The tag implication #53412 erection -> penis has been rejected.

Reason: I can't think of a situation where one wouldn't imply the other. Could be wrong though.

EDIT: The tag implication erection -> penis (forum #386618) has been rejected by @slyroon.

not_ero said:
The tag implication #53412 erection -> penis has been rejected.

Reason: I can't think of a situation where one wouldn't imply the other. Could be wrong though.

tenting, or the more generic erection under clothing

Other body parts can be erect (erect_nipples and erect_clitoris being two examples).

alpha7505 said:
Other body parts can be erect (erect_nipples and erect_clitoris being two examples).

those are not and should not be tagged as erection.

hjfduitloxtrds, obviously you don't have to speak up or anything, but with the case against the implication being clear-cut, i can't help but be curious about your own vote. what makes you agree with the suggestion?

strikerman said:
hjfduitloxtrds, obviously you don't have to speak up or anything, but with the case against the implication being clear-cut, i can't help but be curious about your own vote. what makes you agree with the suggestion?

80% of the time they vote against the grain, this is to be expected.

Edit:
Sometimes the one dissenting opinion is correct, but it's not helpful in any way if no reason is stated

strikerman said:
hjfduitloxtrds, obviously you don't have to speak up or anything, but with the case against the implication being clear-cut, i can't help but be curious about your own vote. what makes you agree with the suggestion?

I swear hjfd just votes contrary to everyone else for no reason. 90+% of everything that user's voted on is just the inverse of the majority (often otherwise unanimous), with zero comment explaining the dissenting opinion.

strikerman said:
hjfduitloxtrds, obviously you don't have to speak up or anything, but with the case against the implication being clear-cut, i can't help but be curious about your own vote. what makes you agree with the suggestion?

There needs to be a penis in order for an erection, no?

snpthecat said:
80% of the time they vote against the grain, this is to be expected.

Edit:
Sometimes the one dissenting opinion is correct, but it's not helpful in any way if no reason is stated

sipothac said:
I swear hjfd just votes contrary to everyone else for no reason. 90+% of everything that user's voted on is just the inverse of the majority (often otherwise unanimous), with zero comment explaining the dissenting opinion.

Um no. I actually vote a certain way because that is my actual opinion. I often don't comment because usually 1 of 2 things happen: either the thread goes completely dead with no more replies, or I end up with a record for something I said or did.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
There needs to be a penis in order for an erection, no?

In cases like post #1994813 where no penis is actually visible, only erection would be tagged. It's like tagging anal without anus; the action or consequence is still taggable even if the body part itself isn't visible

hjfduitloxtrds said:
There needs to be a penis in order for an erection, no?

A penis does not need to be visible for an erection. It cannot be tagged if it is not visible. The first reply already explained that. Additionally, penis outline and such are a thing.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
Um no. I actually vote a certain way because that is my actual opinion. I often don't comment because usually 1 of 2 things happen: either the thread goes completely dead with no more replies, or I end up with a record for something I said or did.

honestly, of you're not confident enough in your stance to have said one thing about any of your sole dissenting opinions in the last two months, maybe you shouldn't be voting on those subjects.

and, if you're trying to avoid a record, this really is not the way to do it, because, I'm not going to lie, acting like this really just kinda seems like abuse of site tools. the only thing in common between most your downvotes is just that they're related to young in some way and the only thing any of us can really gather from that is that you don't like the existence of young, you don't like how the tag is applied, or you just don't like TWYS in general, none of which are valid reasons to downvote the renaming of the adolescent tag, or the cub tag split, or really any AIBUR you've downvoted.

sipothac said:
honestly, of you're not confident enough in your stance to have said one thing about any of your sole dissenting opinions in the last two months, maybe you shouldn't be voting on those subjects.

and, if you're trying to avoid a record, this really is not the way to do it, because, I'm not going to lie, acting like this really just kinda seems like abuse of site tools. the only thing in common between most your downvotes is just that they're related to young in some way and the only thing any of us can really gather from that is that you don't like the existence of young, you don't like how the tag is applied, or you just don't like TWYS in general, none of which are valid reasons to downvote the renaming of the adolescent tag, or the cub tag split, or really any AIBUR you've downvoted.

there is almost always more votes than comments. Some people vote without commenting. this is not acceptable? I don't always feel like typing a whole paragraph explaining my position, just to read several others disagreeing with me. I'm getting that voting a certain way is against the rules, simply because it's against the majority. Am i right? I do very much like TWYS and I actually think it should be used more not less. I don't particularly like when a tag is locked against TWYS or seems to break the blacklist.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
there is almost always more votes than comments. Some people vote without commenting. this is not acceptable? I don't always feel like typing a whole paragraph explaining my position, just to read several others disagreeing with me. I'm getting that voting a certain way is against the rules, simply because it's against the majority. Am i right? I do very much like TWYS and I actually think it should be used more not less. I don't particularly like when a tag is locked against TWYS or seems to break the blacklist.

see? this is a whole argument which could have been avoided if I had just not commented in the first place.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
see? this is a whole argument which could have been avoided if I had just not commented in the first place.

Arguments can be good when it means making a case for an unpopular request, scrutinizing a popular one, or trying to cover weird "what if"s. It's pretty basic dialectics.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
see? this is a whole argument which could have been avoided if I had just not commented in the first place.

If you're not willing to explain an opinion that you voted on when questioned, I don't see why you voted on it in the first place.

The only reason I could see someone agreeing with this is that we tag breasts whether they are clothed or not, an erection through clothing kinda has the same thing where you know it's there.

Though I don't personally agree that erection should imply penis though.

You cant 100% know that erection_under_clothing actually is an erection, or just a dildo or some object placed within the pants or underwears to look like an erection. kinda the same idea, no?

lafcadio said:
Arguments can be good when it means making a case for an unpopular request, scrutinizing a popular one, or trying to cover weird "what if"s. It's pretty basic dialectics.

Yeah I guess. I've just seen way too many forums get locked for a seemingly minor argument, or because it's gone off topic or something like that.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
there is almost always more votes than comments. Some people vote without commenting. this is not acceptable? I don't always feel like typing a whole paragraph explaining my position, just to read several others disagreeing with me. I'm getting that voting a certain way is against the rules, simply because it's against the majority. Am i right? I do very much like TWYS and I actually think it should be used more not less. I don't particularly like when a tag is locked against TWYS or seems to break the blacklist.

if you'll notice most of the time there is any actual discussion around a topic at least one user from each position will say something. when someone else has already stated a reason for their stance we can just assume that similar votes are just in agreement with that statement. when there's just random dissenting votes with no attached reason everyone is just left hanging and it's really annoying.

sipothac said:
and, if you're trying to avoid a record, this really is not the way to do it, because, I'm not going to lie, acting like this really just kinda seems like abuse of site tools...

You'd think that would be the case. However, I had asked about it before, and an admin told me that "we don't have any rules against this specifically."

So, as far as suggestion votes go, there is no rule against having dissenting opinions and the voter is under no obligation to comment about their vote.
The only downside they face is having their vote "nullified" when the votes are being tallied, since they failed to bring up a valid argument against.

thegreatwolfgang said:
You'd think that would be the case. However, I had asked about it before, and an admin told me that "we don't have any rules against this specifically."

So, as far as suggestion votes go, there is no rule against having dissenting opinions and the voter is under no obligation to comment about their vote.
The only downside they face is having their vote "nullified" when the votes are being tallied, since they failed to bring up a valid argument against.

Not every little thing is written down in explicit wording. Take for example, someone downvoting just any AIBUR they see for no reason whatsoever (not saying that's what they're doing), that would fall under abuse of site tools despite it not being explicitly listed. Call it "Do not use any site tools in a manner that could be construed as disruptive." if you like, but we do have a bit of freedom of interpretation & application when it comes to the rules, we have to, else the rules would be ever growing and 1000 pages long at this point.

thegreatwolfgang said:
You'd think that would be the case. However, I had asked about it before, and an admin told me that "we don't have any rules against this specifically."

So, as far as suggestion votes go, there is no rule against having dissenting opinions and the voter is under no obligation to comment about their vote.
The only downside they face is having their vote "nullified" when the votes are being tallied, since they failed to bring up a valid argument against.

I dunno, it really seems like it could fall under using tools "in a manner that could be construed as disruptive", at this point we've had several users take note of the behavior, so it's enough to at least disrupt their experiences.

also, I know the "don't downvote stuff just based on subject matter" bit is stated in reference to posts, if we expanded it out a bit to AIBURs, from where I stand, it seems at least some of the behavior would fall under that.

donovan_dmc said:
Not every little thing is written down in explicit wording. Take for example, someone downvoting just any AIBUR they see for no reason whatsoever (not saying that's what they're doing), that would fall under abuse of site tools despite it not being explicitly listed. Call it "Do not use any site tools in a manner that could be construed as disruptive." if you like, but we do have a bit of freedom of interpretation & application when it comes to the rules, we have to, else the rules would be ever growing and 1000 pages long at this point.

Yeah, mass downvoting (or targeted downvoting) can be considered abuse of site tools. However, the keyword I used is "dissenting opinion" here, since there is no rules against having a bad take on a suggestion vote.

sipothac said:
I dunno, it really seems like it could fall under using tools "in a manner that could be construed as disruptive", at this point we've had several users take note of the behavior, so it's enough to at least disrupt a few users' experiences.

also, I know the "don't downvote stuff just based on subject matter" bit is stated in reference to posts, if we expanded it out a bit to AIBURs it seems at least some of the behavior would fall under that.

You are free to file a report if you feel that they are breaking the rules.
The response I got is that it is fine if they want to vote against a subject matter they didn't like (in my report, it was all the disambiguation downvotes).

The tag implication erection -> penis (forum #386618) has been rejected by @slyroon.