Implicating convenient_censorship → censored
Link to implication

Reason:

Convenient_censorship implies that a post is, at least partially, censored.

EDIT: The tag implication convenient_censorship -> censored (forum #273092) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

im against this implication. while they technically do same thing, it isnt really same thing. censoring is always done with the purpose of hiding something inappropriate, while convenient censorship isnt necessarily done with the intention of hiding something. it can be more like simple design choice that might appear as if it was hiding something.

post #1876642 post #1738129 post #1603623
like i really wouldnt call these as censored images even though there is things covering the strategic places (the second one is actually done to hide the dick, but it still doesnt you know... look like "censored").

also you gotta think what person is trying to get rid of when they are blacklisting "censored". would you think that they wouldnt want to see these? because almost always people blacklisting censored are trying to get rid of stuff like black bars and mosaic censoring

hiekkapillu said:
im against this implication. while they technically do same thing, it isnt really same thing. censoring is always done with the purpose of hiding something inappropriate, while convenient censorship isnt necessarily done with the intention of hiding something. it can be more like simple design choice that might appear as if it was hiding something.

I definitely see your point, though I feel that last one isn't really convenient_censorship.

It's probably more a subjective thing, but whenever I think about convenient_censorship I always presumed it'd be where it was more obvious that you were not seeing something, such as:
post #1878997

hiekkapillu said:
also you gotta think what person is trying to get rid of when they are blacklisting "censored". would you think that they wouldnt want to see these? because almost always people blacklisting censored are trying to get rid of stuff like black bars and mosaic censoring

This is what swung it for me, as I really didn't think of that aspect.

You could say that people wanting to block censor_bars should block that instead, but I feel it's under-tagged compared to censored, plus, like this, censor_bars doesn't imply censored. And, as you said, people blocking it would definitely be thinking more about actually censored images.

Thanks for that, I really didn't think about people blacklisting the tag.

I'm for the implication. Something has to be censored for it to be convenient_censorship. If something's not censored, how can it have been done conveniently?

user_22273 said:
censoring is always done with the purpose of hiding something inappropriate, while convenient censorship isnt necessarily done with the intention of hiding something.

I don't think intent should matter for TWYS. If something should be prominently visible but is obstructed, it's censored. Consider the kind of censorship on Japanese art. These are definitely not hiding what's there:
post #2696841 post #2696584
but it's obstructed to prevent clear visibility. Convenient_censorship is the same, with the main difference being that the censoring is done by objects that are part of the scene instead of a mosaic, bars, or other shapes artificially stamped overtop of the image.

user_22273 said:
also you gotta think what person is trying to get rid of when they are blacklisting "censored". would you think that they wouldnt want to see these? because almost always people blacklisting censored are trying to get rid of stuff like black bars and mosaic censoring

I dunno. I can see someone who blacklists censored not wanting to see post #2695735 or post #2515685 either. But if someone's fine with those, they can blacklist censored -convenient_censorship. It's just a type of censorship that implies an in-scene reason, compared to mosaic_censorship or <3_censor.

If something is censored, its censored. Absolutely yes. This shit drives me up the wall and having a single tag rather than two would be nice.

I'd argue that most convenient_censorship pics don't qualify as "censored". The word 'censored' means taking a piece of art and hiding or removing the objectifiable content. For a pic to be censored, there has to exist an uncensored version, whether that's another post on the site, behind a paywall, or buried on the artist's hard drive never to be seen. For most convenient_censorship posts, the uncensored version doesn't exist - the so-called "censorship" was an artistic choice incorporated into the original image. For example, for posts where a character is posing at an angle that obscures their genitals, a significant part of the image would have to be redrawn to "uncensor" it. Of course, there are pics where the artist takes their uncensored art and adds an object over the top to hide the lewd bits (e.g. Bikomation's teasers), but a lot of these pics would qualify for the creative_censorship tag instead.

jockjamdoorslam said:
I'd argue that most convenient_censorship pics don't qualify as "censored". The word 'censored' means taking a piece of art and hiding or removing the objectifiable content. For a pic to be censored, there has to exist an uncensored version, whether that's another post on the site, behind a paywall, or buried on the artist's hard drive never to be seen. For most convenient_censorship posts, the uncensored version doesn't exist - the so-called "censorship" was an artistic choice incorporated into the original image. For example, for posts where a character is posing at an angle that obscures their genitals, a significant part of the image would have to be redrawn to "uncensor" it. Of course, there are pics where the artist takes their uncensored art and adds an object over the top to hide the lewd bits (e.g. Bikomation's teasers), but a lot of these pics would qualify for the creative_censorship tag instead.

Complete semantics. Censorship is in the name for a reason and nobody wants to see it.

demesejha said:
Complete semantics. Censorship is in the name for a reason and nobody wants to see it.

...Of course it's semantics, words have meanings. You can't tag an image as 'censored' if it hasn't literally been censored. I think you're confusing this tag with creative_censorship.

jockjamdoorslam said:
For a pic to be censored, there has to exist an uncensored version

There does not. If it did, we couldn't tag most things as censored since we don't know whether an uncensored version exists. Especially given that Japan, where a lot of censored art here comes from, has very strict censorship laws, we have no way to know whether an artist decided to make an uncensored version, let alone find some way to release it. This would still be censored regardless of whether there is or ever was an official version without the black bars.

jockjamdoorslam said:
Of course, there are pics where the artist takes their uncensored art and adds an object over the top to hide the lewd bits (e.g. Bikomation's teasers), but a lot of these pics would qualify for the creative_censorship tag instead.

They're not mutually exclusive. creative_censorship is when the censor is "a bit more 'out there' than just pixelating a penis or putting a censor bar over a clitoris", and convenient_censorship is when a censor is "an item or body part in the foreground just "happens" to be obscuring the view of more explicit parts". A censored image can fall under both definitions... in fact, one could argue convenient_censorship is a form of creative_censorship, by these definitions ("an item or body part in the foreground" qualifies as being "more 'out there' than just pixelating a penis or putting a censor bar over a clitoris"). So convenient_censorship could instead imply creative_censorship (which in turn implies censored).

I'm not so sure about this. For me, maybe treat convenient_censorship the same as censor_bar. If an object of any kind blatantly obscures a part of a sexually explicit post, then it's censored, but if the object just "accidentally" or naturally obscure a part in the post that is non-sexual or just a simple nude portrait, then it isn't censored.

watsit said:
There does not. If it did, we couldn't tag most things as censored since we don't know whether an uncensored version exists. Especially given that Japan, where a lot of censored art here comes from, has very strict censorship laws, we have no way to know whether an artist decided to make an uncensored version, let alone find some way to release it. This would still be censored regardless of whether there is or ever was an official version without the black bars.

For the case of Japanese censor bars, the censorship is very clearly an element added over the picture. The artist would have to at some point drawn the lewd parts, at least in the draft stage, and then added the bars over the top - if a Japanese person draws a penis, they don't add the bars right in the middle of drawing, there's not some secret Japanese porn police that will swoop down on you as soon as you draw a complete penis. Like I said, the uncensored version may be "buried on the artist's hard drive never to be seen", or deleted/overwritten by the censored version, but it still obviously at some point existed.

The definition of "censored" is "having had objectionable content removed" - for a image to get the "censored" tag, it should be obvious that either something has been removed from the image, or censorship has been added to hide the lewd content. But take these examples:

post #2604968 post #2526543 post #2513952 post #2472869 post #2692621

There are lots of posts like this with the convenient_censorship tag where the artist has simply drawn a pose where the character's genitals can't be seen. If you were to argue that these are "censored" images because you their genitals has been blocked, then you could argue that any image where a character is wearing clothes is censored.

jockjamdoorslam said:
For the case of Japanese censor bars, the censorship is very clearly an element added over the picture. The artist would have to at some point drawn the lewd parts, at least in the draft stage, and then added the bars over the top - if a Japanese person draws a penis, they don't add the bars right in the middle of drawing, there's not some secret Japanese porn police that will swoop down on you as soon as you draw a complete penis. Like I said, the uncensored version may be "buried on the artist's hard drive never to be seen", or deleted/overwritten by the censored version, but it still obviously at some point existed.

The definition of "censored" is "having had objectionable content removed" - for a image to get the "censored" tag, it should be obvious that either something has been removed from the image, or censorship has been added to hide the lewd content. But take these examples:

post #2604968 post #2526543 post #2513952 post #2472869 post #2692621

There are lots of posts like this with the convenient_censorship tag where the artist has simply drawn a pose where the character's genitals can't be seen. If you were to argue that these are "censored" images because you their genitals has been blocked, then you could argue that any image where a character is wearing clothes is censored.

None of these except maybe the last should even be tagged as such

jockjamdoorslam said:
For the case of Japanese censor bars, the censorship is very clearly an element added over the picture. The artist would have to at some point drawn the lewd parts, at least in the draft stage, and then added the bars over the top

You might be surprised to learn that it's not abnormal for art to be drawn that way. How are we to know which images the artist drew lewd parts during the drafting stage, only for them to be covered up by clothing or someone's body parts? Same for 3D models... they are generally made with more details than would be necessary before clothes are put on them, and that can include naughty bits.

jockjamdoorslam said:
if a Japanese person draws a penis, they don't add the bars right in the middle of drawing, there's not some secret Japanese porn police that will swoop down on you as soon as you draw a complete penis. Like I said, the uncensored version may be "buried on the artist's hard drive never to be seen", or deleted/overwritten by the censored version, but it still obviously at some point existed.

And we have no way to determine when that's the case. How much of the penis was drawn before the bars were added? When does a few lines turn into a full penis? Your hyperbole aside, we simply don't know the creative process the artist went through when creating the image. We only see the final result, and that's what the tags are based on.

jockjamdoorslam said:
But take these examples:

post #2604968 post #2526543 post #2513952 post #2472869 post #2692621

To take your own argument, how do you know the artist didn't draw in naughty bits during the drafting phase? How do we know images like post #2415974 weren't made with a nude version first with their bits on full display? How do we know post #2526543 wasn't drawn with the character's penis initially visible to help line them up, only for it to be covered later by her body? It's not like there was secret police waiting to swoop in when they drew a pussy or penis before placing clothes, arms, legs, etc over top. The uncensored version may be "buried on the artist's hard drive never to be seen", or deleted/overwritten by the censored version, but there is a chance it existed.

I agree with Demesejha here, the first 4 shouldn't be considered convenient_censorship because the body placement is more deliberate on the parts of the characters, so it's less that it just "happens" to be obscuring their naughty bits and more "purposefully covering up" their naughty bits. Only in the last one can the hair be said to be causing convenient_censorship since since hair can't be controlled like your arms or legs, so it looks more that it just "happens" to be obscuring their nipples.

watsit said:
You might be surprised to learn that it's not abnormal for art to be drawn that way. How are we to know which images the artist drew lewd parts during the drafting stage, only for them to be covered up by clothing or someone's body parts? Same for 3D models... they are generally made with more details than would be necessary before clothes are put on them, and that can include naughty bits.

And we have no way to determine when that's the case. How much of the penis was drawn before the bars were added? When does a few lines turn into a full penis? Your hyperbole aside, we simply don't know the creative process the artist went through when creating the image. We only see the final result, and that's what the tags are based on.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. My point wasn't that there we must have physical proof that the uncensored version existed before you can add the censored tag. My point was that for a post to have the censored tag, it should be clear that something has been deliberately removed or hidden. In the case of censor_bar or mosaic_censorship, it is obvious that the sole reason for the big black bars or swarms of pixels to be there is to cover part of the image, nobody is adding them for aesthetic reasons.

watsit said:
Only in the last one can the hair be said to be causing convenient_censorship since since hair can't be controlled like your arms or legs, so it looks more that it just "happens" to be obscuring their nipples.

Herein lies the issue - sometimes, "just happens" just happens. The hair_covering_breasts tag aliases to convenient_censorship, but long hair, like most things, is affected by gravity, and can land wherever, including on a woman's boobs. The artist may simply like how that looks, you can't prove that they deliberately chose to censor the nipples. Indeed, there are plenty of examples of posts where the nipples are covered but the pussy is on full view.

This is the thread for an implication - if accepted, all posts with the convenient_censorship tag will get the censored tag too. I'm not saying that none of them should get the tag, there are plenty of these pics where a random object in the way has obviously been added for the sole reason of hiding the juicy bits, and you can tell either by the artist saying that the uncensored version is available for a price, or because the object has been layered over the top as blatantly as a black censor bar. For these pics, the creative_censorship tag (which does implicated censored) can be used in conjunction with the convenient_censorship tag. But not every pic with the convenient_censorship tag deserves to be tarred with the black brush of the censored tag. The censored tag is a meta tag, it should only apply to images that have literally been censored - it doesn't just mean "genitals_obscured". Otherwise, like I said, any image where a character is wearing clothes should also warrant the tag.

jockjamdoorslam said:
I'm not sure where you're going with this. My point wasn't that there we must have physical proof that the uncensored version existed before you can add the censored tag. My point was that for a post to have the censored tag, it should be clear that something has been deliberately removed or hidden.

And my point is we don't tag based on conjecture (could a naughty bit have been visible at some point during the image's creation?) or artist intent (did the artist intend to show off naughty bits, but hid them for some reason?). In the former case, we'd need to tag a lot more things as censored since it's not that abnormal for naughty bits to be drawn during the draft/sketch phase only to be covered up or removed when lining or coloring. And in the latter case, we have no way to verify that for many posts. All we can work with is what we see, and that's what we tag based on.

jockjamdoorslam said:
Herein lies the issue - sometimes, "just happens" just happens. The hair_covering_breasts tag aliases to convenient_censorship, but long hair, like most things, is affected by gravity, and can land wherever, including on a woman's boobs. The artist may simply like how that looks, you can't prove that they deliberately chose to censor the nipples. Indeed, there are plenty of examples of posts where the nipples are covered but the pussy is on full view.

Yes, which is why we don't tag based on what the artist intended. We can see the breasts in plain view, we know that hair isn't a limb that can be deliberately controlled by the character like an arm or fingers, so for locks of hair to just happen to cover up someone's nipples... well, that's a pretty convenient censoring of their nipples. It's still tagged as censored even if some other naughty bits are left uncensored (censoring the pussy and penis while leaving the breasts/nipples uncensored is common with Japanese censorship).

jockjamdoorslam said:
But not every pic with the convenient_censorship tag deserves to be tarred with the black brush of the censored tag. The censored tag is a meta tag, it should only apply to images that have literally been censored - it doesn't just mean "genitals_obscured". Otherwise, like I said, any image where a character is wearing clothes should also warrant the tag.

Simply wearing clothes is not censorship, convenient or not, and if a pic is not censored, convenient_censorship shouldn't be applied to it. As you say, it doesn't just mean "genitals_obscured", it means the image was censored by convenient means (in-scene logic, non-deliberate on the parts of the characters).

watsit said:
And my point is we don't tag based on conjecture (could a naughty bit have been visible at some point during the image's creation?) or artist intent (did the artist intend to show off naughty bits, but hid them for some reason?).

Yes, which is why we don't tag based on what the artist intended.

censored is a meta tag. TWYS doesn't apply to meta tags, meta tags refer to facts about the image itself. The only way to tell the difference between an unfinished pic and a sketch is if the artist has said it's a work in progress. If the artist says they drew a pic 5 years ago, it would get tagged 2016. The censored tag should apply if the image has had censorship applied to it. Censorship is an act performed by the artist (or whoever processed the image), it doesn't just mean you can't see certain parts of the image. Like I said, convenient_censorship can be censorship, but not always.

jockjamdoorslam said:
Like I said, convenient_censorship can be censorship, but not always.

I have yet to see an example of something that should be tagged convenient_censorship that's not censored. Some people may have tagged convenient_censorship on things that don't classify as censored, but that would be incorrect use of the tag. This isn't the first tag it happened to, and won't be the last.

watsit said:
I have yet to see an example of something that should be tagged convenient_censorship that's not censored. Some people may have tagged convenient_censorship on things that don't classify as censored, but that would be incorrect use of the tag. This isn't the first tag it happened to, and won't be the last.

This is the best example I can find:

post #2396609

One of the characters has their hair naturally flowing over their breasts, so it has the hair_covering_breasts tag, which implicates convenient_censorship. But can you honestly call it a censored image, when two out of three characters have their nipples and genitals on full display?

jockjamdoorslam said:
This is the best example I can find:

post #2396609

One of the characters has their hair naturally flowing over their breasts, so it has the hair_covering_breasts tag, which implicates convenient_censorship. But can you honestly call it a censored image, when two out of three characters have their nipples and genitals on full display?

The nipples are censored even if, perversely, the genitals aren't. Much as censor bars all over a character's genitals but not their nipples is still censored.

jockjamdoorslam said:
This is the best example I can find:

post #2396609

One of the characters has their hair naturally flowing over their breasts, so it has the hair_covering_breasts tag, which implicates convenient_censorship. But can you honestly call it a censored image, when two out of three characters have their nipples and genitals on full display?

Yes, that's still censorship. You only need one character to have one bit censored to qualify. Doesn't matter of everything else is uncensored.

clawstripe said:
The nipples are censored even if, perversely, the genitals aren't. Much as censor bars all over a character's genitals but not their nipples is still censored.

furrin_gok said:
Yes, that's still censorship. You only need one character to have one bit censored to qualify. Doesn't matter of everything else is uncensored.

Why should the artist choosing to draw hair covering a character's breasts automatically count as censorship, but the artist choosing to draw a bra covering their breasts not? If a character covers their crotch with their tail, it gets the Tail_censorship tag, which also implicates convenient_censorship, but if that gets automatically implicated to censored as well, why shouldn't it also count when a character is covering_self with their hand instead? If a character is "censoring" themselves, isn't that censorship?

If you want, you can make new tags for obstructed_nipples and obstructed_genitals, in the same way that obstructed_eyes is already a tag. This would cover any instances of in-image "censorship", whether that's an object blocking the view or a character self-censoring. But like I said, censored is a meta tag - meta tags don't refer to what you can and can't see, they refer to facts about the image itself, in this case, the fact that an element of the original image has been removed or hidden.

jockjamdoorslam said:
If a character covers their crotch with their tail, it gets the Tail_censorship tag, which also implicates convenient_censorship, but if that gets automatically implicated to censored as well, why shouldn't it also count when a character is covering_self with their hand instead?

Covering_self may count to being censored... depending on context. That can't be implicated though, since covering_self also includes the face and other non-genital body parts, and doesn't imply the character is nude (a clothed character that covers themselves with a blanket is covering themself, but wouldn't have their genitals exposed with the covering removed). The question is otherwise simple... is the image censored? If not, tail_censorship, convenient_censorship, creative_censorship, and others can't apply. There can't be a type of censorship of there's no censorship to begin with.

jockjamdoorslam said:
But like I said, censored is a meta tag - meta tags don't refer to what you can and can't see, they refer to facts about the image itself, in this case, the fact that an element of the original image has been removed or hidden.

And how does hair covering nipples not count as the nipples being hidden? We don't know the process the artist went through in creating the image, all we can see is there's exposes breasts where the nipples should be visible, but they're not because they just happen to be hidden by long flowing hair.

watsit said:
Covering_self may count to being censored... depending on context. That can't be implicated though, since covering_self also includes the face and other non-genital body parts, and doesn't imply the character is nude (a clothed character that covers themselves with a blanket is covering themself, but wouldn't have their genitals exposed with the covering removed). The question is otherwise simple... is the image censored? If not, tail_censorship, convenient_censorship, creative_censorship, and others can't apply. There can't be a type of censorship of there's no censorship to begin with.

We have different definitions of what the censored tag should mean. You're counting "in-universe" examples, like a character covering their own genitals. You don't want to implicate covering_self to censored, but the covering_breasts and covering_crotch tags exists, should they be implicated instead? I don't believe a character censoring themselves counts as the image being censored. After all, there are plenty of examples of skimpy clothing that serves no practical purpose other than covering the explicit parts, is that not self-censorship on the part of the character? tail_censorship and convenient_censorship are general tags, they refer to what is happeing in the image, but I believe that the censored tag, being a meta tag, should only apply to facts about the image itself.

And how does hair covering nipples not count as the nipples being hidden? We don't know the process the artist went through in creating the image, all we can see is there's exposes breasts where the nipples should be visible, but they're not because they just happen to be hidden by long flowing hair.

And how does a bra covering nipples not count as the nipples being hidden? I feel like we're going in circles here. Traditional censorship exists outside of the context of the image's contents - a censor_bar is very clearly an external layer on the fourth wall of the composition, like the artist's signature or a speech bubble; it does not exist "in-universe". The artist's process is irrelevant, no artist adds the censor bar first then draws around it - there was always at some point something underneath it, even if it was just pencil marks crossing the border of where the censor bar would be. As we can see that the censorship is clearly an external element added to the image with no other purpose than to censor, we can freely give the censored tag, no other proof is needed. But for a lot of images with the convenient_censorship tag, especially when the character is covering themselves, the "censorship" is part of the image's original composition - for pics with hair_covering_breasts or tail_censorship, if you remove the censoring element, you are left with a character who is either bald or an amputee. You need proof that the censorship has been added to the originial composition, either by having the uncensored version to compare it to or by knowing that an uncensored version exists - you need proof that the image has been censored, i.e. censorship has been applied to it.

Bumping this implication, so it maybe gets approved since older requests will be automatically declined in bulk.

user_22273 said:
im against this implication. while they technically do same thing, it isnt really same thing. censoring is always done with the purpose of hiding something inappropriate, while convenient censorship isnt necessarily done with the intention of hiding something. it can be more like simple design choice that might appear as if it was hiding something.

How do you know if it is the case? Does it say so in the description? Did the artist say "I havent censored the post, this is how it is supposed to look like". This way of thinking is TWYK, so this ism't a good argument. all these posts should have the censored tag.

I tried to make an implication request for this exact thing because posts that should have had the censored tag had it missing completly (and then getting an error since this request wouldve been a duplicate), for I noticed it was untagged on many posts, for example the ones below I just tagged it on.

post #4084609 post #4037069

In the pictures above, this censorship is done very intentionally, but as I said earlier this requires external information to know, so it isn't an argument. Any picture with convenient_censorship must be tagged censored as well, that would prevent this problem from happening.

jockjamdoorslam said:
This is the best example I can find:

post #2396609

One of the characters has their hair naturally flowing over their breasts, so it has the hair_covering_breasts tag, which implicates convenient_censorship. But can you honestly call it a censored image, when two out of three characters have their nipples and genitals on full display?

You know, I got the perfect compromise for this conundrum. A fully_censored tag if everything naughty in an image is censored.

The tag implication convenient_censorship -> censored (forum #273092) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.