The tag alias #75936 first_anal -> first_time_anal has been rejected.

Reason: Self-explanatory.

EDIT: The tag alias first_anal -> first_time_anal (forum #443990) has been rejected by @spe.

both of these seem like a violation of TWYS

Not if it's stated in dialogue.

beholding said:
Not if it's stated in dialogue.

We don't do that. Read topic #47184.
More specifically, we actively dissuade tagging based on what we read, with the exception being limited to only a handful of tags.

thegreatwolfgang said:
We don't do that. Read topic #47184.
More specifically, we actively dissuade tagging based on what we read, with the exception being limited to only a handful of tags.

That's your personal interpretation of the policy, not official policy. The only official statement on this is that content in descriptions/stories shouldn't be included in general tags, not that text in the image itself is excluded. Enforcing such a policy is borderline impossible and would require nuking tons of tags that people use and want.

If you're really certain these tags shouldn't exist, then make a BUR to invalidate all the first_time_* tags and let the community decide.

beholding said:
That's your personal interpretation of the policy, not official policy. The only official statement on this is that content in descriptions/stories shouldn't be included in general tags, not that text in the image itself is excluded. Enforcing such a policy is borderline impossible and would require nuking tons of tags that people use and want.

If you're really certain these tags shouldn't exist, then make a BUR to invalidate all the first_time_* tags and let the community decide.

It is not "personal interpretation", that is objectively how tags have worked
A few exceptions exist and some both inside and outside of staff want more text to be taken into account for tagging, but that change has not been made

I'd also like to call out this in the TWYS policy:

That remains true even if the artist or the character owner themselves state that the character is not male, or if text within the image states that the character is not male

Any reasonable person should be able to assume this applies to any and all tags (what's in the image must be objectively true, and you cannot use text), else you get into this is not a pipe territory

That remains true even if the artist or the character owner themselves state that the character is not male, or if text within the image states that the character is not male

This means that in cases where images conflict with text, images take precedence, not that text can never be used to support a tag. Under your logic, the rape and forced tags can't exist, because consent can only be determined through dialogue.

Again: If you really think this should be the case, then let the community vote on it.

beholding said:
Under your logic, the rape and forced tags can't exist, because consent can only be determined through dialogue.

donovan_dmc said:
A few exceptions exist

beholding said:
If you're really certain these tags shouldn't exist, then make a BUR to invalidate all the first_time_* tags and let the community decide.

I think the better question we should be asking is who on earth is actively populating all of these needless subtags when the viability of the base first_time_sex tag is still being discussed upon on topic #54445 & topic #55916.

I think dialogue-based tags are fine, but this doesn't seem very useful and is poorly tagged (often tagged based on external knowledge or assumptions).

Even if tags for someone's "first time" were acceptable, I don't think one for each act is necessary. Wouldn't first_time+anal, first_time+vaginal, first_time+handjob, etc, be sufficient? I don't think there would be that many false positives.

donovan_dmc said:
A few exceptions exist

Then "dialogue can never be used to support tags" is not, in fact, official policy or a hard-and-fast rule. Your declaration that it applies here is completely arbitrary.

I think the better question we should be asking is who on earth is actively populating all of these needless subtags when the viability of the base first_time_sex tag is still being discussed upon on topic #54445 & topic #55916.

People are populating the tags because the tags exist and most users don't read the wiki let alone every forum argument about every tag. If you want people to stop using them, you need to make a BUR to invalidate them. Do that instead of shutting down discussion every time anyone tries to do anything with them.

beholding said:
Then "dialogue can never be used to support tags" is not, in fact, official policy or a hard-and-fast rule. Your declaration that it applies here is completely arbitrary.

My man, rules/policies can exist with exceptions, that does not immediately and irrevocably invalidate their entire existence

Just like us not enforcing a rule about bad sourcing every single time someone does something slightly wrong does not forever make that rule invalid and unenforcable

Exceptions to rules/policies can exist, and often need to else we'd be too rigid on many things

donovan_dmc said:
My man, rules/policies can exist with exceptions that does not immediately and irrevocably invalidate their entire existence

They can when those exceptions and the reasoning behind them are explicitly spelled out. There is, again, no official statement from the help or wiki pages on this. If there is an official statement somewhere I haven't found, those need to be updated to include it.

beholding said:
They can when those exceptions and the reasoning behind them are explicitly spelled out. There is, again, no official statement from the help or wiki pages on this. If there is an official statement somewhere I haven't found, those need to be updated to include it.

🙄

"Tag what you see, but text doesn't count as 'what you see', except for some tags, but we're not telling you which ones or why," is bad policy. If you want people to follow your rules, you need to make them consistent and clear to understand.

It also invalidates your argument against first_time_* tags if it's not actually a blanket rule but something evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If text can be used to support rape, why can't it be used to support first_time_*?

beholding said:
"Tag what you see, but text doesn't count as 'what you see', except for some tags, but we're not telling you which ones or why," is bad policy.

"Tag what you see, but text doesn't count as 'what you see'" is the policy. That some tags have slipped through as exceptions doesn't make the rule in general invalid. If you want to argue that this tag should also be an exception, make that argument, but pointing at other tags saying "they do it, so I should be able to do it too" is a bad argument.

watsit said:
"Tag what you see, but text doesn't count as 'what you see'" is the policy. That some tags have slipped through as exceptions doesn't make the rule in general invalid. If you want to argue that this tag should also be an exception, make that argument, but pointing at other tags saying "they do it, so I should be able to do it too" is a bad argument.

The kindergartner's argument: "Jack's mom lets him do X, why can't I do X!!!!!!"

beholding said:
People are populating the tags because the tags exist and most users don't read the wiki let alone every forum argument about every tag.

Just because a tag exists and you have written the wiki for it doesn't mean it is valid.
The fact that there are so many downvotes on this thread now is because people are doubting the validity of the new tags you had brought up.

If you want people to stop using them, you need to make a BUR to invalidate them. Do that instead of shutting down discussion every time anyone tries to do anything with them.

Oh, don't worry. Invalidating them will come eventually, but not by directly aliasing them to invalid_tag.
I am just waiting to see the outcome of topic #55916 to see which alias target to dump all the first_time_* tags into.

"Tag what you see, but text doesn't count as 'what you see', except for some tags, but we're not telling you which ones or why," is bad policy. If you want people to follow your rules, you need to make them consistent and clear to understand.

And when I link specific community discussions on the matter to try and make things clearer for you, you respond with "that's your personal interpretation of the policy, not official policy."

It also invalidates your argument against first_time_* tags if it's not actually a blanket rule but something evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If text can be used to support rape, why can't it be used to support first_time_*?

Sure, if this series of tags somehow gets a lot of approval, then we can talk whether or not it can be an exception.

I'd be more willing to entertain this tag if it were stated_first_time or something. I'm pretty sure the concept of "character has new sexual experience and is unsure what to expect" has it's audience, but adding "anal" to it does nothing when anyone can already add "anal" to their search.

watsit said:
"Tag what you see, but text doesn't count as 'what you see'" is the policy. That some tags have slipped through as exceptions doesn't make the rule in general invalid. If you want to argue that this tag should also be an exception, make that argument

I'm just gonna give the benefit of the doubt and say that they are making that argument.

beholding said:
If text can be used to support rape, why can't it be used to support first_time_*?

You have to listen to each other instead of nitpicking perceived flaws in statements. That being said-

beholding said:
Your declaration that it applies here is completely arbitrary.

This is often the case, or at least that's how it almost always appears to be, because moderators and administration rarely make statements on these discussions.

thegreatwolfgang said:
And when I link specific community discussions on the matter to try and make things clearer for you, you respond with "that's your personal interpretation of the policy, not official policy."

a) That discussion was primarily about text in descriptions, not text in images and b) A community discussion is indeed a bunch of peoples' personal interpretations and opinions, not official policy. No mods or admins weighed in on the discussion you linked.

If it's not written in the official rulebook, it's not an official rule. I am baffled that this is a controversial statement.

The kindergartner's argument: "Jack's mom lets him do X, why can't I do X!!!!!!"

Oh no, how dare someone use precedent to try to make sense of an inconsistent, unclear, and unwritten rule.

beholding said:

A community discussion is indeed a bunch of peoples' personal interpretations, not official policy.

If it's not written in the official rulebook, it's not an official rule. I am baffled that this is a controversial statement.

It is unfortunate, but the gradual shaping and refining of the rules is done through the forums, and conventions are gleaned through conversation

Plus there's nobody willing to write an actual rulebook, especially since one can't capture the nuances of the rules through it (the very same details that are borne out through discussion)

snpthecat said:
It is unfortunate, but the gradual shaping and refining of the rules is done through the forums, and conventions are gleaned through conversation

1. A general convention that's still under debate is not a set-in-stone rule.
2. You cannot blame people for not knowing a "rule" that isn't in the rulebook.

beholding said:
1. A general convention that's still under debate is not a set-in-stone rule.
2. You cannot blame people for not knowing a "rule" that isn't in the rulebook.

You're not being blamed for not realizing what a particular rule meant, but you are being chided for continuing to assert it's not a rule after being told by a former admin and other users that it is.

watsit said:
You're not being blamed for not realizing what a particular rule meant, but you are being chided for continuing to assert it's not a rule after being told by a former admin and other users that it is.

I would like to argue donovan is not a former admin
Unless there's some secrets you guys have been hiding👀

snpthecat said:
I would like to argue donovan is not a former admin
Unless there's some secrets you guys have been hiding👀

I would likely still be staff if I had ever made it to admin

donovan_dmc said:
I would likely still be staff if I had ever made it to admin

Well that's cryptic

snpthecat said:
Well that's cryptic

I wouldn't have outright quit if I had actually gotten any further than the base Moderator rank, I'd have just taken a actual break
With being a Moderator it's a base rank I could theoretically come back into at any moment
if I were an admin it would take years to work back up again, so I wouldn't just toss it all away

beholding said:
a) That discussion was primarily about text in descriptions, not text in images and b) A community discussion is indeed a bunch of peoples' personal interpretations and opinions, not official policy. No mods or admins weighed in on the discussion you linked.

If it's not written in the official rulebook, it's not an official rule. I am baffled that this is a controversial statement.

Sad that you chose to completely and conveniently disregarded @Donovan_DMC's quote of the TWYS policy that shows that it does, in fact, include text in images.
Then, you disregard his declaration as being "completely arbitrary" despite the fact that he is a former staff and has more experience than you in matters such as this.
Just for you to later go on a tangent arguing why tag X or Y gets an exception and not yours after being told time and time again that that's not how it works.
After all of which, you then choose to clamp down harder on your position and disregard everybody's comment unless it is an official written statement or policy made by an admin.

So I'll just make it easier for you and save you all the headache from this back-and-forth, and quote the TWYS policy:

There will be times when it's still not clear what tags should be applied to an image. An administrator should be contacted to help resolve such cases.

Feel free to message the head admin, @NotMeNotYou, to ask for clarification on the matter.

Keep the conversation on topic.

The tag alias first_anal -> first_time_anal (forum #443990) has been rejected by @spe.