The tag implication #47390 smiling_at_viewer -> looking_at_viewer has been rejected.

Reason: Every single post with the smiling_at_viewer tag displays a character looking at the viewer while smiling. The wiki page seems to suggest this as well.

EDIT: The tag implication smiling_at_viewer -> looking_at_viewer (forum #349479) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

What if their eyes are closed?

post #3432351 post #3177928 post #3056645

Is their head facing you enough to be counted as "looking" or must they actually be looking?

faucet said:
Is their head facing you enough to be counted as "looking" or must they actually be looking?

I would say they have to have their eyes open

A character can also be smiling at the viewer while not having eyes at all - see smiling_at_viewer eyeless.

The tag implication smiling_at_viewer -> looking_at_viewer (forum #349479) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

faucet said:
What if their eyes are closed?

post #3432351 post #3177928 post #3056645

Is their head facing you enough to be counted as "looking" or must they actually be looking?

Fair point. I didn’t consider that fact before making this request. My apologies.

zenith-pendragon said:
Fair point. I didn’t consider that fact before making this request. My apologies.

No worries. No one person can think of everything, so having fresh eyes look a request over and see flaws – or advantages – the requester might have missed. Even if the request was doomed from the start, sometimes just bringing it up can help the userbase get onto the same page instead of floating along with assumptions and incomplete understandings.

One of the biggest stumbling blocks to a functional anything is an incomplete understanding of a subject or having a vague idea of how that subject is supposed to work.