Topic: [REJECTED] (family)_penetrating_(family) BUR

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

jebbyio

Member

The bulk update request #3005 has been rejected.

create implication father_penetrating_son (1911) -> father_and_son (0)
create implication son_penetrating_father (585) -> father_and_son (0)
create implication father_penetrating_son (1911) -> incest_(lore) (55983)
create implication son_penetrating_father (585) -> incest_(lore) (55983)
create implication father_penetrating_daughter (769) -> father_and_daughter (0)
create implication daughter_penetrating_father (9) -> father_and_daughter (0)
create implication father_penetrating_daughter (769) -> incest_(lore) (55983)
create implication daughter_penetrating_father (9) -> incest_(lore) (55983)
create implication son_penetrating_mother (1241) -> mother_and_son (0)
create implication mother_penetrating_son (272) -> mother_and_son (0)
create implication son_penetrating_mother (1241) -> incest_(lore) (55983)
create implication mother_penetrating_son (272) -> incest_(lore) (55983)
create implication daughter_penetrating_mother (31) -> mother_and_daughter (0)
create implication mother_penetrating_daughter (76) -> mother_and_daughter (0)
create implication daughter_penetrating_mother (31) -> incest_(lore) (55983)
create implication mother_penetrating_daughter (76) -> incest_(lore) (55983)

Reason: was there always a 25 entry limit?

anyway, all these (family)_penetrating_(family) tags deserved to be implied with incest_(lore) and their respective relationships!

EDIT: The bulk update request #3005 (forum #341777) has been rejected by @slyroon.

Updated by auto moderator

jebbyio

Member

The bulk update request #3007 has been rejected.

create implication brother_penetrating_sister (2617) -> brother_and_sister (0)
create implication brother_penetrating_sister (2617) -> incest_(lore) (55983)
create implication sister_penetrating_brother (106) -> brother_and_sister (0)
create implication sister_penetrating_brother (106) -> incest_(lore) (55983)
create implication brother_penetrating_brother (1055) -> brothers (0)
create implication brother_penetrating_brother (1055) -> incest_(lore) (55983)
create implication sister_penetrating_sister (93) -> sisters (0)
create implication sister_penetrating_sister (93) -> incest_(lore) (55983)
create implication uncle_penetrating_nephew (87) -> uncle_and_nephew (0)
create implication uncle_penetrating_nephew (87) -> incest_(lore) (55983)
create implication nephew_penetrating_uncle (20) -> uncle_and_nephew (0)
create implication nephew_penetrating_uncle (20) -> incest_(lore) (55983)
create implication uncle_penetrating_niece (25) -> uncle_and_niece (0)
create implication uncle_penetrating_niece (25) -> incest_(lore) (55983)
create implication niece_penetrating_uncle (2) -> uncle_and_niece (0)
create implication niece_penetrating_uncle (2) -> incest_(lore) (55983)
create implication aunt_and_nephew (0) -> aunt (0)
create implication aunt_and_nephew (0) -> nephew (0)
create implication aunt_and_niece (0) -> aunt (0)
create implication aunt_and_niece (0) -> niece (0)
create implication aunt_penetrating_nephew (0) -> aunt_and_nephew (0)

Reason: Additional (family)_penetrating_(family) tags

EDIT: The bulk update request #3007 (forum #341781) has been rejected by @slyroon.

Updated by auto moderator

jebbyio

Member

The bulk update request #3008 has been rejected.

create implication aunt_penetrating_nephew (0) -> incest_(lore) (55983)
create implication nephew_penetrating_aunt (12) -> aunt_and_nephew (0)
create implication nephew_penetrating_aunt (12) -> incest_(lore) (55983)
create implication aunt_penetrating_niece (23) -> aunt_and_niece (0)
create implication aunt_penetrating_niece (23) -> incest_(lore) (55983)
create implication niece_penetrating_aunt (3) -> aunt_and_niece (0)
create implication niece_penetrating_aunt (3) -> incest_(lore) (55983)
create implication grandfather_penetrating_grandson (50) -> grandfather_and_grandson (0)
create implication grandson_penetrating_grandfather (28) -> grandfather_and_grandson (0)
create implication grandfather_penetrating_grandson (50) -> incest_(lore) (55983)
create implication grandson_penetrating_grandfather (28) -> incest_(lore) (55983)
create implication grandfather_penetrating_granddaughter (7) -> grandfather_and_granddaughter (0)
create implication granddaughter_penetrating_grandfather (0) -> grandfather_and_granddaughter (0)
create implication grandfather_penetrating_granddaughter (7) -> incest_(lore) (55983)
create implication granddaughter_penetrating_grandfather (0) -> incest_(lore) (55983)
create implication cousin_penetrating_cousin (0) -> cousins (0)
create implication cousin_penetrating_cousin (0) -> incest_(lore) (55983)

Reason: Last of the (family)_penetrating_(family) tags! didn't realize it would take up 3 BURs

EDIT: The bulk update request #3008 (forum #341782) has been rejected by @slyroon.

Updated by auto moderator

SNPtheCat

Member

Do we want to keep (family)_penetrating_(family) tags? They have been used quite a number of times, but whichever way we keep them, will itself pose some problems.
Either we have non-lore tags implying lore tags, or we're moving a lot of (family1)_penetrating_(family2) tags into lore

Edit:
If there's [family]_penetratin_[family], I presume there would probably be [family]_on_[family] too

Updated

dba afish

Member

I'd rather not with these, these seem overly specific, the existing x/p/y tags are already kind of over the line, with just form and gender. extending it to a tag family like this seems like a lot.

SNPtheCat

Member

Opinions on [family]_penetrating_[family] being aliased to [family]_on_[family]_(lore)?

I think there might be value in tags which give information about which family members are engaged in romantic and/or sexual activity with each other, and the popularity of tags such as father penetrating son, father penetrating daughter and brother penetrating sister relative to incest (lore) shows that.

I think the main question is whether the specificity is worth the additional tags. For example, father_and_son_(lore) incest_(lore) wouldn't be exactly equivalent to father_on_son_(lore), due to cases like post #4056276, but you may think while browsing the given search query that it is decent enough.

BrokenClock

Privileged

snpthecat said:
Opinions on [family]_penetrating_[family] being aliased to [family]_on_[family]_(lore)?

I think there might be value in tags which give information about which family members are engaged in romantic and/or sexual activity with each other, and the popularity of tags such as father penetrating son, father penetrating daughter and brother penetrating sister relative to incest (lore) shows that.

I think the main question is whether the specificity is worth the additional tags. For example, father_and_son_(lore) incest_(lore) wouldn't be exactly equivalent to father_on_son_(lore), due to cases like post #4056276, but you may think while browsing the given search query that it is decent enough.

If incest-related x/p/y tags remain, then they should definitely go in the lore category with the other family-related tags.

I’m a fan of the son_penetrating_father tag, but truthfully older_penetrated incest father_and_son is basically the same thing, except people seem to often forget older_penetrated compared to incest-specific tags.

Updated