so it's exactly spending way too much time here attention whoring. Thanks for the confirmation.

Congratulations, you found an ambiguous post. You want a couple dozen more where people whine about it not being tagged as rainbow crap?

Also, manchild whining.

lol

I didn't even have to look for it, I just browsed my usual tags and saw the thumbnail and was like "lol, I bet some retard mistagged this" and lo and behold I was right. And there you are, defending poor tagging. Congratulation, you're making the search bar worthless, one rule change at a time.

I don't care about a few idiots whining about shit, I care when admins (who, unsurprisingly, are bronies too), change a fundamental rule because a few cartoon-watching manchildrens didn't understand it and can't tell the difference between a cartoon horse and a woman with a horsedick.

redisdead said:
*stuff*

This is what the rules say:

"The external source of information is the artist, commissioner, or character owner's own words on their own gallery or website."

I can kinda understand if the artist just posts a picture of someone with rainbow hair and doesn't say who it's supposed to be, but when the artist says that post #326499 is Rainbow Dash, and the picture looks like it could be Rainbow Dash, then there's really no problem with the rules. If you don't like MLP, you could always blacklist it. I don't see what there is to cry about.

redisdead said:
Inconsolable whining of his own

Shhh no tears

Only MLP now

DRAMA!
everybody loves drama

redisdead said:

hmmmm

**I look forward to searching for 'adult' and get lolis all over the first page because "LOOK THE ARTIST SAID SHE'S AN ACTUAL 100 YEARS OLD VAMPYRE"

Because this is what this rule change will bring. First the names, then the genders, then blah blah blah, all the way until the e621's search box becomes about as useful as FA's (that means useless, in case you didn't know).

How fucking complicated was it? Tag what you bloody see. Only bronies could fail to understand such a simple rule and get butthurt about how a picture of an eyebrow is not tagged properly as twidumb_spidiotkle even though the artist CLEARLY MENTIONS it's this character's right eyebrow.

Ugh. I want to punch people in the face.**

**Whatever, brony.

I don't care how much you stupid bronies whined to get your rule change.

The same "problem" (as if there was one in the first place, other than bronies duking it out about wether or not it's actually Stupid Cakes or some other pony in the picture) happens with herm/dickgirl picks, maleherm/flat chested female pics, etc., etc.

Giving bronies what they wanted because they couldn't understand a simple rule as "tag what you see" (which isn't a surprise, really, adults obsessing over a cartoon made for little girls aren't very smart) is just giving a legitimate argument to the people claiming a female pic is actually a herm even though no dicks is visible or even hinted at because the artist said so.

Besides, punching me in the face would require you not hitting like a little girl who enjoys her sunday cartoons**

**Lol, TRUSTED TAGGER. Is this even a thing? There's thousands and thousands of people who tag shit appropriately. I don't know how one gets to be a TRUSTED TAGGER, but it's probably got to do with spending way too much time attention whoring on the forums here compared to people who just upload, tag, and move on with their lives.

I don't even know why I posted here in the first place, it was obviously going to be full of manchilds trying to justify their inability to follow a simple rule.

Tell you what, you've won an internet argument, congratulations.

How does one gets their characters on the DNP list?

-- My entire argument can be summed up here:

http://e621.net/post/show/326499

Oh look, a woman with a horsedick and multicolor hair. MUST BE RAINBOW_CRAP(MLP) OBVIOUSLY**

**I don't care about a few idiots whining about shit, I care when admins (who, unsurprisingly, are bronies too), change a fundamental rule because a few cartoon-watching manchildrens didn't understand it and can't tell the difference between a cartoon horse and a woman with a horsedick.**

Congratulation. You raised a valid point, but you go about it like an asshole I mean like gentlemen or lady which ever you may be. What would this site be without people as disrespectful I mean as free spirited as you. It's one thing to raise valid concerns about something your bitching about I mean worried about see what I'm doing here

What I'm saying is, show some respect for you fellow users... You may not like what they like, but don't be sure a drama queen about it, Because that what your boiling down to. I would say act your age, But age doesn't mean maturity

And that thing about getting your character DNP. You would have to get the artist to get the picture flag and removed I think? not sure about that stuff since you have the right to the character and they have the right to the art. Go ask a admin if it suits. If this is how you act, nothing of value well be lost.

But if this does nothing but annoy you! I respect your choices on the matter.

So what do you suggest we do?

Dogenzaka said:
I can kinda understand if the artist just posts a picture of someone with rainbow hair and doesn't say who it's supposed to be, but when the artist says that post #326499 is Rainbow Dash, and the picture looks like it could be Rainbow Dash, then there's really no problem with the rules.

"looks like rainbow dash" is key here, it doesn't. Which is why I can see why that example upsets him, but not his delivery methods. Getting more then just name from source is already happening

Falord said:
And that thing about getting your character DNP. You would have to get the artist to get the picture flag and removed I think? not sure about that stuff since you have the right to the character and they have the right to the art. Go ask a admin if it suits. If this is how you act, nothing of value well be lost.

But if this does nothing but annoy you! I respect your choices on the matter.

Nah, the character owner can get their own chars on DNP just as well.
The ticket is also already submitted so I wouldn't worry about it anymore.

redisdead said:
-snip-

This is so unbelievable amusing on so many levels.

Maybe you should write our head admin char an email or PM and tell him how he is a giant manchild whose a brony, incapable of listening to people whine about this rule not existing and how much you think everyone who is following this rule/likes it is a retard.

titaniachkt said:

Many things by redisdead

So what do you suggest we do?

Nothing, keep up the good work. I have another suggestion actually, makes it so it's OK to tag genders according to what the artists/owners say.

Take this for example: https://e621.net/post/show/221314 She's totally not a female, in fact, she's a herm. Isn't this picture EXACTLY what you're looking for when browsing for "herm"? Because you know, I own the character, so if I say it's a herm, then it needs to be tagged as herm. Besides, she looks exactly what a herm would look when wearing clothes.

Also lol @ the people saying I should just blacklist MLP. Way to show you idiots have no idea what this issue is about. Though it's not surprising that all this bullshit happens because of brony shit.

EDIT: 'cuz i'm pretty sure it's going to breeze several miles up over your head, i'm not actually suggesting you widen this rule change to everything else, but to actually roll back to the old rule and do a better job at explaining it.

Well, now it's too late, obviously, since there's already an announcement up top, and it would just end up confusing everyone. Bronies already have trouble with something simple like tagging what you see, if you start doing back and forth changes with rules and shit, some of them are bound to snap and set themselves on fire or something.

CamKitty said:
"looks like rainbow dash" is key here, it doesn't. Which is why I can see why that example upsets him, but not his delivery methods. Getting more then just name from source is already happening

I had the same issue (That is: pic was tagged as RD, I thought it clearly shouldn't be.) with other post. It was before rule change. It was one of many things that convinced me that maybe this change won't be bad.

While statement "there is a dick visible" is rather objective, statements like "it doesn't look like Rainbow Dash" aren't.

Dogenzaka said:
This is what the rules say:

"The external source of information is the artist, commissioner, or character owner's own words on their own gallery or website."

I can kinda understand if the artist just posts a picture of someone with rainbow hair and doesn't say who it's supposed to be, but when the artist says that post #326499 is Rainbow Dash, and the picture looks like it could be Rainbow Dash, then there's really no problem with the rules. If you don't like MLP, you could always blacklist it. I don't see what there is to cry about.

You are the cancer that is killing e621

redisdead, cancer happens in living beings.