Hello There, Guest! Register

Concerns
Anonymous
Unregistered

 
#1
 
Concerns
Okay so

Obviously something big is wrong with this community. A significant portion of the problem with the community as it is right now is that there are a lot of people with longstanding hates that won't let it go. I also think that the posts in the topical areas of the forum should be unquestionably about tulpas.

There is a very large disconnect between the gat and normal users. The GAT doesn't take place in the community as it is and don't stray far outside the .info forums. Things have changed over the last year. The GAT should not just pretend everything is still the same. Thus, I propose we have a vote for more GAT members as well as start on a general process of creating a known lexicon of terms that have to do or deal with tulpamancing so that we don't have any more bullshit about what means what.

The more generic multiplicity terms time and time again have shown to be more portable between their communities and ours. This is a good thing. Free flow of ideas and methods between two different communities is not a bad thing. In a way a lot of the terms we use were hacked together and thought of at the last minute. "Forcing" is a great example of this. There could be a better word out there but we haven't been able to sit down and agree to one.

Things also could be that because of the general differences between the more generic multiplicity communities and ours that we have not been able to mingle with them, maybe because they get scared off by the comments people get on content submissions. I know they are well-intentioned comments but there is a point where it just needs to end. There is a lot of venom and bile in the comments on guide submissions that is largely related to what the individual GAT member thinks about the community member. If I had the time I would attempt to prove this, but I think this strategy is overall more effective and will have a greater overall impact.

'Symbolism Considered Harmful' should be Considered Harmful. The point of guides is a "this works for me" not a "do this and it will work for you". The guides are supposed to be taken with a grain of salt the size of East Texas. If this whole process of making tulpas and other skills like possession, switching and imposition was easy it would not be worth doing or require guidance on.

Like it or not, creating tulpas is a symbolic process. There is a lot going on that cannot be explained without symbolism unless you want to include a lot of psychology textbook on consciousness, the mind, and a lot of other (albeit interesting) text that is not directly related to the process of creating a tulpa. As such, symbolism should be encouraged as a way of helping people understand it, and authors should only really be asked to reword things if the community at large doesn't understand it. I could dig through that guides submission page (and the ones that were accepted for what it's worth) and find many more such examples, but that would get beyond the post length limit fairly quickly.

A lot of good content is ending up posted elsewhere and becoming harder to keep track of.
09-02-2014, 03:33 PM
Reply
amber5885
Unregistered

 
#2
 
RE: Concerns
I love you for posting this. Seriously.
09-02-2014, 06:23 PM
Reply
Derp Offline
Has Hat
Registered

Posts: 270
Threads: 14
Joined: Jul 2012
#3
 
RE: Concerns
(09-02-2014, 03:33 PM)Quora Wrote: A significant portion of the problem with the community as it is right now is that there are a lot of people with longstanding hates that won't let it go.

If you can't put up with someone, there's an ignore option. Remember it.

(09-02-2014, 03:33 PM)Quora Wrote: I also think that the posts in the topical areas of the forum should be unquestionably about tulpas.

Ehh, I disagree. Provided the topic is answered, tangents are usually good. It's community interaction you want. If you come down with an iron fist on offtopic but worthwhile conversations, it's a nuisance. You don't want that. And hell, the forum moderators can just split it into the lounge if it becomes too big.

(09-02-2014, 03:33 PM)Quora Wrote: Thus, I propose we have a vote for more GAT members

Isn't there like, 5 left? This needs to be done.

(09-02-2014, 03:33 PM)Quora Wrote: as well as start on a general process of creating a known lexicon of terms that have to do or deal with tulpamancing so that we don't have any more bullshit about what means what.

https://community.tulpa.info/thread-comm...3#pid85953

(09-02-2014, 03:33 PM)Quora Wrote: The more generic multiplicity terms time and time again have shown to be more portable between their communities and ours. This is a good thing. Free flow of ideas and methods between two different communities is not a bad thing. In a way a lot of the terms we use were hacked together and thought of at the last minute. "Forcing" is a great example of this. There could be a better word out there but we haven't been able to sit down and agree to one.

No. I've interacted with the multiple community. There's notable differences between tulpas and multiples. You are not a multiple system. You have a gang of tulpas. Tulpas are a separate phenomenon. It's comparable to saying we should jump on Daemonism terminology or Soulbonding.

(09-02-2014, 03:33 PM)Quora Wrote: Things also could be that because of the general differences between the more generic multiplicity communities and ours that we have not been able to mingle with them, maybe because they get scared off by the comments people get on content submissions. I know they are well-intentioned comments but there is a point where it just needs to end. There is a lot of venom and bile in the comments on guide submissions that is largely related to what the individual GAT member thinks about the community member. If I had the time I would attempt to prove this, but I think this strategy is overall more effective and will have a greater overall impact.

For one, their communities are extremely secluded. Also very meta, and I don't think that works with the mindset this community seeks. Frankly, I don't think they want the exposure or mingling. As a whole, at least. They've put up with a lot of trolling.

The "venom and bile" that's real life. Get that backbone, start building some calluses. You'll need them if some words over the internet bother you all that much. If a GAT member, or anyone flat out calls you an asshat with nothing to back it up, that's flamebaiting. You report it, y'know? But when it's someone giving you harsh critique -- that is good and you should take it into consideration instead of taking it offensively.
09-02-2014, 07:29 PM
Find Reply
SakuraSky Offline
Host of Sarah
Registered

Posts: 256
Threads: 6
Joined: Jun 2014
#4
 
RE: Concerns
It bothers me that things like symbolism are immediately dismissed as though it makes a guide worthless. A large part of tulpamancy involves symbolism for most people, and I don't see why guides that include that information should be denied because of that fact. Not everyone learns that same way.

Host: Sakura
Tulpa: Sarah (began June 5th, 2014), Alyx (Began July 23rd, 2014)
Our shared tumblr
note: usually browsing on mobile, so cannot quote properly
09-02-2014, 07:39 PM
Find Reply
waffles Offline
no capital
Registered

Posts: 1,176
Threads: 24
Joined: Sep 2012
#5
 
RE: Concerns
(09-02-2014, 03:33 PM)Quora Wrote: Obviously something big is wrong with this community and I'm going to have to be the bad guy and point this out. I suspect I will be ignored, people in the posts following this one will rip at me for trite bullshit or previous things me or my system have done.

Not just so you know I'm not ignoring you, I'll make this long and thorough. Someone will call me a hypocrite if I don't summarise so I guess I will after the long parts, for the 'indolent'.



(09-02-2014, 03:33 PM)Quora Wrote: There is a very large disconnect between the gat and normal users. The GAT doesn't take place in the community as it is and don't stray far outside the .info forums. Things have changed over the last year. The GAT should not just pretend everything is still the same.

I don't really think this is the case. I know that myself and at least most of the active GAT members do read this forum, and some others too. As for what's changed over the last year, sure, I don't think everything is still the same. I'm not sure what you're basing these statements on.



(09-02-2014, 03:33 PM)Quora Wrote: Thus, I propose we have a vote for more GAT members

You know, sure, I'm okay with that, if you think that there are actually enough people who would be interested in joining.

It seems to be a little-known fact that there is a vote open right now for more GAT members; in fact, it has been open since the very first days. There is a perennial nominations section open at https://community.tulpa.info/thread-new-gat-nominations. This fact had been advertised in the official tulpa.info IRC channel up until last July, and you may be surprised to learn that no nominations past the ones in the early days ever came in.

This, plus no questions coming in as to what the GAT is and how to get involved, seems to indicate that there actually isn't a whole lot of interest in joining. If it is the case that you personally want to get involved then feel free to nominate yourself, and if you don't want to do that then ask me and I'll go ahead and nominate you. If you're worried that a biased GAT will vote to keep you out, then, well, a community vote could happen instead. We don't really have a precedent for new members (hah) so that could certainly happen either way.

Nevertheless, if you feel like there should be a more inclusive vote then you can certainly go ahead and make a thread for it here. Ask the staff to promote it in some way; it has my support here.

You didn't state voting anyone off but I'll cover that here too. There is an agreed-upon rule for that (http://pastebin.com/KbBT1ZMY). This happens when you think there's someone specific who needs to go, and you can tell everyone why.

TL;DR: go ahead.



(09-02-2014, 03:33 PM)Quora Wrote: as well as start on a general process of creating a known lexicon of terms that have to do or deal with tulpamancing so that we don't have any more bullshit about what means what.

There is, in fact, a community glossary (http://wiki.tulpa.info/Official/Glossary) which the GAT uses by default but does not control. I have found it sufficient for terms which are frequently used but rarely defined. If you think this is insufficient, which I'm sure you do, you can (I'm sure) bring up potential changes in FQ&C.



(09-02-2014, 03:33 PM)Quora Wrote: The more generic multiplicity terms time and time again have shown to be more portable between their communities and ours. This is a good thing. Free flow of ideas and methods between two different communities is not a bad thing. In a way a lot of the terms we use were hacked together and thought of at the last minute. "Forcing" is a great example of this. There could be a better word out there but we haven't been able to sit down and agree to one.

Although given the above this isn't really the place for this discussion, I don't really think this is true. I tend to find that multiplicity terms are usually defined less clearly, e.g., 'fronting' and that kind of positional language. It's a combination of at least two distinct concepts, those being association with body and association with senses. This is probably the most common term used there past 'alter' and such, and less-used terms seem to be even more fragmented (hah) since the multiplicity community is spread much more thinly across time and the internet.

It is true that some of our terminology isn't as good as is could be but I don't think importing multiplicity terms is the best solution, or a solution at all. Better to actually come up with better ones ourselves. But like I said above, I don't come across this as a problem much. If writers do want to use glossed terms in a nonstandard way, or unglossed terms, they can and do define them for their own uses.



(09-02-2014, 03:33 PM)Quora Wrote: Things also could be that because of the general differences between the more generic multiplicity communities and ours that we have not been able to mingle with them, maybe because they get scared off by the comments people get on content submissions. I know they are well-intentioned comments but there is a point where it just needs to end. There is a lot of venom and bile in the comments on guide submissions that is largely related to what the individual GAT member thinks about the community member. If I had the time I would attempt to prove this, but I think this strategy is overall more effective and will have a greater overall impact.

Well, I can think of maybe one example and it was directed at you by a GAT member. The comment was called out by other GAT members and redacted pretty quickly. Look, as a GATM I'm responsible for everyone's posts and I didn't like it, but because it was incredibly lousy critique. As for other examples, I can't think of any right now but you are welcome to bring some up here.

As for whether critique scares off multiplicity community members, I have serious doubts. As far as I remember we haven't had anyone like that post a submission other than one today wow, and as for them reading GAT comments on other guides (I know they do get read but I'm unsure about their multiplicity community readership; I expect low turnouts though) I really don't think that they would 'scare' someone. If they do then who was that person? I'm not necessarily asking you for specific examples, although if you did have any then that might help the case, I'm asking a question about whether that person would have stayed anyway and if it would be good for the community that they do.



(09-02-2014, 03:33 PM)Quora Wrote: 'Symbolism Considered Harmful' should be Considered Harmful.

Alright, this again. For a moment I'll slip out of my quote-train style and write you a counterargument in prose.

Creating tulpas is not inherently symbolic. If you doubt this, I will show you creation methods without symbolism (spoiler: all of the common ones). The facts that the process is somewhat subjective and that its workings are not well understood do not mean that we have to describe methods using symbolism. Why the hell should they? We have methods that do work for a lot of people, potentially most people who try them. These are steps that can be described in the terms of purely mental actions, such as, "Visualise your tulpa's body," and "Talk to your tulpa within your mind." These are clear instructions that, yes, do work. As far as I can see, there should be no inherent reason why a mental process cannot be described in non-symbolic terms any more than a physical process such as making toast. Being 'in your mind' don't make it inaccessible to the ravaging tentacles of clear speech.

The best guides are written in terms of mental actions that everyone shares. Everyone (except the few who apparently can't) can speak within their mind, and likewise everyone- can imagine visual and auditory stimulus. If a process like tulpa creation, imposition or possession can be described purely in terms like these - and I know they can for at least the first two, and I'd say with a bit less confidence the third, because of the guides I've read about them - then non-symbolic guides can be written about them.

There are good reasons why the GAT disallows pure symbolism in the Guides section. Yes, guides should be taken on purely their own authority as, "This worked for me." Of course, when it worked for lots of people you might take it on more authority. But crucially, instructions without symbolism are vastly more useful to readers than pure symbolism. Symbolism works on the associations that certain symbols have to certain relevant concepts plus a "Do it for me, brain" factor that many would call purely placebo but I won't (this is far too general for you to possibly refute, I feel, but if you want to, go ahead).

- Firstly, when a guide is written that is purely symbolic, the associations that the symbols have are potentially unique to the writer. Yes, these could be communicated in the guide but the associations will not necessarily (I think they will rarely) be as strong for a reader coming away.

- Secondly, this is not particularly informative. It doesn't detail 'how to do' the subject (although this reasoning is perhaps circular), it just tells us, in more words, "Imagine it's happening using symbolic imagery. Then it happens." Alright, I think most people can come up with their own symbolism to do that which will be more effective, since it's personal to them. I think most people could do that for anything difficult with little or no knowledge of conventionally useful methods, and it would then be a mistake to think that they had come up with a new, useful or transferable method of doing things. Such a purely symbolic guide, then, is merely an anagram of the stated goal, and as such isn't really worth posting.

And I want to clear up a few things.
- Firstly, what I said above doesn't mean that symbolism isn't useful in itself, just that it's usually not very useful to write about symbolism and post it up as a guide.
- Secondly, pure symbolism is allowed in Tips if it's a decent submission.
- Thirdly, sumissions with symbolism are considered for Guides if they have non-symbolic content.
- Lastly, submissions aren't ever rejected without some consideration of their content. The GAT always works case by case; guiding rules can be broken for specific submissions, and patterns in GAT comments can perhaps indicate a guiding rule that isn't there.

I hope that answers your questions and criticisms as to the motivations behind rejecting symbolism for Guides. Yours too, SakuraSky.

TL;DR: Purely symbolic submissions are by default rejected for Guides; there is no other guiding rule in force, and if there is, call it out. This rule is there because purely symbolic submissions don't tend to be useful submissions. Tulpa creation is not inherently symbolic, so guides don't need to be either.



(09-02-2014, 03:33 PM)Quora Wrote: I have been told by countless people that things like this are why new users on the IRC network are afraid to contribute to the tulpa.info forums. As such a lot of good content is ending up posted elsewhere and becoming harder to keep track of.

I would like to hear their comments word for word, and possibly talk to them myself. Like I said above, I have my doubts about the contribution the GAT makes to 'scaring away' worthwhile posters. I can think of plenty of people on the IRC network who I would not consider worthwhile posters, and the same is true of the forum here.
(This post was last modified: 09-02-2014, 08:21 PM by waffles.)
09-02-2014, 08:17 PM
Find Reply
amber5885
Unregistered

 
#6
 
RE: Concerns
As someone who ha considered writing a guide to contribute what worked for me. I refuse to do it. The community is harsh, unforgiving and I've seen guides and tip submissions ripped to shreds because someone had a typo in their submission or because one person didn't get a term.

I personally won't ever put my Guide or my tips up for suggestion. At least not until I know it won't automatically be shot down, ripped apart or insulted.
09-02-2014, 08:44 PM
Reply
Kiah Offline
Sans giraffe
Forum Administrators

Posts: 1,367
Threads: 31
Joined: Aug 2012
#7
 
RE: Concerns
I don't usually like to make posts that essentially contain "this ^", but I would just like to say that waffles' post has my full support. Mostly in regards to the symbolism parts. Symbolism can be a very useful thing to any given individual. However, often such tokens' meaning and effectiveness are lost in translation--both from having to be put it into words, and by being interpreted by another person whose notions regarding the symbolism may be entirely different from the author's.
Since symbolism is such a personal thing--while what the author has done may well happen to work for some people, it is usually best for an individual to determine what sort of symbolism would work best, and be the most meaningful to themselves. In order for them to do this, they must have an understanding of what it is that they are really doing. In other words, they would need the process and concepts defined to them in a more objective way that can be understood by a larger group of people. After understanding the concept, they can decide for themselves how they should go about it, if they do choose to take a symbolic approach to it.
A symbolic guide may work for some people, but there are many people who will not understand what the author meant, or was trying to convey. For these people, such a guide would be completely worthless.
A guide written from a more objective, factual standpoint can help anyone.
And as waffles said, no, there are not aspects of the tulpa creation process that require symbolism to explain. That is simply false.

I could say more, or address the other things that you've said, but I think they've been covered just fine, as well.

"If this can be avoided, it should. If it can't, then it would be better if it could be. If it happened and you're thinking back to it, try and think back further. Try not to avoid it with your mind. If any of this is possible, it may be helpful. If not, it won't be."
(This post was last modified: 09-02-2014, 09:00 PM by Kiah.)
09-02-2014, 08:58 PM
Find Reply
schlondark Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 191
Threads: 5
Joined: Jul 2012
#8
 
RE: Concerns
I honestly feel that new blood is not what the GAT needs due to the influx of misinformation involving vocabulary and the constant drive the community seems to have to redefine solid terminology. It may not be the worst Idea but after the previously-submitted guides were taken care of the amount of activity required has decreased significantly.

Symbolism is a powerful tool, but it is generally meant for only one mind to make use of, its creators. Giving a writer or an artist a sculptor’s toolset and expecting them to be able to extrapolate the information they need from it is pointless, it literally is not meant for them. Symbolism in and of itself is not detrimental to a guide’s content, but symbolism is by no means universal and is something that often lacks any semblance of substance to it, despite it working for a select few.

Tl, dr; Symbolism is often used as a substitute for substance and this is not something the GAT approves of.
The GAT should have the ability to disapprove of any guide it so chooses without being constantly criticized for doing so, the very point of the organization is to separate the guides that are not fit to be publically recognized – even if the guide’s purveyor is of high standing within the community. Authority is no excuse for the creation of a poor guide or the spreading of misinformed ideologies; neither for that matter is the self-declared expertise that seems to riddle some of the guide-making populace, which is a large part of why some within the community are at odds with the GAT.
(This post was last modified: 09-03-2014, 03:00 AM by schlondark.)
09-03-2014, 03:00 AM
Find Reply
sushi Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 874
Threads: 14
Joined: May 2014
#9
 
RE: Concerns
I feel that Linkzelda is around as active in the community as I am. Some other members used to be pretty active, but their responsibilities as GAT members have taken a toll on their time. I think most people don't realize how much work is actually involved in being in the GAT, especially for members like Sands, waffles, and Linkzelda, who post extensive critiques on submissions.

I have guides that have been approved by the GAT -- not under this account, but under another one that I was using for a while between my first one and this one. At times I felt like a particular GAT member was being a complete idiot, and at times I just wanted to be done with the whole damn process, but I do have to admit that the guides as they appear today are better than as I originally posted them. I do plan on submitting more guides someday, and I want the GAT's input on them when I do.

Yes, we should have more GAT members. And yes, voting is currently open. The question is, who wants to do it?

I was nominated for the GAT under my old account, and I've thought about actually joining up, but I hardly have time to be an active member of this community, let alone take on GAT responsibilities.

As Derp says, there definitely is a difference between the tulpa community and the multiple community, but I think there also is some overlap. I do not consider myself and Fench to be a multiple system, and I doubt that I ever will. But there are some hosts and tulpas who I would consider multiple systems, or at least something very close. But multiple terms definitely don't apply to all of us.

"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
09-03-2014, 03:11 PM
Find Reply
FallFamily Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 462
Threads: 8
Joined: Apr 2014
#10
 
RE: Concerns
I guess I will come in here and make a few comments about the stuff in regards to the multiple community. Not even going to try to wade into the rest. Also, haven't been here the longest (only since last March). I'm in some of the tulpa communities as well as a few multiple ones (but not necessarily the best sampling as I am not in any of the DID ones). My system is multiple (2 alters (god, I hate that term) including myself) with 5 tulpas, just so everyone knows.

There is some definite overlap in members between the communities. Quite a few multiple systems that also have tulpas. On the IRC, I can think of 6 systems off hand. I can think of 3 off hand here on tulpa.info forum. I can think of one multiple system that does not have any tulpas who also hangs around here as well. Now, outside of the tulpa communities and inside the multiple communities (I'm in a couple), I know several multiple systems that also have tulpas, though most do not participate in the tulpa communities other than to have once or twice browsed around. Kind of funny, I recently found out a friend of mine from a non-plural community was not only multiple but had a tulpa and their partner (a good friend) had a tulpa as well.

As for what multiple communities think of the tulpa communities, I will try to give my understanding of it and probably get a few things off. Lets say that it is complicated from what I have seen. It is certainly a discussed topic and discussions can be interesting in many ways. Many don't partake mostly because they find a lot of people posting misinformation about multiplicity and DID. Some think it is a bit odd that singlets (people who are the only consciousness in a body) would go to such lengths to become plural, with some thinking it is appropriative. I disagree with that last view actually. Now, the misinformation about multiplicity DID, yeah, seen quite a bit of it. On the flip side, many people here I have seen will usually listen when you tell them "actually, it is more like this." Some not. Other than that, the main reason that they don't participate much here is because they already find what they need in the multiple communities and I guess to avoid places that sometimes have drama (all communities do, but the flavors can be different and there are tastes for what drama a person will tolerate and what they won't)

As for terminology, I personally see that in some of the overlapping terminology areas, there is actually use in having both sets. Fronting and co-fronting are terms from the multiplicity community that I think would be very useful here. Blending is a term you see more often there and occasionally here, but could use more use here. System is the same way. Possession is a term in the tulpa communities that I think the multiple community could really use. Eclipsing is a more obscure term to see around here that would be useful outside of the tulpa communities (there are a few definitional issues, but those are resolvable). Switching has slightly different definitions, which is an issue, but mostly because of the other different terminology. Host has a very different meaning in both communities that actually turns out to be kind of the same. The tulpa definition of a host usually meets the criteria of the multiple definition (same definition as core), but the other way around is not always true. I have written more than a few things in both communities and had to do translations since different terminology sets. For example, possession (and the same goes for eclipsing) is a very specific type of co-fronting that just has no equivalent word in the multiple community and instead one has to use a phrase such as "co-fronting with control of _____." Conversely most other types of co-fronting are hard to translate into tulpa terminology. Personally, I prefer to use both sets of terminology because they can be complementary. And another thing. The concept of the distinction between multiple and median is a very useful concept that I think is useful here. Many tulpas are median with their host/s and/or other tulpas. Separate consciousnesses, but not as separate.

As for the differences between tulpas and multiples, that varies considerably. For some systems that are both multiple and have tulpas, such as mine, there really isn't that much of a difference between tulpas and multiple headmates. For others that are both, there are substantial differences.

Oh, and if there is one thing we should definitely be borrowing from the multiple community - system names. System names are awesome. They are body names so you can refer to everyone in a body without say defaulting to the name of one particular member.

- Hail Fall of the Fall Family

Tri = {V, O, G}, Ice and Frostbite and Breach (all formerly Hail), and others
System Name: Fall Family
Former Username: hail_fall
Contributor and administrator on a supplementary tulpamancy resource and associated forum, Tulpa.io and Tulpa.io/discuss/.
09-04-2014, 01:16 AM
Find Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | Tulpa.Info | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication