Sign in to follow this  

In-System Conversations vs Tag-Team - Posting a plea to

Are we over the line?  

20 members have voted

  1. 1. Are we over the line?

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

Recommended Posts

I'm sorry to join the discussion late. I think a balance is needed: Progress report rules need to be lax enough that people don't constantly worry if they're running afoul of them or whether they have to go elsewhere to mention that they loved their sandwich but their tulpa thought it was gross. At the same time, people usually read PRs because they want to know what it's like to make a tulpa and then how life with them is. As such, a post about how your system went to see a movie, how you interacted during it, what it was like when a stranger sat on one of your tulpas, etc. should be allowed. But at the same time, an endless stream of posts about fandoms and the angsts of daily life will be much less interesting to someone wanting to know about tulpas, and would be far more suited to a Tumblr blog. I'm not certain exactly where to draw the line, only that there needs to be one and that neither extreme is viable.


I also feel like Bear's system is being overly dramatic in their presentation of this request. Furthermore, it was never Pleeb's intent that progress reports be a personal blog. The idea of blogs has been thrown around a few times, but the PR section has always been meant for at least tangentially tulpa-related content.

Lyra: human female, ~17

Evan: boy, ~14, was an Eevee

Anera: anime-style girl, ~12; Lyra made her

My blog :: Time expectations are bad (forcing time targets are good though)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also don't see the issue with in-system conversation in Lounge and PRs. If everyone in the system wants to say something, I can imagine it would be unnatural to avoid talking to each other or bounce off each other to an extent. This community has very few active members, I'd rather they feel comfortable and welcome. Why worry so such about what guests or newcomers see (host and tulpas, gasp, talking to each other? Isn't that the goal?), given how weird this community is even at it's most well behaved? If I'm reading a post and find it uninteresting or cringey, well, I move on. It's not a big deal.

My tulpa Aya writes in this color.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it nice when various system members give their opinion on something, especially when there are multiple different but well-thought-out points of view. What I'm less comfortable with is system members interrupting each other and whoever's typing it out recording this. It makes what would otherwise be a straightforward paragraph into an unreadable rainbow-colored mess. Also, group-effort shitposting by multiple system members is still shitposting.


People using colors should also be aware that there are different themes and people using a different theme may make some colors nearly unreadable. For instance, you might pick yellow and see it shows up great on the default Dark theme, but someone using the Light theme or the mobile-optimized phone theme will find it nearly invisible.

Lyra: human female, ~17

Evan: boy, ~14, was an Eevee

Anera: anime-style girl, ~12; Lyra made her

My blog :: Time expectations are bad (forcing time targets are good though)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

{edit: whoops, wrote this without reading the last 4 posts btw} hey I'm all for uh, the stuff you guys are talking about, but I just wanna say one thing


The vague subjectivity of what's allowed is a huge barrier to putting anything more in our PR or content in general.


me talking about what was allowed in PRs is more or less an old topic from 2015 that's hardly been relevant in recent years, and nearly the entirety of the problem with your guys' PR was the in-system conversations which has nothing to do with content and is exclusively about breaking the no-in-system-conversations rule


you guys can keep talking about the subject if you feel it stifles the forum that's fine, I just want to remind Bear's system that for the most part (to my knowledge) it was just that thing staff had a problem with and not the poems/talking about wonderland stuff/etc.


moving the PR to Lounge would still work if Staff decided to take issue with the non-progress-related parts of your PR, but as far as I know they haven't and your PR is about what's expected of the section

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

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



There's a lot to your most recent post.  I want to point out that there's ongoing discussion within the Administration about this caused by the OP.  I actually agree with the OP, in that I don't think there was an issue with Bear's in-system comments in the forum games.  I'm not particularly against it in Progress Reports either (with an exception of the formatting, for reasons Chupi mentioned).  That post stemmed our internal discussion on whether this rule needed to be revisited.


Bear received a verbal warning, and prompting an appeal which is entirely fine; however, continuing to do the in-system conversations while the rule was still in place isn't fine.


Furthermore, the tone of your responses both in this thread and moreso to PMs of at least one of my staff members seem threatening, and as much as I believe it would be a loss to this community if Bear leaves -- I don't want to see Bear leave -- the whole way Bear has gone about this is leaving a bad taste in my mouth.


But first I want to make it clear: Bear System's appeal to their verbal warning in Post #1:  I have no issues with the post in question.  I never did, and brought it up with the administration during our internal discussions.  Even Vos 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.


I just spent the past three hours arguing against this rule in Lounge, Forum Games, and Progress Report, with my staff.  At this point, the drama that Bear is stirring up over this is causing more harm than good when it comes to passing this rule, just because it got to the point of threats and callouts.


Then I come to this thread and see you using my name and vision for this community to further your agenda; okay, if you're addressing me personally, I will respond personally.


The vague subjectivity of what's allowed is a huge barrier to putting anything more in our PR or content in general. What we need is an allowance and amendment to the rules, preferably, to foster Pleeb's presumed vision for the site.


New evidence has come to light regarding this, and pardon the percieved verbosity of this post, but it's entirely necessary. This is a negotiaiton not for Bear system shenannigans, but for the continued comminty of, and more importantly, some might argue, the complete documentation of the science we're trying to create.

Fair enough, I'm listening.


For Bear system specifically:


The list of items I address below are 90% of what's in our PR/lounge/threads, 10% would be strictly tulpa-related 'progress' if I'm being generous.


In terms of us leaving, it's a real possibility, or at least to the point of not even posting every day or every week, it's not an overstatement. For whatever reason, my host is extra sensitive to warnings and it has threatened permanent damage to his feelings about in general.

The whole reason we try to utilize unofficial verbal warnings is not to punish anyone.  It doesn't even hold a record on the profile, it's literally an opened dialog between the staff member and the community member.  "This is what our rules say, and this is why we feel that isn't okay."  I think we were pretty clear in not having any system discussion anywhere on the forums in both the forum rules and the private message.  You guys felt this wasn't okay, and thus a dialog was started.  The issue is when you continued to break the rules before that dialog concluded.  The moderation team is super, super, super lenient.  Arguably one of the most lenient in many communities that I've been a part of.  We spend hours sometimes trying to work out if someone should even be messaged in the first place.


Animosity for perceived oppression of free speech and future unreasonable negotiations on would turn what used to be a fervor for advertising and donating to the site and contributing to the community, to a general neutrality. Further action would probably push that further to the right and the mental state of my host with it.

"Free Speech" generally refers to the legal right we have to assembly without the government preventing it.  Community forums are not protected under Free Speech, but that doesn't mean we cannot be reasonable.  We have changed the rules several times since 2012, sometimes from user feedback sometimes from certain events.


I feel that to cite "future unreasonable negotiations" after at least one Administrator has said they're open to changing the rules is in bad faith.


We absolutely don't mind if our thread is moved to lounge or even metapysical boards to achieve our specific goals. However, if that is the case, then we would request that that be added as an amendment to the rules or at least to the sticky, if that sticky supersedes the rule.

Makes sense, but only given it actually would belong in one of those places, and the nature of the thread isn't already specified as belonging into one of those places. in general from here on out:


Let me just start be stating that sharing experiences and building the science we are trying to foster here, without dialog, is overly restrictive and contrived. We need the rules to be relaxed slightly in order to share and document things about the nature tulpamancy that naturally contain dialog, or to make the point clear

Disallowing multicolored chat logs does not inhibit the ability to document the nature of tulpamancy that contains dialog, as there are many novels in the world that express pretty verbally colorful dialog without actual colors.  While not everyone agrees with me, Chupi and I seem to be in agreement that there isn't anything inherently wrong with the in-system discussion, but it's more or less the format that you're using.  I know that this is a different discussion altogether, but there's only so much I can say when I actually agree that there wasn't anything functionally wrong with that progress report with an exception of the fact that it's currently against the rules.


[A]nd without the fear of 3-month small percentage bans or worse for subjective interpretation of what's written by the OP or the rules. Let me just note that three months exceed the lifespan of a typical new tulpamancer, most quit long before that.

Nobody is getting banned, let alone your system, unless you actively try to get banned.  As others have already noted though, the rules tend to already be a bit lax in this community.  If you look at the moderation log, since that system has been introduced in 2014 there has been exactly one ban via that system.  Not bad for a five year track record. 


This is the kind of unnecessary dramatics that I'm becoming annoyed with.


We want a rule amendment to allow anything tulpa related or otherwise in PRs/Lounge as long as they're warned or denoted at some point and placed in hidden, similar to how NSFW is handled, and officially allow dialog in creative tulpa-related items such artwork like comic strips and the like without restriction. 'Anything' is a rather broad category, but in order to take out the possibility of oppressive interpretation of the rules in the future, it may be necessary or at least expanded from specifically, relaxing the in-system conversation in these hidden and denoted zones of safety.  I want to clarify that other rules still need to apply, and that is very fair, and I think adding this simple allowance will eliminate 99% of the current contention, and avoid escallating tensions and fear throughout the site.

The lounge is already very similar to this, but this is where Progress Report stops being a progress report.  I'll elaborate further down.


possibility of oppressive interpretation of the rules

And this is the bad faith argument again.  Our staff has done nothing but work with and delegate with you over the years that you have been here.  We have always listened, and I know of at least a couple moderators who personally go the extra mile for you guys.  Stop acting like we're an unreasonable machine that you need to call everyone to arms to.



What we have here isn't a negotiation for the Bear system it has broadened to a negotiation for community and science itself on this site.


I have to very carefully put this in perspective, the following list contains good and bad things, but one without the other is segregating a rainbow of experience that in whole brings color to what would otherwise be drab or uninteresting in general, so much so, as Lucilyn warns, could lead to further exodus of the forum participants, not just Bear system sympathizers.


This will free up our ability to post things like:

  • Trials
  • Love Letters
  • Deep conversations
  • Discussions
  • Wonderland Adventures
  • Comic strip-like skits
  • Deep interactive thoughts regarding tulpamancy
  • General round table talks on topic.
  • Angsty histrionic venting
  • Mental health documentation and other off-topic matters and philosophy
  • Examples of how one system-mate and another system-mate's relationship grows over time.
  • Slice of life
  • Three sisters play
  • Visualization practice thread
  • Personal development
  • Meta
  • Tulpa-related memes
  • Tulpa-related creative writing.
  • Poems
  • Fluff
  • Bloggy nonsense
  • Other Tulpa-related content.
  • 'Seemingly' unrelated science


As appropriate, deemed by the OP, as long as (within reason) it's in hidden and warned ahead of time as to the gray nature of the content, similar to NSFW, "Warning ISC or Dialog", and placed in appropriate areas such as Lounge or PR. To allow profanity but not dialog is untenable. Furthermore, creative art, obvious fiction, and other creative works that are by their very nature just for fun should be exempt from warnings in appropriate areas such as art threads, and for example, comic strips containing dialog.


This is a step more restrictive than what we have freely, and without strict enforcement, been doing for the last 15 months, but it's fair.

This goes back into the purpose of Progress Report, and much of that stuff is not part of it.  We already have a general discussion board, we have an art board (which does have stories, it's not limited to graphical art), we already have a metaphysics board, and we even have a general discusison board for higher level stuff.  Unrelated slice of life things generally are going in the Lounge, but I'm even wondering if that should be the case.  As mentioned, I'll elaborate on Progress Report still below.


without arbitrary restriction by admin preferences or interpretations

Restricting progress report related items in the progress report board is not arbitrary and had a specific reasoning behind it.

(since we're not talking about displaying in-system discussion anymore, as you opened the door to everything)


Any of the above bullets can be argued as part of the 'tulpamancy experience'. You can't make everyone happy, but we're going to try anyway. Therefore, line-item veto may be allowed in this case within reason. The majority of the currently active forum, those who would love us or hate us aside, would benefit from the continuation of at least most of these items I've listed, whether that's a objective or not, for the sake of not stifling the very community and science we hold dear.

Going down that list, tulpa-related memes, creative writing, poems, and the like could potentially fit into Tulpa Art.  Wonderland Adventures could end up in the Progress Report, as could discussions and deep discussions if they're in-system.  If meta is metaphysics, it could always go into the metaphysics board, along with seemingly unrelated science, assuming it isn't research.  I see no issues with retrospective analysis in Progress Report, so that's another, and after the forum upgrade, we're actually planning on pushing something similar to a roundtable, so we're half way down your list.


Along those lines we see a conflict between the implementation of Pleeb's vision of PRs, 'for science' and this rule-set.

. . . .

We'd love to Pleeb, thank you, and we did, oh boy did we, but given recent enforcement of percieved restrictions, we have no idea how to do that anymore. With the recently enforced anti-dialog edicts we're left bewildered and now we're negotiating here, at the very least, to put exactly what you asked for in our PR without fear of overly oppressive enforcement of this rule:



As you tactfully pointed out, I specifically first use the subjective quantifier "generally", along with listing specific examples.  And yep, you can post about your wonderland, matter of fact, nobody had any issues with your progress report that included wonderland adventures, as this 10% warning was simply about the in-system discussion (again, something that may be lifted in PR cases).


Though since we're talking about the ability to post anything in the progress report, not just in-system discussion, this is where our accused "oppressive" rules come in, as you also noted:


It's your own blog, but it's a blog. Everyone's blogs are in the same place, in the same format and on the same subject - tulpa creation.

I was very specific to use that "tulpa creation" quantifier at the end, Joy.


Seems clear that blogging/diary type stuff isn't disallowed and furthermore is specifically authorized, but that's besides the point entirely. Again, personal preferences of staff shouldn't overwrite Pleebs vision for this site, nor what's reasonably necessary for community to thrive or science to grow.

My vision for the Progress Report board is to have logs of someone's tulpa creation progress.  That was the original purpose of for me, personally: it was to log Chess's creation, and then to be a resource for people who want to learn about tulpas, and then eventually be the leader in scientific research on tulpas.


The purpose of Progress Report is so you can look back at your own progress of the creation, and so others can view your progress.


Turning the Progress Report thread into a general blog clutters it away, resulting in not only making that information harder to find for new members and guests, but just overall filling it with items that it was never meant for.


Chupi touches on this when they say:

It was never Pleeb's intent that progress reports be a personal blog. The idea of blogs has been thrown around a few times, but the PR section has always been meant for at least tangentially tulpa-related content.


I'm still kicking the idea around with giving donors domains (e.g. or to integrate proper community blogs into the new forum system (this was something I took into consideration when purchasing IPB).


I'm not against your information being out there somewhere, I'm just against it being in the wrong places.


If we ever started hosting a proper blog system, most of your "slice of life" or "everything" stuff would fit perfectly in there.  If not, I have another solution, and it's written in the last half of my Progress Report sticky:

If you already have a tulpa blog going on another site, you may link to it in your own thread.


While I can't offer it a URL at this time (though if we did you would be one of the top qualifiers), a lot of your stuff would definitely be a nice contribution on tumblr or another blog system.  I would have no issues whatsoever linking to the blog in your thread (e.g. "We wrote a poem today, you can read it here") as part of your reporting progress, but everything does not belong in Progress Report.


To reiterate, if dialog was deemed necessary (by the poster, not the preference or specific approval of an admin) to fully explain the tulpamantic concepts, or to follow any of Pleeb's wishes for a community of like-minded individuals in an effort to support this science, or for the sake of community and understanding of how tulpamancy effects the lives of tulpamancers in general, then what harm could there possibly be to allow dialog in a personal PR, inside hidden, with warning. Or if that's not enough, the PR moved to lounge, or if that's not enough, the whole thread moved to metaphysical boards that aren't even searchable from google. The latter two would, in my understanding, be a loss to Pleeb's original vision, but we should respect others who have their own viewpoints on what's acceptable, as long as it's fair. If we're taking a step forward in enforcement, then let's give a little respect and leeway also to those who are trying to foster the science and community of this site through their great personal efforts in community, science, support, advertisement and donations to keep this site running.


To not allow that, because it might turn some away, is just as alarmist as others in this thread have been accused of. Honestly, if someone will come to this site and be turned away by some dialog inside a PR, inside hidden? I assert, that person has bigger problems and probably isn't right for this forum anyway. Especially since NSFW is allowed, and religious/meta discussion is allowed, which very well could turn away far more potential tulpa-scientists.

To reiterate, there's nothing to say that you can't post a majority of this tulpa-related stuff in several different categories on the forums, from General Discussion to Research; for things that really don't fit anywhere else, it can be linked out in specific places.  We do try to be clear with our categorical forum descriptions.


Also, on the note with NSFW, as you have brought that up a couple times now, I specifically list "Posting NSFW images" as "not allowed" in the Progress Report thread.


  • Given the argument above, should dialog be allowed if marked and in hidden in Progress Reports, Lounge, or other appropriate threads, if it is deemed by the OP to be relevant to their tulpamantic experience, or otherwise, in order to fully express the nature of the subject matter. Along with other dialog containing appropriate content as was described above.


Thank you.

I think dialog is fine, given the format.  Chupi listed their concerns there.  As I mention early in this thread, others in the staff are open for it already.  For me personally, I feel that it should meet the already-outlined quantifiers for Progress Report, that's my only miff if it's going to be in Progress Report.

  • We request clarification in the forum rules or Progress Reports sticky or both to avoid having this discussion again in the future.

If you still need clarification after my comments, please explain which parts you need clarification on, thank you.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Pleeb and Chupi,


I see reason here and I have remorse for our behavior. There is a man, and who knows how many women, in here who care passionately about this community. Our ability to express that has been compromised by drama time and time again, we are sorry for that.


We honestly did not intend to break rules, and lashing out was in some cases unforgivable, we own that, and we will own those scars. The histrionic behavior and overly dramatic propositions, accusations and call-outs are so clearly inappropriate, and I can see that it's a system wide problem. Even Joy, who did everything in her power to say our points without doing so in bad faith, still managed to (I have to think while unavoidably blending with me, and I'm not blaming her for any of it), which is regretful and saddening to us as it is seemingly very difficult to avoid on our end. Our goal is to avoid that even if it means less involvement as we work to overcome our faults as humans.


What you have said is what we were hoping you would say, there is movement toward or clarification of a middle ground. We are overjoyed that we have a part in this decision, even if it was just to spark awareness of the issue.


We understand that this issue is now in talks and we look forward to the results. In leiu of waiting for a rule change, we will do our utmost best to follow exactly what you and Chupi are allowing/clarifying here. So that we can tell our story, dialog included, and not break rules further.


The last thing we want is to end up further damaging our already Pyrrhic victory. The victory for us all is the fact that it's being discussed, and this brings joy to our hearts. We were not aware that this was ongoing at any point.


Given your statements above and Chupi's concerns, we are in agreement. In our PR we will demark tulpa creation related conversations in the future with bracketed who said what and leave the colors out of it. I would only hope that what our idea of tulpa creation relevant material is respected, but you should see a positive change to even what was already allowed in our PR and deemed okay. If we dutifully follow the rules as you've caveated them here we shouldn't have any more warnings. To further avoid that, in good faith, we're going to cut back a little until those discussions conclude to avoid any misunderstandings. To reiterate, we didn't even know discussions were ongoing.


I know you can't know or appreciate the constraint we have put ourselves under specifically to avoid further muddying of our case, and we don't expect you to, but we now understand that we have the same goals, and that helps a lot.


We want you to see your (and our) vision come to fruition.


With love and continued support,

The Bear system.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
In our PR we will demark tulpa creation related conversations in the future with bracketed who said what and leave the colors out of it. I would only hope that what our idea of tulpa creation relevant material is respected, but


At the risk of flat-out annoying you by saying the same thing for the third or fourth time, to avoid the risk of you completely missing the point of all this:


The only thing being directly asked of you is to avoid posting anything where you and your tulpas are directing anything at each other. While the rest of this discussion is fine and good, and the Staff would appreciate you doing your best to stay on-topic and such, the real problem and why action was taken against was you for guys talking to each other in your posts. So just to be crystal clear: don't post anything where the target of every single sentence isn't the reader(s). Even just 2-3 lines of interaction between your systemmates where the reader is not involved, even if meant for the reader's entertainment (as we always believed it was), is not allowed.


And again while the Staff would appreciate anyone's PR being more on-topic, that's not technically something anyone asked of you, under threat of punishment at least. The changes required of you are drastically less than you seem to think, though that said, if you're simply aiming to tailor your content in a way to avoid further unseen problems too, that's understandable.




Host: We've had times where imposition was stronger than visualization, even

Tulpa: Yeah, sometimes Host can barely see me in the wonderland, but imposition adds another dimension that makes me feel more "there" even if visualization quality is low.

(A Bear-style line) Host: We do our best.


This is fine, although the last line strikes me as unnecessary and more conversational, I added it in because it reminded me of something you might say. What you can't do:

Host: Our visualization is rather poor

Tulpa: You can't even see me sometimes! You really need to try harder

Host: I do my best.


Hopefully you can see the maybe seemingly-minor difference here - in the first example, everything written is intended for the reader. In the second example, although the fact that it's written at all means it was "intended for the reader" (our main argument in your favor, earlier in the thread), technically it's (well, the second line) talking at each other and not at the reader. This is the problem. Using colors is preferred against by Staff as users with preferences, and you're not obligated to not use colors say in the first example. But talking at each other is enforced against by the Staff, as Staff.

Hi. I'm one of Luminesce's tulpas. Unlike the others, I don't think I stand out too much from him personality wise.

I'm just special because "I'm a tulpa". So I don't think I've much to offer, here. I'm happy enough to just be with him.

Ask us stuff -

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Flandre, we still don't fully understand if your point is accurate.


And yep, you can post about your wonderland, matter of fact, nobody had any issues with your progress report that included wonderland adventures, as this 10% warning was simply about the in-system discussion (again, something that may be lifted in PR cases).


Either what you said is unclear, or staff is unclear. Have you read our wonderland adventures? It's like a transcript in some cases. I'm not going to ask you to review it, but the question remains if we're going to allow transcripts of tulpa creation related conversations which should include personality development and interrelationships between systemmates. I'm certain this exists in our PR a hundred times over.



1. We broke the rules a lot of times in our PR before enforcement began, and it's okayed by a grandfather clause or statute of limitations.



2. As was stated by staff, our PR wonderland adventures are fine historically,  but we still intend to be more careful. So if we're tactful about it, we shouldn't be worried about posting like-kind adventures.


What you said does not exactly line up with how we interpreted it, though we might be wrong. At least it's clear they're discussing it and my laundry list of bullets. Again, if it reduces tensions, we don't mind if staff moves our PR.


We will hopefully get clarification soon. If we're warned for posting a wonderland adventure for any reason other than it's blatantly not tulpa creation related, it will need further discussion, because we intend to post them as is allowed in the descriptions above.


As far as annoyance, we're not annoyed by you genuinely trying to help us understand, and protect us from further action, but we're not quite there as far as interpretation of the facts here.


We also are waiting to hear about other items on our list which we've definitely seen in other PRs, but we've never been warned about anything else, so we presume it's probably okay right now. Still we're not going to push it.


We'll probably wait to post another PR entry until the rules are officially decided, changed or not.


At this point we only seek clarity, as many we know wish as well. We've said our piece and it has been respectfully acknowledged. We are happy to know that. We have no further demands.


Like minded people will decide the vision of, and we will respect that to the best of our ability.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, the quote you posted only seems to say exactly what I said.


Hmm, a transcript of what happened in your wonderland - I'd say that's fine. It's different. It's recording what happened elsewhen, whereas what Staff has problem with is when your guys' posts are very obviously at least partially talking at each other rather than to the reader/rest of the forum. It sounds obvious to me, but I guess it doesn't to you since you don't understand.


When multiple of you are posting in the same post, it's fine to reference what each other said, and to take turns speaking. But you can't speak at each other - because that's supposed to be done in your guys' head. Even if someone might find your discussion playing out in real time insightful, it's not allowed. Speak to the reader, not to each other.


I guess I understand why you'd be afraid of transcripts from wonderlanding/etc. counting towards this rule, and it's reasonable to ask for clarification on that. While it's not very often done (most people couldn't remember what exactly was said well enough to re-create conversations in their PR later, and rather tend to simply summarize like "My tulpa and I discussed this, I said X and she said Y"), I don't think Staff will take issue with recording what happened in wonderland in your PR, especially when obviously marked as having happened in the past and probably in hidden tags, though that's just for ease of separation/looking at, not to make it not break a rule. {Edit: Wait.. when you say "Writing what happened in wonderland", you don't mean writing what's happening in the wonderland as it happens/moments later, do you? Because there's no getting around that - you just have to say what was said in the end, not write it out play-by-play.}


The rule against in-system conversations basically says: Don't have conversations in your post with your own systemmates - talk it out in your head first, then post your conclusions. When it comes to a PR, there's reason to be working together to come to a conclusion(s) with your systemmates, but you have to do it in a manner that follows that rule. Again, the best advice I can give is to make sure everything you write is directed at the reader (so, basically everything people write on the forum) and not at each other (examples I gave/will give).


Well.. it's annoying if that's not already clear in what it means, because to me it's so simple and obvious I barely know how to give examples. Actually here, let me point out what exactly was wrong with your quote you guys were warned for (Lucilyn posted it here)


[bear] Ashley and Ren merge was a thing, very cute. She presented herself in hypnagogic, she was so adorable. What happened Ashley? {Starting to talk directly at your systemmates in real-time}

[Ashley] Ren did it, and you don't argue with Ren if you know what's good for you. {Fine if she's talking to the reader here and not Bear}

[bear] Ren's an adorable menace {Same thing}

[Misha] no she's not, she's a lovable cuddly kitty-girl and we love her. {Talking directly at systemmates in-post}

[Ren] *gives Misha then I a hug* {... There's a lot of things wrong with this part, but the fact that it's in real-time is the main problem, also triggering "unnecessary roleplay" feelings in our more conservative members, but mainly just something Staff say should play out in your head, not the post}

[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.



If this was referred to ahead of time as "Transcript from our wonderlanding" or something, it would probably be okay, as a recounting relevant to your Progress Report (best avoid it anywhere else on the forum). But presumably it was done in real-time, meaning you guys chose to have a conversation in-post, as opposed to just posting conclusions afterwards to the reader. Or alternatively, just addressing the reader instead of each other - if this is a concept you can't understand (and that I'm having a hard time explaining), it would be safer to avoid responding to what each other says in the same post entirely, I guess. While that may be a bit more than the actual rule requires, if you can't differentiate them you're best off not risking it. Most people get along fine with their tag-team posting, though - because they're just taking turns writing a post. What you guys did there was not taking turns writing a post together, it was interacting-with-each-other-in-the-post... and I feel like I'm talking in circles at this point.


Jeez, hopefully you just understand already and I'm rehashing something you already get. Plenty of people get along with the rules fine while having multiple system members write in one post, so it's not something you guys should have to stop doing entirely. Perhaps my pointing out the exact parts that were problematic would help, in case you thought any time you guys ever wrote back-to-back was rule-breaking.


We have mods who do it just fine, after all.


Maybe an Edit: Looking over this, I'm getting the feeling the misunderstanding is in "this happened in wonderland". Stuff that "happened in wonderland" is intended to refer to some adventure or experience people had - not just what was actively going on in your head while writing the post. The closer to the present what you're "documenting" was, the more you probably should just sum it up rather than "recount" it, I guess.

Hi. I'm one of Luminesce's tulpas. Unlike the others, I don't think I stand out too much from him personality wise.

I'm just special because "I'm a tulpa". So I don't think I've much to offer, here. I'm happy enough to just be with him.

Ask us stuff -

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I understand why you'd be afraid of transcripts from wonderlanding/etc. counting towards this rule, and it's reasonable to ask for clarification on that.


I did, and we got it, and I explained that in my last post.


If this was referred to ahead of time as "Transcript from our wonderlanding" or something, it would probably be okay.


This is acceptable to us, and is within the bounds of our understanding.


The rest of your post diverges from my previous post where I explained that a hundred or more wonderland adventures were posted as dialog. If this is unacceptable then why did staff say it was acceptable in this thread and additionally if that's true, why only start enforcing recently? That's our major conflict of facts and where you and us differ in our interpretations. We would rather the staff decide this officially than for us to rehash it here again.


There are inconsistencies as we've presented, those inconsistencies were acknowledged, and in-system conversations are understandable to us. We did not, as of last week, yet understand it applied to PRs because we were told our previous PR entries were fine, yet got warned and 10% banned for like-kind recently.


You don't need to keep debating it, we understood it on Thursday morning, which is why I posted my request for clarification. It's a minor point to you, not to us. In our opinion, the added enforcement stifles our 'art', and we find it difficult to fully describe the interaction in a meaningful way without dialog where appropriate. This is where our frustration stems, and we will hopefully get clarification before our next questionable post. In addition, I'll reiterate, we won't be posting anything questionable until the rules are ammended or it is decided definitively that how you described it is the only allowed method which is different than what we've been doing without warning for the first 15 months worth of our PR entries.


I ask you to PM me about this rather than further confuse this thread. We got clarification, and we are promised more eventually. We're not asking anything more than review and claity, which is not only our request but that of others as well, due to this recent ramp up on enforcement.


Thank you for your help and support on this matter, let's take it into private discussion if there is further confusion.

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.

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.