Posted under General
pool #2164 popped up recently. Could someone fix it up or something? It seems like it'd be an interesting pool, but it's been handled poorly and could be described better (eg a couple of the pictures aren't even trying to censor anything)
Updated by Alignn
I'll say what I said before. First, I think "convenient censoring fail" is tag worthy and so the pool should be moved. As well, the pool name is misleading; it's specifically talking about convenient censorship.
Second, when you say that some pools aren't even trying to censor anything, that shows that you misunderstand the theme, which is probably thanks to it's misleading name.
Convenient censoring is showing just enough to provoke our imagination without actually showing anything it would have to censor. This pool is for images that have tried to do this, but have failed in two ways.
This means we either blatantly see nothing but bare skin where there should be something (say a nipple, post #81360) or the character has bad anatomy because, say, the artist thinks nipples are higher than would be on any normal woman in real life.
Serlo said:
(say a nipple, post #81360)
not that this is terribly relevant to the discussion but I dont think thats the image you meant to link?
post #87436 and its child are the only two that really fit a censor fails since it seems the nipples are still there.
Everything else is more or less what Serlo has said.
Bad anatomy.
Smooth all the way round censoring.
Convenient censoring fail.
Or a combo of the above.
Pretty much all the images don't really fit the theme of the pool.
Alignn said:
not that this is terribly relevant to the discussion but I dont think thats the image you meant to link?
He probably didn't copy the entire post ID. post #381360 is what he was trying to link to. Though I'd say post #970861 is a much better (if more extreme) example. Mostly because in his example, the nipples and areolae are actually still there, just very faint.
Forgive me,but what is the difference between this pool & the pointless_censoring tag?
Is this for comical/sfw situations?
Updated
Yes, I did mean post #381360, not post #81360. Whoops. However, I can see that it's a slightly different concept to what I described in my above post. The way Alignn phrased it, I see how this really is "Censor Fail", not just "Convenient Censor Fail".
I'm not sure if the second group should simply be tagged with convenient censoring and pointless censoring, but I think it still fit this pool/tag.
I'm also wondering if something like censored-out text that's still readable or a censored page that's clearly blank would fit. It's clear that this pool is very broad, so perhaps "Censor Fail", is an appropriate name after all.
Updated
titaniachkt said:
Forgive me,but what is the difference between this pool & the pointless_censoring tag?Is this for comical/sfw situations?
Pointless censoring is when the censoring fails to cover something that's still clearly visible or identifiable as what it is. It's for when the artist pays mere lip-service to the concept of censoring. See, e.g. post #1099873.
All the posts in this pool are posts where something should be showing but wasn't drawn at all, with the exception of the recently added post #989532. It's nothing but a grab bag of no nipples and no pussy images.
It's basically the opposite of pointless censoring and a pointless pool, IMHO.
Well, there is a minor distinction in that no_nipples and such don't require any attempts at censoring in the image to be valid tags.
(not sarcasm, just want to raise the issue)
