BUR #44449 is pending approval.
create implication light_blush -> blush
A light blush is still a blush.
Posted under Tags
BUR #44449 is pending approval.
create implication light_blush -> blush
A light blush is still a blush.
previously: topic #19396
Oops, I meant to vote neutral, sorry about that. I agree with Provence in the last thread about it leading to random usage. Seems difficult to define in a way that won't result in subjective tagging. If anything, light blush could probably be nuked.
Tieria said:
Oops, I meant to vote neutral, sorry about that. I agree with Provence in the last thread about it leading to random usage. Seems difficult to define in a way that won't result in subjective tagging. If anything, light blush could probably be nuked.
fyi: you can click the icon on your vote to undo it
Looking at the posts under light blush, it seems a bit of an arbitrary tag. And the wiki leaves up to the reader to decide what they consider "faintly" blushing. Personally, I don’t use it for searching. So it’d be nice to know if anyone finds it useful and if there should be a clear way to define when a light blush is or stops being light.
It might serve a purpose even if it doesn't get searches. The autismal taggist satisfies their urge to tag every detail and blush doesn't get polluted with barely perceptible stuff nobody would ever search for. It's like giving your little brother a controller that's not plugged in.