The tag implication #64111 cooking_with_furs -> gore has been rejected.

Reason: Well, in general to 'cooking with furs', 'cooking with scalies', 'cooking with humanoids', etc., since there's impalement, roasting, or boiling the insides of a creature, implied or otherwise, and because "just because you don't see what is happening inside doesn't mean that gore isn't happening", like how in post #1008168 you don't see any blood or guts but the implied gore is there and someone even explains down there why it is gore.

Disregard, didn't understand how "implied" works.

EDIT: The tag implication cooking_with_furs -> gore (forum #409900) has been rejected by @TsukiyomaruZero.

While gore would apply to like 90% of all cooking_with_furs posts, sometimes it’s just bondage with food.

post #4734484 post #3612864 post #4066054

However I’m a bit unsure if any of those truly apply for the cooking_with_furs tag.

Oh, so there are exceptions... But given how often it does involve gore, shouldn't it tag it as 'gore' til the tag is manually removed from the submission?

tsukiyomaruzero said:
Oh, so there are exceptions... But given how often it does involve gore, shouldn't it tag it as 'gore' til the tag is manually removed from the submission?

Implications mean you cannot remove the tag if the antecedent tag is still there

The only place on e6 where a tag is automatically added and can be removed when it isn't applicable is animated, which would not apply to slideshow

Oh, didn't think it was that...

You can cancel your own implication request. I think you should be able to do this here https://e621.net/tag_implications/64111

The tag implication cooking_with_furs -> gore (forum #409900) has been rejected by @TsukiyomaruZero.

dimoretpinel said:
You can cancel your own implication request. I think you should be able to do this here https://e621.net/tag_implications/64111

Thanks for the info.