snpthecat said:
A close equivalent to the crossgender tag category uneasiness is incest_(lore). But it's on the other side of the coin, where it's been decided that it's the artist's opinions that takes precedence over the canon. This might cause problems in let's say, a hypothetical where artist draws family members from popular media having sex, but stating that in the image they aren't family members.

I mean, it's always kinda functioned like this, even before lore tags existed. usually it mattered more for characters whose familial status was unconfirmed, ambiguous, or inconsistent in source material, like with the koopalings. also, I don't think there are actually that many (if any at all) artists out there, drawing porn involving two characters who are solidly depicted as related in the referenced media and then saying "they're not related in my art". if I had to guess the inverse case is probably more common.

wolfmanfur said:
This is why crossgender was originally a general tag and not a lore tag. That was already explained to you, but you decided to conveniently forget it.

I haven't forgotten anything. Crossgender is in the process of becoming a lore tag, so I don't see how this counters anything I've said. It supports it.

wolfmanfur said:
We are having this discussion because you vandalized the tags on dozens of posts. This could have been avoided if you asked politely here why those posts had the tag an d someone would have answered.

And yet one such "vandalized" post had it's trans_(lore) tag removed after the fact... By you.

post #2715270

To say nothing of the fact that I was operating on what the wiki said at the time: thus, as far as I knew I was following policy. This thread would have been avoided if:

1. The wiki page at the time had accurate information. It did not.
2. Lore actually meant lore in the first place, instead of creating a new definition no-one uses.

temp7 said:
And yet one such "vandalized" post had it's trans_(lore) tag removed after the fact... By you.

post #2715270

To say nothing of the fact that I was operating on what the wiki said at the time: thus, as far as I knew I was following policy. This thread would have been avoided if:

1. The wiki page at the time had accurate information. It did not.
2. Lore actually meant lore in the first place, instead of creating a new definition no-one uses.

It was reverted by a mod because they reverted your edits in bulk since 99% of them were wrong. They had made a mistake to revert this example, so I canged it back and gave an explanation as to why, something you were unwilling to do for nearly all the posts you changed. Incorrectly too.

Feigning ignorance is not a defense, if you steal an apple then get caught by te police and getsent to jail you can plead all you want "I didn't know this was illegal", but you're still going to jail. Same scenario here, instead it is "I didn't know lore tags were meant to be used like this", that's your fault for asking nobody before changing a whole batch of posts.

wolfmanfur said:
Feigning ignorance is not a defense, if you steal an apple then get caught by te police and getsent to jail you can plead all you want "I didn't know this was illegal", but you're still going to jail. Same scenario here, instead it is "I didn't know lore tags were meant to be used like this", that's your fault for asking nobody before changing a whole batch of posts.

To be fair, the wiki was (temporarily and incorrectly) altered at the time to say character owner takes precedence over the artist. A more apt analogy would be the police telling them it was okay to take the apple, then getting arrested for taking it. But the negative record they got was primarily over the tag wars. If it wasn't for the warring, it might have only been a neutral (or given the wiki edit at the time, perhaps just a dmail) saying the tag changes were wrong on some of the posts.

watsit said:
To be fair, the wiki was (temporarily and incorrectly) altered at the time to say character owner takes precedence over the artist. A more apt analogy would be the police telling them it was okay to take the apple, then getting arrested for taking it. But the negative record they got was primarily over the tag wars. If it wasn't for the warring, it might have only been a neutral (or given the wiki edit at the time, perhaps just a dmail) saying the tag changes were wrong on some of the posts.

Then why did the other edit-warring user receive no record at all?

temp7 said:
Then why did the other edit-warring user receive no record at all?

Were they reported? Moderators don't generally go looking for things to hand out records over, so if someone's activity wasn't reported, it's best to assume they didn't notice it.

temp7 said:
Then why did the other edit-warring user receive no record at all?

I'd hazard a guess it's that they made this thread asking about what they should do, rather than continue to blindly tag war.

and also, if I'm not mistaken, you continued to edit tags up to approximately 11 hours after they had sent you a DMail. (or at least ~11 hours after they said they were going to send you a DMail)

temp7 said:
Then why did the other edit-warring user receive no record at all?

Dude, if you disagree with being hit with a record that much, either dmail an appeal to the moderator who gave you the record, or an admin if that fails.

werideatdawn said:
Dude, if you disagree with being hit with a record that much, either dmail an appeal to the moderator who gave you the record, or an admin if that fails.

I've gotten little more than the silent treatment in that area. In any case, i don't really care about the record being removed or not: I only used that as an example of the confusion caused by this unclear and inconsistent tag, and the unilateral response. I only brought it up again after wolfmanfur did.

Meanwhile, every substantial point being brought up about how absurd this tag currently is - by everyone I've seen point these things out - has been basically ignored so far, almost as if nothing is being said.

watsit said:
Were they reported? Moderators don't generally go looking for things to hand out records over, so if someone's activity wasn't reported, it's best to assume they didn't notice it.

I don't understand how this makes any sense when it's easy to see both parties involved.

temp7 said:
Meanwhile, every substantial point being brought up about how absurd this tag currently is - by everyone I've seen point these things out - has been basically ignored so far, almost as if nothing is being said.

That's because we've all run out of different ways to explain to you why artist interpretation is the only consistent way to define lore.

wat8548 said:
That's because we've all run out of different ways to explain to you why artist interpretation is the only consistent way to define lore.

And now we're acting like I'm the only person pointing this stuff out despite posts like these proving otherwise. Each of these points out the basic flaws in having a lore tag that represents artists opinions of characters they don't own.

And most recently:

temp7 said:
And then we run into the issue of this: https://www.furaffinity.net/view/17090143/

This artist considers the canonically male Rocket J Squirrel to be female, and draws them as such. So if I were to upload this image here... should I add a crossgender tag? If I don't, people who blacklist crossgender will see what they plainly don't want to... but if I do, I'm guilty of 'tagging abuse' by not respecting artists over creators like the rules say I should.

This situation is ridiculous. It should be very, very obvious why creators should take precedence over artists, yet we are having this discussion.

EDIT: turns out it is indeed here already.

Which got derailed when wolfmanfur deflected the topic, instead of answering.

temp7 said:
And now we're acting like I'm the only person pointing this stuff out despite posts like these proving otherwise. Each of these points out the basic flaws in having a lore tag that represents artists opinions of characters they don't own.

why'd you link MagnusEffect's post? all the other posts seem to put 'em on the side of artist over canon. and that specific post dosn't even directly relate to the matter at hand, it's more related to using off-hand ^{not-even-really-}WoG as a source of canon, and this post seems to be completely on _my_ side in that matter.

Jesus Christ, talk about a thread that won't just die after it should have been resolved.

Everything that needed to be said, has been said.