Unimplicating imminent_vore -> vore
Link to implication

Reason:

Imminent vore is not only tagged when it looks like a character is unquestionably about to be eaten, but for situations where it looks like they're bound up by a hungry individual
post #1174587
post #1180465
post #1176287
None of these look anything like actual vore, but I can't just blacklist vore -imminent_vore because of comics like post #1177668

It's possible that the tag is being misued, but even images like post #1178915 aren't really "Actual vore" to me, even though it's obvious it's about to happen.

Your first example looks like "actual" vore to me (combining image and text).

O16 said:
Your first example looks like "actual" vore to me (combining image and text).

Would like to discuss that a little more, but I have a compromise. I will come back later.

Read text is TWYK for most instances. Very specific tags exist for text indicating things. Imminent Vore can be one of them, for they are indirectly declaring that they'll eat the person.

+1, this is a huge thorn in every vorephile's ass, when they actually want to see the damn vore.

Siral_Exan said:
+1, this is a huge thorn in every vorephile's ass, when they actually want to see the damn vore.

There is an option for this, is 'vore -imminent_vore' (and my ass is in perfectly well, thank you).
Also if someone dislikes "actual vore", but don't care about imminent vore, then he/she/it may blacklists 'vore -imminent_vore', pretty simple.
Sincerely, I never saw that as a problem and don't remember to have seen someone complaining about it until now.

O16 said:
There is an option for this, is 'vore -imminent_vore' (and my ass is in perfectly well, thank you).
Also if someone dislikes "actual vore", but don't care about imminent vore, then he/she/it may blacklists 'vore -imminent_vore', pretty simple.
Sincerely, I never saw that as a problem and don't remember to have seen someone complaining about it until now.

Except an image can feature both.

O16 said:
There is an option for this, is 'vore -imminent_vore' (and my ass is in perfectly well, thank you).
Also if someone dislikes "actual vore", but don't care about imminent vore, then he/she/it may blacklists 'vore -imminent_vore', pretty simple.
Sincerely, I never saw that as a problem and don't remember to have seen someone complaining about it until now.

Yes, because the solution to an deimplication is just "modify your blacklist"...

Vore is the consumption of living beings. If it is imminent, but did not happen yet, it is not vore. Imminent vore can exist in context, so it can exist as a tag, but when a person wants to find a living being either in the process or shown to have been consumed (excluding orifice or lack thereof, this is the general fetish), they would not want to find pages of a comic, or images in a sequence, etc., where there is not that... right?

Furrin_Gok said:
Except an image can feature both.

*facepalm*
I am sorry, didn't obesrved that fact (what is really shameful, specially since it was stated only three posts before).

I understed why you want it un-implicated, but I am still don't seeing this as a real issue; so for now I stay on the middleway.

+1

That's just stupid that imminent_vore implicates vore. It's something that's about to happen...it isn't happening yet...that's the whole point of the tag.

that would be like tagging every imminent_sex image with sex...what? It doesn't make sense AT ALL.

I'm guessing whoever approved that implication is just a vore-hater who was like "I don't wanna see vore, I don't even want to see vore that's about to happen, but I'm also really REALLY lazy and I don't want to have to type imminent_vore in my blacklist...THEY SHALL BE IMPLICATED!" Because screw actual logic.

Dyrone said:
I'm guessing whoever approved that implication is just a vore-hater who was like "I don't wanna see vore, I don't even want to see vore that's about to happen, but I'm also really REALLY lazy and I don't want to have to type imminent_vore in my blacklist...THEY SHALL BE IMPLICATED!" Because screw actual logic.

Well, when the implication wasn't described and is also a remnant from 5 years ago, I'm willing to say that this was from a mass implication list. This comment is a fairly big highlight, and this was what ultimately did it in...

Fortunately, we graced out with vore not implying eating, the only case of eating is with a mouth. Every other method of vore has its own tag that otherwise isn't eating.

Siral_Exan said:
Well, when the implication wasn't described and is also a remnant from 5 years ago, I'm willing to say that this was from a mass implication list. This comment is a fairly big highlight, and this was what ultimately did it in...

So...basically exactly what I said is exactly what happened. I do think it should be corrected now though. Simple logic should trump people's general distaste for a certain fetish.

Siral_Exan said:
Well, when the implication wasn't described and is also a remnant from 5 years ago, I'm willing to say that this was from a mass implication list. This comment is a fairly big highlight, and this was what ultimately did it in...

Fortunately, we graced out with vore not implying eating, the only case of eating is with a mouth. Every other method of vore has its own tag that otherwise isn't eating.

Can we really call that grace? If we didn't dodge that bullet, this would have been fixed eons ago.

Furrin_Gok said:
Can we really call that grace? If we didn't dodge that bullet, this would have been fixed eons ago.

*could*... this is relevant now, not five years ago. And if eating was implied, then it would have been a bigger target than imminent_vore, which means our topic now could be overlooked with eating taking the spotlight.

I ain't hap-hazarding a guess that this was intentional, through my eyes I see people who didn't know what they were talking about. Or people who didn't go the whole mile and think over the tags.

Well, this is as good a month as any to raise this thread from the dead!
So, I notice that imminent_vore is being used on images where the viewer is the one about to get eaten, both with and without indicative dialogue. I also notice that the imminent_vore wiki was only edited (well, completely replaced/rewritten) earlier this year to include "When it is implied (either through dialogue or action) that a character (or the viewer) is about to be swallowed, ingested, or inserted into the body of another." which is in obvious conflict with the TWYS rule. While the prior version was outdated, I don't think the current version is all good either. I couldn't find a thread that addressed whether or not this change was sanctioned by the admins. Some clarity is needed as to whether this tag is allowed to dodge the TWYS rule and under what circumstances it should be applied, with the wiki edited to reflect that. I am of the opinion that parts from the current and prior version should be combined and added onto in order to create a better, clearer wiki. Thoughts? Would especially like to hear from an admin on this, before I do any wiki editing.

*grumbles* sometimes I really wish people understood what a mess the tags were 7 years ago. We had a lot of voices working together, and the social perspective of what vore IS and is not has changed since then. (no really, it's kinda neat: a lot of niche kinks have become a lot more mainstream, while others have faded out. It's so strange to think of fetishes as fad-based.)

The 'bigger problem' is, in my perspective, that people have made a lot of adjustments to the 'structure' of the vore-related tags over the years. A nip here, a tuck there and things get jumbled up. Looking at the *vore* related implications, They've been tweaked 5 years ago, 3 years ago, 2 years ago...

and they're pretty inconsistent now.

I mean, for example: When I set this stuff up, 7 years ago, there were not *any* aliases or implications involved... or at least, very few. There weren't many picture there either: I remember going through ~all~ of them by hand to make sure they were properly tagged. We'd set it up so... Cock_vore implies absorption_vore, which implies vorarephilia and vorarephilia was used as a 'umbrella tag' for anything involving eating another being in some fashion... Omnomnom vore was just vore so you could easily search 'vore' for people eating people, while if you wanted body parts inhaling people you could search absoption_vore, or vorarephilia is you didn't really care, or wanted to black list everything. Not perfect, but it worked pretty well, y'know?

But 5 years ago, cock_vore was implied to 'vore' instead and 4 years ago, vorarephilia was aliased to vore... and 3 years ago absorption_vore was switched to imply vore instead.

It's a mess lol -- but that's what happens when you have a 'file structure' made by dozens of people, over multiple years. Stuff changes. opinions change. Design goals change. :)

(fun fact, when you submit/create an implication or alias, you get a message if someone deletes it. They can include a reason WHY they're deleting an implication, if they want. The deletion of Vore implies vorarephilia was deleted (4 years ago) with the statement "causing serious problems with implication." whoops. They changed stuff. :) Design goals change~

Siral_Exan said:
Well, when the implication wasn't described]

For the sake of mentioning, the reason field has not always existed. Some of the aliases/implications without a reasons predate that adjustment--jsut like some don't have dates. I don't think the forum post field always existed either, come to think of it. And at the time, we generally didn't use it that often. Now it's a familiar old tool, y'know?

(edit for errant markup markers marking things up)

SnowWolf said:
For the sake of mentioning, the reason field has not always existed. Some of the aliases/implications without a reasons predate that adjustment--jsut like some don't have dates. I don't think the forum post field always existed either, come to think of it. And at the time, we generally didn't use it that often. Now it's a familiar old tool, y'know?

Huh. Well, that's what happens when people with old feet throw out their old shoes. Thanks for explaining, I always felt like it was laziness due to "admins always being right" mentality.

SnowWolf said:
*grumbles* sometimes I really wish people understood what a mess the tags were 7 years ago. We had a lot of voices working together, and the social perspective of what vore IS and is not has changed since then. (no really, it's kinda neat: a lot of niche kinks have become a lot more mainstream, while others have faded out. It's so strange to think of fetishes as fad-based.)

The 'bigger problem' is, in my perspective, that people have made a lot of adjustments to the 'structure' of the vore-related tags over the years. A nip here, a tuck there and things get jumbled up. Looking at the *vore* related implications, They've been tweaked 5 years ago, 3 years ago, 2 years ago...

and they're pretty inconsistent now.

I mean, for example: When I set this stuff up, 7 years ago, there were not *any* aliases or implications involved... or at least, very few. There weren't many picture there either: I remember going through ~all~ of them by hand to make sure they were properly tagged. We'd set it up so... Cock_vore implies absorption_vore, which implies vorarephilia and vorarephilia was used as a 'umbrella tag' for anything involving eating another being in some fashion... Omnomnom vore was 'just vore' so you could easily search 'vore' for people eating people, while if you wanted body parts inahling people you could search absoption_vore, or vorarephilia is you didn't really care, or wanted to black list everthing. Not perfect, but it worked pretty well, y'know? But 5 years ago, cock_vore was implied to 'vore' instead and 4 years ago, vorarephilia was aliased to vore... and 3 years ago absorption_vore was switched to imply vore instead. It's a mess lol -- but that's what happens when you have a 'file structure' made by dozens of people, over multiple years. Stuff changes. opinions change. Design goals change. :) (fun fact, when you submit/create an implication or alias, you get a message if someone deletes it. They can include a reason WHY they're deleting an implication, if they want. The deletion of Vore implies vorarephilia was deleted with the statement "causing serious problems with implication." whoops. They changed stuff. :) Design goals change~ For the sake of mentioning, the reason field has not always existed. Some of the aliases/implications without a reasons predate that adjustment--jsut like some don't have dates. I don't think the forum post field always existed either, come to think of it. And at the time, we generally didn't use it that often. Now it's a familiar old tool, y'know? [/quote] Even with all of this, the implication I'm asking to be removed doesn't sound like it should have existed in the first place. Person A holding an open mouth near Person B isn't A actively eating B.

Siral_Exan said:
Huh. Well, that's what happens when people with old feet throw out their old shoes. Thanks for explaining, I always felt like it was laziness due to "admins always being right" mentality.

Nah. A lot of the time, it's also just.. "well this is obvious isn't it?" Making aliases and implications can be cumbersome, and adding "A gun is a ranged_weapon" to Gun implies ranged_weapon feels like a waste of time, especially when you have 30 other implications lined up too, all of which can be seen as, well, stating the obvious. :)

And in a lot of cases too, it's more.. "I can't imagine this changing" ... and that's.. . that's pretty human y'know? In high school, I couldn't imagine my best friends being anyone but who they were. I couldn't imagine being in love with anyone else when I was with my first boyfriend. I couldn't imagine being in love with anyone else when I was with my first girlfriend. ... we spent days debating aliases and implications... the site had been around only a few years. We made roads where they seemed reasonable, and we couldn't imagine a future that needed streets wide enough for cars and trucks when most people only had wagons. :)

"we're always right" isn't the case --- jsut more.. "I'm pretty sure this is the best solution" ... Sometimes we're wrong. :)

Furrin_Gok said:
Even with all of this, the implication I'm asking to be removed doesn't sound like it should have existed in the first place. Person A holding an open mouth near Person B isn't A actively eating B.

To be honest, I didn't really verbalize on opinion on that problem. I was jsut talking in general about tag-messes and tag-logic. :)

SnowWolf said:
*grumbles* sometimes I really wish people understood what a mess the tags were 7 years ago. We had a lot of voices working together, and the social perspective of what vore IS and is not has changed since then. (no really, it's kinda neat: a lot of niche kinks have become a lot more mainstream, while others have faded out. It's so strange to think of fetishes as fad-based.)

The 'bigger problem' is, in my perspective, that people have made a lot of adjustments to the 'structure' of the vore-related tags over the years. A nip here, a tuck there and things get jumbled up. Looking at the *vore* related implications, They've been tweaked 5 years ago, 3 years ago, 2 years ago...

and they're pretty inconsistent now.

I mean, for example: When I set this stuff up, 7 years ago, there were not *any* aliases or implications involved... or at least, very few. There weren't many picture there either: I remember going through ~all~ of them by hand to make sure they were properly tagged. We'd set it up so... Cock_vore implies absorption_vore, which implies vorarephilia and vorarephilia was used as a 'umbrella tag' for anything involving eating another being in some fashion... Omnomnom vore was just vore so you could easily search 'vore' for people eating people, while if you wanted body parts inhaling people you could search absoption_vore, or vorarephilia is you didn't really care, or wanted to black list everything. Not perfect, but it worked pretty well, y'know?

But 5 years ago, cock_vore was implied to 'vore' instead and 4 years ago, vorarephilia was aliased to vore... and 3 years ago absorption_vore was switched to imply vore instead.

It's a mess lol -- but that's what happens when you have a 'file structure' made by dozens of people, over multiple years. Stuff changes. opinions change. Design goals change. :)

(fun fact, when you submit/create an implication or alias, you get a message if someone deletes it. They can include a reason WHY they're deleting an implication, if they want. The deletion of Vore implies vorarephilia was deleted (4 years ago) with the statement "causing serious problems with implication." whoops. They changed stuff. :) Design goals change~

For the sake of mentioning, the reason field has not always existed. Some of the aliases/implications without a reasons predate that adjustment--jsut like some don't have dates. I don't think the forum post field always existed either, come to think of it. And at the time, we generally didn't use it that often. Now it's a familiar old tool, y'know?

(edit for errant markup markers marking things up)

Yeah, reading old wikis and forum threads I got that impression, quite interesting hearing of that time from somebody who was there! (well, I'm sure there are quite a few still-active people who were around then, but I don't get around much socially and haven't met most of them) Sometimes I find an old mess where things got really heated and nearly half involved got perma-banned somewhere between then and now, so I quietly step away... XD

LurkingLupinoyd said:
Yeah, reading old wikis and forum threads I got that impression, quite interesting hearing of that time from somebody who was there! (well, I'm sure there are quite a few still-active people who were around then,

On the forums... not so much I think. There are some people I kinda remember, but fof the few dozen people who post here in the forums regularly... not so much. I really miss some of my old buddies from back then -- we did argue a lot but:

but I don't get around much socially and haven't met most of them) Sometimes I find an old mess where things got really heated

Generally we all meant well, and for the most part we refrained from personal attacks -- at least the people I"m thinking of. There was oen guy who I HATED whenever I saw him post because he ALWAYS disagreed with me, but he meant well.

Even though dealing with probably was what lead to my eventual burn out *shrug*

but by and large, we all meant well.

and nearly half involved got perma-banned somewhere between then and now, so I quietly step away... XD

Well, that happens sometimes XD and sometimes there are other situations too. I can think of one dude who was a big participant on the site who decided that they no longer wanted to be a part of the website, asked to be banned, and when we refused to ban upon request, they started to threaten the website--with knowledge make good on their threats, I believe.

I am pretty positive they were not the only people who've opted to go out in a "burst of glory".... but generally speaking 'disagreeing with the mods' or "aruging in the forums" isn't 'enough' to get someone banned, especially not permanently. For that you need to continue to persistently be an idiot.. or abusive, lol (yelling at the people who gave you a negative is generalyl a bad idea. as is ban evading and... yeah.)

SnowWolf said:
On the forums... not so much I think. There are some people I kinda remember, but fof the few dozen people who post here in the forums regularly... not so much. I really miss some of my old buddies from back then -- we did argue a lot but:

Generally we all meant well, and for the most part we refrained from personal attacks -- at least the people I"m thinking of. There was oen guy who I HATED whenever I saw him post because he ALWAYS disagreed with me, but he meant well.

Even though dealing with probably was what lead to my eventual burn out *shrug*

but by and large, we all meant well.

Well, that happens sometimes XD and sometimes there are other situations too. I can think of one dude who was a big participant on the site who decided that they no longer wanted to be a part of the website, asked to be banned, and when we refused to ban upon request, they started to threaten the website--with knowledge make good on their threats, I believe.

I am pretty positive they were not the only people who've opted to go out in a "burst of glory".... but generally speaking 'disagreeing with the mods' or "aruging in the forums" isn't 'enough' to get someone banned, especially not permanently. For that you need to continue to persistently be an idiot.. or abusive, lol (yelling at the people who gave you a negative is generalyl a bad idea. as is ban evading and... yeah.)

Ah, that's a pity, it would be nice if the forums were a bit more active with more than alias/implication threads or endless discussion threads that devolve into name-calling. (I'm sure there are good threads still, they're just hard to find amongst the chaff and with the way the forum interface is)
Well-meaning people are generally good to have around, so long as they know when to let go of something when it's proved incorrect, I know myself that is sometimes a difficult thing for people to do!
Yeah, usually it was people with big records getting into one last argument before being banned. Well, that's one way to earn a ban! 0.o
I hope to avoid any more neutrals after stress in my life bled through into here in the form of passive-aggressive call-outs of people in the tag-reason field when I got irritated by old (sometimes years old) mistagging across tens of images. This site is addictive and I have to watch I don't too worked up over things!