Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
The tag implication #38456 smiling_at_viewer -> looking_at_viewer has been rejected.
Reason: A character smiling at the viewer must also be looking at the viewer.
EDIT: The tag implication smiling_at_viewer -> looking_at_viewer (forum #308429) has been rejected by @Millcore.
Updated by auto moderator
kemonophonic said:
What if their eyes are closed?
kemonophonic said:
What if their eyes are closed?
I would say they’re just smiling, then, not specifically smiling at the viewer. If someone is smiling with their eyes closed, and you happen to stand in front them, they’re not necessarily smiling at you.
scaliespe said:
I would say they’re just smiling, then, not specifically smiling at the viewer. If someone is smiling with their eyes closed, and you happen to stand in front them, they’re not necessarily smiling at you.
They would be smiling in the viewer's direction, so they would be smiling at the viewer. The vast majority of the time, the "viewer" in looking_at_viewer isn't an actual visible character, it just means they're looking in the direction of the "camera", so whether or not they're purposely smiling at the viewer or just in the direction the viewer happens to be, is an irrelevant distinction.
post #2692658
is smiling at the viewer without looking at the viewer, regardless of whether the viewer is an unseen character they're intending to smile at or not.
The tag implication smiling_at_viewer -> looking_at_viewer (forum #308429) has been rejected by @Millcore.
