Why Does Only One Headmate Engage In A Conversation?

[Ranger]

I asked this in LOTPW, here is that conversation:

 

---

 

11 hours ago, Ranger said:

Sort of going off of the topic of separation, I realize that Gray is talking to people more and this isn't the first time Gray and I both posted one right after the other. It reminds me how rare it is to have more than one headmate participate in a conversation.

 

The more I think about it, the more weird that is. I wonder if at some point having multiple headmates engage in the same conversation was deemed cringe and as an unwritten rule most systems only have one headmate talking at any given time. I think this is different from in-system spewed out loud, at least with our system taking over Marissa's roleplay server allowing in-system communication doesn't seem to guarantee multiple headmates engaging in a conversation. 

 

11 hours ago, IceCreeper909 said:

I mean, public in-system conversations are literally frowned upon in the rules. I know what happens for us is we'll talk amongst ourselves if we all have something to say and we type a response that is vaguely indictive of that. Although, systems posting multiple system-mate's responses to a post in the same post is common, and that's what we often do. 

 

11 hours ago, Ranger said:

I guess I'm trying to say I don't think the no in-system rule isn't actually related. While it can discourage my hedmates from talking out loud, I feel like I have to poke my headmates to get them to reply.

 

Actually, maybe that's it, it's just laziness. Why have all of your headmates participate when one can do good enough? Plus, as Gray was thinking to me, our responses may end up being similar enough there's no point in having the other take the time to write out their response.

 

10 hours ago, Luminesce said:

11 hours ago, Ranger said:

The more I think about it, the more weird that is. I wonder if at some point having multiple headmates engage in the same conversation was deemed cringe and as an unwritten rule most systems only have one headmate talking at any given time. 

 

Not at all, it's perfectly fine for anyone in a system to reply to something. In-system conversation is replying to your own systemmate, and I would say even then it's only when there's at least three connected messages, like "Host says something -> Headmate responds -> Host responds to them"

 

Edit: Oh, didn't see the "was". By the time anyone was actually doing that, it was already normalized I think. Before that, it was rare enough for tulpas to talk let alone multiple at once

 

10 hours ago, Glaurung26 said:

We usually go with the formula of I respond, then Jaina memes on or shit-posts me sometimes.

 

I usually try to say something productive. Usually. 😊

 

9 hours ago, Slipper said:

   That's a thing we do as well. Often times what we're going to say is similar enough to each other to not need a second response, or we discuss what we're going to say while we're writing the first post. Also that rule about replying to systemmates is pretty ingrained in our head, haha. 

 

Edited July 24, 2022 by Ranger

[Glaurung26]

It feels like a balancing act. Sometimes the intra-system banter can be useful or funny, sometimes illustrating a point. Other times it's too self-indulgent and better to speak one at a time directly to the other systems. To me the important part is the intent of the intra-system convo. Not allowing or forbidding it.

 

For example a couple are visiting friends and one partner refuses to talk to anyone but their spouse. That's not cool. If you don't like them then don't go visit them. Or the couple wastes everyone's time by constantly discussing things that are only for them, or makes everyone uncomfortable by being too sappy/horny or bickering or fighting constantly. It's about courtesy to your friends and company. 

 

I want multiple system mates to feel safe enough to speak up so long as they are courteous about engaging in the conversation. 

[TurboSimmie]

I actually think this is where tulpa culture itself rubs up against forum etiquette. Despite tulpas being separate "people" in the way that we understand identity, each system is still considered as one person on the internet. And there's negative associations with alt accounts and stuff like that. Of course, here it's not considered unusual for different tulpas to have their own account. Still, I think that attitude affects us to a degree. Also, related to that, I think there is a feeling that a lot of people who have public conversations with their headmates are seen as roleplaying. And I won't deny that for some people it probably is roleplaying, but I would not cast aspersions on anyone.

 

I've noticed that a lot of times a system will seem to nominate a "spokesperson" to talk on behalf of the whole system to sidestep this "cringe" problem, or because it's just easier. Most of the time it is the host who is the spokesperson, but many times it is (one of) the tulpa(s), like me for instance! 😊 Sometimes a system will pick a different systemmate to be the spokesperson based on who is better suited to the specific conversation. Sometimes the switched-in headmate is the spokesperson by default (like Lumi's system). But I think there is nothing at all wrong with two or more different headmates from the same system responding to something if they have a different perspective and thoughts about it! I like reading both Cat and Ranger's responses to things, for instance. And maybe I am in the minority here but I actually find a certain degree of inner-system conversation to be charming; Darron and Jaina's back-and-forth always puts a smile on my face for instance 😁.

[Glaurung26]

Thanks 😄. I've thought about making a separate profile for Jaina a few times but the same post dynamic has mostly been working. I'll revisit it later.

[Slipper]

9 hours ago, TurboSimmie said:

 Also, related to that, I think there is a feeling that a lot of people who have public conversations with their headmates are seen as roleplaying. 

 

   This. I'm hesitant to show our discussions publicly because of this. It feels weird to "respond to myself" even if I'm just writing down what Mords has said, even if it's contained in the same post.

 

   Often Mordecai will talk about how he wants to reply to things on here, or have his own social media, but often he decides against it because of shyness or a lack of need. 

[Ranger]

16 hours ago, Glaurung26 said:

For example a couple are visiting friends and one partner refuses to talk to anyone but their spouse. That's not cool. If you don't like them then don't go visit them. Or the couple wastes everyone's time by constantly discussing things that are only for them, or makes everyone uncomfortable by being too sappy/horny or bickering or fighting constantly. It's about courtesy to your friends and company. 

 

This is the first time I heard this metaphor, I think it's really interesting and nails in-system dynamics perfectly.

 

10 hours ago, TurboSimmie said:

Also, related to that, I think there is a feeling that a lot of people who have public conversations with their headmates are seen as roleplaying. And I won't deny that for some people it probably is roleplaying, but I would not cast aspersions on anyone.

 

I think that's what I was trying to point to but couldn't identify earlier.

 

The forum has a deep history of people being insecure about being called out for roleplaying and in the tulpa community you can still see this everywhere. I think this old and inherently current culture still affects us. Nobody wants to be the roleplayer or now known as "fake claimed". 

 

I wouldn't mind ellaborating on why this is, but I may have already written that post somewhere. I don't feel like grabbing it right now, I'm tired.

 

At the very least, I think the "cringe" I'm thinking of is it can look like we're just faking/roleplaying when multiple headmates talk to each other. I think multiple headmates engaging in a conversation can give that vibe even though I personally believe in-system is worse.