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

Can we run the GAT a little differently?
#1
I've started actually looking at guides now that I've been nominated for the GAT, and it feels like replies to the guide are the wrong place to discuss and vote on whether a post is moved to the proper section. I remember being a little bit annoyed when my guide that isn't even a guide had some random posts of people voting and discussing. I therefor propose that we have a separate thread for GAT discussion and voting, that has a link back to the original thread. I could make a bot to do this, if need be.
Reply

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

#2
I rememeber that being the case whenever I dig around on guides. It would be better to have voting and discussion on a seperate page before the guide in question is moved to its new home or a unified consensus is delivered as to what needs to be changed and why.
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." -Aristotle

"When you arise in the morning, think of what a precious privilege it is to be alive - to breathe, to think, to enjoy, to love." -Marcus Aurelius

“Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” -Neil Gaiman

"The master has failed more times than the beginner has even tried." -Stephen McCranie
Reply
#3
(01-13-2016, 04:21 AM)Metatron Wrote: unified consensus is delivered as to what needs to be changed and why.

What? Why do we need a unified consensus? How about, everybody is encouraged to give constructive criticism, speaking as their own personal self and not as part of the GAT. Then keep GAT discussion to the separate thread, and nothing GAT-related in the original thread (except perhaps a post linking to the GAT thread)

Maybe it's a horrible idea, but as I see it currently it seems like it would be fine.

Side note: Avoiding RAS syndrome is hard XD.
Reply
#4
I disagree somewhat. It seems like part of the point of the guides being regular forum threads is that people can have discussion about the guide to improve it and better understand it. New guides would have GAT members (and any other forum users) discussing how to make the guide make more sense, be more accessible, fix presentability issues, etc. Later on, someone might find the guide and nkt understand a certain part of it, which they woukd ask for clarification about in the thread. Both of these situations do seem like they're directed at the author of the guide, so if your suggestion in this thread is to eliminate non-author-directed discussion, then I'd probably agree with you. A caveat of this would be that it should be fine for someone who is not the author to answer an author-directed question.

That sort of "I'm voting for/against this guide because X, Y, and Z" stuff does seem like it might be better in a GAT IRC channel, but then the guide's creator doesn't get the chance to hear X, Y, and Z to fix them.

Overall, I think it's fine how it is, because these don't seem like large enough issues to cause problems.
Reply
#5
(01-13-2016, 05:25 AM)Lacquer Wrote: I disagree somewhat. It seems like part of the point of the guides being regular forum threads
I still think guides should be regular forum threads
Quote:is that people can have discussion about the guide to improve it and better understand it. New guides would have GAT members (and any other forum users) discussing how to make the guide make more sense, be more accessible, fix presentability issues, etc. Later on, someone might find the guide and nkt understand a certain part of it, which they woukd ask for clarification about in the thread.
I absolutely agree
Quote: Both of these situations do seem like they're directed at the author of the guide, so if your suggestion in this thread is to eliminate non-author-directed discussion, then I'd probably agree with you. A caveat of this would be that it should be fine for someone who is not the author to answer an author-directed question.
No, my suggestion is to separate GAT-related and non-GAT discussion.
Quote:That sort of "I'm voting for/against this guide because X, Y, and Z" stuff does seem like it might be better in a GAT IRC channel, but then the guide's creator doesn't get the chance to hear X, Y, and Z to fix them.
There's also the problem that IRC lacks permanence, and no grouping (discussion about every guide would be in the same place).
Quote:Overall, I think it's fine how it is, because these don't seem like large enough issues to cause problems.
Sure it won't cause problems, it's more of an annoyance of mine (and I assume others) that I think could be fixed by separating. I think the problems that are identified by GAT members should be said in the original thread as constructive criticism.
Reply
#6
It's kind of pointless because any discussion beyond "yes/no" would end up in the guide thread anyway because that's what the GAT is here for, right, to provide that. Separating GAT and non-GAT discussion is kind of pointless as well, because we kind of want cross-discussion. For the last few guides when we lost a lot of GAT people and had people discussing who weren't, it would be been an issue then because it was really helpful to see what other people think of it. We're not really for closed discussion in that way, it's a bit antithetical I think. You might have a slight aesthetic objection to people voting in your thread, but oh well.
Reply
#7
Discussion on the guide pre-approval should be done on the thread until it's approved (staying if it never is), and when it is approved the posts should be either removed or split elsewhere. I don't know if you guys can put threads in a sort of "unlisted" area, but having them stay accessible (say, from a single link in a single post from a GAT member left as the first reply to any approved guide) would be best. Creating a dedicated thread for every single guide automatically is a bit much, but it definitely is clunky to see all this discussion on a likely outdated version of the guide for new users.

So, discussion on the guide thread itself until it's approved if it ever is, and after approval all discussion of the guide (excluding comments from those who used it as a guide pre-approval) should be split to its own archived thread, somewhere, with a link from a GAT member to said thread preferably as its first reply. Supposing a non-GAT could post first (seems unlikely) and you guys can't change post orders, it could perhaps be done in small text at the bottom of the OP maybe.

That's my uh, completely authority-less recommended suggestion. Seems perfect to me.
Hi! I'm Lumi, host of Reisen, Tewi, Flandre and Lucilyn.
Everyone deserves to love and be loved. It's human nature.
My tulpas and I have a Q&A thread, which was the first (and largest) of its kind. Feel free to ask us stuff.
Reply
#8
[Hail] I am going to be a weird one and say that I think it is a good idea to have the full discussion in the thread of any submission, whether accepted or still pending. The discussion by both non-GAT and GAT members on submissions can go into subtleties, different ways of looking at things, philosophical discussions on certain points, things that are controversial, etc. When someone reads a submission and wants to find more information or has a hard time understanding one particular piece, the discussion sometimes provides information or gets one thinking about where to look next or think about next.
Tri = {V, O, G}, Ice and Frostbite and Breach (all formerly Hail), and others
System Name: Fall Family
Former Username: hail_fall
Contributor and administrator on a supplementary tulpamancy resource and associated forum, Tulpa.io and Tulpa.io/discuss/.
Reply
#9
Default 
(01-18-2016, 11:59 AM)FallFamily Wrote: [Hail] I am going to be a weird one and say that I think it is a good idea to have the full discussion in the thread of any submission, whether accepted or still pending. The discussion by both non-GAT and GAT members on submissions can go into subtleties, different ways of looking at things, philosophical discussions on certain points, things that are controversial, etc. When someone reads a submission and wants to find more information or has a hard time understanding one particular piece, the discussion sometimes provides information or gets one thinking about where to look next or think about next.

I agree. Comments on a guide are important, no matter who writes them. There's probably two kinds of people reading these guides: the ones who don't care about comments and read just the first post, in which case the extra comments won't bother them, and the ones that are interested in the comments for whatever reason, maybe because they might have questions themselves. These questions or worries they have might be answered later on, or there might be helpful hints that aren't in the guide itself that might actually help them.

When the comments talk of a guide version that no longer exists because it has been edited heavily, yeah, that's going to be a bit strange. But then you would be removing pretty much all the comments that were made before the current version, which seems a bit excessive as well.
The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)
Reply
#10
(01-18-2016, 05:04 PM)Sands Wrote: When the comments talk of a guide version that no longer exists because it has been edited heavily, yeah, that's going to be a bit strange. But then you would be removing pretty much all the comments that were made before the current version, which seems a bit excessive as well.

[Hail] Yeah, it can be a bit strange. It is why I include the old versions with changes noted in my stuff. I wish more people did that.
Tri = {V, O, G}, Ice and Frostbite and Breach (all formerly Hail), and others
System Name: Fall Family
Former Username: hail_fall
Contributor and administrator on a supplementary tulpamancy resource and associated forum, Tulpa.io and Tulpa.io/discuss/.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

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