Pool Discussion: pool #4956 - Breast Delivery

@Hillside_Moose: I would say all except the last two would...

2012-02-12T08:32:42-05:00

I would say all except the last two would qualify for this hypothetical new tag. Resting on a table is excluded since it's what so many people argue clutters these on-object searches. I wouldn't tag lying examples since the breasts themselves aren't really at rest, not when the entire body is.

@S1eth: I no longer know what the scope of this pool or...

2012-02-12T07:14:42-05:00

I no longer know what the scope of this pool or a possible new tag should actually be. There is a large variety of breasts on "objects" which have different meanings (artist's intention). I'll post some examples:

the original: breasts served on a plate
post #462808

books:
carrying books: post #584511, post #1076310
breast_lift? using a book: post #456070, post #353570

sitting, with a doll/plush:
post #465921

sitting, breasts on table:
post #445773

lying: (should this even be tagged?)
post #879671

@Hillside_Moose: > Serlo said: > The only reason against seems...

2012-02-12T06:32:16-05:00

Serlo said:
The only reason against seems to be that breast_rest ~tray ~plate will get you what you want, when it's been shown it doesn't ...

Except it does. Did you even test the search?

... there are plenty of exceptions like one girl resting her breasts and another character holding a tray.

Exceptions will always exist. It's an inherent limitation of multi-tag searches. Unless you want hyperspecific tags like card_in_mouth_of_animal everywhere, you're going to have to deal with it. The exception is when signal:noise is very bad, as I've previously mentioned. Then we can worry about making a new tag.

NWF_Renim said:
words

Platter, box, point is they're something that can ostensibly deliver food or a gift in, except replace "food/gift" with breasts. The book example was a red herring, and now that I look back on it, I can scarcely believe how much energy I wasted arguing about that damn book.

But I understand what you're saying: You want a way to look up breasts resting on things that aren't a table or someone's head, right? How about breasts_on_object then? We can even add all the tray examples with it too!

@NWF_Renim: > Hillside_Moose said: > Then again, I'm not...

2012-02-08T10:07:29-05:00

Hillside_Moose said:
Then again, I'm not sure why we're so focused on books and other objects when the pool itself is all about serving breasts on a platter.

That's a misconception about the pool, one I admit I initially made as well. The pool's own definition says "Breasts being delivered, be it on a platter or on top of a box." It doesn't actually limit itself to platters, which is why I've been using books in my own argument (one of the depictions in the pool involves books and books being from what I've seen the second most common type after trays when doing a breast_rest +item search). It's also the reason I said the definition needed to be tweaked, as I feel it doesn't put enough emphasis that there are more alternatives of what kind of items could be used to fall under this categorization beyond platters and boxes.

@Serlo: > Log said: > Honestly one of the biggest...

2012-02-08T09:46:28-05:00

Log said:
Honestly one of the biggest problems with tits on a plate was the name.

I got that impression. So why wasn't the tag aliased/mass edited instead? Or perhaps a better question to ask is: Given we can start over with whatever name anyone wants, why should this concept not be tag-able? The only reason against seems to be that breast_rest ~tray ~plate will get you what you want, when it's been shown it doesn't, and when you think, there are plenty of exceptions like one girl resting her breasts and another character holding a tray.

@Log: Honestly one of the biggest problems with tits...

2012-02-08T09:39:23-05:00

Honestly one of the biggest problems with tits on a plate was the name.

@Hillside_Moose: > Serlo said: > I do think the pool is a...

2012-02-08T09:28:52-05:00

Serlo said:
I do think the pool is a tag-able concept, but if the ruling in forum #19594 must stay, then I think the pool should live.

See forum #46070. We already had a pool like this. It wasn't necessary then, and it isn't necessary now.

@Hillside_Moose: Pool in question: pool #4956 Timeline of...

2012-02-08T08:31:42-05:00

Pool in question: pool #4956

Timeline of discussion:
forum #73530
forum #73531
forum #73535
forum #73542
forum #73663
forum #73665
forum #73666
forum #73667
forum #73668
forum #73669
forum #73673
forum #73677