[bulk] Censored - implications

@Godel: > evazion said: > > There was a huuuuuge...

2014-11-12T05:32:48-05:00

evazion said:

There was a huuuuuge thread five years ago in topic #2726 on whether convenient censoring should count as censorship. I don't think there was a real consensus then so convenient censoring -> censored remained implicated. I think hair censor though was unimplicated at some point from convenient censoring specifically so that it wouldn't implicate censored as well.

Not to post without contributing something relevant to the thread, but that really brings back memories. Really flattered someone even remembered that, 5 years ago.

I dread to read it; I had just started college back then and now that I'm a graduate, I actually know how English works.

@jxh2154: > Toks said: > > This can be fixed manually in...

2014-11-09T02:00:07-05:00

Toks said:

This can be fixed manually in this case by recreating this bugged implication:
remove implication soap_censor -> convenient_censoring
create implication soap_censor -> convenient_censoring

Did this.

@Flopsy: > Toks said: > > This is a bug. When the...

2014-10-27T20:46:14-04:00

Toks said:

This is a bug. When the convenient_censoring -> censored implication was removed, the implicit chained implication from soap_censor -> censored should have been automatically been removed too, but it wasn't.

That's what I was suspecting. Oddly enough, this problem is not occurring with steam_censor, which also implies convenient_censoring.

@Toks: > Flopsy said: > > When I tried to edit post...

2014-10-27T19:55:56-04:00

Flopsy said:

When I tried to edit post #1773279, I discovered that soap_censor still seems to imply censored, even though that's not mentioned in the wiki. If soap_censor is not there, it's possible to remove censored without removing convenient_censoring. But if soap_censor is there, censored cannot be removed at all.

This is a bug. When the convenient_censoring -> censored implication was removed, the implicit chained implication from soap_censor -> censored should have been automatically been removed too, but it wasn't.

This can be fixed manually in this case by recreating this bugged implication:
remove implication soap_censor -> convenient_censoring
create implication soap_censor -> convenient_censoring

@Flopsy: When I tried to edit post #1773279, I...

2014-10-27T18:45:05-04:00

When I tried to edit post #1773279, I discovered that soap_censor still seems to imply censored, even though that's not mentioned in the wiki. If soap_censor is not there, it's possible to remove censored without removing convenient_censoring. But if soap_censor is there, censored cannot be removed at all.

@Toks: > Blossop said: > > Well then, should we...

2014-10-19T02:24:08-04:00

Blossop said:

Well then, should we create implications for
hair_censor -> convenient_censoring
tail_censor -> convenient_censoring
wing_censor -> convenient_censoring
now?

No. The majority of posts under those three tags are of someone intentionally covering themself up with their hair/tail/wings, so it's not convenient censoring.

I'm sure some exceptions exist where it happens accidentally/conveniently, but those should be tagged manually.

@Blossop: Well then, should we create implications for ...

2014-10-19T01:56:33-04:00

Well then, should we create implications for
hair_censor -> convenient_censoring
tail_censor -> convenient_censoring
wing_censor -> convenient_censoring
now?

@jxh2154: Did create implication nipple_censor ->...

2014-10-12T11:45:27-04:00

Did
create implication nipple_censor -> censored
create implication star_censor -> censored
create implication tape_censor -> censored
create implication treasure_mark_censor -> censored
remove implication convenient_censoring -> censored

@richie: > Hillside_Moose said: > > Agree with...

2014-10-03T16:24:56-04:00

Hillside_Moose said:

Agree with deimplicating convenient_censoring -> censored.

@Hillside_Moose: Agree with deimplicating convenient_censoring...

2014-10-01T14:29:55-04:00

Agree with deimplicating convenient_censoring -> censored.

@evazion: There was a huuuuuge thread five years ago in...

2014-10-01T12:26:16-04:00

There was a huuuuuge thread five years ago in topic #2726 on whether convenient censoring should count as censorship. I don't think there was a real consensus then so convenient censoring -> censored remained implicated. I think hair censor though was unimplicated at some point from convenient censoring specifically so that it wouldn't implicate censored as well.

@EB: > Toks said: > > 'Censoring' is when something...

2014-10-01T12:12:05-04:00

Toks said:

'Censoring' is when something is superimposed over the image after the fact, like a black bar or some other symbol. You wouldn't suggest an implication covering -> censored, would you?

I agree, though honestly there is a bit of a precedent of going beyond that with the implication from convenient_censoring (I would be OK with that one being removed) (EDIT: Flopsy beat me to it by a matter of seconds. In any case, I agree, though.)

@Flopsy: > Toks said: > > Despite their names, these...

2014-10-01T12:11:42-04:00

Toks said:

Despite their names, these three do not involve censoring. They are simply someone covering their body (or someone else's) with their hair/tail/wings. 'Censoring' is when something is superimposed over the image after the fact, like a black bar or some other symbol.

By that reasoning, which I agree with, the convenient_censoring -> censored implication should be removed as well. I don't know about other people, but a strategically placed palm branch isn't in the same ball park as a black bar or mosaic censor for me.

@Toks: > Kikimaru said: > > create implication...

2014-10-01T11:35:47-04:00

Kikimaru said:

create implication hair_censor -> censored
create implication tail_censor -> censored
create implication wing_censor -> censored

Despite their names, these three do not involve censoring. They are simply someone covering their body (or someone else's) with their hair/tail/wings. 'Censoring' is when something is superimposed over the image after the fact, like a black bar or some other symbol. You wouldn't suggest an implication covering -> censored, would you?

The other ones besides these seem fine though, from what I can see they do require an overlay on the image as opposed to an actual object in the image covering something.

@Kikimaru: create implication hair_censor -> censored...

2014-10-01T10:36:22-04:00

create implication hair_censor -> censored
create implication nipple_censor -> censored
create implication star_censor -> censored
create implication tail_censor -> censored
create implication tape_censor -> censored
create implication treasure_mark_censor -> censored
create implication wing_censor -> censored

Link to request