Clarification on Rules about "Box-Shaming"?

Site Feedback
1

Edit: I have received clarification from the moderators. The story will not be happening. You may return to your regularly scheduled fluffies!

Hey, there! I’ve been lurking here for a little while and wanted to share some writings, but figured it would be best to seek clarification first.

I have no intention of engaging in any personal shaming of content others create or consume. I personally enjoy nearly everything on here for different reasons. However, I would really love to share a story based on the perspective of a person in an anti-hero role. He would personally fall under the “hugbox” label, but he punishes humans who abuse fluffies.

The story will be gritty and will include violence against “abusers” as well as a lot of vivid detail regarding their abuse of fluffies.

Considering that this will involve the main character expressing disdain and hatred for abusers, I’m not sure if it would break this rule.

2

Your issue would be Rule 7.

7: Content Control - Abuse of certain categories of characters is prohibited. This includes youthful anthropomorphic fluffies, other creators’ fluffy or human OCs if done without permission, or non-fluffy animals. This is not an exhaustive list.

The standard of censorship is anything that poses a risk of normalizing harm of animals or humans in real life or that disrespects another artist’s work without their permission.

The idea is to abuse fluffies, not humans.

2 Likes
3

I’ve ran afoul regarding people on people violence before and I can tell you some folks have big problems with it. No matter how you frame it.

Be prepared to label it Controversial.

1 Like
4

Gotcha. There’s some amusing irony there, but I’m not gonna get meta about it.

I’ll just stay a lurker.

Thanks for the clarification!

5

Cal be like:

image17

In all seriousness, if you aren’t having your character attack other people’s characters, and the violence isn’t too violent, you can probably get away with it.

I learned through experience that there’s a line. For the record: don’t have your guy put a grenade in someone’s mouth and defenestrate them before the boom happens. If the recipient of the grenade isn’t human, that’s apparently fine. No one complained when I had a nephilim put a holy hand grenade in a demon’s mouth.

Yeah, there’s a reason so many of my villains are non-humans. Hey, if depicting a fluffy getting brutally killed is okay because fluffies aren’t real, then, logically speaking, it should be okay to depict other fictional beings being brutally killed too, like demons or vampires or aliens. Right? Or is there a flaw in my logic I’m not seeing?

6

The difference is that he said the story was about harming abusers.

2 Likes
7

Right, but he didn’t specify how the abusers are being harmed, did he? If it’s just beating them to a pulp, that’s more acceptable than the grenade-and-window package, right?

8

If the story’s focus is revenge against abusers, then it’s a fair bet that it’ll be a central focus and you can only lampshade so much.

Again, abuse fluffies not people.
It’s not Human-Community.

5 Likes
9

I get it. There’s a line. But it’s hard to avoid crossing the line if you don’t know where the line is.

10

No offense but that sounds incredibly unappealing and edgy, even from a non-abuser perspective. The only time I’ve ever seen someone do the whole “fluffy badass kills abusers” cliche in a remotely interesting way is Dark Hugboxer, and his stuff is more weirdbox than anything else.

2 Likes
11

It’s a twofold issue.
One, we don’t want to normalize violence against people or irl animals. It’s gross and a bad look.
Two, if you are focusing too much on violence against humans, then you probably aren’t writing a story about fluffies at that point.

5 Likes
12

It violates rule #7, so it’ll never happen regardless, however, there’s a lot to push back against the “edgey” take on it.

  1. This site is chalk full of “edge”. That doesn’t diminish validity or some people’s enjoyment of it.

  2. There was never any intent of murder. Or badassery, really.

  3. I do think there is a lot of nuance necessary when approaching the duality between “hugboxers” and “abuseboxers”. If someone is going to write/draw something that examines that duality specifically, they better be prepared to unpack that complexity beyond “hugbox good, abusebox bad”.

13

I mean I never said don’t do it lol :heart:

1 Like
14

Again, I completely understand. Contrary to what some people may believe, I always try to make sure that fluffies are involved one way or another. I still haven’t forgotten where we are.

And since one story in particular, I’ve been trying to make sure that the human-on-human violence isn’t too offensive.

I did, however, make a running gag out of Victor talking about putting grenades in mouths, but if they’re human mouths, that’s as far as he’s going.

2 Likes
15

Yeah, but @Karn’s making a valid point. We don’t want to attract the kind of psychos who think it’s okay to abuse people and/or animals in real life.

2 Likes
16

He’s already stated that he isn’t going through with the idea.
And at this point the question has been answered so I’m locking down the post so he doesn’t keep getting notifications long after his question has been answered.

3 Likes