Hello There, Guest! Register


Q&A Moderation
Sands Offline
And Roswell
Registered

Posts: 2,120
Threads: 10
Joined: Jun 2012
 
RE: Q&A Moderation

Offending is a serious crime in hugbox forums. You do get warned for that stuff.

The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)
10-22-2013, 07:19 PM
Find Reply

Sponsors:
Lolflash - click it, you know you want to

Yori Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 338
Threads: 22
Joined: Jan 2013
 
RE: Q&A Moderation

This isn't a hugbox forum. And that stuff never works... inconsistency and unfairness starts happening when the rules are just "offending is offlimits"
10-22-2013, 08:57 PM
Find Reply
Yori Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 338
Threads: 22
Joined: Jan 2013
 
RE: Q&A Moderation

That made sense, because I don't "lurk" (meaning anytime I'm looking around the forums) all the time. You'll always say that. "More. More." Maybe I actually don't agree with you? I mean, if everyone's so hugboxxy, assuming they don't consider themselves to be hugboxxy, there's already plenty of users that don't agree with you, so I don't see why you think the issue is that I just haven't read enough. I haven't covered way way back when, admittedly, but then again that's the past ^^.
10-23-2013, 02:07 PM
Find Reply
Sands Offline
And Roswell
Registered

Posts: 2,120
Threads: 10
Joined: Jun 2012
 
RE: Q&A Moderation

Just because someone thinks they're not something doesn't mean they are right. How many crazies actually think they're crazy? Not too many.

Plenty of the new people have seen it despite only having been here for a while. If you actually do participate in Tumblr and DeviantArt hugboxes yourself, I can bet that it's going to be harder to notice as it's the same shit here as it is over there.

The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)
10-23-2013, 02:46 PM
Find Reply
Yori Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 338
Threads: 22
Joined: Jan 2013
 
RE: Q&A Moderation

You missed my point, babe. I wasn't saying that as "proof" they were right. But I am curious as to what "crazies" means.

As for the plenty of new people thing, see? It's what I think, not because I just got here this Winter. Not that I believe you :P
And no, I don't go to Tumblr or DeviantArt or much of anywhere, really. Although talking smack about someone's art (not including constructive criticism) would probably be like judging fashion shows and stuff. All it is is what that person happens to like.
(This post was last modified: 10-23-2013, 06:34 PM by Yori.)
10-23-2013, 06:33 PM
Find Reply
Linkzelda Offline
>MFW Image Streaming
Registered

Posts: 2,008
Threads: 31
Joined: Oct 2012
2 Attached Accounts
 
RE: Q&A Moderation

The funny thing about areas considered to be hugboxing is that it’s ones where there’s no signs of negativity whatsoever.

However, we shouldn’t confuse sections like (as examples) Q&A or even General Discussion as a hugbox overall (it’s mostly based on circumstances), because there’s a difference in actually giving advice vs. mediocre advice to fuel the thread’s original poster’s quest for confirmation bias.

An example of this is if a person wants to know how to visualize better:
>They know they need to practice and read guides, but are either indolent, naïve, have cognitive dissonance with what to do next, etc.

>They make the thread, knowing for sure of what the responses will be, they just need to gather any modicum of support that conforms solely to their beliefs.

>Anyone that actually gives them advice (that isn’t inflammatory and/or mediocre), where the advice states both the good and the bad, they ignore it (and may think it's trolling on their confirmation bias)

>Advice that’s sustained with a pit-pattering rage is considered trolling


It’s one thing to give real advice, but it’s another where it’s clearly filled with inflammatory tonality with it. Which is why most advice can be done to where it’s realistic, but not too overly positive. Because if certain sections where a true hugbox, logic follows that the staff would ban or give militant warnings to the people, and of course, in the past, that occurred, but right now, it’s more of not doing anything.

People mistake the “not doing” anything approach from staff as a hugbox team, and this allows individuals with a grandiose delusion to still exist on the forum. Simply because the staff just gives them warnings, and the occasional threats of bans, but they’ll never commit the act. Doing so would be like Batman actually killing the Joker. But he can’t, because he already has his own restrictive morals on killing in general.

The same logic applies to a staff that others think are promoting the hugbox, but if they truly did follow that logic, the individuals with a grandiose delusion would be non-existent. Unfortunately, that’s not the case, so it’s now a matter of just seeing how these individuals go through pit-pattering rage while reveling in their delusion.

Deep down they want to abuse others who don’t use common sense in this forum and its boards, and use detached justifications (e.g. "you are the hero tulpa.info needs", "I'm just trying to get these people to learn", "tough love") to validate their aggressive behavior.

And this is where the fun part comes in, when people become aware of those people with that grandiose delusion, when those people decide to tell the person with the delusion the truth, here’s the plot twist:
  • Because the individual with the delusion is intolerable to seeing their own bullshit from that person’s advice/statement of them, they not easy to sway. Because they don’t want to admit that they were wrong, so they use informal fallacies and such (e.g. strawman, red herring fallacy, non-sequiturs, appeal to authority) to distract themselves from realizing the truth.

And logic follows that when these individuals are still existent, because the person gives them the honest truth, the same abuser ends up abusing themselves. They become more motivated to be trapped in their delusion to the point where actual advice they see others give to newcomers (where they state the good and the bad) ends up being mediocre to them.

That’s the one of the issues on this forum in general.

Because the individual doesn’t want to admit that just maybe, if they were banned, the forum can actually become a better place. Because then people may get their heads together, and find a way to moderate sections like Q&A without the tough love approach that's disguised as wanting to crumble any potential down.

And whenever people try to convince the abusers that they have potential, the moment the abuser doesn’t take it well (e.g. informal fallacies to distract from the original statement of the abuser’s behavior), that’s when you just ignore them completely.

Because their pit-pattering and militant behavior will eventually become random noise should the community become more serious (if and only if). The abusers end up realizing they can only be on the sidelines instead of the front lines. So in an attempt to scavenge whatever pride they can get, they go all out in aggression, and anyone that responds to any question, is considered hugboxing.

This is the harsh truth for people who have a grandiose delusion of mixing inflammatory filled advice as tough love or a means to get people to learn. People can learn to use their brains right, it just depends on how the person giving the advice is proficient in giving both realistic circumstances to the person in conflict’s issues along with a slightly positive and civil mindset with that.

So right now, this thread will end up in an ad infinitum of non-sequiturs, red herrings, straw man fallacy, and such until the participants burn out. And when that happens, this vicious cycle will occur later on, unless the forum ends up being an actual hugbox where the staff bans those people who are militantly negative. Or if the forum ends up being realistic instead, either way, it will lead to reaching the ulterior motive of this forum.

If the staff is only pulling their punches on the bans and warnings, they’re not close to being a hugbox. Remember, Batman wouldn’t kill the Joker, because the responsibility will be placed on him. The Joker can continue abusing countless numbers of individuals, but if Batman takes that one action to kill the Joker, he’ll have to keep killing to ease his conscience.

The same logic applies to the staff, if they keep banning those members, they’ll have to keep doing the same to anyone that approaches the community in a militantly aggressive manner. But staff isn’t doing that, they’re simply just listening to everyone’s thoughts, but aren’t making an action towards it. Simply because any action will still end up with ‘you’re a nazi mod/admin.’ It's a double-bind situation with the individuals in the delusion trying to fix staff or provide suggestions end up avoiding that virtue altogether.

TL;DR: Until the people with grandiose delusions are non-existent, they’re only kidding themselves with what’s a hugbox vs. a forum that gives actual advice that isn’t aimed to fuel the original poster’s or person in conflict’s quest for confirmation bias. And any actual hugboxing is based on circumstances, but if it's only a few threads, extrapolating those few circumstances =/= the overall format of the forum being a hugbox

And because those people with a grandiose delusion can’t be swayed to any criticism someone will give on them (but they'll be more than happy to give inflammatory criticism to others), they’ll just continue being hypocrites. We’ll just have to wait until these people either:
  • Snap and go ballistic
  • are non-existent
  • or actually admit their behavior and attitude is what perpetuates the issue (but rarely anyone follows this third point)

Guess which individuals are The Jokers?


(This post was last modified: 10-23-2013, 07:04 PM by Linkzelda.)
10-23-2013, 06:41 PM
Find Reply
Yori Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 338
Threads: 22
Joined: Jan 2013
 
RE: Q&A Moderation

I don't think it's really hard to give advice that's contrary to what they were expecting without having them think you're some kind of troll. For an easy example to pick on, hours counts, people here have told people to stop that immediately and forget about it, they didn't try to be polite in the wording but it wasn't particularly assy wording either. It was fine.

"
>They make the thread, knowing for sure of what the responses will be, they just need to gather any modicum of support that conforms solely to their beliefs."

Is that a reassurance type thing?

In the beginning, one Joker was really crawl-on-the-ground and grovel-y, very submissive with accepting criticism, it was sort of cute.
(This post was last modified: 10-23-2013, 06:58 PM by Yori.)
10-23-2013, 06:57 PM
Find Reply
Sands Offline
And Roswell
Registered

Posts: 2,120
Threads: 10
Joined: Jun 2012
 
Default  RE: Q&A Moderation

<Purlox>: We have concluded that you are wrong and that we aren't a hug/box/, but we are a hugpile. So remember for next time.


(10-23-2013, 06:33 PM)Yori Wrote: But I am curious as to what "crazies" means.

Mentally ill people. Mentally ill people rarely know they have a problem, because they are mentally ill.

(10-23-2013, 06:33 PM)Yori Wrote: Although talking smack about someone's art (not including constructive criticism) would probably be like judging fashion shows and stuff. All it is is what that person happens to like.

Smack talk, huh? Who is going to decide what is smack talk? Lemme tell you, a lot of the super special unique snowflake artists think everything not an ass pat would be an attack. Art critique is an important thing every artist needs and it's not praise with few things you could improve on sprinkled in there. It's not a negative comment sadnwiches between positive ones, either. It's not about your likes or dislikes, because poor anatomy and shit choices for colors will look awful and they will need to be pointed out for a lot of the starting artists so they learn. The ones who don't take any critique stagnate and keep making shit art that never changes for years and years while the ones who actually listen and try to improve will improve.

You can't break the rules until you know the rules. You won't learn the rules by hiding behind IT'S MY STYLE. There's also a huge difference between "damn, what were you thinking when you were working on the perspective, the points are all fucked up" and "I don't think this piece does it for me". Spoilers, neither of those is "smack talk".

Also the people screaming hour counts or doubts kill tuppers are silly and just scaring people. Probably giving them tons of problems later on in their lives, too. I've seen where the "always think it's your tulpa" belief has gone to for way too many people and it isn't pretty.

The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)
10-23-2013, 07:07 PM
Find Reply
Yori Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 338
Threads: 22
Joined: Jan 2013
 
RE: Q&A Moderation

Well yeah, things like perspective or trying to draw art of actual things is criticizable in an objective fashion, unless they're trying to make it look fucked up on purpose.

I haven't seen people see hours counts kills them, but it affects attitude for some, when they stage expectations by the hours. By smack talk I mean stuff like "wow, this is the ugliest drawing I have ever seen." or "wow, gross poem." I don't go to dA and was only there looking at particular friends stuff, and searching around for things to look at (I forget the second reason I was looking around...), and from what I could see, negative talk wasn't being reported or taken down or anything. If you mean that some people get an attitude and snap back at them, that's like, anywhere.

"Mentally ill" people is even more ambiguous. Many mentally ill people know and consider themselves to have a mental illness - Insight. There are varieties of mental illness. Maybe you don't actually have a particular mental illness in mind at all?
(This post was last modified: 10-23-2013, 07:13 PM by Yori.)
10-23-2013, 07:13 PM
Find Reply
MegaBusta
Unregistered

 
 
RE: Q&A Moderation

Honestly, Hour counts aren't the poison that they're said to be. As long as you treat an hour count similar to a child development timeline (i.e. an approximation of roughly when a developmental milestone will occur), you'll be fine. The problem is when dumbdumbs think that it's a set in stone sort of thing, and then might brush something off as parroting because a tulpa is speaking at n-1 hours instead of exactly on n, or crying about accidentally creating a servitor because their tulpa isn't moving 5 minuits after reaching hour count x.
10-23-2013, 07:14 PM
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Sponsors:
Lolflash - click it, you know you want to


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