clarity and fluffies

Community Posts
1

every poster here now works under we know when we see it , why is this community so ardently against any form of rules about fluffies themselves their are comprehensive site rules about composure , but any rule about how far you can push a fluffy before it stops being a fluffy is instantly regretted . the most basic of what kind of content fits what box is not even clear

why can anything related to fluffies themselve not have writer rules and not just the gossamer feelings of the mods and why is the community ok with it do you feel you will lose something if actual rules are set for any facet of fluffies

3 Likes
2

Fluffies are inherently chaotic creations, they run the gambit from naive loving idiots to tyrannical monstrous morons. There are set behaviours in place - love sketti, love hugs, hate water, etc - to ensure all types of Fluffies are of a similar ilk, but to impose set rules on them would certainly stifle creativity.

And creativity is the main drive of this site, people taking the Fluffy baseline and adding their own twist to it. Does it go too far sometimes? Sure, but would stone-written rules allow for such things as Sea-Fluffies? Micros? Kitsunes? Cow-Fluffies? Hell even Bread-Fluffies?

For better or worse, this is a pick-&-choose type of place, people don’t follow the exact same headcannon rules because some people will feel creatively smothered by certain aspects they disagree with. I for one don’t allow for limb replacement or electrical resets because personally I feel they cheapen the experience but I acknowledge they are part of establish canon for other creators.

And yet at the same time, if someone introduces an interesting new twist to the Fluffy lore, the community can take that and run their own ideas without fear of breaking some established rules. The base remains the same but people can branch off in different directions.

7 Likes
3

the thing is there is no baseline can you tell me what a fluffy is and when something stops being a fluffy those seem like good rules to have to give the community a common language as it were to speak

1 Like
4

Right now, it mostly falls to staff and is on a case by base basis.
The conversation had gone back and forth again and again but the simple truth is that any concrete guidelines are going to seem too constraining.

2 Likes
5

there are guidelines you just admitted that mods make them on they fly so why can there not be clear guidelines for all to see with furthered refinement made by the mods on extrema cases

6

Word salad with no structure is hardly conducive to any kind of reformation. If you’re serious about wanting definition, get your textual shit together.

7

That was the important part of that sentence.
We don’t have a master list we go by.
It’s as simple as a Mod or Admin getting a feeling about content and asking what the other members of staff feel about it.

8

You know, thinking about it, it’s not quite as easy as “A is fluffy, B is not”, right?

But… Fluffies are made up of several traits. Stupidity, naivete, fluffiness, size, overall vaguely horse-like base, amount of legs, lisp, fragility, family dynamics, shitting uncontrollably …

I feel like most good subspecies and fluffies change just some of these, maybe two or three. Why can’t we just use that as a measurement? Sea fluffies are normal fluffies but with different limbs and the inability to drown. Flutterfluffs(?) are normal but tiny and with wings that can carry them. Kitsunefluffs have different tails, don’t shit uncontrollably and care way too much about said tails. They’re still like 70-90% fluffy, so it’s okay.

But if you have a centipede fluffy that invades fluffy dens and eats their young and has natural keratin armor so normal fluffies have no chance against them, then you’ve changed too many things. Limbs amount, horse appearance, diet, fragility, hostility, it’s only 30% or so fluffy which is too little.

I think that would work way better than having strict “yes or no” rules.

5 Likes
9

shhhhhhhhhhhh summer

10

Since you have marked this as a community post, I’ll take the bait.

I personally think some degree of leeway allows people to find content they like and stick with it.

For example. Take person A, B and C.

Person A likes mostly abuse-based works. Fluffies that run in circles or hide behind their hooves when their smarty gets its head caved in with a gardening tool after a failed lawn invasion attempt. Humans being literal avatars of blood and violence being given a thumbs up by their hot neighbour.

Person B likes exploring the struggles of an extremely naive and physically weak species having to come to terms with the realities of life, desires, aspirations and feelings, but feels that, if they are borderline retarded, they’d never be able to spread, regardless of sex drive and fertility, and that stories where the whole plot is “fluffies die because hooman can” are more boring than watching paint dry.

Person A and B will rarely enjoy the same works.

If all fluffy works were to follow the exact same standards, diversity would suffer. Badly.

Meanwhile, slight deviations I find acceptable.

Fluffies able to figure stuff out instead of hugging a wall and expecting it to open.

Fluffies who can run (like that one image of the purple fluffy being marked with a white lightning) instead of waddling.

Different artists’ renditions (some have stubby legs, others depict them as having horse-like ones).

Moronic, contentious depictions of fluffies as dinosaurs (outside of weirdbox-based works, of course. A human running after a fluffy, only to come back with a furry dino on a leash would make me chuckle) are a good example of “it’s obviously too much”, as the general shape and size widely accepted and used gets the boot.

5 Likes
11

Keep it friendly please.

12

yes that feeling are the guidelines you say don’t exist being crossed you and all the mods know what a fluffy should be but you will not tell us what that is

13

i am not advocating for a hard stop but as it stands there are no limits that can be put on what a fluffy can be but the vague feeling of the mods there are more rules to fluffy speak then on what a fluffy is

14

See, right there is where you lose me dude.
Once again I feel like you just want to complain.
I explained to you in full how we decide.
I’ve explained why no one is comfortable making said list.
There is no conspiracy other than the fact that Staff are just people who help keep the site going.

3 Likes
15

all that may be true but why is a car not a fluffy if i call it a fluffy

16

Now I want to see fluffies in the Cars universe.

3 Likes
17

That’s my takeaway as well

18

Exactly.

While nobody has made a specific statement, most people agree on certain traits and looks.

  • Quadrupedal, with hooves.
  • Horse-Pig-like (different artists may tilt towards either end)
  • General love for Spaghetti (ranging from drug-like addiction to fabled ambrosia to mere favourite food)
  • Baby talk and limited vocabulary
  • General Physical weakness (ranging from completely useless muscles to almost-cat/small dog)
  • Fluffy fur covering their bodies, horse-like mane and tail
  • Snouts.
  • Love for their babies. (Corruptible or not)
  • Constantly seeking after hugs, love and playing.

These are just some traits I see almost on a day to day basis @ripoffMcgee.

As you can see, while YMMV, there’s a general consensus of what’s a fluffy.

Of course, if all you care about is proving a point and getting the staff to point such an obvious thing out, that would be petty beyond reason.

2 Likes
19

Read my previous post, and you’ll know exactly why drawing a car-like fluffy would fit only in weirdbox.

20

that is the thing the mods have already decided what should make a fluffy if a fluffy was truly as fluid as everyone makes them out to be why would the mods ever need to make a judgment on whether something is a fluffy or not