The bulk update request #7147 is active.

remove implication tentacle_bondage (4) -> tentacles (71614)
remove implication bound_by_tentacles (5) -> tentacles (71614)

Reason: I feel that tentacle_bondage and bound_by_tentacles are rather misleadingly named. Bondage and being bound requires that the character is bound by non-living objects, while tentacles are treated as living†.

I propose that both get aliased to restrained_by_tentacles, since it's the most consistent with the naming of the main tag.
Followup BUR:

alias tentacle_bondage -> restrained_by_tentacles
alias bound_by_tentacles -> restrained_by_tentacles
imply restrained_by_tentacles -> restrained
imply restrained_by_tentacles -> tentacles

You can't have tentacle_bondage/bound_by_tentacles/restrained_by_tentacles if there are no tentacles visible, or the tentacles are not restraining a character

†^{You could have dead tentacles binding a character, and that would make bound/bondage valid, but if we use tentacle_bondage/bound_by_tentacles for it, they would be flooded with mistags.}

EDIT: The bulk update request #7147 (forum #396217) has been approved by @slyroon.

Are tentacles counted as living? Tentacle porn is usually treated as solo.

Additional comment:
Some of the derivatives of the tags bound and restrained are rather confusingly named, like restraints or restraining_table, both of which are used to bind. This doesn't do any favours for the number of posts mistagged with restrained instead of bound and vice versa.

faucet said:
Are tentacles counted as living? Tentacle porn is usually treated as solo.

My guess is that tentacles aren't treated as characters if there's no visible creature it is attached to, since counting each tentacle as its own character would make many posts group, and it would be difficult to group together the tentacles and say that this batch of tentacles should be counted as a different character from this other batch.

I would say tentacles should be considered living.

faucet said:
Are tentacles counted as living? Tentacle porn is usually treated as solo.

Tentacles (or more accurately, disembodied_tentacle) count as "living" but not necessarily as individual characters.
For example, a character trapped in a sea of tentacles does not make it a gangbang or orgy.

Of worth noting is that tentacles have some sort of a special status, sharing a lot of traits of characters while also not being considered one.
For example, separation of spitroast & tentacle_spitroast, tentacle_penetration is considered as a "body part" rather than an "object".
Exceptions to this are actual characters with tentacles or tentacle_monster.

snpthecat said:
Reason: I feel that tentacle_bondage and bound_by_tentacles are rather misleadingly named. Bondage and being bound requires that the character is bound by non-living objects, while tentacles are treated as living†.

The wikis are such a confusing mess considering they are have nearly identical clauses (from "Using tentacles..." to ."..get the bondage or bound tag.") that do nothing to make it clearer.

I believe tentacle_bondage is meant to be normal bondage that also involves tentacles, be it part of the bondage_gear or "participating" in the bondage.
This does not necessarily include restraining the character (which is known under the misnomer, bound_by_tentacles).

Of course, this does not stop people from mistaking between the two and leading to a lot of mistags.

thegreatwolfgang said:

I believe tentacle_bondage is meant to be normal bondage that also involves tentacles, be it part of the bondage_gear or "participating" in the bondage.
This does not necessarily include restraining the character (which is known under the misnomer, bound_by_tentacles).

Of course, this does not stop people from mistaking between the two and leading to a lot of mistags.

It is quite the massive problem if the vast majority of posts under tentacle_bondage is bound_by_tentacles. The name is especially poor for its purpose, since most would assume it to follow the other bondage tags, and the wiki does little to clear it up.

Get rid of these tags. They are not compatible with how we've defined bound and especially not bondage. Average taggers do not differentiate bondage from bound anyway and most probably don't even know about restrained, but those are separate problems.

Living, animate things restrain. Objects bind. That's what the site decided a while ago. When the tentacles are animate_inanimate like "living ropes" or what have you, then we can talk about them restraining and binding simultaneously, but that kind of situation probably should still only be restrained. Mechanical tentacles must be the hardest to classify by far, but looking at post #3406411 as an example my intuition tells me binding objects shouldn't move or they only move to execute simple mechanical tasks, meaning mechanical tentacles ought to still skew toward restrained. Alive or not, I think tentacles are just way too complex to be considered binding objects.

faucet said:
Are tentacles counted as living? Tentacle porn is usually treated as solo.

Tentacles are alive except perhaps for a few edge cases, but they are not countable characters, paradoxical as that may seem. I think it's correct to say that we should count them as characters for consistency, but we don't want to deal with their complexity so we chose not to. This is probably the sanest, simplest explanation that doesn't rely on making up more things that don't make logical sense.

Man if I could comission one of the tentacles of "the day of the tentacle" doing bondage...

The bulk update request #7147 (forum #396217) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #7312 is active.

create alias tentacle_bondage (4) -> restrained_by_tentacles (2610)
create alias bound_by_tentacles (5) -> restrained_by_tentacles (2610)
create implication restrained_by_tentacles (2610) -> restrained (39191)
create implication restrained_by_tentacles (2610) -> tentacles (71614)

Reason: Followup

EDIT: The bulk update request #7312 (forum #397949) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #7312 (forum #397949) has been approved by @slyroon.