I tend to believe that the practice is largely cultural as much as it is objective . It can happen quickly , but that does not make things like hour accounts always a bad idea.
I think there's a good chance a lot of "vocal on day 1" tulpas could be characters, while others could be sentient tulpas, ultimately doesn't make much difference as long as they keep forcing(edited)
I've heard your generalization that hour counts are always bad about umpteen times now @Mina . For all your amazement at "how much faulty information I've seen newcomers come in with," you are not helping the situation.
Hello, this is a tips and tricks submission draft thingie that me and Piano came up with, or I wrote while blended with him, or I just stole from him, I'm not sure. Not wanting to post this in submiss
@Felight I'm actually impressed by your and your systemmates guides (Piano's possession guide worked just fine for us!), so I'm wondering if you guys (girls? anyway) have something about visualization and imposition. The way you explain the things is great and I believe if you can impose tulpas, it'd be a great guide to read on how to do that
Thank you
We're all guys, and no we don't have stuff on that. We can't impose at all X[
4:05 PM
Visualization's something that wasn't hard for us due to years of the host coming up with imaginary stories, wouldn't know what to write for a visualization guide
The inability of tulpa.info staff, and its admins in particular, to govern the site and community with any amount of fairness has reached a point where it has begun to affect the content and quality of .info’s resources. The Guide Approval Team is supposed to be composed of individuals who are exceptionally knowledgeable, willing to point out flaws, and generally trustworthy. Those principles seem to have fallen by the wayside, because two of the Team’s most knowledgeable and productive members have been driven out through targeted moderation and the abandonment of legitimacy in creating and applying rules with any modicum of fairness. Rather than attempt to reverse, apologize, or even discuss these matters, the staff has instead elected to happily remove these two members and open up their slots for other applicants. Which would be fine if those individuals could be replaced, but they cannot – there are few people so qualified and levelheaded to moderate the tulpa community as those that have been removed.
12:43 AM
In the following days, the previously-abdicating GAT member (who is also staff) decided to reverse their decision in an apparent effort to centralize power. Here’s where I come in and where my personal stake starts – of the two remaining vacancies, one has immediately been given to an unstable and inexperienced system with virtually zero qualifications whatsoever, while I’ve been passed up, presumably for my recent outspoken resistance to the circumstances surrounding the two other GAT members leaving. Here is a short list of reasons why I am qualified to be on the GAT:
+I wrote, edited, and released a relatively popular series of video creation guides that have already been approved here.
+I have conducted and evaluated numerous surveys and studies on tulpas and the tulpa community.
+I have personally helped dozens of individuals create tulpas.
+I have professional experience writing and editing content published on a variety of platforms and purposes.
Yet, these points have been ignored by staff as they seek out individuals who will not question their actions, and GAT members who will not actually state their opinions as I have, and as have the two individuals who were recently driven out.
12:43 AM
So, what is my purpose in writing this? It’s not to whine and complain. It is to call for the complete and total overhaul (again) of the Guide Approval Team, and for staff of tulpa.info to commit to removing themselves from that team. Tulpa.info is relevant only because it remains a centralized source of authority on which guides are good or bad, and protecting the process of evaluating guides should be priority #1. That means removing yourselves from the decision-making process and selecting individuals based on their merit and knowledge, not on their likelihood to tell you “no” or how vocal they are in opposing your attempts at overreach. The current GAT needs to be entirely flushed, and every member (and every potential new applicant) voted in by the community rather than a small cabal that hopes to control access to content. Otherwise, tulpa.info has truly surpassed its own era, and I will no longer recommend it as a platform, and start a push for other content creators and community leaders to do the same.
They left because of targeted staff actions and the refusal of .info staff to maintain fairness in their conduct, and because their challenging of those events led to increased backlash and a refusal to even acknowledge fault.
I cannot officially say that this is a promise that you can get on the team if you do something, but I think the large bulk of claims and stakes against you for voting on the approval team is that you have been seen to, on occasion, mock or act in a deriding or hostile way towards other people. This has not been in a formal context you have done this, but to my understanding when someone ask a certain way in public they will also act that way in private.
The people on.info used to have a guide approval team that was very prone to doing exactly that, and part of the aims of the new team was to have something that can approve guides but also do its best to ensure that people feel welcome and not attacked while doing so.
I think we all agree that you have very good input and a lot of skill. It would be amazing to have that input and skill on the team. However, no amount of skill will ever make up for any action or possibility of action which might harm or drive away valuable input. A conversation with someone who is unskilled, but who contributes and cooperates in a way that leads to a lack of hostility between parties, is going to be far more potentially useful than someone who is much more skilled but doesn't necessarily do that.
Refusing to be firm and honest with individuals who purvey false information only leads to the decay of quality of information on the site. If your objective is to accommodate users and accept a wider range of input, then why have a guide approval team in the first place? Do you want a curated list of guides that have correct and well-presented information, or do you want a forum filled with slop that people constantly deride as being "inconsistent at best"?
Furthermore, if you're going to restrict your supposed "panel of experts" to only those individuals who refrain from ever being mean to others or offering harsh words of rebuke, then you've gone and eliminated most individuals who have any knowledge or expertise in the relevant field. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I will neither present myself in a false light for the sake of sucking up to the arbitrary expectations of .info staff, nor attempt to radically shift who I am for the same purpose. But I ask you this - why does the personality of someone on a team like the GAT matter at all? The individuals who would sit on this team are there for a job and a purpose, and by shutting out those you find personally "undesirable" you end up with a woefully inadequate team.
1:05 AM
Also, why is it always and only you that has anything to say about this? I know there is certainly discussion on these topics from other staff - where are Pleeb and the other admins and staff to offer comment?
The idea is to enforce a high standard while also having minimal impact on how open we are to new input and how encouraging we are for new people to write or submit content(edited)
They may still be turned down, but instead of telling them that their content is shit we might tell them that their content needs a lot of work and here is a place you can start.
I am a professional editor. When I edit a document, I go into extreme detail to highlight how and why the author is incorrect, but I do not personally insult his or her writing. Anything less, and I would be a poor editor, and nobody would pay me.
1:08 AM
And the interpretation of staunch rejection as being "mean" is entirely incorrect. That is the job of an editor/reviewer.(edited)
1:09 AM
And Clo, subjectivity does not discount commonalities shared between many individuals. Despite nuances and specifics being highly variable, the same patterns and processes happen with a vast majority or even sometimes every new host.
Imagine you go to a grocery store. You meet some guy and they shove you aside so they can get to the meat before you do. Later that day, you meet that person wearing a suit at the front of a business. If I were in that situation I would not shop at the business of that person. I would go to the next guy assuming that the person who showed me aside at the store is the same person standing there in a suit.
By all measures, you may be very professional in how you handle your editing. It may well be that there is zero issue with how you will review guides, but when "we" choose people, or when there is a vote on a person the vote is on the person. The vote is not on the perfect person that could be, it is on the person as we see them now or at the person as we see them yesterday.
I don't necessarily want to say this is correct or a good thing, but if you want context on why there has been so much pushback then that is why I believe it has happened.(edited)
People don't go to a grocery store with any expectations. They want convenience and an uneventful trip. But, when someone creates a long body of text like a guide and then submits it to a review panel they expect that their content will be scoured for issues and are prepared to correct deficiencies. As to your supposed voting/choosing, why not make your voting or even the simple discussion of applicants open to the public? You're euphemizing a process of selectively removing people who might oppose existing Staff.
1:15 AM
Who chose you all to be arbiters of information? Pleeb? Pleeb, and the people who Pleeb chose?
1:17 AM
If you refuse to uphold any sort of editorial standard in the name of being "welcoming to new information and participants" then you have erased your legitimacy as a selective authority, and thus destroyed the only reason tulpa.info is relevant.
My point is, you will be judged for who you present yourself to be in all contexts, not only the context in which you act professionally. I can't say much about the process of voting or choosing, because beyond the initial vote that was done I have not been part of the approval team in any form.
How would we be refusing to uphold editorial standards by recreating the GAT (upon your suggestion), to open new guides and old guides for curation? We had a few debates on whether to touch upon old guides and potentially even un-approve them, which I believe we agreed that we would look them over at least.
Even if you are able to respectfully review guides, members of the GAT also need to be able to make policy on what sort of expectations we have for guides. Everything that you have shown us to this point tells me that if you were ever outvoted on some decision, you would not be able to handle it in a mature way and would instead through a fit until we gave in to your demand, just like you are doing now(edited)
@Breloomancer I discuss issues as I see them, and when I am wrong, I take the hit. It's that simple. But when actions are taken that I see issue with, I do not sit down and shut up just because you don't like when I call you out. Debate is the only way to create productive discussion and reach correct conclusions, and resistance to it only indicates weakness of ideas and an inability to accept alternative viewpoints. Do you expect me to watch as you take people with ZERO qualifications and put them on GAT, knowing full well that I've been passed over simply because I'm one of the only ones willing to challenge you like this? Your sidelining of my views and input because I actually have the will to defend myself reinforces my claim that you're creating an echo chamber in GAT.
@Clo And we called for openness and community voting when we pushed for GAT to get rebooted, which you quietly refused. Instead, it was the same old crew (Pleeb and those selected by Pleeb) who decided who would make the cut. "We would look them over at least" is evidence of how insufficient your standards are right now - most of those guides are abysmal by modern standards.
@Reguile That's fair, but again, why and how does "how you present yourself to be" influence the actual goings-on of the GAT? Could you actually elaborate on how having me on the GAT would discourage new submissions? Because I seriously doubt that the presence of a single disliked team member would force someone to call it quits.(edited)
My point there was not to give a reason that you would be bad on the team, but to give you an explanation for why you would be receiving pushback even if you would be good on the team. If you would magically or suddenly flip a switch and change your tone and behavior while reviewing guides that would be a good thing, but it is difficult to rely on something like that.
You would be surprised at how a little thing can affect someone. Even among five great glowing reviews a single ignorant or hostile or aggressive one can undo all of that other work and leave a person with the impression that they are under attack. Ultimately, people care about how others see them and what matters is that someone is seeing them badly not that they are getting a majority of good friendly reviews .
If you want evidence of my style, behavior, and habits when reviewing guides, then just look to what I've posted on some of the other guides that have come under review, or examine the sample full review I provided to the selection team months ago.
Again, I am a professional editor. Clients would not hire and re-hire me if I did not provide editorial review that is strict but fair. The separation of personal feelings and editorial review is something I've had a lot of time to learn - and it sounds to me as though it is an excuse to not add me, because I've provided plenty of evidence thus far that my reviewing is not "hostile"
It is this sort of example, repeated over time without evidence to the contrary, that builds support for you and eventually leads to enough good opinion that people say "yeah I want this guy on the team". Right now you don't have enough people with that opinion, and it takes time to build that sort of support. Understand that life isn't all about raw qualifications.
I said the other day that I've lost hope for .info staff and the direction of this website, and that continues to hold true. If you cannot present the community with a well-regulated list of guides, then you do not deserve their attention as a "professional" website.
I do not like the assumptions being made about my roles. Initially the GAT was assembled by the staff, and from there on out it became a role of the GAT to set things up. We selected those who worked well with others and provided decent mock-reviews.
To add upon Reguile's statement, it's the little things that add up. These concerns are always okay to bring up, but they always end up going down the same route. It's showing that it may be difficult to work alongside you. You may be a professional editor but it's the things outside of it that are making a different. The staff is /not/ making the decisions, it's the GAT. Sure, a good amount of the GAT are on the staff, but it doesn't reflect that the entirety of the staff is voting on it.
Startic, it's always a good idea to challenge authority, though I must echo your sentiment when it comes to this statement. Unfortunately, this is becoming formulaic.
No matter what we say or do as GAT or Staff, nothing seems to satiate your apparent appetite for trying to get things your way and it has been this has been shown to me. This will be my final statement on this subject, and I will no longer participate in this dialogue from here on out.
And the individuals on the GAT are now, in my opinion, unable to provide a well-regulated list
1:46 AM
The GAT that you just pushed two people out of?
1:46 AM
That GAT that's supposedly separate?
1:46 AM
Laughable.
1:50 AM
I provided a very simple demand that has barely been acknowledged thus far. I even bolded it for emphasis. "The current GAT needs to be entirely flushed, and every member (and every potential new applicant) voted in by the community rather than a small cabal that hopes to control access to content." Because I'm sorry, but with multiple individuals who have been placed on the team with no qualifications and only a single current GAT member (not counting the fresh inductee) who is not also on Staff, your arguments for it being separate and self-sustaining are rendered null. Let your community decide who to trust. Or are you afraid of Staff losing control over it?
Do X, or I will spread bad information about this community
1:56 AM
And by all means you may have legitimate grievances, I don't mean to say that this will be some sort of slander. However, I feel like under more normal pretenses things would be phrased differently
I'm just saying I cannot continue to recommend tulpa.info as a resource and community so long as a small, closed group of less-than-qualified individuals remains the sole decision-making body with regards to the selection of GAT members.
1:56 AM
I'm sorry if it was phrased as a threat, that wasn't my intention. I'm rather incensed by all this, though.(edited)
It's not about how small or large the GAT is. It's because .info staff is an arbitrary collection of individuals that is now responsible for the regulation and selection of creation guides for what is currently the most prominent tulpa-focused resource.
Just let people post guides and let people judge the guides in their own, if you want a more strict reviewed system you seek it out and find someone who is posted their favorite guides
I have a great example. Someone recently came to my server and explained that they were following the guide I'm about to link you. It's horrendous - but without any way to tell it apart from other guides, it seems legitimate
(Part 1)OP Foreword: Reposting this OP I made from /fringe/; I only found this board yesterday after having used /fringe/ for years (spoiler: magic is imaginary bullshit only good for general thinking, vague self-improvement with mixed results, and creativity). Before I begin...
Hmm...
Maybe a thumbs up/thumbs down system? The main problem with that is that it could hurt some guides that maybe 60 percent of people hate but worked really well for the last 40 percent
