Tag Unimplication: Convenient_censoring -> Censored

First of all, I apologize for the wall of text and any controversys/disagreements this may cause. Hopefully my explaination is logical, and no, I'm not posting this solely to irritate people on purpose, it's a legitimate concern to help improve Danbooru quality.

So, I ran into this problem when I was going through and cleaning some tags up, I noticed a pic was tagged with censored when there was nothing to censor. So I tried to remove it and it kept comming back, so I figured out which tag it was implicated with.

Many "conveniently censored" images don't actually have a censor persay. The convenient_censoring wiki says, "Censorship using several devices within a scene."
Does this mean images that have convenient_censoring should have censored?
Not really, because in most cases, they weren't drawn to have parts that need censoring, therefor they don't need to be censored. The same applies to clothes, which censor an otherwise naked character.
So this brings up what exactly is censoring in regards to the images on Danbooru. The censored wiki talks about how censoring involves using bluring/bars and such to vaginas/penises/etc. so that they comply with Japanese laws. In other words, specifically the censoring the objects in question. Why would you call something censored when the object in question isn't visible at all?
Bottom Line: It is censorship in a way, but the censored wiki clearly defines the censored TAG as the censoring of the objects in question because they are present and visible(though not neccissarily clearly visible). Otherwise, every image would be tagged with censored or uncensored.

Are these really "censored"?
post #526325
post #524707
post #522495
I could easily find several hundred more too, since most of the whole tag doesn't really need to be with censored.

And yes, I realised I could have probably said the same thing with a lot less explaination and still be understood but I just wanted to make sure that I covered everything.

You know, that actually makes sense. +1.

But for the record, it's "explanation", not "explaination", and "per se", not "persay". Read more books.

It depends on the interpretation of censored. You're mostly talking about the classic hcg/eromanga type of censorship where the censored object *would* be completely visible except for mosaic, black box, etc. That is, of course, the most obvious definition and the most common use here.

I guess what you're taking issue with is the degree of interpretation needed to claim that e.g. post #526325 is censored. There *aren't any visible genitals in the image, that is true. Look all you want, as long as you want, and you will never find genitals. A opposed to, I suppose, post #525769, where genitals were clearly obscured by a technique that isn't part of the composition of the image itself. The bath toy (or post #522495's censor_hair or post #524707's scarf) is a definite part of the image, while the mosaic isn't, not in the same sense. Is that an accurate representation of the distinction you're making?

If so, I completely understand what you're saying, and think your distinction is real and valid. However where I diverge, I guess, is in thinking that "censorship" doesn't need to be limited to the mosaic/bar/etc sense. For example, where would novelty_censor fall? Would post #509410 be censorship? The actual intent, I think, is much like applying a black box over the area in question. But the actual visual effect is little different from the toy in post #526325.

And where is the line drawn between that and censor_hair? I get what you're saying that if this is taken to extremes, technically any image of a clothed character is censored, because they're naked underneath those clothes. Thus it comes down to common sense and a subjective interpretation as to whether an image's artistic intent is, on a basic level, explicit enough that the coverage of private areas could constitute censorship. And we try not to be too subjective in our tagging.

Personally, I think that while it's subjective, it's a distinction we've been making pretty successfully and reasonably. So I don't think I'd want to unimplicate these tags.

0xCCBA696 said:
But for the record, it's "explanation", not "explaination", and "per se", not "persay". Read more books.

Haha, it's been a long day for me
I knew explanation, that was a simple typo, didn't know about per se though hehe

jxh2154 said:
*aimed reply without adding 2000 extra characters to this page*

I think the distinction I was making (after looking over it) was between physical barriers like clothing, hair, and the rubber duck versus objects that have been drawn there (yeah I know everything is drawn <_<)
In post #509410, that note G Clef symbol probably isn't drawn on a piece of paper that is physically in the picture, it has been added to obscure the view and the characters can't interact with it/know it's there. Censor bars/mosaiacs don't physically exist in the image either, I guess most cases of novelty_censor would in fact belong with censored.
Anyways here's just some more thoughts on it

IMO pretty much everything under convenient censoring fails to merit the description "censored". A relatively objective definition would be this: is the object constituting the "censoring" a component of the scene depicted in the image? If so, then it is not censored. If not, then it is a deliberate addition to the post for the primary reason of hiding part of what the image would otherwise show; this we can call censored.

Going through the posts jxh2154 mentioned: post #526325 is not censored. post #525769 is censored. post #522495 is not censored. post #524707 is not censored. post #509410 is censored.

Of course, it's not always as easy to decide this. As you said, novelty censors seem to blur the line a bit. But I think that most of them fall to one side or another. post #509410 has a portion of Ui's body covered by a treble clef. If there had been an entire musical staff with a melody line or something, or even just a bunch of other notes dancing around, it might have been plausible that this was part of the scene depicted by the image, even though in real life music is not tangible and visible. As it is, though, I think it's clear that the treble clef is a foreign element being used as a censor.

To give an example of a novelty censor that I don't consider censorship, the latest post with that tag is post #523427. post #522251 for example is a bit iffier. I'd tend to consider that not censorship either. But pretty much anything with the laughing man or kaneda shoutarou (which the wiki mentions as the archetypal examples of a novelty censor) would be censored, in my opinion.

Godel said: I think the distinction I was making (after looking over it) was between physical barriers like clothing, hair, and the rubber duck versus objects that have been drawn there (yeah I know everything is drawn <_<)

Right, I get this distinction, and agree. On the other hand, I'm always trying to think about the visual definition of a tag. It's indeed likely that the clef symbol on Ui is nothing that she could interact with, same as a mosaic, while the rubber duck is.

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. So what I'm wondering about is if there's a very large difference for the viewer between the types of censorship.

I'm sure some people think that bathsteam is consindered a censor on top of the obvious bar/mosiac censors, while others think only the latter as censors. Some posts may be more difficult to discern (post #523427)

To be honest, a convinient_censoring just feels like object_in_the_way or obstructed_view to me, and not really censoring. This is why I felt it should be unimplicated

0xCCBA696 said: To give an example of a novelty censor that I don't consider censorship, the latest post with that tag is post #523427.

Well, imagine if those three hearts were black rather than orange/red. What would distinguish that from the thin black lines (often placed in the same location) that are so common in explicit doujinshi and other art? It's pointless_censroship, to be sure, but the effect is the same.

Again, visually, I feel like this is more a difference between standard and stylistic censorship than censored and not censored.

Godel said: To be honest, a convinient_censoring just feels like object_in_the_way or obstructed_view to me, and not really censoring. This is why I felt it should be unimplicated.

Right, I think what I'm saying is that for the viewer, an "object in the way" is providing very much the same effect as censorship. "I should be seeing genitals, but something is blocking it!"

It's not impossible - though we've established that it can be quite difficult at times - to create a new tag to make a distinction between "object in the image" obstruction and "edit to the image" obstruction. I won't stop anyone if they want to do that, but I'm not convinced it's visually required. It's also going to clash semantically with the *_censor* style tag names and I think it would be really unnecessary to go changing those tags now.

I think I brought up an interesting point with convinient_censoring actually simply being object_in_the_way

But then again, censorship is a pretty large topic with many different opposing viewpoints, so again it's very debatable what censorship is and what's not censorship.

Anyways, I think I've said enough of this topic, and even though nothing has been done, at least it's been brought into the light :)

jxh2154 said:
Right, I think what I'm saying is that for the viewer, an "object in the way" is providing very much the same effect as censorship. "I should be seeing genitals, but something is blocking it!"

It's not impossible - though we've established that it can be quite difficult at times - to create a new tag to make a distinction between "object in the image" obstruction and "edit to the image" obstruction. I won't stop anyone if they want to do that, but I'm not convinced it's visually required.

Alright, I'm not sure I'm up for the task because this would require looking at and changing the tags for currently over 1100. Also, if someone was to do that, they would need to be unimplicated anyways

Godel said: Anyways, I think I've said enough of this topic, and even though nothing has been done, at least it's been brought into the light :)

Well, the fact that I'm not yet convinced doesn't mean we have to stop talking about it. You have good arguments as well and I'm certainly not opposed to making changes, either the ones you propose or some third option. I'd rather leave the conversation open for now so others can comment - after all it's only been an hour since your first post. Something as significant as changing out usage of censored should get more input.

I don't think it's necessarily wrong to say that things drawn in such a way that an object obscures what would otherwise be censored in a contrived way is censorship.

Take the example of the Sistine Chapel where the original work was later censored by painting clothes over nude subjects. I think it's hard to not call that censorship, yet it makes use of painting itself.

Japanese censorship laws being what they are, I'm sure most of these contrived examples are designed specifically with censorship in mind, but to be done in such a way to obviate the need for black bars or mosaics. It's still mindful censorship nonetheless.

Fact is that the images were censored by drawing them with objects/hair/etc in specific locations. I agree that it seems odd to have such an image marked as censored, but it IS censored. Clothing does not also have this effect as it is completely expected to be where it is.

Perhaps we should change censored to be an umbrella term, and use something else for black bars and pixelation?

EDIT: I'm basically parroting Shinjidude... Takes me forever to come up with the words I want.

Suiseiseki said:
Fact is that the images were censored by drawing them with objects/hair/etc in specific locations. I agree that it seems odd to have such an image marked as censored, but it IS censored. Clothing does not also have this effect as it is completely expected to be where it is.

Perhaps we should change censored to be an umbrella term, and use something else for black bars and pixelation?

EDIT: I'm basically parroting Shinjidude... Takes me forever to come up with the words I want.

I think I agree with you're last point, possibly

@Shinji
Well if you look at something like convenient_censoring cap, that shows clips of anime that weren't meant to have sexual parts showing in the first place, but then again, you said a large amount of them were designed with the censor laws in place, and I guess that's possibly true

I think I'm somewhat in agreement with 0xCCBA696's opinion on the matter. For me if the censorship is done with objects that exist within the context of the image, it shouldn't be considered "censored." Images where it is something that is overlaid on top of the image should be considered "censored."

I think trying to apply the censored tag to depictions that are not overlays on top of the image is extending the tags reach too far and into too subjective an area.

Shinjidude said:
Japanese censorship laws being what they are, I'm sure most of these contrived examples are designed specifically with censorship in mind, but to be done in such a way to obviate the need for black bars or mosaics. It's still mindful censorship nonetheless.

That certainly happens sometimes, but I highly doubt it's true all (or even most) of the time. It's quite possible an artist would conveniently hide the naughty bits because he wants to tantalize the viewer, or maybe he just doesn't want to be totally explicit. That's the difference between convenient_censoring and censored: so-called convenient 'censorship' can be an intentional artistic choice, but true censorship is by definition never a choice, it is coerced by outside forces. We can assume that every censored image would be uncensored if the artist had a choice, but we can't necessarily assume the same about all convenient_censoring images.

evazion said: That's the difference between convenient_censoring and censored: so-called convenient 'censorship' can be an intentional artistic choice, but true censorship is by definition never a choice, it is coerced by outside forces.

There's certainly a difference, but the question is if it's relevant, visually. And whether or not we want censored to work as an umbrella tag for all the kinds of intentionally obstructed views of private parts. Which is how we've used it so far.

NWF_Renim said:
I think I'm somewhat in agreement with 0xCCBA696's opinion on the matter. For me if the censorship is done with objects that exist within the context of the image, it shouldn't be considered "censored." Images where it is something that is overlaid on top of the image should be considered "censored."

I think trying to apply the censored tag to depictions that are not overlays on top of the image is extending the tags reach too far and into too subjective an area.

I definitely agree. Imo, the only reason convenient_censoring was implicated to censoring was because of that word, CENSOR. Below I've tried to submit a solution that can hopefully fix (if approved) everything.

Also, I noticed the implication of hair_censoring -> convenient_censoring -> censored (done tonight actually) has caused a very large number of images that don't need censor tag to have it.

I'm trying to work on a solution, but I won't take action unless given permission first:
Redefine censored in the wiki as something on the picture, not something IN the picture, or as you said, overlaid on top of the image, while also specifying that images with intra-image censors/convers shouldn't be marked with it.

This would mean novelty_censor still fall into censored because those have things pasted on the image.

Alias convenient_censoring to Obstructed_View (which I just wrote the wiki for, check it out), and Implicate censor_hair to it.

Novelty_Censor should be implicated to censored as novelty_censors have been defined to something overlaying the image, the same as regular censors.

Typically (unless there's a random exception here and there), obstructed_view won't have censored and novelty_censor tags.

Also, I noticed quite a few different things for censor_hair.
The following should be aliased or implicated(to preserve details) to censor_hair, and then it would be implicated to obstructed_view: hair_over_breasts, and actually that's all I found, though I did clean up a good amount of useless *hair* tags.

Finally, to top it off, someone (I would help too of course) would have to recheck all of the newly tagged images for

Summary of Suggestion

• Slightly Redefine Censored
• Implicate Novelty_censor->Censored
• Alias Convenient_censoring->Obstructed_view, also this may or maynot require the Unimplication of convenient_censoring->censored, not sure what happens when an implicated tag is aliased.
• Implicate censor_hair->obstructed_view
• Alias or Implicate hair_over_breasts->censor_hair, depending if details wished to be preserved
• Fine comb newly tagged images

Misc/random censor tags that should be deleted, I already went through and changed whichever ones I could myself, these are what's left. If they're here, I couldn't see them:
donkey_censor: same as novelty_censor
censor_tail: will be covered in obstructed_view and there's not many anyways
over-censored: Says 1+ post(s) but I can't see it
llama_censored_hentai: ""
bad_uncensor_job: ""
censorship: ""

Edit: I hope this is approved cuz I spent a lot of time thinking it up, and it makes sense, too. :)

Of course doing this all would provide for more specific tags, which I believe is a good thing. Censored is, as jxh described, an umbrella tag, but that's pretty obscure. Most things should try to have a more specific definition

And lastly, yes, I am willing to go fine comb the newly tagged images, that is if this plan is approved and those tags implicated/aliased

jxh2154 said:
There's certainly a difference, but the question is if it's relevant, visually. And whether or not we want censored to work as an umbrella tag for all the kinds of intentionally obstructed views of private parts. Which is how we've used it so far.

Well, I think it's relevant because the manner in which something is obscured makes a difference. I find mosaics and black bars annoying (as I'm sure everyone does), but I have no problem when something is obscured by conveniently placed hair (or whatever). However, this implication means that if I add -censored to my searches to filter out mosaic'd images then I will miss posts I may be interested in.

I agree that this implication is unfortunate. "Convenient censorship" is self-imposed, whereas censorship is involuntary. Even in an environment where there is no censorship (ie. outside of Japan), artists draw images with convenient censorship, it's a stylistic choice. Therefore the two are not the same and from a practical standpoint, they are different things to search for as well.

(Also, the only reason I personally am okay with de-censored edits on Danbooru is because I feel censorship is an outside influence, and de-censoring it is basically a restorative process, and therefore exempt from the "nude filter ban".)

EDIT: Seems like I basically reiterated evazion's argument, so uh... +1?