The bulk update request #10899 is pending approval.

create implication child_grooming (88) -> manipulation (153)
create implication blackmail (585) -> manipulation (153)
create implication bribery (73) -> manipulation (153)
create implication deception (313) -> manipulation (153)
create implication exploitation (9) -> manipulation (153)
create implication brainwashing (3122) -> manipulation (153)
create implication coercion (218) -> manipulation (153)
create implication extortion (51) -> manipulation (153)

Reason: These are all types of manipulation according to the wiki, and should implicate it thus.

taunting and threatening are also listed on the wiki page but I'm not sure they should be included, since they're sometimes performed spuriously rather than as a deliberate attempt at manipulation.

I don't see how something so broad can be a useful tag.

anicebee said:
I don't see how something so broad can be a useful tag.

The same way all other umbrella tags are. These are implications, not aliases.

I think coercion should be excluded from this

At first I didn't want it there because I was confusing coercion with forced but now I'm creating a BUR to implicate threatening and forced into coercion so that's also a reason

Bumping for more discussion given the large number of ambivalent votes.

Should manipulation be retired instead?

beholding said:
Bumping for more discussion given the large number of ambivalent votes.

Should manipulation be retired instead?

Honestly I couldn't say
Because yes, it's an incredibly vague and wide-encompassing blanket term for interaction with people and the world, but I'm not about to dog on if people can generalize their kinks. They could use this to widen the search coverage for when they're in a particular mood. But it would need a concise and well-arbitrated wiki to keep posts that deserve the tag or not. Because the blank definition of "manipulation" is definitely not a good starting point.

Well, if we're using the dictionary definition as a starting point, that's:

Merriam-Webster says:
to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage

But honestly, that's more vague than the definition on the wiki. I think the current description is fairly clear.

beholding said:
Well, if we're using the dictionary definition as a starting point, that's:

But honestly, that's more vague than the definition on the wiki. I think the current description is fairly clear.

Yeah the current wiki is great actually. Reading it has convinced me to give this a thumbs up

to me, exploitation, mind_control, and brainwashing seem diffrent from the rest of these. also, depending on its use, the same could be true for impersonation.

I'm also wondering if deception should be a parent tag to several of these.

dba_afish said:
to me, exploitation, mind_control, and brainwashing seem diffrent from the rest of these. also, depending on its use, the same could be true for impersonation.

We could redefine it to be specifically social, mundane means of manipulation. Though I'm sure opinions vary.

Not a fan of manipulation as a tag, it's too broad a concept that's also dependent on a character's state of mind, which would be easy for people to mistag basing it on external knowledge rather than whatever is depicted in the image, or using their own definition that doesn't align with whatever rules e6 would have for the tag. Case in point, mind_control doesn't necessarily result in manipulation. Manipulation being defined as

... the act of exploiting physical, social, or emotional leverage over someone for personal advantage, often unfairly or dishonestly.

but it's possible for a character to be willingly mind-controlled, thus the mind controller not exploiting leverage over the mind controllee for personal advantage. And still, that definition also includes things like a character being leashed or bound, which I don't imagine some would expect for the tag despite fitting.

Too much of a gray area for such a broad concept, IMO.

dba_afish said:
to me, exploitation, mind_control, and brainwashing seem diffrent from the rest of these. also, depending on its use, the same could be true for impersonation.

I'm also wondering if deception should be a parent tag to several of these.

I was also unsure of including mind control and brainwashing as implicating manipulation. I haven't browsed the exploitation tag so I can't speak practically on it, but the other two are their own category for porn art.

watsit said:
Not a fan of manipulation as a tag, it's too broad a concept that's also dependent on a character's state of mind, which would be easy for people to mistag basing it on external knowledge rather than whatever is depicted in the image, or using their own definition that doesn't align with whatever rules e6 would have for the tag. Case in point, mind_control doesn't necessarily result in manipulation. Manipulation being defined as
but it's possible for a character to be willingly mind-controlled, thus the mind controller not exploiting leverage over the mind controllee for personal advantage. And still, that definition also includes things like a character being leashed or bound, which I don't imagine some would expect for the tag despite fitting.

Too much of a gray area for such a broad concept, IMO.

Noted. It's still helpful for people who enjoy multiple of the more well-defined subcategories. And all of those subcategories added together (in my opinion) are large enough to justify an umbrella. The difficulty of its precision is a natural biproduct.

watsit said:
Not a fan of manipulation as a tag, it's too broad a concept that's also dependent on a character's state of mind, which would be easy for people to mistag basing it on external knowledge rather than whatever is depicted in the image, or using their own definition that doesn't align with whatever rules e6 would have for the tag.

Citation needed. Show me examples of posts where this is a problem.

Fair enough about mind control. I think it does still apply in like 90% of cases, but I'll remove it from the implications list.

The bulk update request #11020 is pending approval.

create implication impersonation (68) -> deception (313)

Reason: Separating this one out, since it's related but different from the main BUR.

beholding said:
Citation needed. Show me examples of posts where this is a problem.

post #5151752
Plain old knot_hanging, not sure how this counts as manipulation distinct from any other instance of knotting (which technically would fit, as being leashed or bound would).

post #4921456
Dirty talk and goading dialog. No one is being visibly manipulated in the "exploiting physical, social, or emotional leverage" sense, it's only the one character talking trying to convince someone to beat up his boyfriend with a promise of sex (it's a completely open-ended offer, no one's being forced into it, and there's no indication another character is falling for it anyway).

post #4510404
Energy manipulation, what the wiki says is separate from this tag but the word is vague enough that people will use it this way without realizing the tag is intended for something more specific.

post #5066653
No manipulation, Director Ton is seemingly acting of his own will to have sex with Tsunoda, who in turn is questioning to herself why she's recording what's happening, but A) her inner-dialog states it's to ensure he does what he promised, so it's not "for personal advantage, often unfairly or dishonestly", but rather to ensure fair and honest trade that was previously agreed to (not that dialog should count because of ambiguity in interpretation, but even if it does here, this would be equivalent to tagging manipulation due to a character thinking to themself "you better hold your side of the bargain or you'll regret it"), and B) that "manipulation" event isn't occurring here, but may occur later if he tries to pull out of the deal; at best it'd be equivalent to tagging sex for imminent_sex.

post #4750752
Plain old rape, not sure how this is manipulation any more than any other rape/forced scenario.

These are just a few examples on the first page of results, I could get more. As it is, the tag is only used 154 times currently, and the more it gets tagged, the more likely other people will see it and start tagging it on what they think it applies to, increasing the amount of dubious uses.

watsit said:
post #5151752
Plain old knot_hanging, not sure how this counts as manipulation distinct from any other instance of knotting (which technically would fit, as being leashed or bound would).

This is tagged based on the description, which is a violation of TWYS, but the situation mentioned in the description is still manipulation. I'll remove the tag.

watsit said:
post #4921456
Dirty talk and goading dialog. No one is being visibly manipulated in the "exploiting physical, social, or emotional leverage" sense, it's only the one character talking trying to convince someone to beat up his boyfriend with a promise of sex (it's a completely open-ended offer, no one's being forced into it, and there's no indication another character is falling for it anyway).

I would say this is manipulation. The character is exploiting things the target wants (sex and emotional/social validation, via the goading and insults) to get something they want (beating up their boyfriend). That's the leverage.

post #4510404
Energy manipulation, what the wiki says is separate from this tag but the word is vague enough that people will use it this way without realizing the tag is intended for something more specific.

This is an argument for renaming the tag to "social manipulation", I'd say. (I've removed the tag on this post.)

post #5066653
No manipulation, Director Ton is seemingly acting of his own will to have sex with Tsunoda, who in turn is questioning to herself why she's recording what's happening, but A) her inner-dialog states it's to ensure he does what he promised, so it's not "for personal advantage, often unfairly or dishonestly", but rather to ensure fair and honest trade that was previously agreed to (not that dialog should count because of ambiguity in interpretation, but even if it does here, this would be equivalent to tagging manipulation due to a character thinking to themself "you better hold your side of the bargain or you'll regret it"), and B) that "manipulation" event isn't occurring here, but may occur later if he tries to pull out of the deal; at best it'd be equivalent to tagging sex for imminent_sex.

I'm pretty sure that's a stylized speech bubble, not a thought bubble, given Ton's irate response. That makes this blackmail, which is manipulation.

post #4750752
Plain old rape, not sure how this is manipulation any more than any other rape/forced scenario.

Yeah, I don't know why it's tagged here. Removed.

...So of your five examples, I only agree that three are mistagged, and of those, one is mistagged due to thinking descriptions can be tagged (which is a common mistake not unique to this tag), and one is mistagged due to thinking the tag is referring to a different dictionary definition, leaving only one that could be argued to be mistagged based on the reasons you forwarded. One example out of 56 (assuming you're using the default posts per page) is not sufficient justification to delete a tag, I think.

beholding said:
I would say this is manipulation. The character is exploiting things the target wants (sex and emotional/social validation, via the goading and insults) to get something they want (beating up their boyfriend). That's the leverage.

That feels very loose. It's dirty talk, the "character" being spoken to is the viewer, in which there's no indication they care at all about what's being offered and is influenced in any way. We shouldn't really tag anything based on some how unseen viewer feels, since it's about how you, the person looking at the image, is intended to feel. which is definitionally subjective and not anything visual in the image. Even still, this would basically make any form of commerce "manipulation". Exploiting something someone wants (that Switch 2 looks nice, via those features and exclusive games) to get something they want (money).

beholding said:
I'm pretty sure that's a stylized speech bubble, not a thought bubble, given Ton's irate response. That makes this blackmail, which is manipulation.

It's classic thought bubble design through and through, no indication it's a stylized speech bubble. Ton's response doesn't really make sense to Tsunoda's dialog to me (why would he be angry and exclaim being unable to hold back, when nothing will happen as long as he does as promised?), but is fine taken on its own (he's just pent up sexually and needs to do her). This is partly why dialog is generally avoided when tagging, it's open to interpretation with different people reading it differently. And still, it's leverage to ensure he hold to his side of the bargain they already agreed to, nothing more nothing less, not really any different to them saying "Give me the raise like you promised, or I'll beat you up" and calling that manipulation. Anything that causes a character to do what another character wants can be called "manipulation" if taken this way.

beholding said:
...So of your five examples, I only agree that three are mistagged, and of those, one is mistagged due to thinking descriptions can be tagged (which is a common mistake not unique to this tag), and one is mistagged due to thinking the tag is referring to a different dictionary definition, leaving only one that could be argued to be mistagged based on the reasons you forwarded.

The reasons included being vague (using the dictionary definition or their own personal understanding of the word), and easy to use based on external knowledge (the description; yes some other tags also suffer from this issue, but it's still an issue for this tag too), so all three of those you agree are mistags are indicative of the issue. And the remaining two are debatable, which I disagree they'd apply even given this definition, they're not in the clear either. And these are only a handful of examples, not the totality of questionable uses (on the first page or in total).

watsit said:
It's dirty talk, the "character" being spoken to is the viewer, in which there's no indication they care at all about what's being offered and is influenced in any way.

I don't see why the target's reaction matters. Attempted manipulation is manipulation regardless of whether it's successful.

not really any different to them saying "Give me the raise like you promised, or I'll beat you up" and calling that manipulation.

I'm baffled how you can think using threats to get what you want isn't manipulation. In this case the character is recording blackmail material, which at the very least shows clear intent to manipulate.

The reasons included being vague (using the dictionary definition or their own personal understanding of the word)

This is something that can be fixed with a rename, not something that's a problem with the concept itself.

easy to use based on external knowledge (the description; yes some other tags also suffer from this issue, but it's still an issue for this tag too)

If this alone is grounds for retiring a tag, we're gonna have to retire a ton more. rape, for starters.

beholding said:
Attempted manipulation is manipulation regardless of whether it's successful.

No it isn't. Attempted sex isn't sex if it isn't successful, I don't see why attempted manipulation would be manipulation, if we don't see it working.

beholding said:
In this case the character is recording blackmail material, which at the very least shows clear intent to manipulate.

Similarly, intent to have sex isn't sex. I would actually argue that this isn't blackmail technically ("Extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information", which in this case, the recording isn't for extorting money or something of value, it's to make sure a previously made agreement is kept), but okay, it feels close enough to count. Which would add to the case of not implying manipulation if it doesn't need the extortion aspect and can be used to ensure fairness and honesty.

beholding said:
I'm baffled how you can think using threats to get what you want isn't manipulation.

That's the problem, I agree it is manipulation. Anything that causes a character to do what they might not otherwise have done is a form of manipulation. Tying someone up to hold them in place is a form of manipulation. A character flashing their genitals to draw someone into a sexual encounter is a form of manipulation, if it wasn't something they were going to do anyway. The literal definition is too broadly applicable to be useful. It needs limits if it's going to be a useful tag, and that limit isn't clear in the wiki definition. Which tags, if any, that can imply it will depend on what those limits are.

beholding said:
If this alone is grounds for retiring a tag, we're gonna have to retire a ton more. rape, for starters.

Depends on how badly misused a tag is. Some tags have been invalidated due to heavy misuse as TWYK instead of TWYS. But as I've pointed out, it's more than that that's a problem here.

watsit said:
Attempted sex isn't sex if it isn't successful, I don't see why attempted manipulation would be manipulation, if we don't see it working.

I don't think that's a fair comparison. Viewing this from the perspective of a user searching for or blacklisting the concept, I think manipulative behavior is the sticking point, not the target's reaction. (And we do have failed_blackmail and failed_bribery for that distinction, though their tagged posts are in the single digits.)

Your other points are fair, but we'd need to spitball alternative definitions. If you'd rather invalidate the tag completely, you should probably make a separate thread for that at this point.

EDIT: I've created topic #56621 for manipulation revision.

beholding said:
I don't think that's a fair comparison. Viewing this from the perspective of a user searching for or blacklisting the concept, I think manipulative behavior is the sticking point, not the target's reaction.

How would it be different from something like
post #5506304
which similarly has dialog enticing or "manipulating" the viewer (whom we don't see) into sex in exchange for not hunting them (which we don't see them do)? It would basically make being seductive or presenting into manipulation, if we don't have to see it work. Part of the point of manipulation is that it's causing someone to do something they wouldn't have done otherwise, which we can't see occurring if the viewer is unseen, or if they don't do what they weren't going to do anyway.

watsit said:
How would it be different from something like
post #5506304

I do think that's meaningfully different. post #4921456 goes far beyond just being seductive. The insults and goading are manipulative behavior in a way that a mere request isn't.

I just wanna add that looking at the Tsunoda one, I'm 100% of the mind that it's a stylistic choice to express how flippant and taunting in her usual sing-song voice she is being and that it is misleading on the artist's part to make it so similar to a conventional thought bubble.