Topic: [REJECTED] (family)_penetrating_(family) BUR

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

jebbyio

Member

The bulk update request #3005 has been rejected.

create implication father_penetrating_son (1780) -> father_and_son (0)
create implication son_penetrating_father (535) -> father_and_son (0)
create implication father_penetrating_son (1780) -> incest_(lore) (53517)
create implication son_penetrating_father (535) -> incest_(lore) (53517)
create implication father_penetrating_daughter (735) -> father_and_daughter (0)
create implication daughter_penetrating_father (9) -> father_and_daughter (0)
create implication father_penetrating_daughter (735) -> incest_(lore) (53517)
create implication daughter_penetrating_father (9) -> incest_(lore) (53517)
create implication son_penetrating_mother (1191) -> mother_and_son (0)
create implication mother_penetrating_son (261) -> mother_and_son (0)
create implication son_penetrating_mother (1191) -> incest_(lore) (53517)
create implication mother_penetrating_son (261) -> incest_(lore) (53517)
create implication daughter_penetrating_mother (29) -> mother_and_daughter (0)
create implication mother_penetrating_daughter (71) -> mother_and_daughter (0)
create implication daughter_penetrating_mother (29) -> incest_(lore) (53517)
create implication mother_penetrating_daughter (71) -> incest_(lore) (53517)

Reason: was there always a 25 entry limit?

anyway, all these (family)_penetrating_(family) tags deserved to be implied with incest_(lore) and their respective relationships!

EDIT: The bulk update request #3005 (forum #341777) has been rejected by @slyroon.

Updated by auto moderator

jebbyio

Member

The bulk update request #3007 has been rejected.

create implication brother_penetrating_sister (2530) -> brother_and_sister (0)
create implication brother_penetrating_sister (2530) -> incest_(lore) (53517)
create implication sister_penetrating_brother (96) -> brother_and_sister (0)
create implication sister_penetrating_brother (96) -> incest_(lore) (53517)
create implication brother_penetrating_brother (948) -> brothers (0)
create implication brother_penetrating_brother (948) -> incest_(lore) (53517)
create implication sister_penetrating_sister (84) -> sisters (0)
create implication sister_penetrating_sister (84) -> incest_(lore) (53517)
create implication uncle_penetrating_nephew (81) -> uncle_and_nephew (0)
create implication uncle_penetrating_nephew (81) -> incest_(lore) (53517)
create implication nephew_penetrating_uncle (20) -> uncle_and_nephew (0)
create implication nephew_penetrating_uncle (20) -> incest_(lore) (53517)
create implication uncle_penetrating_niece (24) -> uncle_and_niece (0)
create implication uncle_penetrating_niece (24) -> incest_(lore) (53517)
create implication niece_penetrating_uncle (2) -> uncle_and_niece (0)
create implication niece_penetrating_uncle (2) -> incest_(lore) (53517)
create implication aunt_and_nephew (0) -> aunt (0)
create implication aunt_and_nephew (0) -> nephew (0)
create implication aunt_and_niece (0) -> aunt (0)
create implication aunt_and_niece (0) -> niece (0)
create implication aunt_penetrating_nephew (0) -> aunt_and_nephew (0)

Reason: Additional (family)_penetrating_(family) tags

EDIT: The bulk update request #3007 (forum #341781) has been rejected by @slyroon.

Updated by auto moderator

jebbyio

Member

The bulk update request #3008 has been rejected.

create implication aunt_penetrating_nephew (0) -> incest_(lore) (53517)
create implication nephew_penetrating_aunt (12) -> aunt_and_nephew (0)
create implication nephew_penetrating_aunt (12) -> incest_(lore) (53517)
create implication aunt_penetrating_niece (23) -> aunt_and_niece (0)
create implication aunt_penetrating_niece (23) -> incest_(lore) (53517)
create implication niece_penetrating_aunt (3) -> aunt_and_niece (0)
create implication niece_penetrating_aunt (3) -> incest_(lore) (53517)
create implication grandfather_penetrating_grandson (48) -> grandfather_and_grandson (0)
create implication grandson_penetrating_grandfather (25) -> grandfather_and_grandson (0)
create implication grandfather_penetrating_grandson (48) -> incest_(lore) (53517)
create implication grandson_penetrating_grandfather (25) -> incest_(lore) (53517)
create implication grandfather_penetrating_granddaughter (4) -> grandfather_and_granddaughter (0)
create implication granddaughter_penetrating_grandfather (0) -> grandfather_and_granddaughter (0)
create implication grandfather_penetrating_granddaughter (4) -> incest_(lore) (53517)
create implication granddaughter_penetrating_grandfather (0) -> incest_(lore) (53517)
create implication cousin_penetrating_cousin (0) -> cousins (0)
create implication cousin_penetrating_cousin (0) -> incest_(lore) (53517)

Reason: Last of the (family)_penetrating_(family) tags! didn't realize it would take up 3 BURs

EDIT: The bulk update request #3008 (forum #341782) has been rejected by @slyroon.

Updated by auto moderator

SNPtheCat

Member

Do we want to keep (family)_penetrating_(family) tags? They have been used quite a number of times, but whichever way we keep them, will itself pose some problems.
Either we have non-lore tags implying lore tags, or we're moving a lot of (family1)_penetrating_(family2) tags into lore

Edit:
If there's [family]_penetratin_[family], I presume there would probably be [family]_on_[family] too

Updated

Wandering Spaniel

Janitor

I don't like these, it feels too specific and like way too many tags... then again i'm not the target audience

dba afish

Member

I'd rather not with these, these seem overly specific, the existing x/p/y tags are already kind of over the line, with just form and gender. extending it to a tag family like this seems like a lot.

SNPtheCat

Member

Opinions on [family]_penetrating_[family] being aliased to [family]_on_[family]_(lore)?

I think there might be value in tags which give information about which family members are engaged in romantic and/or sexual activity with each other, and the popularity of tags such as father penetrating son, father penetrating daughter and brother penetrating sister relative to incest (lore) shows that.

I think the main question is whether the specificity is worth the additional tags. For example, father_and_son_(lore) incest_(lore) wouldn't be exactly equivalent to father_on_son_(lore), due to cases like post #4056276, but you may think while browsing the given search query that it is decent enough.

BrokenClock

Privileged

snpthecat said:
Opinions on [family]_penetrating_[family] being aliased to [family]_on_[family]_(lore)?

I think there might be value in tags which give information about which family members are engaged in romantic and/or sexual activity with each other, and the popularity of tags such as father penetrating son, father penetrating daughter and brother penetrating sister relative to incest (lore) shows that.

I think the main question is whether the specificity is worth the additional tags. For example, father_and_son_(lore) incest_(lore) wouldn't be exactly equivalent to father_on_son_(lore), due to cases like post #4056276, but you may think while browsing the given search query that it is decent enough.

If incest-related x/p/y tags remain, then they should definitely go in the lore category with the other family-related tags.

I’m a fan of the son_penetrating_father tag, but truthfully older_penetrated incest father_and_son is basically the same thing, except people seem to often forget older_penetrated compared to incest-specific tags.

Updated

  • 1