The bulk update request #1039 is active.

create alias avali_(original) (6) -> avali (3156)

Reason: As per its wiki:

This tag is to denote that an individual in-post is an Avali, that is mostly accurate, or intended to be accurate, to the original creation by Ryuujinzero.

This is redundant since an original Avali is an Avali. The on model tag is used to denote depictions that are accurate to their source material, and other species tags don't have _(original) variants to denote being "accurate, or intended to be accurate, to the original", so it makes no sense for this to be special case.

It's also not in the correct category either, which can't be changed because of its use count.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1039 (forum #312261) has been approved by @slyroon.

Friendly reminder that when you slap breasts and plantigrade limbs onto a species that doesn't normally have them due to being semi-anthro, that's also grounds for the anthrofied tag.

magnuseffect said:
Friendly reminder that when you slap breasts and plantigrade limbs onto a species that doesn't normally have them due to being semi-anthro, that's also grounds for the anthrofied tag.

Aren't Avali already Anthro? Like, if you had a raptor who had usable arms, that would probably be anthro.
post #2765647 post #2715805
Like, I wouldn't call these feral.

furrin_gok said:
Aren't Avali already Anthro? Like, if you had a raptor who had usable arms, that would probably be anthro.
post #2765647 post #2715805
Like, I wouldn't call these feral.

Anthrofied counts when they're "more anthro than their original furry (animal-like) form (feral, semi-anthro, taur)". For example, midnight lycanroc is an anthro species. Some might say semi-anthro, but I certainly wouldn't call them feral like midday lycanroc or dusk lycanroc. But you can still have depictions of an anthro midnight lycanroc that has a much more humanized body shape and proportions that is still well within "anthro" boundaries. It's "more anthro" as it's an animal depicted as much more human-like without becoming human or humanoid.

Why am I not surprised to learn that the vast bulk of uses of this tag were added by the same user causing all the drama in topic #28035...?

In fact, this appears to be the progenitor of this tag:

knotty_curls said:
I'd prefer you also include specific descriptors, like breasts and wings or lack thereof, whatever makes the species canon/non-canon. I'm willing to settle for a [species]_(original) precedent.

wat8548 said:
Why am I not surprised to learn that the vast bulk of uses of this tag were added by the same user causing all the drama in topic #28035...?

In fact, this appears to be the progenitor of this tag:

I don't see why this tag must be looked over again. I've not seen a complaint about it since it's creation and the use for the tag is evident. the conversation from above has already happened. Also, just as a small nitpick, i don't really intend to cause drama. My intentions were made clear in the topic where this tag was discussed, multiple times. If Avali_(original) is not a suitable tag, and the precident for this sort of tag is not acceptable, i will still continue to seek the creation of a tag, or use of a pre-existing tag, to fit the same purpose as Avali_(original).

watsit said:
The bulk update request #1039 is active.

create alias avali_(original) (6) -> avali (3156)

Reason: As per its wiki:
This is redundant since an original Avali is an Avali. The on model tag is used to denote depictions that are accurate to their source material, and other species tags don't have _(original) variants to denote being "accurate, or intended to be accurate, to the original", so it makes no sense for this to be special case.

It's also not in the correct category either, which can't be changed because of its use count.

If anyone is reading, i do have a few problems with this logic. Most of which were already touched upon in the previous forum about this. Firstly:

Depictions of copyrighted characters which are, regardless of subject matter, stylistically nigh indistinguishable from the original source material.

this is the description of the On_model tag. This does not fit Avali, they are not copyrighted, and we're not talking about style here. Style is not the issue that Avali_(original) solves. Hence why the wiki for Avali_(original) specifically states that stylistic differences and inconsistencies are not reason for the tag to be excluded from a post. There is no mention of an original art style, or style at all, because the entire issue revolves around anatomy, and a mental creation. Not a show, comic, movie, etc. On_model would be more suited for posts that resemble Ryujiin's original avali art, which is not what i or anyone else wants. To use it in the same fashion as Avali_(original) would be missuse of the On_model tag.

As for the fact that other species do not have '_(original)' variants, such is the point of a 'precedent'. There's no reason to erase a tag, simply because similar ones don't exist. and who's to say, those similar potential tags shouldn't exist? as i've said before my personal attracting sphere of caring, is contained within anything avali related. I won't be the one to create a Sergal_(original) or Yinglet_(original) type tag or apply them to posts. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist, or that Avali_(original) shouldn't exist because those tags haven't been created yet.

halycon_fluff said:
If Avali_(original) is not a suitable tag, and the precident for this sort of tag is not acceptable, i will still continue to seek the creation of a tag, or use of a pre-existing tag, to fit the same purpose as Avali_(original).

To be honest, it sounds like you're trying to gate-keep here. You want have a tag for Avali that are "close enough" to be called "real"/original Avali, by who's standard? Who decides when a particular depiction of an Avali is close enough to be a "real" Avali? There are already tags to denote when a species depiction has anatomical deviations (non-mammal_breasts, anthrofied, etc). You can also create a Set to collect Avali posts that you find fit whatever criteria you want.

halycon_fluff said:
This does not fit Avali, they are not copyrighted

They are a fictional species with a look and anatomical structure defined by its creator for their use in some media. I think that's good enough to use the tag with, even if they may not technically be copyrighted.

halycon_fluff said:
Hence why the wiki for Avali_(original) specifically states that stylistic differences and inconsistencies are not reason for the tag to be excluded from a post. There is no mention of an original art style, or style at all, because the entire issue revolves around anatomy, and a mental creation.

This is a contradictory statement. It either "specifically states that stylistic differences and inconsistencies are not reason", or there "is no mention of an original art style, or style at all". It can't both specifically state something and have no mention of it.

The answer is it says the tag is for when they're "mostly accurate, or intended to be accurate", and "This list also does not apply to stylization, or things not specified in the wiki/list" with "If any of the list items are changed in a purely stylistic way, changes can safely be ignored. (i.e. simplified hands and feet, stick figures, abstract figures, etc.)"

This is similarly contradictory and self-defeating. The tag is for when they're "mostly accurate, or intended to be accurate", but it can be used when they don't look accurate at all, are abstract and even stick figures, and when they have anatomy that doesn't fit the wiki/list. So what is it?

halycon_fluff said:
As for the fact that other species do not have '_(original)' variants, such is the point of a 'precedent'. There's no reason to erase a tag, simply because similar ones don't exist. and who's to say, those similar potential tags shouldn't exist?

As I believe was discussed in the previous thread, that would lead to extreme tag bloat (there are nearly a thousand Pokemon species now, who knows how many Digimon, and any number of other created species beyond that, each eligible for an _(original) tag variant in this vein), tag wars over when an _(original) variant applies, as well as the tags being poorly used since relatively few people would know to use them (and those who do would have different standards by which to apply them).

There is a reason to erase a tag when it's a special-pleading case (e.g. if other tags in a similar vein wouldn't be/haven't been allowed), poorly utilized (if it's not effective for searching or blacklisting), ill-defined (unclear or subjective as to when it applies or not), where alternative tags exist which provide a similar function, and when something like a Set could work just as well.

watsit said:
To be honest, it sounds like you're trying to gate-keep here. You want have a tag for Avali that are "close enough" to be called "real"/original Avali, by who's standard? Who decides when a particular depiction of an Avali is close enough to be a "real" Avali? There are already tags to denote when a species depiction has anatomical deviations (non-mammal_breasts, anthrofied, etc). You can also create a Set to collect Avali posts that you find fit whatever criteria you want.

They are a fictional species with a look and anatomical structure defined by its creator for their use in some media. I think that's good enough to use the tag with, even if they may not technically be copyrighted.

This is a contradictory statement. It either "specifically states that stylistic differences and inconsistencies are not reason", or there "is no mention of an original art style, or style at all". It can't both specifically state something and have no mention of it.

The answer is it says the tag is for when they're "mostly accurate, or intended to be accurate", and "This list also does not apply to stylization, or things not specified in the wiki/list" with "If any of the list items are changed in a purely stylistic way, changes can safely be ignored. (i.e. simplified hands and feet, stick figures, abstract figures, etc.)"

This is similarly contradictory and self-defeating. The tag is for when they're "mostly accurate, or intended to be accurate", but it can be used when they don't look accurate at all, are abstract and even stick figures, and when they have anatomy that doesn't fit the wiki/list. So what is it?

As I believe was discussed in the previous thread, that would lead to extreme tag bloat (there are nearly a thousand Pokemon species now, who knows how many Digimon, and any number of other created species beyond that, each eligible for an _(original) tag variant in this vein), tag wars over when an _(original) variant applies, as well as the tags being poorly used since relatively few people would know to use them (and those who do would have different standards by which to apply them).

There is a reason to erase a tag when it's a special-pleading case (e.g. if other tags in a similar vein wouldn't be/haven't been allowed), poorly utilized (if it's not effective for searching or blacklisting), ill-defined (unclear or subjective as to when it applies or not), where alternative tags exist which provide a similar function, and when something like a Set could work just as well.

As explained before, wanting to see more of what i enjoy, is not gatekeeping. I've not once said anything about 'real' avali. The way you see me, and the reasons you think i'm doing this, are not the actual way i feel at all.

As for the on_model tag, if i go and start using that tag, what would stop you from labeling me a gatekeeper still? and what is to keep people from de-legitamizing my use of the tag, on the basis that it's missuse by the definition of the wiki for it? i want to outright avoid that possibility. Avali_(original) has served its purpose well. it is inclusive rather than exclusive like anatomically_inaccurate was, it sets its own precedent (which i'll get to) it has its purpose and fills it just fine, and there's been no complaints that i've seen, about its use.

I feel like the wiki is pretty clearly defined. I went out of my writing the thing to account for the issues brought up in the previous forum about this. It feels somewhat hard to believe that you're taking issue with my miss-speech in regards to "There is no mention of an original art style, or style at all" considering the entire point of the surrounding paragraph was to avoid missdirection and segways... but to clarify, style is not an issue. anatomy is the issue at hand. avali_(original) has a pre-requisite of the avali tag. so as long as the thing is e621 worthy to be called an avali, it can be inspected as an avali, and the anatomy evaluated. Didn't think that needed explanation.

As for the whole pokemon thing, what about just Pokemon_(original)? or better yet, pokemon are a perfect example of a time where the on_model tag is actually a fit. it's literally an example on the wiki. As for few people knowing how to use it, i don't really see evidence for that. kinda just seems like an assumption. and also, just a general issue, with every single tag on the site. that's the point of each tag having a wiki page. It's not special-pleading, it's not poorly utilized, it is very well defined, and your alternate tags are not an apt fit.

halycon_fluff said:
As explained before, wanting to see more of what i enjoy, is not gatekeeping.

Which you can do by creating a set, or finding tags that get closest to what you most enjoy. But making a new tag where you get to decide what constitutes an "original" Avali separate from the actual Avali tag, comes across as gatekeeping of what a "true" Avali is. Avali are creatures RyuujinZERO designed. Fan art of Avali can be done in a number of ways distinct from that -- some may have breasts, some may have full wings, some may have a penis, some may be more abstract -- who decides which different features put it into a different class of Avali deserving of its own separate tag?

halycon_fluff said:
As for the on_model tag, if i go and start using that tag, what would stop you from labeling me a gatekeeper still?

Because on_model has a set definition with clear usage. You don't decide which specific features are important, or when it's "mostly accurate" or if it was "intended" to be so. If it is indistinguishable from the source material, it's tagged, if it's not, it's not. If you use it inconsistent with that definition, others can report you for tagging abuse.

halycon_fluff said:
Avali_(original) has served its purpose well. it is inclusive rather than exclusive like anatomically_inaccurate was

It's inherently exclusive. Avali is the tag for all Avali. Where it comes to this, it's simply what you wanted from "anatomically_inaccurate" in different dressing, and if that could work, no one would've brought it up the issue way back then.

halycon_fluff said:
I feel like the wiki is pretty clearly defined.

Unfortunately it isn't, as it's contradictory. It defines the tag as when they're "mostly accurate, or intended to be accurate", and stating that if anything is different "in a purely stylistic way" (including all the way to being abstract stick figures), it still counts, despite how inaccurate that causes it to look. It also lists anatomical features, which don't actually need to be there (e.g. "3 toes and a dewclaw" is listed, while you've added it to posts that don't have a dewclaw ). So things like small feathers incapable of flight are "accurate" along side an arm-full of plumage, as are pencil-thin tails with a few butt feathers next to thicker feathery tails; but an extra hole just won't do compared to a cloaca. You even tagged it on one with a dog cock and anus, despite listing "cloacal genitals".

halycon_fluff said:
I went out of my writing the thing to account for the issues brought up in the previous forum about this.

I can tell, but that's the problem. The entire reason there was an issue to begin with was because of the idea of separating "accurate" Avali in the way you like (and isn't covered by other existing tags). It's up to your subjective preference as to what counts or not, which doesn't work with the tagging system. So in addressing the raised issues while still wanting to tag them the way you want, it resulted in a description that can allow almost anything, but you won't use on what you don't enjoy.

halycon_fluff said:
As for the whole pokemon thing, what about just Pokemon_(original)?

Because there's nearly a thousand separate pokemon forms, so it's entirely possible for the tag to apply to one pokemon in an image and not others. So a upright anthro salazzle with breasts and big cock and balls, would have Pokemon_(original) if there was a stylized but "original" salandit also shown.

halycon_fluff said:
As for few people knowing how to use it, i don't really see evidence for that.

Since you seem to be inconsistent with how to use the tag compared to how you tried to define it, I'd say that's good evidence of it not being used accurately.

watsit said:
Which you can do by creating a set, or finding tags that get closest to what you most enjoy. But making a new tag where you get to decide what constitutes an "original" Avali separate from the actual Avali tag, comes across as gatekeeping of what a "true" Avali is. Avali are creatures RyuujinZERO designed. Fan art of Avali can be done in a number of ways distinct from that -- some may have breasts, some may have full wings, some may have a penis, some may be more abstract -- who decides which different features put it into a different class of Avali deserving of its own separate tag?

Because on_model has a set definition with clear usage. You don't decide which specific features are important, or when it's "mostly accurate" or if it was "intended" to be so. If it is indistinguishable from the source material, it's tagged, if it's not, it's not. If you use it inconsistent with that definition, others can report you for tagging abuse.

It's inherently exclusive. Avali is the tag for all Avali. Where it comes to this, it's simply what you wanted from "anatomically_inaccurate" in different dressing, and if that could work, no one would've brought it up the issue way back then.

Unfortunately it isn't, as it's contradictory. It defines the tag as when they're "mostly accurate, or intended to be accurate", and stating that if anything is different "in a purely stylistic way" (including all the way to being abstract stick figures), it still counts, despite how inaccurate that causes it to look. It also lists anatomical features, which don't actually need to be there (e.g. "3 toes and a dewclaw" is listed, while you've added it to posts that don't have a dewclaw ). So things like small feathers incapable of flight are "accurate" along side an arm-full of plumage, as are pencil-thin tails with a few butt feathers next to thicker feathery tails; but an extra hole just won't do compared to a cloaca. You even tagged it on one with a dog cock and anus, despite listing "cloacal genitals".

I can tell, but that's the problem. The entire reason there was an issue to begin with was because of the idea of separating "accurate" Avali in the way you like (and isn't covered by other existing tags). It's up to your subjective preference as to what counts or not, which doesn't work with the tagging system. So in addressing the raised issues while still wanting to tag them the way you want, it resulted in a description that can allow almost anything, but you won't use on what you don't enjoy.

Because there's nearly a thousand separate pokemon forms, so it's entirely possible for the tag to apply to one pokemon in an image and not others. So a upright anthro salazzle with breasts and big cock and balls, would have Pokemon_(original) if there was a stylized but "original" salandit also shown.

Since you seem to be inconsistent with how to use the tag compared to how you tried to define it, I'd say that's good evidence of it not being used accurately.

look, i straight out give up on this. i'm not going to try and argue this with you any more. i've said what i need to say and i've explained my basic defenses for the use of the tag. Your arguments sound desperate at best, and your intentions with calling me a gatekeeper, and nitpicking irrelevant things, is not something i can currently deal with. I'd rather just let the vote run its course at this point. if you get your way via my exhaustion i'll start using on_model instead. But if a forum post pops up about its improper use, i'm pointing at you and this forum.

halycon_fluff said:
This does not fit Avali, they are not copyrighted

Pretty sure the ars_goetia isn't copyrighted either, but that doesn't stop it from having a tag.

halycon_fluff said:
pokemon are a perfect example of a time where the on_model tag is actually a fit. it's literally an example on the wiki.

The example in question being someone attempting to imitate the early Pokémon art style with newer Pokémon which were never drawn in that style, so clearly the art style isn't as important to the application of that tag as you tried to claim earlier.

wat8548 said:
Pretty sure the ars_goetia isn't copyrighted either, but that doesn't stop it from having a tag.
The example in question being someone attempting to imitate the early Pokémon art style with newer Pokémon which were never drawn in that style, so clearly the art style isn't as important to the application of that tag as you tried to claim earlier.

?... not sure you're following. the tag On_model specifies copyrighted materials. we're not talking about a copyright:Avali type tag. What you're saying wouldn't be applicable unless ars_goetia pics are also tagged with on_model.

also, the whole:

The example in question being someone attempting to imitate the early Pokémon art style with newer Pokémon which were never drawn in that style, so clearly the art style isn't as important to the application of that tag as you tried to claim earlier.

This is silly to me. how dissonant do you have to be? can you seriously look at the example given in the wiki, and tell me, style has nothing to do with it? did you even read the description of it? and regardless of any of that, what does what you said have anything to do with how the tag could be applied to avali?

The tag kind of does bother me, based on their writeup avali are an advanced society that has a high level of accepted body modification mainly involving cybernetics. Those modifications are even stated that they can be difficult to distinguish the level of augmentations an individual has due to advanced materials.

Under that pretense, what exactly prevents one from having augmentations that have cosmetic exteriors to simulate bodily features their race does not naturally have? Playing fenoxo's TITS, there is a character which comes from a race that does not naturally have breasts, but was augmented(in a very different manner, but the concept remains the same) to have breasts to fit their personal preference.

halycon_fluff said:
?... not sure you're following. the tag On_model specifies copyrighted materials.

You're reading way too far into wording semantics in the on_model wiki.
Not only was the copyright wording added by a member-level user, that wording wouldn't fit IP law anyway. (Copyright is for individual works, so individual artwork pieces of a character or species are copyrighted^{in which case everything is copyrighted so long as it's touched a webhost which operates a under a copyright licence system}, but identifiable features used across multiple works falls under trademark.)
But what I'm saying is that smaller wiki pages are written by literally just anybody who feels like it and their textual contents are not the definitive arbiter of what their tags mean unless also backed up by both implemented usage and discussion consensus if contested and also don't immediately trust what anyone claims about IP law.

Further note on everything being copyrighted and trademarked; actual registration is more of a fast-track through the legal system in the event that somebody infringes on the IP rights. Most of the time you see the ™ symbol the trademark isn't registered, it's more of an if you take this I'm gonna fight you claim. But everything which can be proven to be originally-sourced holds theoretical copyrighted/trademarked status as long as the owner has the funding required to prove its origins in court.

I do want to clarify that on_model likely isn't the cleanest solution to this. It does appear to have been intended specifically for individual characters' original artstyle, regardless of miswordings.
It might be better to form a species-level equivalent, unless it can be widely agreed that on_model should be applied more widely. inb4 resulting arguments about whether a member of a species is still species-accurate with non-species-accurate genitals

magnuseffect said:
I do want to clarify that on_model likely isn't the cleanest solution to this. It does appear to have been intended specifically for individual characters' original artstyle, regardless of miswordings.
It might be better to form a species-level equivalent, unless it can be widely agreed that on_model should be applied more widely. inb4 resulting arguments about whether a member of a species is still species-accurate with non-species-accurate genitals

magnuseffect said:
You're reading way too far into wording semantics in the on_model wiki.
Not only was the copyright wording added by a member-level user, that wording wouldn't fit IP law anyway. (Copyright is for individual works, so individual artwork pieces of a character or species are copyrighted^{in which case everything is copyrighted so long as it's touched a webhost which operates a under a copyright licence system}, but identifiable features used across multiple works falls under trademark.)
But what I'm saying is that smaller wiki pages are written by literally just anybody who feels like it and their textual contents are not the definitive arbiter of what their tags mean unless also backed up by both implemented usage and discussion consensus if contested and also don't immediately trust what anyone claims about IP law.

Further note on everything being copyrighted and trademarked; actual registration is more of a fast-track through the legal system in the event that somebody infringes on the IP rights. Most of the time you see the ™ symbol the trademark isn't registered, it's more of an if you take this I'm gonna fight you claim. But everything which can be proven to be originally-sourced holds theoretical copyrighted/trademarked status as long as the owner has the funding required to prove its origins in court.

The problem is hardly that avali is or isn't copyrighted. even if it was, what i'm saying is, just like ars_goetia tag, on_model is still not applicable. you can make avali a copyright, or use it regardless of the copyright, but your example of ars_goetia doesn't have an on_model type situation. I personally think avali would be the same, in that on_model doesn't really work for avali by the definition of the wiki. Remember that this is anatomy we're talking about here first and foremost. On_model is a tag about artstyle.

magnuseffect said:
I do want to clarify that on_model likely isn't the cleanest solution to this. It does appear to have been intended specifically for individual characters' original artstyle, regardless of miswordings.
It might be better to form a species-level equivalent, unless it can be widely agreed that on_model should be applied more widely. inb4 resulting arguments about whether a member of a species is still species-accurate with non-species-accurate genitals

i'm genuinely grateful that someone else can at least agree with me on this. I'm worried that if i go to start using on_model the way Watsit suggests, then someone else is going to get upset and make another forum post. I don't care what tag we use, as long as it fits, and we can use it without going around and around, and having all this drama about it, i'll happily go about using whatever it may be.

halycon_fluff said:
I'm worried that if i go to start using on_model the way Watsit suggests, then someone else is going to get upset and make another forum post.

The on_model tag is fairly well-established, I think. And since I suggested using it according to its wiki (i.e. when a depiction is stylistically nigh-indistinguishable from the source material), you shouldn't get in trouble for that. Of course, what you've been trying to get with using anatomically_inaccurate and avali_(original) isn't what on_model is, so trying to use it as a direct alternative to this isn't in line with the wiki. On model is simply one possible tag to use if you're looking for accurate depictions; if you care less about style, you have other tags that denote anatomy, like non-mammal_breasts, anthrofied, winged arms, and so on.

watsit said:
The on_model tag is fairly well-established, I think. And since I suggested using it according to its wiki (i.e. when a depiction is stylistically nigh-indistinguishable from the source material), you shouldn't get in trouble for that. Of course, what you've been trying to get with using anatomically_inaccurate and avali_(original) isn't what on_model is, so trying to use it as a direct alternative to this isn't in line with the wiki. On model is simply one possible tag to use if you're looking for accurate depictions; if you care less about style, you have other tags that denote anatomy, like non-mammal_breasts, anthrofied, winged arms, and so on.

then on_model is irrelevant to this, anatomy has been the focus since the first forum. i've repeatedly stated style is not what i'm referring to. i don't care if it's a stick figure, noir shading, cartoony, or hyper realistic. none of that has anything remotely to do with the entire point i've used both tags for. it's utterly clear to me that avali have a lore based anatomy that is defined well enough through the official descriptions and depictions. For the things that we know about avali, and are solidly depicted or described, there can easily be a guideline, as i set in Avali_(original). This is not my personal preference, it is only the things that we know for sure within official avali depictions. Once again it is utterly clear to me that this is separate from stylization, and allows flexibility for fields where solid depictions were never given, such as the exact nature of avalonian genitalia.

I've leveled before and stated this in the previous forum multiple times, so you can simply see where i'm coming from. Understand i am not alone in this either, the avali community is in near constant strife because of it.

When i grew passionate about avali, it was because of their lore, their distinctness, their culture, their anatomy, etc. they are interesting and something i want to see more of. But it is undeniable that alot of the fan art is extremely liberal of what even constitutes an avali. That makes it hard to find that same passion from the work Ryujiin did. It is not gatekeeping to say, i want more of what i'd found so long ago. I'm not telling anyone they can't be an avali. I'm not telling anyone they're not a real avali. My purpose is to apply tags to images that are fitting with the original avali content that started it all. I've not once tried to take down any art. Despite your perception the anatomically_inaccurate tag was not meant to upset anyone, and i've been extremely patient and dedicated to getting this solved. We may have a fundamental dissagreement about whether or not this tag should exist, or which tag we should or shouldn't use, but i struggle to find the willpower to even attempt defending myself when i'm being seen as some evil dude for this.

All i want is to make it easier to find the avali content i and alot of the community have loved. And if that can be done in one simple tag, which i do believe it can, then i will seek out a tag to do that. The distinctions are clear enough to me, there's a large enough post pool for it, there's plenty of demand, there've been no complaints, i've been specifically told that that the precedent is there, and it's a better option than anatomically_inaccurate would have been, because it doesn't risk upsetting people for the tag being on their post.

I feel like the request to get this tag aliased, is more about how you percieve me as a gatekeepr guarding 'real'vali' than the actual usefulness of the tag. It has caused no problems.

deadoon said:
The tag kind of does bother me, based on their writeup avali are an advanced society that has a high level of accepted body modification mainly involving cybernetics. Those modifications are even stated that they can be difficult to distinguish the level of augmentations an individual has due to advanced materials.

Under that pretense, what exactly prevents one from having augmentations that have cosmetic exteriors to simulate bodily features their race does not naturally have? Playing fenoxo's TITS, there is a character which comes from a race that does not naturally have breasts, but was augmented(in a very different manner, but the concept remains the same) to have breasts to fit their personal preference.

This argument is irrelevant to the tag, and is better suited for the avali triage official discord server. The Avali_(original) wiki specifically state that anything cybernetics related is not to be considered when applying the tag.

And before you say anything about "what if the breasts are cybernetic but just don't have any metal parts showing?" or something along those lines:
Tag what you see. If they aren't obvioulsy cybernetic, it's to be assumed they're organic based off that rule.

I'm not prejudiced against titvali, and this tag is not meant to exclude titvali OCs from anything. As much as that conversation is relevant in the avali community, it is not the point of this tag. I'm specifically trying to distance this disscussion and tag, from those disscussions.

halycon_fluff said:
then on_model is irrelevant to this, anatomy has been the focus since the first forum.

Irrelevant to you, but not irrelevant to people trying to find accurate/"original" Avali. It is one of many possible tags to cover what someone (not you) may be looking for with Avali accuracy. You've made it clear that no existing tags are good enough for you and nothing short of a tag you can use as you want will suffice, but that's not how tags work.

halycon_fluff said:
All i want is to make it easier to find the avali content i and alot of the community have loved.

Utilize the various tags that have been mentioned. Collect what you like into a set. Encourage other people to add to the set. You can have control over your set, to dictate what it's meant to be for and whether something fits or not. It doesn't even have to be limited to TWYS or be victim to a wiki description including or excluding what you didn't mean to.

halycon_fluff said:
This argument is irrelevant to the tag, and is better suited for the avali triage official discord server. The Avali_(original) wiki specifically state that anything cybernetics related is not to be considered when applying the tag.

And before you say anything about "what if the breasts are cybernetic but just don't have any metal parts showing?" or something along those lines:
Tag what you see. If they aren't obvioulsy cybernetic, it's to be assumed they're organic based off that rule.

I'm not prejudiced against titvali, and this tag is not meant to exclude titvali OCs from anything. As much as that conversation is relevant in the avali community, it is not the point of this tag. I'm specifically trying to distance this disscussion and tag, from those disscussions.

So it is your way of making or identifying a specifically "pure" version of avali? Because what I said was not just about breasts, but other potential features as well. The breasted character was simply an example that fits the same circumstances. Someone who was interested in features that their species does not naturally have, so they went out of their way to get them.

I am also referencing the wiki written by their creator as a reference, not this sites wiki. That seems to be a much more reliable source for details than the composite here.

Way back in 2014, the wording was this as written by ryuujin himself.

https://avali.fandom.com/wiki/Technology?diff=4343&oldid=4331
While virtually all Avali have augmentations such as their neural jack and medical nanites, a significant number also have more invasive physical augmentations (though developments in aesthetic design means they may be difficult to recognise as augmentations)

While the current 2021 wording is this and hard linked to the most version that is currently most recent:

https://avali.fandom.com/wiki/Technology?oldid=7805
A significant number of Avali citizens, however, have also received significantly more invasive physical augmentations (though superior materials technology means it may be difficult to recognize them as such).

I see something like them getting an augment to change their physique in a unique manner akin to a more invasive and advanced version of a tattoo. What better canvas than one's own body? Which is also inline with their society. Purity of form does not seem to be a societal issue as gits level augmentations exist, and you have a mild version of the cult mechanicus as well.

deadoon said:
So it is your way of making or identifying a specifically "pure" version of avali? Because what I said was not just about breasts, but other potential features as well. The breasted character was simply an example that fits the same circumstances. Someone who was interested in features that their species does not naturally have, so they went out of their way to get them.

I am also referencing the wiki written by their creator as a reference, not this sites wiki. That seems to be a much more reliable source for details than the composite here.

Way back in 2014, the wording was this as written by ryuujin himself.
While the current 2021 wording is this and hard linked to the most version that is currently most recent:
I see something like them getting an augment to change their physique in a unique manner akin to a more invasive and advanced version of a tattoo. What better canvas than one's own body? Which is also inline with their society. Purity of form does not seem to be a societal issue as gits level augmentations exist, and you have a mild version of the cult mechanicus as well.

Once again, a conversation for the avali official discord. There's nothing I dislike more than when someone talks past me and ignores what I said. I'm once again being labeled a puritan, for no good reason. The tag wiki is accepting of cybernetics as excuse for body parts that avali dof not naturally have. You do not need to requote the wiki to me, or anything about how avali use cybernetics. I obviously already know because it's accounted for in the avali_(original) wiki. All I said otherwise is that twys does not allow you to label every non-standard body part a cybernetic augmentation. Please don't just offload your hatred and anger onto me when we are in literal agreement.

I never said anything about pure avali, I know more about avali and that discussion than you realize, and you'd realize that if you read the wiki of the tag currently in discussion, or even just my reply to you. I never said that cybernetics are not an excuse for non-standard body parts, I in fact agree with you, and so does the wiki for the tag I wrote.

halycon_fluff said:
Once again, a conversation for the avali official discord. There's nothing I dislike more than when someone talks past me and ignores what I said. I'm once again being labeled a puritan, for no good reason. The tag wiki is accepting of cybernetics as excuse for body parts that avali dof not naturally have. You do not need to requote the wiki to me, or anything about how avali use cybernetics. I obviously already know because it's accounted for in the avali_(original) wiki. All I said otherwise is that twys does not allow you to label every non-standard body part a cybernetic augmentation. Please don't just offload your hatred and anger onto me when we are in literal agreement.

I never said anything about pure avali, I know more about avali and that discussion than you realize, and you'd realize that if you read the wiki of the tag currently in discussion, or even just my reply to you. I never said that cybernetics are not an excuse for non-standard body parts, I in fact agree with you, and so does the wiki for the tag I wrote.

If it isn't intended as a mark of purity, then what is it? That is how the wiki you wrote reads to me. Even the original creator viewed it as that.

Also, I played the mod back when starbound had giraffeKoala(it was before erchius horror) in it's version name(never played spore for any significant amount of time, so never dealt with that incarnation), and still have them there in my current install alongside FU. I am not "new" to their concept, and you don't need to talk down to people to try to get ahead. Additionally I am not offloading "hatred and anger", I am saying how it appears to me. Not even sure where you got that from.

deadoon said:
If it isn't intended as a mark of purity, then what is it? That is how the wiki you wrote reads to me. Even the original creator viewed it as that.

Also, I played the mod back when starbound had giraffeKoala(it was before erchius horror) in it's version name(never played spore for any significant amount of time, so never dealt with that incarnation), and still have them there in my current install alongside FU. I am not "new" to their concept, and you don't need to talk down to people to try to get ahead. Additionally I am not offloading "hatred and anger", I am saying how it appears to me. Not even sure where you got that from.

i'm not talking down to you. I'm asking that you treat me with respect and not assume that I myself do not know anything about avali. Are you intentionally reading what i'm saying wrong? how could you take what i said as talking down to you? how do you take it as me assuming you are new to avali? how did you read my reply and see it this way? I simply don't understand everyone's unending need to see me as a prejudiced asshole for this. You completely, and incomprehensibly missunderstand what i'm saying. It has to be intentional.

halycon_fluff said:
i'm not talking down to you. I'm asking that you treat me with respect and not assume that I myself do not know anything about avali. Are you intentionally reading what i'm saying wrong? how could you take what i said as talking down to you? how do you take it as me assuming you are new to avali? how did you read my reply and see it this way? I simply don't understand everyone's unending need to see me as a prejudiced asshole for this. You completely, and incomprehensibly missunderstand what i'm saying. It has to be intentional.

I know more about avali and that discussion than you realize, and you'd realize that if you read the wiki of the tag currently in discussion, or even just my reply to you.

I never said anything about what you know or do not know, you brought that up on your own accord. I was putting citations for my interpretations, both by original author and the current public facing phrasing. Saying I did not read(bolded) something which I had already acknowledged is talking down to people. Just as is the case of trying to position yourself as a higher authority by implying greater knowledge when faced with citations.

Please don't just offload your hatred and anger onto me when we are in literal agreement.

Where did this come from, and why is it there, if it wasn't an accusation.

Calling something pure is not bad inherently, but it does come with the implication that those not called that are impure. I admit it may not be the perfect term, but it is the closest I can think of. And the way that the wiki is written does have the feeling and can be easily interpreted of a mark of purity. The way it is written is a such that it only allows the most strict or pure(as defined by "without any extraneous and unnecessary elements.") interpretation of avali.

I never called you a puritan or puritanical(which has it's own meaning entirely), you implied I was calling you that.

If it isn't intended as a mark of purity, then what is it?

I want you to answer this.

deadoon said:
I never said anything about what you know or do not know, you brought that up on your own accord. I was putting citations for my interpretations, both by original author and the current public facing phrasing. Saying I did not read(bolded) something which I had already acknowledged is talking down to people. Just as is the case of trying to position yourself as a higher authority by implying greater knowledge when faced with citations.

Where did this come from, and why is it there, if it wasn't an accusation.

Calling something pure is not bad inherently, but it does come with the implication that those not called that are impure. I admit it may not be the perfect term, but it is the closest I can think of. And the way that the wiki is written does have the feeling and can be easily interpreted of a mark of purity. The way it is written is a such that it only allows the most strict or pure(as defined by "without any extraneous and unnecessary elements.") interpretation of avali.

I never called you a puritan or puritanical(which has it's own meaning entirely), you implied I was calling you that.

I want you to answer this.

If you want an answer to that, please, just read what i've said, in both this forum, and the previous. It is not a mark of purity, it is a tag to denote that the avali in an image is in line with the original creation of Ryujiin. I've explained this in painstaking detail across multiple posts, just read.

Also as for the knowledge of avali, me saying "i know more than you realize" is not to say "i know more than you" It is to say "i already know about the cybernetics". Your quotes from the avali wiki and Ryujiin are things that are already saturated in this argument, it is not even relevant to this conversation. You do not need to convince me with quotes, that avali use cybernetics and heavy augmentation, because i already know that. That is what i'm saying. Not that i know more than you. Furthermore, knowing that avali use augmentation, i specifically and intentionally added a disclaimer to the avali_(original) wiki, that cybernetics are not to be taken into account when applying the tag, meaning an avali, with cybernetics, or say, augmented legs, or tits, or anything else, can still be avali_(original) as long as those cybernetics are obviously artificial in some form.

If you fail to see that we agree, then i cannot continue conversing with you. Long before you ever came to this forum and made your post, and long before this tag was even made, it was already accepted that avali use cybernetics, and decided that it cannot, in the case of this tag, be used as a reason to apply the tag to every avali, because of the TWYS rule. You don't know that an avali in a post, with plantigrade legs for example, has augmented their legs, unless there is visual evidence of that. For the same reason you couldn't apply the cybernetics tag to a post like that, you cannot apply avali_(original) tag with the reason "the legs could just be augments".

halycon_fluff said:
If you want an answer to that, please, just read what i've said, in both this forum, and the previous. It is not a mark of purity, it is a tag to denote that the avali in an image is in line with the original creation of Ryujiin. I've explained this in painstaking detail across multiple posts, just read.

Also as for the knowledge of avali, me saying "i know more than you realize" is not to say "i know more than you" It is to say "i already know about the cybernetics". Your quotes from the avali wiki and Ryujiin are things that are already saturated in this argument, it is not even relevant to this conversation. You do not need to convince me with quotes, that avali use cybernetics and heavy augmentation, because i already know that. That is what i'm saying. Not that i know more than you. Furthermore, knowing that avali use augmentation, i specifically and intentionally added a disclaimer to the avali_(original) wiki, that cybernetics are not to be taken into account when applying the tag, meaning an avali, with cybernetics, or say, augmented legs, or tits, or anything else, can still be avali_(original) as long as those cybernetics are obviously artificial in some form.

If you fail to see that we agree, then i cannot continue conversing with you. Long before you ever came to this forum and made your post, and long before this tag was even made, it was already accepted that avali use cybernetics, and decided that it cannot, in the case of this tag, be used as a reason to apply the tag to every avali, because of the TWYS rule. You don't know that an avali in a post, with plantigrade legs for example, has augmented their legs, unless there is visual evidence of that. For the same reason you couldn't apply the cybernetics tag to a post like that, you cannot apply avali_(original) tag with the reason "the legs could just be augments".

My logic is that if augments can be made streamlined to the point of recognition failure, then it is hard or impossible to discount them even in cases of not being visible. Bringing up legs is a really bad path to go down, and I never wanted to mention legs for the reason that alternate arcs of motion for augments is already stated on the wiki, so I would avoid that canon subject.

I am not trying to convince you with those quotes, I am bringing in external and reliable sources(citations) on how I came to the conclusions that I did. Sources to back up the claims, suppositions, and potential implications I am making. Potential implications I brought up include a lack of or limited value in purity of form, as evidenced by the presence of voluntary and more extreme modifications such as those of the oracle cult. Edit: Such an implication can lead to the supposition that one might use augments to go rather than just change their form for functional reasons, they might change it for cosmetic or otherwise personal reasons.

And based way you just described the avali_(original) tag ("it is a tag to denote that the avali in an image is in line with the original creation of Ryujiin."), is saying that it is a mark of purity in the regards to many common definitions of pure like the one as I gave you. That is why I was asking you to answer the question, because you have been confirming it and describing it as such, but avoiding that phrase. Let me break down why to avoid misconceptions. To denote is to be an indicator of something, that is the same in context as a mark as I have been using it. And to be pure one would have to exclude elements not part of the description of the tag. If it is not a mark of purity, and rather a mark of an individual that has all standard traits that are not obscured in some way, one that has additional parts would still be eligible to receive it, or as an example you provided a "titvali" could still be called "original". Which ironically, breasts(or the lack there of) are not part of the description of the tag. Further basis of this being tags like "busty feral" does not preclude "feral"(it even implies it) despite them having additions beyond their natural or predefined form. Edit: What I mean by this is additions should be tagged, not exclusions, unless that excluded thing is implied such as the case of the featureless type of tags.

I have been trying to be civil here, with you saying I do not read what you post, saying I am calling you a puritan, saying I am offloading negative emotions towards you, and bringing up your knowledge of the subject without being prompted, it is getting exceptionally hard.

I am reading, stop saying I am not, that is part of the reason behind calling you out on talking down to people.

deadoon said:
My logic is that if augments can be made streamlined to the point of recognition failure, then it is hard or impossible to discount them even in cases of not being visible. Bringing up legs is a really bad path to go down, and I never wanted to mention legs for the reason that alternate arcs of motion for augments is already stated on the wiki, so I would avoid that canon subject.

I am not trying to convince you with those quotes, I am bringing in external and reliable sources(citations) on how I came to the conclusions that I did. Sources to back up the claims, suppositions, and potential implications I am making. Potential implications I brought up include a lack of or limited value in purity of form, as evidenced by the presence of voluntary and more extreme modifications such as those of the oracle cult. Edit: Such an implication can lead to the supposition that one might use augments to go rather than just change their form for functional reasons, they might change it for cosmetic or otherwise personal reasons.

And based way you just described the avali_(original) tag ("it is a tag to denote that the avali in an image is in line with the original creation of Ryujiin."), is saying that it is a mark of purity in the regards to many common definitions of pure like the one as I gave you. That is why I was asking you to answer the question, because you have been confirming it and describing it as such, but avoiding that phrase. Let me break down why to avoid misconceptions. To denote is to be an indicator of something, that is the same in context as a mark as I have been using it. And to be pure one would have to exclude elements not part of the description of the tag. If it is not a mark of purity, and rather a mark of an individual that has all standard traits that are not obscured in some way, one that has additional parts would still be eligible to receive it, or as an example you provided a "titvali" could still be called "original". Which ironically, breasts(or the lack there of) are not part of the description of the tag. Further basis of this being tags like "busty feral" does not preclude "feral"(it even implies it) despite them having additions beyond their natural or predefined form. Edit: What I mean by this is additions should be tagged, not exclusions, unless that excluded thing is implied such as the case of the featureless type of tags.

I have been trying to be civil here, with you saying I do not read what you post, saying I am calling you a puritan, saying I am offloading negative emotions towards you, and bringing up your knowledge of the subject without being prompted, it is getting exceptionally hard.

I am reading, stop saying I am not, that is part of the reason behind calling you out on talking down to people.

dude... what you're saying is utterly nonsensical.

I am not trying to convince you with those quotes, I am bringing in external and reliable sources(citations) on how I came to the conclusions that I did.

You are telling me why you think it should be that way. ergo, trying to convince me by explaining your logic. and nonetheless, this entirely disregards the point, i already know the information you brought up. That's the point i was making. You didn't need to bring it up. Relaku herself tried to have the exact same conversation with me in the previous post. I already know about this information. Which you should know, because it's in the tag wiki i wrote.

My logic is that if augments can be made streamlined to the point of recognition failure, then it is hard or impossible to discount them even in cases of not being visible.

I know your logic, but your logic applies in a conversation about "what makes an avali an avali" not a conversation about how to tag things in E621. When tagging, it doesn't matter the lore of the creature, if you can't see it, you don't tag it. Hence why i keep bringing up TWYS. It is not an argument about what is canon or not. As i said before (if you would please, for the love of god, read) we literally agree. Avali have extremely extended use of augmentation, and can use augmentation that are so realistic to the point where you cannot even tell the difference. But that doesn't mean anything for how you tag things on E6. so when you say this:

Bringing up legs is a really bad path to go down, and I never wanted to mention legs for the reason that alternate arcs of motion for augments is already stated on the wiki, so I would avoid that canon subject.

Makes me think you didn't read what i said at all. Because you evidently did not. because if you did read, when i said:

If you fail to see that we agree, then i cannot continue conversing with you. Long before you ever came to this forum and made your post, and long before this tag was even made, it was already accepted that avali use cybernetics, and decided that it cannot, in the case of this tag, be used as a reason to apply the tag to every avali, because of the TWYS rule. You don't know that an avali in a post, with plantigrade legs for example, has augmented their legs, unless there is visual evidence of that. For the same reason you couldn't apply the cybernetics tag to a post like that, you cannot apply avali_(original) tag with the reason "the legs could just be augments".

It'd be borderline impossible for someone to think, here, in the middle of E6, i'd be trying to have a conversation about what is canonical for avali lore. This is not a conversation about what is canon. This is not the place for that conversation. I am not here to argue about it, and nor have i yet, across the two forums this disscussion has been through. When i bring up legs, it is not about arguing whether or not avali augment their legs. It is to explain how TWYS works, and how the tag could only apply if the cybernetics were visably apparent. That is e621's rule. Not mine. You can't tag a character with male/female if there's no gender-discerning features. You can't tag a post with anal/vaginal if there is no discernable penetration. You can't tag a post with cybernetics, if there are no discernable cybernetics.

And based way you just described the avali_(original) tag ("it is a tag to denote that the avali in an image is in line with the original creation of Ryujiin."), is saying that it is a mark of purity
...
And to be pure one would have to exclude elements not part of the description of the tag.
...
Which ironically, breasts(or the lack there of) are not part of the description of the tag.

You are trying to see it as a mark of purity. You can wrap your definition around mine, call it a mark of purity all you want, but it is no more a mark of purity than any other tag. It is there to indicate a feature of a post, just as every other tag is. If you want to dissagree about whether or not that feature should have a tag, then we can talk about that, and argue that. But if you try to argue with me about why the tag is even there, and insist on continuing a conversation about what i myself think, i'm not going to engage.

If it is not a mark of purity, and rather a mark of an individual that has all standard traits that are not obscured in some way, one that has additional parts would still be eligible to receive it

So then any tag that is exclusive to any other is a mark of purity? Is anthro tag a mark of purity because it implies something isn't feral? Is female tag a mark of purity because it implies something isn't male? Is solo a mark of purity because it implies there can't be more than one character? How could you say that avali_(original) is a mark of purity, because it implies something has no extra body parts? Edit: Male is to denote something has a set of male genitalia, and/or exclusively male physical traits, and no female traits (otherwise tagged intersex.). Female is much the same but the other way around. They aren't marks of purity, and i don't think anyone would call them marks of purity. Avali_(original) is the same sort of tag, and works the same way. It is not a mark of purity.

I have been trying to be civil here, with you saying I do not read what you post, saying I am calling you a puritan, saying I am offloading negative emotions towards you, and bringing up your knowledge of the subject without being prompted, it is getting exceptionally hard.

I am reading, stop saying I am not, that is part of the reason behind calling you out on talking down to people.

Civil perhaps in the fact that you have not called me anything distasteful. But you are not coming to this conversation with a pretense that i am trying to create a 'mark of purity' as you call it. It is obvious how you see me, and the way you put your pre-conception onto me is painfully hopeless. I cannot have an easy conversation with someone, who tries to tell me what i believe, or what i want, while i'm actively telling you otherwise.

As for telling you that you aren't reading, i will demonstrate as shortly as i possibly can.

Potential implications I brought up include a lack of or limited value in purity of form, as evidenced by the presence of voluntary and more extreme modifications such as those of the oracle cult. Edit: Such an implication can lead to the supposition that one might use augments to go rather than just change their form for functional reasons, they might change it for cosmetic or otherwise personal reasons.

Never was a conversation about what avali would and wouldn't do, and i told you in no uncertain terms, that we agree on what avali do.

My logic is that if augments can be made streamlined to the point of recognition failure, then it is hard or impossible to discount them

I never discounted them, i stated they cannot be tagged, or treated as if they exist, when tagging, if they're not visible. (someone who's never heard of avali, and never read avali lore, can still tag avali based off of what they see. And if they don't see cybernetics, cybernetics will not be tagged. The only exceptions to the 'Tag what you see' rule, is for lore tags.)

..bringing up your knowledge of the subject without being prompted..

I've already explained why i brought up my knowledge. It is to explain that this conversation already happened, and is not relevant. It is not to talk down on you, or to say that i know more than you.

How could i think you've read anything i've sent, when issues such as the three above exist? You haven't even acknowleged what i've said about this conversation not being relevant to the tag. or the fact that we agree on things you seem to think we don't! You still think we're talking about whether or not avali even augment themselves, when i already told you that we agree, and that it doesn't matter!

deadoon said:
Further basis of this being tags like "busty feral" does not preclude "feral"(it even implies it) despite them having additions beyond their natural or predefined form.

Personally I'm not seeing full relevance with that specific example. I don't see this as equivalent to adding breasts to a semi-anthro anthro. Am I holding a double-standard, or is this just not something that fits together comfortably?

deadoon said:
My logic is that if augments can be made streamlined to the point of recognition failure, then it is hard or impossible to discount them even in cases of not being visible. Bringing up legs is a really bad path to go down, and I never wanted to mention legs for the reason that alternate arcs of motion for augments is already stated on the wiki, so I would avoid that canon subject.

Is this merely an argument against avali_(original) or an argument against any tagging distinction at all?
If the latter, concealed cybernetics ^{I'll keep away from the augment terminology as I've seen that clash with the tagging system already.} aren't relevant to tagging as any knowledge of their presence on a given character would be external.

halycon_fluff said:
Snip

Lets cut the extra side arguments, and let me boil things down to what I am saying, and why. I wasn't attributing any malice towards you, not even in the comment about "pure". I was trying to see if I understood what you were intending the tag to be.

I cited the avali wiki only as a means of backing up my implications and suppositions and create a logical path to my conclusions. I made reference to the character from TITS only to create a parallel of how one might use the technology available to them in the culture and society they exist in. I was not making any reference to or implication of how much knowledge you have on the subject, nor making specific reference towards avali with breasts. I can see how you could interpret it that way especially since you brought up the apparent term "titvali". I was not putting those citations for you in particular, I was putting those for further readers to see that I did not come to that conclusion from nowhere, which is why I was linking specific versions.

The way I was interpreting "original" is the same as how you described it yourself(a common definition in this context), as they were created and designed. I gave you the definition of pure(which is a common one, and has many similar wordings) that I based my question initially of the intent of the tag being for "pure" incarnations of avali and later shortening the phrasing as "mark of purity". Your apparent implications of "original" is the exact same as how I am using "pure", as both are without extra parts or changes. My interpretation of what you meant by original has not changed since the post I first made in this thread. My use of the word "pure" was to gain additional context, if any existed. "Mark of purity" as I am using it is as literal as possible, something that denotes that an individual does not apparently have anything beyond the statistically normal, natural baseline of their species.

My reading of the tag led to my feeling of it as being akin to purity and as such had biased me against the tag as a result, which partly led to me asking that question in the way I did. Using a real example human can be borne with a differing number of fingers is still human, but under your logic they would be ineligible of being called an "original" human. Using a lore example, one might get(or be born with) additional fingers on their hands, and thus they would no longer be eligible of being called "original", but one that went simpler augments might be, because those could be identified. My reading of the prior thread on this subject, and the tag you used and how fits in with how I came to have this feeling.

Using your sex(physical and external trait based) tag example, as one can classify an individual exclusively into male, intersex, female, or ambiguous. The final one in the specific cases species(or robot which is a species here) lacks sufficient gender dimorphism, and/or no significant traits are demonstrated either way or both are demonstrated with little else to go on. For the comparison to be complete in this scenario, a reflective tag would need to be made that could be used as a descriptor for those who are not "original", which might as easy as just giving ones that are not a tag akin to Avali_(variant) or Avali_(augmented), as those have limited negative implications as opposed to the feeling that only having one can provide. That phrasing can have multiple interpretations as some might be biological, magical, surgical, mechanical, or other reasons for their current state. That is in contrast to the older reflective term you used of anatomically_inaccurate, which has some definite negative implications, and has greater implications across the site when deployed in that manner. Example I would use is that a simpsons character normally has 4 fingers, but is human, which normally has 5, thus by the way interpreted would be deserving of the tag.

Anthro is descriptive, as it is a being of some a non-human species that has been given significant human traits not native to it. Ferals are those that remain mostly inline with their natural or archetypical, predominately beastlike state, but even so a notable degree of flexibility is allowed. Neither is "pure", a sliding scale between any species/race that could be classified as "feral" them and humans can be made, and people have made such charts. That relates reason I brought up busty_feral, as that tag is an individual which classifies as feral, but has human-like breasts.

It took me a bit too long to write this up to try to be as clear as I can. My perception of this tag and such are not without origins. Seriously, stop with the accusations. I'm not trying to be a bad actor here. I get what you are attempting as a whole, and how you want to defend a creation that has spun out of control, diverging and gained a life of it's own.

magnuseffect said:
Personally I'm not seeing full relevance with that specific example. I don't see this as equivalent to adding breasts to a semi-anthro anthro. Am I holding a double-standard, or is this just not something that fits together comfortably?

It is a parallel I am making. A busty feral is still a feral, just one with the addition of human-like breasts. An avali which fits all definitions provided by "original", but with the addition of breasts, it is not "original". I would say that busty feral should imply anthrofied under the descriptions given. Busty feral is just a character that classifies as feral, but has the kind breasts seen on humans, while anthrofied has the example of a feral character with humanoid breasts. Maybe I am missing an edge case somewhere. Yeah I did, transformation, in that case, busty_feral is a less restricted, but more specific term because it doesn't have that exception.

Is this merely an argument against avali_(original) or an argument against any tagging distinction at all?
If the latter, concealed cybernetics ^{I'll keep away from the augment terminology as I've seen that clash with the tagging system already.} aren't relevant to tagging as any knowledge of their presence on a given character would be external.

I'm using augment and cybernetics are interchangeably there sorry, augments are the overarching term used, cybernetics would be a subset. Exposed augments/cybernetics that are identifiable as such should be tagged here as cybernetics. My argument lies with that they are not always that, but due to their potentially unidentifiable nature as one justification against the "original", among others.

The thing about stances, legs, and specifically "arcs of motion" is that that is as described as one of many potential functions, and something I was going to avoid any mention as a result.

Now that the 4th has ended

deadoon said:
Lets cut the extra side arguments, and let me boil things down to what I am saying, and why. I wasn't attributing any malice towards you, not even in the comment about "pure". I was trying to see if I understood what you were intending the tag to be.

I cited the avali wiki only as a means of backing up my implications and suppositions and create a logical path to my conclusions. I made reference to the character from TITS only to create a parallel of how one might use the technology available to them in the culture and society they exist in. I was not making any reference to or implication of how much knowledge you have on the subject, nor making specific reference towards avali with breasts. I can see how you could interpret it that way especially since you brought up the apparent term "titvali". I was not putting those citations for you in particular, I was putting those for further readers to see that I did not come to that conclusion from nowhere, which is why I was linking specific versions.

The way I was interpreting "original" is the same as how you described it yourself(a common definition in this context), as they were created and designed. I gave you the definition of pure(which is a common one, and has many similar wordings) that I based my question initially of the intent of the tag being for "pure" incarnations of avali and later shortening the phrasing as "mark of purity". Your apparent implications of "original" is the exact same as how I am using "pure", as both are without extra parts or changes. My interpretation of what you meant by original has not changed since the post I first made in this thread. My use of the word "pure" was to gain additional context, if any existed. "Mark of purity" as I am using it is as literal as possible, something that denotes that an individual does not apparently have anything beyond the statistically normal, natural baseline of their species.

My reading of the tag led to my feeling of it as being akin to purity and as such had biased me against the tag as a result, which partly led to me asking that question in the way I did. Using a real example human can be borne with a differing number of fingers is still human, but under your logic they would be ineligible of being called an "original" human. Using a lore example, one might get(or be born with) additional fingers on their hands, and thus they would no longer be eligible of being called "original", but one that went simpler augments might be, because those could be identified. My reading of the prior thread on this subject, and the tag you used and how fits in with how I came to have this feeling.

Using your sex(physical and external trait based) tag example, as one can classify an individual exclusively into male, intersex, female, or ambiguous. The final one in the specific cases species(or robot which is a species here) lacks sufficient gender dimorphism, and/or no significant traits are demonstrated either way or both are demonstrated with little else to go on. For the comparison to be complete in this scenario, a reflective tag would need to be made that could be used as a descriptor for those who are not "original", which might as easy as just giving ones that are not a tag akin to Avali_(variant) or Avali_(augmented), as those have limited negative implications as opposed to the feeling that only having one can provide. That phrasing can have multiple interpretations as some might be biological, magical, surgical, mechanical, or other reasons for their current state. That is in contrast to the older reflective term you used of anatomically_inaccurate, which has some definite negative implications, and has greater implications across the site when deployed in that manner. Example I would use is that a simpsons character normally has 4 fingers, but is human, which normally has 5, thus by the way interpreted would be deserving of the tag.

Anthro is descriptive, as it is a being of some a non-human species that has been given significant human traits not native to it. Ferals are those that remain mostly inline with their natural or archetypical, predominately beastlike state, but even so a notable degree of flexibility is allowed. Neither is "pure", a sliding scale between any species/race that could be classified as "feral" them and humans can be made, and people have made such charts. That relates reason I brought up busty_feral, as that tag is an individual which classifies as feral, but has human-like breasts.

It took me a bit too long to write this up to try to be as clear as I can. My perception of this tag and such are not without origins. Seriously, stop with the accusations. I'm not trying to be a bad actor here. I get what you are attempting as a whole, and how you want to defend a creation that has spun out of control, diverging and gained a life of it's own.
It is a parallel I am making. A busty feral is still a feral, just one with the addition of human-like breasts. An avali which fits all definitions provided by "original", but with the addition of breasts, it is not "original". I would say that busty feral should imply anthrofied under the descriptions given. Busty feral is just a character that classifies as feral, but has the kind breasts seen on humans, while anthrofied has the example of a feral character with humanoid breasts. Maybe I am missing an edge case somewhere. Yeah I did, transformation, in that case, busty_feral is a less restricted, but more specific term because it doesn't have that exception.

I'm using augment and cybernetics are interchangeably there sorry, augments are the overarching term used, cybernetics would be a subset. Exposed augments/cybernetics that are identifiable as such should be tagged here as cybernetics. My argument lies with that they are not always that, but due to their potentially unidentifiable nature as one justification against the "original", among others.

The thing about stances, legs, and specifically "arcs of motion" is that that is as described as one of many potential functions, and something I was going to avoid any mention as a result.

Example I would use is that a simpsons character normally has 4 fingers, but is human, which normally has 5, thus by the way interpreted would be deserving of the tag.

Well, simpsons aren't really original humans. But nontheless, using that example, let's say we had an avali pictured with four fingers instead of three. To tag it avali_(original) is to imply knowledge about the fourth finger, that you cannot acquire from just the picture alone. So that would once again be, akin to the cybernetics case, an issue with TWYS.

Exposed augments/cybernetics that are identifiable as such should be tagged here as cybernetics. My argument lies with that they are not always that, but due to their potentially unidentifiable nature as one justification against the "original", among others.

It isn't justification against using the tag any more than it'd be with the Ambiguous_gender tag. You cannot tag a basic image as male or female, if there are no male or female discerning features. You cannot tag characters with cybernetics, with the cybernetic tag, if you can't see cybernetic features. In the same way you cannot tag posts with avali_(original) with the excuse that the extra body parts could just be cybernetics. If you can't see it the tag isn't applied. Conversly avali with visually apparent cybernetic augmentations, could still have the Avali_(original) tag.

Using your sex(physical and external trait based) tag example, as one can classify an individual exclusively into male, intersex, female, or ambiguous. The final one in the specific cases species(or robot which is a species here) lacks sufficient gender dimorphism, and/or no significant traits are demonstrated either way or both are demonstrated with little else to go on. For the comparison to be complete in this scenario, a reflective tag would need to be made that could be used as a descriptor for those who are not "original"

i reject this, Tags don't need reflected tags to be exclusive. There is no reflection for solo, which is exclusive to pics without more than one person in a scene. But there's no 'more_than_one_person' tag despite the fact that it excludes those posts. Furthermore i don't see why exactly avali_(original) would need a "not_original" sort of tag to be comparable. It compares to solo just as well as female and male, and i wouldn't call any of them a mark of purity. It's just denoting something that is exclusive to other things. That's not an issue.

which might as easy as just giving ones that are not a tag akin to Avali_(variant) or Avali_(augmented), as those have limited negative implications as opposed to the feeling that only having one can provide. That phrasing can have multiple interpretations as some might be biological, magical, surgical, mechanical, or other reasons for their current state.

Firstly, you sort of answer yourself on why i wouldn't use such tags. People got upset at me last time i tried to use an exclusive tag (Anatomically_inaccurate). But aside from that, i could not use avali_(augmented) for that purpose, as avali_(original) is not excluding of augmentations, and you could only apply avali_(augmented) to pics where you could see augmentations. All of those pics would also have avali_(original) applied to them.

It took me a bit too long to write this up to try to be as clear as I can. My perception of this tag and such are not without origins. Seriously, stop with the accusations. I'm not trying to be a bad actor here. I get what you are attempting as a whole, and how you want to defend a creation that has spun out of control, diverging and gained a life of it's own.

I know that your perception of the tag is not without origin, but said origin should not affect the argument about this tag. The conversation you're trying to have with me, about augmented avali existing, and how that makes avali_(original) defunct because all non-baseline avali could just be augmented, is not something that matters in e621 tagging. I've done my best to distance this conversation from the toxic conversations had amongst the avali community about this sort of thing, that is to avoid unneccissary and irrelevant drama, and because my perspective is not that of either side. So having a conversation about what avali do in lore, and potential excuses that creates, with me, here, and trying to include the tag into that conversation isn't what this forum is here for, and isn't going to actually make a difference in whether or not the tag should exist.

I get what you are attempting as a whole, and how you want to defend a creation that has spun out of control, diverging and gained a life of it's own.

As for this point, i appreciate the attempt to relate or connect, genuinely. But as much as i feel strongly about avali, i've worked quite hard to remove my feelings about avali from this conversation. With this tag, i do not want to 'defend a creation that has spun out of control'. Not mad about the misscommunication. More of what i want, is to be able to differentiate, with a tag, the many 'out of control' variants, from the creation and things like it. I have no power to, nor do i even want to attempt to defend the creation at this point. People will do what they want, and i don't want to stop them. I just want to be able to seperate out what i want to see, so i can see it more.

Overall, i still think your conversation points, while something i'd be fine with talking about pretty much anywhere else, do not have a place in this conversation. But i do think we're at least starting to get onto the same page here. It's stressful as hell to have to get through the missconceptions first before even being able to argue the points.

That being said, having taken a few days away and come back, i am a bit more refreshed for conversation.

What is it with these threads that causes people to talk in massive walls of text?
Makes the discussion a pain in the ass to catch up on.

Here are my two cents on the matter.

I do not like the precedent this sets, as it opens the floodgates of having every species tag having an *_(original) version, contributing to the tag bloat.
The anatomical differences between the "purist" avali and the "non-purist" ones are quite minor. The presence of breasts, for example, does not make it a new species.

Instead, I propose that you come up with a tag that stands for "depiction of a species that is anatomically accurate to the original source material". As it has already been pointed out, on_model does not fill that role, as it is intended for mimicking the style of the original media, rather than the anatomy. The new tag will achieve the same result as avali_(original), but would not be exclusive to this one species.
I am terrible at coming up with names, though, so I leave that up to you.

bitwolfy said:
Instead, I propose that you come up with a tag that stands for "depiction of a species that is anatomically accurate to the original source material". As it has already been pointed out, on_model does not fill that role, as it is intended for mimicking the style of the original media, rather than the anatomy. The new tag will achieve the same result as avali_(original), but would not be exclusive to this one species.
I am terrible at coming up with names, though, so I leave that up to you.

As much as the annoying, wiseass part of me wants that tag to be "as_seen_on_tv", I think the best tag for that would probably be "source-accurate_species" or similar. This seems like it might open up a minefield, though.

votp said:
As much as the annoying, wiseass part of me wants that tag to be "as_seen_on_tv", I think the best tag for that would probably be "source-accurate_species" or similar. This seems like it might open up a minefield, though.

That would be a whole other can of worms. Consider the Avali, for example, where their source's lore allows for them to have various body modifications and cybernetic enhancements. An Avali with breasts would be "source accurate", since the source lore allows for them altering their anatomy with body mods and cybernetics, and we can't say that there never will be an official depiction of them with such enhancements (if there aren't already). In the end, it would devolve into the same issue here; who decides what depictions are "accurate" enough and what a species is allowed to look like before becoming "non-accurate". Having a single all-encompassing tag would also end up making it useless. To re-frame an earlier example (about a general pokemon_(original) tag to avoid having one for each pokemon species):

So an upright anthro salazzle, with big breasts and massive cock and balls, would have source-accurate_species tagged if there was just one stylized but "accurate" salandit also shown.

bitwolfy said:
What is it with these threads that causes people to talk in massive walls of text?
Makes the discussion a pain in the ass to catch up on.

Here are my two cents on the matter.

I do not like the precedent this sets, as it opens the floodgates of having every species tag having an *_(original) version, contributing to the tag bloat.
The anatomical differences between the "purist" avali and the "non-purist" ones are quite minor. The presence of breasts, for example, does not make it a new species.

Instead, I propose that you come up with a tag that stands for "depiction of a species that is anatomically accurate to the original source material". As it has already been pointed out, on_model does not fill that role, as it is intended for mimicking the style of the original media, rather than the anatomy. The new tag will achieve the same result as avali_(original), but would not be exclusive to this one species.
I am terrible at coming up with names, though, so I leave that up to you.

This is sort of what i want. Avali_(original) is not a species tag. and is not meant to represent a separate species. Sorry if that wasn't clear. It is supposed to denote that an avali in the post tagged, is representative of the original creation. Hence why all posts with Avali_(original) also have Avali species tag.

As for making a general tag that does it for all species, anatomically_inaccurate was the closest we got to that. anatomically_accurate is the closest to Avali_(original). both are considered not okay to use by the people who've been arguing with me. *_original for every species, sure, would bloat, but it sorta feels like i'm forced into that.

watsit said:
That would be a whole other can of worms. Consider the Avali, for example, where their source's lore allows for them to have various body modifications and cybernetic enhancements. An Avali with breasts would be "source accurate", since the source lore allows for them altering their anatomy with body mods and cybernetics, and we can't say that there never will be an official depiction of them with such enhancements (if there aren't already). In the end, it would devolve into the same issue here; who decides what depictions are "accurate" enough and what a species is allowed to look like before becoming "non-accurate". Having a single all-encompassing tag would also end up making it useless. To re-frame an earlier example (about a general pokemon_(original) tag to avoid having one for each pokemon species):

This is not relevant, cybernetics allow for modifications, but if you can't see the cybernetics or evidence of cybernetics, it's not to be assumed that the additions are cybernetic. TWYS. Avali_(original) accounts for, and is allowed to be tagged on posts with cybernetics as long as there is evidence of cybernetics/augmentation. Otherwise, it wouldn't be relevant to consider.

As for who would decide what accurate looks like, that'd be the source material... duh? What is described and/or depicted in an official capacity, becomes the official "accurate".

votp said:
As much as the annoying, wiseass part of me wants that tag to be "as_seen_on_tv", I think the best tag for that would probably be "source-accurate_species" or similar. This seems like it might open up a minefield, though.

To be fair, the minefield is already sorta opened. If a source-accurate_species tag is something people would be alright with, i will use it instead of avali_(original). It sounds like a good enough alternative to me, to get rid of the bloat, and the need for a _original tag for every species. But i reckon there will still be those unhappy with it. But i appreciate this recommendation, it is a possible step moving forwards.

halycon_fluff said:
This is not relevant, cybernetics allow for modifications, but if you can't see the cybernetics or evidence of cybernetics, it's not to be assumed that the additions are cybernetic.

A "source accurate" Avali can have enhancements/modifications. Whether or not you can see cybernetic markers specifically is irrelevant to them having modifications in a source-accurate manner. TWYS would dictate you don't use the cybernetics tag itself when you can't see cybernetics, but it does not dictate that something cannot be cybernetic in nature; it would be ambiguous if you can't tell. And that's the issue. If some modifications are ambiguous as to whether they're cybernetic or not, but such a modification can otherwise be source-accurate, the tag can't do its job of indicating a species is source-accurate as intended. As it is, source-accurate_species can't be TWYS since it depends on knowing whether something can be lore-accurate beyond simply the look of the species.

Moreover, unless a species is "finished", that is there will never be any more official depictions of them, we can't be sure that something that would be considered "inaccurate" now can't be a thing they're officially shown to have in the future, or that they can't be retconned, invalidating what at one point was accurate. For a rather extreme example, originally Khajiit were humans . Any non-human Khajiit would be considered not-source-accurate, originally. In Daggerfall they became humanoid with the addition of a tail, so any anthro-cat Khajiit would be considered not-source-accurate (and their old human form was just not mentioned anymore, so would human Khajiit be considered not-source-accurate anymore after Daggerfall?). With Redguard they got their most familiar anthro form, reconning them again; it wasn't until Morrowind that we got text-only lore stating they could appear in various forms ranging from quadrupeds resembling housecats, to larger quadrupeds like lions and tigers, to anthro, humanoid, and human (retconning the retcons). And even there, the anthro forms in Oblivion resemble mountain lions, while in Skyrim they look more like lynxes. Argonians have also seen changes in design throughout the official games, less drastic but still ranging from almost-humanoid reptilians in Arena, to anthro reptiles in Daggerfall/Morrowind/Oblivion, and even becoming somewhat dinosaur-like in Skyrim. Morrowind was also somewhat unique in that it's the only game in the series where Khajiit and Argonians were digitigrade, all other times they've been plantigrade (and there's no unambiguous lore on this point, so who knows if them being digitigrade is source-accurate anymore).

So if you have a fictional species that's subject to change, how do you determine and keep track of what's source-accurate to ensure people know how to appropriately use the tag as such species may change?

Additionally, the tag would be useless for the vast majority of depictions of fictional species. No matter how accurate they may otherwise be, having genitals would disqualify most (pokemon, digimon, etc) for the tag since those species don't have defined genitalia; the same reason why anatomically_accurate can't apply to most fictional species. And since a great majority of art here is pornographic, it calls to question the usability of a tag for fictional species that can't be applied to most fictional species in adult situations.

It just seems like a bad idea all around.

watsit said:
A "source accurate" Avali can have enhancements/modifications. Whether or not you can see cybernetic markers specifically is irrelevant to them having modifications in a source-accurate manner. TWYS would dictate you don't use the cybernetics tag itself when you can't see cybernetics, but it does not dictate that something cannot be cybernetic in nature; it would be ambiguous if you can't tell. And that's the issue. If some modifications are ambiguous as to whether they're cybernetic or not, but such a modification can otherwise be source-accurate, the tag can't do its job of indicating a species is source-accurate as intended. As it is, source-accurate_species can't be TWYS since it depends on knowing whether something can be lore-accurate beyond simply the look of the species.

Moreover, unless a species is "finished", that is there will never be any more official depictions of them, we can't be sure that something that would be considered "inaccurate" now can't be a thing they're officially shown to have in the future, or that they can't be retconned, invalidating what at one point was accurate. For a rather extreme example, originally Khajiit were humans . Any non-human Khajiit would be considered not-source-accurate, originally. In Daggerfall they became humanoid with the addition of a tail, so any anthro-cat Khajiit would be considered not-source-accurate (and their old human form was just not mentioned anymore, so would human Khajiit be considered not-source-accurate anymore after Daggerfall?). With Redguard they got their most familiar anthro form, reconning them again; it wasn't until Morrowind that we got text-only lore stating they could appear in various forms ranging from quadrupeds resembling housecats, to larger quadrupeds like lions and tigers, to anthro, humanoid, and human (retconning the retcons). And even there, the anthro forms in Oblivion resemble mountain lions, while in Skyrim they look more like lynxes. Argonians have also seen changes in design throughout the official games, less drastic but still ranging from almost-humanoid reptilians in Arena, to anthro reptiles in Daggerfall/Morrowind/Oblivion, and even becoming somewhat dinosaur-like in Skyrim. Morrowind was also somewhat unique in that it's the only game in the series where Khajiit and Argonians were digitigrade, all other times they've been plantigrade (and there's no unambiguous lore on this point, so who knows if them being digitigrade is source-accurate anymore).

So if you have a fictional species that's subject to change, how do you determine and keep track of what's source-accurate to ensure people know how to appropriately use the tag as such species may change?

Additionally, the tag would be useless for the vast majority of depictions of fictional species. No matter how accurate they may otherwise be, having genitals would disqualify most (pokemon, digimon, etc) for the tag since those species don't have defined genitalia; the same reason why anatomically_accurate can't apply to most fictional species. And since a great majority of art here is pornographic, it calls to question the usability of a tag for fictional species that can't be applied to most fictional species in adult situations.

It just seems like a bad idea all around.

Additionally, the tag would be useless for the vast majority of depictions of fictional species. No matter how accurate they may otherwise be, having genitals would disqualify most (pokemon, digimon, etc) for the tag since those species don't have defined genitalia; the same reason why anatomically_accurate can't apply to most fictional species. And since a great majority of art here is pornographic, it calls to question the usability of a tag for fictional species that can't be applied to most fictional species in adult situations.

this part in particular seems ridiculous to me. If something is not defined, it's not part of the tagging consideration. Like with avali genitalia, you can only judge upon what has been officially defined. otherwise, there's nothing to disqualify or qualify in regards to genitalia. This should be utterly obvious, it's a null point.

A "source accurate" Avali can have enhancements/modifications. Whether or not you can see cybernetic markers specifically is irrelevant to them having modifications in a source-accurate manner. TWYS would dictate you don't use the cybernetics tag itself when you can't see cybernetics, but it does not dictate that something cannot be cybernetic in nature; it would be ambiguous if you can't tell. And that's the issue. If some modifications are ambiguous as to whether they're cybernetic or not, but such a modification can otherwise be source-accurate, the tag can't do its job of indicating a species is source-accurate as intended. As it is, source-accurate_species can't be TWYS since it depends on knowing whether something can be lore-accurate beyond simply the look of the species.

If a character has cybernetic tits, but there are no defining features to show that they are cybernetic, then simply enough, avali_(original) does not apply. If a character has cybernetic tits, but there are defining features to show that they are cybernetic, then much as is to be expected, avali_(original) applies.

The tagging system does not account for what "could" be.

35 minutes ago
halycon_fluff said:
This is not relevant, cybernetics allow for modifications, but if you can't see the cybernetics or evidence of cybernetics, it's not to be assumed that the additions are cybernetic.

A "source accurate" Avali can have enhancements/modifications. Whether or not you can see cybernetic markers specifically is irrelevant to them having modifications in a source-accurate manner. TWYS would dictate you don't use the cybernetics tag itself when you can't see cybernetics, but it does not dictate that something cannot be cybernetic in nature; it would be ambiguous if you can't tell. And that's the issue. If some modifications are ambiguous as to whether they're cybernetic or not, but such a modification can otherwise be source-accurate, the tag can't do its job of indicating a species is source-accurate as intended. As it is, source-accurate_species can't be TWYS since it depends on knowing whether something can be lore-accurate beyond simply the look of the species.

Moreover, unless a species is "finished", that is there will never be any more official depictions of them, we can't be sure that something that would be considered "inaccurate" now can't be a thing they're officially shown to have in the future, or that they can't be retconned, invalidating what at one point was accurate. For a rather extreme example, originally Khajiit were humans . Any non-human Khajiit would be considered not-source-accurate, originally. In Daggerfall they became humanoid with the addition of a tail, so any anthro-cat Khajiit would be considered not-source-accurate (and their old human form was just not mentioned anymore, so would human Khajiit be considered not-source-accurate anymore after Daggerfall?). With Redguard they got their most familiar anthro form, reconning them again; it wasn't until Morrowind that we got text-only lore stating they could appear in various forms ranging from quadrupeds resembling housecats, to larger quadrupeds like lions and tigers, to anthro, humanoid, and human (retconning the retcons). And even there, the anthro forms in Oblivion resemble mountain lions, while in Skyrim they look more like lynxes. Argonians have also seen changes in design throughout the official games, less drastic but still ranging from almost-humanoid reptilians in Arena, to anthro reptiles in Daggerfall/Morrowind/Oblivion, and even becoming somewhat dinosaur-like in Skyrim. Morrowind was also somewhat unique in that it's the only game in the series where Khajiit and Argonians were digitigrade, all other times they've been plantigrade (and there's no unambiguous lore on this point, so who knows if them being digitigrade is source-accurate anymore).

You're bringing up these questions but i don't think you've actually searched for an answer at all. All forms of Khajiit officially accepted, are official forms of Khajiit. Thus, all Khajiit as once portrayed in any of the official media, are accurate. After all, to say otherwise, would be literally to state that official work, is inaccurate.

It just seems like a bad idea all around.

Once again, i feel as though you are purposely trying to poke holes, which is fine, poke away, i'd like to find the best possible solution. But your actual issues with the very base necessity of the tag, and how it could be implemented, are skewed so far, i think you're simply beyond convincing. The issues you brought up above have easy, simple answers, that are in line with how E621's philosophy works out. I understand you think it's a bad idea, but did you really form this forum to state that it's a bad idea, despite its continued and issue-less use? I was asking this before in the old forum, and i'll ask here as well. I'll gladly take an alternative, such as the ones mentioned above "source accurate" and all. Something that works better. But we need to get past the conversation of whether or not it's necessary, a good or bad idea, etc, before talking about how the tag could be applied. Because, your issues with how the tag would be applied, are sort of already solved. They're non-issues. And would be better brought up as a "if you're going to do it, don't do X, Y, Z" sort of conversation. They aren't reasons to not have the tag. Just ways to be careful about how to use it, or how to write the wiki's use-case.

halycon_fluff said:
this part in particular seems ridiculous to me. If something is not defined, it's not part of the tagging consideration.

Exactly, so if a species' genitalia is not defined, a depiction having genitalia can't be considered source-accurate. For all we know, all pokemon could be null and reproduce magically, or have cloacas hidden under their fur. Or maybe they're intended to have penis/balls and vaginas, even the birds. Maybe salazzle do have shlongs (female hyenas have pseudo-penises). The only other option would be to allow them all to be tagged source-accurate, despite being clearly different and incompatible. That's ridiculous.

halycon_fluff said:
If a character has cybernetic tits, but there are no defining features to show that they are cybernetic, then simply enough, avali_(original) does not apply. If a character has cybernetic tits, but there are defining features to show that they are cybernetic, then much as is to be expected, avali_(original) applies.

Why the distinction? Avali can have body modifications, they can have cybernetic modifications, and cybernetics can be covered over, so body modifications do not have to appear cybernetic to be source-accurate. Why should the apparently-cybernetic depiction be accurate/original but the not-apparently-cybernetic depiction be inaccurate/not-original, when they're both valid modifications an Avali can have?

halycon_fluff said:
You're bringing up these questions but i don't think you've actually searched for an answer at all. All forms of Khajiit officially accepted, are official forms of Khajiit.

That wasn't my point. My point was that fictional species can and have changed, and they don't all end up with a nice clean "all past retconned forms are now valid again" in lore. For instance, if ryuujin comes around tommorow and declared "Avali can have 100% all natural mammaries", all posts that were explicitly excluded from being given the source-accurate tag are suddenly missing it, and there'd be tagging wars between people trying to add the tag, and other trying to remove it not realizing they can have full natural breasts now (or maybe arguing that it doesn't count since it wasn't written down in any official page or anything). Then a month later, comes back and says that was a mistake, they don't know why they said that and don't intend for Avali to have natural mammaries... it would run the same deal again but in reverse.

The same thing can go for any species; sergal, chuki, felkin. It's a can of worms that doesn't need to be opened.

halycon_fluff said:
But your actual issues with the very base necessity of the tag, and how it could be implemented, are skewed so far, i think you're simply beyond convincing. The issues you brought up above have easy, simple answers, that are in line with how E621's philosophy works out.

I disagree. TWYS states that anything that looks like an Avali is an Avali. Any differences or changes lore says they can have aren't TWYS and thus don't factor into tagging; all that matters is if it looks close enough to be an Avali or not.

halycon_fluff said:
I understand you think it's a bad idea, but did you really form this forum to state that it's a bad idea, despite its continued and issue-less use?

Just because you like how you've defined and used the tag doesn't mean it doesn't present an issue, or run counter to the tagging system. The fact that the previous attempt of using "anatomically_inaccurate" for Avali that weren't "accurate"/"original" (to some presumed notion of what was allowable for them) was scrapped after being told it wasn't a good use of a tag, and there was no consensus on a good way to define a tag to do what you wanted, should say something. That doesn't mean you get to make a tag anyway and say it's fine when someone later finds it and points out it's still not good.

You have been given alternative options to do what you want to various degrees, which don't rely on making a tag that can't be reasonably defined and used outside of your own preferences.

halycon_fluff said:
I'll gladly take an alternative, such as the ones mentioned above "source accurate" and all.

If what you're looking for is a tag that does the same thing but coated with different words, you're going to be disappointed. So far, all you've expressed is wanting to tag Avali that look the way you enjoy (which does not apparently align with what Avali can officially look like), but tags are not for indicating what individual users like. You can use a set to collect posts that fit some criteria you personally like, that's what they're for.

watsit said:
Exactly, so if a species' genitalia is not defined, a depiction having genitalia can't be considered source-accurate. For all we know, all pokemon could be null and reproduce magically, or have cloacas hidden under their fur. Or maybe they're intended to have penis/balls and vaginas, even the birds. Maybe salazzle do have shlongs (female hyenas have pseudo-penises). The only other option would be to allow them all to be tagged source-accurate, despite being clearly different and incompatible. That's ridiculous.

Why the distinction? Avali can have body modifications, they can have cybernetic modifications, and cybernetics can be covered over, so body modifications do not have to appear cybernetic to be source-accurate. Why should the apparently-cybernetic depiction be accurate/original but the not-apparently-cybernetic depiction be inaccurate/not-original, when they're both valid modifications an Avali can have?

That wasn't my point. My point was that fictional species can and have changed, and they don't all end up with a nice clean "all past retconned forms are now valid again" in lore. For instance, if ryuujin comes around tommorow and declared "Avali can have 100% all natural mammaries", all posts that were explicitly excluded from being given the source-accurate tag are suddenly missing it, and there'd be tagging wars between people trying to add the tag, and other trying to remove it not realizing they can have full natural breasts now (or maybe arguing that it doesn't count since it wasn't written down in any official page or anything). Then a month later, comes back and says that was a mistake, they don't know why they said that and don't intend for Avali to have natural mammaries... it would run the same deal again but in reverse.

The same thing can go for any species; sergal, chuki, felkin. It's a can of worms that doesn't need to be opened.

I disagree. TWYS states that anything that looks like an Avali is an Avali. Any differences or changes lore says they can have aren't TWYS and thus don't factor into tagging; all that matters is if it looks close enough to be an Avali or not.

Just because you like how you've defined and used the tag doesn't mean it doesn't present an issue, or run counter to the tagging system. The fact that the previous attempt of using "anatomically_inaccurate" for Avali that weren't "accurate"/"original" (to some presumed notion of what was allowable for them) was scrapped after being told it wasn't a good use of a tag, and there was no consensus on a good way to define a tag to do what you wanted, should say something. That doesn't mean you get to make a tag anyway and say it's fine when someone later finds it and points out it's still not good.

You have been given alternative options to do what you want to various degrees, which don't rely on making a tag that can't be reasonably defined and used outside of your own preferences.

If what you're looking for is a tag that does the same thing but coated with different words, you're going to be disappointed. So far, all you've expressed is wanting to tag Avali that look the way you enjoy (which does not apparently align with what Avali can officially look like), but tags are not for indicating what individual users like. You can use a set to collect posts that fit some criteria you personally like, that's what they're for.

Exactly, so if a species' genitalia is not defined, a depiction having genitalia can't be considered source-accurate. For all we know, all pokemon could be null and reproduce magically, or have cloacas hidden under their fur. Or maybe they're intended to have penis/balls and vaginas, even the birds. Maybe salazzle do have shlongs (female hyenas have pseudo-penises). The only other option would be to allow them all to be tagged source-accurate, despite being clearly different and incompatible. That's ridiculous.

... you really think that's how the tagging works?... Once again, E6 tagging does not account for what 'could' be. If it's not part of the official description, then there's nothing saying it is or isn't accurate. How did you somehow get that entire backwards? Avali genitalia are simply described as Cloacal. Ergo, if it has cloacal genitalia, nothing else about the shape, size, etc, matters, because none of that is described, it only need be cloacal. If the genitalia of pokemon are simply not mentioned, then it's left to the imagination. It could be anything, so since there's no official depiction or description of the nature of pokemon genitalia, any genitalia can be provided without breaking the "originality" of it. That's why posts with questionable genitalia still have Avali_(official) tag, because the exact nature of avali genitalia was never described. (In fact, that was quite a big point in the avali community a long time ago. The genitalia were something Ryujiin specifically did not want to go into detail about.)

Why the distinction? Avali can have body modifications, they can have cybernetic modifications, and cybernetics can be covered over, so body modifications do not have to appear cybernetic to be source-accurate. Why should the apparently-cybernetic depiction be accurate/original but the not-apparently-cybernetic depiction be inaccurate/not-original, when they're both valid modifications an Avali can have?

don't just ignore the entire paragraph that came with that statement. How could you ask "why the distinction?" when i've said so many times before: "TWYS applies to avali_(original)". If the cybernetics are not apparent, you cannot assume that it is cybernetic enhancement. It's just coming up with excuses on how the avali "could be" augmented and so "could be" original. The tag does not count on "could". E621 tagging never does. If it did you could follow a similar logic with male/female tags, and simply say "it could be male, there's nothing obvious showing it couldn't be" and use that as justification for adding male tag to ambiguous_gender tagged posts, which would be ridiculous and entirely against E621's tagging philosophy.

That wasn't my point. My point was that fictional species can and have changed, and they don't all end up with a nice clean "all past retconned forms are now valid again" in lore. For instance, if ryuujin comes around tommorow and declared "Avali can have 100% all natural mammaries", all posts that were explicitly excluded from being given the source-accurate tag are suddenly missing it, and there'd be tagging wars between people trying to add the tag, and other trying to remove it not realizing they can have full natural breasts now (or maybe arguing that it doesn't count since it wasn't written down in any official page or anything). Then a month later, comes back and says that was a mistake, they don't know why they said that and don't intend for Avali to have natural mammaries... it would run the same deal again but in reverse.

Your problem with this, is that you still see all of this as 'my opinion' of what an avali is.
My problem with this, is that you still won't listen when i tell you it's not.
Ryujiin's description and depiction of avali, is what an original avali is.
If Ryu decides to change their creation they have full rights to do so, and the definition of what the 'original' is, will change with it.
Regardless of my opinions.

I disagree. TWYS states that anything that looks like an Avali is an Avali. Any differences or changes lore says they can have aren't TWYS and thus don't factor into tagging; all that matters is if it looks close enough to be an Avali or not.

And? None of this is to state that something is or isn't an avali. This is only convincing me further that you are beyond convincing. You're holding onto your pre-conceived notion of me and my intentions, still. I can't have an honest conversation with you if you still assert that you know my intentions better than i do.
And just in case you say that's not the case:

Just because you like how you've defined and used the tag doesn't mean it doesn't present an issue, or run counter to the tagging system. The fact that the previous attempt of using "anatomically_inaccurate" for Avali that weren't "accurate"/"original" (to some presumed notion of what was allowable for them) was scrapped after being told it wasn't a good use of a tag, and there was no consensus on a good way to define a tag to do what you wanted, should say something. That doesn't mean you get to make a tag anyway and say it's fine when someone later finds it and points out it's still not good.

You have been given alternative options to do what you want to various degrees, which don't rely on making a tag that can't be reasonably defined and used outside of your own preferences.

If what you're looking for is a tag that does the same thing but coated with different words, you're going to be disappointed. So far, all you've expressed is wanting to tag Avali that look the way you enjoy (which does not apparently align with what Avali can officially look like), but tags are not for indicating what individual users like. You can use a set to collect posts that fit some criteria you personally like, that's what they're for.

(firstly, it's not just the same thing but coated with different words, it's a genuine solution to a problem you brought up. A solution you've been avoiding, in favor of trying to poke holes.)

This shows how you think of me and my intentions. You still think i'm arbitrarily deciding what an avali looks like of my own mind and preference. If you still believe that, and aren't willing to even consider that it might not be the case, then we're talking to brick walls with eachother. I simply won't argue with someone, who won't accept me explaining what i actually want. It is hard to stand watching you repeatedly assert that you know what i want, better than i myself do.

halycon_fluff said:
(firstly, it's not just the same thing but coated with different words, it's a genuine solution to a problem you brought up. A solution you've been avoiding, in favor of trying to poke holes.)

So far you've mentioned "wanting to see more of what i enjoy, is not gatekeeping," "My purpose is to apply tags to images that are fitting with the original avali content that started it all," "I'll gladly take an alternative [...] Something that works better," "I don't care what tag we use, as long as it fits," and "All i want is to make it easier to find the avali content i and alot of the community have loved," which all sound like you have a predefined goal in mind to separate the avali you personally like with a tag. The way you wanted to be able to use anatomically_inaccurate, avali_(original), source-accurate_species, or anything else someone may think up in this vein, have all just been different ways to reach that same goal.

There are other additional issues I see with the proposed tags, such as the bloat with *_(original), and source-accurate_species being difficult to manage and ultimately not too useful for the species it's meant for, along with the general vagueness on where the line would be for what's considered "accurate"/"original", which I don't feel have been sufficiently addressed. But these are separate issues, and finding solutions for them doesn't mean it'll then be good to use on only the particular Avali you want, or that you get to dictate what counts as "original" or "accurate", when there are valid arguments to be made for broadening it well beyond what you're aiming for. You'll be left at square one, regardless.

But at this point it's clear you're not listening to the actual issues we're bringing up with the way you want to tag certain depictions of avali, and are ignoring the alternative options we've brought up multiple times. So there's not much point in continuing to discuss this.

watsit said:
So far you've mentioned "wanting to see more of what i enjoy, is not gatekeeping," "My purpose is to apply tags to images that are fitting with the original avali content that started it all," "I'll gladly take an alternative [...] Something that works better," "I don't care what tag we use, as long as it fits," and "All i want is to make it easier to find the avali content i and alot of the community have loved," which all sound like you have a predefined goal in mind to separate the avali you personally like with a tag. The way you wanted to be able to use anatomically_inaccurate, avali_(original), source-accurate_species, or anything else someone may think up in this vein, have all just been different ways to reach that same goal.

There are other additional issues I see with the proposed tags, such as the bloat with *_(original), and source-accurate_species being difficult to manage and ultimately not too useful for the species it's meant for, along with the general vagueness on where the line would be for what's considered "accurate"/"original", which I don't feel have been sufficiently addressed. But these are separate issues, and finding solutions for them doesn't mean it'll then be good to use on only the particular Avali you want, or that you get to dictate what counts as "original" or "accurate", when there are valid arguments to be made for broadening it well beyond what you're aiming for. You'll be left at square one, regardless.

But at this point it's clear you're not listening to the actual issues we're bringing up with the way you want to tag certain depictions of avali, and are ignoring the alternative options we've brought up multiple times. So there's not much point in continuing to discuss this.

The tags being too difficult to manage, has not been the case with Avali_(original). Just like with the last forum, you're assuming things about the future of these tags that is not evident.

As for its usefulness, it may not be useful to you, but for the communities surrounding these species, it is useful, especially for avali and sergal alike, considering the very real split in both communities.

The line between original, and non-original, is defined to a point of official depiction. I've explained this multiple times across both forums. If it's been officially described or depicted, it is original. It's downright obvious to me.

As for the whole 'pre-defined goal' thing, yeah, it is a pre-defined goal, but to a point. Their solution was one that legitamately would have solved one of YOUR problems with the tag. Using source-accurate_species would mean, no need for a *_original tag for every species. That's a solution you could've come up with. And is also different from avali_(original), and wildly different from anatomically_inaccurate. My end goal is obvious, but your issues are most of the time with how i get to that goal, and you're conflating that with the goal itself. I can make better tags, define them better, reduce the bulk, and ensure, to the best of my ability, that tag missuse is avoided (which, i might add, has been what i've been trying to do since anatomically_inaccurate) And just as with back then when we switched from anatomically_inaccurate to Avali_(original), which was a better tag for the job, i am still willing to switch to a new tag if there proves to be a better solution out there.

As for this:

But at this point it's clear you're not listening to the actual issues we're bringing up with the way you want to tag certain depictions of avali, and are ignoring the alternative options we've brought up multiple times. So there's not much point in continuing to discuss this.

Your alternative options are things along the lines of on_model, or 'it's a bad idea', which is utterly unhelpful. It isn't what i want. It isn't what the conversation's about.
Your issues with how i want to tag 'certain depictions' of avali (assuming you mean the whole 'it could be cybernetics' thing) i've already addressed that over and over again. I'm not about to describe, in detail, how irrelevant it is, again.

halycon_fluff said:
Your alternative options are things along the lines of on_model, or 'it's a bad idea', which is utterly unhelpful.

On model, anthrofied, non-mammal_breasts, non-mammal_balls, non-mammal_anus, cloacal_penis, winged_arms, and various anatomy tags can help you find or filter out depictions that what you want or don't want respectively. Create a set to your specifications and encourage other avali lovers to contribute what they find that appears to fit, and which you ultimately have full curation power over (i.e. you can add any post you want that you feel fits your personal criteria, and remove posts that you feel don't fit).

watsit said:
On model, anthrofied, non-mammal_breasts, non-mammal_balls, non-mammal_anus, cloacal_penis, winged_arms, and various anatomy tags can help you find or filter out depictions that what you want or don't want respectively. Create a set to your specifications and encourage other avali lovers to contribute what they find that appears to fit, and which you ultimately have full curation power over (i.e. you can add any post you want that you feel fits your personal criteria, and remove posts that you feel don't fit).

The various other tags do not take care of the one singular issue, that one singular tag could take care of.

As for making a set, i've seriously considered it, and might just, depending on how this turns out. But a tag is much more accessible and useful for the everyday user of e6, and so while the conversation is still open, i will still push for the tag.

The bulk update request #1039 (forum #312261) has been approved by @slyroon.