Eclectric said:
Artists' descriptions are things individual perception can't change and therefore individuals can't argue about.
The artist's perception of his own work is just as flawed as ours, just in a different way.
And sadly, way too often far from objectivity.
Eclectric said:
And what about images where there is evidence for more than one gender in the same character? Say there is a femboy, dick visible, with slightly protruding nipples which makes people wonder whether it is a male or dickgirl.
Male.
Big nipples don't make females, now if he had breast growth it would switch to dickgirl, but never to herm unless there is evidence for a pussy.
Eclectric said:
Here's the thing. The reason TWYS has given us problems is because what we see does not exist in the image we're looking at. What we see is an interpretation manufactured in our brains of what we're looking at. Two people look at the same image and see two different things. That's why we have disagreements about images. I can't hop in your mind and see what you're seeing, so the way to deal with disagreements about images is to focus on what individual perception can't ruin.
No, the way to objectively interpret a picture is to take a step back and look at it properly, we tag what is visible based on shared rules, not what is interpreted, if you look at a human beeing with a feminine bodybuild, penis and slightly bigger nipples and you say "oh boy, a herm!" then you are already interpreting, you see only a feminine male with a penis and some nipples.
You just have to ask yourself "What am I looking at?" and not "What do I want to see here?".
Eclectric said:
And what about images where there is evidence for more than one gender in the same character? Say there is a femboy, dick visible, with slightly protruding nipples which makes people wonder whether it is a male or dickgirl.
Here's the thing. The reason TWYS has given us problems is because what we see does not exist in the image we're looking at. What we see is an interpretation manufactured in our brains of what we're looking at. Two people look at the same image and see two different things. That's why we have disagreements about images. I can't hop in your mind and see what you're seeing, so the way to deal with disagreements about images is to focus on what individual perception can't ruin. Artists' descriptions are things individual perception can't change and therefore individuals can't argue about.
One of the responsibilities of the e621.net admin team itself is to attempt to resolve such disagreements over tagging, or to at least make a final decision about the tags for a post.
One major issue with trying to use outside information instead of TWYS though is that the tags on posts will likely be changed back and forth between users who "know" and users who don't. Not to mention that, if the source for the picture ever disappears (happens VERY often), now we don't even have that original information anymore that people were using to tag. What would the defense be then? "Well the source for the image USED to say that the character was a herm." We just can't work with that, that's not a reliable method for tagging because the source itself will almost certainly disappear one day, and the end result is you'd still just have people tagging what they see at that point.
TheTundraTerror said:
Walking into this thread for the first time.
It's actually fairly controlled, so no
Digital_Kindness said:
And by 'discussion' you meant 'I asked what people thought of this idea on the forum and the response was almost universally "That's retarded", so we decided to make the change anyway'.But by all means, go ahead and go against everything that TWYS stands for. All in the name of quelling the occasional childish artist temper tantrum/hissy fit, right? Wouldn't want to step on any artist's toes, that'd be really super bad and stuff.
This is essentially a spit in the face of everyone who has been an ardent supporter of the TWYS rule. "Thanks for all the hard work keeping tags neat and within the purview of the site's rules, and making this the best repository of furry art on the internet, but we've decided to cave in to crybabies and undermine all your hard work and the integrity of our tagging system. Better luck next time."
Besides you nagging our ears off, what downside is there to this slight alteration? I know I've had to deal with many pointless tagging arguments where the identity of the character was obvious to me, but plenty of annoying users kept changing the tag and saying I couldn't cite the artist's website as proof of the character's identity. This change will make those silly arguments go a lot smoother.
The only issue I see with this is specific characters, like Tsampikos' character Mikhaila. She's obviously female, even if she's dressed in a pant suit. Would she be tagged as androgonyous or male in this case? I don't mind the additional 'cuntboy' tag, but aren't more tags good?
Certain people will lose posts due to blacklisting, but otherwise we'll be seeing more based on our searches. For example, the first post listed for MLP, http://e621.net/post/show/318662. If this is labeled My_little_pony and Rainbow_Dash, and people are looking for that, it'll show up. It'll be blacklisted to people who don't want to see MLP, but I'm sure that the few pics they'll miss out on are more than worth the price of blacklisting, a feature not offered many other places.
I understand that's not a particulairly good example, but still. I think we should include gender roles in tagging, even if we tag multiple genders on a single character, such as the Rainbow Dash picture posted above. You can tag female, cuntboy, tomboy, and whatever other 'gender affiliations' work with it, in addition to the stated sex by the author, if there is one. The author(hopefully) knows best what sex the character is. We use author for species as well, when we can't decide. Why not use the author for sex?(I apologize if that last statement sounded particulairly dirty, but I hope you understand what I mean
drgnalexandrite said:
The only issue I see with this is specific characters, like Tsampikos' character Mikhaila. She's obviously female
She is becoming more and more man each pic lol
I have to agree with drgnalexandrite. An example being a recent Strype picture - http://e621.net/post/show/324284. If I was a straight man looking to find blowjob pictures, I'd want to see this. She definitely looks female, but we can not confirm that.
As for incest, how do we tag that? Just if two characters look the same? Or if the artist states they are related?
Tjk said:
As for incest, how do we tag that? Just if two characters look the same? Or if the artist states they are related?
Usually, incest comes with what we know (like, really known sources, popular tv shows [TMNT, Family Guy, The Simpsons, etc.] or explicitly stated in a text inside the image [-Dad? -Yes, son? -Thank you thx furballs!]) or when the post in question is from a comic. (like the one I just quoted)
Tjk said:
I have to agree with drgnalexandrite. An example being a recent Strype picture - http://e621.net/post/show/324284. If I was a straight man looking to find blowjob pictures, I'd want to see this. She definitely looks female, but we can not confirm that.As for incest, how do we tag that? Just if two characters look the same? Or if the artist states they are related?
If that image is one you would want included, then you should include "ambiguous_gender" in your searches because that it the tag we use when there's no evidence either way.
You can then imagine all those images to be female to your hearts content.
Bend over for bronies D:
Honestly the picture in this example shouldn't even be on e621 since it's not anthropomorphic in any way, shape, or form...
Nativus said:
Bend over for bronies D:Honestly the picture in this example shouldn't even be on e621 since it's not anthropomorphic in any way, shape, or form...
You mean, like over 2500 other pictures tagged not_furry?
Fuck the rules. Anarchy!!
grave said:
Fuck the rules. Anarchy!!
But fucking The Rules is unhealthy and weird. Plus, I bet the pages are sharp too :I
CamKitty said:
I don't think you understand the point of tags on an image archive site
I'm still kinda new here. =/ I just wish things could be less complicated.
Clawstripe said:
Personally, I think the artist (or commissioner) should be the last person to correct tagging disputes. Yes, they know what they wanted to present in their art (usually), and yes, their input should be important to a final determination. But they can also have too much emotionally invested and their egos too wrapped up in the picture and the contents to be properly objective about it. Hence why any such disputes should be made by an objective third party such as the moderators or administrators, hopefully before everyone gets so caught up in their fight that they lose sight of more important things, like making more art to share. Or breathing.
True, true
Xch3l said:
But what if a random person, who does not know the character and just saw it once or twice, comes in and wants to see it again?
Here's when TWYS comes in handy. How do you remeber stuff? By simple tagging. Remember that random place where you ate some nice food? (not saying you actually do, it's just a hypothetical situation) It had this and this and that.... See? Now you have some information to find that place, and maybe recommend it to a friend (or not). And you can differentiate between a ton of places.This is what people don't understand. Tagging is to help find stuff (anywhere). That e621 enforces it, is to avoid mistagging. You can't tag a picture of the Taj Mahal and say it's The Leaning Tower of Pisa (unless you're begging for attention, which is bad).
I'm not saying it to OliveBomb (sorry if it felt like an attack or something), but to all users in general. Even admins. Hey! That can be added to the rule to help other users understand the purpose of TWYS.
You mean like if I ate at J. Alexander's (where they sell fancy foods of all types) and I told someone they sell veggie burgers there, there would be a mental tagging of vegan even if it's not, but just used as a reference?
I look forward to searching for 'adult' and get lolis all over the first page because "LOOK THE ARTIST SAID SHE'S AN ACTUAL 100 YEARS OLD VAMPYRE"
Because this is what this rule change will bring. First the names, then the genders, then blah blah blah, all the way until the e621's search box becomes about as useful as FA's (that means useless, in case you didn't know).
How fucking complicated was it? Tag what you bloody see. Only bronies could fail to understand such a simple rule and get butthurt about how a picture of an eyebrow is not tagged properly as twidumb_spidiotkle even though the artist CLEARLY MENTIONS it's this character's right eyebrow.
Ugh. I want to punch people in the face.
redisdead said:
I look forward to searching for 'adult' and get lolis all over the first page because "LOOK THE ARTIST SAID SHE'S AN ACTUAL 100 YEARS OLD VAMPYRE"Because this is what this rule change will bring. First the names, then the genders, then blah blah blah, all the way until the e621's search box becomes about as useful as FA's (that means useless, in case you didn't know).
How fucking complicated was it? Tag what you bloody see. Only bronies could fail to understand such a simple rule and get butthurt about how a picture of an eyebrow is not tagged properly as twidumb_spidiotkle even though the artist CLEARLY MENTIONS it's this character's right eyebrow.
Ugh. I want to punch people in the face.
I would rather punch in the face people who haven't read whole thread, and are using slippery slope fallacy.
What if the artist says his pic shows rape, and later decides that it's not rape after all, do we then have to change the tags?
Munkelzahn said:
What if the artist says his pic shows rape, and later decides that it's not rape after all, do we then have to change the tags?
Since change is only about characters then yes, we have to change tags on artist's pictures from rape to rape_(character).
I'm going to have to create a character named Rape just to mess with people...
Hammie said:
I'm going to have to create a character named Rape just to mess with people...
Your attempts will be useless. The most awesome name for a character is already taken.
Hammie said:
I'm going to have to create a character named Rape just to mess with people...
It must be a female character, preferably a gothy underage girl.
Nope, fat ugly, hairy man with a tiny penis, tiny eyes, giant ears and big fish lips.
Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
I would rather punch in the face people who haven't read whole thread, and are using slippery slope fallacy.
Whatever, brony.
I don't care how much you stupid bronies whined to get your rule change.
The same "problem" (as if there was one in the first place, other than bronies duking it out about wether or not it's actually Stupid Cakes or some other pony in the picture) happens with herm/dickgirl picks, maleherm/flat chested female pics, etc., etc.
Giving bronies what they wanted because they couldn't understand a simple rule as "tag what you see" (which isn't a surprise, really, adults obsessing over a cartoon made for little girls aren't very smart) is just giving a legitimate argument to the people claiming a female pic is actually a herm even though no dicks is visible or even hinted at because the artist said so.
Besides, punching me in the face would require you not hitting like a little girl who enjoys her sunday cartoons
redisdead said:
I don't care how much you stupid bronies whined to get your rule change.
Actually, one of the last people whining about this was someone who wanted exclude mlp from his search.
So, people like you also contributed to this change.
The same "problem" (..) happens with herm/dickgirl picks, maleherm/flat chested female pics, etc., etc.
No it does not. Tagging herm instead of dickgirl harms searches for both tags. Tagging character does not.
Giving bronies what they wanted because they couldn't understand a simple rule as "tag what you see" is just giving a legitimate argument to the people claiming a female pic is actually a herm even though no dicks is visible or even hinted at because the artist said so.
First of all, if you have actually taken your time to read this thread you would know that this is about pictures where are hints that said character is on the picture.
Secondly, no this is not the case of binary options like penis visible/penis not visible. This is about cases where there was disagreement about how much traits of character can be changed before it's not a said character. And before rule change it was an admin who decided. This was not really TWYS already. Now, in difficult cases (So no, chocolate cake would not be tagged as <any_character>.) artist intention would be taken into account. I don't see how this is less TWYS than trusting first admin who saw tag war.
Lastly, google slippery slope fallacy, and stop doing it.
redisdead said:
-snip-
You sure enjoy jumping to conclusions, not only bronies are in favor of this change, there won't be a change for genders ever (as stated by char multiple times), Gilda is actually one of those people who properly tags genders based on TWYS and not what others say and lastly, lashing out at one of the most trusted taggers on this site will surely make the admins reconsider their stance.
No really.
NotMeNotYouMobile said:
-manchild whining-
Lol, TRUSTED TAGGER. Is this even a thing? There's thousands and thousands of people who tag shit appropriately. I don't know how one gets to be a TRUSTED TAGGER, but it's probably got to do with spending way too much time attention whoring on the forums here compared to people who just upload, tag, and move on with their lives.
I don't even know why I posted here in the first place, it was obviously going to be full of manchilds trying to justify their inability to follow a simple rule.
Tell you what, you've won an internet argument, congratulations.
How does one gets their characters on the DNP list?
-- My entire argument can be summed up here:
http://e621.net/post/show/326499
Oh look, a woman with a horsedick and multicolor hair. MUST BE RAINBOW_CRAP(MLP) OBVIOUSLY
Rosgorn
Member5 years ago
And what about images where there is evidence for more than one gender in the same character? Say there is a femboy, dick visible, with slightly protruding nipples which makes people wonder whether it is a male or dickgirl.
Here's the thing. The reason TWYS has given us problems is because what we see does not exist in the image we're looking at. What we see is an interpretation manufactured in our brains of what we're looking at. Two people look at the same image and see two different things. That's why we have disagreements about images. I can't hop in your mind and see what you're seeing, so the way to deal with disagreements about images is to focus on what individual perception can't ruin. Artists' descriptions are things individual perception can't change and therefore individuals can't argue about.