- Yes
- No
- Not sure
0 voters
0 voters
Fuck yes
Itâs a large enough sect to get its own designation
You bet your sweet as we should!
The box group, and the sorry box group for the bad ppl that might show up time to time
If we can add tags for OCs.
I may be nitpicky here, but thereâs a very big difference between having named fluffy characters in your story and creating named OCâs to build a universe around. I like myself some good hugbox, but unless your name is RQ and your fluffyâs name is Marbel, I donât care about your named fluffy and certainly donât wanna join its fanclub. I care about whatâs happening in your story and - only incidentally - what happens to your fluffy.
Iâm going to disagree with you here @OtherCoraline. To be a bit of a pedant, all fluffy content is original content. Aside from fluffy works that try to connect to the MLP roots, all fluffy content is original content based off original designs. There are some people who try to base their work off ideas by lordanubis, mayclore, carpdime and so on, but the idea of fluffies was that each person usually worked with their own idea of fluffies, just with many recurring ideas. And because fluffies tried to distinguish itself (mostly) from MLP, it is original content, or OC
Second, I consider Marble overrated. Donât get me wrong. I do appreciate that RQ gave Marble a hugbox ending, and I do detest what GWN did to RQ and Marble, as it was out-of-bounds and schadenfreude but, if I have to give a critique of Marble, her story was a bit âtooâ focused on the abuse, and the hugbox mainly kept to a final page. This is just a critique though. I do acknowledge that Marble has a fans, and a lot of fans, but, I feel that, as a hugbox character, there are other options I like to draw on.
And yes, I do speak as somebody from a fanclub. More than one in fact. I say that because, if youâre going to say âI donât care for anyone other than Marbleâ, Iâd be tempted to say âI donât care for Marble and prefer other OCsâ. Because thereâs a lot of other fluffy OCs to choose from, from many other artists and writers. Sometimes, the better way to tell a fluffy story is to come up with a fluffy character, and build the world around said character, Thats what worldbuilding is - one way is to add characters to a world, sure, but some people find it easier, or even better, to craft the world around the character. To give a contrast, Tolkien created a world to populate characters in, but Herge created a world that Tintin lived in. Both still created great work. And I donât think there should be any penalties to such an approach. Doing so would be the same as penalizing approaches to fluffies, which itself is a form of gatekeeping.
And again, regarding OCs - I am still working on an entire series looking at other hugbox and neutralbox series in the history of fluffybooru and the fluffy pony fandom. To give an example, Marble to me, isnât as interesting as Squeakyfriendâs Doctor Crazystein. Or Mutagenâs Greg from his famous Postfluff. Heck, even for a âpoopie-colouredâ fluffy who had a hard time, I actually prefer FierceDeityLynxâs Plum a bit more, unfinished as her story was. And Iâm certain youâll disagree with me regarding my examples but, thatâs my point. And I havenât even mentioned Carpdimeâs Avocado. Itâs all subjective opinion regarding preference on OCs, and why I want to emphasize not have this apathetic attitude towards fluffy OCs.
tl;dr all fluffy content is OC, or original content, and I think thereâs a lot of interesting fluffy OCs out ther,e if people take the time to look through.
OC != Original Content. Everything on this site is original content.
OC == Original Characters.
As in you begin with character sheets and bios before the story has ever begun. And all the connotations associated with those 2 words.
And I donât think there should be any penalties to such an approach. Doing so would be the same as penalizing approaches to fluffies, which itself is a form of gatekeeping.
Why do you think adding tags is penalizing? Thatâs like saying asking people to correctly tag abuse and smarty content is penalizing those posts. All Iâm asking for it categorizing. I love seeing hugbox. Iâm not a fan of seeing biosheets and a fluffyâs likes/dislikes. If I can get a tag so I can put that on ignore, then everyone wins. Said material doesnât pop up in my feed. And those who create that type of content can more easily target people who want to read/view that type of post (like you).
More options is rarely a negative.
Ah I see what you mean.
As in you begin with character sheets and bios before the story has ever begun. And all the connotations associated with those 2 words.
I feel a bit ambivalent. On one hand, I can see why some people might be put off by that idea. But on other hand, its still âcontentâ. And maybe some people find it easier to tell a story with that starting point. That said
Iâm not a fan of seeing biosheets and a fluffyâs likes/dislikes.
I can agree to this. I do think there should be a clear definition on what is a biosheet, and from there, categorizing such fluffy pony pictures as âbiosheetsâ
No problem. I came off as my opinionated and bristled self. I couldâve chosen my words better. And I def shouldâve been clearer what I meant with OC.
And itâs not a big deal. You guys who are building and modding this site have done a great job with customizations and preferences. The inability to comment as an Anon is a godsend as it prevents angry and hateful spam. The FC is sooo much more friendly and enjoyable compared to the old booru (and even the subreddit). And the ignore feature for Tags/Users is so nice in that in that it makes it very easy to ignore content you are not interested in and if someone is harassing you, just a few clicks and they canât anymore (since Anon posting isnât a thing).
Seriously, you guys are doing awesome. Sorry I came off as whiny. I really appreciate what you guys are doing.
Getting back to the topic at hand
Iâve been resistant to the whole âhorrorboxâ concept.
I saw no need for it when the flair was first introduced on Reddit and I guess I donât see any need for it now.
But if itâs popular enough that a lot of people want it, it can be added.
I think the question is what separates it from abuse, and if there are enough people/ideas to show that horrorbox idea isnât abusive, yet isnât ânormalâ or âneutralâ enough for âweirdboxâ or âneutralboxâ.
For instance, Iâd consider Bozdo to be a good example of horrorbox, since it focuses on a horror concept that affects both fluffy and human alike. Also, @resnoth1059 has been working on adaptations of fluffies as famous monsters from horror movies, such as zombies and the like. In this case, the horror icones are fluffy themselves, so it canât really fall in the traditional space of âabuseâ.
But all that being said, I do think it needs to be clearly defined. Coming up with 'yet another mysterious creature that abducts fluffies to torture/kill them" makes them more of an abuser OC. Its why the Ringmaster, while supernatural and horror-based, is often seen as a abuser OC. I think there has to be something that differentiates entities like the Ringmaster, Monster Mummah and your average human abuser from Bozdo and fluffy Freddy Krueger.
I think another example of something that I feel is definitely horrorbox and ânot abuseâ is Squeakyfriendâs Toy Castle. WHile one could see Wawa, the Bat fluffy adnd the zombies as âfluffy abusersâ, the concept of the game itself is based around horror and mystery, with the protgaonist having to save her foals from the castle.
tl;dr I do think horrorbox warrants its own definition, but it does need to be clearly defined from abuse.
Alright, thatâs fair.
what the fuck is a horrorbox group
I imagine itâs a place your abominations might go.
Horrobox is basically abuse
Anyway, horrorbox is created. If someone wants to write up a description of what itâs about let me know.
ok, so I think about it like this.
Have you ever noticed, that Muffinâs work can be a bit weirdbox-ish at times? It is because wierdbox is basically a hugbox with the addition of the substance I call âle weirdâ (LW for short). When you add LW to the hugbox, some changes are beginning to appear, the most important of which are cartoon physics and distortion of reality. Just like its originator, weirdbox doesnât set a goal to make fluffy suffer, but it also no longer about only hugs and love. The goal of weirdbox is to make a wacky situation with the use of those 2 new tools.
Horrorbox on the other hand is what you get when you add LW to the abuse. It MAY look like the goal of horrorbox and abuse is the same, but it is not true. Abuse can use horrorbox elements to enhance its story, just like Muffin use weirdbox elements, but it doesnât mean they are the same. The real goal of horrorbox is to create suspense and the tense situation around it with newly acquired abilities to distort reality. A good example of what I just described can be seen in this video by ThatWelc. It isnât hugbox and it can hardly be called abuse. In reality, this is the opposite side of weirdbox, which uses its reality-distorting properties to create not a wacky situation, but suspense and tension around it. That is what I think horrorbox is - using the same toolbox as weirdbox to create something creepy and scary, mysterious and Lovecraftian. Itâs not about monsters eating fluffies. Itâs about fluffies trying their best to not be found by those monsters who creep through the house in search of them.
P.s itâs a little difficult for me to clearly express my thoughts in a foreign language, so maybe I accidentally spun some incomprehensible nonsense. This happens to me from time to time
Itâs something that can makes us feel fear, feel HORROR. Thatâs what separates horror from abuse. Well that and the horrific monsters.
Exactly.