Purlox

RE: [split] New Community Layout Discussion - From #2856

Recommended Posts

Posts here are permanent. Even if you are on a different timezone, you will be able to view all the posts that someone has made. I don't really see your point here.

 

That's why 'knowledgeable' is another criterion. It's fairly obvious that one wouldn't be picked as a 'professor' if they're spreading misinformation.

 

I'd put my faith in administration making the right choice, as long as their choices were scrutinised by the community. Once a few are established, any members who have been missed could be nominated by the professors, given that it is likely that between them they will have knowledge of all suitable members.

 

In other words, you want applications. For mentorship, that's not really necessary, given that the standard for being a mentor would likely not be all that high, and thus not really requiring it. For professorship, it's a little more suited, I suppose. Still, I think it would be a bit unnecessary. Perhaps you could nominate yourself, but I think that whoever approves or disapproves your professorship would be better off looking themself at your suitability. In other words, writing a full application would be unnecessary, unless there were special circumstances, because it should still be evident whether or not you are suitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time zones do effect the forums. I can say I have met, read posts by or talked with about 100 different members. There are 2000 on this site. Ruling out say 300 who are inactive, 200-400 who force more than they post and about the same again who post in different sections to me, that's about 1/5th of the total community I have met. Which means the 4/5ths left of haven't met me, wouldn't know who I was or what I was like. They would be able to tell I have a progress log and am active mostly in the general discussion, but I don't see how that would aid them in their decision making for a vote. Unless you expect everyone who votes to research the candidates?

 

Knowledgeable to one person is misinformed to another. This is most apparent with extremely opinionated people such as Fede-lasse. I hate to single him out again but he is a perfect example. He appears to know a lot about what he talks about and he has 3 tulpae- but you, having actually had the pleasure of talking to him wouldn't recommend him to anyone, would you? Where as someone else might find his methods useful, and would disagree with you.

 

I don't think the administration should have any say who can and who can't teach new members. I say put each candidate up in their own section with a thread outlining what they will do. That way if no members think they sound good, they won't have anyone to teach. Good members will sound good and will get members following them.

 

It'll be like twitter except far less retarded.

 

Also I don't want applications from mentors. Just like progress log, I say anyone is free is put themselves forward. It's up to the people they are trying to impress whether or not they will be successful. That cuts out the middle man of having to sift through each mentor application as they come in, and it's fairer to those people who wouldn't be given a chance as a mentor based on their stats. (Someone who joined a month ago, with very few posts, not well known but he already has 3 tulpae and knows how he did it, for example).

 

I don't see why there has to be a difference between a "mentor" and a "professor". How and why is one person deemed good enough to teach, yet not good enough to be above a certain level? To me, you either can or you can't help newbies. Some people would be better than others at it, but that's subjective and you can't/shouldn't label people as being better.

However, being a mentor for a long time and/or having the most people listening to you could be grounds to have a "rank up". It would make sense that the best performing mentor get some recognition, but then again, would this not just create a competition to see who can get the most followers? There would be recruitment drives and advertising everywhere.

 

If I were to put myself forward, I would go make a thread (if it happened as I suggest) about myself, saying I have two tuppers, the oldest is 8 months old, 3 months talking, I've been here since pretty much the beginning, I have over 800 posts, my own progress log, I'm active pretty much everyday and I'm open to people of all skill levels.

 

I would prefer it if I didn't have to send that post off to some "team" of admins and mods to determine amoung themselves whether they liked me or not and whether it should go through. It may be the case that they just look at my figures and deem me worthy. But if you just let me post it straight away, the people who I want to impress either will or won't follow me, regardless of whether the team is corrupt and would silence me, or not.


frt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would expect a voter to inform themself. If they care to vote then they should care to vote correctly. Of course, many likely wouldn't.

You've made a mistake here though; how many suitable members have you met or read posts by? If you have never encountered a member then they are much was likely to be suited to the post of 'professor' anyway.

 

Anyone in a position to seriously influence the process of picking the upper tiers would likely be informed as to what 'informed' was. Even of the initial 'professors' were decided by a vote, I'd still expect some screening from administration. After that, promotion would be instigated and checked by 'professors' who would likely know about people like Fede. Taking the example of Fede, he would be unlikely to last long in the post anyway. This is why I recommend the option of flagging a 'professor' for review.

 

That's essentially ignoring the point of this suggestion; that the ranks would be official. Regardless of following, one attaining the rank of 'professor' must be formally selected.

 

The role of a mentor is to give advice and provide support on an individual level. The role of a professor would be to teach and inform on a larger scale. The two are very different.

 

I don't like this whole thing about 'followers'. You're saying that the most popular members are necessarily the best. Taking the Fede example again, suffice to say that he has - probably - the largest and most dedicated following. That doesn't mean he's the best candidate.

 

You'd post information that someone can mostly glean from a quick look at your profile, then.

 

Again, you'd rather allocate rank based on following? I'd trust administration and a team of professors to decide who is optimal far more than I'd trust the one who would receive their tuition - especially since the whole point of the tuition is that the one receiving it is likely relatively new and uninformed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" If you have never encountered a member then they are much was likely to be suited to the post of 'professor' anyway."

Why is this?

 

I believe there is no difference between being in the "upper tiers" and informed, and being informed. I don't see how, just because you set up a forum or were deemed fit to be a mod makes your opinion on whether or not someone else is able to teach well more valid than someone elses. How does your opinion of others matters more, than say the people who everyone is trying to impress?

 

I think you can avoid having to do any screening by just letting anyone put themselves forward. I would not trust any professors as far as I could throw them. They are most likely going to be the friends of the "upper tier" or whose opinions are loud and happen to agree with the "upper tier". I would not want those people then having the power to decide who can and can't teach.

 

No one should have this power.

 

"You're saying that the most popular members are necessarily the best."

You misunderstand me. I'm saying the most popular members would get the most people following them. That of course also depends on whether or not they are actually up to the task. If they are not, they will be ignored by the community and they will fail as a mentor or professor naturally.

No interference by the "upper tier" at all.

 

I think I should rephrase how I think this should be done.

There would be a board or section for people to suggest themselves as mentors, by your definition. People can come and view and read about that mentor (or individual for now). If they deem them fit, they can follow them, or learn under them, or whatever. This isn't a subscription service, of course. Members don't have to pay anything for this, so naturally there are no strings attached. They can try a new mentor if they so wish at any time, or follow more than one.

So by a kind of natural selection, after a few weeks or a month, those who the people don't think are worthwhile mentors will have no followers. Those mentors were effectively screened out with no effort on the administrations part. Those mentors that do have followers will have them for as long as they stay. I would imagine after a few months there will be a clear cut few mentors who are striving.

Then I suppose (this is unnecessary in my eyes, but) once a mentor has reached a certain number of followers who have reported some success, they can gain the rank of professor. They would get a shiny badge or whatever to signify this.

 

There would be no need for the administration team to sift through all mentor applications and then put up the few who they think are worthy and capable of teaching the members who want schooling. I would in fact be disgusted by this as it's effectively some people who are good enough to be mods (which is more or less an entirely different thing) telling me who is good enough and who isn't good enough to mentor me. It is also effectively saying "No, you are not allowed to mentor new members because...[you shitpost] [you are not active enough] [your tulpa isn't finished]" which is down to opinion and is subjective.

 

I would be quite angry if I was denied my application because someone thinks my tulpa isn't quite done or they think my posts are shitty (they could very well be but it is still down to opinion).

 

To bypass that swampy area of whose opinions matter, we should just let everyone apply and let the people decide who they want. There will be bad people applying at the beginning, and if they are truly bad they won't get anywhere. Some bad people will get followers, but quite frankly it's none of our concern. If those members then realise they picked a terrible mentor then they can always switch, only harm done was wasted time.

 

Another thought would be to have a "total followers with me" counter in that mentors thread post. Maybe also a "total tulpae created" counter too.

 

How does this sit with you?

[God I'm a long-winded bastard]


frt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should clarify here that I am using the term 'upper tiers' to refer to the positions of 'professor' and 'elite', not moderator and admin. I think you should reconsider some of what I said in this light. Apologies for any misunderstandings that arise as a result of this.

 

It is likely that a suitable member would be a more visible one, though not the other way around.

 

-

 

People could put themselves forward, but without any approval, you're deconstructing the system. You couldn't have official ranks without someone's - be it community vote, upper tier vote, whatever - approval. The office is what we're discussing here; 'Site Suggestion' would not be apt otherwise.

 

But the whole point is that the community at large should follow those suitable for following, not those who are popular. They are not the same thing. Take Fede, again. He is popular, and would have a large following. Does that mean that he is suitable for teaching at large? I'm not so sure.

 

I'm not so sure about your system. The whole point of a mentor is to provide personal, one-on-one advice to someone making a tulpa, isn't it? That's what I've understood at least. To have more than one mentee per mentor, and vice versa, demeans this. It would interfere with the personal level that would make the role of a mentor important. And then promotion to professor is done by successful followers. This could easily fall to chance rather than the mentor's quality; moreover being a good mentor is not necessarily indicative of being a good professor.

 

Administration isn't moderation. Administration here would be Pleeb and Amadeus. Mentors needn't be screened, only professors, and even then only initially. I think that once the starting professors were chosen by whatever means, the current professors would pick new ones, and could be put under review by the community or administration.

 

"'total tulpae created' counter": How is that even relevant?

 

In conclusion, you're suggesting that there be no official ranks - they couldn't exist without some kind of official review. You're also suggesting that members should actively follow and be followed by others, and their worth be judged by popularity - like Twitter. In that case, why don't you just say that, rather than make it unclear? Anyway, I disagree strongly with this. It would promote members that are popular rather than that are valuable, and moreover would select professors from an unrelated body. It's also not necessary; following members wouldn't necessarily ensure that they receive mentoring or tuition. Why set up this kind of system at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, let's see..

 

I see now what you meant by upper tiers, yet it still doesn't sit with me.

It's still someone choosing who can and can't teach. I think this should be left up to the individual.

 

"People could put themselves forward, but without any approval, you're deconstructing the system. You couldn't have official ranks without someone's - be it community vote, upper tier vote, whatever - approval."

 

We can have official ranks, awarded by the administration team or whoever, when a certain number of [whatever] has been achieved. The Total tulpae created counter would be a number of tulpae that the mentor has helped his followers make. I was under the impression a mentor was allowed to instruct more than one person at a time. I think there would be a poor mentor:mentored ratio if it was 1:1, especially if your filtering system was implemented. The counter would be there so people can visit the thread and see that this mentor can be credited in the creation of X number of tulpae, or X number of satisfied, loyal members, or what have you. This was just a rough idea I had at the end, mind.

 

Those who are suitable to follow is down to opinion and statistics/common knowledge. Yes, you can say, for instance Fede would be a terrible mentor because

and
, but that's just you. To someone else that makes him a good mentor.

I believe who can and can't put themselves forward to mentor people shouldn't be restricted by anyone. Not the admin team, not the mod team. If someone is a given a fair chance, and they prove themselves to be a good mentor, then they are a good mentor. Nothing to do with popularity. They just happen to become popular in the process, as with anything done well for people.

 

I don't think the 1 on 1 personal thing you talked about is that necessary. Of course, imo 1:7 say would be too impersonal, but those 7 might not mind sharing, or that mentor might not mind. It's all down to the people and what they want. I don't understand why you keep trying to apply rules and regulations from the start to keep things nice and orderly when it can and probably will down the line obstruct the system. If you limit it to 1:1, then down the line someone is going to be without a mentor, when at least 1 mentor will be more than capable/happy to take on a second person. It's not that hard, mentoring. It's the understanding what is being taught that's hard.

 

I don't see why you need to rank up now that you described it that way. A mentor is a good mentor. Why they need a new title is beyond me. If they are good, then the people they teach will attest to that. Word of mouth (or quotes from happy followers in their threads, going by my idea) will help prove that they are a good mentor.

 

However, having professors picking new professors I think /could/ work. They use the best and most effective methods to teach, so they would have the right experience in order to tell who can teach well. Although this could stifle new methods of teaching by being seen as too different and thus worthless. Someone with a better way of teaching would never become a professor because he doesn't do it the same way the others did, which would be unfair, if/when that happens.

 

I would say there should be official ranks, but I'm against the power you think they should grant.

I don't want this to end up like twitter (I hate that site). I'm merely saying "followers" as another word for pupils or members or people who will be mentored. As I said before, I don't think it should be 1:1. The mentor should be able to pick how many people to take on. Those people can then get mentored. I'm not saying the mentors should post updates or make an actual twitter account to deliver teachings, (they can if they want), it's just the likeness of "one person tells those who signed up to listen about what they want to hear" is similar to twitter. It's coincidental.

 

"You're also suggesting that members should actively follow and be followed by others, and their worth be judged by popularity"

This is a misinterpretation. Mentors should advertise themselves in their one thread. People will see them and perhaps agree to getting mentored by them, based on how they described how they will teach. Those members can then stay or leave based on how the mentor actually teaches. Simple as that. The mentors with the most people, or the most members over time who say they are good, will obviously be doing something right. Your concern about a mentor being judged on how many followers he has is legitimate, but missing something- if that mentor only wants to take on, say, at most 3 people, and someone else is willing to take on more than 5, then surely the second mentor is more worthy of becoming a professor? They could teach equally well, but if you are not prepared to teach on more than a 1:1 basis, then you have no place becoming a professor.

"I'm so good at mentoring I can only take on one person at a time for the duration of their tulpa's creation"

 

Popularity comes with value. You can't become a popular mentor without being good at it. You can be a popular member, but if you suck at mentoring, you can't become a popular mentor. I don't think that's an issue of mentors becoming professors because they are a popular member.

 

Maybe you now outline how you would have this handled? In the one post, simplified?


frt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll outline what I would suggest.

 


Mentors:

You can be a mentor if you want, no restrictions. Someone looking for a mentor would be randomly allotted one. If they didn't like it, then they could opt to get another one instead, and both people would return to their respective queues. In terms of enforcement, there would be a system register somewhere that stores who's paired with who, but communication between the two would likely consist of PMs or emails. The allocation is just for convenience, but would likely not allow for more than one or two mentees per mentor, and vice versa.


 

Actually, I'm a little confused here. What do we mean by 'teaching'? What exactly would these 'professors' be doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it so far, except the part about mentors not allowed to have more than one or two mentees. Why not? I think if a mentor wouldn't mind, and each mentee agrees, another mentee should be allowed to join. If one mentee finds that his mentor is to divided then action should be taken of course, but I see no other reason not to allow this.

This will become an issue further down the line. I can guarantee you that there will be at least one extra mentee to mentors.

 

When I say teaching, I mean giving advice, offering help, explaining terms, offering support and generally... mentoring.

Professors was your idea. I thought you meant they would be just like mentors except they would get to choose who else got to become a professor... for no real reason I can see. Or they get to choose who can become a mentor in the first place, which is inherently wrong in my eyes. That's almost as bad as choosing who can and can't enter this site.


frt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Actually, I'm a little confused here. What do we mean by 'teaching'? What exactly would these 'professors' be doing?

 

I think professors will be paving the way to new areas of tulpae discovery, and be actively be obtaining new knowlege of tulpae.

 

as for "teaching" i think guides would be part of it (for teaching the masses). but i think it also means just being very knowledgeable on tulpae in general at a very personal level; if i was a professor for example i would be able to teach you and/or your tulpa how to do things, in a way that suits you best; knowing how it all works and not simply restating known facts/ideas.

 

this is my theory on what a professor would be.

 

 

 

I see that you and Avalanche are having a pretty fierce discussion, i hope you guys come to a agreement soon


pix: Link

Diary: http://ponystasha.tumblr.com

Koomer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think professors will be paving the way to new areas of tulpae discovery, and be actively be obtaining new knowlege of tulpae.

 

as for "teaching" i think guides would be part of it (for teaching the masses). but i think it also means just being very knowledgeable on tulpae in general at a very personal level; if i was a professor for example i would be able to teach you and/or your tulpa how to do things, in a way that suits you best; knowing how it all works and not simply restating known facts/ideas.

 

this is my theory on what a professor would be.

 

So essentially a mentor. Or even a regular member, how you described it in that first sentence.


frt

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.