You can not view this image.

Parent: post #1737209 that has 5 siblings (learn more) show »

This post was deleted or flagged for the following reasons:

  • [DELETION] Inferior version/duplicate of post #1737209 and post #1972489 (Excessive same base image set, Low quality/effort edit) - Mairo -
Description

Seeing the Digby edit made me want to make this version, since the splice was easy enough (though not easy overall), if I missed/added incorrect tags, feel free to apply them accordingly.

Blacklisted
(help)
  • Comments
    •

    ihavenoidea645

    Member

    Didn't expect the incest and intersex/intersex tags to be the ones to get removed, since the speech bubble implies it pretty plainly being Isabelle...

  • Reply
  • |
  • 1
    •

    Versperus

    Moderator

    ihavenoidea645 said:
    Didn't expect the incest and intersex/intersex tags to be the ones to get removed, since the speech bubble implies it pretty plainly being Isabelle...

    Text doesn't contribute to tagged content, only what is visibly seen.
    And no that doesn't catch 22.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 0
    •

    ihavenoidea645

    Member

    Versperus said:
    Text doesn't contribute to tagged content, only what is visibly seen.
    And no that doesn't catch 22.

    Not to be facetious, but under that context and "tag what you see not what you know" nothing should be able to be tagged with incest, as you'd need either prior knowledge or contextual in image text stating it. So it seems kind of unfair to make that claim, don't you think?

  • Reply
  • |
  • 1
    •

    Versperus

    Moderator

    ihavenoidea645 said:
    Not to be facetious, but under that context and "tag what you see not what you know" nothing should be able to be tagged with incest, as you'd need either prior knowledge or contextual in image text stating it. So it seems kind of unfair to make that claim, don't you think?

    True, incest tags are completely contextual, it's kind of wacky, I don't have a good answer I can give you. but in the context of this post, if there was some sort of body to go with the penis giving its owner form than sure, but it's simply a penis.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 0
    •

    ihavenoidea645

    Member

    Versperus said:
    True, incest tags are completely contextual, it's kind of wacky, I don't have a good answer I can give you. but in the context of this post, if there was some sort of body to go with the penis giving its owner form than sure, but it's simply a penis.

    Would it have helped is instead of "'Belle" the text was "Sis"? I know I can't make a new edit just for that though I wish I could, but rules but just for future reference.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 0
    •

    Versperus

    Moderator

    ihavenoidea645 said:
    Would it have helped is instead of "'Belle" the text was "Sis"? I know I can't make a new edit just for that though I wish I could, but rules but just for future reference.

    see, that's still an issue of text only, effectively the site treats text in the content of a post as if it doesn't exist, beyond tags such as text, English_text, url, signature.

    Though I'll be honest, as far as the content of this post it might get deleted for one of two reasons.

    1. It's a merger edit, which usually get classified as a low effort edit.
    2. It surpasses the sites maximum on bases with the addition of this post pushing the total ammound of this base to 6 when the max is 5.

    Mind you I'm not a janitor, it's just two reasons this post could be deleted. At that same time however, if this post does get deleted you can put a link to this animation in the description or the comments of one of the other posts of this base so users can still view it.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 0
    •