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.
Updated by Rainbow Dash
Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
Implicating diaper → underwear
Link to implication
By its definition, it's a type of underwear that allows one to urinate/defecate without the use of a toilet.
Updated by Rainbow Dash
GameManiac said:
Implicating diaper → underwear
Link to implicationReason:
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.
Updated by anonymous
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.
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 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
Updated by anonymous
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_TagInput 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_TagInput 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.
Updated by anonymous
I'm against this. Kristal likes seeing diapers but not underwear; I don't mind seeing underwear but dislike seeing diapers.
Updated by anonymous
Diapers are rarely actually used as underwear. ...on this site anyway. Would be better to keep those completely separate, I think.
Updated by anonymous
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.
Updated by anonymous
Definitely against. I most emphatically don't include diapers in the category of underwear.
Updated by anonymous
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
Updated by anonymous
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.
Updated by anonymous
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.
Updated by anonymous
sure, by definition, but when I search "underwear" I want to see as few diapers as possible.
also guys close your \[/section]s
Updated by anonymous
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?
Updated by anonymous
Fair enough then. Denied.
Updated by anonymous
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)
Updated by anonymous
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.
Updated by anonymous
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
Updated by anonymous