I feel like it'd make a lot of people's lives easier if we could be a little bit more liberal with tag implications, and instead provide a means of excluding the rare exceptions while tagging them.

To use a recent implication request I made as an example that made me consider this- implying character => species.
While I understand that some examples of a character will not match the species, this seems like something that would be relatively rare in most cases. If, for example, while tagging you could use the same syntax used for searches to exclude a tag, that tag could be excluded regardless of implication status.

For example, let's say Fox_McCloud implied Fox, but someone was posting art of him drawn as a human.
In this example, with my suggested syntax, the tag box would be "Fox_McCloud -Fox Human" and any other applicable tags.

I don't know how easily implemented this would be, but assuming it's feasible, I feel it'd be better than the current alternative of having to manually tag both character and species at all times. Even such a common and simple example as Fox McCloud being a fox gets missed relatively often: fox_mccloud -fox

I believe implications should never have exceptions. If an implication requires exceptions, then the implication is wrong and needs to be removed.

Which is probably the reason we(afaik) never imply species from characters, because they can depicted in any way shape or form.
--
Having this system of being able to remove implications would just make organization of posts harder imo

m3g4p0n1 said:
I believe implications should never have exceptions. If an implication requires exceptions, then the implication is wrong and needs to be removed.

There are definitely cases of tags implicating another tag in 99% of cases, with extremely scant exceptions that shouldn't be exempt in my oppinion, assuming the site tools could allow for a different solution.

It's going to be less trouble overall to suggest associated tags instead of asking editors to continuously remove implied tags.