If this is about recognizing that some things are better or worse than other things, <<hypnohub.net/post?tags=order%3Ascore+|we already have a system that does that democratically.>>

You do? Tell me why. Everybody who says this doesn't really go into that.


So ... I can drop my stories into a JPG and add a random char and then can post it as an image? Can we please get a tag for this because i'll blacklist the hell out of that stuff ...


I don't want to smaller the work - I know that it takes a lot of time to write a story and flesh it out, but a story goes into a forum and an image goes into an image board. Greasyi didn't do an IMAGE, it is a STORY. It does not belong there.


And they can still read it in a story threat or a story board if we implement it one day.


Don't do the split then. It makes no sense doing it like this if you guys just started with a QC Council. It's really absurd if you think about it. An Image like that should come into judgement in any case and be judged unfit for an image.

Because there's enough descriptive writing that goes along with what we see in the image. The scene in the writing and in the image match up perfectly. It involves a woman exercising with the same tools mentioned in writing. I can very easily imagine the woman saying everything that the writing implies she does.

It is, by no means, hard to see how the story fits the image.

In short: it fits the image because it does.



If your story happens to fit the image well enough, yes.

As for the tag? I'll talk to Mindwipe about it later.



Excuse me, but I believe the decision on what belongs where on this site belongs to me and the other administration and I don't recall having promoted you. We believe it belongs here under the circumstances that the story fits the image. In addition, as stated above, if this imageboard ever gets text support, we will allow stories without images entirely in the image gallery. I do not appreciate you telling me where things do or do not belong on the site we run.

You're out of line. Step down.



Without all of the same features that images on the image gallery get, it's just not the same. As the administration, we understand this. That is why we allow text on the image board gallery under the outlined circumstances. Writers should not feel like second-rate citizens.



I think you misunderstood. There won't be any split. If we get text support, the stories will be in the same gallery as all the images. At least, that's the idea and how we intend to do it if the time ever comes.

I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion of my image when my image already has a discussion of my image, but I'll give it a shot:
The emphasis was on it being post-hypnotic (not current-hypnotic) and without any kind of crazy magical stuff. Yes, when she's under, <<i.imgur.com/EzBXm3O.jpg|she totally gets empty eyes or whatever,>> but in the text as given on the image, she's fully awake and just feeling some effects of post-hypnotic suggestion which haven't even taken solid hold of her quite yet.
I'm not arguing here that the image belongs on the site, because I don't want to derail things; I'm just explaining why I personally thought it went with the text.

Getting back to general policies, you can't really see the MC in <<hypnohub.net/post/show/12849/|this image>> or <<hypnohub.net/post/show/12893|this one>> or <<hypnohub.net/post/show/12753|this one>> or <<hypnohub.net/post/show/12735|this one>> or <<hypnohub.net/post/show/12714|this one>> or countless others. It's hard to verify because many sources are missing, but a full 25% of the most recent 90 images with "text manip" do not appear to have actually been edited to convey MC in any graphical way whatsoever. At that rate you're talking about purging 250-300 images (over 2% of the site) submitted by a huge range of users which have a huge variety of tags. I'm really not that emotionally invested in keeping my own image up, but I'd hate to think that I was the impetus for dropping the hammer on all those other uploaders when I don't really see the issue.

We should definitely add some kind of "story" or "paragraph" or "wall_of_text" tag for images that have more than a couple small speech bubbles; I have no opinion on adding another one on top of that for images that don't alter the source image, except that it adds to tag bloat, which makes me just slightly against it.

Actually, I think it's the other way around. We should probably get a tag for when the source image is unedited but text was added, since that, mainly, is what the thread is about. The length of the story does not warrant a tag, imo. I honestly can't see how that would be all too helpful.

On that note, it seems that a fair chunk of us are in agreement that a tag for this sort of thing would be nice. It's something I'll bring up to Mindwipe later tonight, hopefully.

Even with the focus being on post hypnotic suggestions, I feel that there still was a way to convey that via a manip of the image itself.


I dislike more than half of those images for previously stated reasons.
Just sayin'...



I wouldn't want to get rid of all the images but I wouldn't mind doing some spring cleaning on the ones that just barely slipped past QC.



That's why I'd rather we remove that "manip" tag than add a new one. I understand now why it is needed but I still think it'd be great if we just called unaltered text story images something else entirely. That's just me splitting hairs, I know, since the term manip has always been the ambiguous colloquialism if this community.

I suppose I'm the kind of person the craves distinction. So with that in mind it is a purely arbitrary matter.

I never questioned your authority in my postings. I just said an image belongs to an image board and a story on a story board. If I posted a nice image with a lack of story on a story site, I would expect the same kind of reaction as the other way around. And then the discussion would go the other way around, how the image clearly conveys the story for example and there doesn't need to be much text for it to be enjoyed.

That being said, I think the decision has been made and I hope we get a tag. Like I said in the picture thread, it's not the solution I hoped for, but at least we got some kind of idea where we go from here on out of this discussion.

I see, so you meant it in a general sense. I seem to have misunderstood the point of your post, sorry about that. I took it as you saying that is how things are in relation to the topic at hand.

You confused me. :P

Well, no harm, no foul, I suppose.



Oh, right! I nearly forgot to mention that here!

Mindwipe and I agreed to make the tag. It will be "caption_only". The caption tag will be used on text manips where the image would not be considered MC without the text. This should wrap up the problems presented here quite nicely.

I'll get to implementing it soon.

I made the tag and added it to a ton of images. I probably missed a few. If you find one that I missed, add it. Try to be lenient on whether something's MC or not as far as this tag goes.

<<hypnohub.net/wiki/show?title=caption_only|Tag Definition>>

Pay careful note to this part of the definition:

I can't help but feel that "caption" is going to have the same issue as "animal_ears" where people start adding it to everything with a caption because they didn't read the tag definition. I feel like every new user who wants to help with tags would be at risk of mis-tagging something at least once, and not every instance would be caught and corrected. Maybe you should alias it to something more explicit, like "caption_only".

I've already spotted several images in just the first few pages of the tag that WERE edited beyond just adding text, and at least one pic that was MC to start with, which I was told would exclude it from use of the tag. It seems we need to discuss this more.

I think the "caption_only" tag would be a good idea.

Since I tagged all of these at 5 in the morning, I may have goofed on a few. :P

I also ran into one particular quandary multiple times. If a manipper has added speech bubbles AND text to the image, but is otherwise unedited, should it be excluded from this tag? The current definition is entirely unclear on that point. It would go against the purpose of adding this tag if mere speech bubbles would stop the tag from being used, so...

I've cleaned up its definition, which is now:



Thoughts?



A valid concern. I brought this up last night, but we decided on "caption". Though, that decision was made with us addled with exhaustion, so I think we may change it to "caption_only", after all. I'll ask Mindwipe (or he'll read my post here and reply with his thoughts).

Edit: Yeah, we decided to change it. No point in making it more confusing than necessary.

Sequential sets should only be exempt if at least one image in the set would not have the tag; if they're ALL caption_only then they stay all caption_only (since people blacklisting caption_only would get no payoff at any point in the set).

If I put all the speech bubbles off to one side, it becomes caption_only even though there's nothing but speech bubbles. (For example, if I hadn't changed the facial expression in my <<hypnohub.net/post/show/10497|my shark girl manip,>> it should definitely be caption_only.) It seems like a silly distinction to make.

I think the "foreign language test" is the best one: If a frequent visitor to hypnohub, who didn't speak the language the text is in, found the image on imgur or some other random website, would they suspect it was an MC-related image based on their knowledge of MC tropes such as spirals, empty_eyes, pendulums, etc.? If they would, it's not caption_only. This puts my shark girl manip in a question area though, since it's both manipped and requires the text to know it's MC-related. I don't have enough of an opinion about what should be included in search results and/or blacklisted to suggest what to do about those cases; the people in favor of the caption_only tag should weigh in, since they're the ones affected.

That's what I meant. I must have forgotten to clarify.



That's exactly why I changed the definition to be more clear on that. I'm not saying I was confused on the matter, I'm saying the matter was confusing in how the tag was originally defined.



That's more or less how I'd imagine just about anyone would look at it, personally.