Server Rules

These rules are built on the foundation of Pragmatic Tulpamancers – a public server that is first for tulpamancers, pragmatic about the practice, tabooless, respectful, and transparent. Each pillar is preserved and given concrete form below, and the rules that follow are divided into two kinds that reflect what this server is: a social space where people coexist, and a pedagogical project that teaches a specific, battle-tested approach.

Public – The server remains open. Public invites are available and anyone can join.

First for tulpamancers – This is a place where people with tulpas interact, and tulpamancy is the primary focus. The rules protect this focus without narrowing the community to only one kind of practitioner.

Pragmatic about tulpamancy – We teach what has proven sound in practice, grounded in sustained interaction and genuine relationship, not in metaphysical tradition or entity-based dogma. We do not demand belief; we demonstrate results. This makes the server a pedagogical project: it teaches a specific framework because that framework has proven most sound. You do not have to adopt it to participate, but you should not undermine it in teaching contexts.

Tabooless – No topic is off-limits for examination. This includes political topics that liberal spaces suppress through unwritten rules, ritual condemnation, or coerced disavowal. You can call colonial violence what it is, discuss the material realities of actually existing socialist states without red-scare theater or uncritical support, and examine the nuances of complex conflicts without being dogpiled. The boundary is not “controversial opinion” – it is conduct. Hostility and dehumanization are actionable; disagreement and analysis are not. This makes the server a social space: it must be possible to argue fiercely without being harmed.

Respectful – We respect our users and require them to respect each other. Unprovoked hostility is against the rules. This includes sharing genuinely hateful opinions about other people. Respect is the material condition without which either discourse or pedagogy can happen.

Transparent – Reasons for bans and warnings are public where possible. Moderation happens in public channels when it does not endanger participants. Rules are the basis; judgment is the application.

Part A: Conduct Baseline

These rules apply to everyone, regardless of tulpamancy framework, background, or beliefs.

1. Be 18+

The server is open to adults only.

Discord’s architecture makes DM-based exploitation difficult to detect and prevent. Meanwhile, the tulpamancy community has a history of weaponizing safety concerns – framing people as endangering minors is a known tactic for destroying reputations. Given these conditions, the 18+ boundary is a necessary structural defense. We are not an exception here – most tulpamancy servers on Discord opt for 18+ rule.

Furthermore, many people in the community objected to removing this rule when we discussed it last time, for a variety of reasons.

2. No structural oppression

Racism, chauvinism, fundamentalism, homophobia, transphobia, and similar systems of group-based contempt are not permitted. These are not “opinions” – they are material forces that degrade the possibility of genuine community. This applies to conduct within the server; we do not police users’ private beliefs. However, if you bring contempt into this space, you will be removed.

We encourage people to discuss politics in good faith and strongly discourage anti-political attitude – whether that means defending the status quo to prevent “extremism,” treating every issue as an isolated identity question, or ridiculing genuine engagement.

We encourage critical analysis of anything, but we expect basic human decency.

We do not punish ignorance. Not knowing the history of a conflict is not a violation – choosing to learn is encouraged. We act when someone, confronted with evidence of atrocities, chooses to defend the perpetrators. Specifically, we remove people for defending apartheid, ethnic cleansing, or imperialism (domination of weaker countries, unilateral sanctions, coups, wars of aggression).

3. No abuse

Proven abusers are not welcome. Evidence will be evaluated concretely – we recognize that “hard evidence” is not equally available to everyone, and moderators will consider patterns, corroboration, and context, not only screenshots. Both sides will be heard, but we do not treat all testimony as equally credible when power imbalances are present.

No narcissism

The tulpa community tolerates abusive interpersonal conduct, especially from people in positions of social power. This document uses narcissism to name the cluster of interlocking tactics – gaslighting, love-bombing interchanged with degradation, narrative control, deflection, guilt manipulation, false accusations – that reinforce each other as a system of interpersonal domination. This is not about a medical diagnosis or Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Whether someone has NPD is irrelevant; we judge the tactics, not the person.

These tactics do not emerge in isolation. They are produced by specific material conditions: the anonymity of early forums, the lack of accountability in fragmented Discord servers, the intense emotional intimacy of the practice combined with social isolation, traumatized people (often migrating from traumagenic plurality circles) who weaponize their genuine abuse against their own victims, and the importation of 4chan’s culture where cruelty is performed as irony and dominance is the only metric of status.

These patterns are especially destructive in tulpamancy spaces because the practice itself involves vulnerability, internal experience that cannot be externally verified, and intense emotional intimacy. Abusers exploit this terrain. We do not excuse it because the abuser is charismatic, historically important, having connections or skilled at making their targets look unstable.

No harassment

Do not target other users with sustained hostility. Do not conduct social campaigns against other users. If you have a genuine grievance, bring it to moderators rather than organizing collective pressure.

No fabrication

Do not invent claims about other users. This targets the material act of fabrication, not the ideal judgment of whether a narrative is “false.” Moderators are not omniscient arbiters of truth; they can judge whether someone is knowingly spreading invented claims.

Fabrication is a distinct harm even when it occurs outside a systematic abuse pattern. A single lie can damage someone’s standing. But it is also the building block of the larger patterns described above: narrative painting over time is simply fabrication distributed across moments.

4. No bad-faith disruption

Good-faith disagreement with the pragmatic framework is welcome and answered. Bad-faith disruption is not. The distinction is behavioral, not ideological. Someone who disagrees sincerely behaves differently from someone who performs disagreement as a weapon.

Common forms of bad-faith disruption include sealioning¹, concern trolling², “just asking questions”³, repeating debunked claims.

What distinguishes bad faith is the asymmetry of effort: the disruptor demands infinite labor from the community while offering none in return, and no amount of answering ever satisfies.

5. Use the space as intended

• Use channels according to their descriptions.
• For NSFW content, use designated channels. React in #reaction-roles to access them.
• Communicate understandably. Excessive monolingual non-English conversation fragments the community; extended in-system talk isn’t interactive for others.

6. Follow platform obligations

We are obligated to enforce Discord’s Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. Server staff must act on violations.

Be careful when discussing your tulpa’s age. Do not state it in first person, as automated moderation systems may misinterpret this and issue bans.

Part B: Pedagogical Commitment

These rules define what this server teaches and how it teaches. They are not “opinions” held equally alongside others – they are the positive content of this community.

7. We teach pragmatic tulpamancy

Our official guide is at https://tulpa.guide. The framework is:

• Practice over belief – interaction builds the relationship; holding correct ontological beliefs is not required.
• Effortful engagement is valid – there is no “parroting.” Deliberate construction of responses is the foundation of the practice.
• Emergence over creation – qualities develop gradually through accumulated interaction. There is no moment a character “becomes” a tulpa.
• Genuineness over autonomy – a tulpa’s value comes from the relationship being lived, not from proving independence.
• Association over dissociation – we build connections, not split the mind. Possession as a technique is not taught.
• You can stop – pausing or ending the practice is not murder or abandonment. The relationship simply withers.

This framework is taught here because it has proven most sound in practice. You are free to discuss other frameworks. But in teaching contexts – especially when advising newcomers – pragmatic explanations take precedence.

8. Demystify, don’t mystify

We teach people how to build a genuine relationship with an inner character, starting from imagination and sustained interaction. We do not teach occult entity-summoning, metaphysical soul-fragmentation, or other frameworks that treat tulpas as independently existing beings.

Other resources may be linked, but do not link to material that contradicts the pragmatic framework for the purpose of teaching that contradictory framework – especially to newcomers who cannot yet evaluate the claims.

9. Respect newbies materially

New practitioners arrive with varying levels of preparation, energy, and emotional stability. Do not shame them for:

• Not knowing jargon
• Needing effortful engagement
• Asking questions that seem obvious
• Holding traditional beliefs they haven’t yet examined

It is fine to link the guide when someone clearly hasn’t read it. It is not fine to mock them for needing it. The goal is education, not gatekeeping.

10. Framework critique, not people critique

Critique traditional or entity-based frameworks vigorously. Show where they produce anxiety, guilt, or harm. Do not moralize at the people who hold them. Most arrived in good faith under conditions that made those frameworks feel natural. Our disagreement is with the system, not with the people living under it.

Part C: Moderation Principles

How these rules are applied.

Transparency

Reasons for bans and warnings are public where possible. Moderation happens in public channels when it does not endanger participants. Rules are the basis; judgment is the application.

Material context matters

Moderators evaluate the concrete situation: who has power, who is vulnerable, what the history is, what material conditions produced the conduct. Identical acts can have different meanings depending on context. The rules are not a code to be executed mechanically.

Enforcement is not hostility

Moderation corrects conduct; it does not annihilate the person. A user who breaks a rule is not an enemy. Moderators will:

• Presume good faith until the interaction proves otherwise, even when issuing warnings or bans.
• Give the user a chance to explain their perspective before finalizing punitive action, time and safety permitting.
• Remain respectful in tone when enforcing rules; hostility from those with power is an abuse of that power.
• Leave the door open for return where appropriate. Permanent bans are a last resort, not a default, and appeals are taken seriously.
• Respect the proportionality of burden. Accusations are easier to make than to defend against. Moderation will not impose evidentiary standards that require users to perform weeks of labor to disprove a casual claim. The moderation team shares the burden of establishing facts; it is not the accused user’s job to produce an exhaustive defense against every interpretation.

Moderators are subject to the same conduct rules as everyone else. Fabricated reports, weaponized moderation tools, and manufactured crises are violations of the same rules they enforce. A moderator who engages in these acts has abused their position and will be removed from it.

This principle recognizes that contradictions among users and moderators are often non-antagonistic – they are disagreements within a shared community, not warfare between enemies. But when a moderator exploits the asymmetry of power rather than correcting it, the contradiction becomes antagonistic in precisely the same way as a user’s bad-faith attack.

When the door closes

Presuming good faith does not mean tolerating abuse indefinitely. The door closes when a user demonstrates, through a clear pattern of conduct, that they are not participating in a shared space but attacking it. This includes:

• Immediate, unprovoked hostility – entering the server with slurs, threats, or dehumanization directed at users or groups.
• Sustained bad faith – refusing to engage with corrections, continuing the same harmful behavior after being warned, or treating every moderation interaction as an opportunity to escalate.
• Targeting vulnerable users – singling out newcomers, minorities, or specific individuals for harassment, especially when power imbalances exist.
• Brigading or coordinated disruption – acting as part of an external campaign to damage the community or its members.
• Safety threats – credible threats of violence, doxxing, or other material harm to users or the server.

In these cases, the contradiction has become antagonistic. Moderators may remove the user without extended dialogue. The principle of openness applies to those who are willing to coexist; it is not a suicide pact for the community.

Even here, the tone of enforcement remains professional, not gleeful. A permanent ban is a judgment that further engagement is futile or harmful, not a celebration of victory.

Judging faith

Moderators distinguish good-faith disagreement from bad-faith disruption using the behavioral criteria defined in Rule 4. The distinction is not ideological – someone who disagrees sincerely behaves differently from someone who performs disagreement as a weapon.

Tulpamancy is not an alibi

“My tulpa said it” or “my tulpa did it” does not exempt a user from conduct rules. The tulpa is a cultivated perspective within your mind. You are responsible for what your mind produces in this space.

Selecting moderators

How moderators are chosen.

The material condition of the platform

Discord structurally concentrates absolute power in the server owner. The owner cannot be removed, overridden, or recalled by any internal process. Moderator roles, consultation procedures, and appeals are delegated authorities that the owner can modify or revoke unilaterally. This is not a choice; it is the platform’s design. Any governance structure that pretends otherwise is idealism – treating rules as if they could transform feudal property relations into democratic sovereignty.

The superstructure of this server has relative autonomy. The owner can choose to bind themselves, to delegate, to consult. But the arrow of determination runs from the base: ultimate power rests where Discord places it, and no rule can change that.

Competence and its consequences

Moderators are identified by existing staff based on demonstrated behavioral competence. Competence and likability are not opposites: a competent mod, over time, earns the trust of users who respect the rules. The absence of sustained grievances from good-faith members is a natural consequence of doing the job well.

But this satisfaction is a product of competence, not its measure. The relevant competencies are defined throughout this document:

• Can the candidate read material context and evaluate power imbalances (Part C)?
• Can they distinguish good-faith disagreement from the bad-faith tactics defined in Rule 4?
• Can they enforce Rule 3 without being manipulated by narcissistic patterns – love-bombing, guilt manipulation, narrative painting?
• Can they issue warnings proportionally, respect appeals, and share the burden of proof (“Enforcement is not hostility”)?
• Do they understand the pragmatic framework well enough to teach it without dogmatism (Part B)?

These capacities are observed in ordinary server interaction over time. They are not claimed in an application, and they are not measured by a vote.

The distinction that matters: a mod who has earned trust through consistent, fair enforcement will naturally generate satisfaction among rule-respecting users. A mod who is simply charming, agreeable, or aligned with the right social clique may generate applause without generating justice. Staff evaluate the former, not the latter.

Moderation is not ideological recruitment

Moderators do not need to share the document’s political analysis to enforce its conduct rules. Rule 2 prohibits specific conduct – advocating for apartheid, apologizing for empire – not holding non-socialist political beliefs. A mod who personally disagrees with the framework’s Marxist foundations can still enforce Rule 3 with precision, and a mod who enthusiastically agrees with every line of the philosophy essay can still abuse their power.

What matters is whether the mod can apply the rules consistently regardless of who is involved, and recognize that the server’s political commitments are enforced as conduct boundaries, not as loyalty tests.

Moderation is not a vanguard party. Mods are not cadres tasked with raising consciousness or steering the community toward correct political alignment. Their job is to keep the space functional so that discourse and pedagogy can happen. Nothing more.

Community input is consultation, not ratification

Before a candidate is appointed, staff publicly announces that they are being considered and invites community input. This input is evaluated materially: does it reflect genuine patterns of conduct, or manufactured disruption (Rule 4, “No bad-faith disruption”)?

The process is transparent but not democratic. “Controversy” is information to be judged, not a veto to be enforced. A coordinated social campaign against a competent candidate is a reason to protect that candidate, not reject them. In cases of significant dispute, the admin makes the final decision.

This balances transparency with protection from pile-on dynamics. The community sees who is being considered and has a voice, but candidates are not subjected to public social trials where selective framing distorts judgment.

The owner’s self-imposed constraint

The owner is bound by the same conduct rules as everyone else, with the added obligation not to exercise absolute power arbitrarily. Revoking moderation roles without cause, overriding enforcement to protect allies, deleting the server to destroy the community – these are abuses of the structural power Discord grants.

The community’s recourse against owner abuse is not institutional (there is none on this platform) but practical: members can leave, and they can document the abuse. The owner’s incentive to exercise power responsibly is material, not legal. A server with an abusive owner ceases to be a community worth participating in.

Moderator activity

Moderation authority is tied to participation. A mod who is absent cannot read material context, evaluate current dynamics, or enforce rules consistently. Inactive moderators retain powers they do not exercise, which creates a governance gap and confuses users about who is actually responsible.

Rule: Moderators who have been inactive for longer than one whole month are removed from the moderation role. Activity is checked at the end of each month. There are no grace periods — a mod who returns to activity can always be reappointed.

This is not a punishment. It is maintenance. Users need to know who is actually available to help, active mods should not carry disproportionate load, and absent accounts with powers are a security liability.

Gatekeeping is intentional friction

Newcomers do not receive channel access automatically. They must explicitly declare that they are 18+ (or that they are not, in which case they are removed). A moderator verifies this declaration manually before opening the channels.

This friction is purposeful. It forces every newcomer into an explicit interaction with the moderation team before they can participate. That interaction is a first filter: it creates a record, establishes that rules are actively enforced, and prevents passive infiltration by users who want to lurk, harvest information, or stir trouble without accountability.

This is labor for moderators, and it is labor worth doing. Automated verification would be faster and cheaper, but it would defeat the function: the point is not to check a box, but to make the first server experience one of human judgment and explicit consent.