Guild icon
Tulpa.info
Tulpa Discussion / guide-discussion
This channel is for discussing guides and the GAT (Guide Approval Team)
Avatar
A long kiss goodnight 9/22/2019 8:07 PM
What is that from?
8:08 PM
I tried looking it up and got the GAT airline ground support...
Avatar
GAT is all work and no play. For free. If I learned anything from my short six years of life, I know not to work for free. futascheme
7:10 AM
Though I must admit, if time and my schedule permits within the next few weeks, I may be interested in rejoining when a slot is open.
Avatar
Deleted User 9/23/2019 7:11 AM
I, admittedly, have enough free time, but I consider this work, play. I enjoy contributing to the community and having a say in the quality of the resources available.
Avatar
@A long kiss goodnight that's a phone game called "hot lava"
10:02 AM
the gat is the team of superheroes that fight the villain
Avatar
Whos the villain? The community.
Avatar
Are they really that bad xD
Avatar
guide approval is work, and my payment comes in the form of giving back to something that has given so much to me. if I could help to improve .info just a bit, then it would be worth it
Avatar
A long kiss goodnight 9/23/2019 11:35 AM
Ah, thank you Shinyuu I also see my work on the GAT as a way I can give back to the community.
Avatar
Mhm, I was mostly joking around. I always wanted to give back to this community for it causing me to exist, pretty much.
Avatar
MonitoRSS BOT 9/26/2019 2:55 PM
This guide is one of many I hope to make This one is about visualisation... The book won't change but might be updated though. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ByX6...p=drivesdk
Avatar
A long kiss goodnight 10/3/2019 1:45 AM
Does anyone know who left these comments on Chadack's guide?
1:45 AM
@GAT
Avatar
I have no idea
Avatar
Odd. Perhaps the document could be shared only within the GAT via email invites as a security measure.
Avatar
I just discovered that I have to set documents to "anyone with the link can comment" in order for my suggestions to be visible. If it becomes an issue with randos commenting, we can use email invites. It feels less transparent, though. (edited)
Avatar
The doc posted as a guide should have comments off but making copies on
11:13 AM
And Gavin I'd just write in the actual document instead of using comments
Avatar
Good suggestion.
Avatar
Darkly Steamgear 10/3/2019 3:23 PM
Guide discussion? bcaDerp1Confused
Avatar
Darkly Steamgear 10/3/2019 4:27 PM
bcaUltraChubShake
Avatar
Deleted User 10/3/2019 4:28 PM
@Darkly Steamgear Hi, please stop spamming every channel you come across with emoji
Avatar
Darkly Steamgear 10/3/2019 4:30 PM
sorry
Avatar
so how many approvals do I need for an article nowadays?
10:25 AM
I'm not sure who's waiting for whom in here: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-forcing-on-forcing-developing-the-consciousness. I did some polishing and minor editing but I'm not going to change anything major at this point
Avatar
I'll ask the rest. The initial voting was finished last month. Sorry for the delay, Shin (edited)
Avatar
I mean; I submitted it for review only ten months ago; it's not really a delay
Avatar
Yeah I know.
Avatar
it's just that when it will finally get traction in 2021 I will be not happy about the state of my writing in 2019; it's kinda a moving target
Avatar
MonitoRSS BOT 10/5/2019 10:38 AM
Everyone’s rushing to call tulpamancy a disorder, DID, or even schizophrenia as soon as they learn it’s not a practical joke and people actually practise tulpamancy. But is tulpamancy a disorder? Is i
Avatar
there; have one more
10:41 AM
I'd like to get some decision on this one by 2024 but let's all be realistic here~
Avatar
I'll do that after the review is done because it's a royal pain to edit anything on medium
11:06 AM
especially given this post has inline images
11:08 AM
I was waiting for some resolution on the previous post to upload it to medium
11:09 AM
I'm planning to change my workflow a bit where I'll have rich text as my master source and generate markdown from that; but gee it's all so complicated...
Avatar
Everyone already finished their reviews but back-up links are a must, we were waiting for that
Avatar
well; I had several rounds of reviews back in 2017
11:46 AM
until everyone was satisfied
11:46 AM
I didn't know the rules changed
Avatar
You already got 5 approvals
Avatar
does it basically mean that after five approvals I can disregard any followup feedback?
Avatar
I mean… It is somewhat rude
Avatar
it kinda is
Avatar
It means 5 out of 7 reviewers thought it was okay for approval, which is the bare minimum for the thread to be moved. (edited)
Avatar
I would suspect, if anything majorly needed changed, one of the other five would mention it. Requiring all 7 approvals would really hinder the process because then you'd have to appeal to the entire GAT... which holds differing views and standards about guides and so on.
Avatar
I mean; that's also the maximum of the reviews one should care about too
Avatar
We just assume good faith that a reviewee would consider the advice from all reviewers.
Avatar
as long as you pick out five reviewers to make happy you can ignore the others
12:16 PM
either way; I guess a summary statement from GAT would be a nice thing to introduce
Avatar
It's unlikely that all the criticisms will be that unique.
12:18 PM
I don't think a summary is needed. We've been good about saying "I'll approve once x" in our individual reviews.
12:18 PM
Or did you mean something else by a summary?
Avatar
MonitoRSS BOT 10/5/2019 12:18 PM
Everyone’s rushing to call tulpamancy a disorder, DID, or even schizophrenia as soon as they learn it’s not a practical joke and people actually practise tulpamancy. But is tulpamancy a disorder? Is i
Avatar
I guess the idea is that it is good that you can ignore order to the people because sometimes one or two of the people will be a little bit crazy
Avatar
a summary saying "the GAT team finished the review with x yes; y no; z 'needs edits'"
12:19 PM
just so that people don't need to do the headcount
Avatar
@Felight
Avatar
especially given other people comment on the thread too
Avatar
Maybe #guidestatus should be here.
Avatar
I imagine that sort of thing would be best posted on the actual thread for the guide?
Avatar
Ask an admin about that
Avatar
MonitoRSS BOT 10/12/2019 12:52 AM
Hello, I would like to submit my full-length video guide for approval. This guide is intended to be a complete guide to all basic tulpamancy skills as well as a guide to developing a tulpa. The video
Avatar
Are there any guidelines on how guides should be made?
Avatar
A long kiss goodnight 10/15/2019 7:25 PM
These are GAT guidelines that every guide should adhere to. These will need to be fulfilled before your submission can be approved. It is recommended you read them to save time for everyone during the
Avatar
MonitoRSS BOT 10/31/2019 12:35 AM
The Wonderland RPG: Making Intrusive Thoughts Bearable by TimerBunneh https://community.tulpa.info/thread-misc-the-wonderland-rpg-making-intrusive-thoughts-bearable
Intrusive thoughts can be nasty little things. As I write this, my tulpas and I are recovering from a day ruined by the worst wave of them I've had in my nearly two months of being a tulpamancer. It w
Avatar
I thought that was a good guide.
Avatar
Deleted User 11/7/2019 1:46 AM
I'm brand new at Tulpamancy, I don't have or have had any tulpa. Also, I don't either are a regular meditator, though I have done so. What guide could you recomend for such a beginner like me to get into Tulpamancy?
1:47 AM
Tulpas: Creation, Sentience, and Vocality By Felight i. Foreword Purpose The purpose of this guide is to lay out advice, tips, and general information to new hosts for their endeavor to create their first sentient, vocal tulpa, in such a way that will be helpful to both th...
1:47 AM
:)
1:48 AM
I'll try, thank you
Avatar
A long kiss goodnight 12/4/2019 4:28 PM
I made a thread regarding some recent feedback, I am curious what everyone's thoughts are: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-guide-approval-and-parallel-processing feel free to share your thoughts in that thread or here (edited)
I want to give the following feedback its own thread to properly discuss how people feel about the GAT's reviewing process and how the GAT should approach parallel processing content when reviewing su
Avatar
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. It may be valuable to have two levels, "approved" and "recommended" with the latter being known to be judged on content. 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
Avatar
A long kiss goodnight 12/4/2019 6:02 PM
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)
Avatar
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
6:05 PM
If a person has a reasonable grounds to hold a belief and express some way to make a tulpa, I think that's above criticism if your aim is to be a neutral review progress
6:05 PM
If the aim is to review on content, what is or isn't accepted must be very clear
6:07 PM
It's... Hard to make that sort of thing very clear
6:08 PM
Because people are often wrong and tulpamancy is very subjective.
Avatar
A long kiss goodnight 12/4/2019 6:08 PM
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 it
6:09 PM
I did
6:10 PM
I figured it would be better than derailing longbow's thread
6:13 PM
Parallel processing is hard because the definitions changed, and the one on the tulpa wiki is unrecognizable to me. (edited)
Avatar
Breloomancer 12/4/2019 6:14 PM
the difference between parallel processing and hypnosis is that there is evedence that hypnosis gives results greater than placibo, but all evedence for parallel processing works at least as well with other explainations (such as retroactive memory creation)
Avatar
There's an extent to it, I feel - There's certainly outlandish things but then there's other claims that people have made that have seemed to be true (heavy emphasis on "seemed"), such as hypnosis, it should be reviewed neutrally. Truly meta stuff such as what AZ described is certainly true, but I must side with Reguile on that - It's hard to make it clear in the first place. In regards to parallel processing, I believe in it to an extent. You can't go all out with it and have two streams of two different people at once at every moment, it isn't possible. Despite that, the entire point of tulpas is to essentially achieve that with a tulpa in the first place. If you have to think about your tulpa in order for them to be active, then there hasn't been enough forcing imo. It does also invovle being able to perform two different tasks, but I feel like the tasks can't as complex as Ranger's example in the thread: "An example would be a host solving math problems while the tulpa writes an essay in wonderland." That just isn't possible, but perhaps something more simple such as two different people speaking at the same time is possible. For example, my host can speak in voice chat and I can have my own typing conversation at the same time, though sometimes we can get "jammed" here and there. This is how I view it. This 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. This is how I view parallel processing, having your own train of thought and being able to differentiate a tulpa/host vs yourself all while they have their own thoughts/emotions. Admittingly, this was a peev I had with the GAT when I was on it - It seemed as if we focused too much on the content rather than the quality. I tried to focus on the guide itself and say "nah" to things that came off as too unclear for me. Ultimately tulpas/tulpa~mancy~ is subjective beyond belief.
6:18 PM
In regards to another subject involving the GAT, I do feel like suggesting things is a great idea and being constructively critical is an important aspect of it. From what I remember, it seemed as if we wanted a lot of things rewritten at times to fit what we though is "right," rather than making it sound clear or make more sense I suppose you could say. Curation is important, but there is a fine line of it which we skimmed along sometimes. It's alright to have authors adjust their guides to fit .info standards, but when it comes to personal standards it starts getting a bit muddy.
6:21 PM
This line between .info and personal standards is part of the many reasons why I ultimately resigned. I attempted to be neutral in my reviews and felt like I was, though it started getting more difficult as time went on. Partly due to the ongoing life situation, I was always the last one writing reviews due to the work we had lol
Avatar
A lot of the time, content critiques are just critiques and don't mean a guide isn't going to be approved
6:25 PM
But if the guide is completely littered with content issues then that's a different story
6:26 PM
"Is this guide useful and not misleading to newcomers"
6:26 PM
That is what I approve on in a nutshell
6:26 PM
Longbow's guide had useful stuff but was filled with needless fluff that could be cut
6:27 PM
And the main way to actually make the tulpa was bad
Avatar
A long kiss goodnight 12/4/2019 6:28 PM
This 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.
👍🏻 2
Avatar
In part, I'm to blame on the shift away from parallel processing. A while back I found a bunch of resources that said it wasn't possible and used them in my arguments a lot. I won't say it's just my input that caused it, but I contributed. Back in the day people did genuinely think a tulpa and host could think in parallel, and the ability to do so was thought to be a possible proof of tulpamancy. As things go, the community adapted to get around the road block
Avatar
None of the tulpa definitions for parallel processing align with the actual psychological definition
7:02 PM
Regardless terms should be defined in guides for how they are used and claims should be accurate and not misleading
👍🏻 1
Exported 100 message(s)
Timezone: UTC+0
Page 1 ... Page 13 ... Page 14 ... Page 15 ... Page 35