Currently, the Incest tag is used based on outside information, and it's very rare that an image actually includes internal evidence that the characters are related. As somebody who doesn't follow every single cartoon or read every single comic, I wouldn't know these characters are related, so I can look at images of similar looking characters and enjoy it, but if I see the "incest" tag it just ruins it for me. I feel like we should be true to our rules and keep to only what we see.

There's also the technical_incest tag, which would be even iffier to tag under TWYS, but I'd be fine with that. I could actually blacklist the incest tag right that way and use excludes to allow known "technicals" to get through.

Yes absolutely. Theres a reason I've brought it up multiple times. Its hypocritical to include incest as a tag and then claim we use twys exclusively at all.

Both of you seem to think that it's exceedingly rare for familial relationships to be evident from the post alone. That just isn't the case.

Maxpizzle said:
Both of you seem to think that it's exceedingly rare for familial relationships to be evident from the post alone. That just isn't the case.

Can you provide proof without using images involving text? You can't really say that you can tell two characters are related at all because a million arguments can be made for or against just by looking.

GDelscribe said:
Can you provide proof without using images involving text?

What? Why shouldn't images involving text count?

GDelscribe said:
You can't really say that you can tell two characters are related at all because a million arguments can be made for or against just by looking.

Sure I can. It's an assumption, but sometimes assumptions are reasonable.

post #955177

The tag-what-you-see rule, as I understand it, doesn't mean every tag on a post has to be evident to every observer. It simply means that every tag is a reasonable fit for that post - if you look for it in the post, you can find it. This interpretation of the rule is routinely used to tag species. Sometimes, it's hard to figure out what species a character is from the post alone, so you get that information from the original source. As long as it's not something crazy, like the artist says it's a dragon but it's clearly some kind of dog, then it can be tagged.

GDelscribe said:
Yes absolutely. Theres a reason I've brought it up multiple times. Its hypocritical to include incest as a tag and then claim we use twys exclusively at all.

That's a nonsense claim. Which set of people is using the incest tag? Which set of people is claiming we use twys exclusively?

Unless you can demonstrate those sets overlap, you're simply reifying the userbase in order to strawman it. If you want people to be on your side of the argument, it helps a lot to not be evil.

savageorange said:
That's a nonsense claim. Which set of people is using the incest tag? Which set of people is claiming we use twys exclusively?

Unless you can demonstrate those sets overlap, you're simply reifying the userbase in order to strawman it. If you want people to be on your side of the argument, it helps a lot to not be evil.

Did you seriously unironically just call me literally evil for pointing this out? Lmfao ok I mean if you wanna suddenly bring ad hominem into this go right ahead but I am not touching that with a 50 yard pole.

The admins. Including the lead admins have time and time again said on the forums here that we exclusively only use twys.

They have also explained in the past (I'm not on desktop so I can't easily find the post right now) that incest shouldn't be tagged unless there is an absolute indicator of it in the post.

Nmny has literally said the "technical_incest" tag doesn't belong here in the past. I'm not the only one who thinks the tags are iffy.

Maxpizzle said:
What? Why shouldn't images involving text count?

Sure I can. It's an assumption, but sometimes assumptions are reasonable.

post #955177

The tag-what-you-see rule, as I understand it, doesn't mean every tag on a post has to be evident to every observer. It simply means that every tag is a reasonable fit for that post - if you look for it in the post, you can find it. This interpretation of the rule is routinely used to tag species. Sometimes, it's hard to figure out what species a character is from the post alone, so you get that information from the original source. As long as it's not something crazy, like the artist says it's a dragon but it's clearly some kind of dog, then it can be tagged.

I brought up specifically text because as it stands that is the Only reliable true indicator of something being incest. And even that's a stretch. Who says it's not just mommy/daddy kink?

A refsheet tagged with herm will not get the herm tag even if it says it on it unless it shows off both sets of junk.

No offense but there's no way I would immediately assume those two are related. With how many furries there are out there with same or similar designs how am I gonna guess it's incest or their related.

AM I supposed to assume every black and red wolf anthro is related by blood? No.

Maxpizzle said:
What? Why shouldn't images involving text count?

Sure I can. It's an assumption, but sometimes assumptions are reasonable.

post #955177

The tag-what-you-see rule, as I understand it, doesn't mean every tag on a post has to be evident to every observer. It simply means that every tag is a reasonable fit for that post - if you look for it in the post, you can find it. This interpretation of the rule is routinely used to tag species. Sometimes, it's hard to figure out what species a character is from the post alone, so you get that information from the original source. As long as it's not something crazy, like the artist says it's a dragon but it's clearly some kind of dog, then it can be tagged.

See, that, to me, is not at all siblings. There's no proof they don't just coincidentally look similar. Take the Japanese, for example, there are a lot of people from Japan who look very similar to one another, but that by no means means they're related.

I don't mean to be rude but

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMFiSrYWUAEko7I.png

http://i.imgur.com/5vcDc.jpg

Looking similar does not mean people are related.

I support incest as an exception to TWYS. Character names are also technically an exception, and incest is sort of an extension of that. I think this exception on average benefits users, who can search for or blacklist incest.

Furrin_Gok said:
I can look at images of similar looking characters and enjoy it, but if I see the "incest" tag it just ruins it for me.

That is one downside to it. I hope it doesn't affect many users. Maybe there's another solution, like blocking the incest label on the tag list? You'd probably have to block the description and character names too since that sometimes reveals this information.

Character names are permitted to be tagged based on outside (official) source. Once you know who in is the image you have enough information to validate an incest tag...without needing a big arrow drawn on it that says "Beware da incest!"

(This means that incest is being tagged by TWYS. You see the two known characters, you see them getting it on, therefore you see incest.)

Wodahseht said:
Character names are permitted to be tagged based on outside (official) source. Once you know who in is the image you have enough information to validate an incest tag...without needing a big arrow drawn on it that says "Beware da incest!"

(This means that incest is being tagged by TWYS. You see the two known characters, you see them getting it on, therefore you see incest.)

This is a functionally different ruling than what is given on a lot of other things.

For example as brought up earlier. Nasus_(lol) and renekton_(lol) are blood brothers but look nothing alike and in the past it has been ruled that it should not be tagged as incest because "we don't tag lore here."

So actually no. Sorry.

GDelscribe said:
This is a functionally different ruling than what is given on a lot of other things.

1. What I stated isn't a ruling. It's how I see the situation and (as far as I can see) is logically sound. And I'm not talking about "a lot of other things" - I'm talking about incest.

GDelscribe said:
For example as brought up earlier. Nasus_(lol) and renekton_(lol) are blood brothers but look nothing alike and in the past it has been ruled that it should not be tagged as incest because "we don't tag lore here."

2. I probably would have appealed based on what I already stated. That said, I know there's plenty of "we're only allowed to use outside knowledge for names, not relationship status, familial status, gender, species, etc." But in my opinion, *familial relationship* is something that doesn't just change and is linked intimately to the character.

Judy Hopps is the daughter of Stu Hopps.
Twilight Sparkle is the sister of Shining Armor.
And in your example, Nasus is brother of Renekton.

Those things don't change even if they are depicted as different gender, species, or in a relationship with someone other than "canon." As such, simply knowing the identity of the individuals (something permitted outside of TWYS) should be enough to validate incest tag.

GDelscribe said:
So actually no. Sorry.

3. Was that really necessary? Came off as a bit rude when I was simply stating my view.

Im sorry that was rude.

If that would be the case there would have to be a lot of changes. My problem is the system can't work both ways. It either has to adhere to a strict set of rules. Or exceptions have to be accepted.

We dont tag lore. Thats what keeps being repeated again and again and again for everything else. So why should this be different?

GDelscribe said:
Im sorry that was rude.

No problem. Please just try to be careful, even when annoyed. Getting confrontational tends to raise people's hackles and make them even less likely to consider other opinions.

GDelscribe said:
If that would be the case there would have to be a lot of changes. My problem is the system can't work both ways. It either has to adhere to a strict set of rules. Or exceptions have to be accepted.

This is the problem with rules in general, and why the legal system is so fucked up and convoluted: It's impossible to make a set of rules that clearly delineates every single possibility. And trying to do so creates loopholes and conflicts out the wah-zoo.

It's one reason I've seen stated as to why this site tries to simplify by doing things like TWYS. It reduces the cases of people that don't know the lore getting in tagging wars with people that do know the lore...especially when it's far from unheard of for the source of the lore information to disappear over the years.

Exceptions have to be carefully considered and addressed as they appear. In this particular case, I already pointed out why I don't think it really counts as an "exception" since we're using information already permitted from outside to make that ruling. But it's still something that is going to be a source of headaches one way or another for admins for some time to come.

GDelscribe said:
We dont tag lore. Thats what keeps being repeated again and again and again for everything else. So why should this be different?

We don't tag lore because of what I said above (simplifying disputes and helping people find what they expect to see), and because lore is often not followed - or visible - in the image.

Eye color gets changed. Genders are swapped. Species morph. Sexual preferences are toyed with. Characters or body parts are sized up/down. Etc.

Sometimes the lore bits aren't even visible: Shark/tiger hybrid with no visible shark features except for gills hidden under fur of neck. Or Poison Ivy from Batman for example - she's really more plant than animal, but appears for all purposes human.

When people search images, they're expecting results that *show* what they searched for. That's the entire basis of TWYS: Let people find what they are *visually* expecting from their search results.

And incest is visible - *if* you know who the characters are. And again, since we are permitted to use outside knowledge to know identity, tagging incest makes sense within TWYS.

---

Granted that my entire argument can be voided by a ruling that "Just because you know their names doesn't mean you know they are from same family." And sadly, such a ruling is still perfectly possible.

---

Honestly, the best argument for continuing to allow incest to be tagged is the simple fact that there are so many people that either straight-up don't want to see incest...or that specifically want to see just that.

If the tag ever went away, it'd probably only take a few seconds before a public set was made for incest images and a wholesale effort was started to mass populate it for blacklisting/searching purposes.

---

I've gotten far more involved in this discussion than planned. So, I'm gonna bow out. Have fun.

In my opinion, incest should be split up.

• incest
• visible_incest
• assumed_incest (maybe "known" would be a better word?)

visible_incest is when incest can be assumed from the image/pool alone. This can only happen when the image/pool contains text boxes with words such as "bro" "mom", etc. It's the TWYS variant.

assumed_incest is based only on character knowledge. It's the TWYK variant.

Of course, this can be simplified. Since visible_incest will give you knowledge of the characters, it will logically always imply assumed_incest.

• assumed_incest alias to incest
• visible_incest

Here's a recent example. A couple pictures of two vulpix brothers sneaking a peek at an alolan ninetale's pussy were uploaded here recently. We know the vulpixes are brothers because they say so, and on FA the pictures are tagged with incest so we know the ninetales is related to them somehow. However the pictures uploaded here have not been tagged incest since the relationship isn't obvious. Should the image be tagged with incest?

https://e621.net/post/show/1012690

What 38 is referring to.

Siral_Exan said:
https://e621.net/post/show/1012690

What 38 is referring to.

Indeed! I have yet to learn how to link images.

38 said:
Indeed! I have yet to learn how to link images.

Copy the URL and paste it into the comment box, you can lead it with "*text here":URL to make the text visually change the URL, text here being an example. You can also do post #959756 by using "post #*post URL number*", in that example the URL's number is 959756

Finally, you can do post #959756 in the same manner you do post #, as "thumb #*post URL number*".

If you reply to this comment, you'll see what I mean a bit better.

Thirtyeight said:
Here's a recent example. A couple pictures of two vulpix brothers sneaking a peek at an alolan ninetale's pussy were uploaded here recently. We know the vulpixes are brothers because they say so, and on FA the pictures are tagged with incest so we know the ninetales is related to them somehow. However the pictures uploaded here have not been tagged incest since the relationship isn't obvious. Should the image be tagged with incest?

By the rules of twys. No. Logically yes but "we don't use outside information."

Siral_Exan said:
Copy the URL and paste it into the comment box, you can lead it with "*text here":URL to make the text visually change the URL, text here being an example. You can also do post #959756 by using "post #*post URL number*", in that example the URL's number is 959756

Finally, you can do post #959756 in the same manner you do post #, as "thumb #*post URL number*".

If you reply to this comment, you'll see what I mean a bit better.

post #1012692 post #1012690

Huzzah!

Incest and TWYS is just a recipe of disaster waiting to happen.

That is, unless it's selfcrest, also known as fucking yourself.

I don't think there is such a thing as a perfect system with a rule for every occasion. The best system is one that makes exceptions when necessary. TWYS is an excellent rule-set and 99% of the problems people have with it stem from people just being obstinate about not learning how to apply it. That said, it can't account for every situation and has to bend from time to time in order to work.

Maxpizzle said:
...It's an assumption, but sometimes assumptions are reasonable.

post #955177

I wouldn't tag that as incest, just because they're just laying next to each other not doing anything. But, what's every bit as non-obvious that it and 1637 other posts have is brother_and_sister. Suppose she was grabbing his dick or something; You'd only know to tag it incest because it also had a tag describing their relationship. So you're tagging what you see, but not in the image.

leomole said:
...Character names are also technically an exception...

Well...

post #56211

...sometimes

TWYS works for image elements, but the fact that we have abstract nouns involved in tags at all I think immediately refutes the idea that we're best served by sticking to it exclusively. I mean, clearly we don't already, but it wouldn't be better if we did. If you saw Yakko and Dot warner fucking, nobody would argue calling that incest, so why wouldn't the same thing apply to maybe lesser known characters that some poster or tagger knew from the artist's page were related or something? Seems like a weird bar to set.

Honestly, I think TWYS is taken to too far an extreme sometimes. It has merit of idea in the sense that it helps people find image content they want to see, in regards to body types and shapes vs. gender identity of trans gendered characters.

The problem is that sometimes outside information is useful in a piece. Like, some people here have commented that seeing an incest tag ruins their enjoyment of a piece but that's kind of selfish. Not every picture or animation is made for 'you' specifically to enjoy. Some people like incest as a kink after all, and having weird arbitrary bars to that information to honor some rigid rule makes it more difficult for them to find that information. And frankly, if you don't like incest that much then realistically you should be happy that tag exists for your blacklist.

Some people will go to kind of ridiculous lengths to purge tags from a piece, or even put misleading agendered tags on one, even when all evidence is otherwise clear, but I guess because if I can't see somebody's dick 24/7 then it's like Schrödinger's genitals just because they put some underwear on or something. And honestly it's frustrating because if your thing IS differently gendered (ie 'futanari') or trans gendered or herm characters then the tags are messed up. It's worse when those pictures are literally in a pool or child/parent nesting with the same character, and their pants come off and it's like the waveform collapse and surprise, it's a penis!

I remember seeing basically a situation where one guy was bent over ass first in one picture, then in another there was like, a foreground censor like a potted plant, and people acted like because his butthole could be seen but not his dick and balls basically he was a fucking angel from Dogma. It was like we weren't expected to have object permanence, like somebody played peek-a-boo and we were all toddlers.

Honestly, I think a lot of gripes would be lessened if some kind of 'identity gender' tag was used, separate from like.. I don't know what to call it. Pornography gender? Hah. Then people who want to just find vagina without regards to their social presentation can, and people who want their identity respected or just have a kink for trans gender can find what they want too.

But that's just my two cents, I guess, for the nothing it's worth.

Tagging incest can be tricky. I lament that it has to either be heavily implied or specifically established (most often using dialogue).

Incest is visually implied when two characters are of the same (or similar) species with an optional age/size difference. Such as post #581051 or post #390648. This argument does not always hold up, as the relationship is largely assumed. Some visual confirmations are subtle/hidden, such as a "family photo" in the background.

There are cases where the characters involved look so different (post #192645) that one would not have known they were related unless the characters' dialogue specifically established it. Such as post #451236

Seem like the only clear indication of an incestuous relation is when the characters are calling eachother mom/dad/bro/sis in an oddly-expositionally manner. ("What if mom and dad find out?", "I want your puppies Daddy!" etc.)

EDIT:
Since names are among the few types outside information that are allowed to be tagged, two characters having the same last name could also work.

Both incest and crossgender would be significantly less useful with a literal genie application of twys. Also, slippery slope arguments are even more obnoxious when they come from people who want to be at the bottom of the slope. Just saying.

The problem with the last name thought is it only works on characters with last names. Obviously, an artist doesn't have to give their characters last names (which irks the living fuck out of me...), so it may limit the application of incestuous to what can be read from the names, which clashes with source information and even possibly TWYS in cases where the characters do not look related.

This whole incest problem can (won't say will) be mitigated by having users use the wiki and make pages for the characters they make. That way, you have an on-site source as to who is family to who, along with who owns the characters and other potentially useful knowledge. Character wikis are rarely made unless it is by a artist whom is familiar with the site already, since people can format and create tags without recognizing that it's a bit more than making a new name.

Incest is too common as a fetish to wipe off the site, regardless of twys.
But I thought that technical_incest was already wiped... Evidently not. That's really the kind of thing that should be a set instead.

Yes, it should be TWYK. It is an exception to the general rules, but incest by its nature isn't obvious visually. It requires outside knowledge of the characters involved in order to be such, unless you want the only incest tag to be for those few images that mention familial relations in text bubbles. Furthermore, just because you're personally disturbed by incest doesn't mean it should be unlabeled as such; it's a fetish for a reason.

TWYS Incest tagging would be an unmanageable mess, and it doesn't matter that it's TWYK anyway since incest doesn't have any impact on the visuals of an image. Sex between siblings looks just like sex between an unrelated couple; context is everything in this case, and therefore context is necessary.

Furrin_Gok said:
Take the Japanese, for example, there are a lot of people from Japan who look very similar to one another, but that by no means means they're related.

Wow, okay, that was just said out loud. Can we go home now?

GDelscribe said:
Im sorry that was rude.

If that would be the case there would have to be a lot of changes. My problem is the system can't work both ways. It either has to adhere to a strict set of rules. Or exceptions have to be accepted.

We dont tag lore. Thats what keeps being repeated again and again and again for everything else. So why should this be different?

Here's the problem: you do tag lore. A lot. The blanket absolute of "we don't tag lore" that you claim is ironclad is simply not true. You do have exceptions to many rules, but being aware of those exceptions is what makes them manageable rather than pretending they don't exist.

All Pokemon on this site are properly tagged not only as Pokemon, but with the proper subspecies name as well, taken from a list of 720+ different species that exist only in anime and video games. A Persian will never be mislabeled as a cat on this site. If that is to be considered TWYS, then it's tag-what-you-see-unless-it-is-popular-enough-in-which-case-you-should-instead-tag-what-you-know. Frankly, TWYSUIIPEIWCYSITWYK is too much, so let's call it what it is: TWYK.

Incest is, by its nature, context-driven. If Incest is regarded as TWYS, then the tag itself becomes meaningless. Two siblings having sex looks just like an unrelated couple having sex; there is no visual indication to suggest one way or the other. Should all artists be expected to scribble in speech bubbles indicating incest, or should this site do the easier thing and keep Incest in the TWYK pile?

solais0pleasure said:
Wow, okay, that was just said out loud. Can we go home now?

Never met a class of Japanese foreign exchange students, or even seen a photo of a Japanese class? There's bound to be several who follow the stereotypical appearance, and yet they really do have no relation to one another. In person, you can find the small things to tell them apart in a couple of minutes, but artwork is often simplified, so similar appearing characters who came from the same city may actually look like twins, but still just happen to be neighbors.

Furrin_Gok said:
Never met a class of Japanese foreign exchange students, or even seen a photo of a Japanese class? There's bound to be several who follow the stereotypical appearance, and yet they really do have no relation to one another. In person, you can find the small things to tell them apart in a couple of minutes, but artwork is often simplified, so similar appearing characters who came from the same city may actually look like twins, but still just happen to be neighbors.

You do realize there's a stereotype in Japan that Americans look too much alike, right? Racism can go both ways, but that doesn't make it okay.

To answer your question: yes, I have been in such a classroom, and the illusion you're talking about fades really quickly if you pay the slightest bit of attention.

As for similar-looking characters not being related, that's why the incest tag should be TWYK so if two similar characters are in an explicit image together, then the tag actually has a use rather than being pointless conjecture.

(accidental repost)

GDelscribe said:
Yes absolutely. Theres a reason I've brought it up multiple times. Its hypocritical to include incest as a tag and then claim we use twys exclusively at all.

I think the real problem here is the claim that the site is TWYS-only, which is already false, in which case incest should absolutely be TWYK if you want to keep the incest tag. The original poster here already said incest disturbs them, so already there's a bias here that gives me the feeling they'd rather not keep the incest tag at all.

DamienG said:
A lot of important stuff.

I have nothing to say; bravo for a lot of good points. I will add that if there's a post that people can't agree on because a character's gender is so apparently ambiguous and we operate by TWYS but everyone claims to see something different, let's forgoe the tag wars and just tag it as both! Everyone wins. Is it a girly male? Is it a flat-chested dickgirl? Clearly, enough people agree with both versions, so just tag it as both and let future viewers' imaginations do the rest.

GDelscribe said:
By the rules of twys. No. Logically yes but "we don't use outside information."

Except you do, otherwise how would you know that's an Alolan Ninetales and not a feral fox OC? This is an example where TWYS creates more problems than it solves, and validates how incest tagging should be an exception. Without TWYK, images that aren't incest get labeled as such and vice versa. Where incest is involved, what you see in the image simply isn't enough. Incest is a weird tag because it does not connect to any visual evidence in the image. You literally cannot tag what you see because there is nothing to see. Exceptions should be made for exceptional tags. The point is, without outside information, the incest tag is utterly meaningless.

Ok. I'm literally quoting admin staff here word for word. Also no need to quadruple post for the same discussion.

The site is TWYS unless the tag itself is impossible (or too constrained) to tag without knowledge.

In general: It's TWYS
In case of character names and species: It's TWYK
In case of intersex and herms: It's TWYS
In case of incest: We're still deciding. But logically it should be TWYK. Tho I did propose a TWYS variant.

Delian said:
The site is TWYS unless the tag itself is impossible (or too constrained) to tag without knowledge.

In general: It's TWYS
In case of character names and species: It's TWYK
In case of intersex and herms: It's TWYS
In case of incest: We're still deciding. But logically it should be TWYK. Tho I did propose a TWYS variant.

General, I can agree with.
Species and names, I would say TWYKYS - if you can clearly see it's a certain character or species from their defining traits which are unique to them and them alone, then tag it. So basically, I agree.
Intersex and Herms... That's more trickier. TWYS can only get you so far if where the cock, folds or cleavage would be is unable to be seen. If you can clearly see where all three would be, then TWYS. If you can't see one's folds due to the angle they are at, then don't automatically assume they don't have one.
Finally, I would agree that TWYK should apply to incest. Or rather, TWYKYS.

Delian said:
The site is TWYS unless the tag itself is impossible (or too constrained) to tag without knowledge.

In general: It's TWYS
In case of character names and species: It's TWYK
In case of intersex and herms: It's TWYS
In case of incest: We're still deciding. But logically it should be TWYK. Tho I did propose a TWYS variant.

Then there's the crossgender tag to consider. Not only is it an exception to TWYS, it's an exception to TWYK as well. You can't tag something as crossgender unless you know it's supposed to be a different gender. Then, obviously, it defies prior knowledge of a character's gender by its nature by being the wrong gender. Truly an enigma among the tags.

And with Laitvee's concerns over dickgirl vs herm tagging, which I agree with TWYS on, it does bring up a particularly puzzling question.

If a character who is an established herm is tagged as a dickgirl per the rules of TWYS, should that character not then also be labeled as crossgender for being tagged as a gender other than their original one?

You need to consider a searcher's point of view.

If a person is searching for a herm, it means he definitely wants to see "a character with cock and pussy". It seems unreasonable to believe that he would want to find characters, where the character is turned away and isn't showing any genitals, even if the character is a known herm.

solais0pleasure said:
Then there's the crossgender tag to consider. Not only is it an exception to TWYS, it's an exception to TWYK as well. You can't tag something as crossgender unless you know it's supposed to be a different gender. Then, obviously, it defies prior knowledge of a character's gender by its nature by being the wrong gender. Truly an enigma among the tags.

That's because the "exception" to TWYK is TWYS. What knowledge about the character you are allowed to use and for what purpose when tagging crossgender, humanized, anthrofied, and feralized is very clearly defined. Stop trying to shove your agenda down our throats by being a disingenuous literal genie.

Delian said:
You need to consider a searcher's point of view.

If a person is searching for a herm, it means he definitely wants to see "a character with cock and pussy". It seems unreasonable to believe that he would want to find characters, where the character is turned away and isn't showing any genitals, even if the character is a known herm.

But on that point if I'm looking for pictures of a herm character, especially a specific picture that I don't recall the name to, I don't want pictures sanitized because they are only flashing an anus or are wearing a shirt or pants or something, and I wouldn't want to be looking at male only art, then dig deeper to find that they're herm in another picture.

Especially when some users can get.. very zealous with what they consider 'obvious' or not. Like, to me, a male doesn't become female just because they have a fig leaf in front of their genitals.

Without revealing too much personal info, I know that I've personally run afoul of both instances, as my preferences for what I'd want to see change from day to day.

Beanjam said:
That's because the "exception" to TWYK is TWYS. What knowledge about the character you are allowed to use and for what purpose when tagging crossgender, humanized, anthrofied, and feralized is very clearly defined. Stop trying to shove your agenda down our throats by being a disingenuous literal genie.

Well, it's easy to say a rule is clearly defined, but the crossgender tag is only explained by a scant three lines, and the description seems to fall in line with my interpretation, so if that's what you mean by a clear definition then I think you're agreeing with me? Hard to tell, cuz it sounds like you're harassing me at the same time. Anyway, it just says that if a character of one gender is tagged as a different gender then it warrants the crossgender tag. As an example, the page points out that a male or female being tagged as intersex also warrants crossgender. It says nothing directly about characters changed from imtersex to binary/intersex, but makes no exceptions either. Figuring out the answer here could help in the long run for clearing up gender tagging disputes as a whole.

And if there are this many tags that incorporate TWYK already, what's to stop incest tagging from getting same treatment down the line? Figuring that out is the agenda of this forum post, after all.

ClaiohmSolais said:
As an example, the page points out that a male or female being tagged as intersex also warrants crossgender. It says nothing directly about characters changed from imtersex to binary/intersex, but makes no exceptions either. Figuring out the answer here could help in the long run for clearing up gender tagging disputes as a whole.

You are just looking for things to be "confused" about now.

ClaiohmSolais said:
And if there are this many tags that incorporate TWYK already, what's to stop incest tagging from getting same treatment down the line? Figuring that out is the agenda of this forum post, after all.

And there's that slippery slope argument. Right on que.

Beanjam said:
You are just looking for things to be "confused" about now.

Actually, that one's a fair point. Shouldn't we tag intersexifications as crossgender, too?

Furrin_Gok said:
Actually, that one's a fair point. Shouldn't we tag intersexifications as crossgender, too?

General: crossgender said:
If it's not the character's original gender, then it's a crossgender.

No confusion is possible here.

I understand their confusion. We rarely tag genderswapped OCs as crossgender. Many OCs appear as multiple genders (for example artica_sparkle).

Beanjam said:
You are just looking for things to be "confused" about now.

And there's that slippery slope argument. Right on que.

No confusion is possible here.

Okay, it's not hard to tell if it's harassment anymore. Rather than retyping "you're wrong" in different ways over and over again, can we please keep this civil and actually present things to back up our points? You've said the rules are "ironclad" and "110%", that the first gender tagged on an image is to remain there forever and nobody can change it, that nobody is confused by a broad tag having a short description, but I'm afraid a lot of that is false.

I get that you don't personally like me for some reason, but please, keep it to yourself so you can focus on helping clear up to these other people what it is you understand that they don't.

As for my "slippery slope arguement", I'm just trying to keep things on topic to incest tagging if possible.

GDelscribe said:
Did you seriously unironically just call me literally evil for pointing this out?

You pointed out nothing; It's completely nonsensical to speak about a large group as if it has motives and beliefs (except with the aid of proper demographic research). This is exactly why I said evil -- you are propping up your argument with pure nonsense; intellectual corruptness. It's just standard political bullshit of saying emotionally compelling things that turn out to mean nothing at all.

Now if you want to accuse *admins* -- that is a group that is small enough that it might actually be meaningful to say they share opinions and can be hypocritical about those opinions. Once you'd demonstrated that they have any significant participation in tagging 'incest' or similar tags.

If you don't, you would just be doing the same thing: arguing for a case with no fucking clue whether it's true or even -can be- true. (yes, I consider that evil)

TLDR; your comment was pretending to be insight, but it actually was just a emotively-phrased logical paradox.

savageorange said:
You pointed out nothing; It's completely nonsensical to speak about a large group as if it has motives and beliefs (except with the aid of proper demographic research). This is exactly why I said evil -- you are propping up your argument with pure nonsense; intellectual corruptness. It's just standard political bullshit of saying emotionally compelling things that turn out to mean nothing at all.

Now if you want to accuse *admins* -- that is a group that is small enough that it might actually be meaningful to say they share opinions and can be hypocritical about those opinions. Once you'd demonstrated that they have any significant participation in tagging 'incest' or similar tags.

If you don't, you would just be doing the same thing: arguing for a case with no fucking clue whether it's true or even -can be- true. (yes, I consider that evil)

TLDR; your comment was pretending to be insight, but it actually was just a emotively-phrased logical paradox.

Do you understand the concept of satirical rhetoric? Because a lot of what has been said is that. To make a point.

Delian said:
In my opinion, incest should be split up.

• incest
• visible_incest
• assumed_incest (maybe "known" would be a better word?)

visible_incest is when incest can be assumed from the image/pool alone. This can only happen when the image/pool contains text boxes with words such as "bro" "mom", etc. It's the TWYS variant.

assumed_incest is based only on character knowledge. It's the TWYK variant.

Of course, this can be simplified. Since visible_incest will give you knowledge of the characters, it will logically always imply assumed_incest.

• assumed_incest alias to incest
• visible_incest

I 100% agree with incest tags being split up. This will allow users to both specifically search and specifically block any incest pictures, as well as allow users to search or add exceptions for assumed-incest.

This seems like the only possible way to avoid conflict, and has the least amount of cons to it.

Take post #1139896 for example. We know from a previous pool from this author that all these characters are related/sisters. If someone wanted to search for more incest pictures from the author, they wouldn't see this comic, because it's TWYS and there's no visible indicator of incest. But to them, they know that it clearly is the same characters.
Or vice-versa, somebody saw the incest comic before, decided to blacklist incest, and then found this comic. They'd probably recognize the characters from the incest comic, put two-and-two together, and complain about it not being tagged as incest.
And then there's the people that have incest blocked, but don't mind seeing incest pictures where the incest isn't at all portrayed in the images themselves. They end up missing out on the comic because of implied incest.

To satisfy all scenarios, the picture should be tagged as "implied_incest" (or something similar). Incest searches will be able to find it, and incest blockers wont see it, unless they specifically add an exception for implied_incest.

the picture should be tagged as "implied_incest" (or something similar). Incest searches will be able to find it, and incest blockers wont see it, unless they specifically add an exception for implied_incest.

Although I agree with the rest of your argument I don't like "implied_incest"...I just don't think "implied" is really the right word. The only other time I've seen "implied" used it's for implied_penetration...and in that case there is visual evidence that penetration is most likely happening. In post #1139896 I don't see the slightest hint of visual evidence for incest, until someone comes along and actually tells me "oh, but they're related".

"assumed_incest" is dumb...if you have to assume then don't tag it. Either find a source that says they're related or just don't tag it as such. There are waaaaaayyyyy too many images of milfy-looking women with younger boys that would have that tag slapped on it with no fucking research done if we allowed people to just "assume".

I think maybe "canon_incest" would be best. A canon is basically...the official version of a certain universe, and even original stories can have their own canon. So like...Dexter and Dexter's Mom...if they're fucking together it's "canon_incest"...even if it's not visible_incest because canonically they are mother and son no matter what.

Also...doesn't "visual_incest" become sort of problematic considering people can just LIE? For instance, I could draw a picture of Marge Simpson having sex with Ralph Wiggum and he could be saying "mommy's pussy feels so good!" Is that "visible_incest" now?" Just cause of that text? I think visible incest should definately have the caveat that if we KNOW two characters are not related, and one of them is just bullshitting or trying to talk dirty by calling the other "mommy" "daddy" "bro" whatever it should not be tagged as "visual_incest".