Stanford Tulpa Study looking for more participants
(if you're chosen they'll pay for travel and lodging!)

New Rule Against Baseless Claims
Hello everyone. Today, we at are going to be addressing a long-running problem we have observed and received numerous complaints about from our users. As a lot of you may have noticed, there has been a steady increase of users who would make extraordinary claims without providing any substantial evidence backing them. These can be a myriad of things, such as “I have over 500 tulpas in my head”, or “My tulpa is fully developed in less than 24 hours!”, and any other far-off concept and similar implausible or even impossible claims. As this community is intended to be scientific in nature to its approach of tulpas as a concept, we feel these claims cause a dilution of information as recently explained by Yuki's criticisms. Link to Yuki's post here.

These sorts of radical claims, while not necessarily a significant and obvious source of bad influence, is a bad influence nonetheless. The uncritical and at times irrational acceptance of these claims easily leads to misinformation from concepts that are genuinely unsupported, and would possibly present a poor image of the community to those just arriving. Approaching these sorts of concepts with an open mind and critical thought is strongly encouraged, rather than a close-minded acceptance of every unsupported word that one might make against proven ideas as well as their practices.

From today onwards we are going to be implementing a new rule with the intention of influencing the close-minded nature of these radical claims, and encourage more rational and logical approaches to concepts which are deserving of skepticism.
We want to be abundantly clear on this rule:
Making outlandish claims with the pretense that they are an objective fact on a repeat basis, with unwillingness to listen to criticism, as well as having no evidence beyond their own subjective word is no longer going to be allowed. This is not applicable to those who would articulate their experiences as subjective, but subjective nature should be explicitly stated in any explanation. Discussion of such is encouraged to be done with an open mind rather than defiantly asserting that they are true without doubt. There is a very good possibility that whatever ludicrous or outlandish thing you or others had experienced could be easily explained with proper thought and reasoning. There should always be openness to one's own interpretations in a matter as subjective as tulpas.

We would like to ensure that our users know that action will only be taken on those who continuously spread baseless claims, and refuse to listen to the reason or criticism of others. You will not be punished for simply having an ideology or a unique concept. There is no question to the fact that you experienced it, just that you may be interpreting that experience as something that it's not. Furthermore, that one experience is not necessarily indicative of every other experience. Jumping to conclusions too quickly can do more harm than good.

In no way do we intend for this to be a restriction on allowing people to believe what they wish to believe or meant to restrict constructive discussion of these topics should they be brought up. The intention is a positive influence that helps to steer away from irrational concepts and ways of thinking. An open-minded community with users who make an effort and work together against these things is what we feel is ideal in building a better environment.

All that really is changing is a community-wide shift to a more accurate language. Both mundane and unique experiences are equally subjective when it comes to tulpas, and we feel that if discussion occurs with this in mind, the dilution of information that comes from blindly asserting extraordinary claims will be reduced significantly.

Thank you for your time, and if you have any concerns, we encourage you to bring them up with us here or at #tulpa.mods.

Lolflash - click it, you know you want to

Good job, guys, this is a great development.
Feel free to ask me anything.
Suffering is self-imposed. Don't let it control you.
What!? This is either a horrible rule or a rule you can't enforce. I can't prove that I have 500 tulpas in my head, but I can't prove I have 1 either. All claims made on this site are baseless, except the very few citing brain scans and such. Really you're just banning rediculous things. But at what point is it rediculous? 10 tulpas? 20? 50? 100? And what's the minimum time that we'll not ban someone for claiming to make a tulpa in? A month? A week? 3 days? 3 days is completely reasonable for someone who's already done tulpamancy for many years. What about a writer? If they fail to mention they are a writer and then claim that they made a tulpa in 3 days, do they get banned? No, you clearly state "with unwillingness to listen to criticism", but hey if someone said my tupper wasn't real I'd be pretty unwilling to listen to critisism. What sort of criticism? "Hey we don't think your tulpa is real", "what do you mean they're totally real wtf", *banhammer*.

Oh, and the other great part: "as well as having no evidence beyond their own subjective word". Nobody I know of has any evidence beyond their own subjective word (excepting the aformentioned very rare brain scans). I certainly don't. You might as well leave that out, since that literally applies to everybody.

" but subjective nature should be explicitly stated in any explanation." I've edited my signature accordingly, since I'll probably forget to put it in every single post.

" action will only be taken on those who continuously spread baseless claims, and refuse to listen to the reason or criticism of others." Oh so only if you continually insist that your tulpa is real will you be banned.
Nobody would do that . /s

You cannot filter the trolls from the community, because the only thing separating them is sincereity, which cannot be judged accurately by merely reading their writings. And don't forget that someone can be in both categories, like say Fede-lasse.

But what do I know. Maybe I'm overreacting, and this'll work out just fine. Just be careful. Open-mindedness is usually a good thing, but as a bannable offense for the lack of it I'm not so sure.
Lawyer up on my new forum game, Jean-luc's Jaundiced Judicial Judging Jamboree! Feel free to PM or post on that thread with any questions!
Stats for LOTPW
Let's say four people come to the community claiming to have imposed their tulpa overnight.

Apathetic420: I imposed my tulpa overnight because it was easy.
PrincessRavenMoonlightStarbeam: I imposed my tulpa overnight because my father is Spock and my mother is a super-intelligent alien rainbow unicorn from the Pleiades, and I've been trained in magic since I was five and a half months old, and my best friend's uncle's roommate sent some of his tulpas to live in my wonderland and show me how to do crazy tulpa magic.
BoredLonely: I imposed my tulpa overnight because when I was a child my father used to lock me in the basement every night when he got home from work, and he wouldn't let me out until he left the next morning, and all I had to do down there was imagine things until they were so real that I could see them.
BeautifulMind: I imposed my tulpa overnight because my therapist suggested that I treat my schizophrenia by taking control of my hallucinations, and I have years of practice.

As I understand it, this rule is to give us a reason to point the first two people, while the last two won't be punished. But that's just my limited understanding. Perhaps someone who knows better can enlighten us?
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
Sushi is basically right.
The intention is most certainly not to pretend like we can know who is lying, or who isn't. And if you have a tame experience throughout the phenomenon, then no one would have any reason to question anything you say, most likely; it would all fit within that which is already accepted in this community as "plausible". The problem as I see it is the people who have an experience, and quickly jump to some crazy conclusion. Like "I started forcing today for the first time ever, and my tulpa talked back. It must already be sentient and developed". From what I have experienced around here, every bold assumption has a far, far more reasonable explanation. The brain is already capable of mimicking human interaction and response. Take dream characters for example. I can have a conversation with myself—replies and all—right now, if I wanted to. Getting some kind of response on day one doesn't mean anything. That's just what the brain does.
And of course, this does not mean that said user would get some kind of warning. We would encourage others (or we ourselves) to offer a more reasonable, logical explanation for these far-out assumptions. In the end, what I think is the real problem is the people who receive a more likely explanation and respond with "No, it's my mind, I know what I saw/heard, anything's possible with subjectivity", etc etc. It's not that we're trying to necessarily say that these things are flat out impossible, but we think that if you can't even come up with a logical or scientifically-based explanation for what you are claiming, and yet still downright refuse to listen to anyone else's reasoning or interpretation, then you are likely not doing much besides hurting the community, and perhaps its image.

"This happened/This is, because I said so" does not cut it in the scientific community, and to a reasonable extent, it shouldn't cut it anywhere where intelligent discussion and advancement of understanding is sought.
"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."

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Lolflash - click it, you know you want to