Implicating cum_belly → cum_inflation
Link to implication

Reason:

Is the inflated belly caused by the injection of a large amount of cum inside a character.

Related implications:

• cum_belly → belly_expansion.

belly_expansion → belly.

Related aliases:

• belly_inflation → belly_expansion.

Edit:

After some discussion has been decided that the following suggestion would be more appropriate:

Aliasing cum_belly → cum_inflation.

EDIT: The tag implication cum_belly -> cum_inflation (forum #220743) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

actually i think that it would be better if cum belly would be aliased to cum inflation.

Mutisija said:
actually i think that it would be better if cum belly would be aliased to cum inflation.

I don't konw, apparently exist another types of cum inflation.

e.g. post #1110678

However this is quite rare (probably 1%, or even less, of all cum inflations).

O16 said:
I don't konw, apparently exist another types of cum inflation.

e.g. post #1110678

However this is quite rare (probably 1%, or even less, of all cum inflations).

i think that the special cases should have their own tag thats implied to cum inflation, not the most common type of cum indflation. it would not make much sense to have a tag that's contents is 99% same as the cum inflation tag except that its not even nearly as commonly tagged.

Mutisija said:
i think that the special cases should have their own tag thats implied to cum inflation, not the most common type of cum indflation. it would not make much sense to have a tag that's contents is 99% same as the cum inflation tag except that its not even nearly as commonly tagged.

Ok then.

But should we also suggest the implication "cum_inflation → belly_expansion" and take the mistags in that ≤1% as an "acceptable collateral damage"?

O16 said:
Ok then.

But should we also suggest the implication "cum_inflation → belly_expansion" and take the mistags in that ≤1% as an "acceptable collateral damage"?

No. Collateral damage should be avoided whenever possible.

BlueDingo said:
No. Collateral damage should be avoided whenever possible.

This implication would fix, partially, a huge ploblem (hundreds of post missing an useful tag), but create a tiny one in the process (15 to 25 posts with an inadequate tag). Is this that bad?

O16 said:
This implication would fix, partially, a huge ploblem (hundreds of post missing an useful tag), but create a tiny one in the process (15 to 25 posts with an inadequate tag). Is this that bad?

yes it is. when person is looking for belly expansion, they do not want to see images of testicle expansion and when person blacklist belly expansion, they do not want cum inflation with testicle expansion blacklisted too. we cant start fucking up blacklists and search results just because people are lazy taggers.

The tag implication cum_belly -> cum_inflation (forum #220743) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.