Implicating rope_bondage → rope
Link to implication

Reason:

I would assume if there's no visible rope, you'd just tag it as bondage.

Since this is a rather large one, can anyone find posts that are objecting this implication?

Just checked the posts in rope_bondage -rope and found no objecting posts. Every post includes the usage of rope.

What about chains? It's technically not rope, but the very few posts in chains rope_bondage suggests someone might tag chains as rope_bondage anyway. Though not sure if that's a noteworthy problem.

Chessax said:
What about chains? It's technically not rope, but the very few posts in chains rope_bondage suggests someone might tag chains as rope_bondage anyway. Though not sure if that's a noteworthy problem.

Aside from post #13745 they're all ropes and chains. The one was just tagged incorrectly it seems.

Furrin_Gok said:
Aside from post #13745 they're all ropes and chains. The one was just tagged incorrectly it seems.

Well, I guess the problem is no more then. +1

(sorry for being lazy)

Thanks guys. Approved.

Furrin_Gok said:
Aside from post #13745 they're all ropes and chains. The one was just tagged incorrectly it seems.

The wrists of the male character is bound with ropes in that post.

sdrawkcaB said:
The wrists of the male character is bound with ropes in that post.

I'm sure it's quite hard (and maybe pointless) to enforce what I consider rope bondage, but arms_tied is not what I would generally regard as rope_bondage.

Chessax said:
I'm sure it's quite hard (and maybe pointless) to enforce what I consider rope bondage, but arms_tied is not what I would generally regard as rope_bondage.

Okay, good point. I've now added arms_tied to the post.