forum link: forum #204894 - [unofficial, blacklist] Can't blacklist something? Mention it in here! (Aug. 2016)

If you've tried to blacklist a certain thing, such as

• a specific art style
• a specific fetish
• weird/creepy/gross/other posts with no consistent tag for them
• etc.

Here's the place to mention it!

Purpose:

• come up with possible solutions
• blacklist suggestions
• obscure tag suggestions
• new tag suggestions
• etc.

Other Links

forum #84947 - Blacklist: What It Is and Why Should You Use It

Recommended suggestion:

If you ask a question, try to answer at least 1 unanswered question before yours!

This way, things don't devolve into a giant mess of unanswered questions with no actual help/suggestions being given

[reserved2]

[reserved3]

[reserved4]

Last updated: Nov. 2016

Misc blacklist forums (unformatted)

Here're some off the top op my head

• that non-fetish vore scenario @Furrin_Gok mentioned
• https://e621.net/forum/show/189603

• https://e621.net/forum/show/203965

titanmelon said:
[reserved5]
Discussion: Open

I've noticed a trend in presenting_hindquarters male. In many recent pictures, the male is lying on something with his dick bent backwards towards the viewer. I would kind of like a tag for this so I can blacklist it.

penis_backwards?
there' also penis_towards_viewer

titanmelon said:
penis_backwards?
there' also penis_towards_viewer

First one is what I mean. Perhaps it is simply undertagged?

Admins blacklist :V
(Jk)

There are two main categories of female_on_feral.

The first is a sort which I don't mind - fairly mutual, both characters seem about on an even level with each other... It's a bit hard to describe, because to me it would generally qualify as "normal sex". Most anthro_on_feral stuff seems to fit into this category.

A good couple of examples of this sort of art:

post #856059 post #944065

The second is a sort which I despise, and it depresses me. Rather than indicating any sort of mutual standing between the characters, this second sort depicts the animal as a lowly brute beast (often the face isn't even depicted), while the female (usually human) is depicted as mindless in her lust. The mentality behind this sort of art is that the woman is so lustful that she's even willing to degrade herself with an animal, and that attitude is incredibly frustrating to me.

There is no shortage of works of this variety, but here are two examples:

post #870241 post #237496

I want to blacklist the ever-loving shit out of vore.

But I do not want to blacklist images such as:
post #505633

Or images of, say, realistic (non-anthro) bugs getting eaten. That kind of stuff doesn't bother me (although whether it should be tagged vore at all is questionable).

I'd like to be able to blacklist vore, without blacklisting unbirthing and various types of sizeplay where a micro character is temporarily inserted.

But I can't, since the latter are implicated to vore, and blacklisting something like 'vore -unbirthing' results in too much actual vore slipping through. Because many posts feature unbirthing and something else that we tag as vore.

Clawdragons said:
There are two main categories of female_on_feral.

The first is a sort which I don't mind - fairly mutual, both characters seem about on an even level with each other... It's a bit hard to describe, because to me it would generally qualify as "normal sex". Most anthro_on_feral stuff seems to fit into this category.

There is a consent tag, but it seems to mostly be tagged from outside information, which is a violation of TWYS. The first four, however, seem like valid applications of it:
post #929898 post #773177 post #592558

Fenrick said:
I want to blacklist the ever-loving shit out of vore.

But I do not want to blacklist images such as:
post #505633

Or images of, say, realistic (non-anthro) bugs getting eaten. That kind of stuff doesn't bother me (although whether it should be tagged vore at all is questionable).

imminent_vore?

Genjar said:
I'd like to be able to blacklist vore, without blacklisting unbirthing and various types of sizeplay where a micro character is temporarily inserted.

But I can't, since the latter are implicated to vore, and blacklisting something like 'vore -unbirthing' results in too much actual vore slipping through. Because many posts feature unbirthing and something else that we tag as vore.

You can always just straight up blacklist oral vore and the other forms of "Serious vore," but they're very undertagged.

Furrin_Gok said:

imminent_vore?

I'd really hesitate to even call it that. Usually that stuff would have somebody being lifted into a disproportionately detailed mouth, which is still not something I want.

Furrin_Gok said:
You can always just straight up blacklist oral vore and the other forms of "Serious vore," but they're very undertagged.

Exactly. So few tag it that blacklisting it was pretty much useless. If it's tagged at all, it usually gets tagged weeks or months after the upload. Which leaves plenty of time for those to slip through the blacklists.

Oral vore is almost always tagged simply as vore by the uploaders. Can't really blame them, since it is usually considered to be the standard type of vore. But it is problematic because we also use vore as an umbrella tag for wide variety of other concepts.

For some reason blood and scat will not blacklist for me.

Furrin_Gok said:
There is a consent tag, but it seems to mostly be tagged from outside information, which is a violation of TWYS.

I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with the clearly flawed "no outside information" clause as it's constantly bent to serve the interests of certain individuals while spitting in the face of others.

But I digress.

This is a case also where if the consent tag is using outside information, how do you tag rape? How are able to tell when it's not just rough sex? Tears and pain don't make it rape!

But we need to tag rape so people can find it and so people can blacklist it.

GDelscribe said:
I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with the clearly flawed "no outside information" clause as it's constantly bent to serve the interests of certain individuals while spitting in the face of others.

But I digress.

This is a case also where if the consent tag is using outside information, how do you tag rape? How are able to tell when it's not just rough sex? Tears and pain don't make it rape!

But we need to tag rape so people can find it and so people can blacklist it.

Flawed? People are just straight up ignoring it is the "Flaw" here, it otherwise is working just fine.
Tears themselves don't make an image rape, but if it looks like they're freaking out over it, it will probably be worth tagging rape. I say probably, because I believe that if it's a pool where consent was given, we can at least use the previous images of the pool to determine it; while it's outside the page, it's still internal to e621.

Furrin_Gok said:
Flawed? People are just straight up ignoring it is the "Flaw" here, it otherwise is working just fine.
Tears themselves don't make an image rape, but if it looks like they're freaking out over it, it will probably be worth tagging rape. I say probably, because I believe that if it's a pool where consent was given, we can at least use the previous images of the pool to determine it; while it's outside the page, it's still internal to e621.

Except time and time again admins have stated it's on a picture to picture basis. Previous images in a series don't make a difference.

Theres a clear issue here that nobody seems willing to address.

GDelscribe said:
Except time and time again admins have stated it's on a picture to picture basis. Previous images in a series don't make a difference.

Theres a clear issue here that nobody seems willing to address.

I know that applies to genders, and characters already get the outside information bit, but what about consent? Is that actually on the image-specific list?

What would be the easiest way to blacklist straight anal? I don't want to blacklist all anal or all m/f. Just that specific combination.

Thirtyeight said:
What would be the easiest way to blacklist straight anal? I don't want to blacklist all anal or all m/f. Just that specific combination.

It depends what sorts of things you don't mind getting hit as collateral.

For instance, is pegging fine? Is anal fingering fine? Are anal toys fine?

male/female anal

That would block all straight images with anal of any sort in them, but that would also include images with multiple characters where the anal could be happening between two males.

male/female anal duo

That would block a much smaller section of images, but would pretty much only block straight anal, at the cost of letting through straight anal in images with multiple characters.

male/female anal duo -pegging -anal_fingering

That would allow for non-penile forms of anal, if you don't mind those.

Clawdragons said:
It depends what sorts of things you don't mind getting hit as collateral.

For instance, is pegging fine? Is anal fingering fine? Are anal toys fine?

male/female anal

That would block all straight images with anal of any sort in them, but that would also include images with multiple characters where the anal could be happening between two males.

male/female anal duo

That would block a much smaller section of images, but would pretty much only block straight anal, at the cost of letting through straight anal in images with multiple characters.

male/female anal duo -pegging -anal_fingering

That would allow for non-penile forms of anal, if you don't mind those.

male/female anal will probably suffice for my purposes. Thank you.

Thirtyeight said:
male/female anal will probably suffice for my purposes. Thank you.

Just make sure to keep it on one line, otherwise they blacklist seperately. For example:
male/female anal
cub rating:e

This would blacklist the two combinations of tags, whereas if you put them all into one line, only straight, anal, cub art would be blocked, not strait anal or an explicit cub.

Furrin_Gok said:
Just make sure to keep it on one line, otherwise they blacklist seperately. For example:
male/female anal
cub rating:e

This would blacklist the two combinations of tags, whereas if you put them all into one line, only straight, anal, cub art would be blocked, not strait anal and an explicit cub.

Good to know.

Furrin_Gok said:
Just make sure to keep it on one line, otherwise they blacklist seperately. For example:
male/female anal
cub rating:e

This would blacklist the two combinations of tags, whereas if you put them all into one line, only straight, anal, cub art would be blocked, not strait anal or an explicit cub.

Oh that's handy. Didnt know you could do tag combos. Thanks!

Any ideas for post #973219?

Maxpizzle said:
Any ideas for post #973219?

Do you want it blacklisted? 'Cause if so, id:973219 would solve that image specifically. However, can you be a bit more specific?

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
Do you want it blacklisted? 'Cause if so, id:973219 would solve that image specifically. However, can you be a bit more specific?

The exposed brain.

Maxpizzle said:
The exposed brain.

It was missing the brain tag. You can blacklist Licker , which is the species, brain, which is when a visible brain is in the image (they are supernatural species), or the specific IDs in this pool.

[status: open]

(With the current tag system,)

tl;dr - how would you blacklist posts of non-human characters with
humanoid penises, if a nude human male with a penis was present?

For the most part, I tried
humanoid_penis -human

but posts like post #1037815 still show up, because there's no known way to selectively designate to whom the genitals belong

----
another similar case is if a human is just present, not necessarily nude

post #1030183

Last time I checked, you can't blacklist kangaroos' balls being over their dicks, because it's "anatomically correct" and therefore not tagged because all kangaroos are presumed to have it.

FibS said:
Last time I checked, you can't blacklist kangaroos' balls being over their dicks, because it's "anatomically correct" and therefore not tagged because all kangaroos are presumed to have it.

reelated https://e621.net/forum/show/210714

last time I checked though, not all marsupials have their scrotums above the penis
-
kangaroo_penis exists, but it's not very populated,
And in any case, it doesn't address the issue of scrotum placement, yeah

maybe? Haven't looked much into it for now
-
I like Circeus' suggestion, kangaroo_genital(ia)

Update

• As per ancient internet forum tradition, updated OP to include a suggestion about answering 1 open question if you asked 1 question in here

It's not a rule, per se, but things should go smoother if it's there

FibS said:
Last time I checked, you can't blacklist kangaroos' balls being over their dicks, because it's "anatomically correct" and therefore not tagged because all kangaroos are presumed to have it.

Doesn't matter if it's anatomically correct or not, if a tag is applicable it can be added. A dog with a canine penis still has a canine penis.

Unfortunately our anatomically_inconsistent tags got denied because they're too offensive, but that's a real thing that people either want to see or hate to see, and personally I think it's one thing we should keep even if it does upset artists.

Furrin_Gok said:
Doesn't matter if it's anatomically correct or not, if a tag is applicable it can be added. A dog with a canine penis still has a canine penis.

Unfortunately our anatomically_inconsistent tags got denied because they're too offensive, but that's a real thing that people either want to see or hate to see, and personally I think it's one thing we should keep even if it does upset artists.

Honestly, I see no reason for it to be denied... But I think it would take a very long time to catch on. It's not even really offensive, it's the truth.

Furrin_Gok said:
Doesn't matter if it's anatomically correct or not, if a tag is applicable it can be added. A dog with a canine penis still has a canine penis.

Unfortunately our anatomically_inconsistent tags got denied because they're too offensive, but that's a real thing that people either want to see or hate to see, and personally I think it's one thing we should keep even if it does upset artists.

Wait. YOure telling me an actual tag that is harmless to literally nobody is getting denied for being "offensive" christ the priorities here ffs.

Ok. WEll anyway. I also wanna be able to search for mismatched_genitals or etc.

Also honestly kangaroo_penis is seeming to be tagged wrong if thats how its being tagged.

Marsupial_genitals or whatever would be more accurate as 90% of marsupials with external testicles have upside down junk. EVen rabbits have upside down junk technically. WHy not just make an upside_down_genitals tag or something? IT makes sense people would want to blacklist something like that.

Update

• Added some blacklist forum links to OPs

if you come across any notable blacklist-related forums, please mention them in here!
(try to keep them in a single forum post if you do)

GDelscribe said:
Marsupial_genitals or whatever would be more accurate as 90% of marsupials with external testicles have upside down junk. EVen rabbits have upside down junk technically. WHy not just make an upside_down_genitals tag or something? IT makes sense people would want to blacklist something like that.

inverted_genitals is also a possibility. At least then, it won't look out of place on non-marsupial images.

Staying on the topic of marsupials, how would I block opossums without also blocking possums? As long as possum is aliased to opossum, there's no easy way to differentiate them in the tags. Searching each possum species individually is tedious and misses any that don't have the species listed. Excluding each opossum species (virginia_opossum and water_opossum) only blocks 96 (out of 1180) images.

Update

• added forum #214858 - How to blacklist one's uploads, but not their forum posts? (dec 2016)

• added 'Questions with at least 1 reply' category
• moved above + forum #205553 - Blacklist issues (aug 2016)