The tag implication #34010 human_focus -> not_furry_focus has been rejected.

Reason: I think by definition, if the post is focusing on a human, then it's focusing on a not furry element.

EDIT: The tag implication human_focus -> not_furry_focus (forum #296311) has been rejected by @Millcore.

-1

not_furry_focus said:
This tag is used when a post is focused on not_furry character(s) and also contains furry character(s).

not all human_focus posts contain furry characters

darryus said:
-1
not all human_focus posts contain furry characters

Correct. They'd then definitely be not_furry_focus.

...

Actually, I think I now see your point. You meant that not_furry_focus would not necessarily be appropriate for a not_furry picture as there would be no furries to move the focus away from.

clawstripe said:
Actually, I think I now see your point. You meant that not_furry_focus would not necessarily be appropriate for a not_furry picture as there would be no furries to move the focus away from.

yeah, since if a post contains no furry characters than it should be tagged not_furry and not not_furry_focus. these tags are mutually exclusive.

posts like these should not be tagged not_furry_focus (as they contain no non-focused furry characters) but should be tagged human_focus (as they contain non-focused non-human characters).
post #1424068 post #2267480 post #1468898

a post must contain furry characters in it in order to be considered not_furry_focus.

Yeah, darryus makes a good point. While "focusing on a human with non-human characters also in the picture" might SOUND like it also has to contain something that would be considered furry, a picture that focuses on a human, but also contains an elf that is not the focus and no animals/anthros/etc., counts as "human_focus," but NOT as "not_furry_focus."

The fact that this got thumbed up by so many makes me a bit worried about how well this voting system is working.
Ah well, glad to see that someone caught it, at least.

human_focus may be either not_furry_focus or just plain not_furry. So the implication doesn't work.

genjar said:
The fact that this got thumbed up by so many makes me a bit worried about how well this voting system is working.

What do you mean by "voting system"? I thought this is just a like system, in place of saying "+1" or "-1". Those had no influence on the outcome of the suggestion, are you saying these thumbs do?

siral_exan said:
What do you mean is a voting system? I thought this is just a like system, in place of saying "+1" or "-1". Those had no influence on the outcome of the suggestion, are you saying these do?

Absolutely.
For instance, let's say that that nobody had caught this, and it had received all-thumbs up. Do you expect that it would've got rejected? Thumbs are there to assist in the decision, and if it's a row all-green, that's not something that whoever's doing approvals should need to take a closer look at.

genjar said:
Absolutely.
For instance, let's say that that nobody had caught this, and it had received all-thumbs up. Do you expect that it would've got rejected?

Yes, any amount of support doesn't mean the admin can't be smarter than that. If they aren't, that is worrying...

Heh. It was late at night. I should have figured there was a good reason for it, but I didn't even though I took some time to think about it.

genjar said:
The fact that this got thumbed up by so many makes me a bit worried about how well this voting system is working.
Ah well, glad to see that someone caught it, at least.

I'd say the voting system is working as well as it can. That doesn't necessarily mean that the voters themselves are always on top of their game.

See topic #25705

The tag implication human_focus -> not_furry_focus (forum #296311) has been rejected by @Millcore.