Tag Unimplication: Convenient_censoring -> Censored

Fred1515 said:
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.

Technically that's censorship though. I guess we should tag it with censored tag? Hell no!

Godel said:
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...

"mathmatical prepositional functions"? Dude, your nick is Godel, I'd have expected more from you rofl

A logical implication, written as P ==> Q (or $P\implies Q$ for the LaTeX-minded), posits in some sense a causal relationship between P (known as the "antecedent" or "precedent") and Q (known as the "consequent"). Both P and Q tend to be propositions which are logical predicates over some entity set. It seems that albert has for some reason named as 'predicates' the antecedents of danbooru implications. Even though antecedents are usually predicates, so are consequents. Maybe that should be fixed.

Godel said:
Isn't a way to search recent edits based on the tag edited? If not, how come? :o

I can't think of a reason other than something like your suggestion when such a search would be valuable. Especially since it would likely require yet another table in the Danbooru SQL.

Godel said:
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.

I believe that it would have likely taken longer for someone to notice it, but that the implication would stand. At the very least, we'd be having this argument the other way around.

Godel said:
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

The average member could indeed help search for it by temporarily adding any -tag to their blacklist. I'm also confused as to how you figure that searching censored -mosaic_censor -censor_bar would bring up thousands of images that weren't censored by means other than a censor bar or mosaic.

Fred1515 said:
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.

Self-censorship counts as censorship in my book, even when it was fully intended from conception.

0xCCBA696 said:
"mathmatical prepositional functions"? Dude, your nick is Godel, I'd have expected more from you rofl

A logical implication, written as P ==> Q (or $P\implies Q$ for the LaTeX-minded), posits in some sense a causal relationship between P (known as the "antecedent" or "precedent") and Q (known as the "consequent"). Both P and Q tend to be propositions which are logical predicates over some entity set. It seems that albert has for some reason named as 'predicates' the antecedents of danbooru implications. Even though antecedents are usually predicates, so are consequents. Maybe that should be fixed.

Yeah, I just got done writing my essay and I'm kinda pooped. I won't attempt to understand what you just wrote here til tomorrow XD

Suiseiseki said:
The average member could indeed help search for it by temporarily adding any -tag to their blacklist. I'm also confused as to how you figure that searching censored -mosaic_censor -censor_bar would bring up thousands of images that weren't censored by means other than a censor bar or mosaic.

Well, for one, I said over a thousand, not thousands. Secondly, this being implicated is why.

Hey Godel, you can use { instead of [ to link directly to posts containing that tag instead of the wiki.

Might make your points more clear, especially in forum #26872

Godel said:
Well, for one, I said over a thousand, not thousands. Secondly, this being implicated is why.

Those look to be images that are censored via means that are not mosaic or black bar.

At any rate, I'm done with this. I've wasted plenty of energy over a tag that never bothered me in the first place. I'm not here for pornography and as such very little censoring really gets in my way.

Fred1515 said:
Hey Godel, you can use { instead of [ to link directly to posts containing that tag instead of the wiki.

Might make your points more clear, especially in forum #26872

Oh, thanks, didn't know about it
Yeah, along with the other suggestion I got in there, I'll impliment those when I get home from night class

The problem with this whole discussion is that it hinges on two opposing definitions of censored, neither of which is demonstrably incorrect. Hence there's no point in anyone trying to convince other people that their definition of censored is better than anyone elses.

So let's put that part of the thread aside and determine if people would accept a division of "censored" into what is deemed traditional censorship, and what it deemed an obstructed view.

I'm already noted that I favor the broader definition of censorship reflected in what has been accepted usage here for years. But on the other hand I don't quite care enough to fight the somewhat reasonable obstructed_view concept.

--
And yes, being able to search tag edits for one specific tag would be immensely useful and it's been discussed before. Just not formally proposed via trac, far as I know.

jxh2154 said:
So let's put that part of the thread aside and determine if people would accept a division of "censored" into what is deemed traditional censorship, and what it deemed an obstructed view.

I personally wouldn't. I feel that if the image is censored, whether it be from mosaics, black bars, a leaf blowing in the wind, a soda can, or whatever, it should be tagged censored.

Algasir said:
I personally wouldn't. I feel that if the image is censored, whether it be from mosaics, black bars, a leaf blowing in the wind, a soda can, or whatever, it should be tagged censored.

Then you can search +censored +obstructed_view, or -censored -obstructed_view
The problem is, without doing this, searching -censored gets rid of all those images which people may not want to have excuded.

Godel said:
Then you can search +censored +obstructed_view

This will only return posts tagged both censored and obstructed view.

Log said:
This will only return posts tagged both censored and obstructed view.

He can search more terms if he wants, right?

Which would return posts tagged with all of the tags I placed in the search bar.

That said, what does how I feel an image should be tagged have to do with what I search for?

So anyways Algasir, that's what censored is. Ok then, uncensored is the opposite thing. That means only nipples showing then can warrent an uncensored tag. Here we go,
post #45 -> Is this "uncensored"?
post #526386 -> "?

Don't be smart. It won't win you any points.

I wasn't trying to be smart, I was just asking what his definition of uncensored was
I mean, it's clearly an issue with multiple sides to take and that's common, but I've already defined (or I think I did) what I thought uncensored was by the lack of normal censor methods around penises/vaginas/and so forth.
And in case I didn't define my view on that earlier, here it is now o_o

Censored and uncensored should be opposites, shouldn't they? They are grammatically, shouldn't they also be opposites as tags?
Ooh, what a good argument, censored and uncensored should be opposite, which is further reasons to employ this plan. Brilliant!

Also jxh, would the development/implimentation of searching by tag edited be difficult?

I don't think we should get into what should/shouldn't be tagged uncensored right now. It seems like a whole other debate entirely. At least to me.

Algasir said:
I don't think we should get into what should/shouldn't be tagged uncensored right now. It seems like a whole other debate entirely. At least to me.

Actually, it kind of does. Because by establishing what shouldn't be uncensored is part of better establishing what censored should be, since they are opposites after all.

Godel said:
Censored and uncensored should be opposites, shouldn't they? They are grammatically, shouldn't they also be opposites as tags?

The norm is to assume that something is not censored, therefore we shouldn't tag that (just like we don't tag everything female). Unless, of course, Japanese censorship laws have changed our expectations to such an extent that censorship has become the norm...

Godel said:
Also jxh, would the development/implimentation of searching by tag edited be difficult?

I think this question is better posed to albert than to jxh2154.

Soljashy said:
The norm is to assume that something is not censored, therefore we shouldn't tag that (just like we don't tag everything female). Unless, of course, Japanese censorship laws have changed our expectations to such an extent that censorship has become the norm...

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, it sounds like you're massively contradicting yourself. Saying we don't tag female because it's the norm, and how censorship is also the norm. Does this mean we shouldn't tag censorship at all, being censored or uncensored?
We're not talking about what censorship is irl outside of danbooru, we're talking about ON danbooru. What is the difference between an image that gets tagged uncensored instead of censored is the point I'm trying to make now.