Currently rule_34 is an invalid tag, a move made after a post 6 years ago (forum #21433). The argument made was that Rule 34 denotes use of ANY commercial character, therefore it would just be a redundancy today to tag every Zootopia, Pokemon, MLP, etc post with rule_34 and it would lose it's meaning.

What I'm purposing is that we don't use rule_34 for EVERY commercial character, instead only for the ones that truly match the meaning behind rule 34.

Everyone seems to have a different definition of what Rule 34 is, with the most widely accepted phrase being "If it exists, there is porn of it." This more or less conveys surprise. Nobody is surprised to see another Zooptopia post (which has almost 300 pages of results) or MLP (which has 750+ pages) or pokemon (which also has 750+ pages), etc.

What is surprising enough to qualify as Rule 34?

Some random examples - The Geico character (8 results), Rango (20 results), Tony the Tiger (120 results), Bolt (200 results), etc.

So how can we define what should or shouldn't be tagged as rule_34?

Easy. The character needs to meet two conditions - First is obvious, they need to hold some popularity in pop culture (a widely-known mascot, character in a Hollywood movie, commercial entity, etc). Second, they need to be under the max submission threshold. Characters with more than 500/1000/5000 results (or say, 10/50/100/etc pages) would no longer classify as being rule_34.

It's not that complicated, and the rule_34 tag would bring up surprising results that'll make you think, "Huh, there really is porn of everything"

+1. I'd rather blacklist rule_34 than all the series I care about.

Rule 34 actually just means "If it exists, there is porn of it," not "if it exists, there is a little porn of it." The tag would apply to everything already under rating:e, and regardless of how you try to redefine it, people won't follow that tagging for it.

Furrin_Gok said:
Rule 34 actually just means "If it exists, there is porn of it," not "if it exists, there is a little porn of it." The tag would apply to everything already under rating:e, and regardless of how you try to redefine it, people won't follow that tagging for it.

the idea is not to tag things pornographic in nature. the idea is to tag things that, if we were all normal human beings, would be amazed to see porn of. for instance, 69/11.

but it would be a bit of a clusterheck to tag, wouldn't it?

All I'm seeing is useless tag being insanely subjective.
-1

bad idea. you want to take a term that means "porn of virtually anything" and somehow make it only for specific content. how you are exactly planning to make every person on this site understand that its meant only for explicit fanart for popular content and not for joke r34 content of some toaster or serious r34 content of more obscure series?

like the amount of effort that would go into maintaining that mess makes it absolutely not worth it

Siral_Exan said:
I agree with this. I'll edit in a reason a little bit later, bad latency.

Stop doing this, thanks.

Ratte said:
Stop doing this, thanks.

Last I was told, I shouldn't be using cookie cutter arguments and/or repeat what others already said. Now, I have something to say but due to events I cannot control I wouldn't be able to accurately say it, and double posting / reword edits is frowned apon, since there is no way for this site to track edits on thread posts or comments. Should I not say "I have something to say, but can't at the moment", since I believe that I have something to be added (that hasn't been covered yet).

Siral_Exan said:
Last I was told, I shouldn't be using cookie cutter arguments and/or repeat what others already said. Now, I have something to say but due to events I cannot control I wouldn't be able to accurately say it, and double posting / reword edits is frowned apon, since there is no way for this site to track edits on thread posts or comments. Should I not say "I have something to say, but can't at the moment", since I believe that I have something to be added (that hasn't been covered yet).

Or you can actually post when you have something worth posting instead of "hey lemme just stick my bag in this seat, I'll be back in 5". Really, this isn't hard.

Ratte said:
Or you can actually post when you have something worth posting instead of "hey lemme just stick my bag in this seat, I'll be back in 5". Really, this isn't hard.

The future isn't so easily guessable. But, is it breaking any rule? True question, there is now conflicting points between the past and present. Either I be rude and redundant, or somewhat ominous but actually have a chance to say my piece.

Speaking before thinking is generally annoying as fuck.

Mario69 said:
All I'm seeing is useless tag being insanely subjective.
-1

Agreed. Things 'deserving' of such a tag versus images that don't can lead to a bunch of needless bickering that can be avoided. Such efforts ought to be put in tidying up/expanding on images needing proper series tags rather than a subjective catch-all.

Siral_Exan said:
The future isn't so easily guessable. But, is it breaking any rule? True question, there is now conflicting points between the past and present. Either I be rude and redundant, or somewhat ominous but actually have a chance to say my piece.

It's basically spam, so yes.

How is Bolt, at 200 posts, at all surprising at this point?

If we were going with your definition I'd want a max of maybe 10 posts before removing the tag. I'd actually use the tag for searching in that situation.

That said, it would be a hellish nightmare to try to maintain, so definitely not worth the effort.

the Only reason i can see this tag at All being used is if we made the tag a copyright tag and have it ONLY apply when the actual site is in use within an image/video/etc. Like how we use the tumblr, youtube, etc tags

I don't see the point of a "rule_34" tag as described. Perhaps in a way that facelessmess mentioned, but for a general tag, it doesn't seem at all useful, so I'm going to go with a -1.

Also, cfgv there is a simple workaround for your problem. In your blacklist, make a seperate line for each franchise you don't want to see porn of and add the metatag rating:e (you can also apply this for questionable artwork). This will block all explicit images related to that franchise.

For example, say you don't want to see MLP porn. In the blacklist write:

my_little_pony rating:e

This will block all explicit My Little Pony content, but leave the ones rated safe and questionable viewable.

i think, mathematically, any tag that relies on a certain amount of images being tagged would have to be sloppily automated, or obsessively maintained by a bored or dedicated tagger. so it's a downvote from me, just for pure practicality purposes.

The tag would make a lot of sense for egregious cases that can only be described as "Rule 34 strikes again". Not just characters, maybe not characters at all. Like when Google released that ghost cat thingy, it was blatantly obvious there will be porn of it within hours. No. Not that. That's not something worth tagging, for the same reason there's no tag for eyes or hands. You know, sun shines, water's wet and furries draw smut.

Instead there are those images that sorta defy imagination, like you never thought there's gonna be porn of it but here it is. Two ice cubes humping. Ipod facing headphones jack in a very suggestive manner. Munkelzahn's profile pic. Arguably living aircraft stuff. This way the tag would be useful.

Yeah it's gonna be subjective. No big deal, subjective tags can be useful. Think what_has_science_done. It would just need some clear policy to cut off the most likely abuse. Say if it's clearly an anthro or some cutesy animal, it's probably not worth tagging, it should be taken as a given. A better name for the tag may help as well, like maybe literally rule34_strikes_again.

The real trouble with this tag is that anything worth tagging arguably does not belong on E6. Well sometimes it does.

You could check the last pages of the copyright tags listing and skim for anything that seems surprising.

Maxpizzle said:
You could check the last pages of the copyright tags listing and skim for anything that seems surprising.

There's ~50 pages of 1's in that list. We should probably do something about that.

hslugs said:
Instead there are those images that sorta defy imagination, like you never thought there's gonna be porn of it but here it is. Two ice cubes humping. Ipod facing headphones jack in a very suggestive manner. Munkelzahn's profile pic. Arguably living aircraft stuff. This way the tag would be useful.

Got any examples that aren't or weren't originally inanimate objects?

BlueDingo said:
Got any examples that aren't or weren't originally inanimate objects?

Tough call.

post #1000101 post #679223 post #726329 post #420460 post #381264 post #319285 post #232344 post #41665 post #186955 post #752347

hslugs said:
Tough call.

post #726329

The one with the creeper and Steve isn't porn. The creeper is creeping up and about to kill Steve. That's a literal head. There is porn of the creeper, but that isn't one of them.