Tulpas motherfuckers

>>30246361
Tulpa threads are against the rules. Enjoy ban.

>>30246368
Are they? There's nothing in the rules about it.

>>30246375
It falls under "no roleplay/topics must be show-related" if I remember right. Also, any thread that contains the word "tulpa" gets silently set to autosage.

>>30246361
mine started out pretty similar to the pone i used for her foundation, but she gradually evolved her own personality. if you do plan to make a tupper then dont fight the changes or you just end up with a servitor.

>>30246368
>ban
newfag. the thread is put on autosage because the OP contains the word tulpa.

>>30246378
Huh, sorta makes sense. Well, it won't let me delete the thread so I'll take the ban if I need to.

>>30246385
Why did they opt for autosage when they could just flat-out count them as spam or make them a bannable offense?

>>30246387
the better question is why were they put in some non-official admin post as a "rule" to begin with.

>>30246361
Maybe these guys can help you: https://discord.gg/bAYuQ
Note: I just collect discords, I don't actually know what goes on in there.

>>30246394
Because all I can remember from the tulpa threads in '12 and '13 were some faggot spamming emo song lyrics. Now does that sound even remotely on-topic or even desirable to anyone here? No. So that's why they're autosaged. I still think it would have been easier to count the word "tulpa" as spam.

>>30246378
He's right.
>>30246361
To answer your question, OP, it depend on the tulpa and their creator.
Let's assume that you believe tulpas work.
The creator (or "host") of a tulpa works on every aspect of the tulpa's core personality, as much as they so desire (though they can also leave their core traits vague, so as to keep it a surprise in the end), but the tulpa never ends up exactly like the person they were necessarily made to be. At some point, they gain a semblance of sentience. Here, their own beliefs and preferences, shaped from how the host made them, start to affect who they are as individuals.
This is extremely commonplace, and even has a name in the tulpa communities: deviation.

TL;DR a tulpa is never exactly as they are idealized, but it depends a lot on how much the host wants the tulpa to deviate.

>>30246399
It's the sad truth. All the serious tulpafaggots left for tulpa.info and other sites quickly, after tulpas were rejected from a majority of boards here by our community, so the only thing we had left were the shitty emo roleplayers, which is why it's often considered "roleplaying" and therefore banned.

File: shove it right up your ass.png (511KB, 973x681px) Image search: [Google]

511KB, 973x681px

>>30246399
>go to catalog
>glance around
now please, tell me with a straight face that high quality was achieved by destroying one group of peoples ability to discuss something technically pone related here.
oh wait, it wasnt. fucking elitist prick.

>>30246410
High quality was achieved by removing the ability for undesirable topics to be discussed. It's only remotely pony-related, and at times can almost be as cancerous as roleplaying, if not even moreso.

>>30246410
Masturboop posting and Nyx posting are "technically pone related" as well.
Doesn't make it good for the board.
The people who headed the tulpa threads were mostly ehiny faggors circlejerking each other. I don't care if you think tulpas are legit or not, pretty much everyone agreed that those threads were shit on a shit sandwich.

>>30246422
This, they were nothing more than thinly-veiled roleplaying, and everyone rightfully hates roleplaying.

File: 56825782.gif (1MB, 288x198px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 288x198px

>>30246414
>High quality was achieved by removing the ability for undesirable topics to be discussed
indeed. im glad we certainly dont have any unrelated shit in the catalog that is never, ever pruned. im glad we dont have obvious bait threads that stay up regardless of how many people report it. im extremely glad spam threads are quickly pruned and the catalog is nothing but the highest quality content all thanks to tupper threads being banned by one admin half a decade ago.

>>30246422
go tell that to /hhh/ and any other /soc/ thread around.

>>30246428
Tell them what, that the remaining tulpafags back then were whiny roleplayers, or that nyxposting and Masturboop posting is shit?
One is obvious truth, the other is ancient history that isn't relevant to either of those, and also obvious truth

>>30246439
yes, shitposters are shit. what do they have to do with tuppers? youre applying a false equivalency logical fallacy to justify your position. fetishes arent pone related yet theyre everywhere because they involve ponies. roleplaying happens all the time, from regular thread prompts down to /mlh/ threads. seriously if you want to play that game i could argue that anything thats not directly tied to canon show discussion isnt pony related, but i wont because im not a petty hair splitting fuck.

also using "lots of people agreed' ever as an argument is shit. im sure you can find plenty of people that hate the fat fetish thread, or a variety of other threads. hell theres a whole group of anti general autists here. if their reasoning is shit then it doesnt matter how many of them feel a certain way about something.

OP, if you're still here, go to tulpa.info.
They are dedicated to this concept and, as such, have a great amount of information on the subject, with everything from advice to journal entries.
This was the home of tulpas once, but no longer.
Just so you know, the process takes time and serious dedication, so for your sake I hope you aren't just trying to make a fuckable waifu.

>>30246467
>>>/trash/9647772
theres also a tupper general on trash.

>>30246385
>the thread is put on autosage because the OP contains the word tulpa.
newfag. it's called anchoring, not 'autosage'

>>30246502
>it's called anchoring, not 'autosage'
newfag, it's called being autistic, not 'correcting someone else'

>>30246453
That's not actually a false equivalency though. It's a statement of fact. You even admitted it yourself. Just because something "is technically pone related", doesn't make it healthy for the board.
Content creators are healthy for this board, because they give us more to offer those who come here. The tulpa threads started off like this: they were good threads with unique content that had a connection to the fandom, which is permitted discussion material. Bronies wanted to make their ponies real to them, and people had ideas to explore. There are several articles you could Google about the correlation between the two, but that really isn't what I'm interested in here.
Eventually, the content creators left. Those that remained were roleplayers wanting others to tell them how good they were doing, and how special of a snowflake they were. THIS is when the mods put the issue to rest. They did it because there was no more content. Tulpa threads devolved from another source of content worth browsing to a poor-man's roleplaying forum, which is strictly against the rules. However, because of the nature of tulpas, they had a loophole: they could claim they weren't actually roleplaying, because of the topic of the thread. Since they became like this, the admins, who are not bound by "exact wording", decided to head off the problem, and put an autosage on the word. Now the roleplayers are gone, more or less.
They contributed nothing to the board, and offered a gateway for people to circumvent the rules.

Also, your argument is basically "you used a fallacy, therefore I'm right" and "not all the roleplayers are gone, so you're wrong". These are separate fallacies, the Appeal to Fallacy, and the Argument from Nirvana.
The autosage did what it was supposed to: it deterred an easy pass for roleplayers.
>fetishes aren't pone related
BUT, fetishes aren't against the rules. Roleplaying is, and tulpa threads were a threat to the security of that rule. Now they are not.

>>30246541
We get it, roleplaying is the cancer that killed the board and tulpa is thinly veiled roleplaying.

>>30246551
I made this in response to
>>30246453
The argument used here implied that the poster in fact did NOT get it, so I clarified, and simultaneously btfo'd the very obvious babby's first fallacy hunt.

>>30246551
This. I can't believe there are faggots who like roleplaying. It's literal shit.

>>30246541
>Just because something "is technically pone related", doesn't make it healthy for the board.
i never said such a thing. youre projecting. personally i feel anything that encourages people to create something is healthy for the board. if its something you dont like, then you can block the one tupper thread out of the 150 other threads.

youre also basing your justification to perpetuate a rule based on what a group did in the past. now this is me projecting, but you sound like you have a personal vendetta against this particular group.

>They contributed nothing to the board
they are fans, same as anyone else. they are interested in pones and topics related to them. you dont have to like the topic, but that doesnt make it any less relevant to them.
also you keep claiming its roleplaying. the only way you can come to that conclusion is if you personally dont believe tulpas exist. for everyone else its a simple discussion.

>BUT, fetishes aren't against the rules
so youre using lees defense. rule 15, therefore pones are bad. rules are infallible. luckily as was previously mentioned its not roleplaying, therefore not rulebreaking.

>>30246368
>>30246375
>>30246378
Tulpa threads were never banned, they just could never stay strictly to the topic of ponies and so ceased to become board related.

Around the time the scruffening happened, they had gone full furry/scaly/jackiechan. The mods themselves stated if they went back to ponies they'd be allowed here again.

Not that the trashfags would even give them the chance in the first place.