Implicating identity_censor -> censored.

Reason: Would it technically count?

It's not the kind of censoring that censored refers to, so I don't like that implication.

IMHO it is.

The censored wiki said:
The result of a technique used to prevent the viewing of sexual parts, usually vaginas, penises and dildos but occasionally nipples.

So no, probably not a good idea.

The wiki isn't necessarily infallible and immutable. I don't think limiting the scope like this is a good idea.

Regardless of whether the current monikers stay as they are, I think we need a tag with the same definition as the current censored tag. People with censored blacklisted (which is one of the main ways people interact with the censored tag, I'd guess) don't want to blacklist everything in identity_censor as well.

I suppose we could mass edit censored to porn_censor, then implicate porn_censor and identity_censor to censor, but I don't see much of a reason to bother.

-1 to the implication and -1 to moving tags around.

glasnost said:
People with censored blacklisted (which is one of the main ways people interact with the censored tag, I'd guess) don't want to blacklist everything in identity_censor as well.

Then they're already blacklisting posts like post #509794, post #531362, post #632436 and post #552186, along with the entire of convenient censoring.
I think the tag is already unusable for the purpose you describe.

I'm also against this implication, so -1.

I think we need to draw a line between and separate censoring of sexual material (genitals, and such) and the censoring of non-sexual material. We are already doing this with our line between loli/shota and child by our definitions, so doing this with censorship wouldn't be unreasonable. The censoring of sexual material generally has a vastly different meaning to the image than censorship of anything else.

zatchii said:
I think the tag is already unusable for the purpose you describe.

Hm. Well, it shouldn't be. That means its only use is as a negative part of a tag search. (Unless there are people out there with mosaic fetishes, I guess.)

Ordinarily, I'd still argue against the implication to avoid polluting censored any further, but at >1500 pages, cleaning it up is kind of a lost cause anyway.

On a related note, we need a tag for posts like post #597326 and some of the posts zatchii mentioned. They're pretty different from porn censors, and I don't think any of our current tags cover them properly.

NWF_Renim said:
I think we need to draw a line between and separate censoring of sexual material (genitals, and such) and the censoring of non-sexual material.

I don't see why'd need to do that with the proposed implication scheme. Most of "fake censors" like post #597326 are an obvious reference and play on the practice of censoring porn, so saying they're different is obviously wrong. (Btw, we don't really have a tag for that kind of censoring. What about, well, fake_censor?). While I can agree that trying to overload the censored tag as it stands today would be a bad idea, opposing it in relation to the proposal to split out different meanings is just inexplicable to me.

Edit: oh, I just noticed glasnost referenced the same picture. It's a coincidence.

葉月 said:
While I can agree that trying to overload the censored tag as it stands today would be a bad idea, opposing it in relation to the proposal to split out different meanings is just inexplicable to me.

The explanation is that it's supposed that many users blacklist the tag censored out of some religious opposition to seeing genitals reduced to blurry pixels, and it is a disservice to these people to additionally shield them from clever or purely humorous censorship, not just specifically from the mosaics or huge black bars they don't want getting in the way of their illustrated vaginas.

I never understood the disgust with censorship myself when most 'uncensored' pictures in truth just have the genitals poorly redrawn by a third party, but I think it's a valid enough point.

葉月 said:
(Btw, we don't really have a tag for that kind of censoring. What about, well, fake_censor?).

I created unnecessary_censorship for such purposes, but feel free to tweak it to fit as necessary.

7HS said:
I never understood the disgust with censorship myself when most 'uncensored' pictures in truth just have the genitals poorly redrawn by a third party, but I think it's a valid enough point.

No it's not, because that will get it's own tag.

sgcdonmai said:
I created unnecessary_censorship for such purposes, but feel free to tweak it to fit as necessary.

I don't think it's sending the right message. It sounds more like pointless_censoring than playing with the concept.

pointless_censoring was the first thing to come to mind when I read that tag as well.

Hm. I see your point; most probably wouldn't think of there being a difference between "pointless" and "unnecessary" at a glance.

So, any major objections to fake_censor?

None that I can think of.

葉月 said:
No it's not, because that will get it's own tag.

Will convenient censoring be re-aliased to the new tag then? It's not the same thing as the obvious parodies, but nor is it the same thing as mosiacing out genitalia.

7HS said:
Will convenient censoring be re-aliased to the new tag then? It's not the same thing as the obvious parodies, but nor is it the same thing as mosiacing out genitalia.

You mean re-implicated? I guess that makes sense.

So... someone summarize for me exactly what this thread decided and what aliases or implications are needed. Censorship-related threads always get so confusing.

Basically, censored will be the ancestor of all censorship tags.

Implication: identity_censor -> censored
Implication: fake_censor -> censored
Alias: unnecessary_censorship -> fake_censor

And we need a new tag strictly for non-creative censorship of genitals in porn, i.e. something that those people vehemently opposed to censored porn can blacklist. Supposing that tag is porn_censor, we'll need:

Implication: porn_censor -> censored

And maybe:

Implication: convenient_censoring -> porn_censor

But some more input on whether or not porn_censor is a good name for this tag wouldn't be a bad idea.

Edit: Oh, and somebody needs to fix all of the wikis.

Well as much as I do want someway to divide pornographic censoring from non-pornogrpahic censoring, I think just because of the nature of censoring that a porn_censor will completely dominate all other types that would fall under censored. There are already 30k+ images under censored rating:e, to make a tag specifically for that is asking too much imo.

It'd be significantly easier to have a tag for things that aren't pornographic censoring, but that then achieves nothing for having a tag to black list.

Why don't we use something like rating_censor rather than porn_censor. It's less crass, and I'd think more accurate, since technically non-porn could be censored to prevent obscenity issues (which after all is the original root of the ubiquitous ero censorship).

Think of it this way, if American Funniest Home Videos smacks a smiley face over some fat guy's ass as he falls from a roof, it's the basically same idea as what we're describing, but it's censoring to keep a PG rating, not censoring porn.

Another way, convenient bath steam on a mainstream anime, is serving the same function, but again preserving a can-show-it-on-tv rating rather than censoring "porn". Usually even when they uncensor it for the OVA, most wouldn't consider that uncensored work "porn".

But the pixelation is specifically used in porn. The creators have no qualms about showing genital action, it's the point of what they make, they're just required legally to obscure it, so they do. It doesn't buy them a different rating. This is qualitatively different than all other kinds of convenient censorship. This is also why I definitely don't agree with the suggestion to implicate convenient_censoring → porn_censor, being able to blacklist mosaics without skipping other posts was the idea behind splitting them in the first place.

If mosaics are the issue, than the blacklist should be mosaic. I was under the impression that the standard black bars censorship was also included.

Also I disagree that pixelization over genitalia is specific to porn. You see all three (mosaic, black bar, and funny graphic) on TV shows that are censoring decidedly not-porn.

I do agree with you on the convenient_censorship implication by the way. The only reason I didn't bring it up above, is because it also feels sort of weird to add yet another level to this hierarchy that splits into two types of "naughty-bits" censorship.

I personally can't see the blacklist argument as being all that compelling. There are so many kinds and degrees of censorship that, honestly, anyone who would blacklist censorship generally is just going to have to live with missing some posts. It's a danger anyone who blacklists anything needs to recognize. besides, "censored rating:e" as the blacklist would already filter out most of the false hits.

porn_censor seems unnecessary to me, for the reasons NWF stated.

The following seem to be okay though, so done:
Implication: identity_censor -> censored
Implication: fake_censor -> censored
Alias: unnecessary_censorship -> fake_censor

I went ahead and tagged a bunch of images fake_censor, to see what turned up.
The main categories seemed to be gore, bad food, sexually suggestive, and some censored brands.

Not sure what of it belongs under the tag, I just took a "not porn censor" approach.