Aliasing ineffective_censorship -> censored.
Aliasing pointless_censoring -> censored.

Reason: it doesn´t matter if it it is ineffective or pointless it is still just censored

I think this should instead be an implication from ineffective_censorship to censored. Ineffective censorship means that there is some sort of censoring, but it's so poorly done that it might as well not even be there.

They're not the same thing, but searching for "censored" should cover both legitimately censored images as well as ineffectively censored images I think. I could see why it still might be a good idea to keep these tags separated though with no aliasing or implications at all.

I agree completely. Having both tags makes it easier to blacklist heavily censored images ( bl: censored -ineffective_censorship ). Thus, I also think that it would be better as an implication than an alias.

IMO, ineffective and pointless censorshp are probably not tags that are on most pictures. Blacklisting censored -ineffective_censorship is a great idea, but...

ineffective censorship 63
pointless censoring 32
censored 1901

so EVERY SINGLE other picture is heavily censored?

I'd vote for the aliases myself... most pictures ARE lightly censored...

I'd rather see a heavily_censored tag instead.

SnowWolf said:
IMO, ineffective and pointless censorshp are probably not tags that are on most pictures. Blacklisting censored -ineffective_censorship is a great idea, but...

ineffective censorship 63
pointless censoring 32
censored 1901

so EVERY SINGLE other picture is heavily censored?

I'd vote for the aliases myself... most pictures ARE lightly censored...

I'd rather see a heavily_censored tag instead.

I dunno. Rather than "Heavily_censored", I'd think a better route would be "Lightly_censored". Generally, any image that's not-censored enough to get your jollies off of seeing the bits could be considered Lightly_censored, and it would probably be a lot more used than Heavily_censored, ineffective_censorship, OR pointless_censoring. We could alias ineffective_censorship to lightly_censored, keep pointless_censoring for the images that're so ridiculously poorly censored that they might as well not even be considered censored, and call it a day.

Tha'ts keeping too many options. what the heck is the difference between lightly and pointless? it's kinda vague. and there are many different opinions involved.

I think my ideal would be no *censorship tag, and only the censorship tag... but... yeah. ineffective and pointless are totally pointless in my opinion :)

But, I guess if we were going to tag all of the slightly censored images, I'd rather lightly then something more debateable like ineffective or pointless.

but I don't think we should have a zillion different levels on the matter. because what lets YOU get your jollies off might not be enough for *me* to or for bobfur to, or... so forth. it's subjective.

Thus wouldn't aliasing it to lightly_censored mean that all current "pointless censoring" and "ineffective censorship" would instead become "lightly_censored"? That's how I interpreted the idea.

123easy said:
Thus wouldn't aliasing it to lightly_censored mean that all current "pointless censoring" and "ineffective censorship" would instead become "lightly_censored"? That's how I interpreted the idea.

Ineffective_censoring, yeah. Pointless_censoring, maybe...

Either way, the worst it's doing is swapping one tag for another, and the best it's doing is making things easier for people to sift through and blacklist.

The way I see it, after thinking about it, the really necessary censor tags would be:
Censored
Lightly_censored
Heavily_censored

Every image could be categorized as either heavily or lightly censored, which would then imply Censored. People could blacklist Heavily_censored, or, if they didn't want any censored images at all, then just plain Censored. That way, people who don't mind minor censoring(a translucent white strip or easily-fixed inverted color censors, for example) could still see those images while blocking out images where entire genitalia are blurred or blacked out to the point of being completely or mostly unseeable. Meanwhile, tags that aren't particularly heavily OR lightly censored could just be left as plain "censored".

The tags would also be easy to fix if somebody put censored but not heavily/lightly_censored; a tag search for censored -heavily/lightly_censored would clear out all images that were heavily or lightly censored, allowing one to glance over whichever ones haven't been tagged properly yet.

Put simply, it's a system that's simple, manageable, and easily accessible.

Besides the tagging itself, we'd just need a wiki page to define examples of heavily/lightly censored.

That sounds like a great idea, Percy. Well, what are you waiting for? get cracking at it! :P

isn't ineffective censoring a work around for legal crap?

Aurali said:
isn't ineffective censoring a work around for legal crap?

I'm pretty sure it is. It's basically saying "You didn't tell me how MUCH I needed to censor this, so just a small black dot to censor is still censoring, lul. :U "

Pointless_censoring seems to be a "This is so obvious what's going on here, but we're censoring it anyways" most likely due to the japanese laws. There's also some cross-over with ineffective censorship, because often, well, there's nothing really being hidden by the censoring, thus it is both pointless and ineffectual. Either way, they're definitely the both of them similar enough to be considered the same tag, IMO.

I feel like either "pointless_censoring" or "ineffective_censoring" should be kept. I find that while "heavy censoring" is just that, censoring, when it's just a dot on the clit or blurring on the hole in a penis it does actually detract from the picture in that it's distracting. You can't unsee it, it's like an annoying watermark or something.

Wouldn't that be more "Annoying_censorship"?

123easy said:
Wouldn't that be more "Annoying_censorship"?

Huh. I guess it would be. Though that's a little more subjective than something like "ineffective."

RedOctober said:
I feel like either "pointless_censoring" or "ineffective_censoring" should be kept. I find that while "heavy censoring" is just that, censoring, when it's just a dot on the clit or blurring on the hole in a penis it does actually detract from the picture in that it's distracting. You can't unsee it, it's like an annoying watermark or something.

I would think that the "Pointless_Censoring" would either alias to or implicate "Lightly_Censored"... preferably aliased, but that's a personal opinion.

I just hope that nobody will come forward asking for an "Obnoxiously_Censored" tag.

...crap, now somebody's gonna ask for it for sure.

So does this have the go-ahead?