Alias rifle_on_back -> rifle

So, the user who's had an account for a month, wants to tell everyone who's been here for years what aliases are supposed to be for and that we're using them wrong.

zarlan said:

I could say, for example, that if you alias fruit to rifle, then that will mean that posts that have catgirls with freckles, would be searchable by searching for "catgirl freckles".
…and I could say, that this explains how it would work. I could say so, with exactly as much justification, as you say that your posts explained the "how" of the rifle on back alias.

Of course, no one would except this as an explanation for anything, because it's gibberish, and a very blatant misrepresentation of the explanations you've been given. None of your reply even said anything despite containing several paragraphs. For someone so insistent no one has properly answered your questions, you haven't made much of an attempt to answer anyone else's with anything other than linguistic circles that go nowhere.

KagayakuShiningGate said:

While most aliases *are*/…/

There is no need to explain, what has already been explained and understood.

Astolfo said:

I feel like you just don't understand aliases/implications/the tagging system in general

I understand the tagging system.
I wasn't aware of one aspect, of how it was used here. How it was meant to be used, in this case.
Had this been explained, straight away, then there would have been no issue, and no long back-and-forth. Just a question and answer, and that'd be it.
As it is, there's been a long back and forth, with everyone refusing to explain anything, until I finally guessed as to what you people meant. (and was only able to do so, due to a rare instance of something that wasn't just a repeat of what came before, but actually rephrased things and managed to reveal a bit more info, to make a guess on. Still not an explanation, though)

and you're just really stuck up on the fact that an alias absolutely must mean the tags are 1-to-1 synonyms to one another

No I'm not.
After blindVigil answered my question, about my guess about what you meant, I have displayed that I perfectly understand, exactly what was meant and, indeed, that I approve of using aliases in that manner.

Your difficulty in understanding, that I have already understood this (right before you came into the discussion), is baffling.
Indeed I found your explanation, the first ever in this thread, after the issue had already been made clear, to be rather confusing. Why explain it, after it has already been clarified and any explanation, is therefore superfluous?

You're not so much flogging a dead horse, so much as you swooped in to flog a dead horse, only right after it was confirmed to be dead.

blindVigil said:

So, the user who's had an account for a month, wants to tell everyone who's been here for years what aliases are supposed to be for and that we're using them wrong.

I've clearly stated, that I think you're using them quite correctly.
To say that I've said the very opposite of what I've said, is either a ridiculous strawman argument, or an admission that you cannot understand simple English …or an admission that you've replied, without properly reading what it is that you're supposed to be replying to.
Either way, it doesn't really speak well of you.

Of course, no one would except this as an explanation for anything, because it's gibberish, and a very blatant misrepresentation of the explanations you've been given.

How so?
Where/when did any of you, explain how the aliasing, would lead to things working in the way you claimed that it would? Where/when did any of you, connect the claimed "how it would work", with the mechanics of the aliasing? (before Astolfo's post, which did, that is …after I had already guessed the answer, and had it confirmed that the guess was correct)

I'll repeat the paragraph that precedes the bit you cited. The paragraph you refused to answer:
…but in no way, shape, or form, did you explain how the aliasing, leads to that supposed "how".
How the "how" you spoke of, and the proposed aliasing, are in any way connected or related.
You did not explain, how that "how" would actually be true. How it would actually work, within the tag-system.
You claimed that, that would be how it works, but you did not back up that claim.
…and if someone cannot back up or explain their claim, that tends to imply that they cannot, that they don't understand it themselves, and/or that they know that they are wrong. I would think that this is an implication, you would wish to avoid.

Where/when have you so much as attempted to address that?
Never.
…so how can you claim, that you've ever so much as tried, to give an explanation?

None of your reply even said anything despite containing several paragraphs.

A preposterous and baseless claim.
I never say anything without backing it up.
I stand by what I say, and am always willing to defend it, with logic and evidence.
You, apparently, do not.
Anyone who refuses to defend their position, but instead resorts to insults, slander, and distractions, only reveals that they know, that they have no confidence in their position. That they know they cannot "win" through honest means. (mind you, an argument should be about understanding what the other party is saying, getting them to understand what you are saying, hash things out, and thereby trying to get all parties involved, to get closer to the truth [i.e. convincing the other to ones own position, or being convinced …or maybe coming to some third conclusion] …and not an effort at stroking ones ego, by "winning" the argument or silencing the opposition. That may appear to be a win, but it is a definite loss)

For someone so insistent no one has properly answered your questions, you haven't made much of an attempt to answer anyone else's with anything other than linguistic circles that go nowhere.

There is zero evidence of that …and you've made zero effort, at trying to argue/show how it is (supposedly) true.

With all due respect, if you're going to constantly flood this (and other forums) with long spieling messages nobody wants to read, you should keep it to one post. You don't have to triple post every single time you reply here. It's borderline spam at this point.

Talulah said:

With all due respect, if you're going to constantly flood this (and other forums) with long spieling messages nobody wants to read, you should keep it to one post. You don't have to triple post every single time you reply here. It's borderline spam at this point.

In what way, is it spamming, to have a separate post for each person I reply to? It doesn't take up any appreciably greater space
…and why are you just complaining about me?
It takes two to tango. I wouldn't have to write all of that, if not for the others involved
(…and it, pretty much always, takes much longer time/words to explain why/how something is wrong, than it takes to say a wrong thing. Kinda like how it takes a lot more energy, effort, and resources, to build something, that it does to destroy)

You're the one being complained about because you're obnoxious and disrespectful. You come into the forums with a flawed understanding of how the site works and try to explain to people who have been here for years why you are right and everyone else is wrong. It might take two to tango, but it's really just you arguing against every other user in this thread while they were trying to explain to you where your misunderstanding lay. Despite there being 14 users in this thread, you're almost half the posts and half the word count. Even after apparently clearing things up you're still here kicking up shit.

zarlan said:

(…and it, pretty much always, takes much longer time/words to explain why/how something is wrong, than it takes to say a wrong thing. Kinda like how it takes a lot more energy, effort, and resources, to build something, that it does to destroy)

The irony of someone to say this while all of their posts have been wrong in some way. The fact that it takes you this many words to say so little and yet still be wrong is astounding. This isn't some epic debate bro forum. This is an anime pictures site. You might have taken a wrong turn somewhere.

Alright, time to stop fighting. I think we all understand now what implications and aliases are used for and how they work. If not, please open a new topic about that.

Please get back on topic if there’s anything left to discuss about weapons worn on the back. Thank you.

The question here isn't that complicated. It's either:

• Create tags for every specific type of weapon: rifle on back, shotgun on back, submachine gun on back, katana on back, greatsword on back, etc. This is obviously problematic because there are a million types of weapons and very similar weapons get fragmented into different tags.
• Consolidate the most common types of weapons into a few top level tags: gun on back, sword on back, polearm on back, etc.
• Consolidate everything into weapon on back. Then you have to search e.g. weapon_on_back sword to find sword on back. This works, but is not as precise or convenient as searching sword on back. The biggest problem though is that most regular users won't even realize that searching weapon_on_back sword is a thing you can do.

My vote is for 2, because having a few extra tags for gun on back, sword on back, etc makes finding the most common cases easier without adding too much bloat. Compare with holding weapon, where we have subtags for holding gun and holding sword.

Note also that even though we got rid of sword on back, we still have sword over shoulder and sword behind back (which users sometimes mistake for sword on back).

+1, I also think the second option is probably the best approach.

I'd prefer 3 but 2 works as well. 1 would just be stupid.

Unbreakable said:

I'd prefer 3 but 2 works as well. 1 would just be stupid.

Ditto

Talulah said:

You're the one being complained about because you're obnoxious and disrespectful.

Disrespectful?
I merely asked questions.
You're the ones who REFUSED to answer or explain, in any way, but instead just make angry/annoyed replies, just because I committed the grave "sin", of not immediately knowing what you meant (and/or not agreeing …due to not understanding), without an explanation.

I'm not the one who refuses explain, answer simple questions, or bother to read peoples comments, before replying to them (your comment of "... read the rest of this thread to find out. The handful of messages above the alias request quite blatantly lay out why.", can hardly be said to be particularly respectful, or constructive. Quite the opposite!)
…and nothing I've said, has been shown to be wrong.
It's just that you did something differently.
…without ever explaining it.

You come into the forums with a flawed understanding of how the site works and try to explain to people who have been here for years why you are right and everyone else is wrong.

I have a flawed understanding? Well the first thing I did, was to ask why you'd alias in that way. I.e. trying to understand your actions. Trying to better understand how the site works. A short and simple explanation, would have taken a minute or two, and that would have been the end of it.

Instead, you all refused to explain, and simply demanded that I understand (without being given anything to understand) and agree. (despite not understanding what it is, that I am supposed to agree with)
I was faced with completely unprovoked scolding and anger
…as well as claims about aliases, that make absolutely NO sense.
Not without an explanation
…which you all refused to give.

I.e. you're all bullies, who ganged up on me.
You (plural you) can try to get me to conform and/or shut up, through aggressive outbursts, bullying, or force (i.e. bans and the like), but you cannot make me bend to clearly irrational and immoral behaviour.

while they were trying to explain to you where your misunderstanding lay.

No.
NO ONE tried to explain anything (least of all you!), nor can you show me any instance, where someone did so (note that the proposed "explanation", must connect the aliasing, to how it would then work, else it isn't an explanation, as it has no obvious relevance to the aliasing)

Not until AFTER it was already clarified!
At which point, explanations were superfluous, and only showed the the person explaining, hadn't paid any attention to what I was saying, as they didn't understand that I already understand …making the explanation, a sign of incompetence and/or disrespect.

Even after apparently clearing things up you're still here kicking up shit.

I have a tendency, to not accept things like bullshit, bullying, and lies.

The fact that it takes you this many words to say so little and yet still be wrong is astounding. This isn't some epic debate bro forum. This is an anime pictures site. You might have taken a wrong turn somewhere.

…
Oh the projection… Oh the irony…
I actually back up my claims. (with arguments, explanations, and evidence, that you have never even addressed, much less debunked)
You (plural you) never even bother to try, even after repeated requests. (obviously because you know, that you have no case)
You just make baseless claim, after baseless claim.
Just simple slander.

kittey said:

Alright, time to stop fighting. I think we all understand now what implications and aliases are used for and how they work. If not, please open a new topic about that.

Please get back on topic if there’s anything left to discuss about weapons worn on the back. Thank you.

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."
- Desmond Tutu

evazion said:

• Consolidate the most common types of weapons into a few top level tags: gun on back, sword on back, polearm on back, etc.

Shouldn't that be "gun on back, blade on back, polearm on back, etc."?

Look, man, it took you six replies to "guess" what our intentions were with the proposed aliases, despite it already being stated clearly in the fourth reply how we wanted to handle these tags, and then repeatedly explained both why and how by multiple people while you threw a tantrum claiming no one was explaining it to you, until you randomly picked one as an acceptable explanation despite saying exactly what everyone else had been saying since the beginning. All because you came into the discussion with a single minded understanding of how aliases should be used.

Do you really wanna make your first impressions worse by getting banned for making trouble after being asked to stop?

zarlan said:

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."
- Desmond Tutu

I’m sorry for giving you another chance. I should’ve banned you outright for disrupting our workflow. If you’re not going to be productive, please leave.

zarlan said:

Shouldn't that be "gun on back, blade on back, polearm on back, etc."?

A blade is the sharp part of a weapon. Unless someone takes apart their weapon to wear the blade on their back and the rest elsewhere, the answer is no. Though if you want to be extra precise, it could be bladed weapon on back which is unnecessarily cumbersome when sword on back will do. We also use sword for all other tags, like holding sword. Please don’t suggest changing that to holding blade because holding a weapon by its blade is generally a terrible idea.

So you (both of you) continue to insist, that things were ever explained to me, despite the fact that neither of you, nor anyone else, has ever so much as attempted to show how anyone ever showed how the aliasing, would be connected/relevant, to the stated desired goals?

In other words, you double down on your lies, on refusing to back up your statements, refusing to address any of what I say… (much less present counter-arguments or contrary evidence)
A great display of immaturity, insecurity, cowardice, dishonesty…
Very pathetic.

blindVigil said:

Do you really wanna make your first impressions worse by getting banned for making trouble after being asked to stop?

I repeat:
You (plural you) can try to get me to conform and/or shut up, through aggressive outbursts, bullying, or force (i.e. bans and the like), but you cannot make me bend to clearly irrational and immoral behaviour.
You can ban me …and thereby only further showing, how you wrong you are.

kittey said:

I’m sorry for giving you another chance.

This implies that you gave me a first chance
…and given that your supposed "another chance", was your first ever interaction with this forum thread (and your first interaction with me, in any way), that is a clear and obvious lie.

I should’ve banned you outright for disrupting our workflow.

How so? How are the ones who replied to me, not the ones who disrupted the workflow?
How is a stubborn refusal to explain or clarify, refusing to make sure that people know what is being discussed/proposed (so as to be capable of making a decision, or at least make relevant comments), or completely unwarranted aggressive behaviour, not disruptive and completely contrary, to any hope of collaborative efforts?
…and how is not pointing out such behaviour, and not being willing to let people just get away with it, not productive/constructive?
After all, letting people misbehave with impunity (without so much as a statement of disapproval!), is to encourage misbehaviour.

If you’re not going to be productive, please leave.

That is a statement that should be directed at the rest of you.
I've done the best I can, to be productive.
The rest of you, have done the exact opposite.
…and neither you, nor any of the rest of you, have even tried to dispute (or even address) my claims or arguments, showing that you know them to be true.
If I really were wrong, about any of this, you could demonstrate that I am wrong, by countering my statements/argument, and I would gladly acknowledge and admit this, and thank you for ridding me of a misconception (or at least happily agree to disagree, with someone who at least tries to make honest and reasonable arguments, but who fails to convince me)
…but no, you refuse to do so, as you know it would only further show how wrong you are, and your fragile overblown ego cannot abide that, much less to admit being wrong.
I, and anyone with any sense or self-esteem, have no problems with admitting if/when I am wrong
…but I don't say I'm wrong, unless I am convinced that I am, and you cannot convince me, with rage.
You need reason and evidence.

A blade is the sharp part of a weapon.

No it isn't.
That would be the edge or a sharp point.
A blade has an edge, but isn't an edge. It also may, or may not, have a sharp point. (there are a bunch of types of sword and knife, that have no point at all, much less a sharp one)
The spikes on these weapons may be sharp, but they are not blades (nor do they have edges)

The term "blade" can mean a flat edged object (or, more broadly, non-edged stuff, like helicopter, hockey sticks, blades of grass, etc), OR it can refer to a weapon within a certain category. (swords, knives, daggers…) (and, by extension, a swordsman [or any warrior, regardless of weaponry] can be referred to as a blade, figuratively speaking …but that's certainly not relevant for tagging)
This is an extremely common usage, of the word blade.
Both now, and throughout history.
I don't see how any English speaker would not know and understand this …except, I suppose, people that have certain disabilities that cause certain difficulties with language, such as being on the Autism Spectrum.

"Blade" (as in the weapon category) does not, however, include all weapons that involve a blade, in some way.
Not halberds, not axes… Not all spears have a blade as a spearhead, but regardless of whether they do or not, spears are not blades. (also, it should be noted that lances are spear used on horseback, and most lances you see [which aren't really representative of most lances, that were used in war, but that's neither here nor there] don't have any kind of blade. Oh, and speaking of which: javelins are throwing spears)

The weapons in the above-cited image, can be said to contain/involve blades, but the weapons cannot be said to be blades.

If you disagree with any of this, your problem isn't with me. Your problem is with the English language.
There are countless examples of the word being used, as I explained above, current and historic, and you can check any and all dictionaries and/encyclopedias you like, which will all confirm what I have stated.

Unless someone takes apart their weapon to wear the blade on their back and the rest elsewhere, the answer is no.

I take it that you are constantly confused, but how people talk about sexy women as being hot (as you don't understand how/why people would think that they have a high temperature), and how people refer to all kinds of things, as "cool", despite there being (most of the time) no indication that they have a low temperature?

Please don’t suggest changing that to holding blade because holding a weapon by its blade is generally a terrible idea.

I don't see how/why anyone would suggest that holding knife and holding sword should be combined, so…
That said, a holding blade tag, that refers to actually holding the blade of the weapon, is something I would not be opposed to …and that is not always a bad idea. (though it often is, for obvious reasons)

zarlan said:

kittey said:

I’m sorry for giving you another chance.

This implies that you gave me a first chance
…and given that your supposed "another chance", was your first ever interaction with this forum thread (and your first interaction with me, in any way), that is a clear and obvious lie.

I didn’t mean personally giving you another chance. Arguing in his thread went on for a while, so all the other users that basically told you to stop gave you several chances without a moderator stepping in.

A blade is the sharp part of a weapon.

No it isn't.
That would be the edge or a sharp point.

I could’ve sworn that that’s what the blade wiki says.

This thread reminds me of situations where people might pull the “childish squabble” card. But I recently worked in children’s daycare and I have to say that I’d much rather deal with kindergarteners fighting over toys than adults arguing on the Internet. Because some adults don’t give up (and can’t be distracted with another toy). I’ve been on Danbooru for a while and I’ve seen this pattern before. The ones writing confrontational walls of text and dishing out cool Latin terms will not give up, so I’m not going to try.

I like being fair, but sometimes I prefer to risk being unfair to one user if that means that everyone else can live in peace. Such a time is now. Take a one week vacation and use it to contemplate if you want to adjust to how we do things here or stay hung up on other users not wanting to spoon-feed you how Danbooru works.