[bulk] imply bound_* -> bondage

@albert: The bulk update request #406 has been approved.

2015-11-11T23:35:31-05:00

The bulk update request #406 has been approved.

@NWF_Renim: remove implication bound_wrists -> bondage...

2015-11-05T22:28:31-05:00

remove implication bound_wrists -> bondage
remove implication bound_arms -> bondage
remove implication bound_legs -> bondage
remove implication bound_torso -> bondage
remove implication bound_thighs -> bondage
remove implication bound_toes -> bondage
remove implication bound_knees -> bondage
remove implication bound_fingers -> bondage
remove implication bound_feet -> bondage
remove implication bound_wings -> bondage
remove implication bound_calves -> bondage
remove alias bound -> bondage
create implication bondage -> bound
create implication bound_wrists -> bound
create implication bound_arms -> bound
create implication bound_legs -> bound
create implication bound_torso -> bound
create implication bound_thighs -> bound
create implication bound_toes -> bound
create implication bound_knees -> bound
create implication bound_fingers -> bound
create implication bound_feet -> bound
create implication bound_wings -> bound
create implication bound_calves -> bound
create implication tied_up -> bound

Link to request

Bulk update request #396 shouldn't have been approved so this is to resolve that, and to resolve the issue of not having a catchall for various forms of bindings.

@albert: The bulk update request #396 has been approved.

2015-11-05T21:53:24-05:00

The bulk update request #396 has been approved.

@NWF_Renim: Wasn't it suggested a bit ago about de-aliasing...

2015-10-29T02:09:13-04:00

Wasn't it suggested a bit ago about de-aliasing bound from bondage? Perhaps we should do that and make bound the catchall for all forms of being bound. The current tied_up tag could potentially simply become a bound -bondage search, although there may still be value it having separate tags covering both sexual and nonsexual bindings, even if both still imply bound (won't deny the current tags need a lot of clean up though).

@lkjh098: It's been a year and the bondage/tied_up mess...

2015-10-29T01:37:11-04:00

It's been a year and the bondage/tied_up mess is not closer to being solved. Clearly all these tags should be implicated to something because they are all specific cases of a general concept which should have its own tag. I'd prefer implicating them all to bondage, but if you have a better suggestion, please make it.

@iridescent_slime: This would make more sense if we didn't...

2015-10-29T00:15:34-04:00

This would make more sense if we didn't distinguish between sexual and nonsexual contexts. There are situations where the bound_* tags could be used alongside tied up, and adding bondage would only cause confusion.

@Gollgagh: didn't you try most of these already

2015-10-28T23:40:51-04:00

didn't you try most of these already

@lkjh098: create implication bound_wrists -> bondage...

2015-10-28T23:37:17-04:00

create implication bound_wrists -> bondage
create implication bound_arms -> bondage
create implication bound_legs -> bondage
create implication bound_torso -> bondage
create implication bound_thighs -> bondage
create implication bound_toes -> bondage
create implication bound_knees -> bondage
create implication bound_fingers -> bondage
create implication bound_feet -> bondage
create implication bound_wings -> bondage
create implication bound_calves -> bondage

Link to request