Tag Unimplication: Convenient_censoring -> Censored

@Godel: > 葉月 said: > Ah, but you see, young padawan,...

2009-09-29T04:36:02-04:00

葉月 said:
Ah, but you see, young padawan, they are in-universe robotic something-or-other in gundam. I don't know the first thing about gundams, including the name for those balls, but I know they appear in the universe. Thus the distinction between them and a rubber duck is based mostly on ignorance, which you'll admit is not a solid base for an argument :)

Yeah I don't either, no clue what they are and why they're there, lol.

@葉月: > Godel said: > However, if one searches for...

2009-09-29T04:34:10-04:00

Godel said:
However, if one searches for explicit tags and uses it as one, then it is (for them).

We do, however, explicitly value the needs of people browsing for porn *below* the needs of other things not involving porn. We don't go out of our way to make it hard to search for porn, but whenever it's porn vs. something else, porn loses.

I thought the floating things were classified as novelty censor since they appear to be overlays on top of images (such at post #408818), which is pretty much what mosiacs and censor bars were.

Ah, but you see, young padawan, they are in-universe robotic something-or-other in gundam. I don't know the first thing about gundams, including the name for those balls, but I know they appear in the universe. Thus the distinction between them and a rubber duck is based mostly on ignorance, which you'll admit is not a solid base for an argument :)

@Godel: Closure Post Winner of several rewards...

2009-09-29T03:51:29-04:00

Closure Post
Winner of several rewards including "Longest Post" and "Highest chance of tl;dr" (hehe)

葉月 said:
Hazuki :). But that's a new way to misread it, congratulations on giving me the first smile today.

Oh wow, epic fail on my part lmao.
Despite one of my tasks here is to translate, my kanji is comparable to a set of beginner flash cards.
Looking back, I saw 葉's 訓読み was は　and わ, so I just attached a random one (わ) to the 訓読み of 月,　つき, without stoping to realise, x + つき = xづき. Of course even if I had remembered that, I would have probably called you Wazuki anyways XD.
I'm glad my failure entertained you though

*quote shortened to save space*

Is that what it feels like? I was trying to keep a pretty passive overtone simply geared towards the improvement of the site and quality/accuracy of searches, but it seems I may have gone a bit overboard and tried to push too hard what I thought "was right." Also, I think a majority of the users that do use this tag expect it to be used in a certain way, which I touch up a little about in my next paragraph.

The next part is a little off topic but I wanted to say it anyways:
Also about danbooru being a porn site,
it's not a porn site.
However, if one searches for explicit tags and uses it as one, then it is (for them).
Danbooru can be almost whatever the user wants it to be, a portal for art inspiration, a comedy(aka funny picture) site (some of those 4komas are pretty funny), or just a source of renders for those inspiring graphic artists. Danbooru definitely isn't limited to being only one thing and nothing else :).
However, from fappers to art appreciators, it isn't their little play ground like *chan, and they still have one thing in common, they use it. If someone wants to make it into their porn site for their own use, they can, so long as they do it without interfering with operations, which is what seems like a lot of the pain in forum #17167 was caused by. (stupid comments, stupid retagging of images, etc.)
And then there's the contributors like you, me, and many others in the forum, who strive to keep the site workable with and useable for these different types of users and ourselves, in whichever way we desire to use it.

How my philosophy of Danbooru? Just right or the worst paragragh with random line breaks you've ever read(or of course somewhere in between)?

That doesn't explain much. Which part makes it censored then? Is it that small floating robotic balls from gundam are more censor-y than small floating rubber ducks? Or is it the lightning, but if so, why exactly? I'm unable to infer any consistent criteria from looking at the two examples you gave, so you have to explain what these criteria are to have them evaluated.

I thought the floating things were classified as novelty censor since they appear to be overlays on top of images (such at post #408818), which is pretty much what mosiacs and censor bars were. It was just one of my previous arguments, that something on top of an image isn't censoring versus something within the image, but that's then and this argument was replied to already.
Yeah but don't rebut this because pretty much it would just be more parroting and more :(s from me.

Also, excuse my overuse in smilies in this post. I remember reading the rule about it on the first day, each post should be limited to one, due to the fact one wouldn't use them in real life that often. I previously was an abuser of emoticons and starting college + being here seems to have removed that aspect of my ewriting tremendously. I actually do make a ":o" face quite a bit irl; however, my attempts to make an X with my eyes have all ended in vain.

Wow, three off topic subposts in my post, but seeing how tl;dr the whole thread is, it probably isn't that much of a problem.

Anyways, to bring closure to this thread, I suppose nothing can/will really be done until consolodation is brought to the definition of censored and it's no longer an umbrella term. Either that or a really efficient and easy to implement plan. Mine seemed to be easy, but the post-tag watching would have been far too difficult. If Trac ticket #429 was/is implemented, perhaps it would have/could been accepted.

I'm all out of ideas, if anyone has a better plan, step forth now (or whenever you feel like it hehe)

@葉月: > Godel said: > Anyway Watsuki(is that the...

2009-09-29T01:12:59-04:00

Godel said:
Anyway Watsuki(is that the correct reading btw?)

Hazuki :). But that's a new way to misread it, congratulations on giving me the first smile today.

you seem to know what belongs an danbooru, and I guess I can't object to it.
Each time I tried to bring a new perspective or angle of the situation to the table and it just get's knocked right off onto the floor by what's been there for a while. Frankly my sleeves are all out of tricks and I'm going to have to resign here. I still can't imagine most normal browsers of danbooru would agree, but who am I to say?
Those against it can just keep throwing their already mentioned idea at the new kid on the block and he'll eventually leave, unless he has some really cool stuff.

I'm afraid you're taking it entirely the wrong way (although it's a very natural thing to do, so I'm not blaming you). It's not about your toys vs. our toys. It's simply that we (ie. people most actively involved in actually maintaining the site, as opposed to "most danbooru browsers") don't see any problems with the old system, and do see problems with the suggested replacement. You brought up a strong enough argument to get censor_hair unimplicated, so it's not like you were shot down without even being considered.

But throughout the thread you seemed to have this idea that unless the entirety of your proposal gets through, you don't get a high score, without actually thinking whether said proposal is actually the best course of action. Sure, we all get attached to our ideas, vide forum #17167, but that doesn't mean they absolutely, positively have to be accepted or else I'm leaving.

Also, post #474271 was censored + obs view because her tits are covered by novelty censors and her crotch by lightning.

That doesn't explain much. Which part makes it censored then? Is it that small floating robotic balls from gundam are more censor-y than small floating rubber ducks? Or is it the lightning, but if so, why exactly? I'm unable to infer any consistent criteria from looking at the two examples you gave, so you have to explain what these criteria are to have them evaluated.

@Godel: Sigh, so many objections and not much support...

2009-09-29T00:42:44-04:00

Sigh, so many objections and not much support (well past page 1 anyways). I was simply trying to more clearly establish what censored should be to better fit it in with what uncensored it...but looks like I've failed.

Anyway Watsuki(is that the correct reading btw?), you seem to know what belongs an danbooru, and I guess I can't object to it.
Each time I tried to bring a new perspective or angle of the situation to the table and it just get's knocked right off onto the floor by what's been there for a while. Frankly my sleeves are all out of tricks and I'm going to have to resign here. I still can't imagine most normal browsers of danbooru would agree, but who am I to say?
Those against it can just keep throwing their already mentioned idea at the new kid on the block and he'll eventually leave, unless he has some really cool stuff. Of course, some times it doesn't matter how cool his stuff his, the the parrots refuse.

And sorry if the parrot comment is kinda uncalled for, but I'm mostly only hearing "it's censorship so it should be tagged censored"

Also, post #474271 was censored + obs view because her tits are covered by novelty censors and her crotch by lightning.

I hereby resign from this thread :(

Edit: Actually I won't post censored vs uncensored here, that would just be problematic lol.

@Algasir: > Fencedude said: > No, what I mean is...*digs...

2009-09-28T21:56:25-04:00

Fencedude said:
No, what I mean is...*digs around for a good example* ah, yes, like post #419247.

We can all agree that this does NOT count as "censored", conveniently or otherwise, correct?

Ah. That would've been my second guess.

But yes.

@葉月: > Fencedude said: > We can all agree that this...

2009-09-28T21:41:42-04:00

Fencedude said:
We can all agree that this does NOT count as "censored", conveniently or otherwise, correct?

Yes.

@KeliraTelian: No, what I mean is...*digs around for a good...

2009-09-28T21:36:19-04:00

No, what I mean is...*digs around for a good example* ah, yes, like post #419247.

We can all agree that this does NOT count as "censored", conveniently or otherwise, correct?

@Algasir: You mean like images that cut off before you...

2009-09-28T21:04:09-04:00

You mean like images that cut off before you get to the genitalia? Like post #530747?

@KeliraTelian: Thread is tl;dr. Anyway, I think its...

2009-09-28T20:56:13-04:00

Thread is tl;dr.

Anyway, I think its worthwhile to differentiate between "Mosaic Censored" (including all the various other ways), "Conveniently Censored" and Images that are arranged in a way where genitalia are not visible, but aren't "censored"

@葉月: > Godel said: > Basically you're trying to...

2009-09-28T19:35:22-04:00

Godel said:
Basically you're trying to argue that any and all forms of censorship should be tagged with censored, regardless if it's intentional, forced, or even unneeded?

Yes. Unneededness is absolutely orthogonal to whether something is censored or not. See all the joke censors where that's the point.

Godel said:
So, if you don't count the food censoring, 57/58(98.2%) of the images on the first 3 pages was the actual censoring of genitalia

And? You have a piece of data and derived some number from it. That's nice, but what are the numbers intended to show?
(I'm not being mean here, it's just the damn lies and statistics thing).

In post #528973, she's clearly blocking the view her self, there's nothing "convenient" about it, her tail didn't happen to just get in the way, she put it there.

Nope. The artist did. "She" isn't real and as such can't "do" anything. Which I thing is very close to the root of the issue: "censoring" doesn't hinge on whether it's by objects "physically" in the image or just superimposed. What's important is whether they've been conceivably added/positioned in a certain way only to cover something that would naturally be visible given the image's composition. That's what makes convenient censoring convenient, as things inexplicably get the propensity to be right where they're needed to obstruct crucial parts, which they fail to have in the real life. It's the same as the multitude of blankets in Hollywood sex. It's not that blankets aren't real objects, or that they've been doctored in the way a mosaic bar would be. But somehow there are many more of them, draped right how they aren't in reality.

Also, I admit that I tl;dr the thread, but I want to say that I disagree very strongly with your definition of obstructed view. You give post #526325 as an example of obstructed view that isn't censored. I can't overstate how much I disagree with that notion. Moreover, you give post #474271 as an example of what's both obstructed and censored. It's clear as mud; please give a clear definition of the differences which make one censored but not the other.

I could probably accept obstructed view as an *additional* tag on top of convenient censoring, to differentiate between clothing articles defying the laws of physics and other objects placed just so as to block the view. But as it is, it's completely made up for the purpose of changing the usage we've had here for years, working fine. Again, I tl;dr the whole thread, but it seems that one motivating factor is to differentiate between "true" censorship on porn and all the other instances. This is, frankly, something I couldn't care less about; if something's only motivation is to make porn searches easier, in exchange for something else getting worse, I am and will be opposed to it. I don't care if your (or someone else's) boner gets killed by seeing something that isn't a pixelated vag○○○, I could even consider it a bonus to drive home the point that danbooru isn't a porn site. Boners have never been the driving force behind what we do here, and it ain't changing on my watch.

@Godel: > jxh2154 said: > That has, generally, been the...

2009-09-28T15:24:53-04:00

jxh2154 said:
That has, generally, been the usage on danbooru for about four years. There are gray areas but we've been using a broad definition.

I don't get you jxh, you unimplicate censor_hair->convenient_censoring because of the convo_censoring->censored due to the fact it was marking pics where breasts are covered as censored. However, many many with only convenient_censoring also have the same issue.

Anyways, I really don't think what you just said is the case, I just searched censored -convenient_censoring. After searching the first 3 pages, there were:
57 uses of bars/mosiacs to censor genitals
1 censoring of an object with a sexually suggestive depiction (bar)
2 censorings of food (which I'm tempted to seek out and retag all of said images with food_censoring.)

57 of 60 images in censored -convenient_censoring results yeilded censoring of genitalia.

Initially the search yeilded 64, 3 of which weren't tagged as convenient_censoring (which I tagged as obstructed_view, since they don't properly fit in convenient_censoring->censored), and 1 of which was improperly tagged as censored.

So, if you don't count the food censoring, 57/58(98.2%) of the images on the first 3 pages was the actual censoring of genitalia

Another thing about convenient_censoring: people don't know how to use it (and its definition is also somewhat stupid). In post #528973, she's clearly blocking the view her self, there's nothing "convenient" about it, her tail didn't happen to just get in the way, she put it there. However, post #531471 for example is "convenient" censoring (but again, this is the covering of breasts, should this be marked censored?).
Ok, so convenient_censoring isn't exactly defined to have a required "convenient" factor (how stupid?), and again, this stupid definition and "censoring" probems would so easily be fixed by changing them into obstructed_view

Also, about requesting a search by tag changes on Trac, someone already did. About a year ago, here . Added a comment to it as well

@jxh2154: > Godel said: Basically you're trying to argue...

2009-09-28T14:17:54-04:00

Godel said: Basically you're trying to argue that any and all forms of censorship should be tagged with censored, regardless if it's intentional, forced, or even unneeded?

That has, generally, been the usage on danbooru for about four years. There are gray areas but we've been using a broad definition.

@Godel: > Shinjidude said: > Censorship need not be a...

2009-09-28T14:06:36-04:00

Shinjidude said:
Censorship need not be a forced or compulsory action.

Basically you're trying to argue that any and all forms of censorship should be tagged with censored, regardless if it's intentional, forced, or even unneeded?

@Shinjidude: Censorship need not be a forced or compulsory...

2009-09-28T08:32:17-04:00

Censorship need not be a forced or compulsory action.

@jjj14: > Shinjidude said: > I don't have any qualms...

2009-09-28T08:14:20-04:00

Shinjidude said:
I don't have any qualms with using that definition for our usage, after all Danbooru doesn't follow dictionary definitions. But in general the obscurement of would-be bare breasts definitely is censorship.

I disagree, as the Japanese censor laws only apply to genitalia. I mean, I can see where you're coming from; like, for example post #443256, Sanae's breasts would have been bare if the artist hadn't drawn those little frogs on top of them. But on the other hand, the artist didn't draw the frogs as an alternative to blurring out the nipples.

@Shinjidude: I don't have any qualms with using that...

2009-09-28T04:50:04-04:00

I don't have any qualms with using that definition for our usage, after all Danbooru doesn't follow dictionary definitions. But in general the obscurement of would-be bare breasts definitely is censorship.

@Godel: > Fred1515 said: > It's censored (conveniently)...

2009-09-28T01:13:48-04:00

Fred1515 said:
It's censored (conveniently) if it's a ribbon but it's not if it's a band-aid? C'mon.

I've seen jxh2154 comment many times on how tagging should be made according to what we see in the pic. The circumstances of how the band-aid or the ribbon got there are irrelevant, they were drawn for the same purpose and effect. Stuff like post #531180 and post #469548 are too visually similar to be tagged so differently.

Both of those images would fit well into obstructed view while not quite warranting censored
Seriously, whatever censoring is shouldn't be the covering of breasts, because that's not how the tag has or is being used, and it shouldn't become it.

@Fred1515: > Fencedude said: > convenient censoring should...

2009-09-27T18:57:09-04:00

Fencedude said:
convenient censoring should be defined as a situation where the object doing the censoring was not "intentional" from the perspective of the image

jxh2154 said:
But we tag from the viewer's perspective, and *we* can't interact with any of those things. They are objects that obscure our view, and not in a regular, expected way like a shirt and pants, or being under bed sheets.

@KeliraTelian: I think convenient censoring should be defined...

2009-09-27T17:27:59-04:00

I think convenient censoring should be defined as a situation where the object doing the censoring was not "intentional" from the perspective of the image. ie, its a factor of the angle we're viewing things from. For example, in post #531471, she's not trying to hide her nipples, since from any other angle they'd be visible, they were "conveniently" censored by the artist.

I wouldn't count pasties as conveniently censored, so I don't think that bandages over the pussy should count either.

Edit: This is a somewhat meta concept, so we need to treat it that way.