Daniel's Starter Guide to Creating a Tulpa

[ThunderClap]

I approve of this. It is a good guide for people following that Fede-ism method of 'constructive parroting.'

[Sands]

I still need to wonder, what sets this apart from Fede's guide? What is said here that he hasn't said?

 

Also, I think this is a bit of a misleading title. Day 1 tulpa. Well, if that's what you consider a day 1 tulpa, then every single tulpa is a day 1 tulpa. The people who don't parrot don't just have a talking one yet because they want them to do it on their own, but a parroted tulpa doesn't "talk" either if we require the tulpa to do it on their own. Or at least seemingly on their own. This might make people think that a tulpa is nothing but you parroting it, because you claim they will get a day 1 tulpa and that's what they will get, a parrot. Yes, it can and probably will become truly surprising and uncontrolled at some point, when it's what I will really call a tulpa, but you're claiming that they have a day 1 tulpa.

 

So either the parrot is a tulpa already and you're implying every tupper is more or less like that and confuse the newbies, or you're lying in the title and the people won't truly get a day 1 tulpa. Unless something weird happen because some people claim to be able to do instatulpas and well, they might.

 

I know you're around CyberD. Your method is sound, though I can't see where it becomes different from Fede's. I'm just worried about you implications, so how about you reply to my thoughts and such?

[waffles]

I approve for Guides. The base method may be the same as Fede's, but I think it differs enough in the way it's written. You know, like how all standard creation guides are all the same method as well but we still consider them different. So I think the way this guide explains the process is sufficient branching out to qualify as its own guide.

 

I do agree with Sands about the title though. It is a bit misleading if you ask me.

[CyberD]

Waffles makes the point more eloquently than I can. Creation guides are similar because they try to achieve the same goal. My guide tries to be concise. To get the reader to the method quickly and not bog them down with too much theory. It also doesn't bog them down with eyebo's....

Any further talk on Fede's guide would better be directed at his thread. No other creation guide thread has to deal with discussion of a banned member's guide as the core subject.

 

I edited the guide. I took out some ramble of repeated ideas.

 

I don't mind changing the title. Perhaps.

[Creation] Daniel's Concise Guide to Creating a Tulpa

 

Though I'm open to suggestions.

[GGMethos]

Disapproved. Title is misleading and although it is written well, I don't think I can approve of it as a guide. There is no such thing as a day 1 tulpa anyway.

[Sands]

I am all for that title change, CyberD. I think it would work much better and won't be misleading.

[Linkzelda]

Waffles makes the point more eloquently than I can. Creation guides are similar because they try to achieve the same goal.

 

Yeah, most creation guides would be considered conceptual guides if that's one way you want to put them as. To us, the rudiments are clear as day, but how you interpret those fundamentals to make a conceptual framework is how people can set any creation guide in the future apart from the others. That's something GAT will have to take into consideration despite being experienced in the fundamentals.

 

 

Also for a title change, maybe the current title [Creation] Daniel's Guide to a Day 1 Tulpa is confusing because people presume it's having a full-fledged tulpa. But clearly that's not the case, and maybe it could be something in relation to just what to consider from day 1, especially since you emphasized on how others should contemplate what they may be doing a few years from now with their tulpa.

 

 

Title suggestions:

 

[Creation] Daniel's Conceptual Guide to Creating a Tulpa

[Creation] Daniel's Conceptual Tulpa Creation Guide

[Creation] Daniel's Creation Guide on Tulpas

[Creation] Daniel's Creation Starter Guide to Tulpas

[Creation] Daniel's Starter Guide in Creating a Tulpa

 

 

Not trying to be too obvious, but I just made those alternatives since it's clear that people can use this guide with others. This one focuses more on creating a type of disposition on morale for readers to be reflective about the process, and to know that they should take the rudiments to make their own subjective melange of methods for creating a tulpa. Other than that, it's well-written, and if there's actually any grammar mistakes, it would be too subtle to notice, but of course, maybe other GAT members may be able to refute that.

[Averian]

If there is a title change I will approve, if not, I disapprove.

[CyberD]

Simple title fixes all the complaints.

 

Once again I have edited the guide just a little. Nothing more than rewording a couple of sentences.

[Sands]

I can't say I remember the first version of the guide and what was changed, but when the title changed, the message it gives fits the actual guide as it is now without false advertising. Approved for guides.