>>399507939
>>399514960
>>399514617
>>399513727
The inflation of calling bases "TDA" is eroding its usefulness as a descriptive term.

The Tda Append Miku base has been around long enough for people to take less and less parts, to the point that even two fully-informed, rational people arguing in good faith may reasonably disagree on whether a specific model is still a "TDA":
Does it only count as such if it has the characteristic sharp chin with an 110° angle? If the hip-waist ratio is <0.60? If it glows in the dark, has 10 piercings per body part, 50% of the skin covered by tattoos? What if it was modelled from scratch but looks kinda the same? And so on, with any combination thereof?

Does the original Tda Append Miku, the one the name "TDA" is derived from, even count as a "TDA"? It's not flashy-glowy, filled with a bajillion tattoos and piercings, doesn't have 200% wide hips, doesn't have Seiki lips and noses, has a more pointy chin, has longer legs...
Paradoxically, one could argue that the Tda Append Miku is no "TDA", depending on how many and which checkboxes you think need checking.
This actually makes it extra sad that the insulting label is named after the modeller Tda, the one person whose "TDA" IMHO is actually not a "TDA" in the sense that matters: that it offends (us?) aesthetically.

Some people will claim that it's obvious which checkboxes matter, but they're just fooling themselves into believing that every other informed person here agrees with their observations and aesthetic preferences, which are more often than not what actually decide the checkboxes for them. And they fool themselves into believing that everyone who disagrees must be ill-informed.

Lastly, another problem is that even if people were willing to use another term, most people actually don't know what all those bases under the "TDA umbrella" are actually called. Sometimes they also don't even have an established name, and it may be very hard to come to an agreement on new ones.