A new synopsis for Episode 9 of Season 4: Pinkie Apple Pie.

http://www.equestriadaily.com/2013/12/pinkie-apple-pie-synopsis-released.html

Does this mean that all Applejack X Pinkie Pie posts up to this point will be considered incest?

Well, that depends if she really is related. We'll have to wait and see.

I'm going to bet on not related.

SHUSH... HAVEN'T SEEN PAST EP 2!!
didn't read anything didn't read anything didn't read anything didn't read anything didn't read anything

How come this is not locked?

blackbirdt said:
How come this is not locked?

You and Conk share the same ideas

TheHuskyK9 said:
You and Conk share the same ideas

No we dont.

Also on the subject it wouldnt be incest, as thats using outside info. We just tag what we see :v (this was said on a lot of so called incest, artist says this is incest, yet the 2 look nothing alike)

blackbirdt said:
How come this is not locked?

Are you Conker's brother/sister?

Patchi said:
Are you Conker's brother/sister?

Patch Stahp! >.>

If they canonically are revealed to be related, then yes it would be incest. We do accept canon for popular characters, Conker. It's one of the few things that is an exception to TWYS, as relations unless twins or text is involved are rarely able to be inferred visually.

123easy said:
... We do accept canon for popular characters, Conker. It's one of the few things that is an exception to TWYS, ...

Nope.
twys

I wouldn't retag every image to be incest because of canon revealed this late in, especially since if they are related its bound to be many generations back (at least before granny smiths time)

One of the rare exceptions to TWYS is for the use of incest, as in most cases it could not be distinguished otherwise. How often do we apply that? Not very often at all. In most cases we only tag incest if there is a discernible likeness between characters

Told ya, Conker. This is one of the few exceptions to TWYS that I've always agreed with, so I made sure to pay attention to it. :P

123easy said:
Told ya, Conker. This is one of the few exceptions to TWYS that I've always agreed with, so I made sure to pay attention to it. :P

You aren't the type to not pay attention.

you good.

123easy said:
Told ya, Conker. This is one of the few exceptions to TWYS that I've always agreed with, so I made sure to pay attention to it. :P

No you didnt. Rainbow dash agreed with what I was saying.

Rainbow_Dash said:
One of the rare exceptions to TWYS is for the use of incest, as in most cases it could not be distinguished otherwise. How often do we apply that? Not very often at all. In most cases we only tag incest if there is a discernible likeness between characters

Patchi said:
You aren't the type to not pay attention.

you good.

.... I -swear- that that was Conker not Halite. ._.; I blame sleep deprivation!

We definitely allow the tagging of "incest" on images of "mainstream" characters who are related. I admit it's a pretty fuzzy policy though, as we don't really have any official definition of what "mainstream" is. Basically though, if you're dealing with characters like Alvin And The Chipmunks, Ducktales (Huey, Dewey, and Louie), and other characters like that that are defined as being closely related, then the "incest" tag can apply.

Obviously, it does fly right in the face of the "TWYS" rule, especially considering that we wouldn't offer the same treatment for non-mainstream characters (e.g. characters that some furry came up with), because not nearly as many people would be familiar with how the characters are related. In those cases, some indication within the picture or comic itself is required (e.g. "Oh daddy! Not so hard!").

So far this hasn't REALLY been an issue as far as I know, but we may still need to find some way of completely formalizing this policy at some point.

If the character is based off a program, series, or other commercial work, then a canon blood relationship trumps TWYS (So for example if Sabrina the Skunk and Tabitha, her younger sister, do some sex stuff, it'd be incest, since they are recognizable characters from a commercial work, even if they didn't look related normally (Most skunks look like they could all be related anyways so... :P); Same for two Powerpuff Girls going at it, or Spongebob and his father, or Max and Goofy; though, Darkwing Duck/Drake Mallard and Goslyn wouldn't be incest since they're uncle/niece which legally isn't incest and is allowed by law so long as age restrictions are followed, oddly enough o__o *just checked the laws in North America on this before writing this; Some states it's illegal, but far more it's legal, same with Canadian provinces. Only Ontario and Nova Scotia prohibit it, from what I can find*). If it's an original character or from a non-commercial work (commissioned work should count as non-commercial, as it is not produced en masse), and they don't look anything alike, requires some sort of given evidence for the relationship, as per your example (text, a family photo type picture, that sort of thing).

How does that sound? It's basically exactly what we've been doing.

Char said:
[…]So far this hasn't REALLY been an issue as far as I know, but we may still need to find some way of completely formalizing this policy at some point.

I'd say keep it like you said (and probably how we've been doing): we may use outside information (age, sex, gender, name, etc.) for pretty well known characters considering also the opinion of the other (active tagging) people, be it on the forums or on the comments section (forum preferred, obviously); while on the other hand, being a bit more strict with characters that maybe nobody knows besides OC's family/friends, by allowing just the basic stuff (name and probably age) unless explicitly stated in the character's dialogue or by physical traits.

But I'll stop here for further discussion