So. Rule 34. We all know what Rule 34 is. It's the law of the internet that says there is porn of EVERYTHING.

Here, rule_34 is .. generally used to denote any commercial characters in a sexual situation. little bear screwing momma bear is rule 34. But, then, so is Bolt jacking off. and simba fucking nala. and... well, a whole lot of the website.

But, rule_34 is only on about 1200 pictures... that clearly isn't even remotely all of it. :p

so... my question is.. do we NEED this tag? should it be on everything? or should it only be on more "obscure" properties like, say, seasame street?

SnowWolf said:
little bear screwing momma bear

AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

But really, I'd say it should only be used on commercial characters bumping nasties.

ALL of them? like every last rating:e simba and bolt, and spirit and ninja turtle and mario and star fox and sonic and pokemon and renamon?

SnowWolf said:
ALL of them? like every last rating:e simba and bolt, and spirit and ninja turtle and mario and star fox and sonic and pokemon and renamon?

That's generally the accepted use of it, yes.

A rule 34 tag would be too broad and superfluous to serve any functional purpose. We would have to add it to ALL videogame characters, ALL television/movie characters, anime, cartoons, obscure films, you name it. I vote we kill it off.

that's true, but then, what abuot the people who blacklist rule_34 so they don't see tintin giving snowy a bone? They have a legit point for blacklisting, but if rule_34 isn't being used consistantly, that what's the point of it all?

and generally speaking, even though people could make exceptions in their blacklist (rule_34 -the_lion_king) that's too complicated for most -_-

might just be better to ditch the whole tag, rather then... continue have it being used half heartedly.

ippiki_ookami said:
A rule 34 tag would be too broad and superfluous to serve any functional purpose. We would have to add it to ALL videogame characters, ALL television/movie characters, anime, cartoons, obscure films, you name it. I vote we kill it off.

Also, this <3 <3 <3

SnowWolf said:
might just be better to ditch the whole tag, rather then... continue have it being used half heartedly.

I agree. It was something I'd had in the back of my mind to bring up, so thanks Snow for doing so.

We either tag every last non-original character, or we axe it.

Not to mention, as Rule 34 is basically "If it exists, there is porn of it," we'd have to put it on things like... hell, I can't find it. That picture of the two jets fucking. I agree it's too broad to be useful.

I would have thought that Rule 34 would at least have been reserved for unusual or esoteric porn, like Jewel from Rio being triple-penetrated by the combination of Pyramid Head, male Samus Aran, and a photograph of David Hasselhoff, while Princess Celestia watches over approvingly from the background.

If it's going to be used for darn near everything, then I'd agree that it should be trashed.

Edit: I totally forgot to add Nazis into that image somewhere, just because. So we'll say that Princess Celestia has a swastika mounted on top of her horn.

And somehow, I suspect that if this image doesn't already exist on the internet, it will within 48 hours from now.

I asked about the rule_34 tag a year or so back, the response I got was that it's for posts that are rule 34 for the sake of being rule 34.

I think it's stupid.

Might as well just delete the tag.

any neighsayers? *stares out*

I think it should continue to be used for the stuff that makes you boggle and/or makes your brain hurt to consider. Samus Aran? nah, not really. Ridley? ....Meh. there's worse. Brother Bear and Momma Bear while Poppa slams Sister? Slap that tag on it, blacklist, shiver in a corner for an hour until the memories get nicely compartmentalized into that place in my head where all the bad things go never to be seen again. >_>

That, or we need another tag to perform this particular role.

123easy said:
I think it should continue to be used for the stuff that makes you boggle and/or makes your brain hurt to consider. Samus Aran? nah, not really. Ridley? ....Meh. there's worse. Brother Bear and Momma Bear while Poppa slams Sister? Slap that tag on it, blacklist, shiver in a corner for an hour until the memories get nicely compartmentalized into that place in my head where all the bad things go never to be seen again. >_>

That, or we need another tag to perform this particular role.

No we don't. We have WHSD and nightmare_fuel. Having a rule_34 tag is like having an animal tag. We're better off without it.

WHSD?

Also, it's not exactly nightmare fuel in that it doesn't provoke feelings of horror and the like. It's closer related to nausea fuel, but is specifically oriented towards the sexual rule-34 usage of those characters; ie they're not nausea fuel in and of themselves, it's the squick situation of rule 34 that makes it so. Still, nausea_fuel then?

123easy said:
WHSD?

What Has Science Done.

123easy said:
Also, it's not exactly nightmare fuel in that it doesn't provoke feelings of horror and the like. It's closer related to nausea fuel, but is specifically oriented towards the sexual rule-34 usage of those characters; ie they're not nausea fuel in and of themselves, it's the squick situation of rule 34 that makes it so. Still, nausea_fuel then?

Ick. No. We don't need any replacement tag... just get rid of the whole thing.

ExplosiveBlaziken said:
What Has Science Done.

No, it's What Has Skeeter Done.

I could see something like an Abusing_childhoods tag for truely horendous attroticies... BUT.. its' so subjective. gummi bears, goof troop, looney tunes are all pretty standard furry porn fair. The line is so ambiguous.... and subjective. It's.. not worth having. AND just like rule_34, people wouldn't use it reliably. and that's worse then not using it at all. :(

So, who's in favor of aliasing rule_34 -> invalid_tag? *raises hand*

Should be used on things that usually/really can't have sex, all the inanimate objects like fridges and airplanes

Neitsuke said:
Should be used on things that usually/really can't have sex, all the inanimate objects like fridges and airplanes

Fridges totally have sex. They even all have the same sexual fetish (electrostimulation)

And airplanes, you say?
post #73958

*raises hand*

Riversyde said:
And airplanes, you say?
post #73958

That's not airplanes having sex, that's a dragon humping an airplane. Try this one:
post #41929

Snowy said:
That's not airplanes having sex, that's a dragon humping an airplane. Try this one:
post #41929

What-everrrrr. My post was sexier.

Riversyde said:
So, who's in favor of aliasing rule_34 -> invalid_tag? *raises hand*

I say get rid of it. Seems like an extraneous tag,

SnowWolf said:
I could see something like an Abusing_childhoods tag for truely horendous attroticies... BUT.. its' so subjective. gummi bears, goof troop, looney tunes are all pretty standard furry porn fair. The line is so ambiguous.... and subjective. It's.. not worth having. AND just like rule_34, people wouldn't use it reliably. and that's worse then not using it at all. :(

Hrm.... I concede the point. I still think an implimentation of nausea_fuel for those particularily nauseating pictures should be done. :P

Snowy said:
That's not airplanes having sex, that's a dragon humping an airplane. Try this one:
post #41929

That's the pic I was looking for, thanks. I swear I looked for "airplane." Maybe I searched for plural. Oh well.

Okay, aliased rule_34, and everything previously aliased to it, to invalid_tag.

but I was gonna ;_; you stole mah tag edits, how mean of you ;_;

*cries*

♥

SnowWolf said:
but I was gonna ;_; you stole mah tag edits, how mean of you ;_;

*cries*

♥

D'aww, sorry Snowkitty. There'll be other opportunities to enhance your e-peen <3