What is this GAT thing and its successors even for? It's a system that is supposed to regulate how the guides are being handled, isn't it? You, as a staff, don't just arbitrarily choose which guides are published and which are to be deleted, you have built a formal system for handling that. How it works in practice is the other thing... But you want to keep it up in some form, don't you?
This is what the GAT (Guide Approval Team) was- and by "was" I mean it doesn't exist anymore:
https://community.tulpa.info/topic/6244-about-the-guide-approval-team/
There is currently no functioning system for curating guides. As of now, all new guides get stuck in submissions. There are no GAT members left to approve them.(edited)
So there is no GAT... But it's still expected to exist for you guys to be able to approve or disapprove the guides... There still is a system of submitting guides. It just doesn't function due to lack of GAT that's expected to be doing the job?
You can still submit to submissions, but then your guide will stay there in limbo
1:25 PM
With the new system, all of the submissions will be moved to a guides board unless it's Sock's guide (sorry, no satire guides allowed as guides) or it's deleted/gone/whatever
I think my current position on the topic is that a GAT shouldn't exist and that guides should be moderated exclusively by the moderators for harmful or objectively incorrect information.(edited)
1:26 PM
But honestly I haven't given it that much thought because it is so irrelevant to me at this point.
so current system looks like that:
(User is making the guide) -> (User submits a guide) -> [It should be an approval system here] -> (guide is published or rejected)
In my native language we have an idiomatic saying of "joyful creativity". I don't know if it has the same connotation in English. People are making effort but it's not very useful for consumers later.
In my native language we have an idiomatic saying of "joyful creativity". I don't know if it has the same connotation in English. People are making effort but it's not very useful for consumers later.
I see, like when a video game developer focuses intensely on fixing a perceived problem and then the game is bland because they don't understand that the problem was the fun-generation, and their enjoyment of fixing it was not the same thing as the fun on the user-side.
An example would be ... Let's say Dark Souls. If a designer takes the feedback from their players that the skeletons at the start of the game are too hard and if only they could get past that starting hurdle Dark Souls might be good for them...
They would break the fundamental purpose of Dark Souls. Dark Souls is a series of those skeletons. There's only more skeletons behind those skeletons, so to speak, they just have different skins and behaviours.
To clarify then, the premise of it is that you get good at its combat system and then feel good about having mastered it. This happens slowly, starting with you getting rekt repeatedly by things that in most games would be chaff.
1:46 PM
You cannot skip the reckoning to get to the fun, it's part of the fun in this case.
@A long kiss goodnight - jump
I think this guide might be useful. It's quite specific and addresses a certain problem. It's not yet another introduction to tulpamancy.
Not all guides are creation guides! There are a lot of little nifty guides out there!
A long kiss goodnight
This is something I wanted to do for awhile, so I'll go ahead and kick it off- every now and then I want to talk about random guides that happen to be floating around on Tulpa.info. I found two relatively short Tips & Tricks guides, so I'll go ahead and start with these:
"Meditation" by Hoenir
https://community.tulpa.info/topic/8319-meditation/
"Tip For Those Stuggling to Visualize" by WhiteRussian
https://community.tulpa.info/topic/682-tip-for-those-stuggling-to-visualize/
"Meditation" is about Hoenir's advice on how to meditate. They focus on describing what position you need to be in. After that, they explain being in a proper relaxed position is the key to forgetting your physical surroundings, letting go of stray thoughts, and going back to focusing on your tulpa.
"Tip For Those Stuggling to Visualize" suggests you use some kind of cover over your eyes like your arm to visualize more easily.
This is why I wanted to do something like this- find some guides and talk about them. However, it didn't gain a whole lot of attention, although I feel pretty motivated to do this again
1:55 PM
I get the sense people don't know what's out there
I like the idea of addressing a specific problem and making a guide for it. What I don't like is a spam of introductions that are 80% of redundant information and 20% of bullshit unfalsifiable claims.
I hope by creating a new guide system, people will feel better about publishing guides. I'm hoping with more guide content with a built-in expectation for revising your guides, guide quality can also improve overall
Is it more important that guides be published or that they be curated? Moreover, one of the things I think holds the idea of guides behind is the lack of any sort of consensus markers on them. While an upvote system can be abused, for example it at least establishes popularity. Right now there is just an enormous amount of guides for everything under the sun and there isn't any way for someone new to really begin to parse them.(edited)
Honestly I believe the former. A significant number of people didn't want to publish because they were afraid of the GAT. In the new system, you just post directly to guides. No approval system will hold your guide back in drafts
*Unless a staff review asks for changes to be made(edited)
The core premises of tulpamancy are simple. It reminds me of a parable I heard about Laozi speaking about Confucius: He talked about how trying to codify morality was only introducing confusion and complexity to people's lives on a topic that is exceedingly simple and should be reducible down to a few basic elements.
I think reviews in general are a good idea. But I think they don't necessarily have to be reviews from staff. I think approval from independent experienced users overall in form of reviews could be a decent way to make your guide stand out.
2:06 PM
And from people who actually feel it helped them.
2:09 PM
I am thinking about scenario like that: You convince at least 3 other experienced users to approve your guide by writing a review and also receive some positive feedback from at least 3 users who feel the guide helped them in their problem. And if your guide fulfilled that requirement, you can ask staff to promote it.
What I meant is that if guides are by the people for the people, people should do the work of promoting the good guides. Staff (admin) should only verify if reviews are really independent and ask users if they are really helpful, intervene only if the system seems to be abused.
It can be made into a bottom-up system at least. From what I know, GAT as a top-down system was always a bottleneck. Consensus is hard, isn't it? Instead of making GAT members a decisive body, you could just let a single member handle the case. And this member would be responsible only for checking if there was no abuse, like circle-jerking in reviews and fake positive feedback.
Would we disagree? You tend to be permissive before you shut down things. I tend to poke and prod at things to point out logical inconsistency.(edited)
It shouldn't matter. You shouldn't have a say if his guide is good or not. You should've checked if reviews that he received were meaningful and positive feedback was genuine. If he didn't abuse the system, you shouldn't have a power to refuse to get his guide promoted.
In a little system I have just made up, the staff has only power and responsibility to check if the rules are obeyed. Not to judge guides. Of course, they are free to be reviewers and have a positive feedback but then they can't be the ones responsible to check if the rules were obeyed.
2:31 PM
Negative reviews could also be written, of course. I don't know if they should have an impact on the guide getting or not getting promoted.
2:32 PM
N positive meaningful reviews and M positive feedbacks from users is just a rough idea.
2:34 PM
not taking negative reviews into account have its advantages in my opinion though. People have different opinions and are free to criticize. But as long as there are people who thinks that guide genuinely helped them, it's fine to promote it. Together with a ton of negative reviews criticizing it below, possibly.
I have to for the memes- What kind of guide judge would Marcus be? (He's an infamous troll who created hundreds of alt accounts) As far as I know he knows nothing about tulpamancy, but I'm sure he would give everybody a good laugh
How do you decide who's the judge? What's stopping Marcus or honestly 5 random tulpamancers from being the judge? Is the judge even relevant to the new system or was that a stray detail?
I'm sorry that these questions are prodding and picky in nature, unfortunately questions like these are important to figuring out how any new system would work. Personally I don't even have all of the details straight for the UpVote/Draft system, hence why I try to be transparent about it and ask for people's feedback.
Luminesce: I posted my response to the thread in the thread, but also to address a comment I saw that guides aren't useful - you have no idea how vastly many people are strongly averse to actually interacting (even making an account) in places on the internet and strongly prefer to just read a guide(edited)
2:36 PM
The number of tulpamancers I've seen say they got started with X person's guide is ridiculously high
2:37 PM
The guides section serves a lot of purpose
2:37 PM
(No comment on "Aren't there enough guides already?")
Reisen
Luminesce: I posted my response to the thread in the thread, but also to address a comment I saw that guides aren't useful - you have no idea how vastly many people are strongly averse to actually interacting (even making an account) in places on the internet and strongly prefer to just read a guide (edited)
On the contrary, Luminesce, I am one of those people, and I absolutely did not benefit from it.
2:37 PM
Just because it's people's instinct doesn't mean it's good practice.
2:38 PM
Still, I am not arguing guides should not be.
2:39 PM
Merely that the breadth and depth of them is largely superfluous and the way they are structured on tulpa.info itself isn't helpful in determining whether a guide has use.
I have to for the memes- What kind of guide judge would Marcus be? (He's an infamous troll who created hundreds of alt accounts) As far as I know he knows nothing about tulpamancy, but I'm sure he would give everybody a good laugh How do you decide who's the judge? What's stopping Marcus or honestly 5 random tulpamancers from being the judge? Is the judge even relevant to the new system or was that a stray detail? I'm sorry that these questions are prodding and picky in nature, unfortunately questions like these are important to figuring out how any new system would work. Personally I don't even have all of the details straight for the UpVote/Draft system, hence why I try to be transparent about it and ask for people's feedback.
@A long kiss goodnight - jump
system I have proposed, requires to distinguish experienced users. It's kinda vague atm, I know that. But I think it can be roughly assumed those are people who are talking in forum or discord and you are quite sure they are genuine tulpamancers who know their shit as someone recently said.
also, there are intros and there are guides addressing specific problems. I think the latter might be valuable and there is no "one comprehensive" one covering everything
Don't know about the wiki. I think a guide system could be potentially beneficial. If guides were addressing specific problems and not be yet another intro, everyone could make one but it'd take some effort to make it stand out among the joyful creativity... Yeah, it could benefit people.
I think the form of a wiki isn't that good if we can't achieve consensus. At let's face it, we can't.
2:53 PM
I think the fundamentally wrong thing that happens with guides is that people feel expected to read 'em all. Guides are cool as opt-in thing. You have a problem -> you've found a guide or a few of them -> you read it and maybe endorse it if you think it was useful for you.
