Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/31/2016 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    She's cute! How about "Cora Spondence".
  2. 2 points
  3. 2 points
    Background, yes. Inside information is probably not something that they will be giving out. I wouldn't bother asking about upcoming content that they realistically cannot answer. That said, for the most part their twitters and websites are open to general public. Bobby Curnow (MLP Editor): Twitter Mary Bellamy (Cover MLP Artist): Twitter and Website and Deviant Art Georgia Ball (Former MLP Writer): Twitter and Website Christina Rice (Curren tMLP Writer): Twitter and Website Barbara Randall Kesel (Current MLP Writer): Twitter Ted Anderson (Current MLP Writer): Twitter and Website Jeremy Whitley (Current MLP Writer): Twitter and Tumblr Rob Anderson (Former MLP Writer): Twitter and Website Ben Bates (Former MLP Artist): Twitter and Deviant Art and Tumblr and Blog Equestria Daily has also conducted in depth interviews with a good number of the people who have worked on the books if you really want to get some in depth information. Equestria Daily Interview Series: Sara Richard Agnes Garbowska Tony Fleecs Ted Anderson Heather Breckel Brenda Hickey Amy Mebberson Jay Fosgitt Katie Cook Bobby Curnow Andy Price Jeremy Whitley Christina Rice Jenn Blake Thom Zahler
  4. 1 point
    Here she is, created by the talented Ashley Nichols our little bat friend here is just adorable. She enjoys chatting, blogging, forum posting, researching, and making new friends. She's always up late at night (she's a bat after all) online discovering something new or talking online with friends. There is just one thing she needs some help with, and that's a name! We thought it would be fun if the community comes up with a name, so reply with your suggestion! Currently trending names: Cora Spondence Iris Agora Chatty Batty Misty Shadow Eko Bulletin Iris Skies/Iris Fang Chatty Bubble Little Quote Gleaming Dawn Floris Crescent Rally Nocturne Batina Vox Sultry Shadow Maddie Rater Daisy Skies Piper Postit
  5. 1 point
    Ay, this here post is going to be my art dump, ill update it with new art whenever My art mainly consists of horses, but from time to time i draw other sorts of fanarts as well aye But first, some shameless self promotion: Deviantart: http://malphazeusatrox.deviantart.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/MalphazeusAtrox Aight, get some cringe below OLD ARTSTLYES My Personal Favorites LATEST DRAWINGS Aight, those are just a few examples of my cringe, most of the content is still on my DA, probably on the scraps yes dear lord what have i done with my life
  6. 1 point
    Here is my first fan fiction character that I made. Please note that this is not my work, but based on designs from Starsue.net Name: Summer Blossom Likes: summer, flowers, school, helping others Dislikes: bullies, fake friends, negativity in general Personality: Smart, Cheerful, Depressed at times, Socially Awkward (somewhat), very kind, caring, shy, loyal Mom: Sunny Belle Dad: Skyward Sun Fears: disappointing anyone Birthday: August 27 Age: 16 Quote: “I hope not to be a burden.” Bio: Summer Blossom grew up with her parents in a small town. She was loved by everyone around her. But all that changed when she moved to the city and started to go to Canterlot High. She lost a lot of everything she had back in her old home. She was teased and bullied by some of the mean girls for being too shy. It had gotten to the point as to she had thought of hurting herself but she realized that if she did hurt self that it would disappoint her parents and her friends and she didn't want that; so she found and soon enough, made friends with Apple Gem, Harmonic Chord, Midnight Star, Sapphire Heart, and Spunky Sport. Her new friends realized that she was a rare person; she cared more about her friends than herself. Nowadays, while she is still a little shy, she is loyal to a fault and will do anything to help and protect her friends.
  7. 1 point
    TF2 and Overwatch players, just get along already.
  8. 1 point
    I was about to suggest "Bubble Rally" before I saw your post. Like a rally of (speech) bubbles! (Well, I guess I'm still suggesting it, really.)
  9. 1 point
    Two new drawings on my gallery thread, if someone's interested.
  10. 1 point
    The Gift of Maud Pie - Pinkie and Maud. ft Rarity episode The Saddle Row Review - mane 6 episode Applejack's "Day" Off - Applejack and Rarity episode Spice Up Your Life - Pinkie Pie and Rarity episode. The Cart Before the Ponies - CMC episode Oh, look. Not even a single solo episode. The answer is no. There's not too much Rarity in season 6. People need to get over it.
  11. 1 point
    How about Batty McBatface?
  12. 1 point
    Maybe the writers want to allow the fans to make their own interpretation about their relationship without directly saying it.
  13. 1 point
    I could see this happening at one point. Discord's line from last episode let's us know that the writers are still aware of this, and more importantly how absurd it is." "Fear not. Your romantic delusions are safe with me." One of the best parts of Discord, and this is also true of Q from Star Trek: The Next Generation, is his ability to sarcastically doll out the truth of any aspect of the series he is on. Riker's character became stolid after he grew a beard. Worf is a muscle bound idiot with a big head. The crew was saved on a weekly basis by a child smarter than all of them combined. The way Discord stated that line tells me that Spike knows that he's deluding himself about Rarity. But at the same time, Spike just isn't ready to let this childish crush of his go. I hope it will be addressed when the writers feel that the time is right to deal with this issue.
  14. 1 point
  15. 1 point
    This thread needs to be stickied. It should serve as this forum's ND and MD. Except it's a place to chill at anytime.
  16. 1 point
    I think about "Chat Bubble"
  17. 1 point
  18. 1 point
    Ooo, I'm with Dublyn Tea. "Cora Spondence" is an excellent name.
  19. 1 point
    Nope. TL;DR: I've been wanting to talk at-length about these kinds of questions for a long time, and got a tad carried away. It was all hammered out late at night, so hopefully its coherent. In summary, you can't say that anything is objectively good or bad because this can't be measured by any metric which we're capable of discovering. The best we can do is make judgements based on what seems intuitively right. Enjoy what you like and be merry! If I were an analyst, and wanted to establish you were wrong for liking the show, I'd have to do three things: Firstly, I'd have to make a series of observations about the show which are objectively true. Secondly, I'd have to link these observations to a concept of "objectively true" which is also provably correct. Finally, I'd have to establish that enjoying something that is "objectively bad" is morally wrong. Here are some problems with each of those steps: 1.) We could probably agree that some facts about MLP can be observed objectively. For example, most of us would probably agree, "in the cartoon, Fluttershy's fur is yellow" is an objectively true statement. Similarly, you could probably argue that some statements of contradiction like "event A contradicts what was previously established in dialogue B" are objectively true. However, the observations which people will point to as markers of poor quality are very diverse - and more importantly, most of them involve quite a lot of subjective interpretation. For instance, take the claim that somepony's actions are 'out of character'. In order to establish this as an objective observation, you'd have to establish precisely what the 'correct' interpretation of that character is. Then, you'd have to establish why the action in question transgressed the 'correct' interpretation of the character. Finally, you'd also have to establish that the inconsistency was not justified by the relevant context. Are you starting to see some problems with this? For example, how do we know what the 'correct' interpretation of a character is? Sure, you could base that on a series of observations, but then again, a lot of those sub-observations aren't going to be objective either. If we claim that a character is kind, what makes an action kind in the first place? How many actions of kindness do we need to observe because we can say "kindness" is a fundamental part of the character? If we do establish that a character is kind, how far is the context allowed to push them before they're allowed to act unkindly without being out of character? Different people will give different answers to these questions, and that's really my point - how do you establish that any one of those answers is more correct than any another? The observations we use as a basis for judgements of quality are pretty much what we see as 'intuitively correct'. Even if they contain some objective elements, much of it is still subjective at heart. 2.) Putting all that aside, let's assume we can establish that all our observations are 'objectively true'. Now, we need to establish that these observations make the work in question objectively bad. Here is a list of some questions people often ask to decide what objectively good/bad means: Does the work adhere to some set of technical criteria relevant to the medium (literature, film, etc)? Does the work adhere to a set of technical criteria relevant to characterisation, musical composition or some other specific component? Does the work realise the author's intent? Did the work satisfy its fanbase? Did the work satisfy the most dedicated of its fanbase? Was the work commercially successful? Does the work promote good moral values? Did the production staff engage in morally questionable practices during or after the work's production? (e.g insufficient wages to staff or on-disc DLC) Are members of the production staff involved in morally questionable practices which aren't directly related to the work (e.g is the director is a neo-nazi, etc) There are lots of bones you could pick with each line of thinking. For the sake of not making this post longer than it already is, I won't go into the problems with each one. Instead, I'd like to highlight two issues - 'inconsistency across works' and 'quantification'. Observing the opinions of specific individuals, you'll notice very quickly that we don't judge each work according to the same criteria. Each time we decide what 'objectively good/bad' means in relation to a work, we shove a selection of the principles above into an incoherent framework to suit our conclusion. What this suggests is that even if there's some perfect standard for 'objectively good', I'm not convinced that we're capable of discovering what it is and applying it consistently. This is compounded by the issue of quantification: when we speak about what makes a specific work good or bad, we think about the relevant components as if they formed a mathematical equation. That is, that the quality of a work equals the 'bad parts' subtracted from the 'good parts'. Even if we could establish that some things are objectively good and some are objectively bad, that says nothing about the degree to which they are objectively good or objectively bad. Given that we already struggle with the first part, I can't think of any reasonable metric that could be used to clarify the second part. 3.) Even if you assume that all your observations are right and align with a perfect standard of 'objective good', it's another leap entirely to assume that enjoying something "bad" makes you a bad person. On the rare occasion that I do see an argument like this, it usually takes one of two forms: A.) By enjoying "objectively bad" media, you're stifling the creation of "objectively good" media: The first problem with this argument is that the extent to which people like something usually has little to do with whether or not more of it gets made. The primary motivator for large-scale projects is profit, and the number of people who bought something is not necessarily correlated with the number of people who actually enjoyed it (see: Final Fantasy XIII). The best you can do as an enthusiastic consumer is promote something, and that's an entirely separate activity from merely enjoying it. B.) By enjoying works with objectively bad morals, you contribute to the spread of those morals and the subsequent decay of society/youth/cute puppies/ice cream vans/etc: Problems with the idea of 'objective morality' notwithstanding, you can pretty much object to this argument in the same way as the first one - how do you establish sufficient causality? Both of these arguments also skip an essential step by assuming that "objectively good media" is inherently valuable and needs to be promoted above other things. I know the feeling - I feel like I've allowed other peoples' negativity to get to me lately as well. I know it's hard to do when someone seems like a prick, but try to treat opposing viewpoints as opportunities rather than something to beat you down. Instead of turning it into a question of right or wrong, try to empathise with where different people are coming from and think about how their perspectives relate to your own. I know all about Dark Qiviut, and I get where you're coming from with him. He says what he thinks and doesn't remotely apologise for it. To people like myself who lack self-confidence and have low self-esteem, that attitude can look extremely intimidating. Their bluntness and self-assurance makes you feel like you've been mentally 'shut down'. Consequently, you end up feeling marginalised, and you come to resent those sorts of people for marginalising you. Sometimes it can taint our view of the entire topic under discussion. I have the exact same problem with Lilly Peet and some other figureheads, even though I agree with them on 90% of things. Here's the thing about them though - their confidence has no bearing on whether or not they're right. And on top of that, we're all on the internet where it's very easy to misread a person's tone and intentions. An attitude like Qiviut's could indicate arrogance and hostility... but it could also indicate that he has a different communication style which we're misinterpreting negatively. While I'm not a big fan of arrogance or contrarianism (alongside their partner in crime, edgy misanthropy), you'll find people are far less confronting if you give them the benefit of the doubt. Like I said before - I know it's hard to look past your gut reaction, but sometimes when you can, you can actually end up broadening your horizons quite a bit.
  20. 1 point
    There's never enough Rarity! And I just found out we have no Rarity emoticons so I say we need some!
  21. 1 point
    This would be just as likely as multiple nations coming together to defeat a 'big bad'. Another possibility would be a larger 'Friendship Summit' similar to what we saw in Princess Spike, but this time focused on the various species coming together.
  22. 1 point
    It doesn't bother me per say in the sense that, I think the show will never take it past the puppy love stage. They still show Rarity getting infatuated with stallions and it does seem to me that Spike sort of realises he has about a snowball's chance in hell, though he still likes to fantasy from time to time. The Simple Ways clearly showed that he won't get insanely jealous just because Rarity is showing interest in another stallion, (despite what fanfiction and even some comics would have you believe). But I still agree that they really need to have a moment where Rarity makes it clear that even if she finds his attraction flattering, they can only remain friends.
  23. 1 point
    Andy Price Twitter and Deviantart and Website Katie Cook Twitter and Deviantart and Website Heather Breckel Twitter and Deviantart and Tumblr and Website Tony Fleecs Twitter and Deviantart and Website and Blog Sara Richard Twitter and Deviantart and Website and Storenvy Agnes Garbowska Twitter and Deviantart and Tumblr and Website Amy Mebberson Twitter and Tumblr and Website Brenda Hickey Twitter and Deviantart and Tumblr and Website Jay Fosgitt Twitter and Deviantart and Blog and Tumblr and Website Jenn Blake Twitter and Deviantart Thom Zahler Twitter and Website and Other Comic Series Diana Leto Twitter and Blog and Website Heather Nuhfer Twitter I'm sure there are a lot more but those are the ones I can think of after a long night shift with no sleep. I'm sure the Illustrious Q can fill in the rest.
  24. 1 point
    That's the magic of IDW comics, they make almost anything work.
  25. 1 point
    I love how that comic arc took a concept that sounded like it should have been a really bad fanfiction and made it work.