I’d agree based on personal experience.
Though as a teen we often discard, even destroy our things because we no longer care for, or are embarrassed by them.
Plus I recall the guy from the Netflix show talking about how he got a Go-bot instead of a Transformer for his birthday so he chucked it into a fire.
I think even this site has a rule against jellens being the focus of the story, so I think he was doomed from the start. I had an idea revolving around the nature of learning to love again after suffering, but I didn’t know jellens couldn’t be the protagonist
That’s something people complained about?
I swear I read a story with one as the main character figuring out what it is. Like Jellen is Fluffy Limbo.
I thought it was a mod rule. y’know, to keep the fandom centered and all
Not that I’m aware of here. I think the only rule is it needs to have Fluffies of some kind or tie into them, or else post it under shitposting category.
Haha oculus getting mad because you did not read his head cannon of fluffy history the boy is six levels deep in to self parody meta
For the record, I didn’t come up with the term Hellgremlin. I first suggested calling them “asshole fluffies”, but I think RQ came up with the catchier term that quickly caught on.
I still blame all the negatives of the fandom on them though. There were stories about runts and brats before, but it was the separately-evolved fandom from /b/ that claimed those to be common features of all fluffies. And after years of them teaching all things hateable being fluffy canon it’s taking ages to heal the damages they did to fluffies image.
For a comparison of the fluffy vs hellgremlin fandoms, imagine if G.I. Joe had an episode where the heroes had to do something morally questionable to save the day. It would be controversial and provoke a lot of discussion. Now imagine if the show’s writers took this to mean fans like this sort of thing, and started writing more episodes with the hero team committing more and more heinous atrocities until no one even remembered Cobra or that the G.I. Joe was supposed to be fighting against the terrorists. It would take ages to return the show to its roots after a generation of children had grown up viewing the Joe’s as war criminals.
People are just looking for justice in abuse is all I see when they abuse the idea of Hellgremlins.
You make it sound like there was a grand conspiracy to change how fluffys where seen . When it was just that hell gremlins where popular it scratched the itch but like all things it fades away in time to be replaced whit the new fad
That’s not how I read Foxhoarder’s comment at all.
It doesn’t take very much to start pandering to a particular segment of a fandom. Especially if they’re quite vocal.
But that pandering can go way too far.
The pandering happened.
And we’re still trying to rein the community back in and bring them back to the core of what makes fluffies interesting.
you say pandering i say they where giving the community what they wanted , the core of what makes fluffies interesting is ever changing hell gremlins oc jellenhimes self insert oc fluffy pony drown poopy bebbehs poopy bebbehs whit knight all of is just as right as it is wrong
make sure you don’t rein the community in to an echo chamber
How does it feel knowing only two people can ever understand what you’re saying
it feels good skippy
So here’s the thing for me. Due to the nature of the Fluffy fandom’s birth and development on unstable platforms like the chan’s most of it’s early history has been lost for good with only a handfull of archived threads, and a fist fulls of anecdotal evidence remembered by those who lived it. Saddly human memory being what it is that evidence is just not as reliable as we would hope. That said the origin of hellgremlins is easy. The majority of people can take cathartic joy in breaking something, however those same people have a harder time enjoying it if they feel it’s undeserved. Let us lean on a real world example. I had 2 drills one was constantly giving me issues and while it worked the majority of the time it had the bad habit of fucking me over when I needed it. My other drill was old and tiered but it worked well and did it job. When I bought a new drill which is incredibly powerful and well sized and built, I had no issues chucking the drill that kept fucking me over acrose the shop into a wall and then blow torching the pieces. I hated that thing. But the old tiered one even though I’ll likely never need it’s services again I can’t bring myself to be rid of it and have “retired” it to a place of honer in the shop to live out it’s days. Long story short people like to break stuff they feel deserve to be broke and hellgremlins provide that cathartic release in spades. I think that’s the primary issue with alot of these analysis is that they look for a person or an event to explain why things happened, and not a motivation. The Russians, the btards, all of them did not operate in a vacuum. Their very existence did not push the trends. The content pushed their growth. The pleasure of breaking
the thing which deserves to be broken, a thing that the majority of users clearly enjoyed as it took over the meta is what drove the trend.
Re-reading your statement, I feel that it would be more apt to say that it was the influx of people from /b/ who “poisoned the well” and brought these hellgremlins. But that being said, part of the reason why I acknowledge the hellgremlin theory is because enough evidence seems to suggest it did exist.
Here’s the thing: more than one person has cited a specific push in how fluffies are seen. Santanon mentioned it on the fluffcast, and an anon on a fluffy thread on /trash/ mentioned it.
This is not to mention the tiff that abuse-sir had with Santanon, with the former resorting to sockpuppeting accounts and campaigns to attack him. To my understanding, abuse-sir and a few other abusers have been wanting to use fluffies to “troll bronies” and had been pushing certain abuse-ish narratives to that extent. So while it may not be a grand conspiracy, there were definite movements. For instance, gingerfig kept pushing this idea of fluffies as an invasive species, something which he had an argument with LordAnubis on.
And, one copypasta that kept going around on /b/ was the depiction of fluffies as “the literal representation of the seven deadly sins and worst thing imagineable”.
Thats literally what pandering is.
I feel that you are on to something @researcher7201, and its related to my own thoughts regarding fluffies as a whole. The motivation for hellgremlins was borne out of more abuse-specific approaches towards fluffies. Its part of the reason why I take up the title of hugboxer, and am so critical of abuse. The over-emphasis on abuse was what led to the creation of hellgremlins, as the idea of seeing fluffies as the worst thing imagineable justified their killing.
But even if we ignore the hellgremlins, even if we put aside that approach, I feel that other forms of abuse is too saturated on this idea of looking at fluffies as completely pathetic, or taking pleasure in hurting something thats innocent or cute. Its part of why I am so against “cute aggression” as a motivator. One thing that Santanon mentioned on the Fluffcast is that people get so stuck in their ways of looking at fluffies, that the genre and the fiction doesn’t really develop. In that sense, I am critical of the kind of opinion that @Vanner mentioned here: “as a species, they’re hopeless”. I disagree with that. I think that disliking fluffies purely for their inadequacies, or relegating to thinking of them only in the negative prevents the genre from developing further and, in addition, would make the endevaour seem pointless. Thats what I got out of KMEB’s last post.
And I get that hugbox may seem “boring”, because it paints too rosy a picture of fluffies having happy lives, something that they can get from any other “cute talking animal story”. But thats why I believe the genre has to aspire to be more than just edge for the sake of edge. The edge is needed, but it should be needed to make a point instead of an excercise of “I release my frustration on this animal because I hate the way it talks”. (And yes, I like the way fluffies talk) Its why I believe that hugbox needs to go further than just being “fluffies being cute”. The appeal of @Carpdime 's Avocado to me is how he excels and thrives, despite his origins in industrial sadbox. The appeal of FierceDeityLynx’s Plum is her tenacity to survive the prejudice at the hands of her herd, with the solance being her foals. The appeal of @mutagen’s Greg is how he is unique because of his intelligence, and the bond he has with the Russian (who has consumed the other members of his kind). I love @Muffin 's Tumbly because, and despite being born disabled, Tumbly does not let his disabilities define who he is as a character. And I could go on about the many unique fluffy characters I have come to love in this fandom.
But my point is, if people only look at fluffies in terms of “when are we going to kill this particular fluffy character”, then of course the genre is not going to develop.
Skippy it is not pandering if someone asks for water and you give them water
Of course fluffys have changed how they are seen almost all of there fantasy-whimsical nature is gone the age of fluffy shits on the floor fluffy is killed has faded hell you can’t even say fluffys are bio toys or soap those that mean that certain narratives are being pushed or is it that fluffy stories are continuing to evolve whit the changing of the community .
For some one that claims to see the destructive nature of pushing one set of ideas you are very keen on discrediting all ideas but your own very narrow views on fluffys
There’s a difference between giving water to someone who asks for a water, and adding a sexy woman showering in John Carpenter’s The Thing simply because “sex sells”. The Thing’s story worked without the presence of women, and didn’t need further pandering.
~
I’m not here to discredit any particular headcanon. If anybody wants to come to the fluffy fandom to read about fluffies being some kind of ecological nuisance and thus get exterminated, that is fine. If people want to come to this site to read about fluffies being bad and getting karmic punishment for their misdeeds, that is also fine. If people want to read about fluffies getting abused and tortured simply because they’re annoying or too dumb, then that is also fine.
But I draw the line at people putting overly-abusive comments on hugbox. Because some people do come to fluffies for the hugbox and to enjoy cute and innocent things, and don’t appreciate rando’s shouting and demanding blood.
What I’m asking for is mutual respect.
People wanted abuse creators where not pandering they where making content that was popular. If it was a simple case of pandering you would not need to write this whole abuse bad fluffies always good diatribe what you perceive to be the correct fluffy content would have long since over shadowed abuse based content
Your whole post is how abuse centric content ruined fluffies and how that is bad and should be looked down upon and if we return to the oculus approved content every thing will be better your last minute gaslighting of I just want space for hug is very unconvincing
Oh my god.
fluffies are not real.
My fluffies literally defy basic physics, others prefer a very realistic view of them. Some make them kind natured, others make them hellgremlins. Let people enjoy pretend cartoon horses however they want.