In my opinion, the GAT should aim to review quality only, not content or accuracy, and should it aim to review content or accuracy it should be very explicitly clear what is not considered accurate or correct.
I'm sorry, but I am confused by what you mean by that. Do you mean review the quality of the advice only, not the writing mechanics? I don't know what the difference between "accuracy" vs. "quality" is, is it more correct vs. uniqueness?
It may be valuable to have two levels, "approved" and "recommended" with the latter being known to be judged on content.
I suppose it's possible we could have a second lower standard, but that would create "good guides" and "best guides", the latter will have barely any because people would have to work harder for that category. Having just the lower standard would be different, but I would like to know what that lower standard asks for.
That said, I think the impression on the longbow guide is that it was generally in need of improvement rather than that it was saying incorrect things
There were a handful of things that were wrong. For example, overlay visualization is not imposition. Sometimes the wording itself can change the meaning of the advice being given, hence why I value stronger writing. Regardless, I agree, I think longbow had a nice rough draft and just needs to revise his content. (edited)Say someone has a guide "make a tulpa with hypnosis" and nobody on the GAT believes in hypnosis, so it doesn't get approved. I don't think that should happen, assuming the guide is written well
I agree with AZ, it would be difficult to word a rule that would prevent this problem and not address meta content or bad methods. I would hope that the community would step up or people test the guide and find that they can replicate the results with that method.
That's why I wanted to make a thread asking about parallel processing in the first place: someone spoke up and I think it's fair to talk about itThis was one of my peevs when I was in the GAT, with "parallel processing" being a meta thing - Back then it was generally accepted to be a thing, so I don't know how this shifted.
I'm aware that I have a more extreme idea of what parallel processing is, and that may be part of the problem. I can't speak for the definition shift, I'm not sure who started that trend.
Even though tulpamancy is a unique practice, there are enough consistencies I feel I can reliably say what methods are reasonable/not reasonable. I'm not expecting every method to work for everyone, but if I believe a method is too far left field, I would disapprove it. Sometimes I find content I'm not as familiar with, such as some Buddhist content or psychology concepts I didn't learn yet, I do some research first. However, I would and technically have disapproved a guide that's basically a contract riddled with vaguely pro-slavery speak.