I’ve made a similar list I go by personally, but even it is imperfect compared to some works and I wouldn’t want to use it as an end all guideline.
2 Likes
I generally agree with all of these. And I’m a guy who likes to have fluffies be a little bit smarter than usual. But I definitely do think that fluffspeak needs to resembl baby/child/uwu language, and thus it needs to be a limited vocabulary.
3 Likes
Because you’re not Diogenes.
2 Likes
see look at all those guidelines everyone has an understanding of what a fluffy should be and mods judge by those standards already why are they not written down to give everyone a understating of what a fluffy is expected to be
Same.
It’s one of the reasons I can see issues with a strict adherence to such a list. Fluffies should be dullwitted or at the very least naive imo. But how dumb? What is the meter by which that is decided? Do we all go by the fluffies that literally drown when they stare at water?
It’s a seemingly small issue that snowballs when each bulletpoint is put under scrutiny.
3 Likes
no not car like a actual car why can a car not be a fluffy if there are no rules
But an end-all guideline would be, in my humble opinion, EXTREMELY STUPID.
I like fluffies to have an actual brain because fluffies drowning in a puddle bore me to death.
I like abusers not being protected by law, because I despise bully characters (most games I play including said characters, they quickly tend to go and watch the flowers from below).
2 Likes
BECAUSE IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY STUPID.
Dude. We all can see what your point is. It’s the point of all your posts and works.
Anyone with half a brain can quickly pick up what fluffies look, act and talk like.
Hell, I’ve come here from TheClick’s videos last years, just a few images and I had a good idea of what fluffies were about. Before those, I had no idea fluffies or the booru or whatnot even existed.
Mods do not bother with such lists, because they are unnecessary. If you get any deeper than surface contact with the fandom, you quickly gather what’s what. At least I wouldn’t bother with it, if I were a mod.
1 Like
you continue to prove that there are guidelines already in place . everyone assumes that rules means hard stops instead of just giving a basic understanding which everyone already has and mostly aggress on
Official guidelines become rules. Rules keep people from being creative and trying new things.
Unofficial guidelines keep us within the same parameter, with enough wiggle-room for experimentation.
6 Likes
you only serve to prove my point the guidelines are already in place what do we lose by having the in plain sight
This. ^
1 Like
So then you acknowledge that there are already sets of data all over the community that constitute a basic set of standards for what they are.
Where do you need them posted, carved elaborately into stone and showcased, to meet your definition of Posted Rules, oh squeakiest of wheels, patron saint of ripoffs??
Nothing.
But we also gain nothing, as said guidelines are far more easy to pick up by delving into a few works, rather than look up a Master Post.
there are already official guidelines they are just hidden from you written rules would still give us all the wiggle room we already have .even putting aside fluffies themselves why are there no rules as to what makes hug abuse or weird boxes having rules for boxes would only serve to making cataloging an easier and ensuring that people could more easily self moderate what they are exposed to
If I may, the guidelines may be unnecessary for someone looking into what a normal, regular fluffy is.
The real problem is sub-species.
I feel like I haven’t been here too long, but even so I’ve seen like 3 sub-species proposals that were just a different animal altogether. No fluffy appearance, no fluff-speak, one was just flat-out a regular seal that could speak. But there were no guidelines for how fluffy-like they had to be to count as fluffies, so aside from voicing my concern that anyone seeing abuse of it would just see someone clubbing baby seals, there was nothing I could really say.
Because while they looked and acted nothing like fluffies, there aren’t any guidelines or limits for what “fluffy subspecies” can be.
Isn’t it worth to post some traits and an acceptable percentage for fluffy-ism just to help those people? It would suck to make a cool new thing and only find out afterward that it wasn’t okay just because there weren’t any guidelines or rules visible anywhere.
3 Likes
to have them know why else is anything written down if something is important enough to be acknowledged it is important enough to be recorded
spweaky understands guidelines are not to keep us in line but to ensure we do not stray to far or if we do stray off the path we know there will be consequences
I usually message people who post things that venture into non-fluffy territory and try to coax them into taking in more content so they can learn.
I stand by that being the best method of figuring out what a fluffy should and shouldn’t be.
There are countless posts that do just that and I really don’t think one more drop in the pool would amount to much for the exceptionally new.
1 Like
You’ve been around for quite a while, squeaky, since you came in 2016. Definitely earlier than me. And you would know some things about the community that I don’t.
I think some things can be agreed upon, and its something that the mod team also discusses. For instance, we don’t count scaly creatures as fluffies, even if they speak fluffspeak, as they are neither fluffy nor have hooves.
Perhaps we’ll make an announcement regarding how we grade and look into sub-species. But this will take time, and its not a decision that should be rushed.