Implicating big_dom_small_sub → size_difference
Link to implication

Reason:

Its opposite small dom big sub has the implication.

thenewthing said:
big_dom_small_sub

That shouldnt even be a tag...

Also dont forget about small_dom_big_sub

Conker said:
That shouldnt even be a tag...

Why not? It seems to the only way to search for that kink.

Genjar said:
Why not? It seems to the only way to search for that kink.

Because size_difference covers it all. Besides, it would allow more crazy tags that no one would use like medium_sub_Tokyo_sized_dom ect

Conker said:
Because size_difference covers it all. Besides, it would allow more crazy tags that no one would use like medium_sub_Tokyo_sized_dom ect

Size difference covers when two are of a different size, but it doesn't cover the specific niches of when there is someone smaller dominating someone bigger (not covered by searching bdsm size_difference except broadly) or its opposite. Furthermore, medium sub Tokyo-sized dom is covered under big dom little sub, because it's generic enough to cover any size range so long as the dom is larger than the sub, while being specific enough a catagory as to provide search specification. With over 200 posts to each, nearly 300 for one, and since you so strongly expressed your displeasure for us to utilize precedence, which I'll remind you we do not use right now, I can't agree with your stance at all.

+1 implication, -1 Conker's alias.

123easy said:
[wall of text]

+1 implication, -1 Conker's alias.

I didnt suggest any alias. I only said its a bad tag to begin with.

Also size_difference and any domination tag should cover it.

Small_dom_smaller_sub

Conker said:
Also size_difference and any domination tag should cover it.

Not really. It doesn't cover it any better than, say, searching for breasts when you're actually looking for small_breasts.

small_dom_big_sub and big_dom_small_sub are on the opposite ends of the scale. Personally, I like the former and dislike the latter. Wouldn't want to see them lumped under one search.

Halite said:
Small_dom_smaller_sub

Relative sizes, as 123easy already explained. So that's big_dom_small_sub.
Edit: vvv Likewise.

Halite said:
Small_dom_smaller_sub

average-sized_dom_submicroscopic_sub

Genjar said:
Not really. It doesn't cover it any better than, say, searching for breasts when you're actually looking for small_breasts.

small_dom_big_sub and big_dom_small_sub are on the opposite ends of the scale. Personally, I like the former and dislike the latter. Wouldn't want to see them lumped under one search.

Relative sizes, as 123easy already explained. So that's big_dom_small_sub.
Edit: vvv Likewise.

Really? So an accurate sized cat, fucking an accurate sized mouse, in a picture with accurate background of a house, and let's even put a human standing next to them in the image, that's going to be tagged with "big_dom*" in it?

How about no, that's bad tagging.

I've rarely if ever seen those mistagged, so the meaning seems to be obvious to most. Though I suppose that something like smaller_dom_larger_sub might be even clearer.

Genjar said:
I've rarely if ever seen those mistagged, so the meaning seems to be obvious to most users. Though I suppose that something like smaller_dom_larger_sub might be even clearer.

That's redundant, a smaller dom automatically means larger sub.
We could just have a "larger_dom" and a "smaller_dom" tag, and it covers all situations.

Crap, did I just think of a way to fix these without just killing them entirely?
I wanted to get rid of them...

Hm, good idea. I think those would work, and they're shorter too.
The old tags could be aliased to those...

Larger_dom and smaller_dom are replacement tags? Hmm... Makes it easier to search, and makes it inarguably (within reason anyways) defined. Sounds good. +1 that alias.

Halite said:
That's redundant,
I wanted to get rid of them...

Thats a terrible idea, as than we get a ton of large_dom large_sub tiny_sub tiny_dom huge_dom huge_sub massive_sub....ect ect

In short this should not be a tag

Conker said:
Thats a terrible idea, as than we get a ton of large_dom large_sub tiny_sub tiny_dom huge_dom huge_sub massive_sub....ect ect

In short this should not be a tag

A tag is not a bad tag just because it can have synonyms. Those can easily be aliased to their relevant tag should they ever arise.

DrHorse said:
A tag is not a bad tag just because it can have synonyms. Those can easily be aliased to their relevant tag should they ever arise.

If they were as prominent a fetish as breasts, I think we'd easily separate them into more diverse catagories as you suggest, Conker, but otherwise, what Dr. Shaw-neigh-ssy said. (Tried for a bad horse joke. Did it work?)

123easy said:
(Tried for a bad horse joke. Did it work?)

Nope.