lol cute, but it look more like rubber, not real one xD

Ok, how many minutes until complaints appear about:

a). there's no real depth to it
b). there are penis smudges on my monitor now
c). monitor manufacturers refuse to service my now broken LCD screen on grounds that it contains copious amounts of bodily fluids

pssh you dont know how to vagina? looks fuckin great man

it looks real enough for me.

Looks a lot like a "life doll" If you know what I mean XD

Likely should not be tagged Fluttershy, just sayin'

Very very cute and lovely!! <3

it looks so real that its scary

dat hd...

Yes! Yummy...just like pudding ;)

Conker139 said:
pssh you dont know how to vagina? looks fuckin great man

♪ I didn't do it! ♫ :)

CamKitty said:
Likely should not be tagged Fluttershy, just sayin'

I know, but I went to the safe route ... y'know... to avoid tag wars...

Staring at this, I feel like the world's luckiest gynecologist.

A lot of brony-haters are gonna miss out on such a great picture thanks to blacklist. Their loss.
;3

This is the best drawn pussy I've ever seen! This thing looks tasty! ♥

im not sure i can fap to this its so real

What exactly implies that the equine, horse, my_little_pony, friendship_is_magic, and fluttershy_(mlp) tags should be here? I see no cutie mark, which would be a giveaway mainly for MLP/FIM/FS tags.
yellow_fur could mean more than just one character.
I understand it's Tag What You See. I just don't see Fluttershy. I don't think the tags should be there. I feel it should be more.. only mammal. No proof it is equine of any sort.

DarkWolf6052 said:
What exactly implies that the equine, horse, my_little_pony, friendship_is_magic, and fluttershy_(mlp) tags should be here? I see no cutie mark, which would be a giveaway mainly for MLP/FIM/FS tags.
yellow_fur could mean more than just one character.
I understand it's Tag What You See. I just don't see Fluttershy. I don't think the tags should be there. I feel it should be more.. only mammal. No proof it is equine of any sort.

I understand what you say, but as I said, I went though the safe route. As you can see here I didn't tag equine...

DarkWolf6052 said:
What exactly implies that the equine, horse, my_little_pony, friendship_is_magic, and fluttershy_(mlp) tags should be here? I see no cutie mark, which would be a giveaway mainly for MLP/FIM/FS tags.
yellow_fur could mean more than just one character.
I understand it's Tag What You See. I just don't see Fluttershy. I don't think the tags should be there. I feel it should be more.. only mammal. No proof it is equine of any sort.

On the source it says fluttervag and on account of the tag wars over character names and species it says that tags based off information directly from the source can be used

Well, I tried looking for the exceptions that allow for tagging character names regardless of what's being seen and, after reading it, it doesn't really seem to make it any easier to judge what's the correct way to tag pictures like this one

On one hand it says...

Which in this case seems to be true.

But then on the other hand it also says...

Which also seems to be the case here...

Tagging is such a painful process...

Firespark said:
[...]

Tagging is such a painful process...

Tagging characters is a painful process... hence why I just tagged Fluttershy (and inherently tagged mlp and fim) *shrug*

Firespark said:
The post must have at least SOME evidence of the claimed character and can not have any evidence that CONFLICTS with what the external source is saying

The guidelines, albeit not very specific, are clear enough.

There is SOME evidence, in fact all the evidence there can be considering the limited view, which is given by the body's hue. It matches perfectly the typical hue of the supposed character (indicated by the source). No evidence to the contrary can be found, so I'd say it's right to tag the character's name according to the source.

I feel the guideline's purpose is to avert tagging a blue pixel-sized speck 'Sonic' or a featureless green blob on a white background 'bulbasaur' and similar sort of nonsense. It's not there to make tagging into a bureaucracy, I hope.

The original source is http://zippysqrl.tumblr.com/post/86037458269 which refers to the image as 'Fluttervag' and posted it to Derpibooru. This is CLEARLY a MLP/Fluttershy image

AlphaDelta said:
The original source is http://zippysqrl.tumblr.com/post/86037458269 which refers to the image as 'Fluttervag' and posted it to Derpibooru. This is CLEARLY a MLP/Fluttershy image

Source does not matter for tagging normally, just what is seen in the picture

It's my drawing, it gets the tags :I

ThatBloodySquirrel said:
It's my drawing, it gets the tags :I

Unfortunately, you don't decide what tags stay or go. On this site, we follow the "Tag What You See" rule. We don't not go by what the source says, we go by what we see in the image itself. Since there's no evidence present in the image that can prove it's Fluttershy, we don't tag it as FLuttershy. The tag stays off

It's curious that so many people are dismissing the exception in TWYS (see Firespark's comment) when it's a rule that apparently opposes their standpoint. The exception clearly needs to be addressed and perhaps even challenged.

Is is really any useful? If you added any more information to this image in form of a cutie mark or colored tail, I wonder, would there then be any doubt as to her identity? Would it even be necessary to apply the aforementioned TWYS exception?

The exception seems useless, particularly in this case, but I can imagine many others. If there is some evidence as interpreted by TheHuskyK9 and others, then there is enough evidence to deduce the character's identity without having to appeal to the source.

And don't just argue "It should be like this because it's in the rules oh, don't mind the little exception—no one really upholds it—and evidence? surely they meant this much evidence—I mean, this measure is subjective and I decide the threshold, right?" (sorry, I can't live without at least a tiny dose of satire), because the rules are not specific on this. At least add something of substance like, "Well perhaps users are interested in whom this interesting body part belongs to," or "…but some users are too sensitive about MLP and a mere thought of associating the post with it causes them to misfap. Guys, let's not ruin this one for them."

ThatBloodySquirrel said:
It's my drawing, it gets the tags :I

Oh, you shouldn't have said that. I feel that it could make some people want to prove that "no, even the creator himself has no right to add irrelevant tags and mess with them in any unsanctioned way" making them more adamantly set against your wish.

You can retaliate by requesting a takedown and then uploading a version with labels reading 'Fluttershy' plastered all over the picture. You can also put a hint somewhere on the picture indicating that it is really associated with MLP, because this, by the way, seems to me to be the central issue: whether to tag this post mlp.

TheHuskyK9 said:
Unfortunately, you don't decide what tags stay or go. On this site, we follow the "Tag What You See" rule. We don't not go by what the source says, we go by what we see in the image itself. Since there's no evidence present in the image that can prove it's Fluttershy, we don't tag it as FLuttershy. The tag stays off

actually you are allowed to use external information while tagging names

Mutisija said:
actually you are allowed to use external information while tagging names

that's what i was just thinking, so this would be fluttershy. but would the mlp go with it?

Imaderule34 said:
that's what i was just thinking, so this would be fluttershy. but would the mlp go with it?

you cant really do anything about that because they are implied tags

@Derp even if he plastered fluttershy labels all over the image it wouldn't do any good.
if you have a picture with an apple and it has orange labels all over it (the fruit not the color) what do you tag? Apple of course.

This is getting out of hand.

This would probably qualify for the character exception as it has no contradicting evidence that it's not fluttershy and it has some evidence (the body color) that it would be fluttershy and the source can attest for the character being fluttershy

Rainbow_Dash said:
This would probably qualify for the character exception as it has no contradicting evidence that it's not fluttershy and it has some evidence (the body color) that it would be fluttershy and the source can attest for the character being fluttershy

then for the love of god make a decision!
ALL THIS FIGHTING IS TEARING ME APART!

Rainbow_Dash said:
This would probably qualify for the character exception as it has no contradicting evidence that it's not fluttershy and it has some evidence (the body color) that it would be fluttershy and the source can attest for the character being fluttershy

Yellow furries never existed before Fluttershy :o

@TheHuskyK9 How about, the point if tags is for people to find what they are after
People want pictures of fluttershy?
Oh lets type fluttershy
Oh look something relevant to my interests.
The purpose of tags is for people to find what they want.
If they are after it, they'll know what it is, fuck implications of what it "may or may not be", it is what it is, enough of this fucking arguing.
disregard the mlp tags, fine, but at least keep the damn character tag >:I

ThatBloodySquirrel said:
@TheHuskyK9 How about, the point if tags is for people to find what they are after
People want pictures of fluttershy?
Oh lets type fluttershy
Oh look something relevant to my interests.
The purpose of tags is for people to find what they want.
If they are after it, they'll know what it is, fuck implications of what it "may or may not be", it is what it is, enough of this fucking arguing.
disregard the mlp tags, fine, but at least keep the damn character tag >:I

First off, cool your jets bro. Adding "fuck" to every sentence doesn't make your point strong, in fact it makes you look foolish.

Secondly, as I said before, this lacks present evidence that it's fluttershy. It doesn't even have evidence that's a pony. Many characters can have that color so that doesn't prove anything. I already know how tags work dude, no need of telling me

Clearly not, because you seem to think on the premises that if it's not obvious to an outsider that it shouldn't have the tags.
If the rules are "Tag what you see", then I have every right to tag it as fluttershy because that's what I see. I see fluttershy, therefore I tag fluttershy.
If people care enough to blacklist these tags, then that's their fault, doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to find this just because it might prevent others from having to see it, because you are then doing just that, preventing people who might want to see it from actually seeing it.

TheHuskyK9 said:
First off, cool your jets bro. Adding "fuck" to every sentence doesn't make your point strong, in fact it makes you look foolish.

Secondly, as I said before, this lacks present evidence that it's fluttershy. It doesn't even have evidence that's a pony. Many characters can have that color so that doesn't prove anything. I already know how tags work dude, no need of telling me

plus I loooove his tag change reason, quote "I swear im gona slap a bitch"

well, here I am, hope you gota reeeally long arm.
fur color shouldn't be used in the name exception. there are other furry's with yellow fur out there than fluttershy.

ThatBloodySquirrel said:
Clearly not, because you seem to think on the premises that if it's not obvious to an outsider that it shouldn't have the tags.
If the rules are "Tag what you see", then I have every right to tag it as fluttershy because that's what I see. I see fluttershy, therefore I tag fluttershy.
If people care enough to blacklist these tags, then that's their fault, doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to find this just because it might prevent others from having to see it, because you are then doing just that, preventing people who might want to see it from actually seeing it.

No, you see a yellow figure with a pussy that you think it's fluttershy. Blacklists have nothing to do with this current situation, don't change the subject

The blacklist point was because of what someone said earlier.

My point still stands, If the source says it's fluttershy and the artist says it's fluttershy, then it's fluttershy. If people want to see fluttershy, then they get to see fluttershy, or part of fluttershy at least, it doesn't have to be obvious.
This is as bad as the whole "innocent until proven guilty" vs the "Guilty until proven innocent" crap. You'd think the person who commit the crime would be able to claim guilty, but in this case it doesn't seem like it.
It's pretty backwards if you ask me.
I can see the reason for not having it, based on limited evidence it's very ambiguous, and when you said it's not a pony you're quite right, it's not, it's anthro, anthro fluttershy with a human vagina. an anthro version of a character would still receive the tag for the character, would it not?
Basically, It's fluttershy until proven otherwise, and since all evidence claims it's fluttershy, it's pretty difficult to prove otherwise, don't you think?

ThatBloodySquirrel said:
My point still stands, If the source says it's fluttershy and the artist says it's fluttershy, then it's fluttershy. If people want to see fluttershy, then they get to see fluttershy, or part of fluttershy at least, it doesn't have to be obvious.
This is as bad as the whole "innocent until proven guilty" vs the "Guilty until proven innocent" crap. You'd think the person who commit the crime would be able to claim guilty, but in this case it doesn't seem like it.
It's pretty backwards if you ask me.
I can see the reason for not having it, based on limited evidence it's very ambiguous, and when you said it's not a pony you're quite right, it's not, it's anthro, anthro fluttershy with a human vagina. an anthro version of a character would still receive the tag for the character, would it not?
Basically, It's fluttershy until proven otherwise, and since all evidence claims it's fluttershy, it's pretty difficult to prove otherwise, don't you think?

Then your point is incorrect because if you read on how we tag on this and our rules, you'd know that we don't tag stuff just because the artist or the source said so. If the artist said this image should be tagged with ice_cream, would you tag it as such? You shouldn't because we don't see ice cream in the image at all

Oh come on!

TWYS states that for tagging characters, external sources are allowed (description on this post is the same as the one posted on tumblr), but just for character names only. Which is what I originally did (look at the tag history), just tagged Fluttershy (because source says it's her) and left out species and other details (such as hair and eye colors, characteristic details or appearance in general) because I can't see them.

I know that, as a Privileged level user, it's my duty (lacking a better word, because I'm not that kind of obligated, also normal users can contribute the same way) to follow the posting and tagging rules (and by extension, the tagging checklist) but I also have to tag according to right judgement (yeah, I acknowledge that I may have some mistakes and thank fellow users who point them out and correct them) if the tag I'm going to use will be useful and/or will be grouped with the correct results other users might look for.

Rembember, we don't tag entirely as authors or how we would like, but for categorization purposes, making it easier for people who search and find what they want, without having to sift through thousands of unrelated posts (*COUGHGOOGLECOUGH*)...

That said, I'm on the side that wants to keep the Fluttershy tag, which is defined in the source (and inherently the my_little_pony and friendship_is_magic tags)

"If the artist said this image should be tagged with ice_cream, would you tag it as such? You shouldn't because we don't see ice cream in the image at all"
Firstly, no, i would not tag it with "ice_cream" because i am not retarded.
but if someone were to tag their art with an irelevant tag then i'd agree, this is much like what a friend said when i showed him all these comments, and I quote: "like, giving a fully clothed character with no indication of genitalia a 'futa' tag", if there's no indication of something, don't tag it with such.
In this picture there is at least SOME indication that it is who I claim it is, which is why i think it should have the tag, I wouldnt choose to without good reason.

If you still think your opinion is ABSOLUTE FACT, take up the issue with some of your moderator friends, because clearly we're not getting anywhere otherwise.

Fun read.
I pretty much know jack-shit about MLP, but I do know the colours of the characters skin.
As far as I know, Fluttershy is yellow, and since we allow for TWYS-exceptions when it comes to character names, I don't see any reason for the tag to not be on here.

Theclarinetist said:
these comments... more drama pls~

Rarity would be proud.

ThatBloodySquirrel said:
Rarity would be proud.

post #458258

:P

Sorry folks, yellow skin does not a character make. This is how we've always done things, and we're not changing it for this image just because it looks nice. No fluttershy, mlp, or equine tags go on this image. Any further warring in the tags will result in bans. Probably not the ruling you wanted to hear, but this is how TWYS works and the tag wars and drama need to stop.

@ippiki_ookami
Shall I make a forum thread for further discussion about the topic? I'm just confused because I thought it was said not too long ago that character names were the one exception to TWYS.

Peekaboo said:
@ippiki_ookami
Shall I make a forum thread for further discussion about the topic? I'm just confused because I thought it was said not too long ago that character names were the one exception to TWYS.

It needs to have some evidence in the image (cutie mark, pink hair, hoove , etc). Just the color isn't enough

ippiki_ookami said:
Sorry folks, yellow skin does not a character make. This is how we've always done things, and we're not changing it for this image just because it looks nice. No fluttershy, mlp, or equine tags go on this image. Any further warring in the tags will result in bans. Probably not the ruling you wanted to hear, but this is how TWYS works and the tag wars and drama need to stop.

But what about this exception then?

Oh well.

TheHuskyK9 said:
It needs to have some evidence in the image (cutie mark, pink hair, hoove , etc). Just the color isn't enough

No, we mean using external sources for character names...

The post must have at least SOME evidence of the claimed character and can not have any evidence that CONFLICTS with what the external source is saying (e.g. a post can't be tagged "Character A" just because the external source says so, when the post does not actually contain any evidence of "Character A", or in fact looks more like "Character B" instead.)

Since we like to miss these kinds of things.

A solid body color and a pussy is not what defines a character. An ass stamp or even some of the pink tail, however, could be used to say for sure the character is what is claimed. Character names still require some sort of evidence to be used in tags, not just "a person said so".

We are likely to reword that rule to make that more clear.

Peekaboo, if you haven't already, feel free to open a topic for discussion.

Xch3l said:
No, we mean using external sources for character names...

The rule is still applies. You need at least something to back up the claim

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Peekaboo, if you haven't already, feel free to open a topic for discussion.

I'll leave it for some of you guys instead. Since it's such a heated subject my poor grammar and spelling might take more from the topic than it adds.

Firespark said:
But what about this exception then?

Exception for character names only:
You may use an OFFICIAL external source of information (the artist, commissioner, or character owner's gallery/website) when tagging a character name ONLY under the following conditions:

1) The external source of information is the artist, commissioner, or character owner's own words on their own gallery or website.

2) The post must have at least SOME evidence of the claimed character and can not have any evidence that CONFLICTS with what the external source is saying (e.g. a post can't be tagged "Character A" just because the external source says so, when the post does not actually contain any evidence of "Character A", or in fact looks more like "Character B" instead.) Again, there must be at least SOME evidence that the character is who it's claimed to be, but it does not have to be definitive proof.

Oh well.

Apparently, we're ignoring that little rule because a lot people here like to only go off by what they see and ignore source information. Seriously? If the artist created says its supposed to be a close up of Hootershy's hooter, then it's just that. Why have an external source exception if everyone, including the admins aren't going to acknowledge it?

Lieutenant_Derpy said:
Apparently, we're ignoring that little rule because a lot people here like to only go off by what they see and ignore source information. Seriously? If the artist created says its supposed to be a close up of Hootershy's hooter, then it's just that. Why have an external source exception if everyone, including the admins aren't going to acknowledge it?

Should probably read the commentary, where I asked Peekaboo to start a thread to discuss that very notion, before making comments like this.

Lieutenant_Derpy said:
Apparently, we're ignoring that little rule because a lot people here like to only go off by what they see and ignore source information. Seriously? If the artist created says its supposed to be a close up of Hootershy's hooter, then it's just that. Why have an external source exception if everyone, including the admins aren't going to acknowledge it?

this is like the third time i've seen this happen on an mlp post. I doubt it's gonna stop. just saying.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Should probably read the commentary, where I asked Peekaboo to start a thread to discuss that very notion, before making comments like this.

If you read above my comment, you will see that he has decided to leave it to someone else.

TheHuskyK9 said:
It needs to have some evidence in the image (cutie mark, pink hair, hoove , etc). Just the color isn't enough

MLP is like anime in that most of the characters are identical in form. They can't be identified by face or body shape. What is more, they don't even wear clothes, which could distinguish them (though this is irrelevant for a good deal of porn, anyway). You can imagine there are not many characteristics to define and identify these kinds of characters.

If the tail was also visible in the image (of the proper color, of course), would you need to invoke the rule in question (or rather exception) in order to confirm the character's identity? Most likely not. The TWYS principle easily covers cases like that.

Differences between what you see and what the source maintains such as body swaps and OCs deceptively looking like canon characters are very rare and can be easily dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

So, hazarding a broader generalization, outside MLP, I wonder, what is this rule/exception/whatever good for? For inciting drama and dissent as this very comment section so fittingly demonstrates.

Ratte said:
We are likely to reword that rule to make that more clear.

Amending, making excessivelly specific, or patching up someting like this looks like a bad idea to me. Especially if it's "tag only what you see, unless the source gives you indication, but even then only if you can see it". Perhaps I'm wrong and it is useful and frequently enough applied, too, and if so, some examples would be nice, but if not, I think the best action is to altogether remove the exception and go by TWYS only.

Lieutenant_Derpy said:
If the artist created says its supposed to be a close up of Hootershy's hooter, then it's just that. Why have an external source exception if everyone, including the admins aren't going to acknowledge it?

simply put there is not enough information in this image to use said exception.

This site is so broken, the rules for tagging completely disregard the PURPOSE for tagging, people that want to find pictures of fluttershy's cooch now aren't going to get to without sifting through a billion images.
I'll go make my own e621, with blackjacks, and hookers!

ThatBloodySquirrel said:
This site is so broken, the rules for tagging completely disregard the PURPOSE for tagging, people that want to find pictures of fluttershy's cooch now aren't going to get to without sifting through a billion images.
I'll go make my own e621, with blackjacks, and hookers!

That's one thing I consider. If the purpose of sourcing is to get, well, the origination of a post, and the source has general information of the post, wouldn't it defy part of the reason for enabling the ability to source a post?

Esme_Belles said:
simply put there is not enough information in this image to use said exception.

The same can't be said about images that have qualified for the exception though.

Lieutenant_Derpy said:
The same can't be said about images that have qualified for the exception though.

Honestly it depends on if there are any key identification traits. Fur color is simply to vauge of a trait to use as the exception, now if it was a very spesific pattern of fur, I would be one of the ones saying "hey, no this is so an so." But solid yellow fur can be found on other furrys. Say, if it showed long pink hair with a curl at the end, again I would be with the pro fluttershy users. If it had her cutiemark...well then we wouldn't even need the exception. Other things, angel peeking into the bottom of the picture, fluttershy. Ect ect. Basicly if the other posts don't have enough stuff, or such they too shouldn't be tagged certain ways. I know bloody Hates this but man, it is how it is, throwing a tantrum wount help. Hell I have my own images on here, one of the first I posted the character "looks" like shes part sergal because she has ghat pyrimidal shaped snout, shes Infact a mutant crux but because of the shape I HAVE to tag sergal....guess what? I abhor sergals, their disgusting creatures. But because of the twys rule I cant change it so I learned to deal with it.

Xch3l said:
--

How are you able to quote me? I hid that post long before you posted....

Esme_Belles said:
How are you able to quote me? I hid that post long before you posted....

I was going to post but left the tab open for a while...

Hello everyone! After reading the forum topic regarding the exception policy to TWYS, and a discussion with the Committee, it has been decided that the fluttershy tag should be restored to this image.

To be clear: ippiki acted on the consensus of the Committee, and we made that decision off of an incorrect understanding of the exception policy. After discussing it with the users, we realized our error and made the necessary correction.

We apologize for any hurt feelings, and we hope you understand that we did not do this out of malice, but what we thought was the best course of action.

If you have any questions or comments about this, feel free to dmail or email me at your leisure.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Hello everyone! After reading the forum topic regarding the exception policy to TWYS, and a discussion with the Committee, it has been decided that the fluttershy tag should be restored to this image.

To be clear: ippiki acted on the consensus of the Committee, and we made that decision off of an incorrect understanding of the exception policy. After discussing it with the users, we realized our error and made the necessary correction.

We apologize for any hurt feelings, and we hope you understand that we did not do this out of malice, but what we thought was the best course of action.

If you have any questions or comments about this, feel free to dmail or email me at your leisure.

Thank you.

ThatBloodySquirrel said:
Thank you.

yep that about sums it up.

all of this could have been avoided by the artist drawing an easier to tag image.. artists should do that to make our lives easier.

Oh, the politics of e621.

Great_Fire_Ettin said:
all of this could have been avoided by the artist drawing an easier to tag image.. artists should do that to make our lives easier.

Because artists have to cater to the whim of every single other person, yep, fuck artists and their choice to draw whatever they want, it has to be specific to abide by the policies of every single website and every user of said websites.

ThatBloodySquirrel said:
Because artists have to cater to the whim of every single other person, yep, fuck artists and their choice to draw whatever they want, it has to be specific to abide by the policies of every single website and every user of said websites.

dat icon
dat comment

win

I was merely thinking wishfully. I would never want artists to do that... Jeez, can a guy catch a break...

Great_Fire_Ettin said:
I was merely thinking wishfully. I would never want artists to do that... Jeez, can a guy catch a break...

Then you worded it awfully.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:

Problem with the whole thing is this.
Fur color =/= one furry.

post #486622
See what I mean?

CamKitty said:
Yellow furries never existed before Fluttershy :o

You can't forget citras - those lovable, edible, fruit-flavored and fruit-colored vulpines! ^_^

zippysqrl, I am fascinated with the style. Do you use computer software for this? If not, what drawing tools did you use. How long did it take you to complete?

AWKnight said:
zippysqrl, I am fascinated with the style. Do you use computer software for this? If not, what drawing tools did you use. How long did it take you to complete?

Computer Software:
PaintTool SAI 1.0

As for time?
for this picture specifically, it's undetermined, i started with something very different, I would work on it every now and then over a week or so between other things, it changed several times.
If I knew what i was doing from the start however, it'd take maybe a few hours, Im not very fast at this stuff :x

ThatBloodySquirrel said:
Computer Software:
PaintTool SAI 1.0

As for time?
for this picture specifically, it's undetermined, i started with something very different, I would work on it every now and then over a week or so between other things, it changed several times.
If I knew what i was doing from the start however, it'd take maybe a few hours, Im not very fast at this stuff :x

I appreciate the answer. Thanks!

AWKnight said:
I appreciate the answer. Thanks!

No prob.

Yeah.. I need to work on my oratory skills. Heck, who doesn't? Practice makes better, I always say. Sorry for rustling anybody's jimmies, I tend to be really stupid when I let my gob flap about.

Beautiful. Perfect.

Day 69: finally reached the bottom of the page

CraX said:
Day 69: finally reached the bottom of the page

It wasn't that bad, right?

Doesn't look like she has an actual vagina, as in the hole part

PegasusDevice said:
Doesn't look like she has an actual vagina, as in the hole part

Believe it or not, vaginas are not naturally huge gaping holes.

ThatBloodySquirrel said:
Believe it or not, vaginas are not naturally huge gaping holes.

I don't believe you. I have theories...

why is there a fluttershy tag,and my little pony tag?it's tag what you see,not what you know.I see no fluttershy here,I only see a yellow vagina and ass.

shedletsky said:
why is there a fluttershy tag,and my little pony tag?it's tag what you see,not what you know.I see no fluttershy here,I only see a yellow vagina and ass.

May i refer you to the huge fucking list of comments about this issue, and that the issue was resolved:

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Hello everyone! After reading the forum topic regarding the exception policy to TWYS, and a discussion with the Committee, it has been decided that the fluttershy tag should be restored to this image.

To be clear: ippiki acted on the consensus of the Committee, and we made that decision off of an incorrect understanding of the exception policy. After discussing it with the users, we realized our error and made the necessary correction.

We apologize for any hurt feelings, and we hope you understand that we did not do this out of malice, but what we thought was the best course of action.

If you have any questions or comments about this, feel free to dmail or email me at your leisure.

Please learn to read things before changing tags :)

ThatBloodySquirrel said:
May i refer you to the huge fucking list of comments about this issue, and that the issue was resolved:

Please learn to read things before changing tags :)

Are you harnessing me?that's against the rules you know,
Better stop before your time here is ogre. :3

shedletsky said:
Are you harnessing me?that's against the rules you know,
Better stop before your time here is ogre. :3

What she is trying to say is that an admin ruling has been done and it's of no use to continue the argument.

Hooh boy.

Just had a good read.

Man, it's amazing how the internet can work in mysterious ways, don't ya think?