i created master/subordinate_relationship to have a tag referring to when two or more characters - who can be off screen, like the viewer - have a certain kind dom/sub relationship. it should be applied to posts where a sub refers to someone as "master," or the dom refers to themselves as one, that im sure of.

im not sure if it can or should be applied in other ways. for example i applied it to post #4687420 even though the dom wasn't called by the title of master, i just thought it would fit the kind of relationship represented in the animation. so is that a poor way of using something like this? as that could open it up to being tagged for any dom/sub relationship.

also not sure if the tag's name is good, would something like master/submissive_relationship or master/submissive work better? it would also help to know if this seems like a tag worth keeping around too.

dinbyy said:
i created master/subordinate_relationship to have a tag referring to when two or more characters - who can be off screen, like the viewer - have a certain kind dom/sub relationship. it should be applied to posts where a sub refers to someone as "master," or the dom refers to themselves as one, that im sure of.

We already have dominant, submissive, and master/mistress. Searching any combination of these tags would already be sufficient.

dinbyy said:
im not sure if it can or should be applied in other ways. for example i applied it to post #4687420 even though the dom wasn't called by the title of master, i just thought it would fit the kind of relationship represented in the animation. so is that a poor way of using something like this? as that could open it up to being tagged for any dom/sub relationship.

Normally, we would not tag anything spoken in audio dialogue since it does not follow TWYS. Though this applies to general tags only, as opposed to lore and meta tags.

also not sure if the tag's name is good, would something like master/submissive_relationship or master/submissive work better? it would also help to know if this seems like a tag worth keeping around too.

It sounds too similar to dominant/submissive, which in on itself, should not exist due to the nature of dominant & submissive tags.

thegreatwolfgang said:
We already have dominant, submissive, and master/mistress. Searching any combination of these tags would already be sufficient.

Note that these aren't the same thing as they're asking. dominant and submissive are for when characters are doing dominant and submissive activities, such as being bound or restrained. These tags get badly misused for a character simply having a dominant or submissive nature, or having penetrative sex, and nothing visually distinctive from what you can see all over the site. I'd hate to see these get misused even more.

What they seem to be asking for is more of a relationship dynamic, along the lines of mount/rider_relations, but which can lack visual cues of any domination or pet play.

watsit said:
Note that these aren't the same thing as they're asking. dominant and submissive are for when characters are doing dominant and submissive activities, such as being bound or restrained. These tags get badly misused for a character simply having a dominant or submissive nature, or having penetrative sex, and nothing visually distinctive from what you can see all over the site. I'd hate to see these get misused even more.

I read "have a certain kind dom/sub relationship" as them referring to dominant/submissive and "refers to someone as 'master'" as master/mistress.
If that is not how dom/sub is used, then the two terms should not have been used in the first place. This also applies to the potential naming of the new tag.

What they seem to be asking for is more of a relationship dynamic, along the lines of mount/rider_relations, but which can lack visual cues of any domination or pet play.

I understand they are going for something akin to teacher_and_student, but I'm failing to find the justification for having a "master_and_subordinate" tag.
If the tagging criteria is for "posts where a sub refers to someone as 'master,'" then master/mistress should already be sufficient.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I read "have a certain kind dom/sub relationship" as them referring to dominant/submissive and "refers to someone as 'master'" as master/mistress.
If that is not how dom/sub is used, then the two terms should not have been used in the first place. This also applies to the potential naming of the new tag.

I understand they are going for something akin to teacher_and_student, but I'm failing to find the justification for having a "master_and_subordinate" tag.
If the tagging criteria is for "posts where a sub refers to someone as 'master,'" then master/mistress should already be sufficient.

ah, didn't know the master/mistress tags were a thing, those tags fit what i was trying to tag. though it would seem they are a bit undertagged. and yes i was primarily going for something where a character is referred to as "master," but wondered if i could stretch it while without it becoming another dominant/submissive.

watsit said:
Note that these aren't the same thing as they're asking. dominant and submissive are for when characters are doing dominant and submissive activities, such as being bound or restrained. These tags get badly misused for a character simply having a dominant or submissive nature, or having penetrative sex, and nothing visually distinctive from what you can see all over the site. I'd hate to see these get misused even more.

What they seem to be asking for is more of a relationship dynamic, along the lines of mount/rider_relations, but which can lack visual cues of any domination or pet play.

i was wondering if i could stretch it to include a relationship dynamic like that, but i feel like it could be mistagged a bunch.