Hello everyone. Today, we at Tulpa.info 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.
Hi there, I'm also one of the people who was recently added to the Tulpa.info chat moderation team. A lot of you may not know me as I obviously have not been very active in this community since the IRC's move to Rizon, though some of you may have seen me around if you have ever indulged in the Redditulpas community. I was originally a part of the tulpa.info forums in summer of 2012 under a different name, though none of my contributions were significant, and I have been observing this community on the multiple fronts it's expanded on over that period of three years, as well as having been a contributing part of it for two and a half and running. My viewpoint below will come as an observer of this community as a whole, not just .info itself as I feel the generalized experience will be more beneficial here. First off, the issue of Staff Lethargy. Staff members of any online communities that will continuously contribute to the community in a significant way are a rarity. Most of the people given these sorts of powers are the sorts that are holding the responsibility because of two reasons. That being that they are the best candidates, and because working on a site such as this is a convenience for them. As an internet community, I'm sure most would agree that with the trials and tribulations of real life constantly looming over, an online presence becomes a tier 2 concern in most all cases. Staff which are either constantly idle or belligerent are a cancer on online communities, that is an absolute fact that is not specifically attributed to any one body of community. It's been seen and recorded many times over that one person in the right position can ruin a hundred people's fun in the worst possible way. It's for that reason that anyone who accepts the responsibility of a staffing position should also accept the fact that they are here for the benefit of not only themselves, but the much larger community in general. So obviously the solution to that is to carefully construct a responsible group of people rather than any one person, but even then there are difficulties as time moves forward. People will start to grow into other responsibilities outside of those they are entrusted with an any community, and time continuously becomes shorter and shorter for any individual after one obligation sits for too long. To be honest it's a natural occurrence and expectation that some staff, as the few out of the many, are going to become less active over time. Clearly that is not a good thing, but the only time it is really a concern is when the staff member's holding of their position is not being exceeded by their contributions. However, something to also be understood is essentially why anyone could be disillusioned with the idea of the staff's contributions from both an outside viewpoint and an inside viewpoint. There are several reasons why someone wants to leave or become less active in any environment of a community, this one especially given its very personalized nature to most individuals. I had originally decided to part ways with this community in particular because I felt as though its rampant cynicism blinded its users to more helpful and productive means of forwarding Tulpas as a phenomenon and a practice. Hostile environments can be created by both people who both follow the rules perfectly and those who do not. There is a side of the story to each of those sorts of people, be it that they are aggressive in their words, their idealism promotes similar ideas of provocative or negative nature, their attitudes drain away from the motivation of others because of a lack of their own, or simply because that person conflicts with the flow of things on such a high level. One mentality will attract similar because that is where someone who possesses the same will feel similar, and overtime the meshing will create friction. Now the course of action you could usually suggest for that particular issue is “Suck it up, don't care about other people” and etc etc. But that is not how you captivate nor build a community, as other people and their interactions are the entire point of it. If ideas are to be introduced than an idea needs to be respected by others whether it be in agreement or criticism, with a constructed approach to all things. There have been several times during my tenure throughout several Tulpa communities where I have thought to myself, as a user, why should I be here? Why should I talk to these people when they are so bitter and repellent to things which do not fall in line with their views? What am I realistically spending my time on here? Just because of the constant complaints, the groups of people who would gather to all reflect in such close-minded ways. Even still that carries itself forward into my experience as a mod when I came into the Redditulpas moderation team. Why should I help these people when one bad apple spoils five others that I enjoy? What can I do when every decision seems to be damned if I do damned if I don't? Why must every action be defended against people who have no idea what occurs going into them? And etc, etc, etc. Now obviously these are not my final thoughts, but these are merely things that I have considered more than once and certainly more than was healthy as I observed the userbase of each place that I'd go. The thing which had always stuck with me is that at the very least, in all of these places I'd always seen at least one person who wanted or desired to make a change for the better. People who understood, who had their head on straight, and who thought rationally. And it was always because of those people that I weathered the storms and that I'd wanted to keep going forward, to hopefully eventually be able to see something better, be it by my hand or by anyone else's. The sorts of people in a community who continuously complain, complain, and complain, no matter how justified they are, are not doing anything else besides blowing hot air without structure and relative poise to how they articulate themselves. To constantly lash out out both the opinions and the people who hold them or are perceived to hold them does not do anything beyond breed a group of people who will think the same, and inflict the very same on other people who do not fit with their view. That is not a community, that is a clique. The tulpa.info staff team certainly has its share of faults, and in all things, it could certainly have both more Vigilance and a sense of Responsibility. But the fact of the matter is that for all of the bad that may exist, there are still people on this team who desire to make a difference for the better. Otherwise they wouldn't be here, otherwise they wouldn't be working towards something better, and otherwise they would be letting all of the trials I outlined above get to them on a deeper level. Some of them have no doubt, but some of them are still powering forward, and that is respectable. A team of moderators does not have the power to form and steer a community by itself. The only thing that separates a moderator from any other user is the fact that we have the ability to brute force a solution to a problem. Beyond that, however, is where the power line ends. What a lot of people don't realize is that any one person's voice can be an incredibly powerful thing, both for the good and for the bad. There is a role and a place for everyone in a community, be they ones who keep order, ones who wish to make a positive impact, or one and the same. But all of them are of equal value when you get right down to it. Words and actions of all users as a single entity are what makes a community what it is, not just a team of five to ten people. The most important aspect to both is that one's voice and one's actions both be positive influences on everyone as a whole, and not just singular wishes to be met. You don't need to wear a badge to fulfill either of those, and you may not need one either. What needs to be worked towards is that idea of a clean environment for everyone, so that everyone as a whole can benefit from it. Be it someone's wish to stay or someone's motivation to help, both of them need to be kept in healthy standing if anything is going to progress into something better. That is a job for everyone, and a goal for few than those who have an honest drive to do so. Now, as for the issue of Over-acceptance, that also plays a part in my earlier points. This issue in its entirety is a double-edged sword, with both extreme viewpoints and ones that are not extreme enough. There are those who can come with new opinions and fresh attitudes that could be a welcome change, and then there are those who come with both horrible attitudes and even worse ideas that spread like plague. And it's incredibly difficult to be able to judge which is which at face value. The issue of over-acceptance is not one which can be dealt with without careful thought and care. Obviously there are clear cut ideas which do not mesh well, and clearly there are also those which would and should be readily welcomed in a perfect world. But neither of those exist in a healthy sense, in that neither of them are realistically achievable in any convenient amount of time. Dealing with it in an entirely heavy-handed and close-minded way only breeds the clique-ish nature that I mentioned above, whereas dealing with it in a completely open-minded and welcoming sense can just the same breed a community of people who are just wandering in circles with their own fantasies rather than forward. What needs to be reached is a middle-ground to sort out those who possess something worth hearing and those who would be better off not being listened to whatsoever. You need to show people on the outside that your door is open, but you also need to ensure they know that they're expected to pull their own weight once they're inside. It's a middle-ground that I feel .info does not currently possess, but it is certainly one that I would hope can be worked toward and achieved. However, I would say out of all of them it is one of the most difficult to perform, as on a grand scale that is installing a group-think mentality. Not impossible certainly, but definitely something which will take a lot of work. Now, Dilution of Information I feel like is something that several other people in this thread have said better than I. And to echo what seems to be the general consensus, when you have a practice so subjective as Tulpas, dilution is a natural occurrence. In a way, dilution overall plays a part into how everyone is treating the community and are themselves being treated. Healthy skepticism is something I've always advocated for, but some people do not agree, and some people also believe that it should go beyond the word “healthy”. Obviously the most common solution to that problem is that make information as readily and as easily available as you possibly can. But even then, care needs to be taken to separate what is opinion and what is fact, something that is very difficult to do without a large amount of experience both of your own and in dealing with others way of doing things. It's something that everyone needs to work toward as a whole, in their own way of both stimulating discussion as well as being as clear and concise in their responses as they can be. Over-acceptance, dilution of information, and all of the issues previously stated are all things that I feel are significant contributions to Brain Drain as a whole. People will leave this community for a myriad of reasons. One person pissed them off, an entire group pissed them off, they disagree with this, they disagree with that, someone said this, someone said that, that aesthetic is bad, the atmosphere is hostile, they aren't comfortable, they don't feel mods do enough, they feel mods do too much, etc. They're all things which play into how the community presents itself, as well as how its members choose to act toward their peers in it. Obviously it is impossible to please anyone, but it is certainly possible to please the baseline of people who are capable of holding an amicable conversation about damn near anything. I actually have a suggestion on that which is used on r/tulpas to stimulate constructive discussion on Tulpas in particular. Essentially one user would come up with a “theory” for a topic, or any sort of idea which invokes thought. And then other users were welcome to post to that thread with their own ideas or conflicting debates, which could then be replied to and so on and so on. Sort of like an open mic if the open mic was for debates. I could see this working well if it was say a bi-monthly thing, with perhaps a thread before to pose ideas to the mods or whomever runs it to be selected. Obviously beyond that there are always those who could contribute original content, but the motivation not only has to be there but the person themselves have to be knowledgeable enough to make that sort of content. More steps could certainly be taken to encourage others to contribute, and perhaps giving them some material to work with beforehand as a concentrated effort would be enough to bring out that more intellectual side of those people. Anyway, I apologize for this reply dragging on, but I feel as though I've made a majority of my points. I probably have some other things to say but this seems to be getting long enough, so I'll wrap up here. I haven't been located on this side of the tracks for very long, but so long as I am here, I will do my best to improve what can be improved. I am appreciative of the trust I was given, and I hope to repay in full what I can when I can. Thank you for your time.