Sign in to follow this  
Bear

In-System Conversations vs Tag-Team - Posting a plea to Tulpa.info

Are we over the line?  

19 members have voted

  1. 1. Are we over the line?

    • It's too much, yeah, grow up a bit.
      4
    • Meh
      3
    • No
      12


Recommended Posts

[Ashley] The users of tulpa.info have spoken and their opinions are what matter most. As it turns out, the complaint about us was just a friendly jab, so we'll get them back, trust me. Anyway, it's not cool to warn someone over something so silly as a dramatic entry in a game thread and acts like that are what'll drive users away. It was obviously an honest mistake and a matter of preference vs breaking any real rule.

 

[Misha] Yay!

 

[bear] *fingers crossed*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad. - G



"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that, "performance" or not, the in-system conversation rule applies to the post in OP's example and I don't think that the warning was unjustified. We've been pretty lenient with rules like these, especially in the off-topic section of the forums, which is why there have been a bunch of PM reminders and nobody's warning level has been raised because of it. Even light examples have been ignored in the past because they weren't full-on conversations, or because two people in the same head were obviously just speaking outwardly instead of to each other. The rule exists for a reason - quite a few people think that it's obnoxious, and the forum/chat isn't meant to be a platform for you to communicate with your mind friends. I also think that this, like roleplaying, is the kind of thing that would turn people away from the site and maybe even the concept altogether, but these are just my own feelings.

 

That being said, I'm open to the idea of changing how the rule is worded, and possibly even how it's applied in certain sections of the site so that people don't feel like they're being unfairly targeted. Casual boards like Lounge and Forum Games aren't geared towards serious discussions so they probably wouldn't be harmed too much by more leniency. Ideally, if anything's done, we'd just allow in-head talk in the forum games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have to disagree Vos, as all the other posters here did, and your preferences are oppressive to us in this instance. (By our intent)

 

... two people in the same head were obviously just speaking outwardly instead of to each other

 

This quote is what we did and it was interpreted that way by literally everyone else. We agree in-system conversations are obnoxious to some. As far as we know, we're not doing that. In the future, lets all have private discussion and work it out. Our objective is to be kind, friendly, helpful, supportive, entertaining, and constructive. So if you can explain how we are against any of the rules objectively or have evidence to suggest we're scaring people away by posting outwardly conversational in a game thread occasionally in the future, then please do elaborate and exemplify, it's not against the rules as the current users here are interpreting it, and we're also not trying to skate the rules. Past examples aside, we have the support of the majority of current users of this forum, and we know you like us too, you've been nothing but kind and understanding. We're not asking to reverse any warnings in this case, it wss clear that we weren't formally warned, to us though, a warning formal or otherwise needs immediate and complete understanding. (Which we feel we have in this case, it triggered a flag for whatever preferential reason, and we want to avoid that error if at all possible.)

 

We've been trouble in very minor ways here in the past, we understand the burden we place on the forum given our volume of posts, but we've had no formal warnings that haven't been reversed (if any).

 

You must admit with the sheer amount of support we received every time we ask for it to be known in the last year, that we are dearly loved by tulpa.info and not obnoxious (in general).

 

So preferences aside, lets disect the root of the issue and get us (Bear system) to understand where the line is. We are faithfully following your quote above since the last time you warned us, I think we're learning and improving, don't you?

 

Now if what we do is seemingly crossing the line, we apologize for that. We will continue to abide by the rules and try to keep tulpa.info flurishing for years to come.

 

Let's be clear, we're not arguing with you or your ruling, fair enough, let's move on and take a tiny step back--we will comply. Let's also do our due diligence and make sure we don't offend or cross that obnoxious line in the future--I think we're finishing that up now unless you have something more to add.

 

We offer a lot to this forum in our estimation based on feedback we receive, not only to well established users but new ones. We're not escalating by writing this, we're asking for help in the future to understand so we can make tulpa.info a safe and inviting place with the goal of scientific understanding of the phenomenon.

 

However, clearly you have to see your user base is siding with us and that examples like this should also be ignored (from anyone) , especially since it was in a throw away role-play-like game thread. It's a game thread. Rules apply everywhere, we get that, but in our opinion, rulings like this do more harm than good to the moral of .info

 

We're cool with it, we get it, we'll do better in the future. Thank you for understanding our intentions as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opinion-time rant. Just saying but it's very common in traumatic communities (at least the ones I'm in) for several people in systems to get into the chitchat. They feel more included and everyone understands (there are system tags/names used to eliminate confusion). Maybe it's just a difference between alters and tulpas, so I dunno about everyone here but completely open channels of communication aren't a guaranteed thing for us and being told you aren't welcome to comment can be off-putting, isolating and invalidating. It can be exhausting and demoralizing to spend all your time pretending to be the person people see when they look at the body, the legal identity, and chats like this are a way to allow for and encourage personal expression.

 

Having people in a system needing to hide or censor themselves from harmless chat, even in a community that's supposed to be open to them, can be harmful mentally and emotionally to people who are already fragile. Unwanted. Annoying. You said it yourself, Vos, obnoxious. I'd consider it very demeaning to be referred to as property of another, especially that needs to be kept in line and only speak when it was approved. Roleplaying? People have conversations, they have things to say and add and want to be heard.

 

I would think it would make inquisitive visitors think quite the opposite of what you want. It comes off as snobbish as well as contradictory to allow and encourage for headmates to have their own community but still have to tiptoe around when it comes to being heard. The rule isn't as black and white as "keeping peace and order for those who don't wish to hear it", it's silencing those who want to be heard and discouraging actual and realistic conversations+interactions. Does a group of friends sit around and quietly whisper to each other while only one talks about something at a time? None I've ever seen. If they want to be heard they all have things to add. Real people, real friends are welcome to talk in a casual setting for the most part, whenever and however they want. Some stage play or performance or legal/professional setting is more appropriate for people being quiet and only chiming in deliberately one at a time and spreading/pacing their communications. You guys want to demonstrate that tulpas and endo systems or whatever can be a great thing and have fun and be real people, well maybe you shouldn't try to tuck them away and tell them they should only speak when spoken to.

 

There's a difference between people trying to be validated, included and heard vs intentionally acting out, creating disturbances and irritating others. The difference in this case is the people who find it annoying are the ones in charge or otherwise quick to report it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keeping up appearances is important, we understand that in-system conversations are offputting to a lot of people, especially since our objective is to be recognized by science and not marginalized as kooks, but we're also people with our own feelings and preferences, when we have something to add to the discussion, we do.

 

Tulpamancy isn't sterile test tubes in a cleanroom, it's psychology (isn't it?) and you can't have that without personality. It's a study of people, we learn by experience and conglomerate the evidence in statistics rather than repeatable experimentation.

 

Bear system isn't typical, but you shouldn't throw out all the outliers in psychology, or people will suffer with the wrong model. Those outliers can teach us things about the quality of the data.

 

Tulpamancy is still in its infancy, let's not institutionalize it just yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have to disagree Vos, as all the other posters here did, and your preferences are oppressive to us in this instance. (By our intent)

 

I'm still failing to see how the example could be interpreted otherwise because it appears as if you're interacting with each other, excessively, which is why some of the staff agreed that it would be appropriate to talk to you about this. No, I don't have evidence that suggests you're scaring anyone away, which is why I made it clear in my post that it's just how I feel about in-system conversations and the potential impression it could have on new users. It would be unreasonable to moderate based on that, which is why I don't. What I'm seeing in your post is your group talking to each other, not to any specific user or to the forum in general - the intended audience might be the general userbase of the forum, but that could be said for most posts here and I don't think anyone should be exempted from the rule because of it. I also don't think that your productiveness or likability here on the forums should give you preferential treatment, and the same applies to any other regular.

 

Maybe it's just a difference between alters and tulpas, so I dunno about everyone here but completely open channels of communication aren't a guaranteed thing for us and being told you aren't welcome to comment can be off-putting, isolating and invalidating.

 

I agree, and thankfully this isn't something that we do here on this site or in the Discord server. If you want to participate, you can, we just ask that you keep internal interactions to yourself because it's often unnecessary and a lot of people consider that to be obnoxious, myself included. The rule was put in place for a reason, not for the hell of it. If you're under the impression that adding onto what another person in your head has said within the same post is against the rules, you're wrong; perhaps this could be clarified better, I don't deny that, but we've never told anyone that they can't participate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We understand your sentiment Vos, and we've already agreed in this case, if someone thought it was over the line, especially someone who is tasked to look for that, then yes; however, it wasn't our intent to talk to each other, not even in a game post, not even if it would be a complete non-issue if we did--even though we actually didn't--regardless if it looks that way or not, which it doesn't to us or others in this thread who said as much.

 

Miscommunication does happen, we feel it was miscommunication in this example. We've read it a hundred times, we're just ecplaining the scenario in the game, not to each other, what purpose would that even serve? We can't fathom it. Hopefully misscommunications won't be frequent enough to bother anyone.

 

We're not asking for leniency for just us in questionable situations, we're asking for continued leniency in game and lounge threads, which do nothing for the science of tulpamancy anyway.

 

You or anyone should look at game thread and think, 'oh, friends trying to have fun', not, 'where's the science, damnit, I'm leaving this community'. Don't look for professionalism where we play. If someone is disrupting games with unnecessary and cringy roleplaying or in-system gushing, then it should be obvious to the majority of people looking at it, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the post in the OP would not be remotely okay in an on-topic board, since it was fluff and not just multiple system members giving their opinion in one post (obviously, y'don't want 3 accounts from the same system to all make separate posts back to back because that's double posting)

 

the post in the OP would be considered okay in off-topic boards by most the people who voted in this thread

 

and.. the post in the OP is definitely within what the rule covers and was meant to cover. Though I gotta say again, there's never been an as established and reasonable/productive system as Bear's who has actually broken this rule or come close to it, so it makes me think revising rather than forcing them to change is in order

 

I still think it should be allowed in forum games, people's progress reports (their own or with an obviously consenting friend's etc.) and probably Lounge threads? maybe just off-topic lounge threads (talking about clouds vs. a legitimate topic on a not-quite-tulpamancy subject), but that sounds harder to enforce so maybe it should just apply to all Lounge

 

like, ALL of the forum games threads are offputting to our system, so we just don't click them, but the stuff that goes on in them all seems perfectly valid and even these "in-system conversations" that're obviously meant to be entertaining to the reader (as opposed to the cases of people posting system banter back in the day that just screamed roleplay - you know the ones, Vos) I think fits the mood of Forum Games, and unless it was excessive and unproductive should always be allowed in someone's own PR, but I'm willing to budge on the other-people's-PR's thing since it relies on the (still reasonable) expectation people only do it where it's welcome

 

 

all that said still was only talking about relatively fluff conversations, and is not at all talking about when multiple system members comment on something at once which only naturally leads to ever-so-slight interactions between them, but as long as it's not actually a conversation (as always, "Figure it out amongst yourselves first, then post") the rule shouldn't apply


Hi I'm one of Lumi's tulpas! I like rain and dancing and dancing in the rain and if there's frogs there too that's bonus points.

All of my posts should be read at a hundred miles per hour because that's probably how they were written

Please talk to me https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're definitely on board with that and we understand it (now, if not always).

 

Granted in the beginning we had no clue, but any reasonable person or persons such as us should know better after a year, intentionally or otherwise, but things can and do slip out unintentionally. Though we're still not even convinced it happened here, but you can find gold in a stream if you look hard enough.

 

You know our stance. We're not arguing not to get banned (thankfully) we know those negotiations are fruitless, so we're happy to contribute to interpretation at this stage, for anyone's interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.