Hey guys, I know some of you have been waiting quite a while for an answer regarding TWYS for character names, and I'm sorry it's taken this long to get back to you on that. It seems that this issue is one that even the admins are having difficulty agreeing on a solution for, so I'm going to pitch our current idea to you guys and get your feedback.

For the unaware, the issue at hand is whether or not external information (i.e. not in the image) can be used in identifying and tagging characters within the image. Case in point: Should the following image receive the "fluttershy_(mlp)" tag for having a humanized fluttershy, even though you can't really see that that's who it is: http://e621.net/post/show/304236

The thing is, when we can't tell who a character is in an image, then the image typically ends up not being tagged with any character at all. However, when this happens, it can often take a significant amount of "context" away from the pic, thereby making the picture less enjoyable or interesting.

Of course, that same argument can be made for things like tagging "herm" too; it ruins the "context" of the image if it's not tagged there. So I think if we do relax TWYS for tagging characters, then we'll have to make sure we also specify that this exception to TWYS does NOT extend beyond tagging characters or artists.

What I propose is that the TWYS rule be adjusted slightly so that CHARACTER NAMES ONLY can be tagged based on external evidence, but there still MUST be evidence within the picture itself to back up the external evidence. Example: http://e621.net/post/show/304236 By itself, no, there is not enough evidence in the picture to warrant adding the "fluttershy" tag. However, with the artist or context of the image (i.e. where the image was originally posted by the artist) saying that it's fluttershy, we can then look back to the image to see if there's any evidence whatsoever that the picture contains Fluttershy. Admittedly, there's not a LOT of evidence to suggest it's a humanized version of fluttershy, but there's not really anything in the image that says it's NOT a humanized version of fluttershy either, only that there's not enough evidence within the picture itself to be sure.

So I'd say that the off-site information used MUST be coming directly from the artist, character owner, or commissioner (so we're not relying on 3rd-party information).

Given the proposed solution above, what I'd like to hear are any counter-arguments and examples that would make this be a worse solution than what we're currently doing.

I, and I hope others, realize that this is one issue that we're simply never going to have consensus on. However, as admins, we're trying to do what we can, within reason, to minimize the daily disputes that seem to occur regarding proper character tagging. But we're not going to shove a change in policy like this down anyone's throats, so I want to hear what you have to say.

Please keep the discussion civil and on-topic. :)

Char said:
What I propose is that the TWYS rule be adjusted slightly so that CHARACTER NAMES ONLY can be tagged based on external evidence, but there still MUST be evidence within the picture itself to back up the external evidence. Example: http://e621.net/post/show/304236 By itself, no, there is not enough evidence in the picture to warrant adding the "fluttershy" tag. However, with the artist or context of the image (i.e. where the image was originally posted by the artist) saying that it's fluttershy, we can then look back to the image to see if there's any evidence whatsoever that the picture contains Fluttershy. Admittedly, there's not a LOT of evidence to suggest it's a humanized version of fluttershy, but there's not really anything in the image that says it's NOT a humanized version of fluttershy either, only that there's not enough evidence within the picture itself to be sure.

So I'd say that the off-site information used MUST be coming directly from the artist, character owner, or commissioner (so we're not relying on 3rd-party information).

I'd like to look at it this way: I'm a new user and I have no idea what MLP is at all. I see an image like this and I would automatically say that that's a random human.

If we rely on what the artist says, then the TWYS rule would be useless. In my opinion, that image doesn't have enough evidence to be considered humanized Fluttershy. Compare that image to this. In that image, it has enough evidence to prove it's Fluttershy. The wings, pink hair, blue eyes, etc.

So, you want to go from "not tagged X because it doesn't look like X" to "tagged X because it doesn't -not- look like X" when an artist complains?

In my dictionary, that's called "rolling over and presenting your belly to the alpha". It also doesn't make any sense.

And yet there is still that whole context thing going on, if you look already at "fluttershy humanized", would you want to see http://e621.net/post/show/304236 as part of the results or not?

This isn't "But this orange is an apple!!!!1" argument but an "We can't decide what this is, let's go with what the artist said" kind of deal.

Why not make out of some random chick that looks kinda like Fluttershy Fluttershy so it gets some more exposure?
We are not going to tag all apples as oranges because of this. Only fruit that kinda looks like an orange, but could just as well be a mandarin.

And instead of not tagging anything we simply flip a coin and decide on one (or in this case, go with what the artist said).

I don't like this idea. I can see, for example, artist making picture where character X is body-swapped with character Y, and people would tag it both X, and Y, because xe looks like Y, but is behaving like X. Also sooner or later there would be another leoian, it's furry community after all. What should we do then?

But... I don't really know if there's better solution to this. IMO tagging of post #312305 already have a tags that someone who don't know mlp well would not add.

I'm for this, unless someone else will propose a better option.

I think relaxing the TWYS rule on characters is a cop-out so that you guys don't have to listen to people whining about it so much. It really is not a hard concept to follow, and I don't understand why people have such a difficult time not getting their panties in a bunch over how it works.

Not having a character tag on an image doesn't take any 'context' away from the image; the content is still there, now it just doesn't have some stupid green label attached to it. If the person making the image uses a particular character because they fit with the theme of that image, they're likely going to make it really obvious that it's that character, and if they don't then that's not our fault, it's theirs for being a shitty artist.

I think the system works just fine as it is right now, and people need to just smarten the fuck up and get with the tagging program instead of trying to rail against the system.

Current system allows for addition of context without addition of incorrect tags.
We have a comment system.

So, image goes up, artist says it's fluttershy, image isn't sufficient to allow for that tag, instead there's a comment that says "Hey guys, this is a humanized fluttershy fyi" context is there without the tag, enjoyment is preserved without ruining TWYS.

Digital_Kindness said:
I think the system works just fine as it is right now, and people need to just smarten the fuck up and get with the tagging program instead of trying to rail against the system.

Translation: Everyone should tag what I see and there would be no problems at all.

Sorry, but if you had read, for example, forum #64595 you would see that there is problem, how much you can modify the character before it doesn't resemble that character enough to be tagged by TWYS rule.

Digital_Kindness said:
Not having a character tag on an image doesn't take any 'context' away from the image; the content is still there, now it just doesn't have some stupid green label attached to it.

That 'stupid green label' is (part of) the context...

Foobaria said:
So, you want to go from "not tagged X because it doesn't look like X" to "tagged X because it doesn't -not- look like X" when an artist complains?

In my dictionary, that's called "rolling over and presenting your belly to the alpha". It also doesn't make any sense.

It's saying that if the artist says that the image contains a certain character, then the image contents need to actually support that idea. It doesn't mean "whatever the artist says, goes", because that would be dumb. If the artist says they drew a humanized fluttershy but there's no evidence in the picture to actually support that, or there's conflicting evidence, then it wouldn't get the character tag.

Digital_Kindness said:
I think relaxing the TWYS rule on characters is a cop-out so that you guys don't have to listen to people whining about it so much. It really is not a hard concept to follow, and I don't understand why people have such a difficult time not getting their panties in a bunch over how it works.

Yes, believe it or not, we try to respond to the concerns that people keep raising, even when it's about one of the most important rules that we have on this site. No, we don't like seeing users at each others throats over whether or not a character tag needs to be added to an image, but that's what keeps happening, and that's what I want to see minimized. That's why I'm basically asking those who seem very strict about the TWYS rule if there is ANY condition at all where they'll allow the use of outside information to assist with tagging a character name.

Digital_Kindness said:
Not having a character tag on an image doesn't take any 'context' away from the image; the content is still there, now it just doesn't have some stupid green label attached to it. If the person making the image uses a particular character because they fit with the theme of that image, they're likely going to make it really obvious that it's that character, and if they don't then that's not our fault, it's theirs for being a shitty artist.

I've said pretty much exactly that before (http://e621.net/comment/show/1078573), but a counter-argument would be that sometimes the artist themselves depend on the context surrounding the image to give you more information about the image. For instance, the example humanized fluttershy post above was posted on an all-pony tumblr, with the artist basically saying "this is humanized fluttershy". Since there's evidence in the image that's directly observable and does support the artist's claim that it's fluttershy (and no evidence saying otherwise), then tagging it with "fluttershy" would ensure that that contextual information isn't lost just because the image is uploaded to e621 instead. Keep in mind that practically anyone viewing the image on Doxy's tumblr would think "that's humanized fluttershy". This enables the artist to be able to draw characters in ways where it may not be apparent that it's that character, but can assume that you'll think it's that character given the context surrounding the image.

I think the system works just fine as it is right now, and people need to just smarten the fuck up and get with the tagging program instead of trying to rail against the system.

They're merely trying to point out a flaw with the TWYS rule (believe me, it's not a perfect rule; it's an objective approach to categorizing material that is often very SUBjective, which will inevitably lead to problems).

Again, please keep this discussion civil. Telling others "you just need to smarten the fuck up" isn't going to convince anyone of anything, and only makes it even harder on us to find any sort of solution to this, if one can be found.

Char said:
Again, please keep this discussion civil. Telling others "you just need to smarten the fuck up" isn't going to convince anyone of anything, and only makes it even harder on us to find any sort of solution to this, if one can be found.

You asked for opinion and feedback. I gave it to you. Don't ask for feedback on a topic as hotly contested as this and not expect some vitriolic response.

People can call us Tag Nazis all they want, but it's the people in this thread that help keep this booru site better than any of the others by keeping tags clean and relevant, and so far the response has been 'this is a bad idea'.

And honestly, that's my opinion. If you open the door on the TWYS rule and give an inch to the slavering masses that cry 'BUT THAT'S WHAT THE SOURCE SAYS', they will clamber to claim miles and miles more from you, mark my words. As much as I HATE this term, this will end up being the slipperiest of slopes, and it will cause you, the other admins, and the Tag Nazis of this site no end of torment. That's all I'm going to say on this subject.

I dont like it, but mainly because I always thought tags should be for searching only. I think TWYS was a great idea, what you search for should be derived from whats in the image.

Also one change is the start of more I think.

The only plus side to the idea is people may source better if they wanted it tagged differently :P

Exactly: The point of the tags should be for searching. What the artist/commissioner wants it to be is completely irrelevant, because the purpose, the entir ereason tags are there, is for people searching for images.

People don't search for "pictures that the artist says is supposed to be fluttershy": They search for "fluttershy".

Digital_Kindness said:
Not having a character tag on an image doesn't take any 'context' away from the image; the content is still there, now it just doesn't have some stupid green label attached to it.

I think "context" is the wrong word for the problem at hand, lets take http://e621.net/post/show/304236 as an example because it is a good one.
Look at the tags currently, if you want to see some random human being with her pussy on display, this is perfectly do able, however, if someone would want to look at some specific human chick, in this case a humanized fluttershy, would they like this pic to show up in said search? The (sparsely) information that this might be Fluttershy is there, there is also nothing against it in said pic to give us the impression it is someone else besides "random chick" or "Fluttershy humanized".

The objectivity of the tagging system is used to ensure the most positive/useful results to be displayed with as few negatives as possible, this leeway in the TWYS Rule will do nothing else than give more positives without any direct negative results, as soon as there is a single information to the contrary on said picture, it wouldn't get a/the character tag in question.

Like I said, if you see a fruit but it isn't completely clear if it is either a mandarin or an orange, would you tag nothing so it doesn't show up in any search or would you flip a coin so that it shows up in at least 50% of all citrus-fruit related searches?

NotMeNotYou said:
I think "context" is the wrong word for the problem at hand, lets take http://e621.net/post/show/304236 as an example because it is a good one.
Look at the tags currently, if you want to see some random human being with her pussy on display, this is perfectly do able, however, if someone would want to look at some specific human chick, in this case a humanized fluttershy, would they like this pic to show up in said search? The (sparsely) information that this might be Fluttershy is there, there is also nothing against it in said pic to give us the impression it is someone else besides "random chick" or "Fluttershy humanized".

The objectivity of the tagging system is used to ensure the most positive/useful results to be displayed with as few negatives as possible, this leeway in the TWYS Rule will do nothing else than give more positives without any direct negative results, as soon as there is a single information to the contrary on said picture, it wouldn't get a/the character tag in question.

Like I said, if you see a fruit but it isn't completely clear if it is either a mandarin or an orange, would you tag nothing so it doesn't show up in any search or would you flip a coin so that it shows up in at least 50% of all citrus-fruit related searches?

I would tag it citrus and fruit.

Hammie said:
I would tag it citrus and fruit.

But it is clear that it is either mandarin or orange, no lime, no lemon, no kumquat.
This is a very specific case, just like the proposed change, in my opinion, we only gain a little, while not making things worse, it won't impact much and the shitstorm will slightly adjust but I think we managed the current one, we can manage this one for a slightly better search result over all.

Well, this is interesting.

Here are my ideas as the guy that started this landslide:

I like the idea of the character tag. It gets it there and people are able to search for a character easier.

The only problem I see is with 'character swaps' seen here a few times.

http://e621.net/post/show/303481/2013-anailaigh-blue_eyes-blush-clothing-costume-di

This image would now have a fluttershy tag, even though there still really is barely any notion of fluttershy in the picture (even less than the original 'flutterpuss' image IMO).

I am ok with that though, the only problem I am going to see now is the "do not cross this line" concept. You had a line set in the sand for a while, and now you are letting people cross that line and a new one is drawn with you saying "do not cross this new line!"

How long before you have to erase that line and draw another one with gender problems (like the cuntboy thread) due to lines being crossed.

Was wondering how long it'd take before we started slipping down the tag slope. As the horse from ren and stimpy would say.

No sir, I don't like it.

Digital_Kindness said:
You asked for opinion and feedback. I gave it to you. Don't ask for feedback on a topic as hotly contested as this and not expect some vitriolic response.

People can call us Tag Nazis all they want, but it's the people in this thread that help keep this booru site better than any of the others by keeping tags clean and relevant, and so far the response has been 'this is a bad idea'.

And honestly, that's my opinion. If you open the door on the TWYS rule and give an inch to the slavering masses that cry 'BUT THAT'S WHAT THE SOURCE SAYS', they will clamber to claim miles and miles more from you, mark my words. As much as I HATE this term, this will end up being the slipperiest of slopes, and it will cause you, the other admins, and the Tag Nazis of this site no end of torment. That's all I'm going to say on this subject.

No, you just wanna have an excuse to justify your venomous tongue.

Anyhow, on topic, I'm all for gray areas, black and white makes loopholes and angry users. Honestly context clues should be usable and if the artist makes a valid point on why it's someone, well. that can and should change the scenario. Key word /valid/. I am so tired of artist changing their minds on things and retconning art.

NotMeNotYou said:
But it is clear that it is either mandarin or orange, no lime, no lemon, no kumquat.
This is a very specific case, just like the proposed change, in my opinion, we only gain a little, while not making things worse, it won't impact much and the shitstorm will slightly adjust but I think we managed the current one, we can manage this one for a slightly better search result over all.

I hate to break it to you, but if you can't tell if it's a mandarin, or sweet orange, there's about 50 other types of citrus that it might be too.

Glad to see I'm not the only one opposed to this.

Aurali said:
No, you just wanna have an excuse to justify your venomous tongue.

I need no excuse.

This:

Foobaria said:
So, you want to go from "not tagged X because it doesn't look like X" to "tagged X because it doesn't -not- look like X" when an artist complains?

In my dictionary, that's called "rolling over and presenting your belly to the alpha". It also doesn't make any sense.

And This:

TheHuskyK9 said:
I'd like to look at it this way: I'm a new user and I have no idea what MLP is at all. I see an image like this and I would automatically say that that's a random human.

If we rely on what the artist says, then the TWYS rule would be useless. In my opinion, that image doesn't have enough evidence to be considered humanized Fluttershy. Compare that image to this. In that image, it has enough evidence to prove it's Fluttershy. The wings, pink hair, blue eyes, etc.

Sums up what i think about it pretty well, Escpecially the "rolling over to the artists demands" part. shouldnt need to beg and stoop so low to keep a handful of pictures, if they dont like it they should scram.

Digital_Kindness said:
You asked for opinion and feedback. I gave it to you. Don't ask for feedback on a topic as hotly contested as this and not expect some vitriolic response.

Obviously I'm very aware that the issue is hotly contested. I was hoping that there wouldn't be vitriolic responses because I specifically asked for people to not make such comments, and instead worry about the issue/solution being discussed rather than insulting/bullying one side or the other while trying to get your own points across. You might as well hand people earplugs first if you're going to be so polarizing in your responses. :P

Digital_Kindness said:
People can call us Tag Nazis all they want, but it's the people in this thread that help keep this booru site better than any of the others by keeping tags clean and relevant, and so far the response has been 'this is a bad idea'.

Yes I figured that that would be the response, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't even be presented as an option. The fact that people are making forum threads wanting attention drawn to this specific issue means that the administration needs to provide SOME sort of response, preferably one that shows at least SOME sensitivity toward the user(s) bringing forth the complaints. Now we have an official thread that people can be linked to if there's further debate in post comments later on.

Digital_Kindness said:
And honestly, that's my opinion. If you open the door on the TWYS rule and give an inch to the slavering masses that cry 'BUT THAT'S WHAT THE SOURCE SAYS', they will clamber to claim miles and miles more from you, mark my words. As much as I HATE this term, this will end up being the slipperiest of slopes, and it will cause you, the other admins, and the Tag Nazis of this site no end of torment. That's all I'm going to say on this subject.

Will people TRY to take a mile when given an inch? Probably. I'm not sure why anyone is assuming that we'd just let it happen though. People ALREADY try to tag things that they can not directly infer from the image, and they get upset when we tell them "no, that's not how it works around here". We ALREADY are subjected to "no end of torment", partly because of the issue at hand. The proposed change is an attempt to reduce the amount of conflicts that happen, without also introducing even worse problems.

And we already allow for some common-sense exceptions to TWYS. What I'm asking is if there would be any detrimental effects to the site (besides hypothesizing/guessing that users will try to push for even more leniency) if we include tagging the character name as part of our "common-sense exceptions". And if there WOULD be any detrimental effects (I'm assuming there would), would they be bad enough that they'd overshadow any positive effects, so that we'd be better off not amending the TWYS policy at all? That's what we're trying to figure out, because as I said, there's no way to make everyone happy about this, so right now we're just exploring options beyond "don't do anything".

Why does this have to be "rolling over to the artist's demands"?

How does this compare to giving something more exposure or putting it into part of the results of a specific search? How many people will be enraged at seeing this as part of the results for Fluttershy?
Do you get the ID of a friend of yours just because he got a tan over his vacation? Do you not recognize people by a little bit less than a 360° screening of said person in a crowd?

This isn't about tagging an apple as an orange because someone gets angry, this is more about giving more relevant results to a search term by giving a small leeway to artistic interpretation.

Hammie said:
I hate to break it to you, but if you can't tell if it's a mandarin, or sweet orange, there's about 50 other types of citrus that it might be too.

You forget the fruits that all look like a orange before you open them and the ones who look exactly the same but taste differently, you would still tag/classify them as the most plausible option instead of nothing, E.g, orange instead of sweet orange.

Once again, this change won't magically alter existing tagging but enhance tagging on images with worse tagging because indecision forced by the pure rule won't allow the addition of a couple tags.
I can't think of a single image where I would go "Why?" when searching characters who aren't identifiable without a doubt.

There is http://e621.net/post/show/312305 but this guy(or gal) fucked up the complete colorpalette of a "discorded" RD while drawing it, which is not the case in the fluttershy picture which just omitted some (identifiable) details through cropping.

My only concern with this change is posts being unnecessarily blacklisted when they don't need to be. For example, if post #304236 gets tagged as fluttershy, it will also get tagged my_little_pony, and anyone who's blacklisted my_little_pony will never see that post, even though it really doesn't have anything to do with it and is unlikely to be recognized as anything relating to my_little_pony by anyone but MLP fans.

tony311 said:
My only concern with this change is posts being unnecessarily blacklisted when they don't need to be. For example, if post #304236 gets tagged as fluttershy, it will also get tagged my_little_pony, and anyone who's blacklisted my_little_pony will never see that post, even though it really doesn't have anything to do with it and is unlikely to be recognized as anything relating to my_little_pony by anyone but MLP fans.

Which is a very valid point, and something we obviously would prefer to avoid.

I think the underlying question there is "what do people use tags for on the site"? Are people using tags to provide context to an image? Are they letting the tags define the image versus the image defining the tags? If it's the former, then those who don't want to see MLP pictures wouldn't want to see this image BECAUSE it's tagged with MLP, because they're going to assume that it's supposed to be an MLP-related image. And they'd be right.

But again, we have to ask "what's worse?" Do we continue putting up with these conflicts (which are only going to continue getting worse as the site grows), or do we see if there's some way to minimize them with limited consequences?

I still say that the comments section provides a sufficient outlet for providing context to an image that can't be tagged because it might not fall under TWYS.

For instance, another hot button issue with TWYS, a herm without a visible penis and/or vagina.
The artist/owner of the character can simply post a comment to educate people that it's a herm character without mucking up the tags.
Same solution can be used in these cases.

Hammie said:
I still say that the comments section provides a sufficient outlet for providing context to an image that can't be tagged because it might not fall under TWYS.

For instance, another hot button issue with TWYS, a herm without a visible penis and/or vagina.
The artist/owner of the character can simply post a comment to educate people that it's a herm character without mucking up the tags.
Same solution can be used in these cases.

However, situations like that would not be covered under this proposed alteration to TWYS. Again, we're interested only in trying to curb the character tagging disputes, not anything beyond that.

tony311 said:
My only concern with this change is posts being unnecessarily blacklisted when they don't need to be. For example, if post #304236 gets tagged as fluttershy, it will also get tagged my_little_pony, and anyone who's blacklisted my_little_pony will never see that post, even though it really doesn't have anything to do with it and is unlikely to be recognized as anything relating to my_little_pony by anyone but MLP fans.

On the other hand there are people who are mad that pictures like post #305623 are not hidden by their blacklist. (see comments) I think, that generally that kind of people would be more vocal, mainly because that those who will miss the picture can't easily see that they are missing picture in their search.

This is why we need simplified blacklist help.

People are gonna complain regardless of changes. This proposed change will just cause OTHER tagging wars. I still honestly do not believe in making concessions in the rule. Tis silly to poke a couple holes but stick to the rule otherwise. Tagging has always been for searching, at least since I've been on the site

The purpose of this site is making it easy for people to find what they want: It is a database, not a gallery. If somebody wants to dress up their post and provide backstory and tag it and frame it and what-the-fuck-ever, let them do it on DA/FA/Tumblr.

This site is for finding shit.

CamKitty said:
People are gonna complain regardless of changes. This proposed change will just cause OTHER tagging wars. I still honestly do not believe in making concessions in the rule. Tis silly to poke a couple holes but stick to the rule otherwise. Tagging has always been for searching, at least since I've been on the site

Can you please elaborate as to what tagging wars this would cause? And do you think they would be more or less numerous than the tagging wars that we currently have, and why?

Additionally, we already allow exceptions as far as tagging "incest" for mainstream characters (e.g. Alvin and the Chipmunks), as well as for any characters that are indicated to be related somehow in one page of a comic but not another (so it's not suddenly not-incest just because there's no indication on a particular page of the comic).

Foobaria said:
The purpose of this site is making it easy for people to find what they want: It is a database, not a gallery. If somebody wants to dress up their post and provide backstory and tag it and frame it and what-the-fuck-ever, let them do it on DA/FA/Tumblr.

This site is for finding shit.

This is completely avoiding the issue, in my opinion. "Finding shit" is exactly what those who support an alteration like this to TWYS are also wanting to do.

The issue is that people disagree over what should be found when searching for certain things. However, the issue over properly tagging characters has been the only one that has made me think that a simple but well-defined exception to TWYS might be worth it.

As far as I can tell, the only issue this would really cause is that images will sometimes be filtered by a person's blacklist that they would otherwise want to see. Additionally, those searching for specific characters would end up finding images that might not immediately resemble the character, but would display traits of the character, and so could be easily assumed to be that character (post #218243 for example).

If we're going to administrate e621 effectively, we have to look at how ALL users are using the site. What are people TRYING to do with e621? We are whatever our users make us (hint: this is why you see so much MLP here). Back when that flood initially started, people were complaining about that too, saying that it was ruining e621 because there was so much of it (which many still say). But the issue is that all those people uploading MLP are users too, and it would have been very unfair to say "we're not allowing any more MLP because some users are really bothered by how much there is". Thing is, we're still more popular now than ever before, and I think that's BECAUSE of the amount of MLP we have, not in spite of it.

It's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison to the topic at hand, but I'm just trying to explain why we (the administration) have to at least be sensitive to how all users are using the site, even the ones that seem to be causing "problems". Why are people behaving the way they're behaving? Why do they prefer one way of doing something over another? Can the site be adapted to accommodate their way of doing something without causing issue elsewhere? etc.

Foobaria said:
This site is for finding shit.

Naw, man, this site is for fappin and ponies.

Char said:
However, situations like that would not be covered under this proposed alteration to TWYS. Again, we're interested only in trying to curb the character tagging disputes, not anything beyond that.

I think you missed my point.
I'm not saying that this change would go further.
I'm trying to say that the context problem is easy to solve using comments instead of tags.

Hammie said:
I think you missed my point.
I'm not saying that this change would go further.
I'm trying to say that the context problem is easy to solve using comments instead of tags.

Ah, you're correct, I did misunderstand what you were saying. Sorry about that.

I don't believe this would end up helping with the tag-wars that tend to take place over character tagging though, which is really what our end-goal is. The solution proposed at the beginning of this thread is simply the best that we could come up with while still trying to abide by "TWYS" as much as we can.

Princess_Celestia said:
Naw, man, this site is for fappin and ponies.

This comment just made me depressed.....

Char said:
Can you please elaborate as to what tagging wars this would cause? And do you think they would be more or less numerous than the tagging wars that we currently have, and why?

Additionally, we already allow exceptions as far as tagging "incest" for mainstream characters (e.g. Alvin and the Chipmunks), as well as for any characters that are indicated to be related somehow in one page of a comic but not another (so it's not suddenly not-incest just because there's no indication on a particular page of the comic).

The tagging wars between people following the old and new rules. I can only assume it will happen.

And for the mainstream thing, I believe there is a difference from a franchise character (Alvin, Krystal, etc) and random furry #23 as stated on the artists page. Also, for the comic thing, it's not outside sources if it's still on the site :P

I dunno, I can see the intent, but IMHO the whole system should be left or overhauled. Poking holes is dangerous.

*shrug*

Hammie said:
I think you missed my point.
I'm not saying that this change would go further.
I'm trying to say that the context problem is easy to solve using comments instead of tags.

Now please elaborate how you wish to search for posts based on things stated in the comments, how many people are willing to search the comments to find a post?
The posts itself will still be search and findable as they were before, with the addition of a couple more tags for easier filtering.
If people want context, source and comments are their friends, if they wish to find a picture, they will need tags, allowing more tags to be used on images with fewer tags (or giving a post completely new category of tags, e.g. character names) allows for easier searching for all parties involved.

As for the blacklist issue, we gain some, we lose some, just as much that there are people who would like to see that humanized fluttershy chick while having mlp blacklisted, are there surely people who hate mlp and also are of the opinion that said image should be blacklisted because it resembles fluttershy's hair.

Other than that, where is the line supposed to be where we deny what the artist is stating in the source? How much apple is there allowed to be in the orange to still make it an orange, or how much apple or orange has to be in that glob of colour to make it either?
What about tagging something like this where one character dresses up as others, how would we handle this under the new rule? Or the old for that matter.

NotMeNotYouMobile said:
Now please elaborate how you wish to search for posts based on things stated in the comments, how many people are willing to search the comments to find a post?
The posts itself will still be search and findable as they were before, with the addition of a couple more tags for easier filtering.
If people want context, source and comments are their friends, if they wish to find a picture, they will need tags, allowing more tags to be used on images with fewer tags (or giving a post completely new category of tags, e.g. character names) allows for easier searching for all parties involved....

I didn't say anything about searching.
I said the complaint about lack of context could be resolved with comments instead of messing with tags.
Which you agreed with.

Hammie said:
I didn't say anything about searching.
I said the complaint about lack of context could be resolved with comments instead of messing with tags.
Which you agreed with.

Which is exactly my point, this rule change affects the tags and thus the search, you are talking about the feedback in the comments, I don't think having this in the comments alone will help anyone, while it in the tags will help some.

NotMeNotYouMobile said:
Which is exactly my point, this rule change affects the tags and thus the search, you are talking about the feedback in the comments, I don't think having this in the comments alone will help anyone, while it in the tags will help some.

One of the major points/complaints in Char's original post is that without character tags there is a loss of context for an image which makes it less enjoyable or interesting.
The point I was making is that complaint is possible to resolve with comments instead of tags that don't fit into TWYS.

The original post said nothing about search-ability/lack thereof, so I didn't not speak to that.

Okay, I've just stopped believing that currently TWYS rule works at all.

This:
post #202453
was tagged mewtwo. By an admin.

Tan/cream instead of light purple. Four tufts of fur as hair instead of two stubs. Four-fingered claws instead of three-fingered stub hands. Tip of fluffy tail darker purple instead of all the way to the navel. Normal furry/paw feet instead of stubbed feet.

Similarity of picture to real Mewtwo: 0.56%. I.e., no fuckin' way.

According to the artist's page, it's a mew/ninetails hybrid.
So, take that as you will.

Hammie said:
According to the artist's page, it's a mew/ninetails hybrid.
So, take that as you will.

That is supposed to mean jack shit.

Hammie said:
According to the artist's page, it's a mew/ninetails hybrid.
So, take that as you will.

I love Inuki's artwork, but this is close enough to this overused hypothetical example of artist saying that apple is orange.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Okay, I've just stopped believing that currently TWYS rule works at all.

This:
post #202453
was tagged mewtwo. By an admin.

I wouldnt be too worried that it was posted with a a Mewtwo tag. Everyone makes mistakes and with original knowledge may have seen something in the image that really was not there.

The big problem that I can imagine that this thread is trying to fix is when something like this happens and even with someone telling another in the comments that with TWYS rules, there is no Mewtwo, they still tag war and have others try and rule the same thing for their love for the pokemon franchise.

In either case, this thread is to try and get the people to stop the tag war from outside knowledge/TWYS fights. If someone makes a mistake, they make a mistake, let it be.

_Waffles_ said:
I wouldnt be too worried that it was posted with a a Mewtwo tag. Everyone makes mistakes and with original knowledge may have seen something in the image that really was not there.

The big problem that I can imagine that this thread is trying to fix is when something like this happens and even with someone telling another in the comments that with TWYS rules, there is no Mewtwo, they still tag war and have others try and rule the same thing for their love for the pokemon franchise.

In either case, this thread is to try and get the people to stop the tag war from outside knowledge/TWYS fights. If someone makes a mistake, they make a mistake, let it be.

My point is that now there are proposed two solutions.

1. Let the artist have a deciding vote when it's unclear.
2. Leave it be as it is.

The latter is rather glorified by everyone. However it really means that in difficult cases it would be admin who will decide how picture should be tagged.

The picture I mentioned shows that result of that can be as bad, or even worse, as trusting the artist. So I don't oppose to first solution that much. Maybe trusting artists in some cases will be not ideal, but best solution.

So, I am a bit curious. What will the outcome of this decision make for things like this: http://e621.net/post/show/302935?

It is labeled gay, were it should be male and ambiguous gender like http://e621.net/post/show/260522/2012-amber_eyes-ambiguous_gender-bed-bedroom-blond

Will this decision also allow genders pre-chosen by the artist and/or allow common drawn genders to be tag as their common gender when a gender can not be seen?

Or will it be null and TWYS still takes control and makes images like these still male and ambiguous gender?

_Waffles_ said:
So, I am a bit curious. What will the outcome of this decision make for things like this: http://e621.net/post/show/302935?

It is labeled gay, were it should be male and ambiguous gender like http://e621.net/post/show/260522/2012-amber_eyes-ambiguous_gender-bed-bedroom-blond

Will this decision also allow genders pre-chosen by the artist and/or allow common drawn genders to be tag as their common gender when a gender can not be seen?

Or will it be null and TWYS still takes control and makes images like these still male and ambiguous gender?

As char said, names only. So yes, this will fall under TWYS.

Please see the following thread for the rule update: http://e621.net/forum/show/67138