I know we have the "tag what you see" rule. But on most of the images with the incest tag, you can't see its incest, unless a character says: brother, sister, Daddy etc...

Like how am i supposed to see this is incest
post #232000
post #215942
post #228369

What my question is: do we continue to use the incest tag on images where you can't see its incest, or does the use need to be reevaluated?

What a valid point, I guess the incest tag is under assumption that the artist or postee knows the story behind the pictures in question or knows the characters are in some way related. Though for those who dont know...

IMO the incest tag should be dropped from every image that doesn't explicitly state that it's incest through dialogue or any other means. It's tag what you see, not what you know. This is somewhat similar to the "my clothed character looks female but it's a herm, so it should be tagged herm and not female" argument.

Yeah I actually brought this up several months ago in another thread where someone was all upset over the whole TWYS rule. And honestly, I don't have a good answer for you. It's just one situation where TWYS really does kind of fall flat on its face.

The issue is that "incest" is one of those qualities that you usually can't actually "see". Somehow, you have to know that the characters involved are related to each other in some way. This is easy enough for things like Alvin And The Chipmunks, a few of the current MLP characters, Simba and Mufasa, and so on. These are extremely popular, mainstream characters that are well defined to be related to each other. So when people search for "incest", they're going to expect to find images of characters like that, and probably not whoever those two dragon characters are that you linked in your last example.

For a lot of non-mainstream ("furry") characters, all it takes is simply saying "these two are brother and sister" or "this is the mom and her son" and suddenly you have incest, even if the characters may not really resemble each other in any way at all. Given that fact, anyone could just run around tagging "incest" on quite a few of the images that we have, and suddenly everyone is related. So that's a situation I'd like to avoid as well.

At the moment, honestly the best answer I can give is that mainstream cartoon characters are free to be tagged with "incest", but "furry-created" characters need to have some sort of feature within the image (or comic) that establishes that the characters involved are related. This could be one of them calling the other by a name such as "mom", "dad", "brother", or "sister", a comic where you see one sibling sneaking into another sibling's bedroom, or so on.

I'm not sure that we're ever actually going to be able to agree upon a proper use of this tag that doesn't end up eliminating the vast majority of images that are currently tagged with "incest". I'd like to see a lot of discussion on it though so we can at least try to determine what's for the best.

I know that under TWYS, tagging Artica Sparkle as a herm is unacceptable when all you see is tits, and I agree with this. But I wonder if in this case a sliiiiiight lightening of the rule might be made. It seems, Char, you feel that if the characters involved are explicitly denoted as family in other images in a comic, they can be tagged as such in other images in the same comic, even when nothing else in the image indicates it. I agree with this.

For example, you would accept this image
post #228636
as incest, since it is in the Twincest pool, and it is made clear earlier in the comic that these two are related.

What if, then, we extend this to an image containing two characters engaging in some form of intercourse that have been, in another image posted to this board[/i] indicated as being related. For example,
post #49646
could be correctly tagged with incest, since there exist on this board[/i] images clearly indicating these two characters are siblings.Any image, however, that contains characters not otherwise labelled in the image as siblings, and who are not labelled as such elsewhere in an image on e621[/i] would not be correctly tagged with incest.

I'd had it in the back of my mind for a while to make this thread. The solution that I've made up in my mind at least is that there needs to be some way of tagging "hidden" or "meta" or otherwise providing information about the picture which is not directly discernible from the image its self under TWYS.

I'm not a huge incest fan, but I like some incestuous pairings. In addition to that I think that stripping all of that information out of the images is not doing anyone a service. After all, there are people who like incest as their primary kink and search for it. However, as mentioned by nearly everyone in this thread you can't "see" incest and as a kink it's entirely psychological. Other examples of 'untaggable' kinks are virgins, partner swapping, cuckolding, and in some cases D/s play. Also pretty much the whole soul vore tagging thread recently.

RedOctober's solution is clearly unworkable under TWYS because if you're using information from other pictures on the board for context of incest then the same must be extended to other situations of visibility controversy such as herms. However, I do acquiesce and even agree that within the context of the current TWYS rules that a pooled comic can be treated as one big image and thus context taken from other pages is applicable to all pages. Just because from one comic or image we know that A and B are sisters does not mean that on an unrelated image we can go assigning them the incest tag as well with out violating TWYS.

I think that the only way to truly resolve this situation is by extending the e621 software to handle the concept of hidden information. It could be accomplished in the same sort of manner that other tags are given a type except for the fact that it would have to account for the possibility of there being both a hidden and normal version of a tag. For example a picture might then have tags of meta:2012 meta:incest meta:herm (or hidden: or hid: or whatever)

Azazial said:
RedOctober's solution is clearly unworkable under TWYS because if you're using information from other pictures on the board for context of incest then the same must be extended to other situations of visibility controversy such as herms.

My intent for this option is that it is not to be extended to physical attributes like the sex of the character, but only for such "hidden" information.

Just because from one comic or image we know that A and B are sisters does not mean that on an unrelated image we can go assigning them the incest tag as well with out violating TWYS.

This is a reasonable argument. After all, Krystal is a girl, 9 times out of 10, but sometimes...

man the universe is weird sometimes. I was jsut discussing this last night.. sort of.

basically.. sometimes incest is jsut somethign that has to be implied. Like taggign relationships--I was discussing the father tag with someone and basically, I said..

"In other pictures, you might have someone say "okay daddy!" or, it might be a case of what we know about popular characters--like bowser and his kids. That said... I don't THINK daddy should be tagged on, say, a picture of a solo person unless there are.. extrodinary circumstances (I dunno, in a nursery, gazing out the window looking sad or happy or something?) but in some pictures, there are clear suggestions of incest, or parentalbonds: post #226580 for example or post #209822 or post #post 234668 ...In others it's a physical resemblance or size differnece post #200964 or a 'family' situation post #178004[/quote]

and.. that about sums up my feelings on incest also. Sometimes it's about text that reads "Oh, harder, brother, harder!" some times it's just two characters that look a lot alike. Sometimes it's about the situation (say... two younger people in a room, with two beds in the background, with backpacks and other signs of being 'kids sharing a room' visible.

It's imperfect, but it's what we've got.

That said... some of those picutes? like the blue wolf and orange wolf? I'd remove incest from that one because it's not realy obvious at all. they don't look alike, there's not any suggestions that they're related... and so forth.

On that note.. Off to go clean up the Father tag. there are a lot of 'leather dadddybears' in therw that don't belong. :)

I like Char's suggestion, and additionally, I think it's entirely consistent with TWYS.

We tag characters, because we already know who they are. This is TWYS. We know that certain characters are by definition related. Therefore, we know we can tag incest.

This is different than if we always tagged Artica Sparkle as herm: there conceivably exists a work where she is not a herm. (And indeed, there are such works.) This is not true with family relationships.

Well, maybe it could be. I can imagine a work where the artist explicitly points out, "By the way, these characters aren't related in this work like they usually are." But lacking such a statement, TWYS would necessitate their relationship, and therefore the incest tag.

RedOctober said:
My intent for this option is that it is not to be extended to physical attributes like the sex of the character, but only for such "hidden" information.

Why do you feel that it's reasonable to tag hidden psychological attributes but not hidden physical ones?

We simply need a way to tag hidden attributes rather than making a bunch of exceptions to TWYS. Did you take a look over my suggestion for such? Do you agree/disagree with it? Why?

SnowWolf said:
man the universe is weird sometimes.

I'd love to see your feedback on my suggestion as per my above questions.

Azazial said:
Why do you feel that it's reasonable to tag hidden psychological attributes but not hidden physical ones?

We simply need a way to tag hidden attributes rather than making a bunch of exceptions to TWYS. Did you take a look over my suggestion for such? Do you agree/disagree with it? Why?

I'd love to see your feedback on my suggestion as per my above questions.

I don't have much to say.

But, sure.

We don't tag off of obvious physical traits. we tag VISIBLE traits.

post #237791

Here is a character. I can SEE boobs. that's all I can see. If she is a herm, I cannot see her vagina, or her penis. So we will tag her female.

post #88184

Here is another character. I can SEE her boobs. and I can see a, uh, package there. So I can deduce that this character is either a dickgirl or a herm. (she's tagged herm but should be tagged dickgirl, probably)

both of those are obvious VISIBLE traits.

The archer character is obviously an archer. She is clearly an adult, physically. Those are obvious VISIBLE traits.

Now, let's say that the archer is... let's say.. homeless.

We can't SEE that. ther'es nothing to suggest that she is without a home

post #168915

This suggests that the character is without a home. I can SEE this because of the text and situation.

post #236121

This character is clearly ANGRY. I can see that.

post #183256

So is that one.

post #205985

THis character APPEARS to be annoyed. but she might be pissed on the inside. we can't see it, so we dont' tag it.

post #238142

This cahracter APPEARS happy, or confident, but they might be pissed on the inside also. Our archer girl might be pissed, but we can't see it so we don't tag it.

Now... as for incest.

post #238317

This post has no real suggestion that the characters are related except that they have the same coat color. I would not tag this as incest because i don't SEE it.

post #237595

This post has two animals of the same species together. But they don't have any real resemblance to me. I would not tag this as incest becase I can't SEE it.

post #237466

Ah, but. Look here. This picture has 3 people in it. 2 are 'gray with darker swirl markings, while the other looks very different. The suggestion to me is that the two gray characters share a genetic background-- be it brother and sister or father and daughter, mother and son, etc. they LOOK alike. The orange one doesn't seem like sh'es related at all. but I look at this and see two characters who are related because of the clues the artist put into the picture.

post #233302

This one, the text clearly suggests the relation ship. "I love you mom!" "you are lovely childrens!" .. all suggest that there is a parent child relationship here. I can SEE this thorugh the text.

post #233300

This one is a little more debatable, however, we see an adult, and what would appear to be a childsized character as well. it's possibly that the woman's mate is small, that hte males of their species are all tiny, but the implication, especially in the home family setting" with the "cozy" atmosphere, that the smaller is a child, a physical resemblance also suggests that.

post #230266

Here's another good example.There is an obvious physcal resemblance between the two characters. a size difference suggests that one is older than the other --a father and son, or a big brother and a younger brother. The setting is a bedroom, at a late night hour, suggesting that the two live together, rather hten being, say, friends.

post #171538

This is much the same. Strong physical resemblance, indications of one having snuck in in the middle of the night. (suggested by the ajar door. There is ALSO the suggestion of rape in the posturing of the characters. this is another example of why we tag what we SEE. There is no textsaying "I am raping you" there is nothing but the image. The postures. the way they are interacting with eachother. I SEE rape. So rape is tagged. I SEE incest. so incest is tagged.

There are a LOT of incest images that are mistagged, in my opinion. MANY of these give NO hint at all of there being a relationL post #211213 post #190295 post #164794 post #162314 post #160004 as example.

I would not tag those incest.

because I tag based on VISIBLE evidence. If this means I some times tag two characters who are friends but not brothers as incest, and I sometimes tag herms as females, then so be it.

as for a way to tag attributes that are hidden, perhaps one day, but it would require a LOT of effort. It takes time and man-hours to code in new features. and we have a very small team of people with the skills to do anything like that. But maybe one day. We know it is desired.

Thank you Snow. Tagging has gotten a lot better lately thanks to people like you. In case no one has, thank you, as well as others in the same fight, for making this site much more usable with proper tagging techniques.

jazzpaintball said:
Thank you Snow. Tagging has gotten a lot better lately thanks to people like you. In case no one has, thank you, as well as others in the same fight, for making this site much more usable with proper tagging techniques.

*blush* Aw... I'm jsut doing what I can to make this place awesome :) there are a lot of other great people who do so much more then I do... but statements like this really make the time I/we put in worth while. Thank you <3

SnowWolf said:
*many many things*

I appreciate your response but I think I was misunderstood!
I was referring to my suggestion about there being some sort of way to tag hidden stuff.

Hopefully the rest of what you posted about will be helpful to someone though!

Azazial said:
I appreciate your response but I think I was misunderstood!
I was referring to my suggestion about there being some sort of way to tag hidden stuff.

Hopefully the rest of what you posted about will be helpful to someone though!

.... >:/

SnowWolf said: as for a way to tag attributes that are hidden, perhaps one day, but it would require a LOT of effort. It takes time and man-hours to code in new features. and we have a very small team of people with the skills to do anything like that. But maybe one day. We know it is desired.

as well as

Azazial: Why do you feel that it's reasonable to tag hidden psychological attributes but not hidden physical ones?

SnowWolf: because I tag based on VISIBLE evidence.

or to expand that slightly:
I do not believe it is reasonably to tag hidden psychological attributes, or hidden physical ones. It is reasonable to tag based on available VISIBLE evidence.

I think SnowWolfs guide should be written in the wiki, anybody else agree?

slyroon said:
I think SnowWolfs guide should be written in the wiki, anybody else agree?

on the incest page? or the tag what you see page? hmm.

also <3

SnowWolf said:
on the incest page? or the tag what you see page? hmm.

also <3

How about both?

SnowWolf said:
on the incest page? or the tag what you see page? hmm.

also <3

I think we should just write it on the incest wiki page.

Another point to consider: we tag artist and character names, even if they aren't stated in the image.

RenaKunisaki said:
Another point to consider: we tag artist and character names, even if they aren't stated in the image.

that's different, IMO. a character's appearance should be consistent over multiple images to make characters of those aestetics easily find-able. AS WELL as credit to the owner. Artist names are a matter of credit and style-searchibility.

But really, it's different. don't open that can of fish. :I

Bumping, because some things has been changed.
Does changes in TWYS affects this tag? I mean if we can tag that characters having sex are, for example, brother and sister then wouldn't it be logical we tag it as incest? Sex/gender/species cannot be assumed from character name because they can change from picture to picture, but blood relationships shouldn't change, right?

On the other hand, I've just seen this:
post #159389
so maybe blood relationships are also not constant.

Anyway there's nothing useful written in incest wiki, and it probably should be changed. But to what?

I really see no reason in tagging stuff that isn't or could be in the image. I'm not going to come onto the site and search for "females with anger issues on the inside but show that they're happy"

Pyke said:
I really see no reason in tagging stuff that isn't or could be in the image. I'm not going to come onto the site and search for "females with anger issues on the inside but show that they're happy"

If they look really similar, then there is good clause for it.. if they are completely different species.. then why?

Pyke said:
I really see no reason in tagging stuff that isn't or could be in the image. I'm not going to come onto the site and search for "females with anger issues on the inside but show that they're happy"

its like the twinkie factor, 'cept the opposite.
I always remember characters being all mean and scary on the outside, but all warm and squishy on the inside.

As a non-pony watcher, how is post #159389 incest? They don't even look remotely the same. Is that what bronies are expecting to find when they search for incest? What about non-bronies who see it and go "what the fuck is this shit"?

Well this image is incest....son fucking his mother yet some idiots want to remove the tag even though they are blood related, and even though it says mom in the image. https://e621.net/post/show/336272 This incest tag thing is becoming a problem

Conker said:
Well this image is incest....son fucking his mother yet some idiots want to remove the tag even though they are blood related, and even though it says mom in the image. https://e621.net/post/show/336272 This incest tag thing is becoming a problem

I think you're missing the quotation marks in that image.

Conker said:
Well this image is incest....son fucking his mother yet some idiots want to remove the tag even though they are blood related,

Er, no.
Goofy is a single father and Max's mother is never named. She only appears in flashbacks because she's dead. It's kind of a main point in the movies and the show.

Sylvia only appeared in one movie, as Goofy's new girlfriend. I don't see how that makes them "blood related".

Genjar said:
Er, no.
Goofy is a single father and Max's mother is never named. She only appears in flashbacks because she's dead. It's kind of a main point in the movies and the show.

In the show that was his mother ,in the movie shes dead. The show and movie take two different story lines. Also if you want to use the movie as the source of info, thats outside information that thats not TWYS, in that image the son is calling the female "mom" which she is in the show, so it should be tagged incest.

Conker said:
In the show that was his mother ,in the movie shes dead. The show and movie take two different story lines. Also if you want to use the movie as the source of info, thats outside information that thats not TWYS, in that image the son is calling the female "mom" which she is in the show, so it should be tagged incest.

It is a "mom" mom, as in "roleplay"-mom.

Azazial said:
I was referring to my suggestion about there being some sort of way to tag hidden stuff.

Meta tags don't seem like a bad idea, as long as they're separate. Essentially, there could be 2 types of tags, TWYS tags and intention/explanation tags.

NotMeNotYou said:
It is a "mom" mom, as in "roleplay"-mom.

But in the show its his real mother....Also with TWYS a person calling someone else mom, implies they are family, and because they are having sex it would be tagged as incest as the image shows incest from TWYS and people who look up incest want to see images like that.

Conker said:
But in the show its his real mother....

I looked up the wikis surrounding these two characters.
In the original show the mom of max (who had at this time no name) was alive and kicking, but never appeared in the show. She said some things sometimes but she was never shown on screen.
In the later shows she simply disappeared without explanation.

That girl, sylvia marpole, also only appears in the movie "An Extremely Goofy Movie" and becomes the girlfriend of goofy. At that point in time max is 18 years old and a bit late to be her son.

Conker said:
Also with TWYS a person calling someone else mom, implies they are family

Please don't take this the wrong way but would you mind reading up a wiki or two on subjects you would like to discuss?

Directly taken from the Quotation Marks Wiki

In English writing, quotation marks or inverted commas (informally referred to as quotes or speech marks) are punctuation marks surrounding a quotation, direct speech, or a literal title or name. Quotation marks can also be used to indicate a different meaning of a word or phrase than the one typically associated with it and are often used to express irony. Quotation marks are sometimes used to provide emphasis, although this is usually considered incorrect.

The "mom" is emphasized with those double quotation marks to express that this is not a factual statement and wasn't done by accident as it was done twice.

So I stand by my point that this isn't incest but incest-roleplay.