Hello There, Guest! Register

GAT Complaints General
Sands Offline
And Roswell
Registered

Posts: 2,121
Threads: 10
Joined: Jun 2012
#11
 
RE: GAT Complaints General
That would have been a better decision seeing that the decision wasn't even final because of lacking members. And it was kind of against what GAT had agreed on to just suddenly approve of a guide that didn't technically have enough votes. You could ask, you know.

The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)
12-02-2013, 09:01 PM
Find Reply
Rasznir Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 107
Threads: 8
Joined: Nov 2012
#12
 
RE: GAT Complaints General
In hindsight, that would probably have been a better idea. I did try to get in contact with JD1215 this morning by sending a memo over IRC, and I believe Pleeb tried to get in contact with him last night, either once or twice.

Edit: I've actually gone and done that now (unhidden and moved to Guide Submissions).
(This post was last modified: 12-02-2013, 09:13 PM by Rasznir.)
12-02-2013, 09:09 PM
Find Reply
Sands Offline
And Roswell
Registered

Posts: 2,121
Threads: 10
Joined: Jun 2012
#13
 
RE: GAT Complaints General
>JD
>trying to get in contact with him and expecting a swift reply

Yeah I think he's pretending to have a life.

The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)
12-02-2013, 09:30 PM
Find Reply
CyberD Offline
Daniel & Noah
Registered

Posts: 330
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2012
#14
 
RE: GAT Complaints General
(12-02-2013, 03:39 PM)Zero Wrote: Feel free to call me out on my bullshit.
Finish your damn guide guy. In the time it took you to complain about it your guide could have been finished.

I'm not going to approve your guide until it is. You know you haven't finished so it isn't necessary for me to post and say your guide isn't finished.

I agree reasons for approval might be useful but a simple approval post from a couple of people does nothing but bring the guide to the attention of the other members. Yes, the process could use some work but without additional boards/discussion threads this is the best way to highlight interesting threads for now.

As for GGmethos's guide. I fail to see how it is incomplete. It is a tulpa creation guide, not a "forcing guide" The section on forcing may be brief but it is neither what the guide is about nor incomplete. If people require more information on the subject they can read about it elsewhere.
12-02-2013, 10:10 PM
Find Reply
Anonymous
Unregistered

 
#15
 
RE: GAT Complaints General
I think it's better to put issues out in the open like this than to keep them to yourself or discuss them privately with people who agree with you. From what I've seen, this thread is quite young but already a few misconceptions have been cleared, and a few good points have been made. I've seen people get mad on both the moderator's and the GAT's side about the issue with Fede's guide, while according to Rasznir it wasn't even that big of a deal to begin with. If people could continue mentioning their issues reasonably in the future, I think many problems can be prevented, also outside of the GAT and with other community issues.
12-03-2013, 01:43 AM
Reply
Sands Offline
And Roswell
Registered

Posts: 2,121
Threads: 10
Joined: Jun 2012
#16
 
RE: GAT Complaints General
.info? Transparency? I don't think you know where you are and how things are handled here. It's what we all want to have but...

The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)
12-03-2013, 01:37 PM
Find Reply
Purlox Offline
the fox
Registered

Posts: 314
Threads: 35
Joined: Jun 2012
#17
 
RE: GAT Complaints General
(12-02-2013, 05:46 PM)Sands Wrote: Giant strawman argument
You are completely missing my point. I'm not saying the information about the guide possibly hurting some people and other such information should be on the guide, but instead I'm saying it should be on the review from the GAT members. You are supposed to rate the guide, so such information should be included in there.

(12-02-2013, 07:40 PM)waffles Wrote: 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.
No, as someone that's supposed to rate guides, you should say what is good or bad on them and why you approve or don't approve of them because of that. Of course it shouldn't be a generic message posted on every guide, but it doesn't have to be either.

(12-02-2013, 07:40 PM)waffles Wrote: 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.
Yes, guide doesn't have to be the only one creating or promoting the bad mindset or hurting tulpas, but it's still promoting it and hurting people that read it. You can't make FAQs to help people out because of bad guides forever. Not everyone even will read the FAQs or will go to IRC or forums to ask for help because of something that the guide caused, so why not try to help them out by not approving a bad guide that promotes things that hurt most people?

What is GAT here for then if not for reviewing the guides, rating them and telling people if it might be dangerous, impossible, etc.? Who is supposed to rate the guides if not the ones approving them or disapproving them?



I guess GAT isn't here for what I thought, that is filtering out bad guides and approving the good ones. They are here to just approve nicely looking guides with good wording that explain the what is described in the guide well.

It doesn't matter if a guide hurts some or most people as long as it's nicely worded and explains the subject well, so guides like FAQman's guide, which had to be taken down in the past because it was making tos of people doubt their tulpa and it lead to slow progress in general, guides that are entirely about hourcounts and following them by letter, guides that makes a lot of people doubt their tulpas or a guide that suggests killing your tulpa to "help", will all pass as long as they are written nicely with few grammer errors, etc, because that's what matters on guides the most apparently. But a helpful guide that has helped a lot of people, but is not so nicely written with grammer errors and other stuff, won't get approved, especially because according to GAT a small guide is not a guide, so don't bother writing these anymore, they won't get approved.

I would think they should be approving good guides, guides that are helpful to newcomers, that help them with stuff they usually oncounter, etc. as the act of approving a guide makes it more easily searchable and visible to most people and especially newcomers, so putting good guides there would make sense, but apparently it's just a place of nicely written guides that may or may not hurt you or your tulpa and GAT is completely useless at actually reviewing guides and telling people which are good and which are bad.

I really have to wonder if GAT is here to help people and especially newcomers by approving good and helpful guides which I think was the point of the GAT idea, but currently it seems like they are just approving guides that they like and look nicely.

You can try approving guides just by "objective" criteria like if they are nice and have grammer errors, but that doesn't work, because even though guides are subjective and making tulpa is very subjective too, by approving the guides you make them more visible (including mainly to newcomers) and you effectively say they are good, so you should approve of the guides that help most people instead of the ones that just look nicely. You shouldn't approve guides that have been shown to hurt a lot of people that try them because "making a tulpa is subjective, so there is going to be someone that the guide's going to help even if it's going to hurt a lot of people", because you are promoting it and making it visible to more people, thus helping it hurt even more people. That's why you shouldn't approve bad guides even if it's subjective thing, because everything including tulpas is subjective and you can't avoid that even if you try to.

Before someone like Sands says that somehow this is "consorship", then read my post again and notice I'm not saying we should delete these guides. I'm saying we should not approve bad guides, they will still be there and searchable by anyone, just in a different place.
12-08-2013, 04:02 PM
Find Reply
Sands Offline
And Roswell
Registered

Posts: 2,121
Threads: 10
Joined: Jun 2012
#18
 
Default  RE: GAT Complaints General
Yawn. You know that your point is really lazy and it only shows how you are so biased you can't even read what I wrote when I can respond to what you just wrote with what I already wrote?

(12-02-2013, 05:46 PM)Sands Wrote: 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.

In case you have missed it because you are all knowing and powerful and know how every single person in this world thinks, there is no one thing that will hurt someone and it's impossible for us to know when something will hurt someone. Hour counts are baaaaad, they say. Guess what, I counted hours. Perfectly happy, no parroting fears because I came to this with a critical but understanding mind, some say I was even fast but compared to the slowpokes, everyone is fast. Parroting is baaaad, they say. Not a method I'd ever use myself, but many people make tulpas that way now. JD's method also has a lot of parroting and puppeting. Someone called my tulpa an imaginary frieeeend. Oh boo hoo and grow a spine, if you can't handle something like that and it will automatically make you kill your tulpa because you ~~doubt~~ them then there's a lot of growing you and the tupper need to do together.

It is censorship if we are only allowed to approve guides that follow a certain theory or opinion - probably yours seeing how much you want yours to be the accepted one. We are here to approve good guides, again. Not guides that only follow one person's own personal theories and opinions. Hell, if you think we only approve guides we like, I don't even agree with Fede's anything and everything about it basically goes against what I would do or what I think. I approved of it because it was a well-written guide and the methods in it didn't contradict each other. Many people use his guide or have modified his guide to work for them. It has probably helped more people than harmed because everyone who disagrees with his guide wouldn't use it, simple as that.

We're not here to baby people. We're here to treat them like capable human beings who can make their own decisions. No one forces anyone to use a guide that doesn't work for them or is something they don't agree with. Our job, still, is to find a lot of good guides with multiple different viewpoints so the users can choose the one that helps them the best. If you try to shield someone's eyes from different opinions, then that's impossible when it comes to the internet. People need to be allowed to have choices. The GAT is here to pick the good from the bad, not the opinions I agree with from the opinions I don't agree with. A bad guide is only a thing that is written poorly, not really a guide, doesn't explain itself well enough or is something that keeps contradicting itself and seems like would make getting the result the guide is trying to help you towards impossible.

You're sounding like one of those paranoid overprotective American soccer moms here. Sorry to tell you, but if someone can't read FAQs or other guides after this one guide forever scarred their delicate little snowflake minds, do you think someone else's personal review when approving such guide would even be read in the first place? Not to mention what I think will happen won't happen to everyone and my words actually, according to your theory, would remind these delicate souls that there is a possibility of something like this happening and now I have ruined their tulpas forever.

Also a small guide is a guide assuming it's written like a guide. When it's just a single tip written with many or a lot of words, it's not a guide. Not so hard and also this apparently was something people wanted done. You know, separating actual guides from a thread with few tips. At least that was what I was told.

I feel like ending this with a broken up quote/answer chain.

(12-08-2013, 04:02 PM)Purlox Wrote: I would think they should be approving good guides

We do that, though what is good is objective. So let's say "up to standards".

(12-08-2013, 04:02 PM)Purlox Wrote: guides that are helpful to newcomers

Especially this, guides are going to have to be written in a helpful way to really be approved as a guide.

(12-08-2013, 04:02 PM)Purlox Wrote: that help them with stuff they usually oncounter

Encounter. Yes, we're trying to approve as many different types of guides as possible as long as they're up to standards and help the person reading them through. So that there's as many approved tips as possible for every problem they might encounter.

(12-08-2013, 04:02 PM)Purlox Wrote: as the act of approving a guide makes it more easily searchable and visible to most people and especially newcomers, so putting good guides there would make sense

Yes, that's our goal.

(12-08-2013, 04:02 PM)Purlox Wrote: but apparently it's just a place of nicely written guides that may or may not hurt you or your tulpa

Only the person and the tulpa reading the guide can say if it will hurt or not.

(12-08-2013, 04:02 PM)Purlox Wrote: and GAT is completely useless at actually reviewing guides

We're doing just that, though.

(12-08-2013, 04:02 PM)Purlox Wrote: and telling people which are good and which are bad.

Approved guides are approved guides and up to standards. What actually works for someone can only be said by the person reading/trying the guide. What is good and what is bad is subjective. But you can't understand that so you're still not going to be a part of the GAT, because you think your opinions are facts. You can't only approve guides you like, you know. You even told us that, technically, by claiming we only approve guides we like and those are bad according to you.

Don't worry, doing our best. Right now because of manager issues and few people being lazy, we haven't managed to get many guides approved. But there will be a lot more soon for the new guys to pick from, well-written, helpful guides with many different viewpoints so they can find the one they agree with the most.

The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)
12-08-2013, 04:49 PM
Find Reply
waffles Offline
no capital
Registered

Posts: 1,176
Threads: 24
Joined: Sep 2012
#19
 
RE: GAT Complaints General
(12-08-2013, 04:02 PM)Purlox Wrote: No, as someone that's supposed to rate guides, you should say what is good or bad on them and why you approve or don't approve of them because of that. Of course it shouldn't be a generic message posted on every guide, but it doesn't have to be either.
But my point is that a guide gets approved because it is good enough. Yes, we could say what we do like about it but that's not strictly why we approved it. I mean, if it were then sure but that's definitely not the case for many guides.


(12-08-2013, 04:02 PM)Purlox Wrote: Yes, guide doesn't have to be the only one creating or promoting the bad mindset or hurting tulpas, but it's still promoting it and hurting people that read it. You can't make FAQs to help people out because of bad guides forever. Not everyone even will read the FAQs or will go to IRC or forums to ask for help because of something that the guide caused, so why not try to help them out by not approving a bad guide that promotes things that hurt most people?
Look, if your point is that Fede's guide isn't helpful to newcomers then we can talk about that. I will. But we can't just protect newcomers from 'bad ideas' even if we tried. I know we could remove guides but the ideas are still there in discussion and the community mindset. Ultimately you can't shield people from the idea that 'maybe they're parroting their tulpa' because it's just so prevalent.

But anyway, I'm not entirely sure why you think that particular guide is the only cause of people being afraid about their tulpas not being real. And that this is still true, I really don't know. Maybe if you could show us that this guide is still unhelpful to newcomers then we might get somewhere.

Even then, though, I'm not sure that it would be grounds for disqualification. The guide is not misinformative, and it is not written badly. You are saying that it shouldn't be approved because it contains ideas that are potentially harmful; I say that's mollycoddling and not what we're here for.

Like Sands says, we can't really be sure that a particular piece of advice is unilaterally good or bad. Different people will take it different ways, and it might be more effective for some than others. We can't be responsible for that. Kind of like saying you should disapprove of the Bible because it made some people go on the Crusades, I guess.

And FAQ_man's guide is different in two ways. One is that it was clearly a source of trouble, and two is that it was misleading. Fede's guide is not. I don't agree with its being 'taken down' (or getting a warning or whatever) anyway. I think the hysterical reaction did more damage than anything.

So all in all I don't think that you can really say that a guide is not worthy of approval because some people read it and thought that they might be parroting. Even if you don't trust people to think for themselves, they should still be given the opportunity to.


And about your other complaints because I missed them first time.
The current guidelines say that short guides are fine.
We could wait for more members but that's a delay of another few weeks at least. New GATs can weigh in on previously approved guides.
If a discussion does get big then yes, it could be split to its own thread. But I don't think that's necessary for small discussions.
12-08-2013, 05:14 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