Tag Implication: identity_censor -> censored

Implicating identity_censor -> censored.

Reason: Would it technically count?

It's not the kind of censoring that censored refers to, so I don't like that implication.

IMHO it is.

The censored wiki said:
The result of a technique used to prevent the viewing of sexual parts, usually vaginas, penises and dildos but occasionally nipples.

So no, probably not a good idea.

The wiki isn't necessarily infallible and immutable. I don't think limiting the scope like this is a good idea.

Regardless of whether the current monikers stay as they are, I think we need a tag with the same definition as the current censored tag. People with censored blacklisted (which is one of the main ways people interact with the censored tag, I'd guess) don't want to blacklist everything in identity_censor as well.

I suppose we could mass edit censored to porn_censor, then implicate porn_censor and identity_censor to censor, but I don't see much of a reason to bother.

-1 to the implication and -1 to moving tags around.

glasnost said:
People with censored blacklisted (which is one of the main ways people interact with the censored tag, I'd guess) don't want to blacklist everything in identity_censor as well.

Then they're already blacklisting posts like post #509794, post #531362, post #632436 and post #552186, along with the entire of convenient censoring.
I think the tag is already unusable for the purpose you describe.

I'm also against this implication, so -1.

I think we need to draw a line between and separate censoring of sexual material (genitals, and such) and the censoring of non-sexual material. We are already doing this with our line between loli/shota and child by our definitions, so doing this with censorship wouldn't be unreasonable. The censoring of sexual material generally has a vastly different meaning to the image than censorship of anything else.

zatchii said:
I think the tag is already unusable for the purpose you describe.

Hm. Well, it shouldn't be. That means its only use is as a negative part of a tag search. (Unless there are people out there with mosaic fetishes, I guess.)

Ordinarily, I'd still argue against the implication to avoid polluting censored any further, but at >1500 pages, cleaning it up is kind of a lost cause anyway.

On a related note, we need a tag for posts like post #597326 and some of the posts zatchii mentioned. They're pretty different from porn censors, and I don't think any of our current tags cover them properly.

NWF_Renim said:
I think we need to draw a line between and separate censoring of sexual material (genitals, and such) and the censoring of non-sexual material.

I don't see why'd need to do that with the proposed implication scheme. Most of "fake censors" like post #597326 are an obvious reference and play on the practice of censoring porn, so saying they're different is obviously wrong. (Btw, we don't really have a tag for that kind of censoring. What about, well, fake_censor?). While I can agree that trying to overload the censored tag as it stands today would be a bad idea, opposing it in relation to the proposal to split out different meanings is just inexplicable to me.

Edit: oh, I just noticed glasnost referenced the same picture. It's a coincidence.

葉月 said:
While I can agree that trying to overload the censored tag as it stands today would be a bad idea, opposing it in relation to the proposal to split out different meanings is just inexplicable to me.

The explanation is that it's supposed that many users blacklist the tag censored out of some religious opposition to seeing genitals reduced to blurry pixels, and it is a disservice to these people to additionally shield them from clever or purely humorous censorship, not just specifically from the mosaics or huge black bars they don't want getting in the way of their illustrated vaginas.

I never understood the disgust with censorship myself when most 'uncensored' pictures in truth just have the genitals poorly redrawn by a third party, but I think it's a valid enough point.

葉月 said:
(Btw, we don't really have a tag for that kind of censoring. What about, well, fake_censor?).

I created unnecessary_censorship for such purposes, but feel free to tweak it to fit as necessary.

7HS said:
I never understood the disgust with censorship myself when most 'uncensored' pictures in truth just have the genitals poorly redrawn by a third party, but I think it's a valid enough point.

No it's not, because that will get it's own tag.

sgcdonmai said:
I created unnecessary_censorship for such purposes, but feel free to tweak it to fit as necessary.

I don't think it's sending the right message. It sounds more like pointless_censoring than playing with the concept.

pointless_censoring was the first thing to come to mind when I read that tag as well.

Hm. I see your point; most probably wouldn't think of there being a difference between "pointless" and "unnecessary" at a glance.

So, any major objections to fake_censor?

None that I can think of.

葉月 said:
No it's not, because that will get it's own tag.

Will convenient censoring be re-aliased to the new tag then? It's not the same thing as the obvious parodies, but nor is it the same thing as mosiacing out genitalia.