Hello There, Guest! Register

GAT Complaints General
Zero Offline
EHP
Registered

Posts: 146
Threads: 9
Joined: Jul 2013
#1
 
GAT Complaints General
This will be the thread where you can post your complaints about GAT, and discuss them, and try to find a solution everybody can live with.

I'm gonna try to be civil about this, but this is going too far.

First of all. I have received complaints about not doing my job as a GAT on IRC, but when I look at the approvals, I hardly see any advice given. It's mostly "yea i liek dis" or "nah dis sux". Not literally, but I am not seeing advice, anywhere, even on guides that REALLY need it. You can't just approve of things that look sort of ok, the guide needs to be at it's best before you approve of it. Which brings me to my next point:

I've seen GATs ask questions about what GATs should do, or how the system works, in a way that shows that they don't know all too much about the system. There is a pastebin. Read it. How can you expect to do your job right if you don't even know the job description? And why are there even GATs who don't know what's in the pastebin? You get nominated, accept your nomination, and join the team, but don't know what you're doing? What kind of bullshit is that?

Guides are being approved and disapproved too easily. You don't disapprove of a guide, ever. You disapprove of posts that claim to be guides but fit better in another subforum. Guides that are guides but not suitable for approval receive ADVICE. You tell them what they need to fix to make the guide approvable.

Note: In this case, too short/rewrite guides are counted as "not guides" and can be disapproved.


An example of this lazy bullshit is on my own guide.

I personally stated that the guide was incomplete, and yet it's already received THREE approvals. It can NOT be approved if it's unfinished. How would it look to have a messy guide on the Approvals page? What would that say about Approved guides? That'd make them cherrypicked guides by the GAT, which is the exact OPPOSITE of what the GAT is intended to do. For those GATs who apparently don't know their job description, here's a summary of it:

- You will have to spellcheck.
You don't have to fix all of their grammar and spelling for them, but you HAVE to point out which page contains grammar/spelling errors, and if they can't find them, you have to point out which. This isn't an option that varies from GAT to GAT. EVERY GAT has to do this, period.

- You're only allowed to approve of guides that are complete in their subject.
This means that if a guide contains a section on forcing, you can't approve of it if said section is incomplete. Using GGMethos' guide as an example, he gave a short, vague description of what forcing is, yet GATs approved of this. This is NOT allowed under ANY circumstances.

- If you neither approve nor disapprove of a guide, tell the member EXACTLY what they need to do for their guide to be approved.
No exceptions. All unapproved guides that can't be disapproved because they're guides should receive advice on as many parts as possible. Takes too long to find mistakes and type out what they need to fix? Get over it. That's what you signed up for when you joined the GAT. The GATs purpose is PRIMARILY to help members make better guides, not just pick whatever you like and approve of it.

- You're not allowed to disapprove of a guide because you don't like it.
You can only disapprove of a guide if there is NO WAY it could EVER be approved. For example, Albatross' Guide for New Members. It's not a tulpa-related guide, so it doesn't belong in the Guides section. That guide should be disapproved. Aguanisa's Amazing Clarity Visualization guide can't be approved because it's too short and only gives one specific method and approach. But I could tell him to add more tips and ways to go about his method, and once it looked formal, neat and had no spelling/grammar mistakes, it could be approved. Learn the difference.

- Subjectivity is NOT an excuse for ignoring ANY of these points, period.
There is no discussion about this. These are the objective criteria for approving of guides. Subjective stuff is mentioning parts you like or dislike, and things they could edit but don't have to for a guide to be approved.


Next there's the fact that THREE GATs dropped out and there still has no thread been put up for revotes. This is a complaint to JD1215. You're Manager. Be more active. People are approaching ME with management issues. I wouldn't have an issue with that if I were Manager, but I'm not. Either appoint a new Manager or start being more active. This isn't acceptable.

I'd also like to propose Rasznir's idea of having two Managers. No, I'm not implying this has to be me, the second Manager will be voted for just like the first Manager. But it seems that having only one of them isn't working. Either that, or a Deputy Manager or something, who you would approach whenever the Manager isn't active. The Deputy Manager should also have the ability to sticky and move threads within their respective subforums.

That, and we need to vote for who the new three GATs will be. I want to see this happen ASAP. If JD doesn't do it within the next few days, I'll be the one making the new voting thread.

My final complaint goes out to the community. Just what the hell were you thinking when voting? It looks like most people just voted for "I kinda like this dude" or "He's not a total retard, better him than no one". You need to pick GOOD members, NOT POPULAR MEMBERS. I got voted in, yet I had never really given advice for guides on any threads, and mostly joked around save for on my own guides, or stuff that I liked. I got nominated "because I came up with the GAT system, therefore I should make for a good GAT". Looking back, this isn't a valid reason at all. I think there should be new criteria set for nominations. Stop making votes for popularity. Vote for quality.

Including the staff in the community bit - if you don't want a link to another tulpa website in a post/guide, then don't be the one to post it. Don't complain about your own mistakes as if someone else made it. That said, I'm working on finding an alternative to posting Fede's guide that doesn't link to tulpanetwork, since you dislike it so much. Also, Fede's guide got approved first, and other guides haven't been approved yet. That doesn't mean there's any goddamn conspiracy. Take a good look at the variables before making an assumption like that. That said, I DO believe that GATs should be doing more than they are currently doing, which is why I made this post.



Feel free to call me out on my bullshit, agree with me, add things I've missed to these complaints, or bring complaints of your own. It's alright to be mad, but stay civil while doing so.
12-02-2013, 03:39 PM
Find Reply
Purlox Offline
the fox
Registered

Posts: 314
Threads: 35
Joined: Jun 2012
#2
 
RE: GAT Complaints General
First thing is that I disagree with the fact that short or small guides can't be approved or counted as guides. Not every guide has to be "Anon's ultimate tulpa guide" to be a real guide. There can be guides like "My way to do impossition", because they still teach people something even if it's not putting all the other ways to do imposition in there or making a really long post about other things in there too.

Quote:My final complaint goes out to the community. Just what the hell were you thinking when voting? It looks like most people just voted for "I kinda like this dude" or "He's not a total retard, better him than no one". You need to pick GOOD members, NOT POPULAR MEMBERS. I got voted in, yet I had never really given advice for guides on any threads, and mostly joked around save for on my own guides, or stuff that I liked. I got nominated "because I came up with the GAT system, therefore I should make for a good GAT". Looking back, this isn't a valid reason at all. I think there should be new criteria set for nominations. Stop making votes for popularity. Vote for quality.
If you don't want that to happen, which will happen most likely with the popularity vote, aka democracy, then I recommend making it mandatory to give a reason to upvote someone. If the reason is clearly bad as in "lol, he is popular, so he gets my vote." then that vote shouldn't be counted, because it doesn't quarantee that they are able to do their job as GAT.

One thing that I think should be mentioned is this post. Why does a guide get approved because there is less GAT members now? Because there is less votes needed now? That assumes that there won't be any revotes for the missing places in GAT, because otherwise the guide could easily get un-aproved once the missing GAT positions get filled with people they don't approve of the guide, then the percentage will go down under the one that was needed for the guide to be approved. Un-approving a guide like that just because it has been approved with skewed percentage seems silly and shouldn't happen imo. The guide should require the same amount of people to approve it even if some people left from GAT and new people have to replace them.

I think that guide approval discussions should take place in GAT's board, so that they can be easily found and they don't interfere with the discussion on the guide (if there is any) and they can be more easily noticed. Just think how it would be a year from now with the current system. Some guides are approved and so obviously there is a discussion on them somewhere inside the guide thread, there will be unaproved guides or guides waiting for aproval, but will all of them be stickied? Probably not, because there would be too many of them and it can easily make people think that the guide is important or good, because it's in the "Important threads" section unless they actually know it's there because it's being voted on by GAT. So the guides that are getting approval will probably be scattered around and it will be hard to see which is getting approved or not, because there is no way to tell if the guide has had some GAT discussion on it or not.

Another thing is that I think it's important that every GAT member should have to give a valid reason why they approve or like the guide. Something like "This guide is well written and is able to deliver all the information needed in a conscise way" so that people can also know why you think a guide is good instead of some people just saying they approve of a guide and never saying why.

Also, I think that guides shouldn't be taken in vacuum like they seem to be voted on currently. You seem to look if the guide is easy to understand, if there are any grammer errors, if it's a guide by your definition, etc. but from what I have seen noone looks how it affects people. It's the equivalent of looking at a recipe and saying if there are any grammer errors, if the font selected is good, if it's nicely written, etc. and ignoring if there might be any health risks to eating the food or anything like that. When you look at a guide on making a tulpa, you need to look at how others react to it and if it actually helps them out. That's the point of guides after all - to help people do something they didn't know how to do before. What if a guide makes a lot of people doubt their tulpa? What if it makes the tulpa annoyed in a lot of cases? That seems to be ignored when GAT looks at guides.

For example this guide, it's the first approved guide and what does it do to people? It suggests that people puppet their tulpa until it becomes "automatic", but exactly this made a lot of newcomers fear they are parroting their tulpa even when they weren't and they would say stuff like "What if I'm puppeting them subconsciously without realizing it?" and it caused people to create the word "parrotnoid" and threads like this that try to help with being paranoid of still puppeting or parroting their tulpa. And this guide gets approved as the first one even though it caused and still causes a lot of people to become paranoid, doubt their tulpa and other things? Why? I have spent time in the past trying to help out paranoid people that got spawned by guides like this and approving such guides only makes things worse, because you are saying "Yeah, this guide is good, you should read it newcomer even though you'll probably have some problems later caused by it". Such guides shouldn't be approved and GAT should know how a guide affects people before approving it or not.
12-02-2013, 04:42 PM
Find Reply
Linkzelda Offline
>MFW Image Streaming
Registered

Posts: 2,008
Threads: 31
Joined: Oct 2012
All Accounts Posts: 2,066
#3
 
RE: GAT Complaints General
Quote:First of all. I have received complaints about not doing my job as a GAT on IRC, but when I look at the approvals, I hardly see any advice given. It's mostly "yea i liek dis" or "nah dis sux". Not literally, but I am not seeing advice, anywhere, even on guides that REALLY need it. You can't just approve of things that look sort of ok, the guide needs to be at it's best before you approve of it. Which brings me to my next point:

I figured at some point that people who called other GAT members unreliable either had some steadfast predisposition in disliking them in general, and yet clearly were just going for laconic responses/disapprovals in general. Of course, there are some guide submissions where the laconic responses is more than enough, but “some” is really just a “few.”

I guess either members are afraid the other member will go ballistic over their guide not being perfect, and it will end up with the guide maker attempting to defend their ad hoc claims as to why aspects of their guide doesn’t need to be changed or formatted to some extent.


Quote:I've seen GATs ask questions about what GATs should do, or how the system works, in a way that shows that they don't know all too much about the system. There is a pastebin. Read it. How can you expect to do your job right if you don't even know the job description? And why are there even GATs who don't know what's in the pastebin? You get nominated, accept your nomination, and join the team, but don't know what you're doing? What kind of bullshit is that?

This is what happens when a voting system that promotes ad hominem and ad hominem circumstantial (i.e. the motives of a certain member’s post and “contributions” to the forum being negative overall). People took the risk with presuming a specific set of members would be able to “salvage” the sustainability for G.A.T, when in all actuality, it was just in-group favoritism at its finest.

Quote:Guides are being approved and disapproved too easily. You don't disapprove of a guide, ever. You disapprove of posts that claim to be guides but fit better in another subforum. Guides that are guides but not suitable for approval receive ADVICE. You tell them what they need to fix to make the guide approvable.

The problem is, the same hype the community elected for certain members are clearly people who aren’t used to actually giving a decent critique (rather than a short criticism of “oh spelling mistakes hur dur I won’t help identify them for you…omg lol look at the format and page breaks it’s horrible man).

I guess it’s probably a given that critiques will obviously require more thought, which “overly long” posts towards person’s guide that can actually help them end up having some negative connotation that the G.A.T is out to shun the guide in general. It’s because of this implication of people defending their guide submissions combined with the ineptness to ask for more clarification should there be more critique and other factors that’s stagnating progress.

I’m more than willing to give thought-out critiques, and I hope that was apparent for the few guides I gave in general. Though I figured the quick approval/disapproval thing set up by JD1215 was merely to get a general idea before more in-depth reviewing could be done. I guess people who are militant for conciseness won’t necessarily have their logic applied as something pragmatic to all cases in general.

Quote:Note: In this case, too short/rewrite guides are counted as "not guides" and can be disapproved.

I can agree to the part with short guides, but this depends on the circumstances. For example here:
http://community.tulpa.info/thread-misc-blindfold-trick

It would still technically be a guide, since it’s giving a simple step by step process, but if it had to be explained more into detail, it would just be more on concepts instead. But in this case for the link above, there’s not much that can be expounded anymore. So it would either be a Tips or Tricks or a concise guide.


Quote:An example of this lazy bullshit is on my own guide.

I personally stated that the guide was incomplete, and yet it's already received THREE approvals. It can NOT be approved if it's unfinished. How would it look to have a messy guide on the Approvals page? What would that say about Approved guides? That'd make them cherrypicked guides by the GAT, which is the exact OPPOSITE of what the GAT is intended to do. For those GATs who apparently don't know their job description, here's a summary of it:

Well, it wasn’t as if your guide was incoherent or a complete mess altogether. It was mostly just formatting and the type of overtone you used that would’ve challenged the format or standard or whatever GAT and tulpa staff wants to express within the Guides section. I guess either the critique I gave on it was more than enough, or others probably just would’ve ended up repeating things I picked out on in different words.

At some point, depending on how much the GAT member critiques the guide submission, redundancy is inevitable. Unless of course it’s a 30+ page guide submission, people giving redundant responses is highly improbable if they were to truly give their own perspective without pooling off of one person’s response.


Quote:- You will have to spellcheck.
You don't have to fix all of their grammar and spelling for them, but you HAVE to point out which page contains grammar/spelling errors, and if they can't find them, you have to point out which. This isn't an option that varies from GAT to GAT. EVERY GAT has to do this, period.

True, but if I recall correctly with the pastebin link, your guide for example didn’t really have monumental spelling or grammar results. Hell, if any were there, it would just be minor nitpicking (which again you stated shouldn’t be the sole reason for people to disapprove for a guide submission).

Quote:- You're only allowed to approve of guides that are complete in their subject.
This means that if a guide contains a section on forcing, you can't approve of it if said section is incomplete. Using GGMethos' guide as an example, he gave a short, vague description of what forcing is, yet GATs approved of this. This is NOT allowed under ANY circumstances.

Understandable, but what about “General” Guides? It seems their considered more of a compilation of tips and tricks or the attempt for unique and individual insight that would hopefully help newcomers get a broader perspective as to why underlying concepts (i.e. symbolism) can work for most people. This is why seeing guides as “re-hash” of other guides ends up in a fairly difficult process to do simply because of the fact that cognitive bias will skew any guide submissions integrity slightly.

So it’s more of a question on which perspective should G.A.T members apply to guide submissions? Should they try to be vicarious solely of the newcomer’s position that’s trying to process as many concepts as possible (which means common sense logic things for intermediates and veterans may be a goldmine for newcomers who haven’t gotten the concepts hammered to their heads as yet)? Or do we mix that up a bit based on the circumstances (i.e. guides labeled as “General” before the change in tagging from G.AT.)

Most of the approvals are probably just approvals on standby until further change can be implemented, so the shift to “Important Guides” or whatever sub-category is just the G.A.T manager shifting things accordingly since it didn’t seem to affect any newcomer’s reading of guides in general. Of course, I’m not denying that it is inconsistent to do so, but just something you probably had in mind as well.

Quote:- If you neither approve nor disapprove of a guide, tell the member EXACTLY what they need to do for their guide to be approved.
No exceptions. All unapproved guides that can't be disapproved because they're guides should receive advice on as many parts as possible. Takes too long to find mistakes and type out what they need to fix? Get over it. That's what you signed up for when you joined the GAT. The GATs purpose is PRIMARILY to help members make better guides, not just pick whatever you like and approve of it.

I guess most members that voted thought it would end up with elitists that have a pit-pattering rage over cherry picking their favorite guides. Either because they’re part of their secluded groups and have a grandiose delusion that anyone that doesn’t fit their spectrum or approach should be have militant shitting on guide submissions in the future.

Quote:- You're not allowed to disapprove of a guide because you don't like it.
You can only disapprove of a guide if there is NO WAY it could EVER be approved. For example, Albatross' Guide for New Members. It's not a tulpa-related guide, so it doesn't belong in the Guides section. That guide should be disapproved. Aguanisa's Amazing Clarity Visualization guide can't be approved because it's too short and only gives one specific method and approach. But I could tell him to add more tips and ways to go about his method, and once it looked formal, neat and had no spelling/grammar mistakes, it could be approved. Learn the difference.

But here’s the question I have for you, if most guides give a myriad of methods, processes, and an actual thought-out explanation for each of them, wouldn’t that make them end up as a compendium? Because now it’s a matter on whether or not guides by default will be a longer read. Which means that the demand for conciseness mostly from people who only want their approach validated in their critiques has to be taken into consideration.

I guess the point is, it’s easier for people to give criticism and point out the negatives, but it’s more difficult for them to give a critique that points out the negatives and provides alternatives to balance things out. And you’re more than aware of who would end up being one-sided in what they claim to be critique. So either it should be stated what’s the difference between a one-sided criticism of something vs. an actual critique that doesn’t have a negative overtone, or maybe something else entirely.

Quote:- Subjectivity is NOT an excuse for ignoring ANY of these points, period.
There is no discussion about this. These are the objective criteria for approving of guides. Subjective stuff is mentioning parts you like or dislike, and things they could edit but don't have to for a guide to be approved.

Agreed, but logic follows that this would apply to guide submissions that would have a detrimental reliability if the format wasn’t changed or something like that. Sometimes the critique themselves don’t have to be followed to absolute law, and I’m sure you’re aware of this as well.
Because if the best of someone’s critique is pointing out small formatting or thinking it may bleed the eyes out of newcomers…then I guess people need a massive lesson on what advice really is.


Quote:Next there's the fact that THREE GATs dropped out and there still has no thread been put up for revotes. This is a complaint to JD1215. You're Manager. Be more active. People are approaching ME with management issues. I wouldn't have an issue with that if I were Manager, but I'm not. Either appoint a new Manager or start being more active. This isn't acceptable.

Not to side with anyone here, but even if that were the case, it’s clear there’s stagnant progress from other G.A.T members. Mostly due to them probably being busy with real life obviously, or they realized the role was a bit more demanding and are trying to casually fade aware from existence or something. Or something else entirely, I guess, I don’t know.

Quote:I'd also like to propose Rasznir's idea of having two Managers. No, I'm not implying this has to be me, the second Manager will be voted for just like the first Manager. But it seems that having only one of them isn't working. Either that, or a Deputy Manager or something, who you would approach whenever the Manager isn't active. The Deputy Manager should also have the ability to sticky and move threads within their respective subforums.

As long as it doesn’t double the lack of actual activity, this doesn’t seem like a bad idea at all.

Quote:That, and we need to vote for who the new three GATs will be. I want to see this happen ASAP. If JD doesn't do it within the next few days, I'll be the one making the new voting thread.

You’ll most likely have to go with the latter.

Quote:My final complaint goes out to the community. Just what the hell were you thinking when voting? It looks like most people just voted for "I kinda like this dude" or "He's not a total retard, better him than no one". You need to pick GOOD members, NOT POPULAR MEMBERS.

That’s what happens when people only have conjecture on members in the forum in general. Combine that with hatred over other members and the secluded groups from the official IRC and all, ad hominem would be inevitable. I guess either way this couldn’t be helped based on how people rarely knew about one member, and could only gauge any potential usefulness from them based on the circumstances (e.g. how much they contributed to the forum in some way, whether or not people found their advice/guides/etc. useful in some way).

Quote:I got voted in, yet I had never really given advice for guides on any threads, and mostly joked around save for on my own guides, or stuff that I liked. I got nominated "because I came up with the GAT system, therefore I should make for a good GAT". Looking back, this isn't a valid reason at all. I think there should be new criteria set for nominations. Stop making votes for popularity. Vote for quality.

It’s all about progression, we were limited with conjecture, and it’s clear that solely relying on circumstances and in-group favoritism for other members would eventually crumble down into you developing this realization. Not saying the realization is a bad thing, but how the chain of events for G.A.T would turn out was honestly predictable from start to finish (as of the time this thread was posted).

Quote:Including the staff in the community bit - if you don't want a link to another tulpa website in a post/guide, then don't be the one to post it. Don't complain about your own mistakes as if someone else made it. That said, I'm working on finding an alternative to posting Fede's guide that doesn't link to tulpanetwork, since you dislike it so much. Also, Fede's guide got approved first, and other guides haven't been approved yet. That doesn't mean there's any goddamn conspiracy. Take a good look at the variables before making an assumption like that. That said, I DO believe that GATs should be doing more than they are currently doing, which is why I made this post.

It’s because most people may respond to the responses from G.A.T as a means for retaliation. Not saying that everyone has a negative overtone, but most won’t realize how their mode of being civil isn’t really civil at all.


(This post was last modified: 12-02-2013, 09:36 PM by Linkzelda.)
12-02-2013, 05:03 PM
Find Reply
Sands Offline
And Roswell
Registered

Posts: 2,121
Threads: 10
Joined: Jun 2012
#4
 
Default  RE: GAT Complaints General
(12-02-2013, 04:42 PM)Purlox Wrote: ...any grammer errors...

Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

(12-02-2013, 04:42 PM)Purlox Wrote: ...but from what I have seen noone looks how it affects people. It's the equivalent of looking at a recipe and saying if there are any grammer errors, if the font selected is good, if it's nicely written, etc. and ignoring if there might be any health risks to eating the food or anything like that. When you look at a guide on making a tulpa, you need to look at how others react to it and if it actually helps them out. That's the point of guides after all - to help people do something they didn't know how to do before. What if a guide makes a lot of people doubt their tulpa? What if it makes the tulpa annoyed in a lot of cases? That seems to be ignored when GAT looks at guides.

No, it's nothing like that. Let's go through this one at a time, okay, first looking at your ridiculous comparison. I shall fill it with bolds, caps and italics just for you, such emphasis, wow.

First of all, comment sections are so you can comment on things. Recipe didn't work for you/you modified it/you loved it? You say so, so others can learn.

I don't think you really know how recipes are written. Health risks? Well, if you mean stuff like, let's say the food or dessert is very high in fat. That won't be said in the recipe and no one will ask the one who made it to write a TRIGGERWARNING or something. They might offer an alternative low-fat version, if possible. It's not possible in all the foods, because some just require all that fat to work properly. But it's not required and it's up to you to decide if you want to make such a fatty food. Recipes passed from your grandma or something especially might be super sugary and fatty, and the kids loved it so they keep the recipe just the way it is.

Allergies? No, you're not going to find a list of IF YOU'RE ALLERGIC TO X, Y AND Z, DON'T MAKE THIS!!! Well, other than the ingredients list, but you have to actually look and read to find out that damn, can't make this, I'm allergic. There's no TRIGGERWARNING here either. They might offer you things to replace some things with. Like something like eggs or milk or nuts or whatever, and that's nice. But it's not required, just like it's not required of them to warn you of every single food item on the list.

Actually something that might be dangerous when prepared wrong? Well, usually I'd be expecting to see a note of it in the recipe, like "buy your fugu from someone who knows his or her shit" or "this is how you make sure the mushrooms don't kill you" or something. But in the end, this isn't exactly required from someone who writes the recipe, but it would kind of be a dick move. But I'd say it's more of the job of the person who sells you this potentially deadly food item to tell you that it could be dangerous. Or it's their job to make sure it has been prepared right or tell you how to prepare it right, at least ask you if you can. And if you are going to say that what if you don't go and buy the thing but instead get it yourself, then well. Dunno about you, maybe this is some culture thing but where I live, we're told to not put unknown things in our mouths. Especially stuff like berries and mushrooms unless you're 100% sure that they're not lethal and you know exactly what needs to be done to them so they're edible.

Actual poison? If you tell me you'd cook something with rat poison in it, I'm worried. If you don't know what something is, find out. A joke recipe like that shouldn't stay long on any serious food recipe site, but if you put unknown chemicals in your food, I don't know what to say. Reminds me of those guys following stupid chemistry things posted on 4chan and then almost dying because they made mustard gas and weren't told about it. But come on, don't play with shit you don't know, please.

Is that what you're telling me? Omg tulpa poison? Newsflash, no matter how much you want to believe, there is no such thing. Actually, believing that is probably worse tulpa poison than anything else, irony. Guess what, making a tulpa is subjective. Really subjective. What works for one won't work for another, what ruined someone else's progress will make another one finally get a vocal tupper. This is exactly why many different guides should be approved, so they will be read and thought about. So that the person can find what works for them, not what works for the GAT or the majority - or worse yet, you, personally.

It's just censorship and forcing our opinions down someone's throat. That's not what guides are about and that's not what approving guides is about. And this is why I think you'd make a horrible GAT member.

I do agree that JD's not really pulling his weight here and that's why I didn't vote him for the manager. Because I know he's rarely here. Oh and the Fede thing? Mayo was unsure if he wanted to approve the guide so I stepped in and said my reasons as to why I approved, somehow every needed member voted after that instead of voting on the other guides like they should be doing now. Come on guys, please, we're not getting anywhere at this rate.

And we should be having another vote for GAT members, technically Fede's guide isn't even approved because every needed member hasn't approved of it. So it was a mistake to greenlight it, first we would need people to fill the spots. Or vote that we will make the team smaller.


edit: help cant into typing

The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)
(This post was last modified: 12-02-2013, 05:59 PM by Sands.)
12-02-2013, 05:46 PM
Find Reply
waffles Offline
no capital
Registered

Posts: 1,176
Threads: 24
Joined: Sep 2012
#5
 
RE: GAT Complaints General
(12-02-2013, 03:39 PM)Zero Wrote: Guides are being approved and disapproved too easily. You don't disapprove of a guide, ever. You disapprove of posts that claim to be guides but fit better in another subforum. Guides that are guides but not suitable for approval receive ADVICE. You tell them what they need to fix to make the guide approvable.
A disapproval is the opposite of an approval. Look at the pastebin. If a guide isn't approved then it's disapproved, or else you're just not voting. Asking for a post to be moved is different anyway.


(12-02-2013, 03:39 PM)Zero Wrote: - You're only allowed to approve of guides that are complete in their subject.
This means that if a guide contains a section on forcing, you can't approve of it if said section is incomplete. Using GGMethos' guide as an example, he gave a short, vague description of what forcing is, yet GATs approved of this. This is NOT allowed under ANY circumstances.
That's clearly not in the pastebin.


(12-02-2013, 03:39 PM)Zero Wrote: - Subjectivity is NOT an excuse for ignoring ANY of these points, period.
There is no discussion about this. These are the objective criteria for approving of guides. Subjective stuff is mentioning parts you like or dislike, and things they could edit but don't have to for a guide to be approved.
You haven't given any truly objective criteria. Let me quote the pastebin:
http://pastebin.com/KbBT1ZMY Wrote:point out whether a guide is written sloppily, contains bad grammar, doesn't make sense, doesn't address things with a positive mindset, or doesn't offer anything more than redundant content
What is sloppily-written, how much bad grammar is too much, who shouldn't it make sense to, and so on.




(12-02-2013, 04:42 PM)Purlox Wrote: Another thing is that I think it's important that every GAT member should have to give a valid reason why they approve or like the guide. Something like "This guide is well written and is able to deliver all the information needed in a conscise way" so that people can also know why you think a guide is good instead of some people just saying they approve of a guide and never saying why.
As far as I'm concerned, if a guide is approved then it's up to scratch. A message on every such guide saying "This guide isn't too bad, it's well-written" is redundant. It's obvious what criteria it fulfills.


(12-02-2013, 04:42 PM)Purlox Wrote: What if a guide makes a lot of people doubt their tulpa? What if it makes the tulpa annoyed in a lot of cases? That seems to be ignored when GAT looks at guides.
Like a guide would be the only thing to do that. Your example of the whole "parroting" thing was a community-wide mindset, carried on by everyone. This is modern times, we have nice FAQs that tell people not to worry and guides that tell people to love and cuddle their tulpa every day and so on.

We don't have to mollycoddle readers and shield their eyes from 'harmful beliefs'. As long as it's not clearly misinformation then we have no place saying what is good and bad for a newcomer to read. You can't keep people in the dark as to "help tulpa isn't real" forever: this is the internet.

If the guide is good quality then it's fine, approved. Fede's guide is well-written, clear and so on, so it gets a tick. If nothing else, then protecting the children is simply not what we're here for.
12-02-2013, 07:40 PM
Find Reply
Yori Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 340
Threads: 22
Joined: Jan 2013
#6
 
RE: GAT Complaints General
If it counts, "point out whether a guide is written sloppily, contains bad grammar, doesn't make sense, doesn't address things with a positive mindset, or doesn't offer anything more than redundant content"

I think this is rather objective, especially looking at what -not- writing sloppily means (no errors in syntax, spelling, grammar, no run ons, etc guarantees no sloppiness- Errors in English language can be objective), what not bad grammar is, etc.

Bad grammar is anything that goes against grammatical rules or at least standard English, I'd think. There are rules. "Bad grammar" means the grammar breaks those rules. If people think of it this way, it doesn't have to be so subjective or up to people's opinions.

As for "doesn't make sense", that could be decided if multiple people have trouble interpreting it properly (properly meaning the way the writer meant it to). A positive mindset... well, "lack of negative mindset" is a easier starting point.

Redundant content.. if that means writing on and on about the same thing guide-length, this should be easy too.

I think it'd be hard to press for more objective rules than this. I think the rules I quoted there are fine, and good enough to avoid messes about subjectivity when guides are being judged, provided no one over-complicates things.

But I'm not in the GAT, so again, if it counts ~
(This post was last modified: 12-02-2013, 08:04 PM by Yori.)
12-02-2013, 08:03 PM
Find Reply
waffles Offline
no capital
Registered

Posts: 1,176
Threads: 24
Joined: Sep 2012
#7
 
RE: GAT Complaints General
(12-02-2013, 08:03 PM)Yori Wrote: I think it'd be hard to press for more objective rules than this. I think the rules I quoted there are fine, and good enough to avoid messes about subjectivity when guides are being judged, provided no one over-complicates things.
I think they're fine too. Come to think of it, I misread Zero's last point there. Sorry Zero, point about subjectivity redacted.
12-02-2013, 08:13 PM
Find Reply
Sands Offline
And Roswell
Registered

Posts: 2,121
Threads: 10
Joined: Jun 2012
#8
 
RE: GAT Complaints General
Oh and I'll post this here so that the rest of the GAT might see it easier: that one approved guide, Fede's guide? Gone. Can't find it, has been deleted by a mod. Right as the link was about to be edited. No reason given, nothing said to us, the people supposed to be rating these guides. Good job .info mod team.

The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)
12-02-2013, 08:16 PM
Find Reply
Yori Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 340
Threads: 22
Joined: Jan 2013
#9
 
RE: GAT Complaints General
Hmm, I can't find it either, unless it was moved.. I narrowed the results to the Guides section cos too many results CX

It was like going through a trashbin and I don't even remember the title of the guide. Just searched "Fede" and sorted by author and Guides section.
(This post was last modified: 12-02-2013, 08:41 PM by Yori.)
12-02-2013, 08:40 PM
Find Reply
Rasznir Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 107
Threads: 8
Joined: Nov 2012
#10
 
RE: GAT Complaints General
I actually set the guide to hidden, temporarily. It appeared there were issues being raised from multiple people over it just being a link to somewhere else, rather than actually containing the guide, and I thought it best to do something until the issues could be discussed and resolved. (I could have moved the guide back into Guide Submissions, but I didn't want to reverse the decision of the GAT like that)

Edit: Just to clarify, issues weren't raised over there being a link to somewhere else. Issues were simply raised over there being *only* a link and no actual version of the guide in the post itself.
(This post was last modified: 12-02-2013, 09:11 PM by Rasznir.)
12-02-2013, 08:56 PM
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