Posted under General
Godel said:
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: ""
You probably couldn't see them because they were tags on deleted posts. I went and cleaned them up.
+1 to unimplicating censored from convenient_censoring.
-1 from me.
Godel said:
Are these really "censored"?
post #526325
post #524707
Yes. Especially the first one. The whole composition is such that you pretty much have to look in the centre and expect nudity, only to find a duck conveniently sitting there. It's so obvious and deliberate that it can only be called censorship. It doesn't, IMHO, matter whether it's due to stupid laws, or due to not wanting to be explicit, or just for humour value (a'la post #522251). It's still censorship. Particularly the last example. What possible value might a soda can have in this picture, composition-wise? None, it's only to transform an otherwise badass nude warrior guy into a joke.
葉月 said:
-1 from me.Yes. Especially the first one. The whole composition is such that you pretty much have to look in the centre and expect nudity, only to find a duck conveniently sitting there. It's so obvious and deliberate that it can only be called censorship. It doesn't, IMHO, matter whether it's due to stupid laws, or due to not wanting to be explicit, or just for humour value (a'la post #522251). It's still censorship. Particularly the last example. What possible value might a soda can have in this picture, composition-wise? None, it's only to transform an otherwise badass nude warrior guy into a joke.
As evazion pointed out, many people who search for -censor who simply wanted to get rid of mosiac'd or censor bar'd images may not want all of those extra 1100+ images with no mosiac or censor bar to be removed.
Also Slash pointed out, it's also simply a stylistic choice that made them choose to draw like that. They obviously didn't indent to show private parts from the start, or they would have, and then they would be covered with a censor bar or mosiac (most likely).
I'm by no means saying "It's not censorship," but I mean, it's not FORCED censorship. Isn't this more of what the censored wiki is trying to describe?
@jxh: You said there weren't that many _censor tags last night, and I cleaned a handfull up and now there's a very small number of them
For everyone else, look up a bit (5 posts above this) and tell me what you think of my plan to better classify such images.
I think this problem is mostly a case of differences in classification of what's what, as well as arbitrary definitions. My plan was aimed at to specifically aim at some things that aren't very specific and make them something more people can agree on "what is." I hope the plan is looked at and approved, since I spent a while thinking it up and writing it out...if not oh well.
+1
Think of it this way: if "convenient censoring" is censorship, then a lot of nude filters are nothing but uncensored versions of conveniently censored posts and there's nothing wrong with them (as there's nothing wrong with all the uncensored versions of pics that are currently on Danbooru)
That said, I believe that when most users think of censorship, they think of black bars and mosaic over the genitals and not hair over breasts or little ribbons covering the nipples, and perhaps that should also be taken into account.
Fred1515 said:
That said, I believe that when most users think of censorship, they think of black bars and mosaic over the genitals and not hair over breasts or little ribbons covering the nipples, and perhaps that should also be taken into account.
Well, yeah. Being an image board with Japanese images, and censoring of private parts being part of Japanese law, isn't that what you would expect to find if you search for "censored"?
Also, my plan (7 posts up) isn't getting a lot of views/comments (no comments in fact), should create a new topic for that?
+1 to this idea, for all the reasons already stated. I won't bore you with repeating what others have already said.
I'd go with a slight modification to Godel's suggestion:
Godel said:
Summary of Suggestion
- Slightly Redefine Censored
- Un-implicate convenient_censoring -> censored
- Implicate Novelty_censor->Censored
- Alias Convenient_censoring->Obstructed_view
- 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
No need to create a new topic, I'd say, but it might be better to pare the suggestion down to the summary.
sgcdonmai said:
+1 to this idea, for all the reasons already stated. I won't bore you with repeating what others have already said.I'd go with a slight modification to Godel's suggestion:
No need to create a new topic, I'd say, but it might be better to pare the suggestion down to the summary.
I thought it would be better to including reasons and explainations for all the actions in the summary list. Also that list is pretty much the same except I had your 2nd bullet crunched in with my 3rd bullet.
Log said:
^^ I'm fine with that if someone's going to babysit all the tags for 3-5 months. (That's how long it took for the cosplay changes to really catch on.)
I tried to make the the wiki for it explain properly exactly what it is and what it has to be to qualify, when the regular image taggers see it (they will eventually), they'll know when to use it
And yeah, I guess til all the taggers know about it, it will require a bit of baby sitting. I'd also be willing to do this..
Is there a way to do a recent changes searched based on the tags changed? For example I'd search for -obstructed_view and +obstructed_view. I'm not very good at using all danbooru features yet..
Godel said:
I thought it would be better to including reasons and explainations for all the actions in the summary list. Also that list is pretty much the same except I had your 2nd bullet crunched in with my 3rd bullet.
I know. The ordering is important to minimizing hassle, unless I missed my guess.
As for the other part... Maybe it's just me, but I prefer to get a general summary first, then receive exposition afterwards.
jxh2154 said:
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_censorship, 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.
Oh wow, I didn't even notice those were hearts. Thought they were some more sauce or something, haha. In that case I think that should be considered censored.
By the way, post #522251 shows that novelty censor need not imply censored. As 葉月 noted, it's obviously intended to hide the guy's genitalia, but it's also obviously supposed to actually be physically existent in front of him (no matter how absurd that is), unlike the pasted-on faces you find in much of the rest off the posts tagged "novelty censor".
Of course, we could easily enough adjust the definition of novelty censor to make it a subset of censored.
Updated
0xCCBA696 said:
Oh wow, I didn't even notice those were hearts. Thought they were some more sauce or something, haha. In that case I think that should be considered censored.By the way, post #522251 shows that novelty censor need not imply censored. As 葉月 noted, it's obviously intended to hide the guy's genitalia, but it's also obviously supposed to actually be physically existent in front of him (no matter how absurd that is), unlike the pasted-on faces you find in much of the rest off the posts tagged "novelty censor".
Of course, we could easily enough adjust the definition of novelty censor to make it a subset of censored.
Well if it was meant to exist physically within the image and isn't overlaid on the image, it should be obstructed view then
Edit, still looking for most comments on my "plan" about 10 posts back, look for the list with bullets.
I don't agree with the more narrow definition (which is the fundamental issue here) but if it's done in conjunction with the introduction of obstructed_view then that deals with some of the problems.
Makes sense to me, but then I favor the broader definition of censorship to begin with so of course I'd favor this. I dislike the nitpicking we're getting into about whether the item "physically exists within the image", though.
If we keep a tight reign on the use of obstructed_view.
Maybe.
Hair over breasts may not actually be hiding anything or may be hiding it only partially, though. for example, post #503833, post #515705. So I don't agree with either an alias or an implication.
jxh2154 said:
- Slightly Redefine Censored
- Un-implicate convenient_censoring -> censored
I don't agree with the more narrow definition (which is the fundamental issue here) but if it's done in conjunction with the introduction of obstructed_view then that deals with some of the problems.
I suggested the whole thing as a package, so yes, that would be done as well.
- Implicate Novelty_censor->Censored
Makes sense to me, but then I favor the broader definition of censorship to begin with so of course I'd favor this. I dislike the nitpicking we're getting into about whether the item "physically exists within the image", though.
I see what you mean, but novelty censors are more like things that have been thrown ontop of the picture rather than actually drawn into the picture, which is exactly what mosiac/black bars and such are. We've kinda just established the difference is that one has been thrown on top of the image, and one has been drawn into the image.
If we keep a tight reign on the use of obstructed_view.
I'll do this personally for a while, it would be a lot easier if there's some way to search recent tags changes by what tags were added/removed, is there a way to do that?
- Implicate censor_hair->obstructed_view
Maybe.
- Alias or Implicate hair_over_breasts->censor_hair, depending if details wished to be preserved
Hair over breasts may not actually be hiding anything or may be hiding it only partially, though. for example, post #503833, post #515705. So I don't agree with either an alias or an implication.
The first part seems to make sense, but the second part I actually discovered myself later: Oh crap, there may be fully clothed girls with hair covering their chest that makes them qualify for that, since there's not really any specification that the character must have no clothing on, or that that the hair must block the tits specifically. The last bullet can be scrapped I suppose, I'll go through those personally myself
I still think all this is going too far and that the most we should do is add a tag for traditional censors.
Whether in or on the image, it's still censorship and should be tagged as such. Clothing is exempt due to the fact that that's the point of clothing. Even when it's a rubber duck, hair, a can of soda, steam, or anything else an artist decides to use to conveniently censor parts of their picture it's hardly different than the pixel or black bar censors other than the fact that it flows a little better.
EDIT: It just dawned on me that by tagging traditional censors someone could search for all other varieties by blacklisting or -(whatever we call the tag) searches
I gotta agree with Suiseiseki here. censor_bar is a tag already in use, and we can use mosaic_censor or something similar for mosaics since the mosaic tag is used for mosaic images. Plus, if we do this then there's no need to redefine censored.
Suiseiseki and Algasir said what they said.
We're not really debating if it's a censor or not anymore. We're just trying to come up with a way to differentiate between these different styles of "censoring." It's not "not censoring," but still, honestly we're talking about pornographic (hentai anyways) images from Japan, why are we going to tag all this stuff to GENERAL censoring? When you search censored(though who would tbh, uncensored>all), are you looking for things that aren't porn or something?
Also, are you suggesting to have a new tag, mosaic_censor, and more properly use censor_bar? I don't think anyone wants to go through the twenty-five thousand images to mark them.
I still suspect that if this tag was called obstructed_view in the first place, it wouldn't have been implicated to censored. Convenient_censoring->Censored doesn't really seem like it would have an problem being an implication...until you look at them and realise what they are.
And sorry if this seems like flaming, I'm not trying to if that's what it appears like/is
Updated
Godel said:
We're not really debating if it's a censor or not anymore. We're just trying to come up with a way to differentiate between these different styles of "censoring." It's not "not censoring," but still, honestly we're talking about pornographic (hentai anyways) images from Japan, why are we going to tag all this stuff to GENERAL censoring? When you search censored(though who would tbh, uncensored>all), are you looking for things that aren't porn or something?
I'm arguing that censored images of any variety should be tagged as such, not whether the images are censored or not. Also, marking all of them as censored allows a user to search for all or no censoring.
Godel said:
Also, are you suggesting to have a new tag, mosaic_censor, and more properly use censor_bar? I don't think anyone wants to go through the twenty-five thousand images to mark them.
A one time effort on behalf of the active community will go much faster and smoother than attempting to get the general populace to conform to a whole new system. You yourself mentioned willingness to monitor incoming posts and conform them to this idea of yours, which would take FAR more effort.
Godel said:
I still suspect that if this tag was called obstructed_view in the first place, it wouldn't have been implicated to censored. Convenient_censoring->Censored doesn't really seem like it would have an problem being an implication...until you look at them and realise what they are.
They are censored images. Convenient censoring likely spawned from edits made for television airing, which typically consist of steam or horribly convenient happenstance.
Godel said:
And sorry if this seems like flaming, I'm not trying to if that's what it appears like/is
Doesn't feel like flaming to me, just stating your side of the argument.
Suiseiseki said:
A one time effort on behalf of the active community will go much faster and smoother than attempting to get the general populace to conform to a whole new system. You yourself mentioned willingness to monitor incoming posts and conform them to this idea of yours, which would take FAR more effort.
Isn't a way to search recent edits based on the tag edited? If not, how come? :o
They are censored images. Convenient censoring likely spawned from edits made for television airing, which typically consist of steam or horribly convenient happenstance.
But what about the word "censoring". it could have been "covering" and been the same thing, and probably end up without the implication. As I've said, that was probably only implicated becase of the word "censored" being there.
Doesn't feel like flaming to me, just stating your side of the argument.
K cool
On a side note, only people with privelaged+ would be able to run through and retag all of the images, since you'd have to search for "censored -mosiac_censor -censor_bar", of course this would also bring up over a thousand extra images without either because of the problem I've been trying to fix here from the start
Edit: I just searched the implications and found convenient_censor -> censored, the reason was "Everything in the predicate is censored"
What's that mean? Is that talking about mathmatical prepositional functions? So like convenient_censoring must be censored because it has the word censoring in it? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
Updated
Suiseiseki said:
They are censored images. Convenient censoring likely spawned from edits made for television airing, which typically consist of steam or horribly convenient happenstance.
True, that's probably how it came to be, but they aren't censored images. They were made this way in order to avoid being censored.
