Atani, please clear up exactly where it's doublespeak when Char says "Tag what you see, on every picture, every time".

If you see a picture where what is going on is TRULY confusing and hard to pick out, I'm sure the mods are not going to up and ban you for getting it wrong.

If you tag something like Char's example (A character giving a boobjob, feminine face, no part below the navel visible) as a herm with no evidence IN THE PICTURE, just cause 'oooh the artist says it's a hir', then you are clearly not paying attention to the rule and I think at least a warning is reasonable, with repeat offenses bannable. If you see the same char taking it hard from behind with no clue as to whether it's vaginal or anal, with a penis+boobs showing, then it's a lot more of a grey area, and I'm sure nobody's gonna look at even a warning.

Please, people, stop splitting hairs and just listen to what's being said. This rule is to REDUCE confusion on tags, because not everyone is watching X artist's inkbunny/fchan/whatever page and has read the 37 page long fanfic, blah blah blah. It's a LOT more reasonable to do as Char says and tag what you SEE, not what you KNOW.

Char said:
Will you PLEASE stop saying this? THIS IS NOT THE ATTITUDE THAT E621 HOLDS AT ALL. I guess as long as people understand that I completely disagree with your statement above then you're free to continue saying it. But I absolutely disagree with the attitude of "sit down and shut up, this is how we're doing things". I fully expected push-back from making this forum post, and I welcome the counter-arguments.

*snip*

I won't be banning anyone over this. I appreciate all the feedback.

Aurali said:
Blaz: We aren't part of the "like it or leave it" camp. And It annoys me to see people use that excuse.

[brown-nose]
I'm glad you have this viewpoint on the subject. Everyone likes a mod/admin who listens to us bottom-feeders :3
[/brown-nose]

Char said:
What rules her out as being a female in that pic? Unless you're saying that you can see a penis, but no boobs and no vag. Then yes, at that point it would entirely depend on the positioning of the dick that's fucking her. Too high, and it's in the ass and she's POTENTIALLY just a male. Too low, and it's in her vag and she's definitely a herm. You are ALWAYS going to find some image that's going to potentially be an exception to any "concrete" rules we lay down. The point of my argument about tagging gender properly is to make sure you are NOT tagging gender using information that you have inferred about the character externally from the image itself. If it's difficult to infer the information of gender WITHIN the picture itself, that's completely fine and sometimes expected.

I probably should have been more clear when it comes to Artica Sparkle pics, lol. But yeah, I meant if in the pic she has a visible penis. I'm just saying, in my personal opinion, if one couldn't easily tell if it was anal or vaginal based on angles and whatnot, I'd likely tag the post as herm just to be on the safe side. In this situation, I think it would come down to what assumptions the individual viewer wants to make.

Char said:
I'm saying one set of tags is MORE IMPORTANT than another set, yes. Tagging "incest" properly is an entirely separate issue that I'm not looking to tackle right now, save for mentioning that it still falls under tagging what you see. HOWEVER, I am perfectly willing to concede the point that MAINSTREAM characters such as The Chipmunks and such SHOULD be assumed to be siblings/related. Why? Because they're extremely popular and well known characters, even outside the furry fandom. "EVERYONE" knows that The Chipmunks are brothers. NOT EVERYONE knows that Furry Artist X's personal characters are brother and sister. That's what makes the difference to me.

I fully agree with this, with one small...well not really an exception, but a situation worth mentioning. The characters shown in post #131207, they are paternal twins. Some sort of hybrid between a large feline and a rabbit, resulting in one sibling being primarily feline and the other being primarily lagomorph. In this situation, the physical differences *could* lead a person to assume they aren't related, but at the same time, the obviously similar markings *could* lead a person to assume that they are. Its my opinion that if the characters share *some* amount of similarity, and the author says they are related, the incest tag should apply. Now, if the only similarity they have is, say, species (or none at all) then obviously it shouldn't be tagged as such. Again, this is just my opinion (and I really like the siblings from the previously mentioned post).

Char said:
I am in fact saying that body type is usually a good indicator of gender. If you look like a girl from behind, I'm going to assume you're a girl. Am I going to KNOW you're a girl? No, of course not. But I am still inferring information about you based SOLELY on what I see right in front of me, and not what I heard somebody else say about you. If you look like a girl from behind, chances are good you really are a girl. Again, this hits on "tag what you see". Do they look like a girl? Yes. Do we know they're a girl? No. The resulting tag is: female. Why? Because we have enough information to make an EDUCATED GUESS that they are female, and we assume that the majority of users who see the character will ALSO say the character is female. This is NOT a case where ambiguous_gender should be applied, because we HAVE information that SUGGESTS a particular gender. Ambiguous_gender should only be applied when you honest-to-god-can-not-tell-one-way-or-the-other what the gender of the character might be, NOT simply because you don't KNOW FOR SURE what the gender really is.

I still have to slightly disagree with you on this. If the only gender-determining quality of a character in a picture is an hourglass figure, I think the Ambiguous_Gender tag should still apply. Again, I mean in a situation in which there are no side-boobs, no tight-pants-causing-vagina-bump, nothing of the sort. Char, I don't know what sort of things you're interested in IRL, but in a hypothetical situation, you might find yourself let down from time to time if you assume all slender people viewed from behind are female. I can't blame you for making that assumption, it's one I've found lots of people tend to make. I don't complain, it gives me an interesting source of humour.

Anyways, I think at this point I'm beating a dead horse. As long as I'm aware that the mods/admins are willing to work with the rest of us on making sure everything is nice and tagged properly, I can't complain. On the other hand, I think the most serious concern for the well being of E621 in general is......those goddamn creepers trying to seduce their favorite fictional fur via the comments sections D:

anon420 said:
Atani, please clear up exactly where it's doublespeak when Char says "Tag what you see, on every picture, every time".

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

Did...you read my post? I was pretty clear about everything, dividing my post up amongst individual sectional quotes. Its resolved, don't worry your little head, k?

UNRELATED NOTE: Doesn't E621 have an embedded web irc client? I could have sworn in the past, if I clicked IRC up top, it took me to a page with an embedded client. Now there is just a blank light blue box.

http://e621.net/post?tags=mikhaila

cuntboy?

I'm not even an artist or a character owner and I find this to be a faulty way to tag. If you go around looking for sexual partners by the logic of "Tag by what you see" could lead to a lot of awkward sexual situations where you loose interest when they take off their clothes.

Not only that, but if someone uploads a picture of a clothed cuntboy, I would like to know that it's a cuntboy... it may lead to me searching for the character and finding pictures that may or may not be less clothed.

There is also a big gender difference between cuntboys and flat-chested females, but it can't be told by the picture.. should I tag it as BOTH even though it is really only one because outside information would be REQUIRED to make a distinction?

What if it is the reverse? I find a nice 'female' picture only to look up the character more and be annoyed that it is actually a herm?

Additionally, how should we treat comics and pools of images? In a multi-paged comic, a herm might be fully clothed and look just like a girl in one page... while being nude and exposed as a herm in the next... If these guidelines were followed, then I might want to start reading the comic based on the one page I find and be really annoyed when I start reading the rest.

I think that gender tags should be about the intended gender given by the artist/character owner (if applicable).... and that we should welcome all reputable outside information about what is ACTUALLY going on in the picture as opposed to remaining ignorant of it.

SoulLess said:
There is also a big gender difference between cuntboys and flat-chested females, but it can't be told by the picture.. should I tag it as BOTH even though it is really only one because outside information would be REQUIRED to make a distinction?

This is true. I do think when it comes to cuntboys vs flat-chested women, an outside source is the only distinction in some cases. Mikhaila is a woman, for example, not a cuntboy.

SoulLess said:
What if it is the reverse? I find a nice 'female' picture only to look up the character more and be annoyed that it is actually a herm?

If you couldn't tell it had a penis before you did further searching, it should be tagged as what is apparently. If you could only see from the belly button up, and it looked like a girl, it should be tagged as such. People seem to be forgetting about the concept of rule 63, genderswapping. For all you know, in the pic where you can only see its tits, perhaps it is a female in that pic, as the artist intended. But you don't know, you can only see what's there. And from what's seen, its female.

SoulLess said:
Additionally, how should we treat comics and pools of images? In a multi-paged comic, a herm might be fully clothed and look just like a girl in one page... while being nude and exposed as a herm in the next... If these guidelines were followed, then I might want to start reading the comic based on the one page I find and be really annoyed when I start reading the rest.

This is a big point and I'm glad you brought it up, actually. I think in the case of pooled images, such as comics or sets, the images should be tagged as is apparent from the pool. I do completely agree that in this situation, someone might view the first picture in a pool, with it tagged as "female" only to later find out there isn't a vagina in sight, a total femme-boy sausage-fest. Perhaps this will fall into the category of situations-that-require-extra-thought-when-it-comes-to-tagging. Anyone else agree/disagree?

SoulLess said:
I think that gender tags should be about the intended gender given by the artist/character owner (if applicable).... and that we should welcome all reputable outside information about what is ACTUALLY going on in the picture as opposed to remaining ignorant of it.

If the artist intends for the character to be female, they'll likely make it apparent in the image. If the artist draws a feral wolf with no discernible gender characteristics, I'm 100% for it being tagged Ambiguous_Gender.

If you allow outside source in THAT case, it should be allowed for all cases(Otherwise you're just saying "I can use my right of speech and you can't"). There is no viable way to tell the difference between a clothed herm and a female (assuming no buldges) without referring to an outside resources JUST AS there is no viable way to discern between the cuntboy and the flat-chested girl.

Unless it is tagged as genderswapped(which there is a tag for), it should be considered the characters origional gender. A Character is kind of like one big image pool in that if I find one picture of a character I like... I will look for other pictures of that character (in the same way that If I like an image in an image pool... I look at the other images in that pool.)

I think that you shouldn't tag with willfull ignorance of what the character actually is... and should give it the same consideration you would when tagging the crossdresser that you know is a crossdresser so that people won't be lured into a ... trap.

Right... but if I'm an artist and I intend for the character to be an unusual gender like HERM... It is almost impossible for me to make a SFW picture that makes a distinction like that.

Once again... I think that this problem is just people wanting to be lazy and not get reputable information about what the character is... or wanting to be ignorant of what the character actually is.

SoulLess said:
If you allow outside source in THAT case, it should be allowed for all cases(Otherwise you're just saying "I can use my right of speech and you can't"). There is no viable way to tell the difference between a clothed herm and a female (assuming no buldges) without referring to an outside resources JUST AS there is no viable way to discern between the cuntboy and the flat-chested girl.

If you're going to use what I said and turn it into something against me, how about we go with what I was considering suggesting, but decided not to: Remove the cuntboy tag. Its too subjective. 99% of the time a cuntboy is a flat-chested female. There, no outside sources required for anything. Better?

SoulLess said:
Unless it is tagged as genderswapped(which there is a tag for), it should be considered the characters origional gender. A Character is kind of like one big image pool in that if I find one picture of a character I like... I will look for other pictures of that character (in the same way that If I like an image in an image pool... I look at the other images in that pool.)

You can view individual tags as being "kind of like" an image pool all you want, but that's not the case. Tags are for content, pools are for grouping images that are part of a series. Different pages of a comic may have completely different content. These are two different things.

SoulLess said:
I think that you shouldn't tag with willfull ignorance of what the character actually is... and should give it the same consideration you would when tagging the crossdresser that you know is a crossdresser so that people won't be lured into a ... trap.

If a person wants to see women, they search "Female". If they come across an "Artica_Sparkle" image they like that appears female, they may then search "Artica_Sparkle". If they don't like all the cocks they see, they'll search again, this time for "Artica_Sparkle -penis". Problem solved, a learning experience.

SoulLess said:
Right... but if I'm an artist and I intend for the character to be an unusual gender like HERM... It is almost impossible for me to make a SFW picture that makes a distinction like that.

And hey, the people who care about your character will either already, or at some point in the near future KNOW that your character is a herm. Add image source, keep the background details on your furaffinity or whatever. This isn't a site for telling your characters life story, its an imageboard. For images. Images that are tagged as whats in them. As for the people who don't know/care about your character's background, its a female. As it looks in the image.

SoulLess said:
Once again... I think that this problem is just people wanting to be lazy and not get reputable information about what the character is... or wanting to be ignorant of what the character actually is.

If a viewer wants reputable information, they can get it. As previously stated, image source. FurAffinity. All that jazz. That's not what this site is about.

To be honest, both ideas are acceptable to me. Tagging by character's known gender works for me, as does tagging by apparent gender within the individual image. However, with the latter in place, I suggest that a character's known gender be included in his/her/its Wiki. Even if there's no other information, having that gender monicker in the character's wiki is helpful. Examples:
"Declared female by artist"
"Typically herm, but female in some images"
"Male"

The wiki is the most efficient and suitable place for this information. Put it there once, and it becomes a constantly-available piece of info readily available for discovery from any image containing the character tag. Blacklists will not falsely block an image under the "tag-as-you-see" rule.

I think this is the best way to go. It'll make use of the wikis for character tags, 99% of which are blank. Since the way we search will be different anyway--searching by appearance--at least the information many of us (myself strongly included) desire will be available somewhere on-site, and we can access it through the character wiki this way.

Removing cuntboy tags might solve the problem, but would probably end up insulting some people... if you think that it would be RIGHT to label cuntboys as flat-chested girls or vice-versa (It's an imageboard, so some generalizations... even if they create inaccuracy... may need to be made).

Right... but all instances of a character are essentially the same thing unless changed (probably tagged as 'genderswapped' since that is the tag that would pertain to this situation)... and like all pictures in a pool, all pictures of the character should reflect this characters actual situation. The main difference between a pool and a character tag is that a pool normally shares a chronological story and a hero/heroine with it's contained pictures while a character tag only shares the hero/heroin. But in gender, unless genderswapped(or a shapeshifter), all instances of that character share the gender.

The Princess preserves this connection between multiple instances of the same character in some cases by saying "T.V Show characters are given a special Clause, However 99% of the time, they will also fall under the gender tagging rules. If leonardo appears, stark naked, without any bits of any kind ambiguous. If Renamon appears flat chested, with no parts of any kind, ambiguous. If Renamon appears clothed, but has a large bulge in the chest, Female. So on and so on." .. but it's odd to say that outside sources get to be used on T.V. Show characters (when no picture graphic contradicts it) because their ACCURATE information is more well known? but when the character's ACCURATE information is less well known you don't?

...And for people who don't care to check it's pants first, the trap is a female.

Regardless of what the site is about, I still think it should be important to the site that it attempts to have it's users give accurate information regarding a picture. Calling a cuntboy a flat-chested female and calling a clothed herm a girl(due to the inability to prove otherwise) are both giving false conceptions about what the picture actually is and what might actually be going on in the picture.

Thought (No example, just curious... may not be practical at all): What about a picture with words in it, where the character appears female but the words subtly suggest that the character is a herm?

Also, for me at least, there is a difference when enjoying a picture of a character who I know is genderswapped... verses one that is the original gender that the character is supposed to be.

I honestly feel that what the artist says about the character in the picture is also what the character is... and that using any other basis for judging what the character is would just end up with people lying about what is in the picture.

I think it may be a better idea just to not have the community zealously persecute pictures with tags when the community might not have the full story.

I argue mainly because I like too, and respect the sites decision to do what it wants... I just want my opinion to be read by mods, and hope that it is ;3

I don't see the confusion but maybe I can boil it down very simply for those of you confused (and sorry if I've got something wrong, just trying to help).

Dick+Breasts-Cunt=Dickgirl
Dick+Cunt+Breasts=Herm
Cunt-Breasts-Dick=Cuntboy
Cunt+Dick-Breasts=Herm

It doesn't matter what that character normally is, you tag based off of what you see in that pic, not what the character normally is. I hope I've at least helped a little bit on clearing that up.

I would only tag what the artist says about the picture and that means explicitly what gender, species, subspecies it is. that includes if it appeared to be non-gendered too. so i go by my wits and research.

Darlthris said:
I would only tag what the artist says about the picture and that means explicitly what gender, species, subspecies it is. that includes if it appeared to be non-gendered too. so i go by my wits and research.

But see, that's what you're not supposed to do. It doesn't matter if a character is normally a herm or cuntboy or dickgirl, it goes off of what you see in the pic. So if the only identifier in the pic are breasts, it's a female. If you see breasts and penis but no cunt, dickgirl. That's how the admins want it and I agree with that because when I'm looking for females, I don't want to miss out on a pic just because the character is normally a herm/dickboy/cuntboy even though in that pic it's only obvious the character's a girl.

It doesn't matter what that character normally is, you tag based off of what you see in that pic, not what the character normally is. I hope I've at least helped a little bit on clearing that up.

That isn't the case with T.V. characters. If the T.V. Character is clothed but is known to be a herm, you get to label it as herm instead of as female.. even though female is the one which your method would make it choose. Sources: Princess Celestia

I don't want to miss out on a pic just because the character is normally a herm/dickboy/cuntboy even though in that pic it's only obvious the character's a girl.

But what you're being willfully ignorant of is that the character is ACTUALLY still a herm in that picture, you just can't see it because she's wearing baggy pants. And that girl you were looking at is ACTUALLY a trap.. you just can't tell because he's good at it.

SoulLess said:
But what you're being willfully ignorant of is that the character is ACTUALLY still a herm in that picture, you just can't see it because she's wearing baggy pants. And that girl you were looking at is ACTUALLY a trap.. you just can't tell because he's good at it.

Well I was mostly talking about things that were obvious (usually naked/nude). If it's less than obvious, then you go off of what you can tell from the picture AND the character. So like if you see Sonic (who's normally a guy) fully clothed (though that is odd it's the best example I can think of now) and looking like he normally does otherwise, obviously it'd be tagged as male. You're right though, sometimes it gets a bit muddied and confusing, but I think on pics like that it'd be best to open a thread and ask what it should be marked as. Like a pic of a fully clothed Sonic but with breasts, I wouldn't know how to tag that if he looks normal except with breasts.

About "hourglass figures" being the sole defining characteristic for tagging females, that's bullshit and you know it, and you know that's not what the moderators are going for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=human+sexual+dimorphism&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

There is a massive number of physiological characteristics that differentiate the two sexes. It's the combination of all visible sexual characteristics that determine whether an individual is visually identified as male or female (or herm, or whatever).

In the end tagging comes down to the user's best judgement. The mods aren't going to can you for putting down a few erroneous tags. But they can definitely tell when you repeatedly make the same errors and maybe even go out of your way to circumvent the rules of the site, and the definitely will punish you if you fail to improve yourself.

@KloH0und
I think It's perfectly fair for me to be a cuntboy and want people to see me as one.. and not as a girl.
....
What if the DickGirl has her crotch concealed?
Oh, and purposefully lying about the gender of a character simply because the true gender is concealed is in no way an improvement.

@RMJ
I'm not sure that's what we're arguing about... if we're arguing about cases of obvious genderbending... of course they should be tagged as-is... I was under the assumption we were talking about situations where the gender is concealed and a gender needs to be assumed from available parts to make a tag (A.K.A. Certain distinguishing factors the artist says are there are being hidden by clothing or such).

@all
I don't know... If I look at a picture of a character that I KNOW is a herm, and there is no graphic evidence to tell me that they are NOT a herm in that picture... Then I see the image as the thing's happening to a herm. But if the picture would be tagged as a female (because of a hidden surprise) and I were to think it was nice and later realize it was a herm.. and I don't like herms, I may have an issue. I'd rather not search "female" and have to worry about all the pictures in the list being traps.

SoulLess said:
But what you're being willfully ignorant of is that the character is ACTUALLY still a herm in that picture, you just can't see it because she's wearing baggy pants. And that girl you were looking at is ACTUALLY a trap.. you just can't tell because he's good at it.

It doesn't matter for those just looking at that image. Now if somebody then cared to search on that character's name, they might find out that the character is supposed to be a herm and then guess what? It would be their choice whether to look at future versions of that character that were tagged female or filter that character out.

Nobody here is going to be scarred for life because they fapped to an image of a character they found out later had extra parts in some other images. Many wouldn't give a crap and would take the image at face value by itself.

A decision has been made on how one set of index tags are going to be used. Knowing that, one can then use them consistently for searching.

Venti_Mocha said:
It doesn't matter for those just looking at that image. Now if somebody then cared to search on that character's name, they might find out that the character is supposed to be a herm and then guess what? It would be their choice whether to look at future versions of that character that were tagged female or filter that character out.

Nobody here is going to be scarred for life because they fapped to an image of a character they found out later had extra parts in some other images. Many wouldn't give a crap and would take the image at face value by itself.

A decision has been made on how one set of index tags are going to be used. Knowing that, one can then use them consistently for searching.

Just out of my experience though, generally when my straight friends find out that the ass they've been staring at for the past minute is a trap... they are pretty scarred... I mean I guess it doesn't matter if you just take it at face value: A pretty nice rear that looks like it belongs to a girl... but I've never met a straight guy who would have THAT as a reaction after finding out he was staring at a crossdresser.

Also: under your proposed rules on using that set of index tags.. how should I search for a clothed cuntboy picture?

SoulLess said:
@RMJ
I'm not sure that's what we're arguing about... if we're arguing about cases of obvious genderbending... of course they should be tagged as-is... I was under the assumption we were talking about situations where the gender is concealed and a gender needs to be assumed from available parts to make a tag (A.K.A. Certain distinguishing factors the artist says are there are being hidden by clothing or such).

I just wanted to make sure that was clear because I thought I noticed people arguing about that too.

SoulLess said:
What if the DickGirl has her crotch concealed?

Well in that case they'd no longer be a DickGirl (from what I understand) unless there's some sort of visible sign that there's a penis, like a bulge or an outline or something.

SoulLess said:
Just out of my experience though, generally when my straight friends find out that the ass they've been staring at for the past minute is a trap under your proposed rules on using that set of index tags.. how should I search for a clothed cuntboy picture?

I'll address that in two parts. "generally when my straight friends find out the [supposed female] they've been staring at for the past minute is a trap" doesn't apply because we can't be doing this tagging thing off of your friends, and I know personally, I wouldn't care if the supposed female was a herm/cockgirl if in the pic the only thing that's obvious is her being a female. The second part "how should I search for a clothed cuntboy picture?" I don't mean to sound rude or insensitive to others tastes, but wouldn't a clothed cuntboy picture essentially just be a pic of a male without a visible penis outline/bulge?

RMJ said:
Well in that case they'd no longer be a DickGirl (from what I understand) unless there's some sort of visible sign that there's a penis, like a bulge or an outline or something.

In real life this means that all traps are actually girls.

RMJ said:
I'll address that in two parts. "generally when my straight friends find out the [supposed female] they've been staring at for the past minute is a trap" doesn't apply because we can't be doing this tagging thing off of your friends, and I know personally, I wouldn't care if the supposed female was a herm/cockgirl if in the pic the only thing that's obvious is her being a female. The second part "how should I search for a clothed cuntboy picture?" I don't mean to sound rude or insensitive to others tastes, but wouldn't a clothed cuntboy picture essentially just be a pic of a male without a visible penis outline/bulge?

Part 1: You can't say it's 'obvious' that she's a female... if, in that picture, she was drawn to be a dick-girl (b/c the character is a dick-girl).. that makes her quite different (conceptually) from a female... even if the distinguishing factor is hidden. And some people have serious moral objections to that. I'm just trying to point out a real life situation that relates directly to inaccurate tagging.
Part 2: Yes, and no. It would be the same picture as in you could pull a picture of a male without visible penis/outline bulge either way. But it would also leave a large gap in my searching to not find only the ones that were supposed to be cuntboys. It is very insensitive of you ;P Though you are e621, so I guess expecting sensitive is not really fair.

I think that in a case where the 'goods' are hidden, the deciding factor should be the artist.... where as you guys seem to think that when the 'goods' are hidden, the deciding factor is defaulting to "Male" or "Female".. and that the picture should be searched by what the character in it is... and if you want to lie to yourself about what the character in it is, you should do that on your own time and not try to push it onto others as a tagging decision.

Personally I think you're just nit-picking. If you're looking for a specific character/artist, then you search that character/artist's name, however, I doubt anyone on this site would have any sort of qualm with being attracted to a herm in a pic where it just looks like a guy or girl and then finding out it's a herm. Can I speak for everyone? No, nobody can, but I have a saying that I think fits perfectly here: "By trying to please everybody, you'll please nobody and piss more people off." So go ahead and nit-pick all you want, but I think most people would agree with the admins on this whole gender tagging issue.

SoulLess said:
I think It's perfectly fair for me to be a cuntboy and want people to see me as one.. and not as a girl.
....
What if the DickGirl has her crotch concealed?
Oh, and purposefully lying about the gender of a character simply because the true gender is concealed is in no way an improvement.

That's the thing. We're not trying to "lie" to the viewer.

Tags describe the all of the content depicted within the image. If a character is typically depicted as a herm/dickgirl/cuntboy/intersex then you can bet we'll mention it in their respective wiki page (if we fail to, you're entirely welcome to rectify our error). But within the context of nothing but an image itself, the character is whatever is most evidenced by the image.

Think postmodernism. It doesn't matter what anything or anyone says, if there's no concrete evidence Artica Sparkle's genitals within the image (you can't see 'em), then whether she's a herm, dickgirl, or bog-standard female is completely up to the interpretation of the viewer.

On mistaking genders being traumatic, I completely agree. But that's a lesson people actually need to learn. Before you go hollering "Damn, she's hot!" make sure that she isn't really a he.

To answer you SoulLess:

As Char said, when you tag a pic that has no visual evidence of herm as 'herm', you trigger some people's blacklists incorrectly. The idea of visual tagging is to avoid false positives on things, so excess tags that don't directly correlate to the picture at hand are bad. This is because you end up making people miss pictures they didn't want to miss.

I'll reuse Char's pic as an example: post #84822. That pic has no visual indication of herm, so when someone goes in and says "Well shi's really a herm, so I'll add it in", it triggers the blacklist incorrectly, as that particular picture has nothing visually indicating a herm. Those who have herm blacklisted because it isn't their forte get it blocked incorrectly, as we have no VISUAL impression that it is a herm pic. This takes the person's choice out of the matter, and makes blacklisting less effective by increasing false positive blocks.

On the other hand, tagging by what you SEE leaves that picture open to anyone who doesn't have arctica_sparkle (or another appropriate tag) blacklisted. At that point, if its someone who actually cares about what the character's 'real' gender is, they can blacklist arctica_sparkle and be done with all pictures of that character. Or if, like me, you don't care about the 'real' gender but care more about the individual picture, you can enjoy the one or two non-herm pictures of the character. Everyone gets a fair choice that way, and it makes the blacklisting system more effective by reducing false positive blocks.

TL:DR:
Not everyone knows (or CARES for that matter) what a character's 'real' gender is, and should not be forced to start scrapping tags out of blacklists to avoid missing otherwise great pictures because someone is tagging things that are NOT in the picture. Keep outside stuff to the wiki, and let people blacklist characters that have stuff they don't like.

Edited to correct grammer/spelling.

Tags describe the all of the content depicted within the image. If a character is typically depicted as a herm/dickgirl/cuntboy/intersex then you can bet we'll mention it in their respective wiki page (if we fail to, you're entirely welcome to rectify our error). But within the context of nothing but an image itself, the character is whatever is most evidenced by the image..

Meta-knowledge: The knowledge of knowledge.

In order to tag it as a gender, you need to first know what the gender your tagging it as is enough to discern that the picture is indeed of someone of that gender... and in order to tag it as a character, you must first know what that character is enough to discern that the picture is, indeed, of that character... thus you cannot say "nothing but an image itself" with complete accuracy as it relies on your build up of knowledge about such things IN ADDITION to the image. (ex: Someone can draw a picture of a dick, and without your build up of knowledge on what a dick is.. you would never know enough to tag the picture appropriately.)

If there's a picture of Drayk (Who, you know, is a cuntboy), that doesn't show his crotch... from nothing but an image itself you cannot tell that it is a cuntboy (as opposed to male).... but you, from the picture alone, CAN tell that it is Drayk (since you can tag it as Drayk).

Drayk is a cuntboy.
That picture is of Drayk.

By transitive property, that means that:

That picture is of a cuntboy.

If nothing but an image itself is enough to tell you that it is Drayk (which would be necessary to tag the picture as Drayk), it is also logically enough to tell you that the default gender to resort to (meaning if there is no obvious reason to object) is a cuntboy.

@Anon420

I think if they want to lie to themselves about the gender of the person in the picture, that's their prerogative.

It gives everyone the choice of whether they care about falling into a trap or not, sure... but it also lessens the search power by searching based on tags not accurate to the picture... and makes it hard for users who want to find pictures of herms wearing clothing to find them because they would all be listed under female.

The picture isn't, all of the sudden, of a male just because the cuntboy has a pair of pants on.

But that assumes that Drayk will be a cuntboy in every single image he appears in. There's nothing stopping an artist from drawing Drayk as a female with a pronounced set of breasts, or a male with a very visible penis, or whatever. Yeah, the creator of the character can bitch and whine about it if they're so inclined, but in the end that picture of Drayk not being a cuntboy is still a picture of Drayk not being a cuntboy.

If someone draws Drayk wearing pants with no visible genitalia and a flat chest, then we don't know what he is. It doesn't matter how set you are on Drayk being a cuntboy, it's still open to interpretation.

Just because the creator says "Oh, x character is a herm," doesn't turn the character's gender into some sort of immutable concept.

KloH0und said:
But that assumes that Drayk will be a cuntboy in every single image he appears in. There's nothing stopping an artist from drawing Drayk as a female with a pronounced set of breasts, or a male with a very visible penis, or whatever. Yeah, the creator of the character can bitch and whine about it if they're so inclined, but in the end that picture of Drayk not being a cuntboy is still a picture of Drayk not being a cuntboy.

If someone draws Drayk wearing pants with no visible genitalia and a flat chest, then we don't know what he is. It doesn't matter how set you are on Drayk being a cuntboy, it's still open to interpretation. Someone else might be just has fixated on thinking of Drayk as some other gender.

Notice how I said at the bottom that that made cuntboy the "Default" like... if there are no obvious maley bits or breasts.

If there's obvious variations, sure.... but unless traits are made obvious, the default gender for a picture of Drayk should be cuntboy.

But having such a fixation would be contrary to the character creator, and thus would just be them lying to themselves about a fictional character that someone else made up.

That's just the thing, there is no "default" gender for anything. ESPECIALLY with furries.

If you say Drayk's "default" state is as a cuntboy, you're basically forcing that interpretation of Drayk on other people.

This thread has just gotten ridiculous, threatening to ban over a tag? Really??

Might as well lock this, staff has made their point clear and in a threatening way, so despite everyone that thinks this is silly, wrong or otherwise - it doesn't matter.

Guess ill start marking clothed chars I know to be herm only (NOT ARTICA) as ambiguous instead of what they are.

Feh.

KloH0und said:
If you say Drayk's "default" state is as a cuntboy, you're basically forcing that interpretation of Drayk on other people.

Right... and since his character was made, by his character's creator as a cuntboy.. that is like trying to enforce the interpretation that batman is a fictional man who wears a bat-like suit and fights crime. OH NO!

Jaxinc said:
Guess ill start marking clothed chars I know to be herm only (NOT ARTICA) as ambiguous instead of what they are.

You don't have to do that entirely... Princess_Clestia said that if they were in a T.V. Show as a character, then there is an exception.

SoulLess said:
Right... and since his character was made, by his character's creator as a cuntboy.. that is like trying to enforce the interpretation that batman is a fictional man who wears a bat-like suit and fights crime. OH NO!

WORST POSSIBLE EXAMPLE FOR THAT PARTICULAR ARGUMENT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_versions_of_Batman

Nothing is immutable.

It doesn't matter whether it's some intersexual lizard-thing made up by some guy on the internet...

post #92578

OR ADOLF MOTHERFUCKING HITLER. Everything is open to interpretation.

KloH0und said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_versions_of_Batman

WORST POSSIBLE EXAMPLE FOR THAT PARTICULAR ARGUMENT.

All the other "batmans" were different characters, be it robots, or predecessors or whatnot. And although they held the name "batman" they were not equivilant to any of the other "batman."

So in order to complete this example you must zoom in to a particular Batman... in this case, I mean the original and true Batman... either way... there is something static about his character: He goes around and fights crime in a bat suit. There is something static about Drayk: He's a cuntboy. There could be a parody/mashup where batman runs around and fights crime in a bunnysuit... but that has no impact on the actual identity of Batman in the same way that a little gender-bending does not impact the actual Identity of Drayk... and in the same way that that picture does not impact the reality of who Adolf Hitler was.

Schools in-force the interpretation that Adolf killed millions for a reason.

Okay, largely confused here...
Read the edited part and am just asking this to get some clarity, after the dizzying amount of responses.
@.@
A character that "IS" a herm, known to be a herm, confirmed by artist, character owner, and past art, will STILL be tagged as a herm, even IF there are no dangly parts showing?
I ask because my sona, if you will, is a herm, I have always been a herm, I could NOT imagine my life NOT being a herm.
Anyhoo, I got off track, she's a herm, but I don't care for sheaths and testicles, so mine are both internal.
Internal testes and a slit sheath.
I HAVE a cock, but it doesn't hang out 24/7, I can, presuming I get some art of her drawn in the future, tag her as a herm, even IF her cock isn't out?
Say she was in her normal attire, a leather jacket and a skirt.
Dressed, fully clothed, just her breasts and feminine figure.
Would I STILL be able to tag it as a "herm" or will I have to tag as a female, just because of "tag what you see"?
Thank you for any positive responses and answers I get and for the love of bunny jebus, don't flame me!
*puts on the asbestos suit and curls up*

@KyuNinetails

You would tag as a female because since based off the picture hir (from what I gather that'd be the correct usage/term, right?) is a she... Don't know if that makes a lot of sense but since it is tag what you see and in that pic you'd be seeing a female because of the lack of penis and/or balls that's what it'd be tagged as.

Also, To default to a character either being male or female is just favoritism. I could just as easily flip the coin and say I only want herm pictures and not female ones, and then complain that example picture from earlier didn't show up even though she's obviously a herm under my interpretation, and it's obviously a perfectly good picture... what would you have me do? Search through female pictures for the needle in the haystack?

In fact, "tagging as you see" means you can tag any gender you want when their "goods" are not particularly showing... you might get the interpretation that it is a herm... sure there is the guideline of

Breasts + dick = dickgirl
Breasts + vagina = female
Breasts + dick + vagina = herm

But when the crotch is covered, you cannot effectively distinguish between the three without resorting to favoritism.

@ RMJ
But I'm NOT a female, I'm a herm, and it's her, I know a rl herm and she detests the whole "shi/hir" thing.
>.>
<.<
I would tag any image of Kyu as a herm, because that's exactly what she is.
I don't think that putting a pair of pants on suddenly changes your sex/gender to something else.
If people don't want a herm image in their searches, that's fine, but I don't become female just because they don't like herms.
Perhaps it's selfish, but I think that a character that "is" a hermaphrodite, should be called such, clothed, unclothed, visible or not.
But this is just my opinion.
Here is possibly the only existing image of her that I have right now.
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/3599/kyuarashibara004.png
Just because a sheath isn't bulging out of her panties doesn't mean she isn't a herm.
o.o;;

*EDIT
And my question was kinda for the mods/admins, not the average opinionated user.
I would like to know, from an admin, if I can still tag myself as a herm, even if I don't appear that way 24/7.
It's a little important to me.
As I already said, she's not a female, she is most definitively a herm. Her myriad number of children sired with females would attest to that fact.
XD

I would tag any image of Kyu as a herm, because that's exactly what she is.
I don't think that putting a pair of pants on suddenly changes your sex/gender to something else.
If people don't want a herm image in their searches, that's fine, but I don't become female just because they don't like herms.

Exactly.
You want ACCURACY in your picture tags... And you don't want the Mods to be be FAVORITIST at your expense so that people who just want to find females can find your character instead... and people who just want to find herms won't find your character

@Kyu

I'm sure they'll say pretty much the same thing because they've said what I said to other people with the same question (especially SoulLess who won't give up on it). Of course I can't be a hundred percent sure and I'd love to see what they say (since I love being right and all). The thing is, you may not be a female, because real life doesn't work the same as everything online does, you're a gender because people aren't just viewing you, they're interacting with you. The same can't be said for a character in a picture, we're just viewing them, so it's the kind of situation where it's acceptable to judge a book by it's cover, because that's all we can do since we can't interact and get to know them.

I guess my point is that while in real life, these characters would always be herms/dickgirls/cuntboys, in the picture, they are what they look like. If they look like a female, it doesn't matter if they are a herm, they are tagged as a female.

RMJ said:
I guess my point is that while in real life, these characters would always be herms/dickgirls/cuntboys, in the picture, they are what they look like. If they look like a female, it doesn't matter if they are a herm, they are tagged as a female.

I agree completely... but my point is that if IT DOESN'T SHOW one way or the other... it should be the artists call, not some favortist defaulting to genders that the mods like to default to. If the clothing covers a apparently girls crotch, you can't just default to female ... and if it covers an apparently males crotch, you cannot just default to male...

RMJ said:
If they look like a female, it doesn't matter if they are a herm, they are tagged as a female.

I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement.
Kyu is a herm, any picture of her would be a herm.
If people have "herm" blacklisted, they just wouldn't see art of her, because I'm clearly stating that she IS a herm and not a female.
If they want to fap to her, they have to take into account that when she's aroused, she sprouts a fully erect penis.
XD
Also, I myself am not a herm in rl, not sexually anyways, in gender, perhaps.
But that is just another hornet's nest, sex vs gender and I REALLY don't wanna toss a rock at that one again.
XD

SoulLess said:

Exactly.
You want ACCURACY in your picture tags... And you don't want the Mods to be be FAVORITIST at your expense so that people who just want to find females can find your character instead... and people who just want to find herms won't find your character

Thank you, SoulLess, because that's what I mean. Maybe not so harsh on the mods and such, but being accurately portrayed would be nice.
If I post an image of Kyu and it gets re-tagged, I would do what I did on other images, politely ask people not to alter tags that are set in stone.
If I get threatened with a ban, or flat-out banned, for changing a tag back, I would be sad, but what can you do.

No problem, Kyu... I've been arguing all night because I <3 arguing... especially when the other party is just being stubborn and not admitting faults.

I agree that if it is shown as a female body shape with a vagina, then it needs to be tagged as female regardless of the OC's regards... but if they're wearing clothing or somtthing otherwise obstructs the view of the crotch, you cannot tell that it is no her or a dickgirl... and you should not default to female because that's just favoritism.

Self-Quoting: SoulLess
Also, To default to a character either being male or female is just favoritism. I could just as easily flip the coin and say I only want herm pictures and not female ones, and then complain that example picture from earlier didn't show up even though she's obviously a herm under my interpretation, and it's obviously a perfectly good picture... what would you have me do? Search through female pictures for the needle in the haystack?

In fact, "tagging as you see" means you can tag any gender you want when their "goods" are not particularly showing... you might get the interpretation that it is a herm... sure there is the guideline of

Breasts + dick = dickgirl
Breasts + vagina = female
Breasts + dick + vagina = herm

But when the crotch is covered, you cannot effectively distinguish between the three without resorting to favoritism.

I do agree, that a better tagging system is needed for cases where herms and dick girls and cunt boys are wearing clothing or you just can't see from the angle what they have.
But they shouldn't be changed to male or female just on that basis alone.
What if there's a POV shot with a herm and all you can see is her cock?
Does that mean it gets tagged as "male"?
I realize it's a ridiculous question, but it could very well happen, this is the internet, it's srs bsns!
D:
Why not make a tagging system that includes "obscured genitalia" or something?
I realize that tagging "herm" and "obscured genitalia" would still leave the whole "Well, I blacklist herms because I don't like cock, but if it's not showing, I still want it." open for preventing them from finding "herms that aren't showing cock".
But at some point, you just have to live with the fact that you'll have to UNblacklist "herms" if you want shots of them without dick.
D:
Because tagging herms as females just so people who don't want to see herm cock and preventing those out there who don't want to see females, but might like a herm with a covered dick, just seems unfair to the other half of the people.
Can't we all just... get along!?
XD

Because tagging herms as females just so people who don't want to see herm cock and preventing those out there who don't want to see females, but might like a herm with a covered dick, just seems unfair to the other half of the people.

Welcome to the definition of favoritism: Benefiting your half at the unfair expensive of the other half.

SoulLess said:
Welcome to the definition of favoritism: Benefiting your half at the unfair expensive of the other half.

And that, kids, is what they call LIFE!
XD
http://d.facdn.net/art/kyubinokitsune/1295408872.kyubinokitsune_talara_ref_final_small.png
Fished out a ref sheet of one of my favorite herms.
As you can see, her cock comes out of her pelvis, an inch or so above her clit.
Cuz, you know reptiles.
;p
Just easier to wear panties and bikinis with no pesky sheath bulging them out.
XD

*EDIT
I don't like balls on my herms, but I don't blacklist the "balls" tag, because that would preclude all the males in art that I like to look at too.
If I REALLY wanna find herms without testicles, I just type in "herm -balls" and click enter, is that so hard for EVERYONE to do?
You want a herm but not with her dick showing?
Just type in "herm -penis" cuz you'll find all the images of "herms" that LOOK like females, but don't have the dangly parts that "make you sick" to paraphrase.
Of course, that's not to say that all herms with testicles are automatically unfappable and a turn off.
I have quite a few on my HD that do have balls.
It's a matter of how well they're drawn.
:\

I still believe that P.C means that herms will be herms, dick girls will be dick girls and cunt boys will be cunt boys, regardless of what they "look" like.
Though, as I re-read it for the umpteenth time and my autism finally abates, I think it doesn't cover the whole "What if you can't see it?" part.
:\

"Edit from P.C Any character who "is" a hermaphrodite, shall be tagged as such. There shall be no exceptions to this rule. 1. The character has a Cunt, no dick, and No Boobs shall be tagged Cunt Boy. 2; A character with Boobs, a Dick, and no Vag shall be tagged Dick Girl. 3; Any character shown to have a Dick, Boobs {Or no boobs} and a Vag shall be tagged Hermaphrodite. All three clauses will be tagged Intersex, and there will be no tagging of "Male Herm" or "Female Herm" end edit"

*ANOTHER EDIT!?
Yeah, this one's getting long.
I just searched all of P.C's posts and found the one that truly shocks me.
A herm where you can't "clearly" see her pussy MUST be tagged "dick girl"?
Um... no.
Nothing against them, but I'm just NOT one.
There's a pic or two floating around where you can see Kyu's cock, but not her pussy, that doesn't change her gender.
All of this debating and shit is making me sleepy and even more confused than when I started reading this forum.
@.@
I am one dizzy wolf right now.

Guess I'll just find out in the future if I post a clothed image of Kyu and call her a "herm" and "intersex" and I get banned because I "mistagged" it.
D:

It's like... 3 straight pages of people missing the point.

e621 isn't about characters, it's about images. Images are meant to be tagged as technically correct, not semantically correct. Changing the tag on an image is not the site saying "we decided the character is a different gender," it's the site saying "people who have no prior knowledge of your character, would want to see this image in a search of X gender."

Morhe said:
"people who have no prior knowledge of your character, would want to see this image in a search of X gender."

Right but thats favoritist towards people who are in search of X gender... people who would want to see the image in a search for Y gender (The gender that the character is supposed to be) are supposed to just take the short end of the stick to people who want to assume that the character is female instead of assuming that it's male.

Pictures contain characters... and I don't feel like people who post pictures and people who search for pictures based on what they are looking for (a clothed cuntboy, perhapse) should have to suffer because someone doesn't want to care about their desires and isntead wants to recieve all those pictures as boys(which is picking favorites again, because you could tag all boys without visible bulges/penises as cuntboys).

Unfortunately, it's going to be "favoritism" one way or the other. I don't feel like people who want the search feature to find images based on content should suffer just because some people don't care about their desires and instead want to just receive all of the pictures of the same character in the same category (especially when, thanks to rule 63, the same character won't necessarily fit into a single category anyhow.)

The fact of the matter is, as an image library standard, "tag what you see" makes the most sense in a purely mechanical way. That's why it's the rule. Either way, someone is going to get the short end of the stick, so the long end may as well be the side that's more technically correct from a content-sorting standpoint.

In short: WELCOME TO BUREAUCRACY! Seriously....

It doesn't matter what your character is. If you don't want your character to be tagged herm, make it always blatantly obvious. It's not about what you know your character to be, but what other people see when they see the picture -without any prior knowledge of you at the moment of seeing that picture- being applied -to every picture-. If you have a nice ass and side/back boob, and no junk visible? You look female. you'll get guys staring at your ass, maybe whistles and wolf calls.

Again, reiterating: It doesn't matter what you know you are, it matters what other people will see you as in the pose provided in the picture.

KyuNinetails said:
Okay, largely confused here...
Read the edited part and am just asking this to get some clarity, after the dizzying amount of responses.
@.@
A character that "IS" a herm, known to be a herm, confirmed by artist, character owner, and past art, will STILL be tagged as a herm, even IF there are no dangly parts showing?
I ask because my sona, if you will, is a herm, I have always been a herm, I could NOT imagine my life NOT being a herm.
Anyhoo, I got off track, she's a herm, but I don't care for sheaths and testicles, so mine are both internal.
Internal testes and a slit sheath.
I HAVE a cock, but it doesn't hang out 24/7, I can, presuming I get some art of her drawn in the future, tag her as a herm, even IF her cock isn't out?
Say she was in her normal attire, a leather jacket and a skirt.
Dressed, fully clothed, just her breasts and feminine figure.
Would I STILL be able to tag it as a "herm" or will I have to tag as a female, just because of "tag what you see"?
Thank you for any positive responses and answers I get and for the love of bunny jebus, don't flame me!
*puts on the asbestos suit and curls up*

And to answer your question, no. If your characters a herm, but the dick and balls are not showing, or in any way identified at the time, your character would be tagged Female for that instance. It has nothing to do with forcing gender labels on other peoples characters, as some here seem to think, but tagging based on what is implied within a picture. If you were to see batman with great hulkin tits, but no penis in sight {Or penal bulge, or any other indicator.} He's likely become batwoman, simple enough.

SoulLess said:
I agree completely... but my point is that if IT DOESN'T SHOW one way or the other... it should be the artists call, not some favortist defaulting to genders that the mods like to default to. If the clothing covers a apparently girls crotch, you can't just default to female ... and if it covers an apparently males crotch, you cannot just default to male...

We can, and we will default it to what the gender Implies in the picture, and not by what the artist "Says" it is. If they don't like it, their free to have their art removed.

KyuNinetails said:
I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement.
Kyu is a herm, any picture of her would be a herm.
If people have "herm" blacklisted, they just wouldn't see art of her, because I'm clearly stating that she IS a herm and not a female.
If they want to fap to her, they have to take into account that when she's aroused, she sprouts a fully erect penis.
XD
Also, I myself am not a herm in rl, not sexually anyways, in gender, perhaps.
But that is just another hornet's nest, sex vs gender and I REALLY don't wanna toss a rock at that one again.
X

If your character is Drawn, and appears as a Female. It WILL Be tagged female, we're not making clause for you, or anyone else. If your character is shown straight forward, with a nice thick dick, and a set of hulking tits, and no vag in sight? Well tough tits its gettin the dick girl tag. Angles and styles infer everything about a picture, and a picture is to be taken at FACE VALUE. And not to include external stimuli.

The only reason the very minor clause is made to cannon T.V characters is, Most people who use this site probably have no idea who "You" are, or who Dreyak is {Hell I think thats its name?} but just about EVERYONE knows who Krystal or Renamon or Starfox are, furry or otherwise.

SoulLess said:
Also, To default to a character either being male or female is just favoritism. I could just as easily flip the coin and say I only want herm pictures and not female ones, and then complain that example picture from earlier didn't show up even though she's obviously a herm under my interpretation, and it's obviously a perfectly good picture... what would you have me do? Search through female pictures for the needle in the haystack?

In fact, "tagging as you see" means you can tag any gender you want when their "goods" are not particularly showing... you might get the interpretation that it is a herm... sure there is the guideline of

Breasts + dick = dickgirl
Breasts + vagina = female
Breasts + dick + vagina = herm

But when the crotch is covered, you cannot effectively distinguish between the three without resorting to favoritism.

we're not being favoritist, you're just bein a bunch of whiny little twats because we're enforcing new tag rules. I happen to LIKE herms, two of our admins happen to like cunt boys, one of em absolutely loves Dick Girls. So that whole argument is moot. Generally speaking, characters are drawn with one of Two types of body shapes, masculine, or feminin. If they have a feminin body shape, yes, their going to revert to female because the picture implies Female. if they have a Masculin body shape, their going to imply male.

Yes I do make these judgements in reality too, on peoples genders, because when I'm in the middle of my job I don't have TIME to peel open peoples pants to inform the ambulance what their gender is, I make a quick guess depending on body shape, and general appearance {If their not on fire}

[Edited to add this bit in]

KyuNinetails said:
I do agree, that a better tagging system is needed for cases where herms and dick girls and cunt boys are wearing clothing or you just can't see from the angle what they have.
But they shouldn't be changed to male or female just on that basis alone.
What if there's a POV shot with a herm and all you can see is her cock?
Does that mean it gets tagged as "male"?
I realize it's a ridiculous question, but it could very well happen, this is the internet, it's srs bsns!
D:
Why not make a tagging system that includes "obscured genitalia" or something?
I realize that tagging "herm" and "obscured genitalia" would still leave the whole "Well, I blacklist herms because I don't like cock, but if it's not showing, I still want it." open for preventing them from finding "herms that aren't showing cock".
But at some point, you just have to live with the fact that you'll have to UNblacklist "herms" if you want shots of them without dick.
D:
Because tagging herms as females just so people who don't want to see herm cock and preventing those out there who don't want to see females, but might like a herm with a covered dick, just seems unfair to the other half of the people.
Can't we all just... get along!?
XD

Yes. If they are a herm, and the point of angle ONLY shows a dick, with no boobs or no vag, then they will be tagged male. Really, what is so hard to understand about this? it's freaking elementary people.

No, we're not adding "Extra" tags on genders like "Really a female" or what the fuck ever. That is stupid, and bogs down the tagging system more then it needs to be, it's not happening now, or anytime within a foreseeable future.

We're not tagging "Obscure genitalia" either, again, thats a highly subjective, and unnecessary tag. It's not going to happen.

Long story short, genders default always to what is apparent in the picture, including general body shape and "Items" Show. No. Exceptions. If one cannot honestly tell their gender, they get stuck with an ambiguous gender tag. The tags are for what the PICTURES imply, not what the artist "Says" or what the character owner "Says" it is. If you don't like it, go edit their wiki pages.

KyuNinetails said:
And that, kids, is what they call LIFE!
XD
http://d.facdn.net/art/kyubinokitsune/1295408872.kyubinokitsune_talara_ref_final_small.png
Fished out a ref sheet of one of my favorite herms.
As you can see, her cock comes out of her pelvis, an inch or so above her clit.
Cuz, you know reptiles.
;p
Just easier to wear panties and bikinis with no pesky sheath bulging them out.
XD

*EDIT
I don't like balls on my herms, but I don't blacklist the "balls" tag, because that would preclude all the males in art that I like to look at too.
If I REALLY wanna find herms without testicles, I just type in "herm -balls" and click enter, is that so hard for EVERYONE to do?
You want a herm but not with her dick showing?
Just type in "herm -penis" cuz you'll find all the images of "herms" that LOOK like females, but don't have the dangly parts that "make you sick" to paraphrase.
Of course, that's not to say that all herms with testicles are automatically unfappable and a turn off.
I have quite a few on my HD that do have balls.
It's a matter of how well they're drawn.
:\

I still believe that P.C means that herms will be herms, dick girls will be dick girls and cunt boys will be cunt boys, regardless of what they "look" like.
Though, as I re-read it for the umpteenth time and my autism finally abates, I think it doesn't cover the whole "What if you can't see it?" part.
:\

"Edit from P.C Any character who "is" a hermaphrodite, shall be tagged as such. There shall be no exceptions to this rule. 1. The character has a Cunt, no dick, and No Boobs shall be tagged Cunt Boy. 2; A character with Boobs, a Dick, and no Vag shall be tagged Dick Girl. 3; Any character shown to have a Dick, Boobs {Or no boobs} and a Vag shall be tagged Hermaphrodite. All three clauses will be tagged Intersex, and there will be no tagging of "Male Herm" or "Female Herm" end edit"

*ANOTHER EDIT!?
Yeah, this one's getting long.
I just searched all of P.C's posts and found the one that truly shocks me.
A herm where you can't "clearly" see her pussy MUST be tagged "dick girl"?
Um... no.
Nothing against them, but I'm just NOT one.
There's a pic or two floating around where you can see Kyu's cock, but not her pussy, that doesn't change her gender.
All of this debating and shit is making me sleepy and even more confused than when I started reading this forum.
@.@
I am one dizzy wolf right now.

Guess I'll just find out in the future if I post a clothed image of Kyu and call her a "herm" and "intersex" and I get banned because I "mistagged" it.
D:

You want a herm but not with her dick showing?
Just type in "herm -penis" cuz you'll find all the images of "herms" that LOOK like females, but don't have the dangly parts that "make you sick" to paraphrase.

.. You...I can't even type a fucking accurate responce for this. REALLY? FUCKIN REALLY? A Herm, without a god damn mother fucking penis? Are you honest to god that god damn retarded? And no, I'm not gonna pull punches on this one. A HERM without a fucking penis? If her DICK ain' showin, she ain' a herm as far as tagging is concerned. Jesus Christ, now I know why mellis flipped his god damn shit. {Testicles have Never been added to the equation.}

I'm going to make this, excruciatingly clear, for everyone in this god damn thread. Because some people just can't seem to fucking read can they?

Any Character, who appears as X Gender, shall be tagged X Gender, regardless of what their real gender is. There shall be NO Exceptions to this rule, vandalizing these tags will be taken AS tag vandalism, and dealt with as a case to case basis, artist word is NOT law here. If I see a character, that is a herm, but is pictured as a FEMALE it damn well better be tagged FEMALE. And so on.

A CLOTHED Intersex character, will be tagged as default, what their body shape suggests {Masculine = male, feminin = female} UNLESS their are very obvious implications that the character is infact a hermaphrodite even with the clothing ON. If the character has no implications, they are anything but "Gender {X}" then they will be tagged as Gender X, and FUCK what any outside sources say on their gender. The tagging system is on an AS POSTED BASIS, and does not, and WILL NOT, take into account external stimuli from other pictures for tags. End. Of. Story.

Jesus christ you people make my brain fucking cry.

Princess_Celestia said:
.. You...I can't even type a fucking accurate responce for this. REALLY? FUCKIN REALLY? A Herm, without a god damn mother fucking penis? Are you honest to god that god damn retarded? And no, I'm not gonna pull punches on this one. A HERM without a fucking penis? If her DICK ain' showin, she ain' a herm as far as tagging is concerned. Jesus Christ, now I know why mellis flipped his god damn shit. {Testicles have Never been added to the equation.}

Clearly you've never heard of a sheath.
post #158855

(And no, that shouldn't just be tagged penis, the sheath tag exists for a reason)

tony311 said:
Clearly you've never heard of a sheath.
post #158855

(And no, that shouldn't just be tagged penis, the sheath tag exists for a reason)

Yes, and a sheath usually contains a "What" tony? Oh, right. A penis. So if they want a herm without a penis, it would be herm +sheath.

Jesus fuck, kids. This is not that hard.

If I see a picture of a horse (say post #146546), it gets tagged "horse" and not "unicorn".

"But good sir!" I hear you object. "What if it's really a unicorn whose horn has simply been made invisible at the moment by the use of pony magic? Should it not be tagged as the unicorn that I know it truly is?"

NO.

It's a horse unless you can see the horn.

You want examples? Here we go. Feel free to skip to the end if you already get this.

(post #104941) - This fur is not displaying any genitalia. However, the fur has breasts, is wearing female clothing, and has feminine facial features. For these reasons - even though we cannot see a vagina - we can infer that this post should be tagged female.

(post #151312) - Like the first picture, this fur has breasts and female secondary sex characteristics (hips, in this case), but is not showing any vagoo. So you begin to type the word "female" in the tag box, but wait! She also has a penis! This post therefore gets tagged dickgirl.

(post #136693) - This fur clearly has a penis and a vagina. That meets the requirements to be tagged herm immediately.

(post #84822) - Like the first example, I see a fur with breasts and feminine build slobbering on a dick. No genitals are visible there, so we infer female even though we know this character is sometimes a herm or dickgirl. Similarly, all we see of the other fur is a dick and some pretty generic legs. Since the picture provides no further information, we also tag it male.

Given what we've seen of this character in the previous example posts, how should we tag future posts with this character? Trick question: it doesn't matter what other posts are tagged with.

As you can see, even with a single character, you can end up with drastically different ideas of gender. The key here is to tag what you see. Pics or it didn't happen.

tl;dr - If it's not in the picture, you cannot assume it's there.

Because, just because it has a dick doesn't mean that it's a male... so if all you see is a dick, you cannot assume male.

This way does not make the most sense: If you were to take pictures of actual people, you would want them to be sorted by which ones are actually female and actually crossdressors.

I fully understand that if a character, in one picture, is QUITE OBVIOUSLY MALE... but just because it's not showing the crotch doesn't mean it's automatically a male... that's just blasphemy.

Ohh.. and there is a way that doesn't require favoritism: Let the artists choose what their freaking pictures are of... they did make it for fucks sake.

targetdog said:
If I see a picture of a horse (say post #146546), it gets tagged "horse" and not "unicorn".

"But good sir!" I hear you object. "What if it's really a unicorn whose horn has simply been made invisible at the moment by the use of pony magic? Should it not be tagged as the unicorn that I know it truly is?"

Hello, Strawman, how are you today?

Just because some Admins like certian things doesn't make it moot. I can be an admin and like Nazi's, but that doesn't make me an accurate representation of other people who like Nazi's.

You're generalizations are still nothing but blasphemy... and still makes traps and girls the same thing.

Generalizations need to be made when SPEED is the important factor when doing something... when saving someone, time is of the essence... but when it comes to tagging a picture for an image board, I think accuracy should be the important factor.

And we're not being whiny because you're enforcing tag rules... we're being whiny because "An unjust law is no law at all." ... and you clearly aren't doing the pictures any justice by lying about their actual content.

I'm just saying that if I see Drayk in a picture that I'm tagging... then I see a cuntboy unless there are distinguishing features that say otherwise... because I know Drayk to be a cuntboy.

And as to be doing what you're saying to to (Generalize and neglect the pictures actual content and intended content), if I see a guy wearing clothes with no bulges, I see a cuntboy.. because I see male figures and see cuntboys... so I'm tagging it as cuntboy(Hey! This is the exact logic you're trying to use to tag it as male... Yay!).

Additionally.. with the picture you posted earlier ()... just as you have no reason to believe it's not a girl, I have no reason to believe it's not a herm... and I think that I have the same right, if not more right(Because that's what the character actually is), to find it in my herm search.

____
The point is: The community obviously isn't all hunky-dory with your decision... so it's time that the sites admins suck up their pride and find a solution that doesn't fuck anyone over..

SoulLess said:
And we're not being whiny because you're enforcing tag rules... we're being whiny because "An unjust law is no law at all." ... and you clearly aren't doing the picture's any justice by lying about their actual content.

A tagging system rule on an image board is an "Unjust law?" Do you even listen to yourself? And since when are things that aren't actually in the picture part of the picture's content?

SoulLess said:
I'm just saying that if I see Drayk in a picture that I'm tagging... then I see a cuntboy unless there are distinguishing features that say otherwise... because I know Drayk to be a cuntboy.

So far you have been on this site 3 years and haven't made -any- tag edits. Coming from someone who -does- edit tags frequently, this policy makes my life a lot easier. Since your stance obviously isn't about tagging, what is it about? You just don't want to have to re-learn your search-fu on this site?

SoulLess said:
And as to be doing what you're saying to to (Generalize and neglect the pictures actual content and intended content), if I see a guy wearing clothes with no bulges, I see a cuntboy.. because I see male figures and see cuntboys... so I'm tagging it as cuntboy(Hey! This is the exact logic you're trying to use to tag it as male... Yay!).

Tag vandalism is tag vandalism, however you try to abuse the system to prove your point. Good luck with that.

SoulLess said:
Additionally.. with the picture you posted earlier ()... just as you have no reason to believe it's not a girl, I have no reason to believe it's not a herm... and I think that I have the same right, if not more right(Because that's what the character actually is), to find it in my herm search.

____
The point is: The community obviously isn't all hunky-dory with your decision... so it's time that the sites admins suck up their pride and find a solution that doesn't fuck anyone over..

You aren't the entire community, and you have no right to speak as though you are. As a regular user who spends a lot of time on this site fixing and adding tags, I love this policy. It makes sense to me, and makes my searches and edits much easier.

In any policy decision, there's always going to be someone who's unhappy. And on the internet, those someones always seem to assume they're representative of everyone.

SoulLess said:
Just out of my experience though, generally when my straight friends find out that the ass they've been staring at for the past minute is a trap... they are pretty scarred... I mean I guess it doesn't matter if you just take it at face value: A pretty nice rear that looks like it belongs to a girl... but I've never met a straight guy who would have THAT as a reaction after finding out he was staring at a crossdresser.

Also: under your proposed rules on using that set of index tags.. how should I search for a clothed cuntboy picture?

Which there'd be no indication of if the image were tagged properly. If the character in the image is clothed, has a female shape, and boobs, they are going to be tagged female. I don't care if every other image on the site shows they have a dick with or without a vagina.

You aren't going to find many images of the type you list with this system, so sorry, there are other sites specializing in that interest if that's what you want. The same goes for clothed anything. If it's clothed and otherwise appears male, it's getting tagged male. If it's clothed and otherwise appears female it's getting tagged female. If one really can't tell, then gender_ambiguous. Not hard to understand. You may not like it, but that doesn't make the system invalid.

this is a privately owned site. Admins have the right to enforce whatever rules they want whenever they feel the need. Tag pictures as they appear, not how you wish. It's pretty simple. If you are so offended that your character/fursona/commission which is not readily identifiable as herm but REALLY IS isn;t tagged as you wish then , well, deal with it.

Edit:

Nice job comparing the Admins to Nazi's, douchebag.

Despite the fact that we've already apparently invoked Godwin's Law, various varieties of lack of logic and stubbornness, and tremendous irritation, I suppose I might as well. Can we please cut the insults, on all sides?

For the record, I overall agree with the tagging system as far as "What You See" goes, but there are problems.

e621 is already relying on special, not widely known knowledge for a number of tags - character names, for a glaring example. An artist names the character, but unless there's something stating names within the picture, there's no way to know that character has that name for sure, within that picture - you can't tell if it's that character, not without checking, say, their FA or their comments here...and under this rule, that sourcing of information is strictly disallowed. Thus, by the tag-what-you-see rule's logic, character names not stated on their pictures have gotta go, no matter how obvious it is. (Yes, I realize that may be seen by some as applying it too broadly - but that's the point. If you make a good rule, intending to apply it across the board, the entire idea is to minimize the number of edge cases you have to make exceptions for in the first place, or eliminate them entirely.)

It's apparent the tagging system already contains, and seems unlikely to ever lose, some degree of artist-sourced or otherwise imported information from outside sources such as FA. When considering that, and the apparent lack of consistency this rule has when universally applied to well-liked tags - I don't think you want to get rid of a bunch of charactername tags, to use my earlier example - why exactly is there such objection, with such apparent vitriol, to adding a set of, say, four tags ("stated_gender" or similar), for the usual four or so genders used?

Doing so would very simply solve the problem of artists and users being offended, as well as character owners, and would make it more obviously clear to those who don't understand it that e621's tagging system is a -descriptive- one at heart, but is necessarily mixed imperfectly with an informational, quasi-encyclopedic one, for sake of ease-of-use. In addition, it would allow searches with no more added complexity than the current system, perhaps plus one tag at worst - I think a reasonable sacrifice for complete accuracy. Lastly, it puts the workload for tagging something with a stated gender on those who care about it, thus freeing those who don't care to go about fixing tags up as they already do.

To comment specifically on one of your objections, PC - given that the tagging system already gets added tags for every new character, and various and sundry other reasons, I don't see four or so new ones putting any kind of statistically significant load on the system - we've got, what, over a thousand pages of tags listed? Even if you assume 95% of that is scrap, duplicates, etc., that's still over fifty -pages- of tags, of which four is barely a fraction worth noting.

And here's throwing out a bit of a preemptive response to potential criticism - some staff and/or users may be concerned about the idea of new tags having a "me-too" effect, in that it might cause a "Why not tag -unrelated thing said by artist- as 'stated'?" response. However...the staff has already admitted to special cases for some things in gender (TV characters), and as Char mentioned, other things - incest for a convenient pre-used example - aren't a pressing problem, and likely never will be. Even if they become so, 'stated' type tags would allow the administration to, at their discretion, clarify similar problem areas with greater flexibility and less offense and irritation to the userbase than the current idea, and without inventing any kind of new rule or modifying existing rules.

To make a couple last comments - while I generally approve, as I said, of the newly-enforced tag-what-you-see rule, it is a pain when it comes to searching if you like nonconventional genders. I personally, as at least one other has said, and as I believe is true for many, get off from a picture knowing that the character is stated by the artist as a specific gender, regardless of which bits are visible (unless there's glaringly obvious evidence that the character is of a different gender than their usual one). I'm also notedly turned off by finding out that something isn't what I wanted, after the fact. As the tagging was, I could search for, say, herm, and generally find what I wanted. As-is, now I'll have to add the names of every herm character to get a mostly-reasonable search result, and then I'll have no way to filter out those that actually are different genders in a couple images...and I'll end up wincing later on finding out true genders -much- more often. I admit that this is primarily a gripe about inconvenience to -me-, hence why it's sitting here in last place, but I suspect and believe it applies to far more people.

TL;DR: See above. If you really can't be bothered: I support adding a set of "Stated_gender" tags. Reason: Negligible additional database load, satisfies casual browsers, artists, character owners, and those of us who know specific characters. Puts any additional workload on those who want an image to have a "stated_gender" tag, doesn't inconvenience those who don't give a damn or think it silly/stupid.

Also: Whups, that's longer than I thought it would be.

Edit: TL;DRTL;DR: Add "stated_gender" tags. No inconvenience, minimal load, cheap quick fix for irritated people, adds accuracy, doesn't bother people who don't care.

Second Edit: Unless someone really wants to code a way to search by wiki and fill out -allll- those character wiki's..technically -more- correct but also a pain in the arse.

there are 262 posts under the search of female -breasts, I can't sift through and edit all these images by my self as I don't have time right now, but I do believe this should be worked on. I know I often search for posts with out breasts because I generally don't want to see breasts, but I don't mind female pictures because not all female images have breasts, or they may be a mislabeled cuntboy, which I actually like. the point is, there are too many images that feature breasts which is on my blacklist, but are not tagged correctly so they still show up. I thought this was more or less relevant to gender tagging as they kind of go hand in hand.

THE TAGS CONTAINED ON THIS IMAGEBOARD ARE BASED ON CONTENT AND CONTENT ALONE. WHAT IS SEEN. NOTHING ELSE. THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE TAG SYSTEM. SORRY THAT MAKES YOU GUYS SO BUTTHURT, BUT THATS HOW IT IS.

Capslock aside, you guys need to shut the hell up. You've manage to fill a couple pages by saying the exact same shit over and over. You're wrong.

This was resolved ages ago: If you want to learn more about some character, all the little details NOT CONTAINED IN THE IMAGE ITSELF you have two choices.
1. Review more images of the character.
2. FOLLOW THE SOURCE (e.g. FUCKING FURAFFINITY)

First, a bit of a response.
1. Not always viable. Sometimes characters have few images, or are extremely varied.
2. Not always viable, more than a few pictures lack source.

Atani, I happen to disagree - and in this, there's really no categorical right/wrong, just whatever is agreed to as most reasonable/best by the admins, and given that neither of us are admins...
This place is as much an art archive as a furporn site, all pretentions aside, and in interest of both accuracy as an art archive, and ease-of-use to find something to get off to, I think we need a better way to class gender/sex. ...Also, the tags aren't based on content alone, as I said about name tags in my previous post.

I'd personally like this to be quite over with with decent solutions and not too much butthurt. I figure the easiest methods are pretty much:
1. Add tags for what a character is stated to be, regardless of globally or per-image, to avoid their owners/artists being butthurt. My preferred.
2. Make it possible to search via wiki content and we'll fill out the bloody character wikis
3. Find some way to tag images 'accurately' in other ways, enough to not bother their owners or artists
4. Lose some users and annoy the piss out of some of the rest.

Edit: In retrospect I should've mentioned - while I support one option, I'm not going to be particularly butthurt regardless. As others have said, this is not a democracy, and I'm not implying that it is, only putting out an option I see as superior to the chosen course and throwing out basic support for it.

if you are just a searcher and wanna see something about ur fav gender, you wont care about characters, you care what you see..
If you search a character, you use his/her name to seach.. or you follow the source and learn more about character and artist..

For example i searched for female and saw a character which is female tagged but she is normally herm.. i liked that female looking drawing of her.. if you just tag them as character, i wont able to see her so becouse she will be tagged herm always..

I cant memorise all characters gender.. and i dont care.. i care what i see.. as the admins said, if you want your characters gender be known, then draw him/her so..

but the "female looking" like tags can be good solution too..

(sry for bad eng)

huurrr this pic does not say this char is a herm so I will have to downlod from furfinity cuz I they r tag'd as herm there n I cnt fap to artica unless they r said to be herm cuz I hav no
imagnation hurr

Another thing about dickgirls/herms: can we keep the dickgirl tag to images where you can plainly see they have no vagina, instead of just 'hiding the goods'?

Riversyde said:
huurrr this pic does not say this char is a herm so I will have to downlod from furfinity cuz I they r tag'd as herm there n I cnt fap to artica unless they r said to be herm cuz I hav no
imagnation hurr

Another thing about dickgirls/herms: can we keep the dickgirl tag to images where you can plainly see they have no vagina, instead of just 'hiding the goods'?

I was actually going to bring up herms/dickgirls. many of the herms on here do not have visible vaginas, but are tagged herm instead of dickgirl. based on this information, if it's tag what you see, shouldn't most of the herms on here be tagged dickgirl?

cookiekangaroo said:
I was actually going to bring up herms/dickgirls. many of the herms on here do not have visible vaginas, but are tagged herm instead of dickgirl. based on this information, if it's tag what you see, shouldn't most of the herms on here be tagged dickgirl?

From what I understand, yes.

Oh god I haven't been able to read this thread today until right now. Jesus Christ...

Also I've asked Princess_Celestia to refrain from responding in this thread for now. She obviously feels very strongly about this issue, and I ask that you please take her intensely expressed frustration with a grain of salt.

SoulLess said:
The point is: The community obviously isn't all hunky-dory with your decision... so it's time that the sites admins suck up their pride and find a solution that doesn't fuck anyone over..

Finding a solution that doesn't fuck anyone over is not always possible, believe me. I've been running furry art sites for almost 8 years now. I'm completely comfortable with the fact that I can't always please everyone, no matter how hard I try.

Enismirdal said:
e621 is already relying on special, not widely known knowledge for a number of tags - character names, for a glaring example. An artist names the character, but unless there's something stating names within the picture, there's no way to know that character has that name for sure, within that picture - you can't tell if it's that character, not without checking, say, their FA or their comments here...and under this rule, that sourcing of information is strictly disallowed. Thus, by the tag-what-you-see rule's logic, character names not stated on their pictures have gotta go, no matter how obvious it is. (Yes, I realize that may be seen by some as applying it too broadly - but that's the point. If you make a good rule, intending to apply it across the board, the entire idea is to minimize the number of edge cases you have to make exceptions for in the first place, or eliminate them entirely.)

This isn't what we're really saying though. Using the same logic above, I wouldn't be able to tag an image of a real person with that person's name because the person's name doesn't appear in the image. To me, this is also like saying that I can't tag "cup" on a picture, and am instead limited to only tagging what makes up the cup (e.g. plastic, cylinder, opening). The difference is that I can SEE that it is a cup. All the evidence for a cup is right there in front of me. I can SEE that the person/character in an image is definitely "person_x", all the evidence is right there. But, I can NOT tell that "character_y" in a specific picture is a herm if I CAN'T see the traits that would make him/her a herm. That's where the "leap of faith" is made, and is why using external knowledge to tag a character name is perfectly acceptable. So this still doesn't depart from "tag what you see"; you see "character_x", you tag "character_x".

Essentially, if you're going to tag based on what an artist says, then the image must contain proof of what they're saying. If they say "here is an image of character_x", you can say "by golly that IS a picture of character_x! How about that!" If the artist also says "character_x is a herm in this pic", the picture MUST show that. Again, not saying the artist is "wrong" if the picture doesn't show that, cause it's completely up to them (as I've stated before). However, you can't tag "herm" on that picture if the picture doesn't contain evidence of such.

Enismirdal said:
1. Add tags for what a character is stated to be, regardless of globally or per-image, to avoid their owners/artists being butthurt. My preferred.

Ideally, this could be a solution. However, tags are only effective if they're actually used, and I don't know if I really see people using "stated_gender" tags too much. I admit that it's hard for me to understand the reasoning behind caring what someone says the gender of a character is because it does just seem a bit silly to me, so maybe such tags would actually see more use than I predict.

Char said:
Oh god I haven't been able to read this thread today until right now. Jesus Christ...

If you haven't already read it in its entirety, its basically the same shit you've already responded to, typed over and over again.

Char said:
Also I've asked Princess_Celestia to refrain from responding in this thread for now. She obviously feels very strongly about this issue, and I ask that you please take her intensely expressed frustration with a grain of salt.

Appreciated, She was kinda going a little overboard, which in the end kinda backed up ExplosiveBlaziken's "STFU AND GTFO if you don't like it" thing he was doing.

Char said:
Ideally, this could be a solution. However, tags are only effective if they're actually used, and I don't know if I really see people using "stated_gender" tags too much. I admit that it's hard for me to understand the reasoning behind caring what someone says the gender of a character is because it does just seem a bit silly to me, so maybe such tags would actually see more use than I predict.

While I understand why you don't see the reasoning in people wanting images to be tagged based on what the artist states, I do. I'm not saying images should be tagged as such, but I understand the desire. I personally wouldn't complain if that was the rule, rather than "Tag What You See".

Perhaps, as some sort of cooperative means of resolving the debate, there can be an addition of a new set of "secondary tags". It sounds ridiculous, and I can imagine it would be difficult to make it work properly, but if it were possible to do so maybe it would help the situation. Or, as another possible option, have tags for what is apparent, and add a descriptive box containing the artists info pertaining to individual images.

In the secondary tags scenario, tags such as "Stated_Female", etc., would apply. I actually kind of like this idea. Perhaps there would be a way to optionally integrate "Stated_Female" and "Female" together. An opt-in sort of thing, where normally they are considered completely different tags. If a person where to opt-in, perhaps by a little check-box in their profile, all searches for "Female" would return results for both "Female" and "Stated_Female". Obviously this would apply for all genders.

In the descriptive box scenario, searches of course, will still be based on tags. With the addition of the descriptive box, there won't be any surprises later (as in the situation where a person comes across a "Female" tagged Artica_Sparkle image, does a search for related images and is suddenly overwhelmed by DICKSEVERYWHERE).

Both of these, to me at least, seem like completely viable options for resolving this issue. Hell, we could even apply both options, and that will cover situations where an artist claims that the disembodied penis fucking Renamon actually belongs to Lucario. That sort of information would not be tagged, but could go in the descriptive box.

I imagine implementing these changes, if they are approved, could take some time to work out the kinks, both in coding and acceptance amongst the masses. So, any opinions? Anyone particularly disagree with the concepts stated?

Atani said:
ExplosiveBlaziken's "STFU AND GTFO if you don't like it" thing he was doing.

She. And I do apologize, this week has been a bad week to be me.

With a cooler head I can say this: Really, it's going to be a change, and I'll really just go along with whatever is voted on, or if anything is really done.

cookiekangaroo said:
I was actually going to bring up herms/dickgirls. many of the herms on here do not have visible vaginas, but are tagged herm instead of dickgirl. based on this information, if it's tag what you see, shouldn't most of the herms on here be tagged dickgirl?

But... when I see a girl with a dick and no pussy showing, herm would be my first thought. So I would tag what I see!
Besides, given their tag counts, herms are more common than dickgirls.

everyfurry said:
drama

post #134619
Y'all need to calm down now, haven't we always had the rule tag what ya see, not what some outside source says ya should see? This rule 's just an expansion on that one, just use ya head and keep things simple, what if is that lil thought that makes us all go a lil loopy inside, sometimes ya just need to step away from the keyboard for a sec and take a nice, deep breath, and realize that this ain't the end of ya fuzzy lil world.

nzt said:
post #134619
Y'all need to calm down now, haven't we always had the rule tag what ya see, not what some outside source says ya should see? This rule 's just an expansion on that one, just use ya head and keep things simple, what if is that lil thought that makes us all go a lil loopy inside, sometimes ya just need to step away from the keyboard for a sec and take a nice, deep breath, and realize that this ain't the end of ya fuzzy lil world.

Why the fuck did I just read that in Applejack's voice?
You did that on purpose, didn't you?

ippiki_ookami said:
Why the fuck did I just read that in Applejack's voice?
You did that on purpose, didn't you?

post #149061
Well, I reckon I mighta played with my words a lil, but it made ya smile, didn't it shugacube?