Topic: Tag to blacklist these things

As you probably all know, the artist Bikomation does this thing where he posts a ridiculously censored image and posts the patreon uncensored version a few months later. I like his art, but like some other users, became annoyed by the censored ads for his patreon.

I am not starting a debate on this, whatever you think it's good or bad. I am only looking for a way to blacklist this while keeping his full releases not hidden.

I firstly tried to go with "censored advertisement". But apparently, according to some user and some mods too (but not all of them?) It doesn't apply in this situation and my tags are getting removed.
I also tried "bikomation censored" (since he is literally the only artist that does that) but the censor tag is still getting removed since some of his censors are so clever (fake underwear on top of genitals like #2485493 or #2659815) that isn't even considered as censor or even convenient censor anymore...

So... after all this wall of text, what I'm looking for is a way to blacklist his censored ads that all of the others annoyed users can use that will fit all his works and that won't result in a tag wars like "full_on_patreon" or "uncensored_on_patreon" I don't know. Anything...

Well, I sent you this in our DM conversation, but you apparently quit or blocked me, so it was not delivered.

You can filter out posts like that by adding bikomation convenient_censorship to your blacklist.

What you should not do is engage in edit wars over the presence of the advertisement tag on all those posts.

bitwolfy said:
You can filter out posts like that by adding bikomation convenient_censorship to your blacklist.

Shouldn't convenient_censorship imply censorship? Something has to be censored for it to be done conveniently, after all. Looks like someone asked this a while back with only one dissenting opinion.

"full_on_patreon" or "uncensored_on_patreon" I don't know. Anything...

Since we have alternate_version_at_source, it might make sense to have an alternate_version_behind_paywall, but the downside would be that every time a "full version" is released publicly, this tag on the "censored" version would need to be removed manually. Realistically, the censored and uncensored versions' uploaders may be different people, so the uncensored version's uploader wouldn't even know to remove the tag from the censored version, and the tag would likely remain indefinitely... EDIT: I'm an idiot. While that is true, I just realized that is also true for alternate_version_at_source

As for your blacklist, as bitwolfy said, you can use bikomation convenient_censorship

that isn't even considered as censor or even convenient censor anymore...

Would bikomation bulge rating:q work? Or bikomation rating:q? Edit: Nevermind, those wouldn't work, since the posts are rating:e.

watsit said:
Shouldn't convenient_censorship imply censorship? Something has to be censored for it to be done conveniently, after all. Looks like someone asked this a while back with only one dissenting opinion.

Yeah, it should. Every other type of censorship does - ineffective_censorship, creative_censorship, and mosaic_censorship.
The dissenting opinion may have made sense before those implications were made - but now the ship has already sailed on that.

However, I am not sure if I agree with posts like these being tagged as convenient_censorship:

post #2126317 post #2625024 post #2647853

These are the posts that K9not decided to tag as "advertisements", by the way, which is what prompted my original comment.

Convenient censorship requires some object to block off the "interesting parts". I don't think that just wearing clothing qualifies.

bitwolfy said:
However, I am not sure if I agree with posts like these being tagged as convenient_censorship:

post #2126317 post #2625024 post #2647853

I might agree with you on the first one since that looks like normal cunnilingus. Remove the head to see the pussy, and there isn't any cunnilingus happening anymore. To say the pussy is censored there is like saying a penis is censored because it's someone's ass. The only tell is Juno's fingers seem to be moving independently over Haru's head instead of with it, but it otherwise just looks like partially clothed sex. The third... maybe. Masturbating in clothes is something people do, and it's a kink for some. Though her crotch is also the obvious focus with the shorts obscuring the view. Could go either way, I suppose. But the second seems too obvious to be focusing on the apparent sex that's being obstructed with an unconvincing veneer of dry humping; that actually looks painful given how much she should be pushing down on his penis, yet they're acting like the clothes aren't there.

watsit said: ...

Perhaps, I should have worded my message better.
I do not disagree that these posts have been censored. Rather, I am saying that this does not fall under convenient_censorship, since I do not believe that worn clothing qualifies as "an item or body part in the foreground just "happens" to be obscuring the view of more explicit parts" (emphasis on the "happens"). Since wearing clothing is something that people do on the regular basis.

I would say that another tag should be used here, although I am not entirely certain what. The nude_edit tag exists - perhaps, this calls for the creation of an opposite tag, something like clothed_edit?

bitwolfy said:
I do not disagree that these posts have been censored. Rather, I am saying that this does not fall under convenient_censorship, since I do not believe that worn clothing qualifies as "an item or body part in the foreground just "happens" to be obscuring the view of more explicit parts" (emphasis on the "happens"). Since wearing clothing is something that people do on the regular basis.

I understand, and agree that simply wearing clothes isn't grounds for convenient_censorship. But what I was getting at is that, while clothes don't inherently mean it's conveniently censored, when the focus is on body parts that happen to be obstructed by clothing, then it is (just as if it was obstructed by a rock, or a bush). It's the "focus is on body parts that have been obstructed" part that makes something censored, where clothing is a possible means it was accomplished. With your first example, I wouldn't say Juno's breasts or Haru's crotch are the focus, so it's hard to justify calling them censored, and to say Juno's crotch is censored from Haru's head is like saying post #2696486 is censored. As such, while there may be an alternate solo-masturbation and fully-nude version, it's hard to say that example is censored instead of just being an alternate version. For the third example, I could see the argument either way, either her masturbation and crotch is the focus that the clothing is obstructing, or the masturbation-in-clothes is the focus and we can see that clearly. But for the second example, their crotches and sex is the obvious focus, but it's obstructed by clothes they happen to have (in a poor attempt to make it look like dry humping).

bitwolfy said:
Perhaps, another tag should be used here, although I am not entirely certain what. The nude_edit tag exists - perhaps, this calls for the creation of an opposite tag, something like clothed_edit?

Maybe, though *edit tags are usually for third-party unofficial changes (nude_edit says "If the nude version of a picture was made by the same artist it is NOT considered a nude edit", and edit says "A blanket term for any image that has been edited by someone other than the original artist"), so clothed_edit wouldn't apply to official releases. Clothed would be the typical tag for an official clothed variation of an image, but that applies to being partially clothed with the focused bits on full display too.

I honestly don't think there can be a tag that would catch these things, considering images like post #2126317 can't realistically be tagged as convenient_censorship/censored and it's just one of more variations. Having a tag to indicate an image is a clothed version and that other versions exist with less/no clothing feels like a slippery slope (besides violating TWYS by using knowledge of other images, how many other variation types should get a tag? cum/no-cum? male/female? SFW/NSFW? text/no-text?).

watsit said:
I understand, and agree that simply wearing clothes isn't grounds for convenient_censorship. But what I was getting at is that, while clothes don't inherently mean it's conveniently censored, when the focus is on body parts that happen to be obstructed by clothing, then it is (just as if it was obstructed by a rock, or a bush). It's the "focus is on body parts that have been obstructed" part that makes something censored, where clothing is a possible means it was accomplished. With your first example, I wouldn't say Juno's breasts or Haru's crotch are the focus, so it's hard to justify calling them censored, and to say Juno's crotch is censored from Haru's head is like saying post #2696486 is censored. As such, while there may be an alternate solo-masturbation and fully-nude version, it's hard to say that example is censored instead of just being an alternate version. For the third example, I could see the argument either way, either her masturbation and crotch is the focus that the clothing is obstructing, or the masturbation-in-clothes is the focus and we can see that clearly. But for the second example, their crotches and sex is the obvious focus, but it's obstructed by clothes they happen to have (in a poor attempt to make it look like dry humping).

Maybe, though *edit tags are usually for third-party unofficial changes (nude_edit says "If the nude version of a picture was made by the same artist it is NOT considered a nude edit", and edit says "A blanket term for any image that has been edited by someone other than the original artist"), so clothed_edit wouldn't apply to official releases. Clothed would be the typical tag for an official clothed variation of an image, but that applies to being partially clothed with the focused bits on full display too.

I honestly don't think there can be a tag that would catch these things, considering images like post #2126317 can't realistically be tagged as convenient_censorship/censored and it's just one of more variations. Having a tag to indicate an image is a clothed version and that other versions exist with less/no clothing feels like a slippery slope (besides violating TWYS by using knowledge of other images, how many other variation types should get a tag? cum/no-cum? male/female? SFW/NSFW? text/no-text?).

Like I said. No tag to blacklist.if its just a generic clothe on top, it wouldnt be censored without the context. So it is still flawed since it is censot theorically since the full version is paywalled. Cant tag this ad with the tag advertisement either, it goes nowhere. Because of that abused
Loophole, people will keep complaining since you cant blacklist it if censored tag doesnt belong