The tag implication #39239 hexatoy -> living_inflatable has been rejected.

Reason: hexatoys are living inflatable toys. according to their creator:

They're a collective of inflatable toys, all running separate instances of the same self-aware AI. (At least they're supposed to all be the same, but sometimes accidents happen at the factory, you know?)Also the entire collective counts as my fursona and nobody can stop me

https://twitter.com/inflatabahamut/status/1400895270456643590

(I've known them for many many years, like since 2007)
regardless of species the hexatoy is, they're inflatable. no exceptions. I dunno if Implication tags are made for characters and such, but I figured it was worth a shot, since theres so many pictures with hexatoys in them now. ^^;

EDIT: The tag implication hexatoy -> living_inflatable (forum #310747) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

Any reason this isn't an alias? I'm not seeing anything that sets these images apart from any other living inflatable. Lore-wise, these are robots made using the same AI, but we don't tag that kind of lore, y'know?

All technically the same person, just replicated many times over to become many toys for hugging and playing.

If this is an actual character, characters don't imply species. If this isn't an actual character, it has no reason to exist separately from living_inflatable.

lafcadio said:
If this is an actual character, characters don't imply species. If this isn't an actual character, it has no reason to exist separately from living_inflatable.

lordhayati said:
Also the entire collective counts as my fursona and nobody can stop me

I've brought up recently whether visually-disconnected iterations of a character should be the same for the purposes of tagging. To my knowledge the TWYS exemption for character tags was originally a matter of when there wasn't enough identifying information in-frame to determine who the character was without looking at sources.

Although this situation in particular seems like something e621's system straight up isn't designed for outside of dumping it into a copyright: tag.

magnuseffect said:
I've brought up recently whether visually-disconnected iterations of a character should be the same for the purposes of tagging. To my knowledge the TWYS exemption for character tags was originally a matter of when there wasn't enough identifying information in-frame to determine who the character was without looking at sources.

Although this situation in particular seems like something e621's system straight up isn't designed for outside of dumping it into a copyright: tag.

These guys aren't the same character though.

all running separate instances of the same self-aware AI. (At least they're supposed to all be the same, but sometimes accidents happen at the factory, you know?)

"Hexatoy" is the AI, and the AI is the "fursona" of the creator, not each individual body, who are disconnected and running their own copies of the originating program. They would react and learn from their environment, becoming different characters, and some of them end up with a corrupted copy that results in a different starting behavior.

Tagging a character that's a concept doesn't seem a good idea at all. They have no body of their own, they just have copies of themselves in other people's brains, in an unseen manner. This is why I think it should be aliased.
That said, a copyright might not be out of the question. A copyright could be tagged just on there being an inflation-tap with the circular word "HEXATOY" around it.

The tag implication hexatoy -> living_inflatable (forum #310747) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.