That's why I suggested gag_removed, which could be used to find a gag not being used just like thighhighs_removed can be used to find thighhighs not being worn. So yes.
To me that seems to be the same as proposing for a dildo or vibrator in an image not being used in the image should be tagged dildo/vibrator_removed. The idea of non-normal stuff having the default implication that it is worn/used seems somewhat awkward, even if the bulk of the images do depict it in a used state.
Also how would this tag relate to the ungagged tag?
I still think the the current intended definitions previously agreed here is the better approach, since it not only is simpler, it also covers all the bases. It'd probaly be easier to rename the gag tag to reduce confusion and use the current definitions than add additional tags to compensate for what in theory could already be done with the intended current setup.
Ungagged seems to be the same as I was suggesting for gag_removed. I wouldn't care which was used. It's already used for posts where there's a gag just lying around but nobody is gagged (e.g. post #101512).
Renaming the gag tag would work too. I don't have any good suggestions for what to change it to, though.
The only things I could think up with naming would be like gag_(device) or gag_device, to try and emphasize more it being a device/tool purposely built as a gag. Though that may still be too close and some may see improvised ones as also counting (a makeshift table is still a table, right?). I'm pretty dry for ideas on an alternate naming for it.
Edit: Should also consider the earlier proposal on renaming some of the tags like tape gag to tape gagged.
Side note: While going over the list of *gag tags, I created a "food_gag" tag to replace the "fruit_gag" used on 2 images and added a new "clothes gag" to images under the sock_gag, panty_gag, and buruma_gag tags (sock and buruma mostly barely populated).
The same logic applied to say that cleave gags shouldn't be tagged as gag would also apply to most blindfolds: once you take them off they're just a piece of cloth. So for consistency, should we change blindfold to blindfolded and only use blindfold for purpose-built blindfolds?
I don't actually think that's a good idea, just putting it out there.
The same logic applied to say that cleave gags shouldn't be tagged as gag would also apply to most blindfolds: once you take them off they're just a piece of cloth. So for consistency, should we change blindfold to blindfolded and only use blindfold for purpose-built blindfolds?
I don't actually think that's a good idea, just putting it out there.
Yeah, the same logic could be applied, though should also take consideration whether purpose built and improvised can be distinguished. After checking amazon for blindfolds, they actually do sell purpose built blindfolds that are just a piece of cloth or pretty much indistinguishable visibly from one (http://amzn.com/B00A2SHKQM, http://amzn.com/B00J03E7JS, http://amzn.com/B00GLORYNU, http://amzn.com/B00CD6EWAI) .
Tried looking for gags to see if there were purpose built gags that would match the appearance of an improvised one, but at least there wasn't within the first 30 pages (only need under 10 pages to find those blindfolds).
Leave it as is with how you've currently tagged it (ie an exemption to the norm)? I don't know, but it isn't necessarily clearly a gag either, since a blindfold loosened and pulled down (or fallen) would look identical to that as well. It's easier to say its a gag because of its current position, but we don't know how it was used on the person to begin with, so all that we're doing is making assumptions of what the purpose of the object really is. A tied up/restrained person could have just as likely been blindfolded and restrained as they could have been gagged and restrained.
edit: Some other things of note, you wouldn't be able to tag it as things like a cleave gag because its defining characteristic is determined when used. You also couldn't tag it as over the mouth gag or over the nose gag, because again it is only when it is in use can you determine what it is.
Also on the matter on if a blindfold can be down like that, I think it can, the nose can get in the way, yes, but we don't know how the thing was loosened to begin with. Also the ears don't necessarily get in the way because a lot of blindfolds are tied over the ears and not above them, so they'd just slide down. If you do a google image search of "blindfolded" you'll see how most images show them going over the ears instead of above them (a manga example of it ).
As for the matter on if it was a "blindfold" it being too narrow, well you also have characters who wear glasses much smaller than their eyes, so not really something that can be relied on. /edit
I guess then go with having them all under gag, but have the improvised ones placed under a improvised_gag tag. That way purpose built ones can be separated from improvised ones (and we don't have to think of a name for a tag for purpose built ones, which would sound more awkward than a name for the improvised ones).
As for the usage of ungagged, I went and removed some posts from it, because it was being used for images where a gag is just laying there in the image with a person and yet its being labelled as "ungagged" (examples: post #1153909, post #1326452). There were also examples of someone/something being gagged, but the focus person not being gagged also being tagged "ungagged," which seemed wrong since the thing the gag was being used on was still in a state of being gagged (post #1260034). The tag should be used for images where the object is worn, but not gagging the wearer (post #816959, post #1610469). It could also be used for images in which there is clear evidence the gag has been removed, such as by having a saliva trail or saliva on the gag (post #1551123, post #445640). Also images in which there are two depictions of the same scene, but one with a gag and one without a gag could also probably be tagged ungagged as well (post #1206365).
The current images fall under 3 different states: Unused and laying there in an image somewhere (post #1326452), those in a current or previous state of being worn and not gagging the individual (post #816959), and the last group being those actually being worn and gagging the individual (post #1732292). The things used to gag a person also fall under 3 different categories: purpose built items that can be identified as a gag, improvised items that require context to be identified as a gag (requires being in a state of use to be identified as a gag), and then body parts used to prevent a person from being able to speak. Given all that, I think the gagged tag will need to stay around to help sort out the various things, even if it is the most common state for most of these things.
How it can work with retaining gagged for state and gag for the items:
Any kind of item used to gag a person can be pulled up by searching the gag tag
Improvised gags can be found using the improvised_gag tag
Body parts (hands, tentacles, vines) gagging a person can be found using a gagged -gag search
Gags being worn and not gagging a person can be found by searching the ungagged tag
Gags not being worn at all and just somewhere in the image could be found using a gag -gagged -ungagged search
Proposal on naming and etc:
Purpose built gags will stick with a *_gag naming scheme, as the item themselves identify themselves as a gag and do not require context to categorize them.
Improvised gag subtags can stay with the *_gagged ending, can be used to differentiate that these are contextually based concepts as opposed to self-identifying, since the only way to properly identify them is through context/usage in the image.
This would be because over-the-mouth, over-the-nose, cleave, food, and clothes unlikely will have any situation where the item is not in use where it could still be defined as a gag. Over-the-mouth, over-the-nose, cleave gagged tags actually require being in use to determine which type they are, and so couldn't be tagged unless they were being used and gagging a person. Food doesn't stay attached to a person if removed normally, so outside of it being in the mouth wouldn't likely be able to be tagged. Clothes gagged is usually the clothing shoved in a person's mouth, so it won't stay attached to the person either once removed. (These implications already exist, thus can be left alone)
cloth_gagged not implicating ungagged, but its subtypes implicating it may sound odd, but given that to identify the subtypes requires them being used to determine how the cloth is being used makes it appropriate that they implicate gagged. Once removed, like in lkjh098's example of post #68530, it can not be determined how it was applied on the user and thus couldn't receive any of the subtags.
I suspect gagged will still be undertagged. Right now around 20-30% of uploaded posts that are tagged gag and should be tagged gagged, aren't tagged gagged on upload. There are also posts that get gagged but not gag. I suspect people don't expect there to be two tags, and just pick one at random. But at least gagged will be less important so the undertagging will matter less.
Notes: Just went ahead and made it so any gag item will go with the *_gag naming. The exception is hand_gagged, which only implicates the gagged tag and is different from the rest as it is a body part doing the gagging as opposed to an item/object.
