nzt said:
Oh good, I was worried that a "you are not a special snowflake" speech would fall on deaf ears, but apparently it won't. So let me say this, not as a consumer but as a fellow artist; you are not a special snowflake, you are not god's golden gift to mankind, there are tons of other artists out there, as artists we can do what we do because we have fans who support us, and those fans deserve respect dammit. Please, please, put your art before your ego and think before you say such nasty things to your fans.

Dude, you seem to be having quite an ego right now though, well, at least it seems so. But I'll be quiet again now.

RedRoverBlueRover said:
Dude, you seem to be having quite an ego right now though, well, at least it seems so. But I'll be quiet again now.

Not really, I just have a thing for going after people with inflated egos, they push my angry buttons >=[

ippiki_ookami said:
"This character is a doggified version of my cat character, so it should be tagged as cat because that's what she normally is."

Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh ♥

nzt said:
O_O Encroach on their own fappage? Where did you even come up with something so... I don't even...
Anyway, it's because stated_gender tags are an unnecessary thing that will just cause more drama, not... whatever you said.
Also, we should have a feature where you have to listen to your comment read back to you before you confirm you want to post it so people can actually hear what they sound like.

I proofread all of my posts multiple times before I click "Post". If I notice any blatant errors in my post afterwards, I fix them. I try to make a point while keeping my writing style fresh and interesting. Does that bother you? You're going to complain about what, my word choice? What part didn't you get? Encroach? That's a pretty simple word. Fappage? Obviously not a real word, but neither is "fap" or any of its other variations. Usually that insult is thrown against typo-riddled, text-vomit posts. Would you rather I had said "tagging will in some way interfere with their own masturbation sessions"?

But back on topic...
I wish there was a feature that would tell you to actually elaborate on what you're saying, rather than going with "will just cause more drama" and ending it like that. How does it create more drama, aside from people like you complaining about it by making baseless accusations such as "It will create more drama."

This logical-fallacy-loop, its making me dizzy.

nzt said:
Oh good, I was worried that a "you are not a special snowflake" speech would fall on deaf ears, but apparently it won't. So let me say this, not as a consumer but as a fellow artist; you are not a special snowflake, you are not god's golden gift to mankind, there are tons of other artists out there, as artists we can do what we do because we have fans who support us, and those fans deserve respect dammit. Please, please, put your art before your ego and think before you say such nasty things to your fans.

I specifically want to draw attention to the parts that read "we can do what we do because we have fans who support us" and "and those fans deserve respect".

In regards to the first part:
Artists draw for a variety of reasons. Some display their art, some keep it only for themselves. Some draw to show their skill, some draw to provide beautiful works for others. Some draw because they feel a personal connection to the work they have/are/will create. Some crave attention, and want nothing more than their fans to look at their work and appreciate it, perhaps critique it. Some artists simply want to make others happy, and as a result, make themselves happy. All of this directly leads into the second part.

It is true, an artist should respect their fans. They are their fans, after all. They can provide great advice. They can provide fuel to do better. The issue I have with what you said is, you seem to be implying that the fans deserve more respect than the artists themselves. I don't think that could be any more ass-backwards. As a fan, you are enjoying something being given to you. Free of charge, in most situations. As a fan, you have to understand it is completely within an artist's rights to remove their work from this public display. For some artists, all they ask is you respect their art, and them as the artist creating it.

ippiki_ookami said:
Also,
Stated gender is a completely stupid idea. E6 has its own wiki database for a reason. The people who care about the *true* genders already know what gender the character normally is, so why bother adding unseen traits to the tags? What's next?
"My character's a diabetic, so i want a diabetic tag."
"This character is a doggified version of my cat character, so it should be tagged as cat because that's what she normally is."
"My character is a dog/fox/wolf/hyena/husky/shiba inu hybrid, so it must be tagged as such."
If an artist or commissioner really and truly has a problem with the way it is tagged, we can solve the issue on a case by case basis. Maybe they'd like to update their wiki, or leave a comment for people to see. There are simpler solutions than completely changing the tagging policy that has made e6 what it is today.

This thread is titled "On Proper Gender Tagging". If I remember correctly, Char himself said that is the issue being discussed here. Not species. Gender is the issue. You're claiming its a bad idea to add "Stated_Gender" tags because it will what, pave the way for "Stated_Shiba" tags? No, that's not the issue at hand. That isn't the point of this thread. The point of this thread is to resolve the gender tagging issue.

But to point out a flaw in your logic, just because I can: The issue isn't "My character is normally (blank) so it should be tagged as such in this image." Rather, its "My character is (blank) in this image."
If you can't tell the difference between those two, you can't be helped.

Oh and I guess I'll need to clarify this in every post I make from now on:
I AM BOTH FOR "TAG WHAT YOU SEE" AND "STATED_GENDER" TAGGING. COMPROMISE. I KNOW ITS A BIG WORD, BUT YOU SHOULDN'T BE SCARED OF IT.

Atani
It is true, an artist should respect their fans. They are their fans, after all. They can provide great advice. They can provide fuel to do better. The issue I have with what you said is, you seem to be implying that the fans deserve more respect than the artists themselves. I don't think that could be any more ass-backwards. As a fan, you are enjoying something being given to you. Free of charge, in most situations. As a fan, you have to understand it is completely within an artist's rights to remove their work from this public display. For some artists, all they ask is you respect their art, and them as the artist creating it.

I work in graphic design, if the commissioner doesn't like the work I don't get paid, simple as that really. Artists do deserve respect too, but when they say things like

I've always hated this rule and found it to be totally stupid. If you're directly going against what the artist says then the artist who is supplying you furfags WITH said porn is much more likely to give the site the bird and DMCA your asses.

thus leaving everyone else sadder.
everyone would be fricking happy if the proper tags were tagged on pictures, NOT based on WHAT YOU SEE.

it's hard to give them that respect, respect works both ways, not one way or the other.

nzt said:
Sorry buddy, your humor is so dry and condescending that it just isn't funny, you must be British or something.

Makes sense to call me condescending while talking down to a large group of people. Oh, and I'm not British. But yes, I've been told my dry, sarcastic wit has a habit of being unfunny to those who don't share my sense of humor.

nzt said:
I work in graphic design, if the commissioner doesn't like the work I don't get paid, simple as that really. Artists do deserve respect too, but when they say things like
it's hard to give them that respect, respect works both ways, not one way or the other.

Thanks for summarizing the part I typed about respect being a two way sort of thing. The thing is though, her work is pretty nice. I appreciate it. I respect her work. I also respect and understand her opinion on the matter. She's overreacting a bit, but what can you do?

Atani said:
Makes sense to call me condescending while talking down to a large group of people. Oh, and I'm not British. But yes, I've been told my dry, sarcastic wit has a habit of being unfunny to those who don't share my sense of humor.

Thanks for summarizing the part I typed about respect being a two way sort of thing. The thing is though, her work is pretty nice. I appreciate it. I respect her work. I also respect and understand her opinion on the matter. She's overreacting a bit, but what can you do?

The British thing was a joke, but I edited it out after I realized you wouldn't appreciate it. I also generally talk in a condescending manner, so that was a joke too. I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt on her overreacting, but this isn't the first time she's done that over a small issue (Lumpy Snake anyone?).

Atani said:

This thread is titled "On Proper Gender Tagging". If I remember correctly, Char himself said that is the issue being discussed here. Not species. Gender is the issue. You're claiming its a bad idea to add "Stated_Gender" tags because it will what, pave the way for "Stated_Shiba" tags? No, that's not the issue at hand. That isn't the point of this thread. The point of this thread is to resolve the gender tagging issue.

But to point out a flaw in your logic, just because I can: The issue isn't "My character is normally (blank) so it should be tagged as such in this image." Rather, its "My character is (blank) in this image."
If you can't tell the difference between those two, you can't be helped.

Are you deliberately missing my point just so you can argue? I know the topic is about gender, that's why I mentioned gender *several times*. My point is that if we allow unseen genders to be tagged, then it will bleed out into other categories as well, and then people will cry out and argue until those rules are changed too. Proper gender tagging is governed by Tag What You See, which is what's at stake.
We can't just say "Tag what the artist says it is, even though it doesn't show" JUST for gender. We would have to get rid of Tag What You See entirely, for the sake of keeping the tagging rules uniform. We need something that's black and white, so people aren't as likely to misinterpret the guidelines and apply them to other aspects of tagging as well, like species and other traits of their character. I'm trying to think of big picture stuff, because I'm telling you, it won't stop at gender.

ippiki_ookami said:
Are you deliberately missing my point just so you can argue? I know the topic is about gender, that's why I mentioned gender *several times*. My point is that if we allow unseen genders to be tagged, then it will bleed out into other categories as well, and then people will cry out and argue until those rules are changed too. Proper gender tagging is governed by Tag What You See, which is what's at stake.
We can't just say "Tag what the artist says it is, even though it doesn't show" JUST for gender. We would have to get rid of Tag What You See entirely, for the sake of keeping the tagging rules uniform. We need something that's black and white, so people aren't as likely to misinterpret the guidelines and apply them to other aspects of tagging as well, like species and other traits of their character. I'm trying to think of big picture stuff, because I'm telling you, it won't stop at gender.

And therein lies the bigger issue. We could just have a really bad barebones tagging system that nobody uses like fa, but the comprehensive tagging system (and the funny comments, oh the funny comments) are what makes this site what it is. The tagging that e6 has is by far the best one that I've seen on a furry website; getting rid of tag what you see would massively affect the tagging system and would be more trouble than it's worth.

ippiki_ookami said:
I'm trying to think of big picture stuff, because I'm telling you, it won't stop at gender.

You know this how, exactly?

JustFrame said:
You know this how, exactly?

It would conflict with the rest of the system, so the rest of the system would be revised accordingly.

Don't get me wrong, as dumb and pointless as stated_gender is, it wouldn't be nearly as detrimental as changing the rules entirely. If that's what we have to do to keep tag what you see in place, then I'll support it.
Spetznas (in her own way) has a point. If I owned a character I devoted countless hours into fine-tuning their history, personality, and details, and saw it tagged incorrectly just because of a site's rule, then I'd be pissed. Very pissed. And we don't want to piss off artists. As I've said many times in the comments and IRC, tag what you see isn't perfect. It's flawed, and can have negative side-effects. But it's the best we got. For now.

...this thread is just one huge shitfest.
targetdog's Situation D does seem like the best solution to me. If a user/character owner/artist does get pisses that their/a character has their wrongly tagged, we can be like "Yo dawg, we know they're a herm, but we tagged them a female cuz we can't see dey dick. Roolz be roolz, dawg.
But s'cool, yo! We put yo' charactuh'z normal gender in dey's wiki page, wit' sum infomay'shun 'bout dem! No need to get vah'lint 'bout it. We awll bruthas hee-yuh."

Riversyde said:
...this thread is just one huge shitfest.
targetdog's Situation D does seem like the best solution to me. If a user/character owner/artist does get pisses that their/a character has their wrongly tagged, we can be like "Yo dawg, we know they're a herm, but we tagged them a female cuz we can't see dey dick. Roolz be roolz, dawg.
But s'cool, yo! We put yo' charactuh'z normal gender in dey's wiki page, wit' sum infomay'shun 'bout dem! No need to get vah'lint 'bout it. We awll bruthas hee-yuh."

hah. This made my day wiht a good laugh. Thanks, River.

I also don't really like this stated_x thing. We're just adding in extra tags (and cluttering up everything in the process), just to tiptoe around artists' egos so they don't tear everything off the site. Sure, we like to be nice to artists, but I don't like the idea of adding in new pointless tags just so they can be happy.

I say this, because I don't see any point in these tags being used to FIND art, which is a tag's primary function... "I feel like searching for some herms that don't actually look like herms".

Atani said:
You're very fond of your search system, aren't you Aurali? :3

It's my baby <3
Good programming can only be used in conjuction with good users..
We have the best taggers in the world, we have the best search in the world.

Also I'm not FOR or AGAINST anything. As long as whatever tags get created DOES NOT disrupt the integrity of the search system, I don't care.

I'm honestly all for a "provable" gender set and an "apparent" gender set.

Also on a final note. This goes for both my fellow admins and fellow users. DO NOT push people to other sites... especially inferior ones. We are a community.. even if it's a loose one.

Atani said:
The only issue is for people who want to search for images based on artist-stated genders. I know it seems odd, but there are actually people who want the artist's view on the image to add depth to the image. Actually, there's two types of people I can think of who fit that description: Those who are here to appreciate the art, whether fapping or not, and are interested in more than just the pixels; and those who are here to fap, but do so in a manner more than just glancing through images while jerking it.

Right.

I feel that in both cases, having the information available (this character is usually X) is really the important thing. Having comments, correct sources, and wiki entries would accomplish this, wouldn't it? One downside is that it wouldn't always be right there for everyone to see, but at least the people who care to learn more could do so easily.

One other thing the stated_* tags would do (in terms of a search) is allow people to find characters who are normally one gender, but don't currently look like it. For example "herms who don't look like herms" or charcters who are "normally female but not in this picture".

While these tags system really wouldn't hurt anything, I don't know how much use it would actually get in a search. Again, I think the real reason people have been arguing for tag changes is to have the information displayed on the same page as the image.

Personally, I think it's confusing, convoluted, subjective, and unnecessary... but I really don't see anything actually wrong with it. If it's something that's important to some people, it's something worth looking at, even if it doesn't become official tagging policy.

And for what it's worth, I would prefer normally_* or usually_* to the word "stated". Dunno why, stated just sounds weird to me.

Atani said:
Personally, I'm somewhere in the middle. Even when fapping, I find myself glancing through the comments, the tags, oftentimes I'll wind up far away from where I started, not even fapping anymore. Not all of us are here simply to jerk off and nothing more.

Of course. If we were just here to beat off, we wouldn't care enough about this to actually have a conversation about it. :P

Haha, Thank you for this, now I can get CORRECT searches

post #157757
This thread is still going on?

nzt said:
It would conflict with the rest of the system, so the rest of the system would be revised accordingly.

You're jumping to conclusions. It's not like creating a simple clause in a system of rules automatically breaks it.

JustFrame said:
You're jumping to conclusions. It's not like creating a simple clause in a system of rules automatically breaks it.

The thing is, creating a "Assumes or implied X" tag for genders, starts us on the slope to creating the "Implied species" or "Stated species" after which we get "Stated sexuality" and so on, and so on, until we may as well just do away with the tag system all together. And we're not doing that.

Princess_Celestia said:
The thing is, creating a "Assumes or implied X" tag for genders, starts us on the slope to creating the "Implied species" or "Stated species" after which we get "Stated sexuality" and so on, and so on, until we may as well just do away with the tag system all together. And we're not doing that.

Greetings, my name is the slippery slope and you're taking a ride on me today.

But seriously. How do you know it won't stop at gender? Have you TRIED it? The thing is, you'd need a body of evidence to state conclusively that that would occur. Otherwise you don't really know, you're just making assumptions.

JustFrame said:
Greetings, my name is the slippery slope and you're taking a ride on me today.

But seriously. How do you know it won't stop at gender? Have you TRIED it? The thing is, you'd need a body of evidence to state conclusively that that would occur. Otherwise you don't really know, you're just making assumptions.

Dude, take a good long hard look at other sites who've gone this exact same path/ They bend for one particular group who's pissing, and moaning. Then they bend for another because they "Let the first group get what they wanted" and didn't want to hear them bitch anymore, then another, then another, then 4chan was born.

That sounds a little more like a question of you wanting to be stubborn regarding the site's policies, in fear that if you budge even a little it will turn out like a few others have?

Not a whole lot I can say to that. Seeing as it's not even entirely relevant to the question I just presented you, and in lieu of running off to fetch some kind of red herring, I think I'll just close the dialog. Thanks.

nzt said:
The British thing was a joke, but I edited it out after I realized you wouldn't appreciate it. I also generally talk in a condescending manner, so that was a joke too. I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt on her overreacting, but this isn't the first time she's done that over a small issue (Lumpy Snake anyone?).

I knew the British thing was a joke, I did kind of find it funny. The British are oftentimes known for their odd, dry humor. I also knew you had edited that section out long before I ever actually replied to it.

I don't know what you mean by that "Lumpy Snake" thing. You should tell me, it sounds like a good story :3

ippiki_ookami said:
Don't get me wrong, as dumb and pointless as stated_gender is, it wouldn't be nearly as detrimental as changing the rules entirely. If that's what we have to do to keep tag what you see in place, then I'll support it.

I won't blame you if in the future you smack a couple bitches around for attempting to push things like "Stated_Species" etc. The reason I pointed out this thread being solely about gender tagging is...well...that's the main issue. It easily dwarfs species complaints. Sexuality complaints. I'm just saying that since it's obviously resulting in a lot of drama, perhaps one small tweak should be made. I'm saying if this gets put into effect feel free to be very, very clear, right from the start, that "Stated_Gender" tags will be the only Stated_X tags. Ever. I doubt there will be much complaint in the first place, though.

Riversyde said:
...this thread is just one huge shitfest.
targetdog's Situation D does seem like the best solution to me. If a user/character owner/artist does get pisses that their/a character has their wrongly tagged, we can be like "Yo dawg, we know they're a herm, but we tagged them a female cuz we can't see dey dick. Roolz be roolz, dawg.
But s'cool, yo! We put yo' charactuh'z normal gender in dey's wiki page, wit' sum infomay'shun 'bout dem! No need to get vah'lint 'bout it. We awll bruthas hee-yuh."

YOU'RE ONE HUGE SHITFEST.
I'm joking :3
Also, dear god I couldn't help but read that in some sort of "retarded Xzibit" voice.
Situation D is a somewhat distant second-place scenario for me, simply because some people are going to want the ability to search based on Stated_Gender tagging. Either way, it won't directly affect those of us who don't give a flying fuck about Stated_Genders.

tony311 said:
I also don't really like this stated_x thing. We're just adding in extra tags (and cluttering up everything in the process), just to tiptoe around artists' egos so they don't tear everything off the site. Sure, we like to be nice to artists, but I don't like the idea of adding in new pointless tags just so they can be happy.

I say this, because I don't see any point in these tags being used to FIND art, which is a tag's primary function... "I feel like searching for some herms that don't actually look like herms".

But see, that's the thing. These tags will of course be useful for tiptoeing around artists' egos, but at the same time there are actually users who would rather look at a herm that looks like a female than a female who looks like a female. To some, simply knowing that the character portrayed is in fact a herm makes the image better.
Weird how ones mindset can affect what they find arousing, right?

Aurali said:
It's my baby <3
Good programming can only be used in conjuction with good users..
We have the best taggers in the world, we have the best search in the world.

Also I'm not FOR or AGAINST anything. As long as whatever tags get created DOES NOT disrupt the integrity of the search system, I don't care.

I'm honestly all for a "provable" gender set and an "apparent" gender set.

Also on a final note. This goes for both my fellow admins and fellow users. DO NOT push people to other sites... especially inferior ones. We are a community.. even if it's a loose one.

Basically this. E621 has the greatest tag-and-search system out there (largely thanks to a certain coder). In the long run this small addition shouldn't disrupt anything at all, and it definitely won't disrupt the integrity of the tag system. Hopefully, all it will do is make a few more people happier with the way things are.

targetdog said:
Right.

I feel that in both cases, having the information available (this character is usually X) is really the important thing. Having comments, correct sources, and wiki entries would accomplish this, wouldn't it? One downside is that it wouldn't always be right there for everyone to see, but at least the people who care to learn more could do so easily.

One other thing the stated_* tags would do (in terms of a search) is allow people to find characters who are normally one gender, but don't currently look like it. For example "herms who don't look like herms" or charcters who are "normally female but not in this picture".

While these tags system really wouldn't hurt anything, I don't know how much use it would actually get in a search. Again, I think the real reason people have been arguing for tag changes is to have the information displayed on the same page as the image.

Personally, I think it's confusing, convoluted, subjective, and unnecessary... but I really don't see anything actually wrong with it. If it's something that's important to some people, it's something worth looking at, even if it doesn't become official tagging policy.

And for what it's worth, I would prefer normally_* or usually_* to the word "stated". Dunno why, stated just sounds weird to me.

You kinda typed my response for me. A lot of people aren't aware of the Wiki pages (I still haven't viewed one). That, and adding the information to the Wiki pages doesn't allow for finding images based on Stated_Gender tags. But what I keep trying to point out is, it shouldn't in any way affect those who don't give a fuck.

As for using "Stated_Gender" rather than "Normally_Gender" is that the point is tagging the character based on what the artist says is actually in the image. If the artist never said anything about it, "Stated_Gender" tagging isn't necessary for that particular image. "Normally_Gender" implies tagging based on other images, rather than the artist's intent. Same with "Usually_Gender"

targetdog said:
Of course. If we were just here to beat off, we wouldn't care enough about this to actually have a conversation about it. :P

I completely blame all of you guys (and girls) for the fact that I've only taken the opportunity to do so once since this thread started.
YOU GUYS BE GIVIN ME THE BLUEBALLS OVER THIS SHIT. D:

Riversyde said:
...this thread is just one huge shitfest.
targetdog's Situation D does seem like the best solution to me. If a user/character owner/artist does get pisses that their/a character has their wrongly tagged, we can be like "Yo dawg, we know they're a herm, but we tagged them a female cuz we can't see dey dick. Roolz be roolz, dawg.
But s'cool, yo! We put yo' charactuh'z normal gender in dey's wiki page, wit' sum infomay'shun 'bout dem! No need to get vah'lint 'bout it. We awll bruthas hee-yuh."

Comments like this are why I love this site so much; also, this actually seems like a good compromise, tags for what you see, and the wiki for all the rest of the background info that would be too detailed or not apparent enough in the actual picture for the tagging system.

Aurali said:
It's my baby <3
Good programming can only be used in conjuction with good users..
We have the best taggers in the world, we have the best search in the world.
Also I'm not FOR or AGAINST anything. As long as whatever tags get created DOES NOT disrupt the integrity of the search system, I don't care.
I'm honestly all for a "provable" gender set and an "apparent" gender set.
Also on a final note. This goes for both my fellow admins and fellow users. DO NOT push people to other sites... especially inferior ones. We are a community.. even if it's a loose one.

We aren't really pushing people to other sites, not on purpose at least, the forums on this site are kinda like a good old dysfunctional family reunion (only everybody is furry and not really family), sure we argue and shit, but it's all in good spirit and we do it really because of how much we care about this site, most sites would have caved by now with so much drama over such a trivial thing.
The tagging system is definitely a huge plus that e6 has over other sites, sure other sites have it too, but as I said before, ours really is the best one, so I'm not really ready to compromise it over something this trivial. Or, as Celestia said

Princess_Celestia said:
Dude, take a good long hard look at other sites who've gone this exact same path/ They bend for one particular group who's pissing, and moaning. Then they bend for another because they "Let the first group get what they wanted" and didn't want to hear them bitch anymore, then another, then another, then 4chan was born.

Sure, it may be assuming things, but it has happened in the past to other sites, and they have suffered because of it, so it's not something we want to risk, especially since it's a main function and huge plus that this site has over other ones (as well as other things, like admins with a sense of humor).

Atani said:
I don't know what you mean by that "Lumpy Snake" thing. You should tell me, it sounds like a good story :3
But see, that's the thing. These tags will of course be useful for tiptoeing around artists' egos...
Basically this. E621 has the greatest tag-and-search system out there... In the long run this small addition shouldn't disrupt anything at all ...Stated_Gender tags. But what I keep trying to point out is, it shouldn't in any way affect those who don't give a fuck.

I fell kinda bad for editing out most of your post, as I did find it kinda funny this time, but it was really long. If you are so inclined to read the lumpy snake story, most of it is on ed (yes, ed is back online now, for whatever reason), summarized version goes like this (She posted a drawing of a character that had a coat that kinda looked a lil funny, one user commented that it looked like a lumpy snake, she overreacted and got very defensive about it, and more users started commenting about how odd the coat looked, drama ensues).
While artists do deserve respect, we really shouldn't have to tiptoe around their egos, sure we'll try to work it out with them, but we aren't their slaves. Tagging system is great, so it really doesn't need to be changed, stated gender would just add unnecessary tags; but this would actually be a great time to expand the wiki, it might take a lot of work to code this, but if we could get the tag system and wiki system working together so somebody could just jump from a tag on a picture to the related wiki page and get all the background info they wanted (and also have related pictures on the wiki pages as well) it could really solve things in the long run. Also, if we put as much work into the wiki system as we do the tag system it could prove to be a great resource.

Notes:

Sexuality: not even included in pictures, "gay" and "lesbian" are just terms for the type of sex going on, not sexuality, a character's sexuality isn't visible in the image, and is filler data for the sake of filler data.
species: fuck everyone, if your a dragon and post a picture of yourself as a dolphin, YOU AREN'T GETTING TAGGED DRAGON. You can go to hell and die. and if we can't decide with a species, we put the family up, like feline or canine..
gender: if the character is a female OBVIOUSLY in the image, and is normally a male, don't ever tag it as "stated_male" I'm gonna beat you with Tony's stick. If anything is done with gender, it's going to be the only thing changed...

Aurali said:
If your a dragon and post a picture of yourself as a dolphin, YOU AREN'T GETTING TAGGED DRAGON. You can go to hell and die.

NO THEY ARE PART DRAGON
FUCK THIS SHIT I WANT MY CHAR OFF THIS SHITHOLE SITE
Also Atani, the retarded Xzibit voice was implied by the "Yo dawg" at the start :P

You know, I never thought about actually searching the tag. I mean, no-one would actually search it. If they wanted herms, they'd search herm, not stated_herm.
Plus, you could search "character herm" with the wiki search system to find herm characters.

Princess_Celestia said:
post #157757
This thread is still going on?

Of COURSE this thread is still going on... you can't just make a rule that pisses a bunch of users off and expect there not to be a long discussion. Some people feel really FUCKED OVER by this... and it is a rule that asks you to LIE about the gender of some characters where there is no good reason to think that the character is NOT of the stated gender.

Are you deliberately missing my point just so you can argue? I know the topic is about gender, that's why I mentioned gender *several times*. My point is that if we allow unseen genders to be tagged, then it will bleed out into other categories as well, and then people will cry out and argue until those rules are changed too. Proper gender tagging is governed by Tag What You See, which is what's at stake.

IF YOU CANNOT TAG A CLOTHED GIRL AS A HERM, THEN YOU CANNOT TAG IT AS A GIRL UNDER "TAG WHAT YOU SEE" BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO MAKE AN ASSUMPTION ABOUT WHAT THE GIRL HAS UNDER HER CLOTHES BECAUSE YOU CANNOT SEE IT. TO SAY THAT GIRL IS A VALID ASSUMPTION AND HERM IS NOT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ARTISTS SAYS THAT IS A HERM, IS NOTHING BUT BLASPHEMY AND FAVORITISTIC ASSHOLE-NESS.

My point never is that if your character is a girl and there's a male version that it should be tagged as a girl. That's not the issue, and to tag an obvious male as a girl is stupid. My issue with this has ALWAYS been that when a cuntboy or herm or dickgirl or something is in CLOTHES, or the "Goods" are obscured otherwise... you want EVERYONE to make ARROGANT assumptions of what the gender is INSTEAD of listening to the person who drew the picture.

THIS is not "Tag what you see" Tagging what you see means actually tagging what you see. This is "Make THIS assumption if you can't see anything instead of listening to the artist who made the picture and would fucking know."

SoulLess said:
CAPS LOCK

Jesus, dude. Calm down. This rule's been in place since e6 was started, it's nothing new.

SoulLess said:
Of COURSE this thread is still going on... you can't just make a rule that pisses a bunch of users off and expect there not to be a long discussion. Some people feel really FUCKED OVER by this... and it is a rule that asks you to LIE about the gender of some characters where there is no good reason to think that the character is NOT of the stated gender.

IF YOU CANNOT TAG A CLOTHED GIRL AS A HERM, THEN YOU CANNOT TAG IT AS A GIRL UNDER "TAG WHAT YOU SEE" BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO MAKE AN ASSUMPTION ABOUT WHAT THE GIRL HAS UNDER HER CLOTHES BECAUSE YOU CANNOT SEE IT. TO SAY THAT GIRL IS A VALID ASSUMPTION AND HERM IS NOT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ARTISTS SAYS THAT IS A HERM, IS NOTHING BUT BLASPHEMY AND FAVORITISTIC ASSHOLE-NESS.

My point never is that if your character is a girl and there's a male version that it should be tagged as a girl. That's not the issue, and to tag an obvious male as a girl is stupid. My issue with this has ALWAYS been that when a cuntboy or herm or dickgirl or something is in CLOTHES, or the "Goods" are obscured otherwise... you want EVERYONE to make ARROGANT assumptions of what the gender is INSTEAD of listening to the person who drew the picture.

THIS is not "Tag what you see" Tagging what you see means actually tagging what you see. This is "Make THIS assumption if you can't see anything instead of listening to the artist who made the picture and would fucking know."

Way to sound completely like a hypocrit.

post #158483 MUST be a herm because I can't "See" her dick, but theirs absolutely no indication otherwise that she is a herm.

post #159511 oh yeah, definitely a herm, totally 100% a herm because nothings showing. But since we're just going ahead and throwing in whatever gender we damn well please, instead of going between the two STOCK genders, its clearly a herm because I said so.

post #159208 Clearly this MUST be a male herm, because I can't see if he does or does not have a vag!

@Souless: this rule has been in place since the sites creation, this thread is a reminder, not a rule change. You may discuss things, but any more attitude will result in demerits on your account.

I would suggest working with us towards an alternative, the primary tagging system IS tag what you see, but we can always have secondary tags to clarify between (visible female) and (really a something else)

Also before people bitch I do speak with my fellow admins.. just not just in the forum.

[EDIT]You know what. Fuck it. I'm pulling a trump card.

Person, Dressed in female clothing, has penis underneath, has small breasts. You know about all of it but there is absolutely no way of telling without saying so. What do you refer to it's gender as when addressing the person? Never talking to them before, but you have to now.

Ugh I can't believe I actually read all the new posts on this thread while on vacation. :(

Char said:
Ugh I can't believe I actually read all the new posts on this thread while on vacation. :(

On the other hand, count the number of those throwing a hissy fit vs the number of users total and you'll realize it's just a few individuals being loud and not representative of everyone.

This is pretty much how sites die, "my way or the highway" administration. Plenty of other sites, people. Image boards come and go like days of the year. Don't get too worked up over one.

Venti_Mocha said:
On the other hand, count the number of those throwing a hissy fit vs the number of users total and you'll realize it's just a few individuals being loud and not representative of everyone.

Well, that's not our problem. Users can come to the forum and voice their opinion any time they want.

8k7 said:
This is pretty much how sites die, "my way or the highway" administration. Plenty of other sites, people. Image boards come and go like days of the year. Don't get too worked up over one.

Last I checked, a day didn't last over four years.

Venti_Mocha said:
On the other hand, count the number of those throwing a hissy fit vs the number of users total and you'll realize it's just a few individuals being loud and not representative of everyone.

Oh I'm well aware that those against "tag what you see" are definitely in the minority. Doesn't mean I won't listen to them and consider suggestions or compromises though, as long as it does not significantly impact the majority negatively. I'm not going to ask our majority to make a sacrifice to please our minority, but I don't think it's something we should just completely ignore.

8k7 said:
This is pretty much how sites die, "my way or the highway" administration. Plenty of other sites, people. Image boards come and go like days of the year. Don't get too worked up over one.

Have you read ANY of my posts in this thread beyond the first one? :|

I don't think it's really useful to group people as being "for" or "against" tag-what-you-see.

To me, the situation seems to be more like this:

Everyone actually does want "tag what you see", but people see different things in an image depending on how much information they know about the context of an image. The question is, how much context should we use outside of that particular image's pixels (including, but not limited to, a character's identity and usual gender, statements by stakeholders on what the gender is supposed to be in an image, etc.)?

First, I don't think anyone in the entire thread literally wants to use no context at all - for example, in all proposals, one can tag based upon clothing, which requires some knowledge of the culture from which the art is coming. (Contrived example: A character wearing a skirt is probably female or herm and not male. Unless the skirt is plaid, in which case it's probably a kilt and points towards male or herm over female.)

I think the pattern here is that knowledge of guys wearing kilts is "common" on e621 (i.e. "common knowledge"), while stuff like "Artica Sparkle is a herm" is very specific and less "common".

I can think of two very logical stances on this:
- More users are likely to know of the common things, and everyone who is ignorant of a character's "true" gender (likely to be a majority) would tag the "superficial" gender
- The problem with this boundary is that specific context, while less known, is extremely informative. (That is, an person ignorant of Artica might be 95% confident that the cum-splattered canine of post #84822 is female, but a person who knows Artica would be 95% confident that shi's a herm. The person who uploaded the picture from FurAffinity might see "herm" in the FA tags, and be near 100% confident that the character is a herm. Also, people gain this knowledge in only one direction - as people learn more, they will settle towards the answer that Artica is a herm, so more would "see" herm - thus one can say that the "true" gender is that Artica is a herm.)

There are pros and cons, and so far, I can think of these:
"Superficial" gender
- Fewer people will think these tags are wrong
- The people that think these tags are wrong will "know" they are wrong
- Taggers don't have to do as much research
- Stakeholders (artist, character owners, fans, etc.) won't be as happy
- People who know the context of an image will end up seeing "wrong" tags and getting incongruous search results
- Users can be blissfully ignorant of any context that "spoils" the image
- People might be in for disappointment upon further research
- More risk of misinterpretation/reinterpretation due to cultural differences
"True" gender
- Uploader or first tagger is likely to know a lot of context behind the image and will "by default" see the "true" genders
- Taggers will need to do some more research during tagging
- Tags are more stable (people can be convinced towards seeing the picture this way easier than the other way)
- Stakeholders will agree with this tag
- Users who don't know the context around the picture will be confused about why certain pictures are included/excluded from their searches
- People can't be blissfully ignorant
- Less risk of getting squicked by surprise changes in one's perception of the character's gender
- Less risk of misinterpretation/reinterpretation due to cultural differences

(There's probably more I haven't thought of.)

For me, the biggest practical stumbling block is that the very people who should be encouraged to do the tagging would probably end up tagging based on things they don't themselves "see". And my biggest "think of the users!" argument is probably the point about minimizing the squick risk.

I'm sure different people value different things on (and off) those lists differently.

It's late, and there's a hurricane, so I'm not repeating this exercise with "stated" tags (...yet).

Princess_Celestia said:
Way to sound completely like a hypocrit.

post #158483 MUST be a herm because I can't "See" her dick, but theirs absolutely no indication otherwise that she is a herm.

post #159511 oh yeah, definitely a herm, totally 100% a herm because nothings showing. But since we're just going ahead and throwing in whatever gender we damn well please, instead of going between the two STOCK genders, its clearly a herm because I said so.

post #159208 Clearly this MUST be a male herm, because I can't see if he does or does not have a vag!

Beg your pardon, Princess, but I believe the implied tags would only apply to characters who we either have implicit proof (artist statement from source site and such) or characters who have a record of being certain genders. Did you just pull 3 random pictures off the site? x3

Also: lol, I found the same argument from a year ago

http://e621.net/post/show/90350/

Holy crap. I just realized why I can never find any pictures of clothed herms. They're all labeled female ಠ_ಠ

And my biggest "think of the users!" argument is probably the point about minimizing the squick risk.

The purpose of a tagging system is for people to find what the want to see while not finding stuff they don't.

So, will more users be annoyed that:

A) they missed out on a female looking image because the character is actually a herm.

B) they saw a hot female and later found out it was a herm.

The answer is almost certainly B simply because the A group won't know what they're missing while people will on occasion research a character and get squicked.

The real way to get an answer is to throw up a poll and find out.

Sharlan said:
The purpose of a tagging system is for people to find what the want to see while not finding stuff they don't.

So, will more users be annoyed that:

A) they missed out on a female looking image because the character is actually a herm.

B) they saw a hot female and later found out it was a herm.

The answer is almost certainly B simply because the A group won't know what they're missing while people will on occasion research a character and get squicked.

The real way to get an answer is to throw up a poll and find out.

We're not going to sacrifice searching ability to prevent some people from going "EWWWWW that female i fapped to was actually secretly a herm!"

Pictionary said:
Holy crap. I just realized why I can never find any pictures of clothed herms. They're all labeled female ಠ_ಠ

But is a clothed herm REALLY a herm? That's like searching for blue-eyed characters with their eyes closed.

ippiki_ookami said:
But is a clothed herm REALLY a herm? That's like searching for blue-eyed characters with their eyes closed.

Oh hush, asking a question like that is asking something like: Is an apple "really" an apple even though it still has a peel. And again, as iterated numerous times, gender =/= any other aspect of a character.

Also, as Riversyde stated, which is a perfect ploy for not just tagging as you see with clothed furs.
"What if the character does not have a set stated gender? So far we've only been talking about Artica Sparkledog, who is a stated herm, but what about others?"

If there's a much lesser known character, and shi's wearing clothing, people like me (who aren't here just for fappage) miss out on learning about a new character, because we aren't going to be searching for females.

I'd also like to say: If the character isn't well enough known to "have" a stated gender, then we go to the source, as I've said before. Some characters just don't have stated genders, so we're never going to be able to get them all, but if the uploaders will take a little extra time to tag the picture as "Stated_herm", that is, if they have the information to do so, then I'll gladly put in the effort to type in "stated_herm" in my search bar.

Last thing: I don't want to put the people who care about a character's true gender on a pedestal; everyone has the right to fap, "but" the people who do care about a character's true gender have a different mindset and would rather come to a compromise.

ITT: An admin reminding people of an age old thing only to get bitched at like it's a new policy.

People, it' not going to change after 4 years. Get over it.

tony311 said:
We're not going to sacrifice searching ability to prevent some people from going "EWWWWW that female i fapped to was actually secretly a herm!"

Everyone who does this needs to grow up.

Riversyde said:
Everyone who does this needs to grow up.

I love you have my babies.

Anyway, I wholeheartedly agree with this, especially assholes who go flirting around and once you tell them your persona's fucking gender, they go EW EW YOU GOT BOTH and OH YOU'RE AN EMOTIONAL SPSYCHO DRAMAWHORE TO BE A HERM. Because obviously not being a herm makes a furry less psychotic

There seems to be a bit of misunderstanding going on here, so lets clarify the goals that I believe will help create a happier E621:

1. Images will never be tagged "Herm" when there is not a penis visible.
2. Images will never be tagged "Herm" when there is not a vagina visible.
3. The compromise is to create a few new tags.
--These tags will follow the format of "Stated_Gender".
--These tags will only apply to genders, not species, etc.
--They will be worded "Stated_Gender" because they will only apply to images in which the artist of that particular image has stated that a characters gender differs from what is apparent in that particular image.
4. Because these changes only call for the addition of a few new tags, it will in no way interfere with the searches of those who are indifferent to the matter.
5. If there is an image in which it is difficult to tell which character the "Stated_Gender" tag applies to, a translation/note will be used for clarification purposes.

In addition to this minor tag addition, other beneficial measures include:
Updating character Wiki's.
Pool tagging based on an entire pool's content.
--Not intended to be searchable, but just to help prevent any...unwanted surprises.
Clarification on the subject of default genders for "Well-Known Characters".
--If it's a character from a television show, it can have a default gender. Batman is male (unless it is apparent that isn't the case)
--If it's any other character, whether it's "usually" herm or "usually" something else, it doesn't matter. Image-by-image gender tagging based on what is apparent, followed by "Stated_Gender" tagging where applicable.

This is the kind of guidelines I like: Very precise, while creating a suitable compromise.

Atani said:
--These tags will only apply to genders, not species, etc.

--They will be worded "Stated_Gender" because they will only apply to images in which the artist of that particular image has stated that a characters gender differs from what is apparent in that particular image.

I like this for two reasons. The first part is great, because this thread is for gender tagging and nothing more, wish people would understand that instead of griping about species tags.

Secondly, the Stated_Gender tags will most likely just be based on source material, rather than on the artist bitching about their characters not being tagged correctly.

Pokemon in TV shows have no stated gender.

CinoxFellpyre said:
Pokemon in TV shows have no stated gender.

So we will tag them ambiguous_gender.

I disagree about being able to see boobs, penis, but not a vagina not being classed as herm.
People looking for herms stereotypically want girls with dicks, removing this tag when no vagina is shown will impede tag searches.

Riversyde said:
I disagree about being able to see boobs, penis, but not a vagina not being classed as herm.
People looking for herms stereotypically want girls with dicks, removing this tag when no vagina is shown will impede tag searches.

YAY, A SEMI-RELATED THING TO MY SUGGESTION [here]

PEOPLE, PLEAZES TO DISCUSS

...

... Totally not trying to hijack/derail the thread; it's directly relevant. :|

acct0283476 said:
... Totally not trying to hijack/derail the thread; it's directly relevant. :|

I DON'T MIND THE STEP WHEN I GET OFF THE TRAIN, I'M A MAD CUNT EY

I have no idea...what just happened.

CinoxFellpyre said:
I have no idea...what just happened.

acct started to derail the thread and I just went along with it.
He does this a lot. :P

I'm not sure I'm on the "stated_gender" idea, as all it does is mean that I have to search multiple times to find all the herm pictures instead of just once.

Thanks to "lurkingfox", he summed it up well.

I think that to say:

1. Images will never be tagged "Herm" when there is not a penis visible.
2. Images will never be tagged "Herm" when there is not a vagina visible.

The only way to say THAT without not just being biggoted towards certian genders is to ALSO SAY:

3. Images will never be tagged "Female" when there is not a vagina visible.
4. Images will never be tagged "Male" when there is not a penis visible.

Because to NOT have the 3rd and 4th rule AND have the 1st and 2nd rule is just being favoritist... and listening to moderators favoritist assumptions is NOT covered by the statement that is "Tag what you see." That is my issue with this, the assumptions that you need to make DESPITE the evidence for the other gender (artist's word). Surely having all four rules gets us nowhere, and being bigoted is bad, so the clear result is to have none of those four rules.

I think that on obscured-gender images, the gender should be based on the artist.

--If it's a character from a television show, it can have a default gender. Batman is male (unless it is apparent that isn't the case)

Then Drayk is a cuntboy unless it's apparent that that is not the case. You cannot make exceptions because certain things are more well known than others. ALL religious institutions are untaxed ~ not just the most popular ones.

~~~
I think this issue is just silly.

If the artist says it's a female, tag it as a female unless there is something that clearly contradicts that statement.
If the artist says it's a male, tag it as a male unless there is something that clearly contradicts that statement.
If the artist says it's a herm, tag it as a herm unless there is something that clearly contradicts that statement.
If the artist says it's a cuntboy, tag it as a cuntboy unless there is something that clearly contradicts that statement.

If no artist information is given, or there is clear evidence that it is NOT what the artist says:

If It's male, tag it as male.
If It's herm, tag it as herm.
If It's female, tag it as female.
If It's cuntboy, tag it as cuntboy.

If you can't tell based on the current picture, tag it as ambigious.

From an unbiased viewpoint, that's how it should be(and there's a reason the US constitution strives to be unbiased; not putting down the minority for the sake of the majority.)... This method is basically the "default gender" method that we would use on batman... batman is a guy unless otherwise proven in the picture... THUS the identity that IS batMAN.

//Just a note
The original whine that created this thread is someone not finding a picture of a HERM character in their FEMALE search because they couldn't see the genitalia. Well... I can't find FEMALE pictures in my HERM search either, even though I can't see that it doesn't have a penis... so please don't complain.

CinoxFellpyre said:
I have no idea...what just happened.

This thread got filled with a bunch of tl;dr. I don't know about the rest of you, but my attention span is about as

Oh hey, shiny thing! Also, I was amused to see that Unicorn Theater at PAX this year was sporting mlp. But it was Rainbow Dash, and not a unicorn-type pony.

SoulLess said:
I think this issue is just silly.

If the artist says it's a female, tag it as a female unless there is something that clearly contradicts that statement.
If the artist says it's a male, tag it as a male unless there is something that clearly contradicts that statement.
If the artist says it's a herm, tag it as a herm unless there is something that clearly contradicts that statement.
If the artist says it's a cuntboy, tag it as a cuntboy unless there is something that clearly contradicts that statement.

No.

Atani said:
There seems to be a bit of misunderstanding going on here, so lets clarify the goals that I believe will help create a happier E621:

1. Images will never be tagged "Herm" when there is not a penis visible.
2. Images will never be tagged "Herm" when there is not a vagina visible.
3. The compromise is to create a few new tags.
--These tags will follow the format of "Stated_Gender".
--These tags will only apply to genders, not species, etc.
--They will be worded "Stated_Gender" because they will only apply to images in which the artist of that particular image has stated that a characters gender differs from what is apparent in that particular image.
4. Because these changes only call for the addition of a few new tags, it will in no way interfere with the searches of those who are indifferent to the matter.
5. If there is an image in which it is difficult to tell which character the "Stated_Gender" tag applies to, a translation/note will be used for clarification purposes.

In addition to this minor tag addition, other beneficial measures include:
Updating character Wiki's.
Pool tagging based on an entire pool's content.
--Not intended to be searchable, but just to help prevent any...unwanted surprises.
Clarification on the subject of default genders for "Well-Known Characters".
--If it's a character from a television show, it can have a default gender. Batman is male (unless it is apparent that isn't the case)
--If it's any other character, whether it's "usually" herm or "usually" something else, it doesn't matter. Image-by-image gender tagging based on what is apparent, followed by "Stated_Gender" tagging where applicable.

This is the kind of guidelines I like: Very precise, while creating a suitable compromise.

Yes.

Also, if you answered "Dickgirl" or "male" to my question earlier, then you are a bigot~

Stated_gender used ONLY WHEN THE ARTIST HIM OR HERSELF SPECIFICALLY STATES A GENDER ON THE ORIGINAL IMAGE I can support. Stated_gender on an Arctica Sparkle image just because shi's normally a herm, even if it's part of that series of images where someone does something through magic or what the fuck ever to change hir into a purely female character- That's the bullshit I don't want, and I'm pretty sure most people against the entire concept of stated_gender don't want.

To summarize:
- If a character is normally one gender, put it in the wiki.

- If you want to see W character because W is a herm/female/male normally, regardless of whether they're a herm/female/male in that specific picture a herm/male/female or not, search for the character, do not change the tags from reflecting exactly what is visible in the image as if you knew nothing about the character- In otherwords, remove your personal bias of knowledge.

- If the character has been explicitly stated in the source link provided for the image that the character is X/Y/Z gender, stated_gender as applicable. If the character has NOT been stated to be a gender explicitly by the artist, then it is tagged STRICTLY based on what can be seen.

I could get behind that.

And to the idiot bitching about herms being clothed you can't tell so call it a herm- BULLSHIT. post #105920 you can clearly tell its a herm from just looking at it back or front- That big-ass package would be swinging down low enough to see between hir legs no matter what. post #94805 if you cover up all but the middle image- It looks just like a female! Surprise! Stereotypical FEMALE characteristics, plus a sheath and balls (visible in the picture on the right-hand side) that tuck away nicely. post #79907 package bulge from the front so you could tell if shi walked up to you- But from behind? No, you couldn't tell that was a herm. It'd have a round ass, curvy figure, and breasts- Sterotypical FEMALE characteristics. post #155636 Arctica Sparkle and others. There is a definitive male- no boobs, cock- a character with only visible female traits (breasts, feminine facial features) fully clothed in the background, and what appears to be a female- breasts, nude bottom, no sign of cock or balls attached. Until I just fixed the tag before posting this, how was that herm? Because Arctica Sparkle is normally a herm? but what if shi wasn't drawn as a herm? Would that still make her a herm? NO. Herms are a combination of FEMALE and MALE characteristics, the primary sexual ones being Breasts and Vagina for females and Cock and Balls for males. It's the mixing of Vagina and Cock that gets you a herm, breasts or no. Without a visible, definable cock to tag, there is no cock in the picture for that character. Thus, Breasts + (unknown) = Female by default. Just like no Breasts + (???) = Male by default. Neither Herms nor Cuntboys are default 'genders'. Ever.

123easy said:
Thus, Breasts + (unknown) = Female by default. Just like no Breasts + (???) = Male by default. Neither Herms nor Cuntboys are default 'genders'. Ever.

Curvy figure and breasts are ALSO stereotypical HERM and DICKGIRL Characteristics. You're just being ignorant of other viewpoints and _Ahem(I'm tired of using this word but I can't think of any other good words to use)_ favoritist by ASSUMING that female.

123easy said:
It's the mixing of Vagina and Cock that gets you a herm, breasts or no.

It's the LACK OF DICK and PRESENCE OF VAGINA and BREASTS that makes it a FEMALE. IF you cannot tag a herm where the cock aren't visible, then BY THE SAME LOGIC, you cannot tag a FEMALE unless her vagina is visible.

You need to APPLY THE SAME LOGIC to all pictures that you see and to all sides of the spectrum. Thus, that logic must be good enough to separate HERM and FEMALE pictures without just being biased towards tagging as one gender.

SoulLess: Insane Troll Logic Incarnate. Calling Female and Male characteristics stereotypical to herms and dickgirls, when the latter are combinations of the former.

SoulLess said:
IF you cannot tag a herm where the cock aren't visible, then BY THE SAME LOGIC, you cannot tag a FEMALE unless her vagina is visible.

waaaaaaaat

SoulLess said:
The only way to say THAT without not just being biggoted towards certian genders is to ALSO SAY:

3. Images will never be tagged "Female" when there is not a vagina visible.
4. Images will never be tagged "Male" when there is not a penis visible.

Dude, don't be fucking obtuse.

If you walk down the street - in Real Life - and you see a human being with long hair, a rounded face, makeup, breasts, a narrow waist, and wide hips... the mind is going to register "female" in 99.99999% of people. If you try to argue that, you're just being difficult.

On the internet, we have all kinds of crazy sexes and genders in our furry art, but these are special cases. There are approximately 10 times as many images tagged "female" as there are images tagged "intersex". It has nothing to do with favoritism - it's logic and common fucking sense to assume female unless the image shows otherwise.

Not sure if trolling or just retard.

Edit- And on a different note, I also find the distinction between "dickgirl" and "herm" to be needlessly specific, but I understand that not everyone agrees.

Edit 2- What about images where a herm is fucking someone, but no penis visible? Would the lack of a strapon be enough to infer the presence of proper penis?

Egads people. Wouldn't the ultimate solution be to tag BOTH? I mean, I'm sure this has probably come up, but think about it.

If a guy gets off from the IDEA that a character is a herm, and he searches 'herm', he'll find even the pictures where the character is not obviously a herm. He'll love them all.

If a guy gets off from the APPEARANCE of a vagina and penis on a character, he can look up herm -female. Bam, now all those pictures where the penis is obscured, are gone.

If a guy loves females, but doesn't care what the gender actually is, he can search 'female'. He'll love all the images, and if he finds one that's REALLY a herm, he won't mind.

If a guy freaks out from the idea of fapping to a herm picture (which, maybe in these current rules he'll really love that Artica Sparkle pic and look up more of her, and OMFG PENIS), he can search female -herm. Bam, problem SOLVED.

The other solution, would be to have gender tags under a separate category of tags. A different table in the database, if you wish. Still tag both, but perhaps have a setting in the user's profile saying 'show gender tags: BOTH, Herm, Female.' or whatever. Or have some way to control which system to prefer using the blacklist.

But egads, people. This is what causes needless drama... An artist will get upset if someone (even seemingly, without directly saying it) says their character is something that they aren't. It's literally an insult to them, as it's like seeing a picture of a dragon and saying "What a cute bunny!"

On the flip side, you have people looking into 'normal' straight furry porn, and they run across what seems to BE normal straight furry porn. Look up the source/more pics of that character? BAM PENIS EVERYWHERE. To those people, it's absolutely disgusting, and it makes them think us furries are all FREAKS.

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here, but I see no issues with my proposal of just plain tagging both, with the possible addition of a new database table for gender.

Actually, (geeking out a bit here), for a database table it may look something like this:

+---------------+-------+-------+
|image_id       |tag    |appears|
+---------------+-------+-------+
|49834          |herm   |no     |
|49834          |female |yes    |
|5467413        |female |yes    |
|6874534        |herm   |yes    |
+---------------+-------+-------+

(Edit: My pretty table :( Ruined by the font! Wish there were a way to make it monospaced.)

'image_id' and 'tag' should be a multi-column primary key, of course, so that the tag can't appear twice. But, this allows to tag both, and still retain which one it APPEARS to be. Actually, you could make all three into a multi-column primary key, for images that are of a herm fucking a female, but where neither of them are obviously what they are (they may both have boobs and genitals obscured, for example).

Is it showing that I'm taking a database class? Also, this could go along with incest and whatnot as well.

123easy said:
SoulLess: Insane Troll Logic Incarnate. Calling Female and Male characteristics stereotypical to herms and dickgirls, when the latter are combinations of the former.

The PHYSICAL FORM of the FEMALE and HERM are stereo-typically IDENTICAL when not looking at the Genitalia. When you don't see the Genitalia, the physical stereotypes fore HERMS are the same as the ones for FEMALE.

targetdog said:
Dude, don't be fucking obtuse.

If you walk down the street - in Real Life - and you see a human being with long hair, a rounded face, makeup, breasts, a narrow waist, and wide hips... the mind is going to register "female" in 99.99999% of people. If you try to argue that, you're just being difficult.

I'm not arguing that... that is real life. But on the internet, statistics are much different. HERM pictures on internet sites like these are much more prominent, more like 70% female and 30% herm... since this is an internet website for internet pictures, we need to go off that statistic more than IRL statistics... and those are not statistics that favour FEMALE enough to make blind assumptions.

Based on E621(searching gender tags and comparing the number of pages), Herm is 19.7407407% of the picture population.
Other sites...(excluding "dickgirl" tag and "hermaphradite" tags, and excluding the fact that a lot of herm pictures aren't tagged as herm because of this rule)
YChan: 11.6964108% herm

Wouldn't the ultimate solution be to tag BOTH? I mean, I'm sure this has probably come up, but think about it.

I agree completely with this solution, but failed to bring it up because someone said something about it messing with the "herm" as a blacklist.

SoulLess said:
I agree completely with this solution, but failed to bring it up because someone said something about it messing with the "herm" as a blacklist.

Hence my extra database table. While I'm not 100% confident in my ability to perform this sort of alteration to an existing database/website, I know I could re-create this format on my own from scratch without problems.

SoulLess said:
I'm not arguing that... that is real life. But on the internet, statistics are much different. HERM pictures on internet sites like these are much more prominent, more like 70% female and 30% herm... since this is an internet website for internet pictures, we need to go off that statistic more than IRL statistics... and those are not statistics that favour FEMALE enough to make blind assumptions.

I completely disagree, and further I am now quite certain that you are purposefully and uselessly trying to fuel conflict on this subject with poor logic and outrageous conclusions. As a result, I will refrain from responding to your comments in the future and suggest others do the same.

tl;dr - I can't handle this troll logic. I'm done feeding.

Tynach said:
Egads people. Wouldn't the ultimate solution be to tag BOTH? I mean, I'm sure this has probably come up, but think about it.

If a guy gets off from the IDEA that a character is a herm, and he searches 'herm', he'll find even the pictures where the character is not obviously a herm. He'll love them all.

If a guy gets off from the APPEARANCE of a vagina and penis on a character, he can look up herm -female. Bam, now all those pictures where the penis is obscured, are gone.

If a guy loves females, but doesn't care what the gender actually is, he can search 'female'. He'll love all the images, and if he finds one that's REALLY a herm, he won't mind.

If a guy freaks out from the idea of fapping to a herm picture (which, maybe in these current rules he'll really love that Artica Sparkle pic and look up more of her, and OMFG PENIS), he can search female -herm. Bam, problem SOLVED.

The scenarios you propose get decidedly more difficult when more than one character is involved. In your second example, pictures that contain both herms and females would be excluded, which is unacceptable.

And again - to beat the dead pony some more - if somebody's searching for herms, they're probably wanting to see the genitals. The group of people who want to see "herms who don't look like herms" is a very vocal minority, and not worth changing the entire sex/gender tagging system over. However, the stated_x tags would provide this service to them as a side bonus to its other benefits.

Additionally, the people who find a picture of a "female" and later finds out they're usually a herm need to get over it. But the stated_x tags would allow them to avoid any possible contact with the unclean.

Tynach said:
The other solution, would be to have gender tags under a separate category of tags. A different table in the database, if you wish. Still tag both, but perhaps have a setting in the user's profile saying 'show gender tags: BOTH, Herm, Female.' or whatever. Or have some way to control which system to prefer using the blacklist.

Way too much work for something like this. There are better solutions that don't involve an overhaul of the backend.

targetdog said:
The scenarios you propose get decidedly more difficult when more than one character is involved. In your second example, pictures that contain both herms and females would be excluded, which is unacceptable.

And again - to beat the dead pony some more - if somebody's searching for herms, they're probably wanting to see the genitals. The group of people who want to see "herms who don't look like herms" is a very vocal minority, and not worth changing the entire sex/gender tagging system over. However, the stated_x tags would provide this service to them as a side bonus to its other benefits.

Additionally, the people who find a picture of a "female" and later finds out they're usually a herm need to get over it. But the stated_x tags would allow them to avoid any possible contact with the unclean.

Actually no, pictures with both herms and females would be just fine with this setup. Think about it a little more.

targetdog said:
Way too much work for something like this. There are better solutions that don't involve an overhaul of the backend.

Lawl. It's a single additional table to the database, not an overhaul in the slightest. Adding that one table is something I AM confident I could do easily, probably in about... 10 minutes?

Only extra issue, would be making sure that only gender related tags (and incest and so forth too, I suppose) go to that table. Which would require one more table (which I could also do easily) and modifying the PHP/Perl/whatever language runs the site, to check a tag against a list of 'gender tags', and send THAT one to the new table. Which would be a few if statements and a couple additional functions.

Overall, could probably be done in under a day with a competent programmer (or a team of them), and with some people who are a bit slow (honestly, like myself - I'm rather slow at programming, but I usually end up doing fairly good work) maybe up to a week.

Just one question. If the gender is obvious by other indicators than having a vagina or a penis (or boobs), can it then tagged female or male?
(I am thinking about clean pictures of lions for example. You can see if it has a mane = male, it does not = female.
Also the body, the face, the makeup (or clothes) they may have can indicate what they are.)

I'll be honest, I'm totally ignoring Soulless at this point, his rockhard opinion is detrimental to the function of something in my court.

That being, I've got a hypothetical update that I'd like to propose.

It wouldn't be to hard to subset character and artist tags, so I wonder if people would consider the following.

CharacterTAG

* subset normal species
* subset normal gender
* subset normal owner
(Can be canceled by typing {} at the end of the tag, is not required in tag fields)

ArtistTAG

* subset website
* subset second website
* subset commissions policy

but as this is in the theoretical stages, it might not be entirely possible.

Imya said:
Just one question. If the gender is obvious by other indicators than having a vagina or a penis (or boobs), can it then tagged female or male?
(I am thinking about clean pictures of lions for example. You can see if it has a mane = male, it does not = female.
Also the body, the face, the makeup (or clothes) they may have can indicate what they are.)

Incorrect non-human sexual dimorphism can be tricky. Some of it can be based on incorrect assumptions of the species (I.e. The artist not doing their research), but the difficulty in identifying that is compounded by the prominence of transsexualism in furry art.

You'd have to weigh them against any other sex-indicating characteristics they have, with human traits taking precedence over non-human ones. So if a peacock character is heavily anthropomorphized and has large plumage, developed breasts, a narrow waist, wide hips, and undefined musculature, it would be tagged female. Despite the male sex characteristic (plumage), a majority of it's body points to femininity.

Feral characters are a bit easier in some cases. An anatomically correct lion's only sexually differentiating feature besides a penis is a mane. So mane = male, no mane = female.

If you really can't tell which gender it is, again: we have an ambiguous_gender tag for that.

Oh god, this thread. I still stick to what I said earlier and think we should just use tag what you see and all the too detailed/not visibly apparent stuff should just go in the wiki, and the tagging system should be connected to the wiki so you can jump from a tag on a picture to the related wiki page.

Aurali said:
I'll be honest, I'm totally ignoring Soulless at this point, his rockhard opinion is detrimental to the function of something in my court.

That being, I've got a hypothetical update that I'd like to propose.

It wouldn't be to hard to subset character and artist tags, so I wonder if people would consider the following.

CharacterTAG

* subset normal species
* subset normal gender
* subset normal owner
(Can be canceled by typing {} at the end of the tag, is not required in tag fields)

ArtistTAG

* subset website
* subset second website
* subset commissions policy

but as this is in the theoretical stages, it might not be entirely possible.

That actually sounds really cool, so would that basically be two more database tables, and each character/artist would sort of have their own set of tags associated with them?

tl;dr - I can't handle this troll logic. I'm done feeding.

I'm just using logical arguments. If you could give me good reason to change my opinion on the matter, I would.. but everything anyone has said so far regarding that has been a fallacious argument.

I assure you that I am not a troll... in fact, I am rather insulted that you idiots take the fact that I'm trying to apply logic to the situation and promoting equality of proposed genders.

Please point out to me where my logic is poor.

I still agree with Tynach's table solution.

tl;dr - If you are ignoring me, please give some reasoning with examples... Because right now the only possible reasoning I have is that it goes against what you like.

Dunno about adding commission policies, they can change pretty frequently.

SoulLess said:
I'm just using logical arguments.

pfffhahaha