Fuck yes
2 Likes
It’s a large enough sect to get its own designation
3 Likes
You bet your sweet as we should!
4 Likes
The box group, and the sorry box group for the bad ppl that might show up time to time
2 Likes
If we can add tags for OCs.
I may be nitpicky here, but there’s a very big difference between having named fluffy characters in your story and creating named OC’s to build a universe around. I like myself some good hugbox, but unless your name is RQ and your fluffy’s name is Marbel, I don’t care about your named fluffy and certainly don’t wanna join its fanclub. I care about what’s happening in your story and - only incidentally - what happens to your fluffy.
4 Likes
I’m 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. Don’t 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 ‘too’ 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 you’re going to say “I don’t care for anyone other than Marble”, I’d be tempted to say “I don’t care for Marble and prefer other OCs”. Because there’s 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 don’t 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, isn’t as interesting as Squeakyfriend’s Doctor Crazystein. Or Mutagen’s Greg from his famous Postfluff. Heck, even for a “poopie-coloured” fluffy who had a hard time, I actually prefer FierceDeityLynx’s Plum a bit more, unfinished as her story was. And I’m certain you’ll disagree with me regarding my examples but, that’s my point. And I haven’t even mentioned Carpdime’s Avocado. It’s 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 there’s a lot of interesting fluffy OCs out ther,e if people take the time to look through.
3 Likes
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 don’t 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? That’s like saying asking people to correctly tag abuse and smarty content is penalizing those posts. All I’m asking for it categorizing. I love seeing hugbox. I’m not a fan of seeing biosheets and a fluffy’s likes/dislikes. If I can get a tag so I can put that on ignore, then everyone wins. Said material doesn’t 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 “content”. And maybe some people find it easier to tell a story with that starting point. That said
I’m not a fan of seeing biosheets and a fluffy’s 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 “biosheets”
2 Likes
No problem. I came off as my opinionated and bristled self. I could’ve chosen my words better. And I def should’ve been clearer what I meant with OC.
And it’s 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 can’t anymore (since Anon posting isn’t a thing).
Seriously, you guys are doing awesome. Sorry I came off as whiny. I really appreciate what you guys are doing.
2 Likes
Getting back to the topic at hand
I’ve been resistant to the whole “horrorbox” concept.
I saw no need for it when the flair was first introduced on Reddit and I guess I don’t see any need for it now.
But if it’s 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 isn’t abusive, yet isn’t ‘normal’ or ‘neutral’ enough for ‘weirdbox’ or ‘neutralbox’.
For instance, I’d 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 can’t really fall in the traditional space of ‘abuse’.
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 “not abuse” is Squeakyfriend’s Toy Castle. WHile one could see Wawa, the Bat fluffy adnd the zombies as ‘fluffy abusers’, 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.
2 Likes
Alright, that’s fair.
1 Like
what the fuck is a horrorbox group
1 Like
I imagine it’s a place your abominations might go.
1 Like
Horrobox is basically abuse
1 Like
Anyway, horrorbox is created. If someone wants to write up a description of what it’s about let me know.
2 Likes
ok, so I think about it like this.
Have you ever noticed, that Muffin’s 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 “le weird” (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 doesn’t 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 doesn’t 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 isn’t 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. It’s not about monsters eating fluffies. It’s about fluffies trying their best to not be found by those monsters who creep through the house in search of them.
P.s it’s 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
2 Likes
It’s something that can makes us feel fear, feel HORROR. That’s what separates horror from abuse. Well that and the horrific monsters.
Exactly.
1 Like
Not to bad a description. I do think horrific monsters can also be abuse creatures, and the feeling of horror can apply to some abuse works.
That said, I agree that horror should apply elements of suspense and tenseness. The horror creature should also be one thats hardly understood - when its all too well understood, then it stops becoming horror and becomes straight abuse.
It’s about fluffies trying their best to not be found by those monsters who creep through the house in search of them.
While I don’t disagree with this definition, I feel that it can also apply to sadbox and abuse. I think horror needs to show how the monster can also be a threat to other beings like humans (hence really making it horror), and yet, somehow tie it back to fluffies (otherwise it becomes content that looks like it could do better without fluffies)
I like the toy castle example because the monsters in it were vaguely fluffy, but also were mysterious “not fluffy” enough. And a lot of it is questioning “how did this castle come to be”?
2 Likes