Jump to content
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

Guest

Does this sound like Oppression Olympics to anyone else? From what I understand, Bear et al. haven't actually suffered any consequences aside from someone telling them 'stop that, it's against the rules' or equivalent.

 

When I first started reading this thread, I felt Bear et al. were in the right as the example they cited seems pretty innocuous to me, especially in this off-topic context. However, as I kept reading, I realized this thread was a gross overreaction to less than a slap on the wrist. All this defensive language such as "oppressive and excessive," "I mean we're the troublemakers," "help defend the Bear system," "clearly you have to see your user base is siding with us," etc. is absurd - what could you be defending against, if not the rules?

 

So after reading the entire thread, I agree with the staff's interpretation of the rules. A plea that amounts to "agree with us so we don't have to follow the rules" is not one the staff should entertain, especially given the frankly childish behavior in this discussion.

 

I really am not bothered by the behavior cited in the OP, again, especially in the off-topic context. But the behavior in this thread does bother me. If you overreact this badly to something so insignificant, I would hate to see the wrath of you all when somebody steps on your toes about something that actually matters. For that reason, the Bear system should not get any kind of special pass to in-system-converse, even if it's meant to be interpreted as performance or otherwise.

 

If you think the rules should change, or be interpreted differently, that's an entirely different discussion. A discussion like that doesn't have room for all this drama. A discussion like that doesn't revolve solely around you, Bear et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Ashley] This discussion is already over. It's drama, yeah, that's a Bear system thing, didn't you know? It's not excessive drama though. So, you're literally causing more drama by getting offended by the drama. What's the point of that?

 

The point we made is, what's the big deal, why are we always getting "lightly warned" for innocuous things when we're not doing anything to warrant a real warning? We're slightly annoying or smth. Don't treat us special, but let's keep professional stuff in professional threads and have fun in game threads at least.

 

[bear] anon, the heck man? You could have just complained to us, instead you're calling out half a dozen systems for adding to unnecessary cauldling. Where's the love?

 

anon is fine, I like anon, obviously something here rubbed him the wrong way, but we expressed our opinions. That's all fair. Everyone gets an opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The discussion is over? Conveniently when there is a dissenting opinion, right? The discussion clearly isn't over (your poll doesn't even close for more than a week) and I won't be swept under the rug that easily. You made this thread asking for the opinions of the user here and I'm going to assert mine.

 

You could have just complained to us, instead you're calling out half a dozen systems for adding to unnecessary cauldling. Where's the love?

 

You could have just complained to the staff in a TTS thread, instead you're calling out half a dozen systems to validate your stance on this, something so insignificant. I'm here to say that you can't just put a bow on this discussion after enough people have agreed with you. Do you actually think there is some kind of unspoken agreement between the staff and userbase, such that the staff will change their practices on the basis of a thread like this? If that's how it works, as you seem to think, then I am going to have my say in the matter.

 

It's not personal whatsoever. You ask in the OP:

 

Is this the tulpa.info you want?

 

It's not. I do not want a Tulpa.info where people make threads like this because they don't feel like they should follow the rules, as you've done in this tread. I don't want people getting their other system members to finish their thoughts and further develop their arguments, as much as you're doing here. After three pages of your posts, it's very unclear who is talking. I suppose the four accounts y'all have are not enough - it's still somehow necessary for multiple people to chime in on the same post.

 

I don't like these behaviors, and this isn't the Tulpa.info I want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[bear] I get it man, not everyone likes to bask in the warming glow of the Bear system saturation bombing that we do every day. Personally, I don't like posts like yours, whining about someone posting unprofessionally in a game thread, or whatever you're doing. No, complaining about people supporting another system that's complaining about a non-issue in an unnecessarily dramatic way. The sensitivity inception is real. Thank you for your opinion, it does help guide us.

 

[Misha] ♡

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does this sound like Oppression Olympics to anyone else? From what I understand, Bear et al. haven't actually suffered any consequences aside from someone telling them 'stop that, it's against the rules' or equivalent.

 

When I first started reading this thread, I felt Bear et al. were in the right as the example they cited seems pretty innocuous to me, especially in this off-topic context. However, as I kept reading, I realized this thread was a gross overreaction to less than a slap on the wrist. All this defensive language such as "oppressive and excessive," "I mean we're the troublemakers," "help defend the Bear system," "clearly you have to see your user base is siding with us," etc. is absurd - what could you be defending against, if not the rules?

 

Bear's system is overly dramatic in how they talk about things, but not necessarily their actions I'd say. Bear's system has a history of being warned and nearly punished for small things like this, to the point they've consulted us several times on what they should be doing differently (including if they should just leave) because they're afraid they're not wanted here - but mainly just by Staff, as basically all the normal users appreciate them.

 

You could have just complained to the staff in a TTS thread

 

One person, who was just warned for breaking a rule, has basically zero say over whether a rule should be interpreted differently or rewritten. The thread title is unnecessary and dramatic, but the content is appropriate how and where it is, to get community input on how the forum should work in the future.

 

I do not want a Tulpa.info where people make threads like this because they don't feel like they should follow the rules, as you've done in this tread.

 

It's fair to call them out for "swaying the vote" by posing the subject as a "plea" rather than simply neutrally asking the community about it - however, if the Tulpa.info you want is one where the community has no say in how the site is run, nobody will agree with you. So let's just assume it's the former, then?

 

So, to Bear's system: Try and tone down how dramatic you are when writing about something that should be neutral or serious, if you want to appeal to a wider audience. Lucilyn was, after all, led to believe you were being targeted unfairly due to the title, when in fact it was simply a minor infraction that could've happened to, and been brought up by, literally anyone.

 

But I still believe in the validity of the purpose of the thread (suggestion to revise a rule) and of said argument (well, Lucilyn already gave her opinion in favor of it).


Hi guys, plain text is just me now! We've each got our own accounts: me, Tewi, Flandre, and Lucilyn. We're Luminesce's tulpas.

Here's our "Ask Thread", and here's our Progress Report (You should be able to see all of our accounts on the second page if you want)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So' date=' to Bear's system: Try and tone down how dramatic you are when writing about something that should be neutral or serious, if you want to appeal to a wider audience. Lucilyn was, after all, led to believe you were being targeted unfairly due to the title, when in fact it was simply a minor infraction that could've happened to, and been brought up by, literally anyone.[/quote']

 

Noted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with this thread is there are two separate debates going on- if this case was handled fairly, and if the Bear system's delivery of this thread is appropriate or not. Unfortunately, the latter overshadowed the former, making it hard to talk about the former without coming across as offensive or in support of everything the Bears did. I very much appreciate the Bears coming out to ask for help, but I don't like the tone that distracted from the main point, created a sense of alarm, and forced people to pick their side based on how "offensive" or "in support" they wanted to be rather than just how they felt about the original issue.

 

I have a feeling that the tone was an accident at first because they were upset and stressed out. However, that tone caused people to play defense for the Bears because they feared they would lose the Bears to them being banned or leaving the forums. Once they got a rallying cry of stressed out friends, it probably became much harder for them walk away from that initial tone, and unfortunately the tone developed in support of all of the Bears behavior and not just the issue at hand.

 

but yeah Bear's system has done nothing but good for the health of the forum and is being warned as frequently as heckin' Melian and Mistgod who we have written record from many members that they literally left because of them, whereas Bear's system is really the opposite, so please if this must go on then please document these warnings/rule infractions somehow, because I honestly believe they're not intending to break any and are actually strongly intending to avoid doing so, which means it's the forum's fault for not being clear enough on the rules

 

I like the Bears too, but this isn't an acceptable train of thought. That would be like me saying I deserve special privileges to the rules just because I work as a moderator. No one should get favoritism protection from the rules.

 

* * *

 

With that out of the way, I want to start with the original post:

 

 

6) Scientists at Bear Industries have created a super resilient bear suit that is virtually indestructible, runs off unlimited clean energy cells, and is specifically designed to devastate death stars.

 

We just successfully demonstrated its awesome power by blowing up the moon.

 

[Ashley] That's no moon!

 

And Endor by accident.

 

[bear] My bad, sorry, there was an ant in my suit and I flinched.

 

Consequently Bear was banished from the surface of the Earth and low orbit.

 

[bear] I'm staying in an impossibly large ark that has a small issue of a red dragon running about, but nothing my suit can't handle. Just until Ashley subjugates the entirety of the Earth.

 

The first sentence is fine. Misha is being silly and entertaining, and there are no rule breaking there. By the second sentence, it starts to feel a little like a role play, and that set up is what leads to the impression of in-system conversation later.

 

The third sentence starts to give the impression of in-system conversation because Ashley didn't necessarily need to say that line and she introduced context that these events were being experienced in wonderland. In the moment, this scenario is like Misha holding up a poster to an audience saying "Here are my ideas" and Ashley is reading off the poster to the audience. As the audience, to me it seems like Ashley reading off the poster is a little unnecessary, she isn't adding anything to Misha's story that Misha couldn't say herself if she worded things differently. The other problem is Ashley said "that's no moon", now contradicting what Misha described. If this was thought out in advance, Ashley wouldn't need to contradict Misha, hence the additional context that this is being played out in real time. Essentially, they walked away from reading their ideas off of a poster and are now acting out their ideas to each other while standing in-front of us.

 

By the fourth sentence, Misha is adding backstory to their story. However, given the set up of this being in real time, her reply is more directed to Ashley and the others instead of us, the audience. Acting out a wonderland adventure in real time qualifies as in-system conversation.

 

The remaining sentences add context to the wonderland adventure, not the thesis indented for the audience, which was creating a joke weapon of mass destruction. Again, this qualifies for in-system conversation.

 

If Misha wrote the OP like this, it wouldn't qualify as in-system conversation:

 

6) Scientists at Bear Industries have created a super resilient bear suit that is virtually indestructible, runs off unlimited clean energy cells, and is specifically designed to devastate death stars.

 

And now, I have successfully demonstrated its awesome power by blowing up the moon.

 

Oh yeah, I blew up Endor too.

 

I didn't include the other parts because Misha had either stopped talking or she was commenting on something someone else did in wonderland. I took out the "That's no moon!" part because I don't know how Misha would describe that information on her own and my original idea of adding "But wait! That's no moon!" made it hard to connect that to "Oh yeah, I blew up Endor too".

 

There's nothing wrong with being fun and silly, but acting out your wonderland adventures with your other headmates outside of hidden tags in PRs is against the rules. Usually blatant in-system looks like this:

 

[hidden]

Host: Blah blah blah

Tulpa: Yada Yada Yada

[/hidden]

 

However, this case is a little bit tricky because the in-system conversation in the OP is implied and not labeled in a Misha:, Ashley:, Bear:, etc. fashion. It's a much prettier version of that, but I can still write the entire OP in that structure and it would still work.

 


 

Tag-teaming that would be acceptable is if two headmates had differing opinions or things to contribute on a particular issue or question while maintaining their focus on the OP. Consider the following:

 

Re: Parroting Tulpas responses

 

[Evergreen] If you are parroting her and getting responses you don't expect, I am suspicious if you are actually parroting her. I'm not sure what you mean by "alien", I'm assuming it means a response that feels different from your own. Listening for those responses is not parroting and it will help your tulpa become more independent.

 

On the other hand, worrying if you are controlling your tulpa to love you may be frustrating in of itself for both you and your tulpa. It is okay to assume your tulpa loves you.

 

[Cat] It would only be controlling if you were deliberately forcing them to feel things against their will. If your tulpa tells you they don't like it, then I would stop. Otherwise, you're not doing anything wrong.

 

In this example, both Evergreen and Cat are speaking directly to the OP. Evergreen gave his thoughts and Cat wanted to add another thought of her own. The reason the "tag team" feeling is there is because double posting isn't allowed, so instead of making a separate post for Cat, both posts are combined into one.

 

Sometimes one of us will say "like (my headmate) said" or "I know (my headmate) said X, but I think Y". The former is usually an excuse to emphasize a specific point they already said, and the latter is used when we don't necessarily agree on the same thing and wish to deliver our perspectives separately.

 

This would only be a problem if one of the headmates didn't have anything new to contribute. It would turn into in-system conversation if the focus shifted away from the OP and onto their other headmate.

 


 

I don't believe that this instance qualifies as a good example of in-system conversation because the statements are directed outward. Actors on a stage, even when notionally directing their speech toward one another, are actually speaking for the benefit of the audience in service of the overall production. This example is not a private conversation publically recorded. It would not have happened independently of audience interaction.

 

If in-system conversation is written down in the first place, my guess is the intended audience was for a reader, regardless if that reader was the OP or forum regulars. However, in the OP the reader is no longer the intended recipient, their other headmates are. I am no longer being addressed when Bear is scratching for ants in his spacesuit and talking about little red dragons running around. Subjectively, this can be entertaining, but it still breaking the rules.

 

I feel that the rule against in-system conversation is unnecessary because any in-system conversation that is actually a problem would need to violate another rule, such as the ones for keeping conversations appropriate to the area they are in, against disruptive discussion, or against repetitively causing disturbances or drama.

 

In-system conversation is like someone talking to themself out loud when you're hanging out with them. The middle of a conversation isn't the time I want to hear about your wonderland adventures, I want to focus on the topic of the conversation. I would rather read about those in your PR.

 

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.

 

I'm not sure if you are talking about multiple headmates sharing their ideas or not, in-system conversation being verbalized, or saying both of those things are the same thing.

 

On Discord, Cat or I chime into the conversation one of my other headmates is a part of all the time, but I never direct my comments to Cat or another one of my headmates. Slip ups are easier to do in the chat, but otherwise, same rules apply: one of us will add something if it's relevant to the conversation, if not, then we keep it to ourselves.

 

* * *

 

I don't want in-system conversation to be allowed on the forums, except for maybe the forum game thread, but even there it's problematic because in-system conversation never contributes more to the topic than just regular responses and in addition adds a whole bunch of stuff I didn't ask to read. The only time I think it's appropriate is when I'm reading about the Bears wonderland adventures in their PR.

 

This is something I can see the Bears struggling with- they are used to writing out their interactions in real time and because of that, it can be easy for them to slip into that mode of thinking when writing something "dramatic and entertaining". However, that's not a free pass to ignore the rules.

 

No one is perfect, and that's okay. Mistakes happen, and feedback is key for improving.

 


 

Edit: I want to clarify that my personal opinion about keeping in-system conversation in hidden tags in your PR is not congruent to the moderated rule. Any in-system conversation anywhere is considered to be breaking the rule.

 

I'm sorry if this caused any confusion.


I'm Ranger, Gray's/Cat_ShadowGriffin's tulpa, and I love Hippos! I also like forum games and chatting about stuff.

My other head-mates have their own account now.

Temporary Log | Switching LogChat | Yay!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't want in-system conversation to be allowed on the forums, except for maybe the forum game thread, but even there it's problematic because in-system conversation never contributes more to the topic than just regular responses and in addition adds a whole bunch of stuff I didn't ask to read. The only time I think it's appropriate is when I'm reading about the Bears wonderland adventures in their PR.

 

 

Agreed, sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so Bear was warned for posting this in his PR:

[bear] Ashley and Ren merge was a thing, very cute. She presented herself in hypnagogic, she was so adorable. What happened Ashley?

[Ashley] Ren did it, and you don't argue with Ren if you know what's good for you.

[bear] Ren's an adorable menace

[Misha] no she's not, she's a lovable cuddly kitty-girl and we love her.

[Ren] *gives Misha then I a hug*

[bear] Ashlen and I talked a little then cuddled as I fell asleep. Two of the most affectionate girls makes a very affectionate girl.

 

Ashley doesn't seem affectionate, but to me she's very attentive, affectionate and responsive. It embarrasses her for me to say that, it's not the persona she presents to anyone else.

 

and I can't help but feel considering this rule-breaking is excessive, exclusively because it's in their own PR thread where nobody is required to or has any reason at all to read their thread unless they like the people it belongs to, you know? I feel like the rules should be far more lax when it's not a public discourse but just a personal thread for a host and their tulpas. And even if it were a gray area it'd be fine, but going so far as to give a warning for rule-breaking is exactly what led to Tulpa.info dying. Yeah that's right, it's what KILLED the forum!

 

History lesson! Some time around (based on the post I'll quote) early 2015, the forum introduced a new ruling on Progress Reports needing to be strictly on-topic to the progress made by a system, whereas prior they had been more lax and while still fulfilling their purpose, also fostered a strong sense of community. While the Staff stuck by their decision, giving the option to move Progress Reports that were often "off-topic" to the Lounge, this actually started a huge cascade of people leaving the forum, the most important of which was someone named Cinemaphobe, whose PR attracted more attention than any other on the site, and whose decision to leave the community affected many others to do the same:

 

[hidden]

Reading around the decaying forum made me consider leaving this site to do my tulpa journey alone. Of course the only things stopping me from leaving are the friends I have made here, the fact that this thread is like a diary, and the fact that my goal is to successfully complete the journey on this thread.

But I'm experiencing a weird mental transition, and I just haven't really been myself lately, so my journey stopped in its tracks a few days ago, which is why I posted this so late. I have been hanging out at random cemeteries a lot thinking about death and the nature of sentience. It feels as though I have been daydreaming for a week about death and I can't snap out of it.

And this brings me to my next point; My PR is too off-topic and the 'science-minded'  are complaining about off-topic PRs. Ironically enough though, this is one of the most off-topic PRs in the forum, yet within this PR, I created two sentient tulpas.

 

I'm the type of person that would rather provide a massive anecdote explaining what kept my journey from progressing, than say "I didn't make any progress today. I'll post again when I do." Because in the future when I am able to see Yumi with my own eyes, and hear her like I would another human being, I want to look back at this thread and feel nostalgia. If the thread is just me talking about what little progress I make day by day, and not explaining why I didn't make progress, then it will be a chore to even read it, let alone maintain it.

 

 

My ideal of what a PR should be conflicts with the ideals of those who have the power to delete it--which is ridiculous by the way. This site is going to die much faster when it becomes more strict, and I don't want to be around to witness my PR get deleted, nor do I want to feel like I'm walking on thin-ice when I'm off-topic. At first, I could deal with the decline of this site, but looking around at those in power and what they possibly plan to do, I can see that the decline can easily be justified.

 

 

I'm tired, and I doubt that any of the above mini-paragraphs made sense, so I'll sum it up. I'm going through a philosophical transition for the better which is preventing progress with Yumi and Lillium, I hate where this forum is going which is preventing me from wanting to document my tulpa journey, and this might be my last post for either a long time, or forever. I do want to stay in contact with everybody here though, so feel free to PM me, I'll still lurk the forum and check my messages from time to time, but I'm taking a break from this forum until it truly improves. Wish me luck on my journey guys.

[/hidden]

 

The thinking behind this rule change was that people would use Progress Reports as a way to learn about the Tulpamancy phenomenon in a professional sense, and having to read through anything not strictly development-related would give a bad impression to those people and imminently hurt overall interest in the phenomenon. Ha, well, the forum's been dead ever since! How'd that work out? The ONLY thread that survived this transition to Lounge was KM & RD, where KruegerMeister has been updating his thread actively ever since, which is awesome! But they're the exception, literally every other member with a PR either stopped posting/left or stuck close enough to the new rule that Staff didn't bother them (and honestly this rule was never actually enforced again after its creation, but the damage was absolutely done anyway)

 

But hey, we're finally seeing it be relevant again! Well, not that exact rule, but the strict enforcing of rules of the entire forum on the personal PR section of the site. Honestly, I'd really like to continue how professionally I was writing this with a nice and solid argument asking the Staff to consider relaxing (not abandoning, but relaxing) relevant rules in people's PRs (and PLEASE do), but

 

all I really can say from here is "This is nonsense and not good for the health of the forum, you guys should've learned your lesson the first time - you're trying to create a more ideal forum for an ever-decreasing number of people when we need to be valuing expanding the community and making it a place people actually want to be, or soon there won't be anyone left to use this "ideal" forum in the first place"

 

 

basically, just seriously consider relaxing the rules meant to make discussion & debate flow better when dealing with Progress Reports which, while not technically blogs, are the more "human" part of the site where a real sense of community is fostered

 

(I say "seriously consider" because the Staff could still decide a dead, archived forum that was strictly maintained as more valuable than a living forum, idk)

 

 

[hidden]and if you really don't want to reconsider anything, can you like.. offer to move Bear's PR to Lounge? If his stuff is too off-topic with its for-fun in-system conversations and all, maybe a personal Lounge thread would work better? if we can make threads about posting pictures of clouds but they can't have these harmless """conversations""" in their own thread, well... that's just ridiculous[/hidden]


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

This place is meant to be a site about tulpas, so I'd expect updates in a board where the description is "a place to record progress with your tulpa" to have something to do with progress and not be a place for one-off comments about how you didn't do anything with your tulpa today, or how you thought about narrating but instead you barf out paragraphs that belong on an angsty teen's blog. If people decided to leave because they couldn't handle sticking to a board's idea back then (or even now), that's on them. This board might seem more "human" to you but this doesn't make the threads in it immune to the rules and I don't think that this should ever be the case.

 

We've made exceptions in the past for people who post transcripts of their forcing sessions that are progress-related, usually in hidden tags (just because of how long these can become) but I still don't think that the forums should be a platform for people to communicate with their tulpas, even in personal threads.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...