Hello There, Guest! Register

We finally have a discord server

Q&A Moderation
Yori Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 338
Threads: 22
Joined: Jan 2013
#31
 
RE: Dealing with Spam/Adbots
Isn't this kind of dramatic? It's hard to find a forum where people -don't- ask questions they can search for, and like I said, there are other reasons to ask again other than not having searched.

People asking questions that can be found in old threads does not make the forum runner's effort and money "in vain" or useless. There's no real problem here.
10-19-2013, 03:11 AM
Find Reply

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

Linkzelda Offline
>MFW Image Streaming
Registered

Posts: 2,008
Threads: 31
Joined: Oct 2012
All Accounts Posts: 2,066
#32
 
RE: Dealing with Spam/Adbots
(10-19-2013, 03:11 AM)Yori Wrote: Isn't this kind of dramatic? It's hard to find a forum where people -don't- ask questions they can search for, and like I said, there are other reasons to ask again other than not having searched.

People asking questions that can be found in old threads does not make the forum runner's effort and money "in vain" or useless. There's no real problem here.

Allow me to absolve your naivete.

That response I made was actually a TL;DR for this, but since you're practically begging the question:

People don’t want to READ (not just guides, threads in general), and focus more on skimming which can prevent them from getting useful information here. Honestly, when I joined this forum, I thought people like Sands were trolling and had some deep hatred for the forum in general. But the set of cognitive biases I had of him were false (mostly, some are still true and accurate though, nobody’s perfect).

Even though I’m using my inference on him in general, despite of how he expresses himself here, he has a point. And everyone is aware of this, but they’re focusing more on his behavior rather than his underlying meaning.

Right now, it seems the staff is going for the deontological route, to where it’s okay for others to be virtuous and help newcomers out the best way they and members here can. In short, the means justify the ends. And anyone that seems to scare a few newcomers, they’re threatened.

To some extent, this is useful, but it’s only pragmatic for people who actually USE THEIR BRAINS FOR ONCE. It’s obvious who actually don’t fit that category.
And this isn’t the only forum that has incompetence in abundance, Dream Views also has this predicament with the “be only nice and noble about it” approach. Honestly, there needs to be a mix of utilitarian and deontological logic applied into this forum.

If this site wants to be “For Science,” then there are some things that must be sacrificed to increase the probability of this site having some scientific credibility (even though it has a long way to go, but it can be sped up with group thinking and intellectual discussions with each other).

Sure, the utilitarian route doesn’t make everyone a happy camper, but when it’s Science on the line, your virtues must be compromised (temporarily). The ends justify the means, and this site is still an embodiment of a self-fulfilling prophecy (to reach the fulfillment of it having some authority as a resource on tulpas, we have to continue going through the mannerisms and behaviors to augment its scholarly-like spirit).

Even if Sands has to play bad cop, even if I have to continue being an inconsistent and egomaniacal member, as long as we can still breathe, we will not give up.

But my agenda for this forum is completely different. There needs to be change, and it can’t be resolved with only fixing the subtleties and trivial issues. These things may add up, but it’s not fast enough, we need to be more ambitious, but in a more civil manner.

So that Pleeb doesn’t continue sacrificing his whole future and finances for this forum. To where he doesn’t have to listen to everyone’s pains and grievances, to where he doesn’t have to please everyone. You're thinking this is overly dramatic because you're not putting things into perspective Yori. I've analyzed the history of the site and its members to where your responses are basically useless at this point.


(This post was last modified: 10-19-2013, 03:55 AM by Linkzelda.)
10-19-2013, 03:31 AM
Find Reply
Yori Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 338
Threads: 22
Joined: Jan 2013
#33
 
RE: Dealing with Spam/Adbots
I still don't understand what the issue is with people asking questions. The only thing you can do is convince the moderators to delete the threads because you don't want people answering old questions, but there's nothing wrong with people answering the questions. If they want to, let them do it. This shouldn't be a focus, at all. I'm sure it's not just Dream Views where people asking old questions is a "problem." This "problem" is on any forum. There doesn't have to be a "moral route" to take on this. What is it that is so bad that happens if this is dismissed and people continue answering if they want? If people are unsuccessful in convincing everyone else to ignore them? (Nothing worthy of note.)

I only know it would bother fussy people who itch uncontrollably when they see the lazies of the world NOT USE THEIR BRAINS. I'd let it happen. I guess that means I'd let the forum be damaged. Gasp. Let's not stop there. There are lots of other things we could be labeling lazy or a lack of brain usage. Let's clean this forum up of all of that... because... they shouldn't slack on the brain. And this greatly affects people.

I think this is as problematic as informal short hand in chats, or putting your elbows on the table. People have a problem with it, but if they didn't, there'd be no problem itself. They take issue with it for the sake of it. They say the short hand is so lazy and unintelligent because they can type out the full word. It's worth starting conflict over. Yes, they can. But words are for communication; so that the receivers understand the message, not for elitism or elegance or "properness." And elbows... that is the example that is worse than this situation or shorthand because people can't even begin to try to justify that one. All they can say is, "it's rude because it is!"

Even if Sands has to play bad cop, huh? I don't see Sands as having to do anything or being any sort of underdog , or in need of any sympathetic light here.

And, this forum will never be a scientifically credible source... not that people asking older questions makes a forum unscientific anyway. There could be a subforum that is scientific in itself, all about physical evidence, but to try to make it about that and charge members with messing up the forum's scientific image isn't honest.

Also, I notice some continuing to use the owner as an appeal, "his work will go to waste" "his work will be in vain." Will this become one of those things where it's everyone but the actual individual or group being 'defended' who agrees? I wonder what Pleebs himself has to say about this. If he does not agree then one shouldn't even begin to go along with those points.
(This post was last modified: 10-19-2013, 04:59 PM by Yori.)
10-19-2013, 04:44 PM
Find Reply
Ashmo Offline
and Bud
Registered

Posts: 636
Threads: 1
Joined: Aug 2013
#34
 
RE: Dealing with Spam/Adbots
It's not new members asking questions are a problem. That's not it at all. That's what this place is here for. The problem is they really are being lazy. They don't want to dig for answers and actually learn anything.

I've only been here two months and I see the problem.

I have literally seen a member post a new question. Never been asked before, they used the search like they should and everything. Question gets somewhat or mostly resolved and goes inactive for a few days.

It will still be on the front fucking page and another new member posts the exact same question. Same question on something they DIDN'T even need to search for. All they had to do was look a couple threads down. But no, they can't even be bothered look three or four posts to too see that someone asked the same question they are asking and got the same answers they are going to get.

It's not about threads that are over a year old aren't being read, because a lot of them really do have old and outdated data in them. It's about that even when there isn't out data information in a thread, even when a thread is still active, still has good information to teach new members, people don't want to bother to look into it even a little bit and ignore it out right and ask things that have been answered a hundred times over in the course of a month. It gets frustrating for people. We want to help, even Sands, in his abrasive, blunt way, wants to help, but what's the point of helping when now one listens anyway?
10-19-2013, 04:58 PM
Website Find Reply
Yori Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 338
Threads: 22
Joined: Jan 2013
#35
 
RE: Dealing with Spam/Adbots
Ashmo, I wouldn't say that people being lazy is an issue. It's one of those things where people take issue with it simply because the target could be made to not be, like dressing better, etc. But if some people really are starting threads that are just the same question as a couple of threads down but worded differently, I could see that it would be annoying as repeats on the same page.

Then, I would totally support telling the user that the thread for that question is "down there" and to look at the answers over there, perhaps in PM, so that when the moderator deletes it they will have seen the message.
(This post was last modified: 10-19-2013, 05:02 PM by Yori.)
10-19-2013, 05:02 PM
Find Reply
waffles Offline
no capital
Registered

Posts: 1,180
Threads: 24
Joined: Sep 2012
All Accounts Posts: 1,180
#36
 
RE: Dealing with Spam/Adbots
Yes, Yori, when the subject of the forum is a) using your brain and b) figuring things out for yourself, don't you think it's actually a good idea to encourage these sorts of things? It's just not a good idea to encourage people to be lazy and stupid anywhere, but here especially it defies good practice for tulpa creation on top of that.

And hey, it's not like the "new suggested way of handling previously answered questions" just appeared by itself. There are reasons given for it in its own thread, which I suggest you read as well.

(Post merged from Dealing with Spam/Adbots thread.)
(This post was last modified: 10-20-2013, 04:06 AM by Nobillis.)
10-19-2013, 05:10 PM
Find Reply
Yori Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 338
Threads: 22
Joined: Jan 2013
#37
 
RE: Dealing with Spam/Adbots
Um, waffles, I don't think the subject of the forum is using your brain and figuring things out for yourself. Especially with the latter, then there'd be no forum. It's not encouraging people to be "lazy and stupid" if someone answers their question. I don't think not making sure that someone does a search on a forum rather than asking the question has much of an impact on their character at all, and I don't think that would affect their tulpa making either.

I stick with my conclusion: If you can't get everyone to promise not to answer asked questions, it's not much of a loss. If the question is already on the same page, like I just said, if it's caught someone could delete it and PM them informing them that it's a 'double' and to read the thread of answers that already exists.
10-19-2013, 05:20 PM
Find Reply
Linkzelda Offline
>MFW Image Streaming
Registered

Posts: 2,008
Threads: 31
Joined: Oct 2012
All Accounts Posts: 2,066
#38
 
RE: Dealing with Spam/Adbots
(10-19-2013, 04:44 PM)Yori Wrote: I still don't understand what the issue is with people asking questions. The only thing you can do is convince the moderators to delete the threads because you don't want people answering old questions, but there's nothing wrong with people answering the questions.

When there’s several questions being asked in a short interval of time, where the threads are literally stacked a few inches from each other, we have an issue. No one is stating that making Q&A and General Discussion threads should be absolved, people just need to know common issues have been solved already.

Quote:If they want to, let them do it. This shouldn't be a focus, at all. I'm sure it's not just Dream Views where people asking old questions is a "problem." This "problem" is on any forum.

You’re implying that I don’t know this “problem” is apparent on any forum. I was merely using Dream Views as an example because a lot of concepts there and from other forums like it are akin to what this community is trying to gain insight on: Thought-forms.

Just because the “problem” is apparent in any forum is irrelevant for this response of yours. Forums have different uses, some may not require any militant change and can be idle for as long as the forum is sustained. This site clearly has a different approach, it’s for science, and we’re aware of our limited resources right now.

Quote: There doesn't have to be a "moral route" to take on this. What is it that is so bad that happens if this is dismissed and people continue answering if they want? If people are unsuccessful in convincing everyone else to ignore them?

You’re confusing my claim for an ethical approach with morals. Ethics can be explained in many aspects, you’re just using the default principles in your argument here. Utilitarianism in short is to maximize utility, and how one goes about doing this is subjective, it’s not bound just by morals.

If you think the importance of reaching the outcome for this site isn’t something to be considered, it’s your choice.

Quote:I only know it would bother fussy people who itch uncontrollably when they see the lazies of the world NOT USE THEIR BRAINS. I'd let it happen. I guess that means I'd let the forum be damaged. Gasp. Let's not stop there. There are lots of other things we could be labeling lazy or a lack of brain usage. Let's clean this forum up of all of that... because... they shouldn't slack on the brain. And this greatly affects people.

You seem to be proficient in non-sequiturs. String together a coherent response please. Why do you feel the need to say "there are lot of other things we could be labeling lazy or lack of brain usage?" It's not about reducing the slacking on the "brain," it's about reducing the level of indolence.

Quote:Even if Sands has to play bad cop, huh? I don't see Sands as having to do anything or being any sort of underdog , or in need of any sympathetic light here.

This is probably one of the biggest understatements. Again, you don’t know the bullshit Sands has been going through, or ANY member for that matter that has been here for quite some time now. I’m merely using him as an example because he’s had a history of being vocal on the problems of the community. Yes, at first glance you would think having sympathy for him isn’t needed, but again, you’re not putting things into perspective.

When you start seeing the intentions/desires from members here, you learn how to tolerate their behavior because they share the same desire everyone wants.

Quote:And, this forum will never be a scientifically credible source... not that people asking older questions makes a forum unscientific anyway.

We’re limited with using a psychological standpoint that can hopefully be used as a precedent for broader applications of science. Your disposition on the forum never being something that can gain scientific authority (as in GETTING scientific grounds into this, not the forum having some fabricated authority) is what perpetuates the indolence and defeatist mentality.

Quote: There could be a subforum that is scientific in itself, all about physical evidence, but to try to make it about that and charge members with messing up the forum's scientific image isn't honest.

“All about physical evidence?” Where has anyone tried to only fabricate physical evidence on tulpa? Again, the higher motive is to explain things from a psychological standpoint, we do not have the resources (yet) to transcend into gathering physical evidence. We’re limited by anecdotal evidence and doing personal research in pre-existent knowledge on psychology and such.

Quote:Also, I notice some continuing to use the owner as an appeal, "his work will go to waste" "his work will be in vain." Will this become one of those things where it's everyone but the actual individual or group being 'defended' who agrees? I wonder what Pleebs himself has to say about this. If he does not agree then one shouldn't even begin to go along with those points.

Well yes, there’s an appeal, there’s many forms of appeals I can use if you want to keep up this mental dance with me. No one is talking about his “work,” merely the intentions he had in mind for this site. He’s not the only one that shares this belief, I’m merely mentioning him because he’s the site’s owner. I think it would be fairly obvious that if the owner is non-existent, or that no one aims to fund the site, we wouldn't even be having this argument right now.

This isn't complicated Yori.


(This post was last modified: 10-19-2013, 05:37 PM by Linkzelda.)
10-19-2013, 05:30 PM
Find Reply
Yori Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 338
Threads: 22
Joined: Jan 2013
#39
 
RE: Dealing with Spam/Adbots
A lot of your reply is nitpicking at my words or not even replying to what I was saying... this will take a while. Playing games with words used only wastes time.

(10-19-2013, 05:30 PM)Linkzelda Wrote: When there’s several questions being asked in a short interval of time, where the threads are literally stacked a few inches from each other, we have an issue. No one is stating that making Q&A and General Discussion threads should be absolved, people just need to know common issues have been solved already.

I don't understand why several threads being made in a short interval of time in the /questions and answers/ thread should bother anyone. If they don't want to see many new question threads, they can not go there... that was just... wha?

If you meant multiple threads of the same question still on the 1st page like Ashmo was talking about, the approach I agree with is the most aggressive you can get. Deleting it. Third time, I'd go with deleting the thread and informing them that they can read the answers already on that page.

(10-19-2013, 05:30 PM)Linkzelda Wrote: Just because the “problem” is apparent in any forum is irrelevant for this response of yours. Forums have different uses, some may not require any militant change and can be idle for as long as the forum is sustained. This site clearly has a different approach, it’s for science, and we’re aware of our limited resources right now.

I realize that forums have different uses. Across a variety of uses, repeated questions wouldn't interfere with the usage. You say this forum "is for science," which is a non-argument. Repeated questions being in the Q&A forum are not going to make it "less scientific." It won't make it more scientific either. Most subforums in this forum would not be considered scientifically credible to scientists. I said this already, but my professor looked at this forum to help confirm that. This can't be blamed on specific behaviors but just on the purpose of the subforums themselves.. (ex: progress reports - for keeping a log of tulpa progress. just a community thread rather than a scientific one. Just an example for understanding.

(Update: In my replies below I noted that what was meant by scientific isn't what I was talking about here, so no need to correct. Yes, I see, the forum can be used as is scientifically in the way you meant it.)

(10-19-2013, 05:30 PM)Linkzelda Wrote: You’re confusing my claim for an ethical approach with morals. Ethics can be explained in many aspects, you’re just using the default principles in your argument here. Utilitarianism in short is to maximize utility, and how one goes about doing this is subjective, it’s not bound just by morals.

If you think the importance of reaching the outcome for this site isn’t something to be considered, it’s your choice.

I see, I mistook that for a moral point. Quite a nasty nip you chose there. "If you think the importance of reaching the outcome for this site isn't something to be considered, it's your choice."
1) Everything I say is my choice. That doesn't stop anyone from replying with theirs.
2) Like I said, I don't even think this affects the outcome for this site.. this is part of what's being debated here... so don't tell me that anything I'm saying means I don't think reaching the outcome for this site is something to be considered. Wow.

(10-19-2013, 05:30 PM)Linkzelda Wrote: You seem to be proficient in non-sequiturs. String together a coherent response please. Why do you feel the need to say "there are lot of other things we could be labeling lazy or lack of brain usage?" It's not about reducing the slacking on the "brain," it's about reducing the level of indolence.

Yes, I know the concern isn't literally for the person's brain, but their 'indolence' being a bother. And my point was that if indolence an issue needing to be solved that affects even the purpose of the forum, all instances should be picked at. Not that I'd want that..that'd be even worse. o.O so never mind.

(10-19-2013, 05:30 PM)Linkzelda Wrote: This is probably one of the biggest understatements. Again, you don’t know the bullshit Sands has been going through, or ANY member for that matter that has been here for quite some time now. I’m merely using him as an example because he’s had a history of being vocal on the problems of the community. Yes, at first glance you would think having sympathy for him isn’t needed, but again, you’re not putting things into perspective.

When you start seeing the intentions/desires from members here, you learn how to tolerate their behavior because they share the same desire everyone wants.

Not that I don't care, but other bullshit Sands has been going through isn't relevant when it comes to whether or not I should be sympathetic to him on this specific point. No, you will not use his other BS or issues to say that any point he has should earn him my sympathies. It's not a master key for everything.

This wasn't a general statement of me saying that sympathy for him in general isn't needed. It was only in regards to this. So yes, this "first glance", -this-, is all that I am talking about in the first place.

(10-19-2013, 05:30 PM)Linkzelda Wrote: We’re limited with using a psychological standpoint that can hopefully be used as a precedent for broader applications of science. Your disposition on the forum never being something that can gain scientific authority (as in GETTING scientific grounds into this, not the forum having some fabricated authority) is what perpetuates the indolence and defeatist mentality.

Yay, I'm perpetuating indolence and defeatism. How rude! No, I think where I perpetuate indolence would be where I said it's not an issue.
My actual disposition is that nothing here can be used as scientific evidence for anything... as for scientific observation of people with tulpa, of course. Any forum can be used as scientific observation of people who/with ___(depending on the forum topic(s)), though, so if you mean this, my point also applies to that - indolence in the Q&A section isn't ruining the forum at all or affecting its chances of being used scientifically. Nor the ability for it to be used. I see I might have to add that because you're big on specific words.

(10-19-2013, 05:30 PM)Linkzelda Wrote: “All about physical evidence?” Where has anyone tried to only fabricate physical evidence on tulpa? Again, the higher motive is to explain things from a psychological standpoint, we do not have the resources (yet) to transcend into gathering physical evidence. We’re limited by anecdotal evidence and doing personal research in pre-existent knowledge on psychology and such.

Yup... and we can continue gathering anecdotal evidence and providing research in already existing knowledge in psychology, etc, just fine, even with this issue.

As for your talk about fabricating evidence... I never mentioned anyone fabricating a thing on tulpa. "Only" seems to be implying that people fabricate things in general?.. but again, I don't even know what your point was with that.

By physical evidence I only meant brain scans and such. I don't mean actually providing some kind of proof of the tulpa directly.

(10-19-2013, 05:30 PM)Linkzelda Wrote: Well yes, there’s an appeal, there’s many forms of appeals I can use if you want to keep up this mental dance with me. No one is talking about his “work,” merely the intentions he had in mind for this site. He’s not the only one that shares this belief, I’m merely mentioning him because he’s the site’s owner. I think it would be fairly obvious that if the owner is non-existent, or that no one aims to fund the site, we wouldn't even be having this argument right now.

This isn't complicated Yori.

I don't know what to say to that first sentence, other than I'm not afraid of you. But I will admit that it will be hard to keep up this mental dance if you keep replying with wtf-ness that doesn't always address what I was actually saying and points I can't even figure out what you were replying to with. Okay, more nitpicks. Excuse me for using the wrong word. Even "merely his intentions" for the site counts as to what I was saying there.

I'm not sure what your point is by saying that if the owner weren't here, we wouldn't be having this argument, but unless you're trying to claim that the owner once voiced concern with this indolence issue or agrees with this shit, seems to be a random argument.

Inb4 I get post about this not being shit, but so-and-so points. (No, really, stop with the word/phrase nitpicking. Smart aleckery.)
(This post was last modified: 10-19-2013, 06:11 PM by Yori.)
10-19-2013, 05:37 PM
Find Reply
waffles Offline
no capital
Registered

Posts: 1,180
Threads: 24
Joined: Sep 2012
All Accounts Posts: 1,180
#40
 
RE: Dealing with Spam/Adbots
(10-19-2013, 05:20 PM)Yori Wrote: Um, waffles, I don't think the subject of the forum is using your brain and figuring things out for yourself.
Uh. Uuuuuh.
Ok, so you're telling me that you don't use your brain to make a tulpa, and that you didn't really figure out things for yourself while doing so?


(10-19-2013, 05:20 PM)Yori Wrote: Especially with the latter, then there'd be no forum.
I'm not saying to give no advice. I'm just saying that making a tulpa is a personal affair, and like other things in your mind there's no one-size-fits-all solution to any problems that you might have. Come on, I thought this would have been obvious.


(10-19-2013, 05:20 PM)Yori Wrote: It's not encouraging people to be "lazy and stupid" if someone answers their question.
When their question has been asked not just before, but on the front page of Q&A, that's laziness and/or stupidity. And yes, if you let them do it, you are encouraging it. You're misunderstanding me if you think I'm saying "Answer no questions", because I'm really not.
(This post was last modified: 10-19-2013, 06:39 PM by waffles.)
10-19-2013, 06:38 PM
Find 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