So what happens if the mob person is a fat man, dark-skinned male or a gyaruo? Would they count against the tag?
Posted under General
something like post #8736684 or post #8718931 should definitely still count
post #7727096 is just missing eyes, but i think it's still within the "mob" spirit
to whoever made the BUR, can you add favgroup #39855? it's my attempt at populating it, mainly with posts from pool:Almost_Yuri -otoko_no_ko -futanari -androgynous -other_with_female (~1boy ~multiple_boys) status:all limit:200 -favgroup:39855
Updated
sinning said:
something like post #8736684 or post #8718931 should definitely still count
post #7727096 is just missing eyes, but i think it's still within the "mob" spirit
to whoever made the BUR, can you add favgroup #39855? it's my attempt at populating it, mainly with posts from pool:Almost_Yuri -otoko_no_ko -futanari -androgynous -other_with_female (~1boy ~multiple_boys) status:all limit:200 -favgroup:39855
Sure can. Added it. My own favgroup more served as a starter group, which if a tag were to be made, could be populated overtime. The more caught on the initial update, the less work moving forward (as well as providing a stronger argument.
sacchariine said:
i'm all for helping out with populating this tag so long as there's an agreed upon definition. i'm in favor of something like "cannot be tagged as any existing character and has no outstanding character design (i.e. original)" as others have said.
Wonderful. I believe we are covering vaguely defined men who are only drawn to be fucking cute anime girls, whether it be as a pov shot or as like...A vague character such as with post #8718931. Is that a strong enough definition for what we got?
Knowledge_Seeker said:
[...]Wonderful. I believe we are covering vaguely defined men who are only drawn to be fucking cute anime girls, whether it be as a pov shot or as like...A vague character such as with post #8718931. Is that a strong enough definition for what we got?
yeah, i think so. a clear wiki would also be nice, i'll consider drafting one if the bur passes.
sacchariine said:
yeah, i think so. a clear wiki would also be nice, i'll consider drafting one if the bur passes.
This tag definitely needs a clear, strong wiki. Otherwise, this tag could end up polluted, and that'd defeat the whole point. Example posts probably wouldn't hurt either, but I don't really know how to go about those, due to mob characters inherently being an NSFW tag for the most part.
Don't hesitate to leave a wiki draft here for others to check over, either. Helps iron out possible kinks or confusing wording.
alright, well here's my quick shot at trying to define non-descript male based off my own understanding and the works listed in the two favgroups:
A non-background character that is not taggable as any existing character and has no unique design traits that would make it taggable as an original character. Essentially, a character that would usually be an extra who takes an active role in the image.
Non-descript characters usually have one or more of the following traits:
- Are partially or fully faceless assuming the head is visible in the shot.
- Are given less attention to detail than the main subject(s) of the image; at times almost completely featureless.
- Take up little space in the shot relative to the main subject(s).
The following may also apply for NSFW posts:
- Little more than the non-descript character's genitals and the surrounding area are visible.
- The character is meant to be treated as a self-insert for the viewer (common in pov works) above all else.
i've opted to describe a list of common traits as opposed to image examples since the wiki guidelines say to avoid nsfw images (and i'm not sure how much searching it would have taken to find a sfw non-descript male post...). i'm open to criticism on this draft, particularly around how wide or narrow the tag's scope should ultimately be.
this wiki draft is looking good, though i'm not sure about its implication that there could be SFW mob x character works... i suppose something like post #5874055 could count...? i'm not really sure. it's a tag that'd be at least 99% NSFW anyway, so i don't think separating the NSFW part out is necessary, if anything something separated for SFW non-descript characters would be more in place
also since the name we're working with so far, as suboptimal as it is, is non-descript male, i don't think going for the gender-neutral term "genitals" is necessary... then again, "penis and/or testicles" would sound awkward here. nevermind