Forums / Discussion / General

Fifths wrote:

Did you miss the part where I directly confronted one of those vector artists, one who happens to be a friend of mine, and told him I thought his arguments were bad? If you’re trying to claim that I don’t understand how it feels to be an artist or to spend a lot of time on a creative project, well that’s just blatently false. I am an artist, I am a friend of one of the guys who ‘got wronged’, and I still think that it’s unfair to expect someone to individually credit dozens upon dozens of sources for their trivial contributions to some stupid poster. Crediting the group in general is sufficient.

And the topic for debate is whether or not it’s appropriate to credit a group but not it’s individual members, not whether or not it’s okay to completely ignore them and take full credit for yourself. You’re strawmanning my argument and you should know better.

Ignoring my posts again, huh? You should skim them at least. They sometimes contain important information.

The poster builder announced that the vectors did not happen to all come from the same group, so using the group as a source is no longer valid. It didn't take him long to update to source out the images either, so it clearly wasn't much of a hurdle to jump in the first place.


Your argument on the individual artists not having any real claim doesn't have much credence, as some of the vectors are not actually based from the show (Vinyl Scratch is a notable one), and the artist only gains notoriety from people who use the work and link back to the original source. DeadParrot's particular portion may have been a vector trace, but that doesn't excuse the use of another person's "contribution".

After that, your argument about sourcing the entire production staff is as weak as you claim DeadParrot's arguments to be. Simply put, not everyone on the production staff has a role to play with vector development and scene building. Those that do, work together in collaboration with one-another. It is practically impossible to know which artist did what without looking at the original scene's design delegation. That's why you see them listed under "Design Staff" or something alike in the credits. Generally, it's considered proper form to credit the production company when the artists fall under this kind of category.

Linking "MLP Vector-Club" is not placing notoriety to the artists of a group, only the individual pieces themselves. They are obviously not a design staff working together. It's like putting "THANKS TO THE DESIGN LIBRARY" in an episode's credits. No names are shown, and you have no real idea which piece came from which person unless you dig through the archive. One may have more open access than the other for the public, but the idea of design archives is the same.

Ooo, I started my very first internet fight! How exciting!

Man, I make one post, go out to lunch and come back to chaos.
Wee!

Anyway, it looks like Crazy made most of my counterarguments for me.
Crediting the animation staff of the show as a group is acceptable primarily because we don't know who was involved with each piece of the completed show.
We are only given credits that group them together, so we can only give credit to them as a group.
(The other option would be listing out every animator on the show by name and saying "Some of these guys might have been involved in this thing I'm using but most probably weren't" on every single vector, and I think it's clear that that would just be very odd and impractical.)

My original thing was not meant as a plea for credit (I've seen my stuff used before without credit and I really don't care much, though I do acknowledge that other people might), but as a notice of an odd level of laziness.
Groups on DA don't function as generic image dumps that could be generically credited to the group.
Clicking on any image in the group's gallery will immediately send you to the individual person's page.
There's no way to grab a vector from the group and not know whose work you are using.
It then takes maybe 30 seconds to type the person's name in your description.
It just seemed like common courtesy to put that in when using something that probably took the other person a few hours to make in the first place.

The fact that a few of the pieces he used weren't even part of the group he cited only makes the lack of sourcing all the weirder.

Anyway, let's not dwell on this silliness.
It's Derpy Day!

This is supposed to be a happy occasion!
Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who!

In his never-ending quest to personally confuse me, HDD has released his epilogue for JappleAck.
Kind of big, so have a link:

@Crazy

What was that? Did somebody say something just now? It must have just been the wind…posting stuff online.

First off, I'll agree with you that I was wrong to directly equivocate crediting DHX with crediting the vectoring group. DHX is a team, a cohesive whole that works together. The vectoring group is more of an anthology, a group of individuals that are fundamentally autonomous in their work, brought together merely because it's convenient for people interested in what they do.

Even admitting this, I still don't think it's wrong to just credit the vectoring group as opposed to the individual artists.

Let's examine this debate in depth. First, just to clear the air, we are not asking a question of 'what is law'. Everything we're talking about here, the vectors, the poster, and all other mlp fanart, is technically infringing on copyright and could be pulled down if Hasbro cared enough to pursue legal action. Instead, we are examining this de facto situation that arises from Hasbro not enforcing its copyrights. We need to examine the nature of accreditation in a theoretical sense, not a legal one.

The first thing we need to understand is that when you credit a source, you're still plagerizing in the sense that you're using material that is not your own. Accreditation only serves to legitimize this use of another's work. This naturally asks the question 'what is the difference between work that credits its sources and work that doesn't credit its sources?' considering that there is no substantive difference between work that credits and blatent plagerism.

We credit other people when we use their work/ideas for three main reasons.

1: We want to be honest and not trick people into thinking we did something that we really didn't
2: We want our source to get the credit they deserve for their contribution.
3: We want to give our audience access to our referential material.

1 and 2 are really only auxillery. The main reason why we credit others in our work is for the audience's sake. If I'm reading an academic paper and see some argument derived from another source, well then I might want to go and check out that source and read the argument explained in its original context. If I'm watching a video that borrows music which I really like, I'd like it if the video credited who wrote the song so I can listen to more of their stuff.

Now, considering this third and main reason why we credit, I really don't think there's much holding to Deadparrot's complaint. How many people are looking at that poster and thinking "Oh shit, that particular vector is SO. FUCKING. AWESOME!" not even admiring the art that it's derived from, but just that particular vector. I'm going to go out on a limb and say there's not going to be too many of those. Vectoring is much more of a craft than an art. It's something that is an impressive skill to have, but is rather void creatively. For people who are legitimately interested in the craftsmanship of vectoring, it makes sense just to refer them to the place where you got such high quality vectors and where more can be found. The difference between the work that Deadparrot produces and the work that some other skilled vectorer produces is trivial to the observer unlike the difference between the work of two master artists, say Beethoven and Mozart, which is fundamentally different even while being of similar quality. Even the fact that he used some artists from outside of the group is irrelevant. Our interest is in the level of quality, not the particular producers.

Now clearly by just crediting the vectoring group, the poster maker is also making the statement "I did not make all these vectors, they came from this group," and this seems to satisfy the desire of being honest about our work to others just as well as crediting each of the individual artists would. So, given that reasons 1 and 3 for crediting work is satisfied, Deadparrot would need to justify his complaint purely based on reason 2, that mass accreditation fails to give him the credit he deserves for his own vainglorious good reasons.

Now, with all due respect to Deadparrot and the other vectoring artists, I do not think he really deserves that much credit for his contribution to this poster. He did NOT come up with the characters, he did NOT draw the original poses, and the contribution his vector made to the project was very small. There was no creative input that he deserves to be praised for and it required no special effort or pains on his part to make the poster possible (While he did have to work to make the original vector, he did so for his own reasons and didn't have to do any additional work to make the poster. He wasn't even concious his vector was used until after the fact)

He did nothing for this project that we typically praise people for, therefore I don't really think he is particularly wronged when he isn't credited. Given the fact that his own work is in a rather grey area as far as permission and accreditation are concerned, I really don't think he should be making this complaint.

Now given that there really doesn't seem to be really any good reason to individually credit the vectorers and because it seems like a real pain in the ass to do, I really don't think there was anything terribly wrong with not crediting them. Now when the poster maker asks that people individually credit him, I think that there is more justice in him asking that. Because he did, in fact, have significant creative input, it would be more useful to me as an audience member to know where I can find more of his particular work, and he is more deserving of praise for said creative input.

And I will emphasize one more time that the informal (and technically illegal) setting of fanwork really weakens the general need for accreditation. There's no money involved, there's nothing of grand significance being discussed; All of this stuff is supposed to be done purely for the fun of it. I find this overwhelming demand for accreditation to generally be rather ego driven, and frankly, I find the attitude of emphasizing THE ARTIST over the art to be rather silly.

tl;dr: There's little to no good reason to credit the individual vector artists here except to stroke their egos or as a trivial courtesy. Fan art is supposed to be a fun, unimportant little thing, this whining about accreditation is inappropriate to it. Just enjoy the goddamn art.

Could I ask why you feel that fan art is any different than any other kind of art? Technically, it's not illegal, it's all under fair use. The artists put as much time into making fan pieces as an original piece, and giving credit for an original work was something that's common courtesy, last time I checked.

Let's say you did a cover of Gotye's Somebody That I Used To Know (I dunno, first song that came to mind) and I used it in a mashup, saying "credit to the musicians" without saying who they were. Is it really justifiable to not name you, even though you put your time into that cover, because Gotye sang it first?

I don't know about you, but if I were to say "Thanks for killing CISPA, Congress!", it would be pretty stupid to have all individual members of the US House of Representatives who said "Nay" to the bill knocking down my door demanding for their name to be credited.

Howdy howdy people, who wants to be one of the 25 people I need to add as gameloft friends so I can unlock Scootaloo in this damn MLP game?!

Fair use only protects the use of copyrighted material in cases of commentary and criticism and parody. For example, if I was writing a review of the show, I could quote some of the dialogue and that would be protected under fair use. Something like the .mov series might be protected under parody, but most mlp fanart wouldn't fall under that. It's hard to define exactly where the lines fall on this one because the criteria for what qualifies for protection is incredibly vague, but I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of mlp fanart wouldn't qualify for protection under fair use.

To answer your question, please take a look at the three reasons I enumerated in that massive tl;dr for why we bother to cite work. I don't think that crediting the vectorers individually does any better of a job of satisfying those three main criteria than just citing the vectoring group does. Your comparison of me covering the Gotye song is a bad analogue because there's a relevant distinction to be made. Had I covered the song, I probably would have had a lot of creative input which should be cited for both my sake and the sake of the audience which might be interested in my other creative outputs.

Assume that instead of covering Gotye's song, I just remastered the track for my own amusement. I didn't make any significant changes to the music, I just helped reformat it and clean up the audio. Assume that in your giant mashup, you only take a two second sound byte out of my remastering to the point that I, the creator, can't even tell if you're using my remastered version or the original.

In that case, no, I really wouldn't mind if you just credited the remastering guild I was part of. Hell, I probably wouldn't mind if you didn't credit me at all.

Wow, the guy who made the poster actually agreed to properly cite the vectors when I asked him to. Goes to show, calm and gentle words can go a long way :D

And now I must go, my people need me elsewhere! * fades into the shadows *

Yeah… I don't know anything about this whole "stealing art" thing, so I'm just gonna post Derpy.

Welp, that's my one post of the day

Hey!
Hey Derpy!

…

I'm going to hug you.

And from the ashes…

Dedicated to the pony who hooked me to the show and the fandom. I salute you, oh glorious grey mare of marvel. I hope everyone had a fantastic Derpy Day, and may our muffins block out the sun.

(And let's round it out with some cute!)

EDIT: @Verbose

Faust is joining the Mane6 development team! :D
Omigosh-omigosh-omigosh-omiguuhhh..
Hyperventilates and passes out.
THUD

I'm glad she's joined the team for a couple of reasons.
One: It's good to see her active again. She's a pretty awesome creator.
Two: The game will get some life back to it.
Three: Bronies might lower the MLP-attention a little bit, seeing her work on other things.

There she goes, continuing to live up to her motto!

I think this pretty much goes without saying:

@Mane six releasing their game

I just had an idea…a wonderful awful idea.

Mane six releases their game with the the help of the beautiful and intelligent Lauren Faust. Guys who know computers get the game and mod it using the TONS of complete data that mane six has released previously including the old mlp based music, the old character models, the old stages etc.

So we get two games, one based on awesome original content by Faust and one that will be virtually indistinguishable from the pony fighting game we were all anticipating. And Hasbro can't do a goddamn thing about it.

Ding ding ding ding!

There IS hope!

The time for fear is now.

@Advance: Well…

They went from human to anthro really fast… (At least they don't have horns). Every character seems to have been flanderized.
Maybe. JUST MAYBE. It works.

@Advance

…Well then.

Let's take stock of our chickens and see how this compares to the original image that we were saying was likely a poorly done fan creation.

Now let's take note of this cat's comment 17 days ago, which I shared:

Grieffon wrote:

Step 1: Denial.

(Of course, I never said anything about it, so take that as you will. That thought was based on the initial reaction to the alicorn rumors and how people doubted its existence.)

And let us compare this to the current image.

• Skin colors are the same shade, but darker more pronounced
• Clothes are nearly identical along with the shoes
• Fluttershy still can't stand straight

I do believe we can take the first image to be legit. But I am still indifferent to this.
 
 
Well, I take that back. It's been said to be a separate thing from FiM, so I'm indifferent in that sense.

But I'm pretty interested in seeing how Hasbro's going to pull this off.

• Is it just one movie with toys?
• Is it a separate series itself?
• Both movie and a series?
• Who will be writing for these girls? Amy Keating Rodgers? M.A. Larson? Dave Polsky? None of the known writers from FiM? Your mother?
• Who will be the show runner/movie director? Surely Meghan McCarthy and Jayson Thiessen will be too busy to run another show with their FiM activities. Did the FiM crew get a half season in part so they could hammer out one legitimate movie?
  • Does this shine any more light on William Anderson's cryptic poem?

seasons, there are many of them, some of them shorter than others, perhaps for special reasons, to be followed by other long seasons.

seasons.

many seasons.

• And mostly, does this art confirm that Hasbro cannot differentiate between bronies and furries?
  • (Actually, before we go there, I think it's simply a matter of holding to the concept that these characters shouldn't have races. Even though they are separate, I think Twilight Sparkle is still going to be "Twilight Sparkle" in Equestria Girls. As such, whatever race is given to them in Equestria Girls will be given to them in Friendship is Magic by most viewers. So to avoid that, you simply don't give them a race as we see them.)
     
    Also…These girls are in high school, so they're likely "not of age" (inb4 lolicon arguments and "they're not really/real humans" discussions)

I remain Neutral on this issue until I see some footage that doesn't look like This:

Every Time I see that my thoughts go towards this.

Whatever, so long as they put some actual effort in.

… I mean, I would be seriously offended if they took that concept and half arsed it.

The concept is cool, but I have a Rage complex at showing people things that aren't ready for viewing.

(P.S. I still can't watch that obviously fake animation without wanting to claw my eyes and ears out yet.)

Well there's no way that this:

is the animation quality for Equestria Girls, just looking at it I can tell that it's concept art created for the show.

Now this:

on the other hand, could very well be the animation quality that we do see, seeing as how the ponies creatures are wearing the same outfits as they are in the official picture, it's pretty much assured that this is legitimate.

@Advance

I just don't understand. Who exactly does Hasbro think they're going to appeal to with these disgusting anthro monstrocities in high school? Us? Fuck no. Little girls? Fuck no. Teenagers? Wut…?

I'm not going to watch it.

I just noticed something.

<img src="http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/237/1/7/pinkie_pie_vector_by_tigersoul96-d47twmd.png" height="565"

Even here…
 
Actually, I think other designs in this shot took cues from their pony stock vector stance.

Or I could be simply seeing the "personalities" of both in each image and so they seem similar. But the Pinkie Pie one is pretty close, especially considering they aren't the same species.

I'd better get on making that poll for the name of the new thread. I guess we'll see KYM Pony General VII after all (everyone is banned if it isn't a Final Fantasy reference.)

@Equestria Girls… Whatever.

@Fifths: Considering there have been popular cartoons aimed at tweens/early teens that have contained anthros and have had pretty good success, I would not be shocked if Hasbro was not aiming for this same age group with Equestria girls. For whatever reason, kids really love anthros in their shows.

@Mane6 Never really cared for Fighting is Magic but now that Faust is involved…well I still don't care for it but now I think this game will have a more fair chance of getting recognition. Because seriously guys, the people that wanted to play this game were mainly just bronies, now fighting games aren't exactly super easy to pick up. Most of us would play this then stop after receiving nonstop ass kickings online pony or no pony, now with Lauren giving new characters to the project it has a better chance of having a wider range of appeal, I mean seriously guys not everyone has a very positive attitude about My Little Pony or Bronies in general. This game would be the definition of Niche, if anything Ponies were just the jumping off point for this game.

@Equestria Girls, if it's real I'm just kinda glad they're not using the human designs from Littlest Pet Shop. I was able to get used to Ashleigh Ball's character's design but everyone else looks downright scary. I always said though that making the ponies human probably wouldn't have 'as big' of a fanbase with Ponies.
It also makes it a bit more creepy infact if the ponies were actually teenage girls, it would make things like all the porn of this show being even MORE creepy, it would make memes like 'I want to Cum inside Rainbow Dash' a death sentence on the internet. It also makes me believe that bronies wouldn't be as out in the open for their love of this show "OMG look at Fluttershy's ass!" "Dude, you're a 26 year old man looking at an animated ass of a 14 year old…." all I can say is…….yikes, and thank god we have real My Little Pony incase this show fails and hope it doesn't make Hasbro go "Aww Equestria Girls failed, I guess people just hate G4 of MLP, cancel Friendship is Magic as well!"

@Crimson

No shit? Care to refer some examples?

Every Ninja Turtles except for the Live Action series.

eh, I don't think that really counts as anthro. They're very clearly on the "turtle" side of the equation. When I think "anthro," I think something that really straddles the line.

Oh hey, we were talking about pony dreams yesterday. I had one about Scootaloo last night where I had to protect her from attack dogs. It…wasn't pleasant.

Deadparrot, I saved your idol from getting mauled and torn apart, pay me!

The most popular one I can think of is Spongebob Squarepants. Not necessarily aimed at teens, but it still holds appeal to them. The most recent example that I can think of that holds most similarity to Equestria Girls (aimed at same demographic, taking place in high school, teenage cast, etc.) is fashion doll/cartoon short series Monster High. While not every character in this series is technically anthro, there are still a fair amount of the main cast/recurring characters that are, such as:

These aren't just background characters, these are some of the characters that the show/toy line focuses on. And the dolls for this series sell like hotcakes. There are girls not only watching a show with anthros, they are actually going out and buying these dolls that feature what is practically the textbook definition of anthro/furry. So if Equestria Girls fails, I doubt it will be because girls don't like to watch shows with anthros in them.

That's not good enough, in my dreams I taught Scootaloo to fly even though she's crippled and can't fly. How did I achieve that in my dreams?

But I achieved it no matter what, that's worth a circle jerk in my honor.

Anyone else notice that in the "concept art" they have pone ears but in the high school lineup they have human ears? Also the characters who should have wings have them. I'm going to bet that this new lineup is the result of market research and focus groups.

Fifths wrote:

eh, I don’t think that really counts as anthro. They’re very clearly on the “turtle” side of the equation. When I think “anthro,” I think something that really straddles the line.

That's a rather baffling line of reasoning. Anthro is short for anthropomorphic, which is basically an umbrella term which covers everything from minor attribution (phrases like "clever as a fox") to half-human hybrids. A more accurate term for what you're describing would be… Well, actually, I don't quite rightly know. Clearly, there's some room for improvement when it comes to the terminology relating to these matters. No wonder everyone's always confused. Why don't you take a look at this here Sliding Scale of Anthropomorphism and see what sort of conclusion you can draw up, hmm?

Are we entirely certain that this new piece of concept art is legit? It could just be another piece of fanart masquerading as official content, and the article editors didn't bother with fact-checking. I know my constant casting of doubt upon every single morsel of news we get must make me seem like the very height of denial, but I've never been one to take things at face value.

Judging by people's reactions, and assuming it is true, they've managed to back themselves into a rather uncomfortable corner design-wise. Not human-like enough to appeal to the anthropocentric purists, but not animal-like enough to appeal to the folks more disillusioned with mankind. Being trapped between both extremes, at the point where you get no sympathy from either side, ain't a place you want to be in, let me tell ya.

@Random's deleted post

Yeah yeah, I'll give it to you, very clever. I do feel the need to point out that I did expressly defend the need for citation under certain conditions, I just don't think that the particular case we were arguing about really satisfied them.

@Random's response below

I'm not interested in conjecture without argument. I gave an extremely detailed line of reasoning about why I don't think specific citation was necessary in the case of the poster. If I'm ignorant of some special knowledge that means I should change my position, I'd love to hear it. Don't just call me an ignorant dick without giving reasons.

@Crimson

Huh…and here I thought that kind of weird anthropomorphization was a fringe thing restricted to weirdos on the internet. Nice to see that the corruption of the youth is well under way.

@Brownmane & Random

I should have been more specific. I'm not surprised at the popularity of anything that is anthropomorphised. Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny, and the pones all observe a degree of anthropomorphization. What I was referring to was that very specific degree of anthropomorphization where the subject is almost human…but not quite. Weird discoloration, ears, tail.

Stuff that falls on that level of "Almost human but not quite," that weirds me out and I had thought was left generally untouched by mainstream media.

anthropomorphic:

Ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things.

-The Free Dictionary
-Merriam-Webster
-Dictionary.com
-Urban Dictionary

Given that the TMNT were created from actual turtles through a weird radiation side-effect, resulting in them having human characteristics like walking and talking. And that they are are not simple humans who happen to look like turtles. The TMNT are perfect and very legit examples of Anthros.

Can't beat logic Fifths.

About that deleted post:

Not in a mood to be a dick right now. I still stand that you were a pretty ignorant dick regarding an artists wishes in the sourcing argument.

@Brownmane
Here is my scientifically proven Scale of Anthropomorphism.

@Equestria Girls
I probably will not watch it. This probably will fail dismally like other shows which follow the same dull route of preteen/teen drama.
Dear Hasbro,

@Mane6: YES. I kind of expected to see this coming, but it's still pretty great that it happened. I'd expect Faust will take on a sort of "creative director" post, helping to come up with the new IP, which I am certainly okay with. Like I said before, I just want to see them make a game. We already know it's going to be tournament level-balanced. Let's get the finished product.

@Equestria Girls: Eh, whatever. I just can't find a way to care about it. I do like how the poses are based off of their stock vectors, but that's about it.
Except that Twi has… WINGS… That disappoints me.

As for dreams, I haven't had a pony dream, but I did have a dream last night that I went on an Indiana Jones-esque quest around the world, while being pursued by secret agents, to find out that Tupac was alive. He was in a meeting. I got to talk to him for a few seconds, he told me good job for finding him.

Ok, I've put together a quick poll of all of the suggestions for subtitles/titles for the new thread: KYM Pony General VII. Here is my thinking:

• Here, you can pick as many suggestions as you want.
• You can give each suggestion 1 tally.
• The suggestions with the most tallies will be voted on later on.
  • That way, you don't have to pick 1 of 60 something options.

 
 
 
Alright, if you would, please.

I voted for quite a few, even my suggestion that'll never be chosen but I don't care, although I don't think my favorite title will be able to fit.
Vid related

Oop, looks like chaos!

@Mane6
I'm sure I would have been more interested in the pony version because… well, pony, but I will absolutely give this revamp a try.
I mean, I would have anyway just because I would want to see the end result of a project I've been following for so long, but having Faust join in is now just a massive cherry on top.
It should also be noted that because they will be using their own IP, they don't necessarily have to release the game for free.
I'm guessing that they still might, but it will be interesting to see how it evolves.
(I would love to see them all use this opportunity to get Faust's Galaxy Girls off the ground. That would be a pretty kick-ass end result of all this pony-craziness!)
And yeah, how long after the game launches will there be an oddly polished pony 'mod' discovered?
They did specifically say that they would be trying to preserve as much of the code as possible, so we may not even have a tremendously long time to wait.

@Equestria Girls
So… more art.
I'll say it: I like the new versions more than the old ones.
As Verbose pointed out, it looks like they did specifically try to model them off of the old stock vectors that, while far overused, actually do a decent job of displaying the character's broad-stroke personalities in a single image.
(I do think it's hilarious that human Twi is an alicorn but they still paired her with normal unicorn Twi.)

Windigo pointed out the biggest shift from the previous version, though: wings.
The unicorns didn't get to keep their horns, but the wings are staying.
It makes me really curious to see how they are going to explain this new world.
Will RD, Fluts, and Twi be freaks who can fly or will a solid third of the population just be able to fly?
Will the former-unicorns get some kind of magic?
I think it's pretty clear that whatever universe these 'humans' are going to exist in, it won't be too similar to real life if crazy skin tones and wings are commonplace.
We'll have to see.

@Tim
Considering what MLP did with a show that had typically been 'cutesy, vapid, little girl junk,' I'm willing to give this new show the benefit of the doubt.
The retention of wings (and potentially other traits) could allow for a serious breaking of form.
'Teen girl high school drama' shows could always use more manticores!

@Antros in TV
Am I the only one who watched Thundercats?

They seemed pretty darn antrho.

@Name Poll
I put in a new suggestion, but I'm not sure I like the specific way I worded it too much.
Anyone want to play with the idea of the rumored 'Seventh Element of Harmony' to get a new title?
I know we have way too many options as it is, but I just thought of it so I figured I could throw it out there.

Used the final suggestion box to prove my identity without knowing it was public. Now I just look plain silly.

Is anyone bidding on anything at the LPU auctions? I know DeadParrot is, but with the auctions ending tonight, I wasn't sure if any other KYM users had conveyed any interest.

What is it with me and amassing stalkers?
I placed my first bid like, 12 hours ago and people are already finding me?
The eyes… they are everywhere…
Everywhere…

(If any of you screw up my auctions…)

As a Simpsons fan, I found this hilarious:

We just got over Twilicorn, Hasbro!
Why?!
(Not really, but funny.)

More from Mane6:

Looks like we will not be getting Galaxy Girls after all, but something truly, completely new!
Keeping them quadrupedal will certainly make it easier to transfer the moves and coding, too.
>inb4 Tiebite, Snapplepack, Roriflee, Butterbye, etc.

Oh boy:

New OTP right here guys.

@Pony Dreams
They an be weird sometimes…

But whose dream was it?!

@Larson courting my beloved Tabitha

Back off Larson. I like you, but you better back off.

@Lyra picture

That manages to simultaneously be extremely cute and extremely creepy. I like it!

DeadParrot222 wrote:

What is it with me and amassing stalkers?
I placed my first bid like, 12 hours ago and people are already finding me?
The eyes… they are everywhere…
Everywhere…

I checked for new auctions this morning and saw you were the last commenter on the signed BronyDoc shirt. I made a personal joke about it not being the signed Scootaloo, and that was the end of that. :P

Looking at the Scootaloo topic now though, I see you DID bid on it. Someone is currently ahead of you by $5, just to let you know


Honestly, so long as you don't bid on any of the Egophiliac items I did, I think we'll be fine.

I don't mind Equestria Grils, but I find these images pretty funny

DeadParrot wrote:

We just got over Twilicorn, Hasbro!
Why?!

>Implying bronies are actually over Twilicorn.

I honestly can't believe that people are still talking about it and haven't gotten used to the idea yet.

My expectations for Equestria Girls cannot get any lower. I think it's a terrible fucking idea and I can't foresee it being good or successful.

That said, these are merely expectations. It will be impossible to pass judgement on it until I see it.

@Equestria Girls, Again

My biggest complaint seems to be that the early Sprite-y looking stuff makes Pinkie Pie Look Fat.

…In the face at least. Though the dress isn't doing any favors.

However, I do seem to be warming to the concept, they just need to do a lot of revisions before i think it's in serviceable condition.

My second biggest complaint, is that the new artwork forgot Twilight and Rarity's horns, even though they added the wings.

Nitpicks? I can rant a whole lot on those…

The cheek bones look horrible on the early sprite versions and the fact it's still on Twilight's new concept art is atrocious and makes her look like that blueberry girl in charlie and the chocolate factory, the lack of muzzle on them is slightly disconcerting but otherwise forgivable, the fact that Twilight is wearing lipstick is weird as heck and causes a total dissonance in my brain but is nothing compared to seeing it on Rainbow Dash or Applejack.

GASP

Also why are they all wearing dresses? Is that the only acceptable Clothing choice? I would have at least thought they would give Dash some Shorts instead but apparently not! And why are they teasing us by making the hair look like their tails via some extension but aren't actually giving them tails? I mean, if you're going to give them wings, you may as well give them a tail. And if you don't give them Wings or Horns then you know darn well that you've made them being the same characters pointless.

Gasp

Also, why does Pinkie Pie have the smallest cleavage? I mean, they're practically non existent!

…

I think I'm done there.

Anyhow, I'm still skeptical since the mention in the article that you put up had it as a side note, and they didn't cite a particular source as to where the art or info on that came from.

Being a newspaper, they technically should be checking their facts, but they could very well have manufactured the image for the article.

…All in all… We need more evidence before we can make a concrete case for or against it. And I imagine there needs to be much more work on it done before it's ready to be seen. As I've noted with all these minor Grievances that add up to a vast Rant.

… Again… We'll see.

The last page started off a little negative, and we had a bit of difficulty finding a good, new topic to work off of.

This time, let's work a bit off the Equestria Girls idea, but mix it a bit with an underdeveloped topic from a little while back.

1 – To you, what is an acceptable level of anthropomorphism/humanization?
2 – Are certain traits entirely unacceptable?
3 – What exactly do you like about the human body that you would want to see emulated?
4 – Do you prefer a sexy part/whole human or a standard?
5 – How would you deal with sexualization of it?

These are, of course, opinions. Let's not attack others over them unless they're knowingly and intentionally being jackasses.