notnobody said:
Feel free to start explaining your charges at any time. I'm happy to have something wrong pointed out if it's there, but this useless nonsense isn't helping anything.

This should help you understand what I mean when I say 'done'.

Flipped back to the way it was because I'm done too.

Wait you reversed a solid decision based on good and complete evidence because one person shouted a bunch of nonsense for a couple of hours? Then where is the bar set? The opposition had nothing at all to offer, and the case I presented was solid and untouched.

notnobody said:
Wait you reversed a solid decision based on good and complete evidence because one person shouted a bunch of nonsense for a couple of hours? Then where is the bar set? The opposition had nothing at all to offer, and the case I presented was solid and untouched.

It doesn't matter, I'm done with aliases/implications.

Well that's fine if you just don't want to take part in those anymore. They clearly get ridiculously contentious, especially when people have real-world grievances with them like this and the other recent huge one. But someone else step in then and help adjudicate this. It's itching for resolution, and we're sitting here now with one-sided evidence for it.

post #1129079
foreskin on mouth.

Mario69 said:
post #1129079
foreskin on mouth.

This disturbs me greatly. Context sensitive, but still.

Mario69 said:
post #1129079
foreskin on mouth.

That's quite a nice uncut penis you've got there.

BlueDingo said:
That's quite a nice uncut penis you've got there.

technically it wasn't cut, just ripped off.

Doomguy666 said:
technically it wasn't cut, just ripped off.

Exactly. It wasn't cut, therefore it's uncut.

BlueDingo said:
That's quite a nice uncut penis you've got there.

That is like it was flayed off. It is not *cut*, though.

But I reiterate: disturbing as fuck. That's a close second to avulsions...

Are you kidding me? So now, because of a problem that literally isnt there the original problem is reintroduced. With clear evidence as to why its an issue.

And we lose one of the two admins doing implications / aliases because... of what? Salt?

Like. For real.

Seriously it was a good change to make. And theres ample evidence as to why it should be done and then when its actually changed you harass and bully about it... to the point where an admin literally undoes the change and then publicly says they wont do that job anymore i mean ok yeah good work guys.

Siral_Exan said:
That is like it was flayed off. It is not *cut*, though.

But I reiterate: disturbing as fuck. That's a close second to avulsions...

It looks cut to me. Most circumcisions (IE: tug and cut/non clamp based) result in that sort of thing so.

Its definitely "cut" and not uncut.

Thats the whole point your argument against the change was built on and its invalid.

GDelscribe said:
Its definitely "cut" and not uncut.

Thats the whole point your argument against the change was built on and its invalid.

I'm not arguing, though... reread what I said, I am comparing it to a flayed injury, specifying that the injury looks like something that is not a cut. Emphasis: injury.

All cuts are injuries. Thats an argument of semantics.

Again the foundation on which you original argument was built on is flawed.

Siral_Exan said:
That's a close second to avulsions...

Do not google "degloving". It's not as innocent as it sounds.

GDelscribe said:
It looks cut to me. Most circumcisions (IE: tug and cut/non clamp based) result in that sort of thing so.

Its definitely "cut" and not uncut.

Thats the whole point your argument against the change was built on and its invalid.

You aren't so good with jokes, are you? We're not putting forth an argument to justify the uncut tag on this image, we're pointing out a mistake caused by reversing the alias (the second time) since this should've been tagged foreskin (or severed_foreskin at least, I added that one myself) instead of uncut.

GDelscribe said:
All cuts are injuries. Thats an argument of semantics.

Again the foundation on which you original argument was built on is flawed.

Here, let me hold your hand, then: I have seen grotesque avulsions, and that ranks 2nd. The injury scale for what makes me squeamish is tearing the skin out (but not off), aka a kind of avulsion, tearing the skin off, and so forth not to be listed.

Don't continue with me in your argument. I am not arguing about the tag change.

So that image that came in two hours ago changed the occurrence of foreskin referring to a foreskin that's not attached from literally one in a million posts on the site to two in a million. Search for penis and penectomy and you get several pages of penises on the ground, on plates and tables, in mouths, anywhere. Obviously at least a couple of people either didn't read, didn't understand, or didn't care about the evidence I put together. Explain why foreskin is the only part that doesn't get a pass on keeping its name when it's removed, and maybe we have something to talk about. Otherwise, all I'm hearing is "this is my pet term and I don't care about how much sense it makes."

The idea was to use a more sensible tag, not to completely avoid aliasing entirely.

notnobody said:
So that image that came in two hours ago changed the occurrence of foreskin referring to a foreskin that's not attached from literally one in a million posts on the site to two in a million. Search for penis and penectomy and you get several pages of penises on the ground, on plates and tables, in mouths, anywhere. Obviously at least a couple of people either didn't read, didn't understand, or didn't care about the evidence I put together. Explain why foreskin is the only part that doesn't get a pass on keeping its name when it's removed, and maybe we have something to talk about. Otherwise, all I'm hearing is "this is my pet term and I don't care about how much sense it makes."

Even if it's just "One out of a million," it already proves it to be a poor choice. It's a direct example of why a better choice could be made, such as intact_foreskin. That image would definitely not be intact.

So are you advocating that we change penis to intact_penis? Because if one out of a million is sufficient to require that we specify that a given picture isn't the one of a million case, surely a hundred or more out of a million qualifies too, right? The same goes for arm, leg, testicle, eye, butt, clitoris, breast, nipple, labia, foot, hand, and all of the other things that show up removed more frequently than foreskin does. Right? If you just use the tag for a number of other body parts without an intact prefix, you're considerably more likely to see them in a removed state than you are with foreskin.

notnobody said:
So are you advocating that we change penis to intact_penis? Because if one out of a million is sufficient to require that we specify that a given picture isn't the one of a million case, surely a hundred or more out of a million qualifies too, right? The same goes for arm, leg, testicle, eye, butt, clitoris, breast, nipple, labia, foot, hand, and all of the other things that show up removed more frequently than foreskin does. Right? If you just use the tag for a number of other body parts without an intact prefix, you're considerably more likely to see them in a removed state than you are with foreskin.

And that's one for slippery slope. Looks like you want me to continue.

notnobody said:
So are you advocating that we change penis to intact_penis? Because if one out of a million is sufficient to require that we specify that a given picture isn't the one of a million case, surely a hundred or more out of a million qualifies too, right? The same goes for arm, leg, testicle, eye, butt, clitoris, breast, nipple, labia, foot, hand, and all of the other things that show up removed more frequently than foreskin does. Right? If you just use the tag for a number of other body parts without an intact prefix, you're considerably more likely to see them in a removed state than you are with foreskin.

Unlike foreskin, a penis still looks like a standard penis shape. This is what makes foreskin such an unusual exception: It's just skin.

If foreskin just looks like random unidentifiable skin when it's not attached, why by the rules of tag what you see would anyone validly still tag it as foreskin? Mutisija's worry was that by calling a part what it is no matter what, you'd open yourself to the possibility of seeing that part in a way you don't want. I say - yeah, no kidding, we do that with every part and filter what we don't want to see by filtering gore and severed tags. But you're saying that in this case, not only does it not have that problem any worse than others, but in fact it would lose the qualification to even get the tag in the first place, meaning that the problem is even further from the realm of possibility than I was giving it credit for in the first place. By that logic, we're even better served changing the tag than I was already claiming. In a picture with two frames, penis in both, first attached and then removed, you would tag penis and some removed version. In a picture with two frames, foreskin in both, first attached and then removed, you'd tag foreskin and...well maybe nothing. Identical situation, save for the fact that if it wasn't clearly identifiable in the second frame, you would just not need another tag, or if it did seem clearly identifiable, you'd just do like you do with penis and tag severed_foreskin or something. Not different at all.

notnobody said:
If foreskin just looks like random unidentifiable skin when it's not attached, why by the rules of tag what you see would anyone validly still tag it as foreskin? Mutisija's worry was that by calling a part what it is no matter what, you'd open yourself to the possibility of seeing that part in a way you don't want. I say - yeah, no kidding, we do that with every part and filter what we don't want to see by filtering gore and severed tags. But you're saying that in this case, not only does it not have that problem any worse than others, but in fact it would lose the qualification to even get the tag in the first place, meaning that the problem is even further from the realm of possibility than I was giving it credit for in the first place. By that logic, we're even better served changing the tag than I was already claiming. In a picture with two frames, penis in both, first attached and then removed, you would tag penis and some removed version. In a picture with two frames, foreskin in both, first attached and then removed, you'd tag foreskin and...well maybe nothing. Identical situation, save for the fact that if it wasn't clearly identifiable in the second frame, you would just not need another tag, or if it did seem clearly identifiable, you'd just do like you do with penis and tag severed_foreskin or something. Not different at all.

Did that torn foreskin image look like gore to you? Because it didn't to me.

Furrin_Gok said:
Did that torn foreskin image look like gore to you? Because it didn't to me.

Not by site standards. Medically, though, it would be, 'cause it is no longer attached to the body and would be bleeding. If we went by medical, however, literally all posts involving bleeding would be tagged as gore.

That, while grotesque in RL, is not the site definition of gore, which would be massive abrasions (skin damaged through friction, basically) , amputation(s) (assume not surgically), avulsions (skin torn away, but not off), excessive lacerations, or the non-specific term injury. It is surprising that I can't find more terms, there isn't one for when a chunk of flesh, and just that, is just missing.

If you look at the pics before it, it's really inflation popping, or whatever that fetish is called. Not that that's particularly relevant to tagging that image, but it's why it's so weird looking for what it sort of represents. It's not so much a severed foreskin as it is a broken piece of balloon. But I guess that sort of leans toward your point, furrin, that gore or not, once it's off, it's not necessarily even always right to tag it as such in an unidentifiable state.

BlueDingo said:
Do not google "degloving". It's not as innocent as it sounds.

You aren't so good with jokes, are you? We're not putting forth an argument to justify the uncut tag on this image, we're pointing out a mistake caused by reversing the alias (the second time) since this should've been tagged foreskin (or severed_foreskin at least, I added that one myself) instead of uncut.

Apologies, I'm frankly awful with humour and miss social cues at the best of times.

The whole argument for making the uncut tag be changed to foreskin in the first place was for that very reason.
The situation was fixed and then because... some ridiculous reason people found it necessary to complain without any actual recourse or actual argument in response, one of the main admins who works on aliases now abdicated that job and the original problem is back, again.

GDelscribe said:
The whole argument for making the uncut tag be changed to foreskin in the first place was for that very reason.

We already had a fix planned for it: alias uncut to intact_foreskin, then create a foreskin umbrella tag and implicate all foreskin-related tags to it.

But instead, someone decided to go solo and take advice from users who have never done any tagwork and have no idea how to build a functional tagsystem.

So I'm done babysitting this forum. Feel free to fuck up as many tags as you like.

Hold on. Did we just lose two staff members over dick skin?

Genjar said:
We already had a fix planned for it: alias uncut to intact_foreskin, then create a foreskin umbrella tag and implicate all foreskin-related tags to it.

But instead, someone decided to go solo and take advice from users who have never done any tagwork and have no idea how to build a functional tagsystem.

So I'm done babysitting this forum. Feel free to fuck up as many tags as you like.

This is the first anyone has heard of that specific thing. Youd made comments about one thing and not the other and maybe if there was more communication this sort of thing wouldnt be an issue in the first place.

You constantly berate us for "not knowing anything" and literally ended that with babysit implying were children but you never explained any plans etc or anything.

You want to call us all idiots? As well as parasprite and dont say you didnt because that is basically what you just did, but not be transparent enough for us to know whats going on?

No offense but its a two way street.

If Parasprite went and did that against your wishes maybe they didnt know that you had plans either.

Its called transparancy and communication. Something that clearly is an issue here more than the topic at hand.

GDelscribe said:
This is the first anyone has heard of that specific thing. Youd made comments about one thing and not the other and maybe if there was more communication this sort of thing wouldnt be an issue in the first place.

You constantly berate us for "not knowing anything" and literally ended that with babysit implying were children but you never explained any plans etc or anything.

You want to call us all idiots? As well as parasprite and dont say you didnt because that is basically what you just did, but not be transparent enough for us to know whats going on?

No offense but its a two way street.

If Parasprite went and did that against your wishes maybe they didnt know that you had plans either.

Its called transparancy and communication. Something that clearly is an issue here more than the topic at hand.

Agreed. You keep claiming things are going on "Behind the scenes," Genjar, which is a horrible thing for community suggestions.

GDelscribe said:
No offense but its a two way street.

No, it really isn't.
This is not a democracy, and what goes on behind the scenes is none of your concern.

Nimmy already handled this on page four, and that's where the discussion should've ended. Because he's the one who makes the rules here, not you.

But you and Furrin can keep arguing among yourselves and then wonder why nothing's happening. That's none of my concern anymore, thank gawd.

Genjar said:
No, it really isn't.
This is not a democracy, and what goes on behind the scenes is none of your concern.

Nimmy already handled this on page four, and that's where the discussion should've ended. Because he's the one who makes the rules here, not you.

But you and Furrin can keep arguing among yourselves and then wonder why nothing's happening. That's none of my concern anymore, thank gawd.

A quick reference to Notme's say on this, so we don't have to go to page 4 and scour.

I'm still for that.

Furrin_Gok said:
Agreed. You keep claiming things are going on "Behind the scenes," Genjar, which is a horrible thing for community suggestions.

Genjar said:
No, it really isn't.
This is not a democracy, and what goes on behind the scenes is none of your concern.

Nimmy already handled this on page four, and that's where the discussion should've ended. Because he's the one who makes the rules here, not you.

But you and Furrin can keep arguing among yourselves and then wonder why nothing's happening. That's none of my concern anymore, thank gawd.

Actually it is a two way street; the staff here is made up mainly from community members who have over time applied and volunteered to work as staff members.

The admins and other staff do clearly pay attention to the forums; and we have discussions on how to make things better. If those discussions didnt matter we wouldnt have sections devoted to discussing those matters.

Furthermore, the concept of the two way street? You do not get to call us ignorant or idiots who " have no idea how to build a functional tagsystem" in one breath and expect us to know everything in the next because nobody has clearly explained according to you. If were not knowledgeable enough then tell us how to because you haven't attempted to once. If you're really so good at it then explain how.

And like I said there's clearly a lack of communication even among the staff because if this is what happens then you're the one causing the problem here not us. You've done absolutely nothing but lord things over everyone else the entire time you've been in this thread for no damn reason.

If its none of your concern why bother coming back just to insult and be snarky?

What NMNY posted at https://e621.net/forum/show/218549 does make sense; but again has some of the same fundamental issues behind what inspired the thread to begin with. And again as I'd mentioned. I'm not explicitly against this. I just think that the umbrella term is better. (And by all standards and accounts it is.)

Parasprite also seemed to think so. And from last I checked Admins generally know what they're saying and doing around here.

Just because the topic makes you uncomfortable on a personal level or otherwise does not mean that people should stop discussing it; so your constant push for people to "Stop talking about it." is irrelevant and harmful to a community environment.

This might not be a democracy. But it isn't a dictatorship. We still discuss things and take issues up with staff. Transparency of action helps communities thrive and grow. It also helps arguments stop because when we know whats happening we dont have to deal with extra BS like what youve been complaining about.

You absolutely are to some degree meant to help the community learn, grow and get better. Transparency helps that immensely. You dont get to just go "OH BUT THERE WAS THIS (RANDOM THING) WE WERE PLANNING" after the fact and expect everyone to go along with that when literally nobody (Apparently even staff members like parasprite or Ratte) knew.

If things were as you say they were there would be no discussion at all so please; cut it out with the snark and the overlording. It doesnt help anyone or anything.

GDelscribe said:
Actually it is a two way street; the staff here is made up mainly from community members who have over time applied and volunteered to work as staff members.

Actually, most were handpicked from among the members who've shown that they know what they're doing, and (in case of new admins) can play along with others. The applications were a rare exception.

As for the rest: again, it's really none of your concern.
You were informed by me of the committee decision (which I was asked to pass on). You chose to ignore it and instead went on a tirade about how the committee hadn't read the thread. Then Ratte and Nimmy had to step in (by the way, intact_foreskin was Ratte's idea IIRC). You chose to ignore them too.

I don't know how you got the idea that you have the power to veto the administration, but you really should try to drop that habit. Because that kind of behavior is one of the reasons why the staff is leery of keeping you informed.

Anyway, the last I heard, the current plan is this:

• foreskin
• intact_foreskin (<- uncut)
• retracted_foreskin
• partially_retracted_foreskin
• long_foreskin
• phimosis
• cum_in_foreskin
• tongue_in_foreskin
• foreskin_pull
• foreskin_play

Any other common ones that should be implicated? And by the way, foreskin is already unimplicated. So you could start tagging it, although keep in mind that most posts will get the tag from the implications.

Genjar said:
(by the way, intact_foreskin was Ratte's idea IIRC).

I said it first, but then Ratte agreed one post after mine (excluding their post).

But Ratte will have a bigger voice, I'm just gonna chip my vote in and watch this place burn while people literally argue about dicks... (interpret as you will)

this whole situation is a huge train wreck

Whatever. I'm going to try and clean up the tag and add it appropriately.
As per usual you've ignored almost everything I've had to say instead framing what I'm saying as some sort of personal attack on you. I dont have any way to argue a point you'll actually listen to Genjar, so I'm not going to even try.

Whatever. It doesnt matter now, the tags are seperate and things are going to work out a lot better and a lot easier in the future. Intact_Penis will work just fine and with the tags separate I can actually tag things properly.

It works out.

So, I saw something... interesting, while browsing through my non-specific fetish: uncut and foreskin rival eachother, with uncut losing by nearly 300 posts, on Inkbunny. FurAffinity shows more results under uncut than foreskin, however I don't exactly know the search method FA uses.

This leads me to say that any benefitial change to foreskin is negligible, as our two big competitors use it at well (meaning it is intuitive enough for the people who frequent those sites), and we'd have to take into account the negative effects. I am not against changing it, however, if we clearly list why it was changed, and why it's for better, in "super sized bold text" in the uncut wiki. Not using foreskin as a tag doesn't harm the people who search, though, as other sites use uncut.