The tag alias #63637 implied_cum -> orgasm is pending approval.

Reason: In current use, the tag just about exactly matches orgasm. I could potentially see it having other meanings, but not ones that would be valid TWYS.

post #3954772 (<- animated)

You can't see either an orgasm happening or any actual cum on screen at all, but it's still perfectly obvious what she's drinking. implied_cum is the only valid tag here.

wat8548 said:
post #3954772 (<- animated)

You can't see either an orgasm happening or any actual cum on screen at all, but it's still perfectly obvious what she's drinking. implied_cum is the only valid tag here.

tfw a 20+ tag is actually valid

closetpossum said:
tfw a 20+ tag is actually valid

The validity of a tag isn't based on how often it gets used. Maybe it is undertagged?

wat8548 said:
post #3954772 (<- animated)

You can't see either an orgasm happening or any actual cum on screen at all, but it's still perfectly obvious what she's drinking. implied_cum is the only valid tag here.

I'd argue that one should count as orgasm and probably even ejaculation, due to the throbbing. Without that, the liquid in question wouldn't be as clear.

wat8548 said:
post #3954772 (<- animated)

You can't see either an orgasm happening or any actual cum on screen at all, but it's still perfectly obvious what she's drinking. implied_cum is the only valid tag here.

Without seeing it or any indication of an orgasm, how can we assume it's cum? Cum isn't the only genital fluid, it could easily be urine too.

faucet said:
Without seeing it or any indication of an orgasm, how can we assume it's cum? Cum isn't the only genital fluid, it could easily be urine too.

That's why the post would use implied_cum and not cum because it is not visible, but it is clearly implied. imo it would be better to alias to something like orgasm_(lore) or cumming_(lore) to avoid cluttering the general tags, but as it stands it's as valid of a tag as any other.

wolfmanfur said:
That's why the post would use implied_cum and not cum because it is not visible, but it is clearly implied. imo it would be better to alias to something like orgasm_(lore) or cumming_(lore) to avoid cluttering the general tags, but as it stands it's as valid of a tag as any other.

That's not really a response to what Faucet said.

If an orgasm isn't clear, than it could as easily be urine as cum. If an orgasm is clear, then can just tag that. That doesn't necessitate implied_cum.

Also, even if there is a rare case where this tag could apply without being covered by existing tags (and I don't see any current posts that fall into that category), I also don't think the amount of utility gained is worth adding another very likely to be misused tag.

scth said:
In current use, the tag just about exactly matches orgasm.

Not really? A lot of the posts are tagged because of an ambiguous fluid that is implied to be cum, or at least the tagger felt it was.
post #3756008 post #3763578 post #1932387
I'm not saying if it's proper usage, I'm just saying that's how it's often tagged currently.

crocogator said:
Not really? A lot of the posts are tagged because of an ambiguous fluid that is implied to be cum, or at least the tagger felt it was.
post #3756008 post #3763578 post #1932387
I'm not saying if it's proper usage, I'm just saying that's how it's often tagged currently.

Yeah, the first two can just be tagged cum; just about every fluid is somewhat ambiguous. We don't tag ambiguous things implied_*, we either put the tag or don't.
The third is also an example of misuse if we were to keep the tag, but in a different way. The fluid isn't shown, and only text implies it. We don't tag visual things based on text.

This is the stuff I mean when I say highly likely to be misused if kept, and that interpretations other than orgasm largely aren't TWYS.

crocogator said:
Not really? A lot of the posts are tagged because of an ambiguous fluid that is implied to be cum, or at least the tagger felt it was.
post #3756008 post #3763578 post #1932387
I'm not saying if it's proper usage, I'm just saying that's how it's often tagged currently.

They were also tagged with things like implied_gay and implied_cumshot (with nothing resembling a cumshot). There's also post #2116976 that was also tagged implied_eevee, or post #3327793 being tagged implied_cum with a very visible cumshot. Other uses like post #3395374 are just because the tagger asserts a character is cumming, or post #3683437 because text says it (where we either ignore the text so it doesn't count for anything, or we take what it says and it's not implied to be cum). A couple uses like post #3632055 and post #2116976 we could definitely assume to be cum (we don't need to see it leaking out of a penis to assume white gooey liquid is cum).

Mistags will be mistags, and at worst all this would do is trade one mistag for another. I don't think there's any better option that wouldn't cause the same amount of or more mistags. Making it a disambiguation wouldn't stop people from using it, and would require someone to clean up every instance of its use, creating the most work. Aliasing to orgasm would mean many (if not most) uses are correctly tagged orgasm and not need fixing, and others more quickly fixed (and a tagger warned if they keep misusing it) for being tagged orgasm without a visible orgasm.

scth said:
Yeah, the first two can just be tagged cum; just about every fluid is somewhat ambiguous. We don't tag ambiguous things implied_*, we either put the tag or don't.
The third is also an example of misuse if we were to keep the tag, but in a different way. The fluid isn't shown, and only text implies it. We don't tag visual things based on text.

This is the stuff I mean when I say highly likely to be misused if kept, and that interpretations other than orgasm largely aren't TWYS.

The second image could be milk, tagging it cum would be wrong.

Why not make it a lore tag, it's perfectly valid and folks might wind up using it in their blacklist or searches.

watsit said:
They were also tagged with things like implied_gay and implied_cumshot (with nothing resembling a cumshot). There's also post #2116976 that was also tagged implied_eevee, or post #3327793 being tagged implied_cum with a very visible cumshot. Other uses like post #3395374 are just because the tagger asserts a character is cumming, or post #3683437 because text says it (where we either ignore the text so it doesn't count for anything, or we take what it says and it's not implied to be cum). A couple uses like post #3632055 and post #2116976 we could definitely assume to be cum (we don't need to see it leaking out of a penis to assume white gooey liquid is cum).

Mistags will be mistags, and at worst all this would do is trade one mistag for another. I don't think there's any better option that wouldn't cause the same amount of or more mistags. Making it a disambiguation wouldn't stop people from using it, and would require someone to clean up every instance of its use, creating the most work. Aliasing to orgasm would mean many (if not most) uses are correctly tagged orgasm and not need fixing, and others more quickly fixed (and a tagger warned if they keep misusing it) for being tagged orgasm without a visible orgasm.

To summarize, if this alias request passes it will increase the amount of times tags like cum or orgasm get mistagged? Are you trying to convince people to vote for or against the alias request?

wolfmanfur said:
To summarize, if this alias request passes it will increase the amount of times tags like cum or orgasm get mistagged?

There will be mistags regardless of what happens. If it's left alone or disambiguated, all uses of implied_cum are mistags since it was used to mean something else (like orgasm or cum, or something that isn't taggable, like a character is having an orgasm there's no visual indication of). If it's aliased to cum, posts that don't depict cum will be mistagged. If it's aliased to orgasm, only the uses that don't depict an orgasm need to be fixed. Given the options available, the latter (this alias request) seems to result in the least amount of mistags and cleanup work.

watsit said:
There will be mistags regardless of what happens. If it's left alone or disambiguated, all uses of implied_cum are mistags since it was used to mean something else (like orgasm or cum, or something that isn't taggable, like a character is having an orgasm there's no visual indication of). If it's aliased to cum, posts that don't depict cum will be mistagged. If it's aliased to orgasm, only the uses that don't depict an orgasm need to be fixed. Given the options available, the latter (this alias request) seems to result in the least amount of mistags and cleanup work.

It's not a mistag if the intention of the tag is to mean "It most likely is cum, but it's not visible". If I made the tag number_3 then it would be valid on every post where the number 3 is there, but if the number 3 is cropped off, it could be a 2, so a tag like cropped_number_3 would work to mean "It probably is the number 3, but it can be mistaken for the number 2". It's clear on that animated post that this is intended to be a blowjob, we see no cum, but implied_cum makes sense in this context. even if some folk will mistake it for urine it's not a reasonable assessment. Meanwhile, if the character was setting on a toilet, but we couldn't see the piss, it would also be fair to assume that implied_urine would be for that and not cum, urine or implied_cum.

wolfmanfur said:
It's not a mistag if the intention of the tag is to mean "It most likely is cum, but it's not visible".

If it's not visible, how can there likely be cum from a TWYS perspective? Either we see some liquid that can be inferred to be cum (where we can tag cum, no need for the implied_), or it can be any liquid and it's only said to be cum by the tagger or text, which means it's not so much "implied" as it is "asserted". Or it's because a character is visibly having an orgasm, where it's safe to assume any liquid involved is cum, so an alias to orgasm works.

wolfmanfur said:
That's why the post would use implied_cum and not cum because it is not visible, but it is clearly implied. imo it would be better to alias to something like orgasm_(lore) or cumming_(lore) to avoid cluttering the general tags, but as it stands it's as valid of a tag as any other.

That's not what lore tags are for.

Anything implied_* is almost always going to be entirely tagging by assertion rather than TWYS, meaning they generally shouldn't be kept as general tags. And yet, lore tags are never meant to cover things that are simply implied within an image. They are meant to cover situations in which general category tags can't accurately represent the known lore of a character without violating TWYS. They are not just a means of bypassing TWYS whenever you feel like it, which is all you'd be doing by making an orgasm_(lore) tag.

scaliespe said:
That's not what lore tags are for.

Anything implied_* is almost always going to be entirely tagging by assertion rather than TWYS, meaning they generally shouldn't be kept as general tags. And yet, lore tags are never meant to cover things that are simply implied within an image. They are meant to cover situations in which general category tags can't accurately represent the known lore of a character without violating TWYS.

If it can be asserted then by your own logic it is TWYS. You know what else can be asserted? Offscreen_male and offscreen_female and that's while ignoring all the times they are mistagged on posts where disembodied_* would fit, all the emotions tags angry, sad, happy can all be asserted and they get mistagged way more often than the implied tags. There is no set rules for when a tag like angry should be tagged, so I've seen it tagged on posts that don't feature any angry character. All the job tiles, there are posts like this I'm assuming the assassin is that black edgy dude on his motorcycle, but this is an assumption there is no real cohesive rule for that tag either. Even the examples on the wiki page raise my eyebrows, this looks more like a soldier going into ww3 than an assassin. Then, this example does follow the TWYS rule, but it is a mistag if we were to go off the wiki page for chef because they're wearing Halloween costumes, there is no real chef on this post. Holidays is a general tag and it can only be asserted.

They are not just a means of bypassing TWYS whenever you feel like it, which is all you'd be doing by making an orgasm_(lore) tag.

I have seen with my own eyes 2 admins giving a record then one of them changing that folk's blacklist to add "vore" into it because of a post that had no vore in it being implied by the skulls in the background and the artist themselves confirming that vore as a theme was on the picture and that the skulls were people the pred ate alive.
These tags are necessary, I am not saying this just to bypass any rules, but because if tags like vore, orgasm, digestion, death etc are only gonna create arguments in the comment section because of lore of implications.

Why was the tag trans_(lore) created for? For that exact reason.

wolfmanfur said:
If it can be asserted then by your own logic it is TWYS. You know what else can be asserted? Offscreen_male and offscreen_female and that's while ignoring all the times they are mistagged on posts where disembodied_* would fit, all the emotions tags angry, sad, happy can all be asserted and they get mistagged way more often than the implied tags. There is no set rules for when a tag like angry should be tagged, so I've seen it tagged on posts that don't feature any angry character. All the job tiles, there are posts like this I'm assuming the assassin is that black edgy dude on his motorcycle, but this is an assumption there is no real cohesive rule for that tag either. Even the examples on the wiki page raise my eyebrows, this looks more like a soldier going into ww3 than an assassin. Then, this example does follow the TWYS rule, but it is a mistag if we were to go off the wiki page for chef because they're wearing Halloween costumes, there is no real chef on this post. Holidays is a general tag and it can only be asserted.

I have seen with my own eyes 2 admins giving a record then one of them changing that folk's blacklist to add "vore" into it because of a post that had no vore in it being implied by the skulls in the background and the artist themselves confirming that vore as a theme was on the picture and that the skulls were people the pred ate alive.
These tags are necessary, I am not saying this just to bypass any rules, but because if tags like vore, orgasm, digestion, death etc are only gonna create arguments in the comment section because of lore of implications.

Why was the tag trans_(lore) created for? For that exact reason.

Well, offscreen_male and offscreen_female should both be aliased to offscreen_character, probably with cleanup first to check for the disembodied cases.
Yes, tags that are purely assertion should be removed.

This entire reply is absolutely overflowing with misunderstandings and bad assumptions, and thoroughly correcting all of them would take hours that I'm not willing to spend, so instead you get the speedrun any% version:

wolfmanfur said:
If it can be asserted then by your own logic it is TWYS. You know what else can be asserted? Offscreen_male and offscreen_female and that's while ignoring all the times they are mistagged on posts where disembodied_* would fit,

I don't believe those tags are even valid.

all the emotions tags angry, sad, happy can all be asserted and they get mistagged way more often than the implied tags.

You can assert anything, but that doesn't mean you can tag it. TWYS

There is no set rules for when a tag like angry should be tagged,

Yes, there are. Use the tag when a character is visibly angry. Nothing else.

so I've seen it tagged on posts that don't feature any angry character.

So remove the tag.

All the job tiles, there are posts like this I'm assuming the assassin is that black edgy dude on his motorcycle, but this is an assumption there is no real cohesive rule for that tag either. Even the examples on the wiki page raise my eyebrows, this looks more like a soldier going into ww3 than an assassin.

Assassin probably isn't a valid tag either.

Then, this example does follow the TWYS rule, but it is a mistag if we were to go off the wiki page for chef because they're wearing Halloween costumes, there is no real chef on this post.

That doesn't even remotely matter. "Real chef"?? Looks like a chef, tag as chef. It doesn't matter if it's a costume.

Holidays is a general tag and it can only be asserted.

No? Holidays are perfectly within TWYS. They all have visually recognizable elements.

I have seen with my own eyes 2 admins giving a record then one of them changing that folk's blacklist to add "vore" into it because of a post that had no vore in it being implied by the skulls in the background and the artist themselves confirming that vore as a theme was on the picture and that the skulls were people the pred ate alive.

Yeah, I know. I was even the one who approved that post. A few things about that:

• vore is locked off of the post because people kept adding it due to outside knowledge.
• Read the first comment on the post. The true first comment is hidden, but you can see it within the OP's reply here. The (now banned) user didn't even know it was about vore until OP specifically said so. Otherwise, it's literally just a collection of skulls, which is all that needs to be present for TWYS. The ensuing meltdown in the comments was a result of this initial revelation, not anything in the post itself, nor anything in the tags. Those are all quite irrelevant. It came from the owner of the artwork describing the intent behind the image which otherwise isn't visible, and never would have been had they not said anything. People can say anything in the comments, so this is, again, completely irrelevant to tagging.

These tags are necessary, I am not saying this just to bypass any rules, but because if tags like vore, orgasm, digestion, death etc are only gonna create arguments in the comment section because of lore of implications.

The tags, or lack thereof, were not the reason for the argument. If anything, having pointless lore tags for every little thing will (besides flooding us with pointless tags) create even more arguments. People are constantly fighting over lore tags. At least if we can say clearly that a post does not contain a thing, don't tag the thing - that generally works well enough for dealing with tag debates. People will fight over whether or not a lore tag applies. This "solution" would not solve anything.

Why was the tag trans_(lore) created for? For that exact reason.

Pardon my bluntness, but... no. Not even close. Character lore is not remotely in the same category as an objective, visible event like an orgasm. Even besides that, orgasm_(lore) would just be completely useless. Nobody cares if there is allegedly an orgasm in a post with no visible evidence of there being one. If there's visible evidence, just tag it normally. Trans_(lore) was created so that people can accurately represent their character's identity in the tags. Nobody is going to get upset because they intended for their character to be having an orgasm, but can't tag it as such due to it not being visible or identifiable in any way. I could at least entertain the idea of vore_(lore) for those ambiguous huge_belly situations, because those are often just very hard to tell apart visually (vore, or just fat?) but orgasm_(lore) is utterly useless. Nobody wants to see "allegedly an orgasm with no visible evidence of there being one besides the fact that the artist said so." They want to see actual orgasms. At best, this idea is just tag bloat. We would need a lore counterpart to every single general category tag, and that's not happening.

scaliespe said:
Use the tag when a character is visibly angry

Define "angry character". What rules are set in place that make sure a character is angry, scared, serious, sad, aroused or happy objectively? No, 'I feel like this character is this or that', but yes 'this character must be this or that', there is no rule and somebody else said as much. those tags are utterly subjective.

No? Holidays are perfectly within TWYS. They all have visually recognizable elements.

It's asserted based on what other tags there are, such as Halloween or Christmas. It takes knowing to use the tag.

Read the first comment on the post. The true first comment is hidden, but you can see it within the OP's reply here. The (now banned) user didn't even know it was about vore until OP specifically said so. Otherwise, it's literally just a collection of skulls, which is all that needs to be present for TWYS. The ensuing meltdown in the comments was a result of this initial revelation, not anything in the post itself, nor anything in the tags. Those are all quite irrelevant. It came from the owner of the artwork describing the intent behind the image which otherwise isn't visible, and never would have been had they not said anything. People can say anything in the comments, so this is, again, completely irrelevant to tagging.

Irrelevant when the admins themselves added the tag vore to this person's blacklist. You didn't answer the question, just merely avoided it. This problem could have been avoided with vore_(lore) as a tag.

Even besides that, orgasm_(lore) would just be completely useless.

This can easily be said for the vast majority of lore tags, but at least this isn't completely useless when folks could realistically add it to their blacklist or search it if they can't, otherwise, find the post they're looking for with orgasm.

Nobody wants to see "allegedly an orgasm with no visible evidence of there being one besides the fact that the artist said so.

Again, (un)intentionally miscontruing the argument. the animated post way up above shows a character having a blow-job, but no cum is directly visible; this is a clear case where the tag would have been useful.

wolfmanfur said:
Define "angry character". What rules are set in place that make sure a character is angry, scared, serious, sad, aroused or happy objectively? No, 'I feel like this character is this or that', but yes 'this character must be this or that', there is no rule and somebody else said as much. those tags are utterly subjective.

This just feels like an "is a horse a chair" type of discussion, you can try to define these things as much as you want but there are probably still going to be edge cases that ruin everything no matter what you do. And that's not just limited to emotions, even physical objects like chair don't have a solid objective definition and there will inevitably be edge cases that have to be solved subjectively no matter how you try to define them. People tend to interpret a character as displaying an emotion based on physical characteristics such as body language and facial expressions, and I'd argue that frowning or clenching one's fists is probably more concrete than an object being "used to sit on" especially when nobody is sitting on it in a post. In the end something gets tagged as a chair when a tagger believes it to be a chair, and at most they would compare the object to other similar objects. Just like how a tagger can tag a character as being angry not so much based on an objective list of qualities, but rather their own interpretation of the available visual cues. At most you can say that what constitutes a chair is simply less controversial than what makes someone angry or sad.

wolfmanfur said:
Define "angry character". What rules are set in place that make sure a character is angry, scared, serious, sad, aroused or happy objectively? No, 'I feel like this character is this or that', but yes 'this character must be this or that', there is no rule and somebody else said as much. those tags are utterly subjective.

Wrong. There are many visual clues, like an angry expression, cross-popping_vein, etc. Just because you personally have a hard time recognizing emotions depicted in an image doesn't mean the tags for them are subjective in any way. They are perfectly objective.

It's asserted based on what other tags there are, such as Halloween or Christmas. It takes knowing to use the tag.

This makes absolutely no sense. I think you just fundamentally don't understand what TWYS means. Holidays have elements that identify the holiday, and as such, can be tagged. Posts that contain a holiday get the holidays tag (by implication, usually - the tag probably shouldn't be added by itself). That's TWYS. I don't see why you're struggling to understand this.

Irrelevant when the admins themselves added the tag vore to this person's blacklist. You didn't answer the question, just merely avoided it. This problem could have been avoided with vore_(lore) as a tag.

I fully answered the question, but I don't think you understood it. The fact that vore was added to the user's blacklist is irrelevant, and having a lore tag for every general tag is not a solution.
1. Vore may have been added to the user's blacklist because it wasn't already there, but they were obviously upset by vore - so it could be to avoid future problems. Nevermind the fact that the post in question was not vore - if you want a more specific answer, ask the admin who did that, not me. He might not have even looked at the tags to see that the post was not actually vore. He just saw a user complaining about vore, saw that the user's blacklist was missing the vore tag, and acted upon that information without checking to see if the actual post was vore or not. That's my guess. But again, that's completely irrelevant.
2. People can claim anything in the comments. I could claim that any random post is vore or rape or scat without there being any evidence in the image, and there is a chance that someone who hates one of those things is going to see the comment and get upset, but having a lore tag for every single blacklistable tag is not a solution. Not only would that be a complete mess of tags, but it wouldn't even solve the "problem" (there is no problem). That user didn't even have regular vore on their blacklist, what makes you think they would have blaclisted vore_(lore)? The only "solution" for that would be to be able to blacklist comments, but I don't see that happening any time soon. Not to mention that this has absolutely nothing to do with stuff like orgasm_(lore) that you mentioned previously, as that's not even something that people blacklist. That one's even more useless.
While I'm at it, I'll add that you're also putting way too much stock in this one user who got banned for throwing a temper tantrum over something that the commissioner said about their art. Most people are not like that. It sounds to me like you're wanting to revamp the entire lore tag system for the sake of a single idiotic, permanently banned user, in a way that helps virtually nobody and would create a lot more work and headache for everyone.

This can easily be said for the vast majority of lore tags, but at least this isn't completely useless when folks could realistically add it to their blacklist or search it if they can't, otherwise, find the post they're looking for with orgasm.

There is nobody who wants to blacklist or search for "posts where the artist alleges that there is an orgasm but no orgasm is visible." If you told me that you wanted to search for that or blacklist it, I'd have no choice but to assume you're lying.

Again, (un)intentionally miscontruing the argument. the animated post way up above shows a character having a blow-job, but no cum is directly visible; this is a clear case where the tag would have been useful.

Useful in what way? "I want to find this post that does not contain an orgasm, but the artist said it does." Okay, sure.

Even still, implied_orgasm and such exist for when there are visual clues as to the existence of something, but it isn't directly visible, which is appropriate in this case. You still fail to understand what lore tags are for - if there are visual clues as to the existence of something, it qualifies for a general category tag. Seeing something in a post is what TWYS means. We could possibly just call that one orgasm straight out - there is some evidence for it. There is visible throbbing, which suggests an orgasm. Lore tags are meant to be valid regardless of there being any evidence whatsoever within a post, which is great for things like character identities, but entirely useless for objectively visible general category tags. That post has some evidence of an orgasm, so either orgasm or just implied_orgasm works fine. Now imagine if I said this post has an orgasm, but it isn't visible, so I add orgasm_(lore) instead:
post #2098524
This cat is cumming on the pizza box. No, you can't tell, but I said so, therefore it is the truth.

Now, do you see how absurd that would be? But if there's an orgasm_(lore) tag, this becomes a possibility. That's the whole point of lore tags. I can call my character female even if there is not the slightest bit of evidence for it within the post - that is exactly why female_(lore) exists. It's not even for searching or blacklisting, it's for identifying the correct information regarding a character's identity or background when the general category tags can't possibly provide the correct information without entirely violating TWYS. There does not need to be any evidence for it beyond my word. That is the whole point. But any implied_* tag still has the requirement for there to be at least some indication of the thing being in the post, so it obeys TWYS. Thus, implied_orgasm works fine for the above post - orgasm_(lore) would be unmitigated chaos due to the nature of how lore tags work.

scaliespe said:
Wrong. There are many visual clues, like an angry expression, cross-popping_vein, etc. Just because you personally have a hard time recognizing emotions depicted in an image doesn't mean the tags for them are subjective in any way. They are perfectly objective.

I see it mistagged all the time, I know when a character is angry, I can tell the difference, others keep tagging it when the emotion displayed could be pain or the character being calm, but otherwise grumpy. There is simply no way to tag these objectively, the Mona Lisa is a perfect example some folks think she's happy other folks do not.

This makes absolutely no sense. I think you just fundamentally don't understand what TWYS means. Holidays have elements that identify the holiday, and as such, can be tagged. Posts that contain a holiday get the holidays tag (by implication, usually - the tag probably shouldn't be added by itself). That's TWYS. I don't see why you're struggling to understand this.

Holiday as a tag is asserted from a copyright tag which is purely inconsistent if it isn't set in stone (The reason why we have a tag for each generation of Pokemon), not counting the fact that it itself is always asseted from another tag. If I made a picture on Christmas with a family watching TV then there is no visual element that hints it's Christmas, other than maybe the snow, but I said so, so it must be must true, it must be tagged.

I fully answered the question, but I don't think you understood it. The fact that vore was added to the user's blacklist is irrelevant, and having a lore tag for every general tag is not a solution.
1. Vore may have been added to the user's blacklist because it wasn't already there, but they were obviously upset by vore - so it could be to avoid future problems. Nevermind the fact that the post in question was not vore - if you want a more specific answer, ask the admin who did that, not me. He might not have even looked at the tags to see that the post was not actually vore. He just saw a user complaining about vore, saw that the user's blacklist was missing the vore tag, and acted upon that information without checking to see if the actual post was vore or not. That's my guess. But again, that's completely irrelevant.
2. People can claim anything in the comments. I could claim that any random post is vore or rape or scat without there being any evidence in the image, and there is a chance that someone who hates one of those things is going to see the comment and get upset, but having a lore tag for every single blacklistable tag is not a solution. Not only would that be a complete mess of tags, but it wouldn't even solve the "problem" (there is no problem). That user didn't even have regular vore on their blacklist, what makes you think they would have blaclisted vore_(lore)? The only "solution" for that would be to be able to blacklist comments, but I don't see that happening any time soon. Not to mention that this has absolutely nothing to do with stuff like orgasm_(lore) that you mentioned previously, as that's not even something that people blacklist. That one's even more useless.
While I'm at it, I'll add that you're also putting way too much stock in this one user who got banned for throwing a temper tantrum over something that the commissioner said about their art. Most people are not like that. It sounds to me like you're wanting to revamp the entire lore tag system for the sake of a single idiotic, permanently banned user, in a way that helps virtually nobody and would create a lot more work and headache for everyone.
There is nobody who wants to blacklist or search for "posts where the artist alleges that there is an orgasm but no orgasm is visible." If you told me that you wanted to search for that or blacklist it, I'd have no choice but to assume you're lying.
Useful in what way? "I want to find this post that does not contain an orgasm, but the artist said it does." Okay, sure.

Third or fourth time I have to point out that the other animated post could soon benefit from being tagged that (hopefully) and then there was another example where vore is tagged, but it shouldn't be tagged vore, it should be tagged implied_vore at most.
post #2401224
Another folk said as much; that they blacklisted vore and this post shouldn't be vore either they didn't block the tag for that post which shouldn't have it, they blocked vore for posts with graphic and obvious vore.
post #3892204 post #4247385
I can see that happen frequently with orgasm too. The animated post, yet again, is an example.

Even still, implied_orgasm and such exist for when there are visual clues as to the existence of something, but it isn't directly visible, which is appropriate in this case. You still fail to understand what lore tags are for - if there are visual clues as to the existence of something, it qualifies for a general category tag. Seeing something in a post is what TWYS means. We could possibly just call that one orgasm straight out - there is some evidence for it. There is visible throbbing, which suggests an orgasm. Lore tags are meant to be valid regardless of there being any evidence whatsoever within a post, which is great for things like character identities, but entirely useless for objectively visible general category tags. That post has some evidence of an orgasm, so either orgasm or just implied_orgasm works fine. Now imagine if I said this post has an orgasm, but it isn't visible, so I add orgasm_(lore) instead:
post #2098524
This cat is cumming on the pizza box. No, you can't tell, but I said so, therefore it is the truth.

Now, do you see how absurd that would be? But if there's an orgasm_(lore) tag, this becomes a possibility. That's the whole point of lore tags. I can call my character female even if there is not the slightest bit of evidence for it within the post - that is exactly why female_(lore) exists. It's not even for searching or blacklisting, it's for identifying the correct information regarding a character's identity or background when the general category tags can't possibly provide the correct information without entirely violating TWYS. There does not need to be any evidence for it beyond my word. That is the whole point. But any implied_* tag still has the requirement for there to be at least some indication of the thing being in the post, so it obeys TWYS. Thus, implied_orgasm works fine for the above post - orgasm_(lore) would be unmitigated chaos due to the nature of how lore tags work.

Lore tags don't work like that for most people, lore tags use visual cues to determine if a character is a certain way. You would hope they were used like you said they should be used, but more often than not, all it takes is a trans pride flag, a character crossdressing, genderbending or a widespread misconception surrounding a character (i.e Rivet from Ratchet & Clank) to get the trans_(lore) tag. If an adult character is near a minor and they both look the same, huger are the chances the poster or taggers assume they have a family relationship, even if the artist hasn't said anything about it. I saw that happen once months ago and I was reluctant to remove the tag to avoid starting a tag war and get in trouble.