Posted under General
Hello.
Regarding post #2624764 there seems something off about this implication chain.
I've used >:o for now, but I'm a bit unsatisfied with it. The reason I didn't use the >:d is that she isn't smiling.
So..should there be a discussion about the :d -> smile implication?
Frankly we've spawned so many of these eyebrow tags that I've become lost on which to use. It's gotten absurd, there are no less than 26 of them under >:* and >;*, and apparently still more under *:< and *;<. Can we please just make an angled eyebrows tag instead of making a million tag and implication chains for every conceivable brow + eyes + mouth combination?
There is also the furrowed_eyebrows tag.
That's what I've been using, but I'm not sure if it applies to the comic-style V-shaped brows that the >:) et al tags are usually used for. I think it's intended more for scrunched brows like post #2435101.
So I guess that this discussion is going really slowly.
Well, I suggest two thing:
Deimplicate every eyebrow-expression to expression chain (i.e. remove implication >:o -> :o, >:d -> :d etc.) or the :d -> smile implication. Like I said, some posts with >:d are more expressing anger than happyness.
kuuderes_shadow said:
It's also worth mentioning that smiles are not always expressions of happiness. A fake smile or sad smile is still a smile, after all (although I notice that the latter currently doesn't implicate smile and only uses the smile tag about half the time).
Careful with smile implications - we have light_smile still, the two are mutually exclusive.
