Implicating diaper → underwear
Link to implication

Reason:

By its definition, it's a type of underwear that allows one to urinate/defecate without the use of a toilet.

GameManiac said:
Implicating diaper → underwear
Link to implication

Reason:

By its definition, it's a type of underwear that allows one to urinate/defecate without the use of a toilet.

I like seeing diaper stuff, but not underwear stuff.

I personally don't wish to view both when viewing Diaper images, but that's just me. So, if the implication is approved, please do not approve the Alias.

Please.

Kristal_Candeo said:
I like seeing diaper stuff, but not underwear stuff.

I personally don't wish to view both when viewing Diaper images, but that's just me. So, if the implication is approved, please do not approve the Alias.

Please.

It's not an alias, it's a implication.

Chaser said:
It's not an alias, it's a implication.

Examples

Implication Tag_A -> Tag_B

Implication means: If tag_a is tagged, the tag_b is automatically tagged as well if not tagged already. But Tag_A is not added if Tag_B is.

Input tags: Foobar Tag_A Example_Tag
Resulting tags: Foobar Tag_A Tag_B Example_Tag

Input tags: Foobar Tag_B Example_Tag
Resulting tags: Foobar Tag_B Example_Tag

 

Alias Tag_A -> Tag_B

Alias means: If tag_a is tagged, the tag_a is replaced with tag_b

Input tags: Foobar Tag_A Example_Tag
Resulting tags: Foobar Tag_B Example_Tag

Input tags: Foobar Tag_B Example_Tag
Resulting tags: Foobar Tag_B Example_Tag
[/section\

I know how it works. And I know the difference.

But I am just expressing my opinion for the future just in case is all.

Sorry for the confusion.

I'm against this. Kristal likes seeing diapers but not underwear; I don't mind seeing underwear but dislike seeing diapers.

Diapers are rarely actually used as underwear. ...on this site anyway. Would be better to keep those completely separate, I think.

Furrin_Gok said:
I'm against this. Kristal likes seeing diapers but not underwear; I don't mind seeing underwear but dislike seeing diapers.

Genjar said:
Diapers are rarely actually used as underwear. ...on this site anyway. Would be better to keep those completely separate, I think.

I'm glad to see that I am not the odd one out this time.

I completely agree that they should be kept separate. At least on this site.

Definitely against. I most emphatically don't include diapers in the category of underwear.

I was about to deny this one for the aforementioned reasons, but then Wikipedia starts out with:

A diaper (also called a nappy outside North America) is a type of underwear [...]

:v

Hudson said:
I was about to deny this one for the aforementioned reasons, but then Wikipedia starts out with:

:v

I'd deny. I don't think people would want to see a massive poofed-up diaper when searching underwear.

Hudson said:
I was about to deny this one for the aforementioned reasons, but then Wikipedia starts out with:

:v

Wikipedia says a lot of things.
So many, many things.

sure, by definition, but when I search "underwear" I want to see as few diapers as possible.

also guys close your \[/section]s

Knotty_Curls said:
sure, by definition, but when I search "underwear" I want to see as few diapers as possible.

also guys close your [/section]s

Did you try to say "close your section?", in /section?

Fair enough then. Denied.

for those complaining, you simply can search with "underwear -diaper" or "diaper -underwear".
Personally official definition kinda overrules people simply preferring to not want to see subjected content.

You can also simply blacklist diapers even with the implication >.> (rules)

Hudson said:
Fair enough then. Denied.

guess i came too late, all reasonings against this would have been resolved by simply blacklisting. talk about breaking rules by complaining as if the blacklist didnt exist.

Ruku said:
for those complaining, you simply can search with "underwear -diaper" or "diaper -underwear".
Personally official definition kinda overrules people simply preferring to not want to see subjected content.

You can also simply blacklist diapers even with the implication >.> (rules)

I understand there is a work around however, given how many people search for underwear who do not want to see diapers, this is going to cause a lot of frustration. I know they should blacklist it anyway but even so, this is going to push so much unwanted material unexpectedly that it's not really justified making that implication. In most people's minds, these two tags are vastly different with different expectations on both sides

Also, in regards to an admin "breaking the rules" by denying the implication. If an implication is simply more trouble than its worth, it is our job to find an alternative or deny it