create implication convenient_leg -> convenient_censoring
Two tags with the convenient tag and both are used if something is censored.
Posted under Tags
create implication convenient_leg -> convenient_censoring
Two tags with the convenient tag and both are used if something is censored.
-1
Convenient_censoring wiki says:
"Note that this tag mostly applies to obstructions that happen to be there against all odds, not cases where characters are deliberately covering themselves with something other than clothes."
There are many images in convenient_leg where one could argue that the position of the leg was deliberate.
Few examples: post #2288057, post #2260485, post #2234322, post #2212851.
Edit:
I didn't initially provide examples precisely because it is very easy to find them just by looking at posts under convenient_leg. Here are few and I can find much more if needed.
Updated
MyrMindservant said:
-1
Convenient_censoring wiki says:
"Note that this tag mostly applies to obstructions that happen to be there against all odds, not cases where characters are deliberately covering themselves with something other than clothes."There are many images in convenient_leg where one could argue that the position of the leg was deliberate.
If there are so many pics, why don't you give an example^^?
Bump for examples :c.
I clicked through some pages of the convenient_leg tag and all seem to qualify for the convenient consoring tag. Well, there are some pics where neither of those apply to. I think, I've to filter those out then.
Btw. "convenient" implies for me that the characters doesn't deliberately cover something. If it were deliberately, there are such thing like covering_crotch.
Updated
Examples are up in my post above, I've added them few minutes after you asked for it.
I have already explained why many posts in convenient_leg do not qualify for convenient_censoring. It is the same reason why related censor_hair, censor_tail and censor_wings tags are also not implicated to it. Convenient censoring wiki even has separate paragraph to explain this.
You really should focus less on semantics and more on practical application of tags.
Convenient censoring indeed should only include posts where private parts are covered "against all odds" rather than deliberately. But convenient_leg is different, it also includes many ambiguous situations where it's hard to say one way or another, and even situations where characters are doing it themselves (this is also true for related hair, tails and wings tags).
Then this tag doesn't make sense at all.
We don't need the convenient then if we can just have leg censor. Now we have this convenient thing in there. And all for of your posts are either covering the crotch or they don't cover anything at all. So Minus for all of them.
So, either we strike the convenient out of this and replace it with leg censor (or feet censor) or it's just a covering crotch thing (most of the times.).
So your accusation doesn't make any sense at all that I focus about semantics and not the usage. Hillside was right then, but because of lack of language, but that's not given here. So please stop comparing situations that are not comparable.
Like I said: If something is convenient, it is deliberately (or they don't want to cover it, but perspective does make it look cesnsored. So it's not comparable to hair or wings or tail, because these tags include both convenient and deliberate censoring.
Hmm, maybe we should create an alias from convenient leg to leg censor.
What do others think of that?
Provence said:
Hmm, maybe we should create an alias from convenient leg to leg censor.
What do others think of that?
+1
I think it's hard to be sure whether the character is looking nonchalant while deliberately covering up, or it's accidental. Excluding "self-censoring" by the character would be subjective.
fuzzygnome said:
+1
I think it's hard to be sure whether the character is looking nonchalant while deliberately covering up, or it's accidental. Excluding "self-censoring" by the character would be subjective.
But the current convenient_leg tag does not exclude it, not in the slightest.
If we are worried about the tag name, then I fail to see how leg_censor is any better. I even think that it is worse because, unlike other related tags, leg can obscure the crotch quite naturally. Not because it looks positioned specifically to hide something, but simply due to the perspective/angle under which the character is observed.
It would be weird to tag images like post #2313371, post #2275723, post #2272650 with leg_censor when nothing in them suggests that crotch was intentionally obscured.
MyrMindservant said:
But the current convenient_leg tag does not exclude it, not in the slightest.
If we are worried about the tag name, then I fail to see how leg_censor is any better. I even think that it is worse because, unlike other related tags, leg can obscure the crotch quite naturally. Not because it looks positioned specifically to hide something, but simply due to the perspective/angle under which the character is observed.
It would be weird to tag images like post #2313371, post #2275723, post #2272650 with leg_censor when nothing in them suggests that crotch was intentionally obscured.
Then there wasn't anything covered at all.
Therefore throw out the convenient leg tag. It doesn't fit in there if we follow that logic.
Or, because it does cover something, not intentional, but it does, it would be right to go for an umbrella tag to fit both of them. That's the same for wings, hair and so on.
Bump.
The biggest problem here is clearly subjectivity.
All four tags listed below can either mean that censorship was done intentionally by either the artist or the featured character (drawn by the artist).
The convenient censoring tag should be used only in rare cases were one could suspect the artist of making censorship look like pure coincidence. But of course, an outsider can never be totally sure.
MyrMindservant said:
It would be weird to tag images like post #2313371, post #2275723, post #2272650 with leg_censor when nothing in them suggests that crotch was intentionally obscured.
post #2272650: looks really convenient (aka artist made it look like a coincidence)
post #2313371: convenient enough to warrant the tag
post #2275723: looks not very convenient
However, all three posts should get the hypothetical leg_censor tag. It doesn't matter whether the artist decided on convenient censorship or deliberate self censorship by the character.
Provence said:
Or, because it does cover something, not intentional, but it does, it would be right to go for an umbrella tag to fit both of them. That's the same for wings, hair and so on.
+1
That said, I also agree with @MyrMindservant on this part:
MyrMindservant said:
If we are worried about the tag name, then I fail to see how leg_censor is any better. I even think that it is worse because, unlike other related tags, leg can obscure the crotch quite naturally. Not because it looks positioned specifically to hide something, but simply due to the perspective/angle under which the character is observed.
In my opinion, the call for an umbrella tag is still understandable. It's not a great solution, but it would fix the subjectivity problem.
Updated
Forgot to include an action plan. So here it is:
The tag implication convenient_leg -> convenient_censoring has been rejected.
Going to reject the implication itself, but the discussion can be continued here or in a new topic if necessary.