Jump to content

Purlox

Members
  • Content Count

    314
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Purlox

  • Rank
    the fox

Converted

  • Sex
    Other
  • Location
    The physical world
  • Bio
    Mindfolk: Ariadne, Doriana, Nova and Stephan
    Working on: imposition and switching

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You should make it finite like who posts last today or this will be nearly endless and noone wins. :P
  2. 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. 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. 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.
  3. 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. 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.
  4. If you are still getting these errors, could you get a screenshot of it? It could help with solving them.
  5. I agree with most of your points. I'm not sure if FAQ needs updating in the sense that if people did their research, which they usually don't and so they wouldn't check the FAQ anyway. So I would rather be up for making changes that would make people do their research rather than improve FAQ that most people won't read althouth that doesn't mean that we can't improve the FAQ. I think posting a link to a thread that answers their question if it has already been answered, giving them small warning and locking the topic would be a good way of doing it imo. If their question is somehow not answered by the thread redirected to, then they could provide valid reason in PM to one of the mods and if it is indeed valid then the question could be re-opened by a mod that would state why it got re-opened and why it's not answered by the thread linked. The above paragraph is just what I'm proposing, it's not going into effect immediatelly, because we need to discuss it more. We are working on making the wiki open for users to use, but it's still WIP, so it might take some time before it gets open. I think having a page of site-endorsed guides being linked by the Guides page on the main page could be a good idea, because it would link new people to some good guides instead of making the have to go to the guides part of the forum and dig through the guides to find something that looks good even if it might not be that good. Edit: Forgot to say that if the user creates a new thread asking the same question after having his thread closed, then that new thread should probably be deleted and he would get another warning.
  6. What is wrong exactly with me or Slushie/Swashy being a super mod? Pleeb might have said in the past that I wouldn't be a mod on the forums (not sure where he said it or if he said it at all, but it would be nice if you could point to where or when he said it and quote Pleeb instead of making us assume that he said it), but people change, I change as well, so even if I might have not been a good mod candidate in the past, that doesn't mean I can't be good mod candidate now. The fact that people think that someone (in this case Slushie/Swashy) is a bad mod, doesn't mean or make them a bad mod in the same way water doesn't become wine just because people think it's wine. It's possible that they are rightly thinking that he is a bad mod, but then you should prove that he is a bad mod instead of just saying that he and other mods are wrong because they "obviously" are wrong. Also would it be possible for you tone down the amount of swears? You certainly don't need to use so many of them to get your point accross.
  7. We could do that, but I think it would be better if those were subsections instead of tags, because most people wouldn't use tags most likely.
  8. I think we have resolved the accidental ban now, try connecting again and tell us if it allows you in or not.
  9. Whenever you decide to create a thread, you will get many barely relevant thread suggestions. I think those are meant to prevent making a thread about the same thing, but I can still notice people posting threads about something that there is topic about already, so I'm not sure if it even helps in any way. I think that people who don't bother to search for a thread with similar topic, will most likely ignore these suggestions as well, so why don't we remove it?
  10. @Jimmy: It's probably not already created plugin, but either Pleeb or Amadeus (or someone else if anyone wants to) can code it sooner or later. @waffles: System is a general term for a group of persons inside one body.
  11. I think it would be a good idea for people to be able to write down information about their system in their profile in the section that displays as "Additional Info About X" when looking at someone's profile. This would free signatures and bios of a lot of information about one's system and instead makes one place where everyone can easily find this information. I suggest adding these categories (they don't have to be used if the person doesn't want to): Name of the system Names of system members/tulpas Species of system members/tulpas Apparent age of system members/tulpas Type of system (maybe with some information about types)
  12. Such threads can happen, but I think it will be a small minority, because it's not that often that a thread can belong to multiple boards and that won't increase much after the changes to the board layout. As far as I know, tulpa.info should end up being big site and so we are preparing for it and dividing boards into more specific boards, so that threads are more separated depending on what they are about. Preparing for the future seems like a good idea instead of waiting until it is needed and then taking some time to do it, while there might be already other things the admins are working on at that time.
  13. Making Wonderland discussion sub-board might be unnecessary, but we will see. The OT should be devided into different boards, because it's going to be easier to find a topic that you would like to post in and it's also going to make it possible to hide the Absurdity board without hiding the Serious OT, etc. Wonderlands also aren't tulpae, I could argue same goes to some other things as well and yet they are not considered OT, because they are relevant and can help you in many ways. Mind board could yield helpful techniques and other stuff like wonderlands are. The other two sections offer alternative ways of looking at tulpae among other things. So I don't see why they should be part of OT. If you want to discuss why they should be in the same board, then you should probably go here. There are art sections on many forums because some people like to share their art on the forum they like to go to and I don't see why they shouldn't be able to. And I don't plan to branch out to every subject, if you think so, then you are probably missing my point. When the forum is going to grow, then there will be more fics and why not make it easier for people to find them now when we are making an overhaul of boards instead of later? I do. If people wanted serious discussion now, then they could have easily feared that it would get drown and ignored in the huge amount of random OT threads. The point is not that we need it because boards are overflowing, we need it to make it easier for people to find a thread they are looking for. We could be reactive, but I see no point in not being proactive instead, especially when soon there will be redesign of the whole site, so it seems fitting to make changes to the layout of the boards now. Can you explain how it will make it harder to find threads?
  14. I agree that the Mindscape board is not really necessary, because it won't get enough attention, so I made it a subboard of GD for now at least. "Mind", "Philosophy" and "Spirituality" are partly related to tulpas, so I don't see why we should make them into OT boards. If someone wants to post their Art here, then why not? People already do so with tulpa related art and you could also tell them to go to some art board instead, but if we want to also build a community, then I don't see why they shouldn't be able to post it here. I already explained why "Art" and "Fics" are separate boards in Google docs. If you want to know why, then you could read the explanation. "Serious OT" is supposed to have serious discussions about e.g. Math, Physics, Politics, Religion etc. Normal OT is supposed to have random stuff that doesn't qualify for the "Absurdity" board, so e.g. "My dad drew me this great picture" or "What did you have for dinner?" or "Post your favourite cosplay" etc. "Absurdity" is supposed to have the worst level of "discussions", like this or this.
×
×
  • Create New...