View Full Version : Index The Index of the Giant's Comments III - We've Left a Banana In Charge
Jasdoif
2014-03-09, 05:19 AM
The Index of the Giant's Comments III
Version 3.8
with thanks to Xapi, B.Dandelion, ChristianSt, & theangelJean
and to Jesse Baruffi and David Lawrence of Geekademia
and special thanks to Rich Burlew and ThePhantasm
If you're just tuning in, ThePhantasm has come down with a severe case of "life" and doesn't have time to maintain the Index any longer. He asked me to take over curatorship for him (and got permission from Roland St. Jude for me to start the new thread now, since I can't edit the first post in the other thread) and, well, here we are!
How to Contribute: Suggest new quotes to be included! Read the guidelines first. Then, when suggesting a new quote, also mention the number of the current comic if possible, as well as a brief summary of what it says. The more helpful information you give, the faster the index can be updated.
The Index provides easy access to direct statements about the Order of the Stick comic from its author, for the purpose of forum discussion. It is intended as a research aid; its entertainment value as a trivia collection is incidental.
These rules were decided by forum vote. They specify what sorts of comments are suitable for inclusion in the Index and what sorts are not. This thread is run by its caretaker in accordance with forumgoer consensus.
Rule A: The quote or comment must still be accessible online.
1) | This includes the use of The Internet Wayback Machine and other methods of accessing comments that may not still exist in the archive.
2) | This does not include second-hand sources, like "I remember Rich said this, but the thread does not exist anymore." Even if you are 100% certain Rich said that, if the quote is not demonstrable or provable it cannot be included.
3) | This does not include Rich's commentary in books or in any medium that cannot be legally accessed for free.
Rule B: The Index is for collecting only quotes that have to do with the Order of the Stick comic or other fiction works by Rich Burlew.
1) | This excludes non-comic-related opinions, statements, etc. from Rich. So if he says "I like Italian food" or something like that, it is not to be included.
2) | This may include information related to the comic, like Rich's views on Dungeons and Dragons, book publishing, art design, etc. . . so long as these quotes are still within the sphere of comic-related discussion. Uncertainty should be decided by thread poster consensus.
3) | This excludes GiTP forum rules, updates, or general information. That is for the admins and mods to publicize and spread word about, not this index.
Rule C: The index is a forum tool, meant primarily to provide easy access to direct statements from the author for the purpose of forum discussion. Thus, while the index may be fun to read through on a whim, this is not its primary purpose or focus - it is a research aid more than it is a trivia collection. It is for discussions more than it is for leisurely reading. (rescinded as rule on 12/16/2014)
Rule D: If two quotes seem to contradict each other, only the quote that illustrates Rich's most recent and current opinion or position will be included. The index is not meant to be a complete collection for leisurely reading. It is meant to be an accurate research aid for forum discussions. (reference to rescinded rule removed on 12/16/2014)
Rule E: Quotes that contain redundant information need not be included. This reduces clutter. The quote should only be included if it provides new information or clarity, or if it expounds upon information included in a prior comment. This reduces clutter. The quote should only be included if it provides new information or clarity, or if it expounds upon information included in a prior comment.
Rule F: The index-keeper (Jasdoif) has the job of updating the index in keeping with thread-goer consensus.
1) | He/She may reorganize the index if deemed necessary, though all reorganizations can be reversed by majority vote.
2) | He/She may immediately add a comment to the index without any vote, discussion, or consensus required if the comment obviously is in accordance with these agreed rules.
3) | He/She may never fully "reject" a comment's inclusion, however, he/she may postpone its inclusion until further discussion (and, if the divide in opinion appears even, a vote) decides the matter.
4) | If a comment's inclusion is uncertain, a vote requires a clear majority. If there is a tie the comment will not be included. The majority must have at least 2 more votes than the minority. Remember, the purpose of the discussions and votes are to reach some measure of consensus, not division.
Rule G: Transcripts of Q&As with Rich Burlew may be included, in their entirety, in additional posts to the Index. Rule A applies as normal, but all other Rules may be varied contingent on community acceptance. Quotes can be added to the Index proper from the Q&As. This is not considered redundancy for the purposes of Rule E.
The inclusion procedure below was proposed and adopted in a more informal fashion than the rules above, but still represents how this community project is expected to be run with regards to including new quotes.
Participating doesn't require an understanding of this procedure: we discuss the merits of quotes after they're proposed in the usual forum fashion, and the curator will call for nominations or votes at the appropriate time.
But for those interested in the details:
Quotes with a clear consensus to include or exclude after discussion will be included in or excluded from the next update, as appropriate.
Quotes the curator deems clearly aligned with the inclusion guidelines will default to be included in the next update without needing extended discussion, but may be voted upon at the time of the update (see below).
Quotes without a clear consensus to include/exclude after discussion will default to be included in the next update, but may be voted upon at the time of the update (see below).
Updates will happen when there are six quotes ready to be included or if it has been two months since the last update.
When an impending update is announced by the curator, and prior to the update being done, people can PM the curator requesting a vote on the particular "default" inclusion quote(s) (the quotes with strong consensus to include do not need to be voted on). Two separate posters must request a vote on a quote for it to occur, otherwise the quote will be included.
If a vote is necessary, the curator will call for voting on all quotes set to be voted upon. Discussion, beyond reiterating personal reasons for voting alongside the vote, is discouraged while the vote is going on. Per thread rules, to be included a quote must "win" a majority by at least 2 votes.
Only votes called for by the curator are binding.
Latest Additions
Haley is Bisexual
#972
01/13/2015
On Why The Giant Writes for Representation
"To do otherwise would be self-serving cowardice."
#972
01/13/2015
On Distasteful Jokes in OOTS
"I simply have no interest in doing so anymore because I have grown the **** up since then...." Also, there will be no rape scenes and no more spiked tentacle jokes in the comic.
#935
12/20/2013
Roy Knowing Redcloak Had An Eyepatch in Girard's Illusion
O-Chul and Vaarsuvius both told him. It's covering the wrong eye because they didn't specify which eye.
#886
05/04/2013
General Information
"Lovable" Does Not Mean "Not Evil"
Case in point, Thog.
#936
01/11/2014
Genocide is Always Evil
See also here.
#935
12/24/2013
Alignment and Authorial Intent
What does Rich mean when he says X character is Y alignment?
#903
07/23/2013
Elan and Nale's Parentage
How did it affect their alignment? Giant can't fully answer because of events yet to be revealed. Elan spared Nale's life because of Elan's understanding of what it means to be good.
#815
11/18/2011
Alignment and Environment
Enor and Gannji were not operating wholly outside the ethical framework of the Empire of Blood. This doesn't change the nature of their acts but does mean that the acts are not as indicative of their overall alignment as some might suppose.
#812
10/25/2011
D&D Alignment
Usefulness of the alignment system in D&D games
A great aid for teaching new inexperienced players how to roleplay.
#921
09/29/2013
D&D's Alignment System
Thoughts on how it could be improved.
#838
02/18/2012
On Being Lawful
Being Lawful in D&D and the OOTS. More here.
#281
02/15/2006
Specific Characters
Evil Characters
Everyone on Tarquin's Team is Evil
And Tarquin is kind of like the Elan of their team. See also: here.
#934
12/08/2013
Redcloak is Evil
#830
01/23/2012
Tarquin is Lawful Evil
#763
12/07/2010
Belkar is Chaotic Evil
#251
12/01/2005
Nale, Sabine, and Thog are all Evil
#142
01/20/2005
Good Characters
Haley is Chaotic Good
#936
01/12/2014
Elan is (Still) Chaotic Good
Elan let Tarquin fall because he was using a different interpretation of Chaotic Good.
#936
01/11/2014
Shojo's Chaotic Government
Shojo's Chaotic government was still good, not evil.
#891
06/06/2013
Durkon is Lawful Good
#798
07/27/2011
Neutral Characters
Who Else is Neutral
A long list of Neutral characters in the comic. See also here.
#903
07/22/2013
Enor & Gannji are True Neutral
#812
10/24/2011
V is True Neutral
#801
08/17/2011
General
Art Colors can Change
Whether because the Giant doesn't like the old color, or because his system doesn't.
#942
01/28/2014
On Changing Font Style
The failure of the Giant's old computer means the style couldn't stay the same.
#936
01/04/2014
Light and Art
The art style doesn't show lighting and shading, much like how it doesn't show noses.
#871
02/26/2013
Speech Bubbles
Don't overthink them... they are subservient to the story. Malack's bubbles are only black when he "vamps out."
#870
02/18/2013
True Subjective View In 843
V gets cornered.
#843
03/07/2012
Why the Strip Titles Aren't Above the Strip
The titles are "bonus" jokes. Rich prefers not to put them above the strip itself.
#759
11/20/2010
Character Appearances & Forum Speculation
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. For example, just because two persons have similar hairstyles doesn't mean they are related.
#683
10/06/2009
Drawing
The Larger Online Page Size Aids Readability and Showcases New Art (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/456760564862418944)
Also, the font is larger because the online comic page is larger.
#949
04/17/2014
The Scenery is Harder to Draw Than the Characters (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/456781931171307521)
Also, the new hands don't take longer to draw.
#949
04/17/2014
How the Giant Writes and Draws the Strips
And an answer to the question - why are certain strips several pages long?
#896
06/28/2013
Examples of Rich's Non-Stick-Figure Art Talent
Rich's mad art skills on showcase. Also more here.
#848
04/11/2012
Art & Magic
Meld Into Stone
Art trumps rules accuracy here in order to show the warping of the spell effect.
#859
07/26/2012
Counterspelling
The Giant doesn't use different art to differentiate between counterspelling with Dispel Magic and counterspelling with the same spell.
#830
01/23/2012
Spell Colors
The colors come from the spellcaster's choice or personality, and not their alignment or the types of magic.
#731
06/28/2010
Invisibility
Why the art for invisible characters isn't consistent (utility trumps consistency).
#706
03/15/2010
Art & Merchandise
Characters and Merchandise
The presence, absence, position, or style of any character on any piece of merchandise has no bearing on any future (or past) plot points.
#816
11/22/2011
Black and White Books
They are unlikely to ever be colorized, and were not originally in color. Rich drew them in black and white.
#781
03/16/2011
The Oracle's Location on the OOTS Poster
Don't read too much into it.
#744
09/05/2010
Accuracy
Armies and High level characters in D&D
"The idea that you can walk into any tavern and 2-5 adventurers of high level will be there is literally a joke."
#919
09/18/2013
Evolution of D&D Adherence
The Giant hasn't made explicit statements about feats/items since 2008, OOTS' internal consistency is still maintained, and the Giant has no regrets about using D&D in OOTS.
#886
05/09/2013
Game Balance Doesn't Matter in This Story
"I was communicating the way I expected the audience would perceive it, then I began the process of abolishing that perception."
#806
09/20/2011
Rules Accuracy In The Comic
"If you are looking for moment-to-moment rules accuracy from this comic, you probably should stop reading." For instance, Rich avoids the D&D term "calling" for the sake of non-D&D OOTS readers, who probably would not understand its meaning.
#801
08/17/2011
Characters: Items and Stats
Order of the Stick
Vampire Durkon Can Cast Spells
A cleric doesn't have to worship a deity to cast spells.
#883
04/09/2013
Why V Doesn't Have a Staff
There is no narrative purpose for it, and it would just be one more item to keep track of in the art.
#878
03/03/2013
Durkon Throws Diamond Dust
Durkon threw diamond dust into the air in 844.
#844
03/09/2012
Durkon's Mass Death Ward
Rich did not even know Mass Death Ward existed when he wrote the strip. He pegged it at 7th level instead of 8th.
#806
09/19/2011
Haley's Boots of Speed
Yes, she did get them dyed to match her brown/tan garb.
#793
05/29/2011
Elan's Rapiers
He has two. His original, and one from Julio Scoundrel.
#723
05/13/2010
OOTS' Stats
Rich hasn't written them down, and everything is up in the air until they need a specific ability.
#714
04/10/2010
A Piece of Straw
Haley used a piece of straw to get out of the jail cell. Info on Haley's Dexterity, Level, etc.
#262
01/03/2006
The Giant on Stats in Earlier Strips
Elan singing about skill points, Haley having Rapid Shot and Manyshot, Roy and Vaarsuvius' mental ability scores, verbal components in OOTS, and insight about Vaarsuvius' spellcasting.
#180
05/14/2005
Elan and Nale are Twins
So Nale has the same Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution as Elan.
#65
05/03/2004
Other Characters/Creatures
Babies shouldn't be statted
The inclusion of combat stats for newborns encourages combat with newborns, which shouldn't happen. See also Rich's proposed alternative "stats", here and here.
#922
10/04/2013
Malack's Grapple Skills
Malack's grapple skills were a hunting aid, not for optimization/combat. A character's skills have to be looked at in the context of their whole life, not "what I would do in a game."
#906
07/30/2013
Girard's Illusion Runes
They are a ninth-level spell, not an epic spell.
#893
06/11/2013
The Keoghtum's Ointment
The Keoghtum's Ointment removes deafness because it is extra strength.
#863
09/12/2012
Tarquin Doesn't Have Trap Sense
"I don't usually bother making fun of mechanics anymore, but if I do, I'm not that subtle about it."
#858
07/23/2012
Malack's Undead
Malack reanimates the dead Draketooths into mummies.
#856
06/20/2012
The Crimson Mantle
Generally it is not known by non-goblins that the mantle is the source of power.
#826
01/12/2012
Tsukiko Breaks The Rules
Tsukiko has too many schools. Rich doesn't make character decisions based on common player trends.
#800
08/14/2011
Acid-Born Shark
Rich created it, and made fun of himself in the comic.
#785
04/06/2011
Combat Scenes
Xykon vs Dorukan
There would be no dramatic function to drawing out the fight. "If it helps, think of that page as a montage scene rather than a direct moment-to-moment narrative."
#960
08/18/2014
Realistic Injuries?
Unbelievable things will happen in a crazy fantasy story.
#930
11/13/2013
Disintegrate is useful
#918
09/12/2013
Malack and Mass Death Ward
Why did Malack bother checking if Durkon protected himself when he could simply dispel the spell and not care at all?
#876
03/02/2013
Battle Scenes and D&D Tactics
"My job is to entertain, not to showcase perfect D&D tactics. If you can't be entertained by anything BUT perfect D&D tactics, that's on you."
#873
02/28/2013
Roy's Arena Fight With Thog
Roy's strategy to taunt a dungeon-crashing Thog into breaking the pillars.
#808
10/06/2011
Zz'Ditri's Break Enchantment
Rich didn't read the casting time while making the strip.
#804
09/07/2011
Miko's Fight
How Miko defeated the OOTS off-panel and captured them.
#251
11/30/2005
Jasdoif
2014-03-09, 05:20 AM
Note: for character stats and items, see the D&D rules section.
General Information
Protection from Law is Illegal in Many Places
#969
12/01/2014
There is Only One Way that Vampirism Works
And nothing that happens with vampires can be assumed to work for other undead. Also, knowledge of how vampirization works is rare, even among clerics.
#949
04/18/2014
Vampires Have Free Will
#949
04/18/2014
There will be seven books (from the main online comic)
#910
08/15/2013
Dragon Continuity
The Dragon Magazine strips and Gygax magazine strips exist in a separate continuity from the OOTS strips.
#863
11/25/2012
Some Thoughts on Visuals and Story
People get invested in the story, not the art, of a comic.
#838
02/18/2012
More Prequels?
The total number of planned prequel stories is "pretty much fixed."
#804
09/01/2011
Not everything needs a backstory
Not everything needs a backstory, or even has an interesting one worth telling.
#729
06/23/2010
Character Development and Backstory
The Order of the Stick
Haley is Bisexual
#972
01/13/2015
Belkar Turned Down the Gnome Merchant in #969
"Whether or not it would be immoral for Belkar to go on the date is...less important than how Belkar feels about going on the date." Also discusses Haley's morals.
#969
12/01/2014
Haley's Decision to Stop Using Gendered Insults
It's growth of her character. She's been trying to be a better person since being with Elan.
#959
07/31/2014
Why V Didn't Kill Laurin
Character growth: V is learning not to kill "from a purely consequentialist viewpoint."
#935
12/20/2013
Belkar and Bloodfeast
Belkar's concerns about 'Bloodfeast' were part of his character development, not an effort to make V look bad.
#932
11/20/2013
The Dream Runes
Elan's victory as character development. Also, Nale was the only LG member affected by the runes.
#893
06/11/2013
V is a Vegetarian
#891
06/03/2013
What Belkar Saw
What Belkar saw while affected by the dream runes.
#890
05/25/2013
V's Children
The Giant made them adopted to leave open the possibility that V/Inkyrius are gay or lesbian.
#882
04/09/2013
Haley's Leadership
A greedy self-centered rogue becomes leader. Belkar and Haley are the only one's who questioned her leadership skills during the Azure City Resistance.
#882
04/07/2013
Durkon and Malack's Breakup
Durkon reacts not only to Malack's vampirism, but to his alliance with the Linear Guild. He knows that Malack does not know Belkar isn't innocent.
#872
02/26/2013
Parental Problems
Parents are in the story only to introduce conflict. That fathers are included and mothers are absent for the human characters is simply a coincidence.
#815
11/18/2011
Vector Legion
Malack Chose to Worship Nergal
And "shaman" is a descriptive term, not a non-cleric class.
#949
04/19/2014
Tarquin's Adventuring Party is Named "Vector Legion" (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435651746556149760)
#945
02/17/2014
Drama and Breaking a Character
"Drama is all about taking characters and pushing them until they break, one way or the other. If a character can't be broken, then they have no place as a main character in a story." More here.
#934
12/08/2013
Malack is not Paranoid
#906
07/30/2013
Other Characters
Hel Has No Living Worshippers
"That means literally not one single living person, ever." We'll find out why someday.
#962
09/11/2014
On Julio rescuing Tarquin's Brides-to-be
Julio rescued the potential brides from Tarquin before their weddings, not after.Virginia is one of the rescued brides-to-be.
#932
11/21/2013
Kubota and Hinjo
Why Kubota still wanted to kill Hinjo after the other nobles had given up.
#891
06/09/2013
The Azurite Nobles and Hinjo
The nobles thought they could save their own skins from Xykon with Hinjo out of the way.
#891
06/06/2013
Scrying in the Desert
It was Zz'ditri who scryed on the Order after they found Girard's illusion.
#870
02/18/2013
Miko's Popularity
Miko's story was not "cut short" because of fan opinions - it was precisely the length intended. Rich does not make storytelling decisions based on finances.
#863
12/18/2012
Miko and Shojo
Shojo was the "tape" that held Miko's character together for so long. He was responsible for much in Miko that was good/positive.
#815
11/18/2011
V's Splices
There won't be a prequel book about them, and Rich hasn't developed a backstory for them. Just 3 evil souls.
#801
08/21/2011
The Gates and their History
About Girard's Double Bluff
About Girard's double bluff to protect the Gate.
#895
06/21/2013
Soon's Castle
Soon built the castle, but did not build Azure City.
#804
09/01/2011
Soon's Gem and Gate
Details about Soon's rift and how it is protected. The gate/rift could not be moved. You can shift a gate to another plane, but not another place on this plane.
#801
08/21/2011
Familicide
Familicide
How Familicide works. More here.
#879
03/07/2012
Calendars, Dates, Maps
Death of Old Age in OOTS
"Eugene literally died of old age. When a person reaches a certain age, the gods roll dice to see what his or her maximum lifespan is going to be, and when the person hits 12:01 on that birthday, they keel over dead from no apparent cause."
#933
12/06/2013
Map of the Western Continent
It is constantly changing.
#746
09/12/2010
OOTS Age Range
Intended to be early to mid 20s. Durkon is the "dwarf equivalent" of this age range, in his 50s.
#732
07/02/2010
Chronology & Timeline
Anything that states a numbered, dated year references the Northern calendar. The Oracle uses the Southern calendar. Further details on timeframe of Belkar's death prophecy included. Some time references in the strip (like the deva's chart) should not be taken too literally.
#725
05/26/2010
Culture and Religion
Elven Government and Political Relations with the Outside World
Why did the elves help Azure City yet not try to stop Tarquin's tyranny? More here
#915
08/29/2013
Class Systems and Careers
Also, FYI, Durkon isn't "white."
#882
04/08/2013
Nergal and Undeath
Nergal is not against undeath. Malack just doesn't like using the undead as canon fodder.
#870
02/21/2013
The Rise of the Dark One
The other gods lost their one shot to gang up on him and kill him. The Dark One has since been building his power.
#864
01/04/2013
Religions and Deities in OOTS World
Background details on who worships whom, and on Thor, Hel, and the Twelve Gods.
#848
04/11/2012
SoD Paladins & Miko's Fall
Only the crayon pages are narrative by Redcloak. Not every event is necessarily "seen." Certain scenes are largely shown from Redcloak's perspective. Details of why the paladins who killed Redcloak's people may or may not have fallen, why it doesn't matter, and how showing it would have cheapened the effect of Miko's fall later.
#706
03/15/2010
On Evil Characters and Resurrection
Evil characters are not discouraged / prohibited from raising the dead in OOTSverse. Right-Eye's family wasn't raised because Redcloak doesn't control Team Evil's finances to pay for resurrection, Xykon does.
#566
06/15/2008
Reading Too Much Into It
Earth isn't in the Rift
"Earth will never show up."
#945
02/15/2014
On Blackwing, Rifts, and Memory
#944
02/10/2014
Is Thog Mentally Handicapped?
No, he is not. See also here (on why a mentally handicapped character will not be portrayed)
#935
12/30/2013
Martin
Rich hasn't read George R. R. Martin.
#913
08/22/2013
Malack's Chamber Plans
This was intended to use the imagery of factory farming, not the Holocaust. Malack plans to create a vampire ruling class.
#875
03/01/2013
Malack's Vampirism and LGBT
Malack's condition is not an allegory for LGBT.
#875
03/01/2013
Orrin Draketooth's Daughter
She's not Haley.
#816
11/21/2011
Belkar's Jokes
Belkar making a joke about something does not make it so.
#786
04/11/2011
Current Politics
There are no references to current politics in the strip beyond those which readers invent themselves.
#732
07/02/2010
TV Tropes
Rich is aware it exists. No, he doesn't use it for ideas or reference it in any way in the comic.
#705
03/04/2010
Pratchett
Rich hasn't read Pratchett.
#687
10/26/2009
Hidden Meanings
Not everything in the comic has one.
#667
06/02/2009
Storytelling Mistakes?
OOTS is Not Still in Girard's Illusion
"If you don't like the story since then, then you just don't like the story."
#942
01/28/2014
Malack is Ash
Vampires take their gear with them when they assume gaseous form, but not when they're destroyed.
#906
07/28/2013
On Character Importance and Leadership Skills
The Giant doesn't feel a character suffers for not having "leadership skills," and won't force someone's development just to give them said skills.
#882
04/07/2013
On Plots and Boredom
"If one does not care about the protagonists or antagonists and is not emotionally invested in their struggles, and all one cares about is the resolution of the MacGuffin chase, then you will almost certainly be bored with a lot of the material I'm producing."
#876
03/02/2013
True Resurrection
True Resurrection as a narrative-wrecking device, and an answer to the age-old "why didn't x character do y?" question.
#862
09/07/2012
A Missed Opportunity in 602?
Why Hilgya was not the Cleric of Loki working for the Thieves' Guild.
#860
08/18/2012
The Gods Created Creatures After The World Was Created
Is this a contradiction? No. There is no Gaia hypothesis in OOTS world.
#845
03/20/2012
No Purpose?
"As a general rule of thumb, no one should say the sentence, 'There's no (or no other) possible narrative purpose for Rich to have done X!' until the story is completed. Because there's always a narrative purpose, you just haven't thought of what it is."
#826
01/10/2012
Surprises Are Not Deus Ex Machinas
More here.
#806
09/19/2011
Racism and Sex in OOTS
Rich answers two separate concerns: One, whether there is some correlation between skin color and promiscuity, and two, whether there is too much promiscuity among the women portrayed in the comic. The short answer to both is no.
#650
05/02/2009
Typo in 597?
Nope. It is a joke.
#597
09/30/2008
Plot Holes
On the (Un)importance of Random NPCs
Minor characters should not be expected to resolve critical plot elements. Regardless of what those plot elements may mean for their future.
#968
11/21/2014
Why Didn't Malack Prepare Word of Recall?
Further explanation here and here (with a few remarks on plot holes in general).
#906
07/29/2013
Did Durkon Lie?
No, the Giant forgot that Durkon said he didn't prepare "Detect Magic."
#894
06/19/2013
Why Didn't Girard Prepare a Better Trap Against Undead?
"There is a big jump from knowing that illusions don't affect undead to being able to do anything about it--or expecting every defense to affect every possible creature type."
#893
06/11/2013
Roy Knowing Redcloak Had An Eyepatch in Girard's Illusion
O-Chul and Vaarsuvius both told him. It's covering the wrong eye because they didn't specify which eye.
#886
05/04/2013
Why Destroy Tsukiko's Remains if Redcloak was just going to tell Xykon he killed her?
One reason is so that Xykon would be unable to Speak With Dead on Tsukiko... or Raise Dead.
#866
01/26/2013
The Giant Addresses Supposed Inconsistencies, Part II
A character thinking one thing instead of another thing is not a mistake, it just is. The rift grew according to Redcloak's predictions, but he was measuring the actual hole, not the cracks.
#816
11/30/2011
The Giant Addresses Supposed Inconsistencies, Part I
Including - why Haley was surprised that Miko was killed, info on Nale's self-delusion and ego, how the rift got so close to Xykon's Tower (it grew), and what is and isn't a plot hole.
#816
11/29/2011
Writing Process and Story Development
On Swirly Eyes and Continuity from Comedy
#968
11/20/2014
Why the Hobgoblin Army Was Homogenous
"I didn't really want the audience to weep for the hobgoblin dead, though, so I made them all interchangeable."
#946
03/02/2014
A Battle with the Linear Guild was Cut from Book Five (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435644993655410688)
See also here (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435646383182196736) and here (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435648354219872257).
#945
02/17/2014
The Giant Would have Split Book Five's Arc to Make It Easier to Print (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435649388950462464)
"But there are too many threads that go through both to split now."
#945
02/17/2014
The Plot Has Been Rearranged and Expanded More Than It Has Changed (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435629544536412160)
#945
02/17/2014
The Story is Still (Sort Of) Evolving (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435643356761178112)
"I'm trying to wrap up more than I add, but if there weren't room to add I would get bored before the end."
#945
02/17/2014
Characters as Plot Devices
Both Redcloak and Malack had humble beginnings that developed into something more.
#906
07/28/2013
Durkon Becomes a Vampire
Originally, Durkon was going to become a vampire in the dungeon of Dorukan. This plot element has been developing for some time and even predates Xykon himself. This strip is included as a bonus in book 5 (Blood Runs in the Family). (http://www.giantitp.com/GIPOTS05.html)
#906
07/28/2013
The Girard's Gate Plotline
Tarquin and the LG are the main adversaries of this book; Team Evil was never going to battle the OOTS at Girard's Gate.
#906
07/28/2013
Nale's Wand
Its function in the story. Also, a brief side-note about why Xykon showed up at Girard's gate a few seconds too late.
#904
07/25/2013
On Writing Female Characters
The difficulties and fan reactions.
#883
04/09/2013
Worldbuilding vs. Foreshadowing
"Say hello to your boss for me."
#801
08/18/2011
V's Gender History
Why Rich made V's gender ambiguous and what discussions about it were like in the early days. Roy's 'V-man' comment is not necessarily indicative of V's true gender.
#793
05/29/2011
Dungeon of Dorukan History
Originally, Dorukan was not even necessarily a person.
#196
06/20/2005
The Dwarven god Thor (http://web.archive.org/web/20070220022000/http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7283)
OOTS Thor is not based off of D&D Thor. Until referenced in the comic, the Nordic legends/mythology does not exist in OOTSverse.
#86
07/12/2004
Real World Intent
On Why The Giant Writes for Representation
"To do otherwise would be self-serving cowardice."
#972
01/13/2015
Authorship and Responsibility
"Every aspect of the comic is under my direct control, so the only person who should be judged regarding the appropriateness of the language is me...." Also see this.
#959
07/27/2014
The Importance Of Messages in Stories
"The author should not leave out his or her message so as not to disrupt the delicate story." More here: "The story is a tool for getting my ideas across, nothing more." (Also, Hinjo is color-blind.)
#959
07/25/2014
The Giant Applauding 5E D&D's Acknowledgement of Diversity (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/492520533456461824)
Specifically, how the core rules take into account gender, gender identity, and sexuality; as referred to the article here (http://www.themarysue.com/sexuality-and-gender-diversity-dungeons-and-dragons-next/).
#958
07/24/2014
On Distasteful Jokes in OOTS
"I simply have no interest in doing so anymore because I have grown the **** up since then...." Also, there will be no rape scenes and no more spiked tentacle jokes in the comic.
#935
12/20/2013
Tarquin's Internal and External Evil
About the message that the Giant developed Tarquin's character in part to convey.
#934
12/08/2013
On the story taking a more moral stance
Two reasons from the author.
#931
11/19/2013
Stereotypes and Characters
More thoughts on stereotypes, including race, weight, and vocation.
#931
11/19/2013
Slut-shaming in OOTS
Rich apologizes for Haley's slut-shaming in the comic, and gives further thoughts.
#931
11/18/2013
Challenging Storytelling Conventions
" people who need to have their strict views on storytelling challenged. Much like Tarquin does."
#930
11/13/2013
Art Should Challenge Preconceptions
#891
06/07/2013
LGBT Characters
Why there aren't more in the comic. Also see this, and what the Giant is doing about it.
#882
04/08/2013
D&D, Alignment, and Morality
Rich on the comic's criticism of the way D&D has been played for over three decades. "D&D cannot and should not begin and end at black-and-white, and indeed already doesn't, if everyone would just learn to look at things a little more complexly." See also here (D&D "racism" and alignment).
#835
02/14/2012
The Purpose of Fiction
"Fantasy literature is ONLY worthwhile for what it can tell us about the real world; everything else is petty escapism." See also here.
#835
02/14/2012
Character Naming
Azurite Names
Why O-Chul isn't Oh Chul.
#879
03/10/2013
Tarquin's Name
Named after a Roman King, not the Grand Moff.
#749
10/11/2010
Malack's Name
Not based off of Darth Malak. Originally was going to be named Malachi.
#749
10/10/2010
The Story as a D&D Spoof
The OOTS World is a Humorously-Thin D&D Setting
"...the generic vanilla world I'm using in OOTS fits for a comedic satire of the fantasy genre."
#949
04/21/2014
On Children, Souls and Afterlives
Also, D&D cosmology makes no sense. More here (also, there is no "overgod" in the OotS cosmology).
#946
03/19/2014
D&D Spoofing
The Giant on the comic's shift in focus from D&D gag-a-day jokes to a story that might appeal to a broader fanbase. More here.
#829
01/22/2012
Supporting the Strip
The Giant Doesn't Know How the Kickstarter Stories Will Be In Print Yet (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435652693353197568)
"One book or dispersed?" "...no idea yet."
#945
02/17/2014
How to financially support the Giant
Rich does not accept direct donations. Buying merchandise is preferred.
#918
09/14/2013
An OOTS "Munchkin" Board Game?
No current plans for one.
#897
07/06/2013
An OOTS Computer Game?
No current plans for one. See here for more.
#892
06/10/2013
The Kickstarter Cameo
It hasn't happened yet. "When it happens, I will almost certainly mention it in the News."
#869
02/14/2013
For Those Who Missed Out on Kickstarter (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/599092525/the-order-of-the-stick-reprint-drive/posts/180096)
The swag, sans patches, will be very likely available again at some point.
#870
02/24/2012
eBooks
Digital PDFs are currently not in the works, as Rich prefers to sell physical books. He has said he'll "consider it when (he's) finished all the Kickstarter stories (https://twitter.com/richburlew/status/458839353754935296)," however.
#786
04/11/2011
Top Webcomics
Do not vote for OOTS on Top Webcomics.
#724
05/19/2010
Start of Darkness
How Xykon Broke Out
How Xykon broke out (with some insight into The Giant's writing process). On Xykon and Redcloak's escape from Lirian, see also this post.
#862
09/07/2012
Redcloak's Little Sister
She was not irredeemably evil, and certainly did not deserve execution.
#835
02/14/2012
Snips, Snails and Dragon Tails
Dragon Magazine Alternate Panel
What didn't show up in Snips, Snails, and Dragon Tails.
#799
08/03/2011
[th="colspan: 3"]Kickstarter Bonus PDFs
Cornered For Donations
"Nervous" and "Afraid" look pretty much the same, which helped with the misdirection at the start of Belkar's story.
#871
02/25/2013
Fire Threat
Belkar did not actually burn the town down on his first adventure.
#870
02/23/2012
Index Threads
The Index of the Giant's Comments III - We've Left a Banana In Charge
Curated by Jasdoif.
#946
03/09/2014
The Index Reloaded --- (Index of the Giant's Comments II)
Curated by ThePhantasm.
#928
11/08/2013
Index of the Giant's Comments
Curated by ThePhantasm.
#812
10/25/2011
Jasdoif
2014-03-09, 05:21 AM
Part 1: Kickstarter and the Fans
- 1A: Introduction
- 1B: OOTS Kickstarter Project
- 1C: OOTS Fandom & GiTP Forums
- 1D: OOTS Soundtrack Thread & OOTS Animated
- 1E: OOTS & Social Networking
Part 2: The Comic and Role-Playing Games
- 2A: On Whether Rich Has Time For Role-Playing
- 2B: Will There Ever Be an OOTS World Created for a Gaming System?
Part 3: The Comic's Storyline, Part I
- 3A: The "Darkness" of the Storyline
- 3B: On Behind-The-Scenes Story Commentary In Interviews and Books
- 3C: What Is The Comic About?
- 3D: On The Comic & D&D Rules
- 3E: Creating the Character Wall Poster
- 3F: On Fanart & Whether Roy Wears Pants
- 3G: Putting an End to the Crack Pairings Thread
Part 4: Modern Fantasy and D&D
- 4A: On Keeping Fantasy New & Interesting
- 4B: TVTropes & Lazy Criticism
- 4C: Public Perception of D&D
- 4D: Jack Chick & Tom Hanks
Part 5:The Comic's Storyline, Part II
- 5A: Rich's Favorite Characters to Write Jokes For
- 5B: Rich's Favorite Characters to Write Drama / Character Struggles For
- 5C: Vaarsuvius' Moral Conflict
- 5D: The Storyline & the D&D Alignment System
- 5E: On Keeping Plot Twists Secret
- 5F: The Desert Plot Arc & Law vs. Chaos
- 5G: The Possibility of an Order of the Scribble Prequel Book
- 5H: The Kickstarter Donor's Choice Stories
- 5I: The Conclusion of the Storyline
- 5J: How Much Story Is Left To Tell
Part 6: Outro and Ending
Special Thanks to Xapi and B.Dandelion for transcribing the interview. Reformatted for the index by ThePhantasm. Original interview by Jesse Baruffi and David Lawrence of Geekademia.
Jasdoif
2014-03-09, 05:22 AM
Geekademia Interview (http://podcasts.non-productive.com/index.php?id=542)
1A: Introduction
Jesse - Hello, this is Geekademia on the Non-Productive Network, my name is Jesse Baruffi...
David - I'm David Lawrence.
Jesse - ...and we're here with another special guest, Rich Burlew, the author and artist of the Order of the Stick! Hello Rich!
Rich - Hey, how's it going?
1B: OOTS Kickstarter Project
Jesse - Pretty good. So, the reason... I think the reason we were able to get you on today is the fact that you're going through a very large donation drive at the moment on the website Kickstarter.
Rich - Yes. Yes, I am.
Jesse - So, to anyone who might not know about this, why don't you tell us a little bit about it?
Rich - Alright, well. For a while I've published my own books, of the Order of the Stick, and because I'm a small one person company, I ran out, essentially, of all the existing books, which isn't just a problem for selling those books, but also for selling any future books, because people like to have things in whole sets, so I was worried about what would happen when I put out my next book if my entire back catalog was unavailable.
So I had heard about Kickstarter, I had followed some projects and I thought "Well, I'll put up a little Kickstarter and we'll try to get..." I get people bugging me all the time to... not bugging, you know... asking all the time when the next reprint would be of one of my books in particular, War and XPs, which is the biggest, fattest, most expensive book to print so far. So I was like... and I absolutely did not have the money for it.
And so I thought "Well, I'll put up a Kickstarter for it, and if it goes well, I get to reprint the book, and if it doesn't go well, I'll have something to say next time somebody asks me [why] isn't War and XPs in print". And I thought that was worth it right there. So I set up this Kickstarter project drive and it's... pretty good so far. We got it funded enough to reprint that book in about... 36 hours I'd say, and it's gone on from there to funding the reprinting of every single book that I have - six - the ones that are regularly in print, and it's been pretty amazing. I had no idea that I'd get this sort of response from my readers. Yeah, it's been a ride, to say the least.
1C: OOTS Fandom & the GiTP Forums
Jesse - As someone who goes on the forums on your website from time to time, it seems you've got some extremely devoted fans.
Rich - Yes, that would be an extremely charitable description. No, it's wonderful, I love my fans, I do have fans that are very dedicated, often more dedicated than I am. You know, they're dedicated to some of the minutiae about the comic that has never crossed my mind, and... but that's great, I mean, I'm happy that they can get that enjoyment from it, even though I don't want to even worry about it. . . [crosstalk] . . .like the number of character appearances or who has the most number of kills in the comic, you know. Good for them. . . [unintelligible]
Jesse - Yeah, you've got bigger things to worry about, like what happens in the story. . .
Rich - Story, yeah.
1D: The OOTS Soundtrack Thread & OOTS Animated
Jesse - One thing I noticed recently on the forum that I thought was kinda interesting is the fact that people have started to. . . sort of making a soundtrack to the series. . .
Rich - I saw the thread title, but I haven't been. . . I haven't been on the forums as much as I should since this started, been having to put up an update almost every single day for the past two weeks, so I haven't actually caught exactly what's going on there, but it's an interesting idea, I mean, I know that Homestuck does similar sorts of things with the fans creating soundtracks and he actually uses them in his animation, which I don't think is gonna happen for the Stick, but it's still a great idea to be able to have something to listen to... I don't know, it's an interesting idea.
1E: OOTS & Social Networking
Jesse - One thing that I really wanted to ask you about, 'cause I think this is kinda fascinating... I've noticed most people in the webcomics... I guess, field? . . . are. . . basically kinda throw themselves on every social networking site there is, whether it's like Facebook or Twitter or Tumbler or any of that stuff.
Rich - And you're saying I'm a backwards Luddite hermit.
Jesse - Well, yes, but I mean it as a compliment.
Rich - I had to download Skype in order to have this conversation.
Jesse - I certainly don't mean that as an insult. It seems to me that it's something we here at Geekademia don't even use a lot of that stuff. I had to be dragged kicking and screaming to have a Facebook page for the podcast. But I was just wondering if that was a conscious decision on your part or is that something you're just too busy for.
Rich - Yeah, it's pretty much a conscious decision, I mean, I am a technologically backwards Luddite, that makes it easy . . . but second, I think, if I want people to see my content, I want them to sort of come to my website, instead of maintaining different websites at 15 different social networks. I don't want to have to worry about whether my Facebook page is updated in addition to my website. And some of these I'm just a late arrival to, in the sense that there is an Order of the Stick website that somebody created, a fan created, and it's been out there and everybody's linked to it, and everyone liked it in their profiles or whatever and I don't have control of that, so rather than there being two competing Facebook pages I just sort of let that live it's own life as a fan created thing and I'll concentrate on my own website.
I will probably get dragged into Twitter very soon [N.B. As of 3/15/2012 Rich has a Twitter account for OOTS. -ThePhantasm] but, ah, not yet, haven't crossed that threshold yet, and every thing else, either I'm oblivious to it or I just haven't had the time to learn and figure out whether it works for me.
Jesse - Ok.
Rich - I think I'm also a little bit older than a lot of the other webcomic - I mean, I'm not OLD old, I'm 37, but I think a lot of the webcomic creators out there are college or just there after, and therefore are a lot more 'up' on these technologies than I am. And I use a Mac, which is not always up to speed up until very recently with the iPad explosion coming and such.
Jesse - Gotcha. Well that makes sense and I'm only a little bit younger than you, but yeah, I kinda feel similarly. If I was going to do something creative, I'd focus on that instead of the endless, like, updating of other things, personally.
Rich - Yeah, I have enough trouble keeping my own website updated, so it seems like I would just be adding more work on myself. And I had a fairly large audience before Facebook became "the" thing that everybody had to be on. I started this in 2003, I don't know exactly when Facebook started peaking, but I know that I already had a substantial audience by that point, so I don't know that I saw right away what the benefit would be, and now that I do, it looks like somebody already did a page for me, so. . . I let it be.
2A: On Whether Rich Has Time For Role-Playing
Jesse - Order of the Stick is of course a huge gaming comic so I was wondering if you still had time to do any role-playing these days?
Rich - No, no, I haven't in a while. The last role-playing I did was when I was working on... when I was gonna do Snips, Snails an Dragon Tales, the limited book with the Dragon Magazine strips, I did some 4th Edition role-playing to be sure I knew sort of what I was talking about, which I probably didn't but I can pretend better, and that was over a year ago now.
It just doesn't work, you know, it hasn't really worked out that way, that I had as much time for that as I used to, sort of fallen by the wayside, but not in a way that I'll never go back to it, just in a time way. I think you get busy at a certain point in your life, with your work and your family and your such and such, and whether or not you have time for it is sort of random, sort of up in the air. I mean, I still get a lot of that sort of fix from thinking about it, talking about it and such like that.
But in a certain point, I was always the DM when I played, and at a certain point it just feels like I'm taking that much time to craft a complex story, maybe I should just write it down and someone would pay me for it. I guess that's possibly maybe a little bit of it, because I'm now sort of essentially a professional fantasy writer, that I can't really bring myself to put the same amount of effort I did when I was in college and such and it was the focus of my creative attention.
2B: Will There Ever Be an OOTS World Created for a Gaming System?
Jesse - And along those lines, I realize that doing it at this point would probably be a mountain of effort and give too much away, but I've seen people on the forums asking if some day there would actually be an Order of the Stick world created for any sort of gaming system. Do you think you would do that if you had the time and opportunity?
Rich - Let me tell you, I started working on that a few years ago, and what happened is, I got about 20 or 30 pages in, and WotC announced 4th Edition. And I didn't know what was gonna happen with it, I didn't know whether I was gonna want to make it for that, I didn't know if making it on 3rd Edition would still be possible with the game license, would they find a way to revoke that, it was all up in the air, everything was sort of chaos and I had no idea what was gonna happen. . . so I put it aside, and then have never gone back to it since, really.
It wasn't compatible at all with 4th Edition, so therefore that wasn't going to work, and I don't know, I didn't know whether I would ever really have the direct audience that I thought it should so I think I just sort of let it lie fallow after that.
I cannibalized parts of it, the document I started working on. . . I think the last compilation I put out, Don't Split the Party had some black and white cartoons that were from that project, and I know the map that I did in the back of one of them for Azure City was actually of the Azure City country description, so you know, pieces of it have been seen here and there ever since.
But another problem was that I'd done a write up for Elan's Dashing Swordsman class, and since then I had at least three things I've put into the comic, you know. . . here's this joke about this class that has this ridiculous cliched hero abilities. . . and if I put out that class, I can't really do that any more. Can I then say "Oh, it has this ability too?" 'cause I've already taken people's money to say "This is the class that it is!." So I think it's easier to leave things vague and up in the air and just use them when I want to as humor rather than as concrete game rules.
3A: The "Darkness" of the Storyline
Jesse - As far as the storyline of the OotS goes, one thing that has definitely happened as time goes on is that, despite continuing to be funny and continuing to be a humor comic on some level, there have been some much darker elements introduced.
Rich - Yes.
Jesse - So what made you decide to take that shift and still remain with the same characters and story?
Rich - I don't know, I think I've always had a draw to that shock reveal. Not shock for the sake of shocking, but that dramatic sudden moment when something happens in the story you absolutely did not see coming and perhaps as an either darker or more impactful moment that you ever thought was possible in a work, in the work you were seeing.
I used to do that as a DM, I used to set up situations where the players thought one thing was happening the entire time, they walk in the door and see a scene that threw all their preconceptions on the ground and stomped down on them. I think I really enjoy that, I think it creates powerful moments in the story, and sometimes that means doing something dark, sometimes that means taking your comedy villain who is bored and having him slaughter a room full of Paladins with a bouncy ball. You know, because it's so perverse, and it's such a violation of their honor and law mindset, where they're these noble Paladins who will defend to the last man, and they just get destroyed like that. The goal is sort of, not offend, but bother the reader. . . it should bother them. You should look at Xykon and say "He's a horrible monster." He can still crack a funny joke, but you shouldn't be sympathetic to him, and if you are, I don't know if I necessarily I want to know about it, because that's a little scary.
And that was one of the problems with SoD, "here's the story of Xykon," but I'm not going to make him even slightly sympathetic, if anything, you're going to think worse of him by the time you're done with this. So, I think I have an affection for writing the villains, because of that ability to sort of make your jaw drop, you know, heroes can't really do that without. . . you know it's going to be. . . no one's gonna gasp when they do something specially heroic or kind. And I really don't want my heroes to be dark, with the exception of Belkar, but that's another story.
I don't want Roy to suddenly do something out of character or shocking, the closest thing I got to that was I had Haley kill off the assassin that had been harassing her, and that was still pretty surprising, and I think a lot of people didn't see it coming, but I also sort of goofed there in the sense that I cut the scene that made it more obvious that Crystal was still actively trying to kill Haley, truce or no truce, so that was something I fixed in the book. . . but it's still, it was a fairly surprising, but again, like I said, I still have to go darker to be surprising like that, so, I think that's where it comes from really.
Jesse - Ok.
3B: On Behind-The-Scenes Story Commentary In Interviews & Books
Rich - You see I'm just as wordy in my interviews as I am in the comic, it all flows naturally from me.
Jesse - Believe me, we'll have you on as long as you want to stay, if you want to just talk for twenty minutes, that's awesome. I will take one bit of fanboyish break from the interview. . . when we started this podcast, I had a couple of people who were sort of my long shot goals of people to get on the show, and you were towards the top of people I didn't think I'd get but I was gonna try anyway. So I thought you might want to know that. Again, we don't mind to listen to you talk.
Rich - Honestly, I was excited at the chance to talk about something other than Kickstarter, because I've done a bunch of interviews and they're all about Kickstarter, sometimes to the point of not even mentioning what my comic is about. They say there's no such thing as bad publicity, but at a certain point you want people to find out, I mean, the people who already know what my comic is about, already know what my comic is about, so they don't need to get the spiel but I like being able to talk about it, actually about my comic and not how much money I can raise.
Jesse - Sure. As someone who writes as well, not professionally unfortunately, I know it is sort of fun to be able to talk about the creative process, because it one of those things the readers never see, they don't know what's going on in your head while you're doing it.
Rich - Sure, that's why I do the commentary in the books, they're sort of what I would think to talk about, that's not always what someone who is reading would think to talk about or want to know about, so they're not always exactly what people are looking for in terms of behind the scenes.
3C: What Is The Comic About?
Jesse - Ok, I think David wants to ask you a couple of questions. I've been crowding the mic so I'll let him ask a couple of things. . .
David - So, you mentioned nobody asks you what your comic is about... what is your comic about?
Rich - My comic is a comedy adventure fantasy comic. It's about a group of adventurers, heroes or warriors (whatever you want to call them) called the Order of the Stick, as they go about their adventures with minimal competence or knowledge of what they are doing, and eventually sort of stumble into a plan by an undead sorcerer to conquer the world, essentially, and they're out to stop him and conquer their personal problems at the same time. Hopefully not in that order, so they get their personal problems taken care of before the final battle. And it's a comedy.
3D: On The Comic & D&D Rules
Specially in the early parts it has a lot of role-playing games... the whole thing is sort of within the framework of Dungeons and Dragons. The early strips made many explicit references to this, specially for jokes. The later strips just use it as the framework of the world, in terms of deciding what kinds of spells can a sorcerer cast, what kinds of spells can a cleric cast, etc. etc. I don't really worry about "oh, this character doesn't have enough hit bonus to... you know, let me roll the dice", if the story needs him to hit, he hits, if the story needs him to miss, he misses.
There's a certain segment of my fans who think that's grossly unfair. Not that they necessarily believe I should roll the dice, but they believe that the percentages should be accurately represented, so that if somebody swings their sword at someone 20 times, they should hit a number of times equal to their, you know, relative attack bonus blah blah blah. That doesn't happen, that's not something I worry about.
But yeah, it's essentially a fantasy adventure quest story, of a warrior out to avenge his father against a sorcerer, and the sorcerer happens to be trying to conquer the world at the same time. That's a nutshell. And it's stick figures, that needs to be said. If you're picturing that in the most elaborate fantasy artwork, that's not what we're talking about. They're basically really simplistic colorful block characters going about this.
3E: Creating the Character Wall Poster
Jesse - You can't see this, but behind us in the studio is the big double poster of all the characters.
Rich - Hah! That took forever.
Jesse - I can tell.
Rich - What's funny is I had worked on it, and then had to put it aside, and when I got back to it I had introduced like 4 new characters that had to go on. I had to find room for Tarquin and Malack and Kil-Kil over in the corner of the villains poster, and I put Captain Malack's helmet on... not Malack, Tarquin's helmet on. He was still new enough that I thought people who weren't caught up to the story, I didn't want them to see who he was before. . . you know some people only read the books. . . yeah, so, did that at the last minute.
3F: On Fanart & Whether Roy Wears Pants
David - It's funny, I just saw some fanart for Order of the Stick, but it was drawn like Frank Frazetta.
Rich - [Laughs] Yes.
David - Super detailed, very. . .
Rich - Yeah, what I always find interesting is the choices they make for the parts of the characters that are really not be able to tell what's going on because they're sticks. I've seen fanart that was really realistic of Roy fighting except for some reason he had no pants, like he had one armor piece over his torso but his legs were bare. That's why I think at one point I had Haley make a crack about how she's wearing long pants but you can't tell because she's a stick figure. Because I wanted to put a stop of that, I wanted no more pantless Roy. That's a whole other direction that I'm sure is out there on the Internet, but I don't need to see it.
David - Well, that kills my next question. . .
Rich - [Laughs]
3G: Putting an End to the Crack Pairings Thread
David - Once again, on the forum for a while, there was a whole section of people. . .
Rich - Oh, yeah. We had to slay that once people started crossing some lines. Once they crossed the Elan - Nale incest line, we had to put a stop to that. . .
David - As well you should.
Rich - Yeah, exactly.
David - There are some weird people there. . .
4A: On Keeping Fantasy New and Interesting
David - There's a question though: can Fantasy be taken seriously anymore?
Rich - You mean in the sense that a lot of it is recycled? A lot of it is the same sort of material all over again? I think so. I think there's definitely something to say with fantasy still. Order of the Stick is in many ways sort of a critique I guess, a spoof of a lot of fantasy cliches, but once you see the cliches, you dodge them. I mean, there's plenty of fantasy writers who don't do the same old "warriors on a quest" thing, which I'm doing but by way of sort of turning it on it's head. I think there's plenty of room in fantasy for unique stories.
I think the number one thing people can do to make their fantasy something new and interesting is to not marry it to the same old medieval sort of time period for no apparent reason. I mean, if magic exists in a world, why can't it exist in a different historical setting. I think there's still plenty to say, and I think there's still plenty for me to make fun of, so, you know, hopefully that will keep going on both sides.
4B: TVTropes & Lazy Criticism
David - Question: We have talked about TVTropes, even mentioned the name. . .
Rich - [Laughs] Sorry, what was the question?
David - The thing is, they have sort of these shorthands, like he's the "Chosen One," he'll save us from "the Dragon" or "the Evil Wizard."
Rich - Yeah, like the next thing that happens would have to be the thing that happens 'cause this thing happened because the trope said so.
David - Yes. I mean, do you think it's possible just to divorce completely. . . to walk away and do something else?
Rich - It's hard. There was a point in time a few years back when I felt like every time I put out a strip the number one response to it was "Oh, he's just doing this trope", "he's just doing that trope", you know, and put a link to it, "see, he's just not original at all". And I don't know whether that just became less popular as a way of sort of pigeonholing things, or whether I've actually broken enough of them now that nobody assumes they know what's gonna happen next. But one way or another that doesn't seem to happen as much anymore.
People try to sort of guess what I'm gonna do, and I hopefully kick it in the shins and run away laughing. But I think there's a danger of over simplification of literature, of becoming so wrapped up in these compartments that put every element of the story that you sort of miss the story. It's sort of like a lazy criticism. Criticism in the classic sense of actually doing a critical piece, not in a complaining way. It lets you churn out an analysis of a work without putting much thought into it. I think it's fun to point to the website and see the different ways different works do the same sort of cliches, not in a bad sense, but I do think there's a danger in taking them too seriously as the 'be all, end all' of literary criticism.
D - Yes, indeed. I have read a lot of fantasy, and it's always like "here's the Chosen One, here's the Local, here's the obviously evil sorcerer who betrays everyone. . ."
Rich - Yeah, exactly. I think fantasy is more prone to that than almost any other genre. And that's partly because there have been a few titans of the genre who sort of formed everything that was to come after.
And also honestly because of Dungeons and Dragons. I think people playing D&D has reinforced certain stereotypes in their mind [unintelligible] RPGs that follow the same tropes and all of these sort of things, has reinforced this sort of monolithic fantasy from which few authors deviate and, well, so. . . but there's a lot of the same old same old out there too. So I think fantasy gets probably a lot more of those, those tropes listed, than almost any other genre.
You know, Science Fiction, I'm a huge SF fan, SF is, every story you read is esentially a completely different setting, I'm sure, Space Opera stuff tends to be a lot of the same, whatever, but you can just go off and do something wildly different and still be Science Fiction, and I think less people do that with Fantasy these days.
4C: Public Perception of D&D
David - You mentioned the impact of Dungeons and Dragons. There was a huge backlash against D&D. . .
Rich - Yeah, sure.
David - Do you think we're likely to see something like that again?
Rich - I don't think so. I mean, there's certainly always going to be people who are still going to say the same charges against it, you know, that are still gonna say the things that weren't true then, and still aren't. But I don't think it's wildly circulating. I think because it was new then, people didn't know what was going on, didn't know what this thing was, and then they got a lot of misinformation from various sources, and the media picked it up and ran with it as a media scare. And now it's old news. It's been around for thirty and some odd years, you don't get articles in the media about Dungeons and Dragons making people sacrifice goats . . . "Dungeons and Dragons is coming out with a new edition, because D&D owner Hasbro has released this information in this press conference, blah blah blah."
So I think that's not gonna resurface. I mean just the fact that it's owned by Hasbro now gives it a legitimacy that I think it probably didn't have back in the day, when it was owned by a bunch of guys in Wisconsin [interference] gives it a "Oh, obviously it has to be OK, it is owned by the company that does Mr. Potato Head." And I don't think it's in Hasbro's interest to let those kind of stories exist.
When you're a big corporation, you kinda get that power in the sense that if they're going to do a story about Dungeons and Dragons, they're going to immediately walk up to your Hasbro or WotC and ask for a quote, and then their sort of media team will take care of it from there. But I think the days of mass hysteria scare about D&D are behind us at this point.
Jesse - I think there are bigger scapegoats now as well.
Rich - Yeah, absolutely, there's the Internet and all of it's glory. Playing D&D seems downright quaint now, you can find people who are in their 50s who've been playing D&D for 30 years, it's not. . . you know, in detriment of the hobby, but it's not something that all teenagers are flocking to these days. When you're 13 you're like "Hey, let's go play D&D tonight!" You have to get those kids into the hobby in a way that isn't really happening right now. I'd say as long as it's not threatening tomorrow's children I think it'll stay on the right side of the public opinion.
4D: [I]Jack Chick & Tom Hanks
David - Speaking of threatening children, what we do on the show... are you familiar with the Jack Chick comic Dark Dungeons?
Rich - I am, vaguely, passingly familiar, as much as any long time D&D player could be.
David - We might have to do a show on Jack Chick.
Rich - I like to think of my comic as a sort of tribute to the great comic that had come before. Could I have done a Dungeons and Dragons themed comic if not, like I said, if not, if the giants of the genre had not put forth that independent comic creation of lore?
Jesse - Dark Dungeons was a very interesting book. I would say it's not even close to the craziest thing Jack Chick has ever done.
Rich - Yeah, not top ten really.
David - No. But the thing I love about his. . .
Rich - [unintelligible] it wasn't as crazy, he's gone really off the [unintelligible] then, then it probably wouldn't have been taken seriously until this day.
David - Well, according to Dark Dungeons, apparently the sourcebook is an actual spell book, from which you can actually, literally just call up the devil and say "hey."
Rich - Spells, yeah, exactly. I've certainly heard that. All I can say is I think the copies I've been using must be defective in some way, either there's a misprint or a page missing because I've been playing the game since I was 11 or 12 and I've yet to actually cast a magic spell, deeply disappointed at that.
David - How about Mazes and Monsters?
Rich - Oh yeah. Tom Hanks has a lot to answer for.
David - Yes he does.
Rich - [unintelligible]
Jesse - He unleashed Forrest Gump upon the world, he has to pay for that. Now we get into Dave's axe grind.
Rich - Personal media vendetta should actually be the title of this podcast.
David - He knows what he did.
Jesse - Where gonna try to get him on the show for a reconciliation. They're gonna hug each other on the air.
Rich - Or just volleyball with him.
5A: Rich's Favorite Characters to Write Jokes For
Jesse - Back into the Order of the Stick a little bit as far as the characters, to talk a little about the characters. I have my theories on this, but I'm wondering if you have a personal favorite character as far as writing.
Rich - It depends on whether you mean. Writing the jokes or writing the personality and internal conflicts? Jokes is easy: Belkar, with Elan a close second. You've got your sort of. . . either your violence jokes or your bad person gets their comeuppance jokes with Belkar, and then Elan has your dumb jokes, has your silliness, has your kinda child-like comedy, and I like writing both of those.
5B: Rich's Favorite Characters to Write Drama / Character Struggles For
As far as writing a personal sort of inner thoughts on your life, whatever, things (sic) I really like writing Haley a lot. She's got issues, I think she's probably got the most legitimate issues of the people in the Order, and that makes her interesting to write. It's interesting how she's going to react, based on her upbringing and sort of what she's been through in her life to this situation or that situation.
I think that makes it more. . . to you, Elan's pretty straightforward, you know what he's gonna do. You may not know in the sense that it's something completely random and off the wall and pull out a hand puppet and start worshiping it, but you know he's gonna do something weird and silly and ultimately harmless, because he's a good person, and nothing bad is gonna happen to him as a result.
And you know Belkar's gonna do the opposite, he'll take the most awful, irredeeming sort of path that he can find and get away with.
But you don't know what Haley's gonna do in a situation. She wants to be a good person, but she wasn't raised that way, she was raised to be a thief. And so she sort of has to struggle with being a hero, what comes easily to, well, it comes pretty easily to Roy. He'll snap at people, he'll be sort of verbally abusive, but he's not gonna... he's never attempted to do the wrong thing, really.
Jesse - There was the one time, but...
Rich - Yeah. Exactly, and that was a big point of development for him. But really, since then, that was within the first 150 or 160 strips, so for the majority of the comic's lifetime he's been pretty clear on what he should be doing.
5C: Vaarsuvius' Moral Conflict
Jesse - It seems like Vaarsuvius has become a character with a lot of internal moral conflict recently as well.
Rich - That's true, that is correct, and that was a conscious sort of effort on my part, because I felt like Vaarsuvius had been underutilized. . . by the end of the War and XPs book I felt like Vaarsuvius was sort of. . . "and then we have an elf!" Which is a problem I still have with Durkon but I have plans to address as well.
And so I think I crafted almost all of Don't Split the Party around "let's [unintelligible] a better arc". . . some of it I had planned already, some of it I already knew that when I did the first. . . spoiler by the way, if anyone hasn't read this. . . when I did the first small black dragon, that I was gonna have the older one come back and be a villain in some point that would attack Vaarsuvius for what he or she had done. But the sort of sell your soul angle was a little more recent, and more of an attempt to really get at what Vaarsuvius issues were in life. So that sort of dovetailed nicely into one story that I'm really happy with.
5D: The Storyline & the D&D Alignment System
Jesse - That brings - the whole idea of the Black Dragon and the demons - brings up another thing, which is the idea that you seem to play a lot with: the idea of Evil, like, there's a huge variety of villainous characters with motivations all across the spectrum from, you know, and in some ways it seems like the comic tries to deconstruct that. In other ways it plays it straight. . .
Rich - More like, I think both are valid, you know what I mean? Both are ways of looking at the problem, and I think again ,getting back to the history of fantasy literature, I think there are an awful lot of cardboard cutout tackling [unintelligible] villainy out there, and that's a choice to make when you're writing your story, and I sort of want to have it both ways, I want to be able to have villainy villains, and at the same time, not writing a character that doesn't make sense, not writing a character that doesn't have a motivation to what they're doing.
And I think there's a lot of debate among my fans, because they're not necessarily used to seeing that from fantasy villains, especially when it comes to Black Dragons, undead sorcerers, and Goblins who are out to destroy the Gods. You expect those sort of characters to be very straightforward, and I try to make it a little more complex than that, which, I was thinking, readers, in this [unintelligible] open up alternate interpretations, people would swear that 'cause Redcloak thinks what he's doing is the best for the Goblin people, that Redcloak is in fact the good guy, that he is the hero of the story. And that's... an interesting viewpoint. And I'm glad that I provoked that. I'm glad that I wrote a character that is layered enough that some people would say he's absolutely in the right, but yeah, I really like turning it upside down and not assuming that because it's a Dragon it has no emotions. I think D&D appeals to people who are much more Math & Science oriented, that. . . I can sort of surprise them more by delving into the emotional side of things, and they don't see that coming, if they're D&D fans. And people who are generally fiction fans just enjoy it on it's own merits.
Jesse - So, it comes out to not being as simple as the nine simple moral codes that D&D ascribes to.
Rich - Yeah, and I think one of the themes of Order of the Stick is there's this guide alignment system in D&D where it places every single person in one of these nine moral codes, and for the entire history of the game, that I've played it, people have been complaining that that's overly simplistic. "Oh, it's more complicated than that." And it absolutely is more complicated than that, but they're also doing it wrong. They think because they have this alignment they have to act this way, this one specific given way, and I think each one of those categories is so wide open to interpretation.
And that was a lot of what Miko Misayaki was about, was that she's lawful good, but she's a complete bitch, you wouldn't want to spend time with her at all. And I think that was sort of the flip side of the sympathetic villain: the unsympathetic hero. Or at least good guy. So yeah, I definitely like to subvert expectations in that specific way, because I think the alignment system gets a bad rap from people who aren't trying to make it work, and say "that's overly simplistic."
Jesse: Yeah, I certainly enjoy the alignments for the same reason that you do. I agree that it doesn't have to be super simple. I don't know if you've done this, but have you ever sat around talking about characters in stories and what their alignments were, or your friends for that matter?
Rich: Yeah, back in the day. We used to. . . it's usually a good way to try to explain to new players of D&D how it works, you pick the sort of archetypical characters. But one of the problems with that is that those characters will be associated forever in that mind with what that alignment is. And I also think there's some naming flaws with the alignment. I think by calling one of the alignments "lawful" they've created thirty years of people thinking it means you have to obey every last "keep off the grass" sort of law. And that's not really what it's supposed to mean, it's supposed to mean sort of an ordered way of thinking, having a personal code, having a set of tenets that is greater than yourself.
Jesse: I think that may come from Elric, and Michael Moorcock having the whole. . .
Rich: It absolutely comes from Elric. He did Law and Chaos, those were his two. And you know, he didn't have to worry about a billion people trying to interpret what he meant by that, he just needed to present it in the context of his stories. So no negative to him for doing so, but I think it was adopted and has been argued and debated ever since by people playing the game.
5E: On Keeping Plot Twists Secret
Jesse: As someone who works pretty hard at keeping your story twists shocking and such, do you have anyone that you've brainstormed with, or is it just something you keep completely secret until you're ready to do the big reveal?
Rich: I keep a lot of it internal. I write down notes, I think of things, and sometimes I think of things and change them later. Not deeply, I think my main plot points have been the same since I started really thinking about the plot and sort of sketched out things that would happen, but there are certainly minor details that change at the time I'm writing the scripts. Certainly moment by moment actions can change, twist or whatever in a way if I think of something more interesting at the time that I'm writing it than I did five years ago. Then I go with that, but really the big moments have all been pretty close to how I pictured them a long time ago.
Sometimes, some of these things are where I would be, I would write down a note like "and then they go to the desert." And I knew that when they got to the desert, Tarquin would be there, and they would do some desert-ey stuff with him before going back, before finding out what they needed to find and then go back out. But I didn't really get too worried about what happened in his empire until I was starting to plot this story arc, because it didn't really, it affected them personally but it didn't change the plot with Xykon and Redcloak, so I had the sort of freedom to put that on the shelf until I got to it. Now I would think from here we'll sort of flow more from what I just did than it would have previously, sort of work that back in.
Jesse: The current arc seems to be a lot about family.
Rich: Sure.
5F: The Desert Plot Arc & Law vs. Chaos
Jesse: Actually. . . I've bounced this theory around, but I wanted to ask you if this was something you intended or if it's just my imagination. For the most part, a lot of the conflicts in the book have been about good and evil, but I felt like in the current arc, it's been more about conflicts between law and chaos, would you say that was intentional?
Rich: Absolutely intentional. I mean, I think good and evil are easily grasped, and I think it's a little less intuitive for people to really understand law and chaos, as they are - if they exist - as concepts. Because here you have Tarquin, for most of the first part of the story, is evil, is just straight up evil. But he loves his son. He cares about family. He likes his empire running orderly. He doesn't just sort of go around slaughtering people for kicks. He has a plan, he has a goal, which he's sort of executing step by step. He's not Xykon. He's not this sort of crazy force of evil. You can almost picture Tarquin existing in the real world.
So I think yeah, absolutely -- and then Ian, Haley's father Ian, is sort of the opposite. He's a good guy, but he's abrasive, paranoid, a little bit crazy, a little bit off the deep end, not really together because he's sort of so chaotic that he kinda can't detach from that. He can't be not chaotic for a moment and see the way things are really kinda going on around him. So yeah, I think there's definitely that undercurrent.
Jesse: Yeah. And I noticed sort of the idea of Girard Draketooth and his real hatred of Soon Kim, the two of them being very lawful and very chaotic.
Rich: Right, exactly. Where you would, I think most people would immediately go "yeah, but-but Soon Kim was a paladin, he wouldn't do something bad," and you have to see that to Girard's point of view, just the sort of organiz-- that a man doesn't create a secret organization of warriors unless he plans to use it for something. You know what I mean, the sort of. . . expecting-the-worst-in-human-nature-at-all-times pessimism that says that if Soon Kim is gonna make this sort of legion of magical warriors and keep them secret from his populace, that clearly he's up to something.
And there's also, I mean there are certain events that happened in that history between Girard and Soon Kim that have not been revealed that will certainly maybe make him seem a little less paranoid than he does right now, but not not-paranoid. But yeah, there's more there going on with what happened with the Order of the Scribble than has been revealed. But that's all gonna be unwound as the story comes towards its conclusion. There's more to learn, I mean, they had to go find Girard right now, so some pieces will be found then, I'm sure.
5G: The Possibility of an Order of the Scribble Prequel Book
Jesse: Do you think you may do a prequel book about the Order of the Scribble someday, or is that not something you're sure about?
Rich: I wouldn't rule it out, but I don't currently have any plans to and I wouldn't know what I would do with it. I think the main thrust of their story needs to be included in the online strip. You need to know exactly what happened all that time ago that made them so angry at each other in order to understand the main story. So therefore I wouldn't want to shunt it to a side book. When it needs to be told, it needs to be front and center, and then once it's been told, it'll influence what people think about the characters after that.
So I wouldn't want it to be. . . I had told much of the story, much of the things that Redcloak revealed to Tsukiko in the recent strip about how he was tricking Xykon was already known by people who had read Start of Darkness. But it didn't sort of change what was going to happen next for them to have known it separately. But anything about the Order of the Scribble isn't really like that. It's important in a way that would change things, and therefore it can't be let out of the bag early. But by the same token, I wouldn't object to writing a story of them just fighting Baron Pineapple, or something like that. Certainly wouldn't have any problems with that, but I think the main conflict between them is gonna be in the main comic at some point.
5H: The Kickstarter Donor's Choice Stories
Jesse: Okay. Well, speaking of that, I'm gonna take it back to the kickstarter for just one second.
Rich: Sure.
Jesse: Which was that several people bought stories about characters that they wanted you to write about. And I know you said for a while those had not been revealed to you yet. Has that come about yet, do you know who those characters are going to be?
Rich: Three people have bought them, I've only been contacted by two of them so far. I contacted all of them and have only heard back so far from two of them, they both gave me sort of a spectrum answer of, "I like this character and that character but I wouldn't mind if it was this character." So I haven't nailed down the final list for them. I'm waiting for what the final third person says, because if two of them both pick the same character, then I'm definitely gonna do that one, but otherwise I might pick some of the ones that appeal more to me. So far the ones that have been floated are Therkla, the assassin, the half-orc, the Cliffport police department, do a detective-spoof sort of something like that, and the demon roaches. . . [NB: As of 3/16/2012 the stories are Pre-Order Belkar, Therkla, and the Cliffport Police Department - ThePhantasm] which I've no idea what I would do, but maybe I'll come up with some idea and throw that out there and then some other options beyond that. But then again, it's that I still haven't heard from the third person, so that could be something totally in left field still coming our way.
Jesse: Cool, cool, cool.
5I: The Conclusion of the Storyline
David: I know a lot of webcomics authors say, "well I have a very specific end and that's it." Is Order of the Stick actually gonna have a conclusion, or do you just wanna keep on writing it?
Rich: No, no. It has a conclusion. I know exactly how it ends. I think every single plotline that I've introduced has a definitive conclusion to it that will be in the main comic. It's not gonna be ignored or just left hanging forever. There's definitely gonna be a final book of the main storyline.
But that being said, one of the reasons I've been sort of experimenting with some of these side projects is that there's plenty of room for these characters to keep doing stories. I think they're well-defined characters, and I can always go back. That's why I've been doing things like the Stick Tales and. . . which is the characters telling the story of a famous work but using themselves, sort of like what the Muppets used to do. Then things like Julio Scoundrel spinning off sorta into his own crazy land of comic book type of and that kind of stuff will let me create even when I've moved on to what I'm gonna do next in the world, after the Order of the Stick. I can still come back and do an Order of the Stick related project, even though the story, the plot, has reached its proper conclusion and so on. So I guess I'm sort of setting up now for what will happen next.
5J: How Much Story Is Left To Tell
Jesse: And I think I've read in interviews or in things you've written that the comic is more than halfway done at this point?
Rich: Oh yeah, definitely more than. . . well, I say that, but you should take it with a grain of salt because I run long. Things are always longer than I plan them out to be because I always think of things in the middle that need to be addressed, either they're logical concerns or a character moment that needs to happen in order for it to be emotionally realistic. So then there will be an extra strip here, an extra strip there, and it'll add up. So it's definitely more than halfway done in terms of number of books, but the number of strips left, I don't even have a clue what that's gonna end up being. Some people are all "he's gonna plan to end it at strip 1000." Absolutely not. It will go way past strip 1000 because we're already at 833 and we're not done with this book yet, and there's at least two more books left. So yeah. It's to go. If you're not a reader, there's still plenty of time to jump on.
Jesse: I personally have all the books. No big surprise there considering as I've told you I have the poster on my wall. So I think we're gonna wrap it up, but I just wanna ask you, do you have anything else you'd like to add, or anything you'd like to plug or mention?
Rich: Kickstarter's still running at http://www.kickstarter.com, you can find it by typing in "Order of the Stick." My website's http://www.GiantITP.com, and so on and so forth.
Jesse: But I wouldn't ask you to spoil the comic even though I want to be like, "what's gonna happen next?" But I understand that would be unfair.
Rich: I am proud of you for not asking me either Vaarsuvius' gender, or what the Monster in the Darkness is, or how Belkar's gonna die. Those three questions everyone asks.
Jesse: Yeah, I figured you keep those things a secret for a reason, and it would be lost if you were to just blab it out. So I tried not to ask those.
Rich: Two of them are really important and one of them is so not important that it doesn't even need to be answered.
Jesse: Exactly.
Rich: I'll let you figure out which ones are which.
Jesse: Exactly. All right, well then I think that's all the time we have, but I would like to thank Rich Burlew one last time for being on with us.
Rich: Thank you for having me.
Jesse: Of course. I'm Jesse Baruffi.
David: And I'm David Lawrence. And you can reach us at
[email protected].
Jesse: And go to our website at http://non-productive.com/geekademia. And that's it.
Jasdoif
2014-03-09, 05:23 AM
Twitter Q&As
(original transcription by ChristianSt)
All these questions were asked and answered after Strip #945.
There is minimal editing:
Capitalized the first letter of each question
Removed any Twitter-handles/RT/etc.
Bundled conversations to single Q&A points
Added "RB" / links to the tweets to mark all of Rich's answers
"Apparently, I'm answering questions or something? Huh."
We've been reading OOTS for 945 strips (plus print-only extras); isn't it time to see under the hello kitty umbrella?
RB: Nope. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435252615857709056)
Nope? lol the more time you stretch the plot on and on the more people will bore out and quit reading
RB: If it's boring you, stop reading. No hard feelings. But I'm not changing years of planning to appease anyone else at this stage. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435505281338834944)
I don't know if its ever said, but is Elan's mother still alive?
RB: Yes, absolutely. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435509412782804992)
I've always wondered....will we ever see Belkar's history?
RB: I did a short w/ some of Belkar's history for KS backers which will eventually be printed. Probably not more than that, tho. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435511257542569984)
In comic 943, is Julio's last line supposed to be "hit the head" or "hit the hay"?
RB: First one. Google, if you don't get it. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435624592309096448)
So which of the #OotS characters is you? Or any?
RB: None of them. And also, all of them. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435624949349232640)
What's the Snarl's alignment?
RB: Pulling slightly on the left front wheel. They should rotate its tires soon. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435625120241967104)
We are on 945. Don't Split the Party ended at 672. Another book in the works?
RB: Yes, but not yet. Lots of prep work to do before printing. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435625769620869121)
Was that the final panel of the book?
RB: Future unclear. Ask again tomorrow. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435626038354145281)
Is the MitD more a plaid kinda fellow or a polka dot chap?
RB: Paisley, obviously. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435626348480970752)
Any plans for another Adventure Game expansion in the somewhat near future?
RB: Near future? No. Someday? Maybe. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435626652102430720)
How long does it take to go from "Let's make an OOTS compilation" to it actually going to press?
RB: More than you'd think. Extra strips to draw, commentary to write, then a lot of strip formatting to get it ready for printing. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435627746484441088) This time, more than usual, because I have to recreate 5 strips that got eaten, then re-letter the whole book for reasons. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435628029474119680)
What's your favorite colour? And how could that possibly be connected to oots?
RB: I like every color for different reasons and in different situations, and how that applies to OOTS should be self-evident. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435628320793706498)
Are you really?
RB: Yes. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435628557360852992)
Thumb all good now?
RB: It's complicated. As good as it's getting, but there's permanent loss of mobility + feeling. I just need to work around it. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435629216206295040)
How different is the story now from what you plotted day 1?
RB: I didn't plot ANYTHING on Day 1. But once I did plot it, it's expanded or rearranged since then more than it's changed. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435629544536412160)
Which character did you have the most fun evolving for OotS?
RB: Geez, all of them. Maybe Belkar, simply because it was such a challenge. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435630000922828800)
Think you'll finish that series on world building?
RB: Probably not. But I may write something else on the topic someday. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435630122624749568)
Will the compilation book for the super-sized current arc also feature bonus strips?
RB: Yes, definitely. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435630226714800128)
What’s the snarl taste like?
RB: Acrimony. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435630594530091009)
Would you ever, at the end of the comic, make a OoTS campaig book with stats?
RB: I was working on one in 2007, then they announced 4th Ed and I shelved it. Now? Probably not. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435631006142300161)
How did the release of 4e change your mind?
RB: I was uncertain whether I was using 4e in the strip—or whether there would be a market for 3e after 4e was released. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435641196862402560)
Convert it to pathfinder & release! It's just dnd 3.75 :)
RB: Well, I only wrote like 5%, and I'd rather spend my time on fiction than game material going forward. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435643062803369984)
Any ETA on the next A Monster for Every Season?
RB: Won't start until I finish at least one more story PDF. May-ish? Maybe? (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435631324125089792)
Did you ever get that Cintaq?
RB: No; thumb injury made it less priority, since holding a pen is harder than using a mouse now. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435631753550499840)
Are you still having fun writing OOTS?
RB: Mostly, yes. It's hardest when I'm not feeling "funny" and need to think up a punchline anyway. The drama is always fun. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435632162037981185)
What percentage of the story would you estimate we've seen by now? How close are we to being done?
RB: 71.34502% (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435632537323335680)
So how much more time does that give us? Three more years? More?
RB: No less. Maybe more. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435650821959606272)
I love Redcloak. Who's your favorite villain to write?
RB: Mine too. Though Tarquin and Malack were fun, too. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435633047350697984)
You have any ideas for post oots projects as we draw to the prepenultimate section of the story
RB: Yes, many. Not all will wait that long. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435633292025405440)
Should we expect a break of a few months between the end of current arc and start of next one?
RB: Few months? No. Less. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435634018264952832)
Are you planning anything special for the 1000th OotS strip?
RB: Posting it shortly after 999 and not long before 1001, hopefully. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435634371840585729)
Do you get much chance to actually play D&D anymore?
RB: No, but that's OK. I'll likely check out 5th Ed when it's done. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435634646206779392)
What do you think of D&D Next?
RB: I've deliberately avoided it so far. I'm not planning on spending time playtesting, so I'd rather see it when it's done. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435635377219440640)
I love that you've incorporated dinosaurs on this continent. Is that something you include in your D&D world-building? How?
RB: In a sense. There are no bad monsters, only monsters you can find a niche for and those you leave for your next world. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435636422725206017)
Are there any arcs or storylines that in hindsight you wish you'd done differently in some way?
RB: I wish I hadn't left "Haley retrieves Roy's body" for the books. I wish I had broken this arc into two, so it'd be easier to print. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435636807607152640)
Where would you have split this arc?
RB: When they left the Empire, before the pyramid. But there are too many threads that go through both to split now. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435649388950462464)
When you were playing D&D, what was your favorite race/class to play? (On the occasion you weren't the DM)
RB: I was almost always DM, even stretching back to 1st Ed. But I like rogues and bards, because I like skills. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435638932164718592)
Is it easier for you to play/write for 'evil' characters or 'goodcharacters'?
RB: It's easiest to write a character with a strong set of beliefs and motivations. The exact nature of those matters less. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435640590374408192)
Any chance of Nale/Malach/Tarquin prequel book a la Start of Darkness?
RB: Yes, there's a chance. Not 100% chance, tho. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435641518041223168)
Have you painted yourself into any corners without meaning to do so? If so, where?
RB: A few times, mostly on little nitpicky stuff. Sometimes, that's why a given strip gets delayed. Can't think of any now. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435642206926295040)
Is the story still evolving/expanding, or pretty much set now?
RB: Sort of both. I'm trying to wrap up more than I add, but if there weren't room to add I would get bored before the end. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435643356761178112)
Is that why this book ended up so long?
RB: Partly. But I cut a whole battle with the LG when I was recuperating because I had too much material. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435644993655410688)
Might this battle reappear in the Print version?
RB: No, I actually like it better without. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435646383182196736)
Would this battle originally have been when the OOTS figured out who "Thog" actually was?
RB: Yes, exactly. But with ~4 months to think about it, I decided it wasn't necessary and let Elan pre-empt it in his recap song. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435648354219872257)
What do you use to draw the "Scribble" parts of the comics?
RB: Crayola crayons on bristol. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435643833691287553)
Which of your characters would you most like to hang out with?
RB: The flumphs. I trip a lot. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435646080890314752)
RB: A lot of near-duplicate questions, so if I skip yours, it may be because I already answered it. Or I'm deliberately dodging it. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435637909211725824)
I will file my pathfinder/3.75 question in this category
RB: No interest in Pathfinder. My goal is to move AWAY from being linked to any IP that I don't own, not toward a new one. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435646828290142208)
Is there a map of the OOTS world anywhere?
RB: Yes, on my hard drive. It will probably end up as bonus content in a book. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435647965999288320)
Any time table for rest of kick stater stories?
RB: As soon as I can. I want nothing more than to get them off my plate, but I can't let regular strip be any slower than it is. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435650433139216384)
What artwork in OotS have made you most pleased with the results?
RB: Mostly the recent stuff I've done for the KS. The wallpapers, and the Monster for Every Season. And the dino chase. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435651101786783744)
Did Tarquin's adventuring party have official name like Order of the Stick and Linear Guild do?
RB: Vector Legion. TWITTER CANON! (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435651746556149760)
Do you know how the KS stories are being put in print? One book or dispersed?
RB: That will depend on their length and whether or not I have a better place for any given story. So, no idea yet. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435652693353197568)
Do you actually have a set answer to "the big three" questions
RB: I might, if I knew what they were. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435652863914561536)
V's gender and The monster in the dark's identity I forget the third. oh right Belkars death
RB: Yes, I know all three. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435654459780108288)
Any ideas for projects after OOTS? Other than OOTS 2: Order Stickier, of course. :-P
RB: Many, many ideas. None that I can share now. Some are already in the works (tho shelved while I finish Kickstarter work). (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435653580473634817)
What class is Tarquin?
RB: Upper. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435653660412882945)
Was Thog KIA in his match with Roy or will there be more of him in the future? (or neither?)
RB: Those are not mutually exclusive scenarios. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435654851955945472)
Any chance of another strong lead female character joining the group in the next arch?
RB: Depends on your definition of "lead." If you mean equal to core 6, no. Otherwise, yes. One is already here. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435655752724647938)
Was there originally an intent to keep Durkon as Malach's thrall a while longer (hence, the 100 strip comment)?
RB: No, it was always intended to last only a short time. Thralls aren't interesting characters. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435656053493989376)
Links to other Q&As/interviews can be found in the OOTS in the Media thread.
Jasdoif
2014-03-09, 05:24 AM
This post has been reserved in case the index outgrows the first five posts.
PREVIOUS THREADS are now listed in the thread history at the bottom of the main Index posts.
Loreweaver15
2014-03-09, 05:32 AM
...? Why did you make this already? Not only are you not Phantasm, but the old thread is only 38 pages long.
Jasdoif
2014-03-09, 05:37 AM
...? Why did you make this already? Not only are you not Phantasm, but the old thread is only 38 pages long.Sigh, I was worried I didn't draw enough attention to the explanatory text in the first post. Let me repeat myself:
If you're just tuning in, ThePhantasm has come down with a severe case of "life" and doesn't have time to maintain the Index any longer. He asked me to take over curatorship for him (and got permission from Roland St. Jude for me to start the new thread now, since I can't edit the first post in the other thread) and, well, here we are!
Loreweaver15
2014-03-09, 05:38 AM
Ah, apologies!
ChristianSt
2014-03-09, 05:40 AM
...? Why did you make this already? Not only are you not Phantasm, but the old thread is only 38 pages long.
I think you should start reading the OP :smallwink:
If you're just tuning in, ThePhantasm has come down with a severe case of "life" and doesn't have time to maintain the Index any longer. He asked me to take over curatorship for him (and got permission from Roland St. Jude for me to start the new thread now, since I can't edit the first post in the other thread) and, well, here we are!
[And naturally I was ninjaed by Jasdoif - yet I leave this here to highlight it once again]
First of all: thanks for ThePhantasm to maintaining the Index up until now. You made an incredible job at doing this. I'm kinda sad that you can't continuing doing so.
If Jasdoif is only half as good at this than you was, this will still be an incredible thread :smallsmile: [And I'm not saying this to say Jasdoif will doing a worse thing at curating this, but more to highlight your incredible work. I think that Jasdoif will doing it fine as well.]
So to make it short:
Thanks for ThePhantasm for your past commitment to this (your?) project and I really hope that whatever that severe case of "life" is, that it is something positive.
To Jasdoif: I hope you will an equally solid job at maintaining this than ThePhantasm [And from what I have seen I think you will do. I personally can only say that I wouldn't necessarily want to do it myself.]
Edit: What thoughts have you(/ThePhantasm?) put in the thread title? I think the Banana reference is kinda funny - but I personally would have gone for a title with a nod for ThePhantasm to highlight his awesome work (unless of course you wanted to do that and ThePhantasm turned that down).
Jasdoif
2014-03-09, 06:16 AM
Edit: What thoughts have you(/ThePhantasm?) put in the thread title? I think the Banana reference is kinda funny - but I personally would have gone for a title with a nod for ThePhantasm to highlight his awesome work (unless of course you wanted to do that and ThePhantasm turned that down).Four things, there.
One, I was a little bit disappointed when none of the proposed titles at the end of the first thread were used for the second thread, so I was thinking of asking for suggestions around page 45-ish. When the timeline got advanced (I imagine because there were a lot of consensus-approved quotes to add into the Index), I didn't think there was time to do that but I did see some support for that as being in the thread title, so I went with it.
Two, the combination of "We've left a banana in charge" with me taking over as curator makes "Wait, am I a banana now? :smallconfused:" a natural response on my part. That amuses me.
Three, ThePhantasm has stated on multiple occasions that the Index is a community project, and no desire for it being "ThePhantasm's Organization of the Giant's Comments Thread". I feel that a direct title reference would be inappropriate, either it's in the primary name (perhaps "ThePhantasm's Index of the Giant's Comments") which runs counter to that; or it's in the description and comes off as some kind of memorial, again likely to draw attention in the wrong direction.
And four,
and special thanks to Rich Burlew and ThePhantasmI don't think I'm slacking in highlighting ThePhantasm's important work on/for the Index :smalltongue:
Jaxzan Proditor
2014-03-09, 06:43 AM
Well, while I did not participate that much on the last thread, I will also join in to say: Thank you, ThePhantasm! From what I saw, you were a great curator of this thread, and I'm sure that will have much success with your life. :smallsmile:
oppyu
2014-03-09, 07:28 AM
If you're just tuning in, ThePhantasm has come down with a severe case of "life" and doesn't have time to maintain the Index any longer. He asked me to take over curatorship for him (and got permission from Roland St. Jude for me to start the new thread now, since I can't edit the first post in the other thread) and, well, here we are!
Not another one! When will they find a cure?!?
Toper
2014-03-09, 09:09 AM
Congratulations, Jasdoif, thank you for taking on the role, and I think the title is superb. :smallbiggrin:
DaggerPen
2014-03-09, 10:13 AM
1. Many thanks to ThePhantasm for all his excellent work on this thread previously. He did excellent work, and I hope his plate will be a bit less full soon.
2. Many thanks to the new maintainer, Jasdoif, who has done some truly incredible work contributing to this thread in the past, and who was really a very natural choice for the new maintainer. I love the new thread title!
3. I didn't see this added to the new Index, but there seemed to be several comments supporting its addition, so I just wanted to make sure that this doesn't get lost in the thread shuffling:
The hobgoblin forces are all male and the Azurite forces are gender integrated because Rich wanted the hobgoblins to feel interchangeable and the Azurite forces to feel more progressive and sympathetic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17107943&postcount=41).
Thank you for everything you've done for the index, Phantasm. Thank you for taking it over, Jasdoif the Banana.
Jaxzan Proditor
2014-03-09, 10:20 AM
Are there any comments from the old Index that had yet to be voted on or anything? I remember there was some debate over the inclusion of a quote about Tsukiko.
ThePhantasm
2014-03-09, 10:23 AM
Hi everyone,
Yes, I've given curating duties over to Jasdoif now. I had intended to wait until thread II ran its course, but unfortunately life has gotten too busy for me to maintain the index any longer. It has been a fun little project over the past few years and I'm grateful to the community for pitching in and working together on this in such a friendly and respectful manner. Though the index began as an individual project in my signature, it has now become a community project, and its up to you guys to keep it going. And thank you, Jasdoif, for taking on curating duties!
I actually must bow out of this community as well. I'll probably pop back in at some point, maybe when the strip is reaching its end, but until that time comes I can't really say. We'll see.
Its been fun!
ThePhantasm
Loreweaver15
2014-03-09, 10:56 AM
It's been an honor, Phantasm. Take care of yourself.
nogall
2014-03-09, 11:52 AM
Hi everyone,
[...]
I actually must bow out of this community as well. I'll probably pop back in at some point, maybe when the strip is reaching its end, but until that time comes I can't really say. We'll see.
Its been fun!
ThePhantasm
I'm sorry to hear that, you'll be missed around here. And thanks Jasdoif for taking over.
Regarding the thread's title, I think we should include the awesome banana drawing in the first page so people will know why we left a banana in charge :smallcool:
maybe in post # 4 or 5?
Toper
2014-03-09, 12:24 PM
It's been scrubbed from the previous thread, presumably due to standard restrictions on using the Giant's art, so I wouldn't recommend it. I was hoping he might make an exception for somethng so awesome but oh well. :smallconfused: (To be fair to him, the mods tend to take the forum rules extremely seriously and so no one may have asked for an exception.)
Gwynfrid
2014-03-09, 01:26 PM
Thanks for everything you've done, ThePhantasm. And thanks to Jasdoif for taking over. The new title is just superb.
MesiDoomstalker
2014-03-09, 03:54 PM
When I saw the new thread title, all I could think of was this
http://minionslovebananas.com/images/gallery/preview/Chiquita-DM2-minion-banana-1.jpg?w=440&h=335
The Linker
2014-03-09, 04:06 PM
It's been scrubbed from the previous thread, presumably due to standard restrictions on using the Giant's art, so I wouldn't recommend it. I was hoping he might make an exception for somethng so awesome but oh well. :smallconfused: (To be fair to him, the mods tend to take the forum rules extremely seriously and so no one may have asked for an exception.)
I can say with some certainty (through vague insider info I almost certainly shouldn't go into) that if there was any sort of reasonable chance that it could have been an okay exception... well, it would have been asked about, at least. :smalltongue:
I just can't help but find it pretty funny that this thread is being named for something that wasn't allowed to be made in the first place and that we probably can't discuss in too much detail. :smallbiggrin:
Gwynfrid
2014-03-09, 07:50 PM
I just can't help but find it pretty funny that this thread is being named for something that wasn't allowed to be made in the first place and that we probably can't discuss in too much detail. :smallbiggrin:
That makes it even more of an insider's joke :smalltongue:
Jasdoif
2014-03-09, 07:58 PM
I didn't see this added to the new Index, but there seemed to be several comments supporting its addition, so I just wanted to make sure that this doesn't get lost in the thread shuffling:
The hobgoblin forces are all male and the Azurite forces are gender integrated because Rich wanted the hobgoblins to feel interchangeable and the Azurite forces to feel more progressive and sympathetic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17107943&postcount=41).Yes, thank you. That particular quote was proposed relatively recently (a week ago) and didn't get much attention in the old thread, so I didn't think it needed to be grouped in with the others I went ahead and included. Barring the emergence of strong opposition, it'll be the first entry in the "update every six quotes or two months" cycle we didn't have a chance to start using in the last thread.
Are there any comments from the old Index that had yet to be voted on or anything? I remember there was some debate over the inclusion of a quote about Tsukiko.Aside from the one DaggerPen mentioned....Do you mean this quote about Tsukiko? I'm not sure the discussion is actually over, but consensus was about 2-to-1 against its inclusion, and the debate had shifted towards precisely how the thread guidelines applied to the particular quote.
Also, I don't recall getting a clear answer on why a transcript of the Twitter Q&A session needed to be included in its entirety. I don't know whether that's because people forgot about it, figured including select quotes in the Index proper was sufficient (we now have six such entries in the Index, one of which includes two "see also" links), or something else.
I just can't help but find it pretty funny that this thread is being named for something that wasn't allowed to be made in the first place and that we probably can't discuss in too much detail. :smallbiggrin:Maybe we need a more...distinct...rendition of the concept.
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e317/Eldenjasdoif/BananaThread.png
:smalltongue:
Gwynfrid
2014-03-09, 09:47 PM
Aside from the one DaggerPen mentioned....Do you mean this quote about Tsukiko? I'm not sure the discussion is actually over, but consensus was about 2-to-1 against its inclusion, and the debate had shifted towards precisely how the thread guidelines applied to the particular quote.
Correct. Also, I think that shift in the debate indicates all the points in favor of inclusion have been made, and failed to sway the majority opinion.
Also, I don't recall getting a clear answer on why a transcript of the Twitter Q&A session needed to be included in its entirety. I don't know whether that's because people forgot about it, figured including select quotes in the Index proper was sufficient (we now have six such entries in the Index, one of which includes two "see also" links), or something else.
The way you've included the key quotes is fine. Count me against the inclusion of the whole transcript.
Nimrod's Son
2014-03-09, 10:02 PM
I, for one, welcome our new Jasdoif overlord.
ChristianSt
2014-03-10, 06:56 AM
Also, I don't recall getting a clear answer on why a transcript of the Twitter Q&A session needed to be included in its entirety. I don't know whether that's because people forgot about it, figured including select quotes in the Index proper was sufficient (we now have six such entries in the Index, one of which includes two "see also" links), or something else.
Actually I wanted to bring that up soonish (but wanted to wait a bit on it until this thread transition has cooled off a bit). But since you asked, I'm going to start now.
There wasn't a clear consensus, but If I read the comments right, there were a bit more support in favor of "including all" than in favor of "not including all" (though some of those posts imo are a bit vague. Some for example just say that oppyu's listing/post should be included. But since this list was incomplete, I can't really tell whether they say "I want a Twitter list somewhere" or "I want only those posts and nothing more".)
I personally don't see any reason to treat the Twitter Q&A in any other way than the Geekademia Interview. I would include a complete transcript in the OP (I personally would do it after the Geekademia Interview, but from a "number of post used"-metric the best place for it would probably in the post with the Geekademia ToC). I think it is good to add individual quotes to the regular Index, too. In fact I think I would do so with some parts of the Geekademia Interview, too - if only there existed a good way to link to them. [I don't have a good example at hands, but I know I have quoted multiple times from the Geekademia Interview in the past.]
The other logical choice would imo to get rid of the Geekademia Interview, too. But I don't think that is good idea. Sure it can be argued that it (and the Twitter Q&A) is outside of the thread focus, but unless this gets out of hands or there is enough to warrant an own dedicated thread, I think it is best to include it here. I think the central question is whether we should add such Q&A thingies here in complete or not. And for now I would say yes.
(There is also the possibility of a semi-compromise to include only a link to a post containing the Twitter Q&A. But then I don't see why we shouldn't do the exact same for the Geekademia interview. But in both cases I think it is fine to included it proper.)
All of those question where asked and answered after Strip #945.
There is minimal editing:
Capitalizing the first letter of each question
Removing any Twitter-handles/RT/etc.
Bundled conversations to single Q&A points
Adding "RB" / links to the tweets to mark all of Rich's answers
"Apparently, I'm answering questions or something? Huh."
We've been reading OOTS for 945 strips (plus print-only extras); isn't it time to see under the hello kitty umbrella?
RB: Nope. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435252615857709056)
Nope? lol the more time you stretch the plot on and on the more people will bore out and quit reading
RB: If it's boring you, stop reading. No hard feelings. But I'm not changing years of planning to appease anyone else at this stage. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435505281338834944)
I don't know if its ever said, but is Elan's mother still alive?
RB: Yes, absolutely. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435509412782804992)
I've always wondered....will we ever see Belkar's history?
RB: I did a short w/ some of Belkar's history for KS backers which will eventually be printed. Probably not more than that, tho. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435511257542569984)
In comic 943, is Julio's last line supposed to be "hit the head" or "hit the hay"?
RB: First one. Google, if you don't get it. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435624592309096448)
So which of the #OotS characters is you? Or any?
RB: None of them. And also, all of them. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435624949349232640)
What's the Snarl's alignment?
RB: Pulling slightly on the left front wheel. They should rotate its tires soon. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435625120241967104)
We are on 945. Don't Split the Party ended at 672. Another book in the works?
RB: Yes, but not yet. Lots of prep work to do before printing. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435625769620869121)
Was that the final panel of the book?
RB: Future unclear. Ask again tomorrow. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435626038354145281)
Is the MitD more a plaid kinda fellow or a polka dot chap?
RB: Paisley, obviously. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435626348480970752)
Any plans for another Adventure Game expansion in the somewhat near future?
RB: Near future? No. Someday? Maybe. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435626652102430720)
How long does it take to go from "Let's make an OOTS compilation" to it actually going to press?
RB: More than you'd think. Extra strips to draw, commentary to write, then a lot of strip formatting to get it ready for printing. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435627746484441088) This time, more than usual, because I have to recreate 5 strips that got eaten, then re-letter the whole book for reasons. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435628029474119680)
What's your favorite colour? And how could that possibly be connected to oots?
RB: I like every color for different reasons and in different situations, and how that applies to OOTS should be self-evident. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435628320793706498)
Are you really?
RB: Yes. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435628557360852992)
Thumb all good now?
RB: It's complicated. As good as it's getting, but there's permanent loss of mobility + feeling. I just need to work around it. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435629216206295040)
How different is the story now from what you plotted day 1?
RB: I didn't plot ANYTHING on Day 1. But once I did plot it, it's expanded or rearranged since then more than it's changed. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435629544536412160)
Which character did you have the most fun evolving for OotS?
RB: Geez, all of them. Maybe Belkar, simply because it was such a challenge. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435630000922828800)
Think you'll finish that series on world building?
RB: Probably not. But I may write something else on the topic someday. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435630122624749568)
Will the compilation book for the super-sized current arc also feature bonus strips?
RB: Yes, definitely. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435630226714800128)
What’s the snarl taste like?
RB: Acrimony. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435630594530091009)
Would you ever, at the end of the comic, make a OoTS campaig book with stats?
RB: I was working on one in 2007, then they announced 4th Ed and I shelved it. Now? Probably not. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435631006142300161)
How did the release of 4e change your mind?
RB: I was uncertain whether I was using 4e in the strip—or whether there would be a market for 3e after 4e was released. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435641196862402560)
Convert it to pathfinder & release! It's just dnd 3.75 :)
RB: Well, I only wrote like 5%, and I'd rather spend my time on fiction than game material going forward. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435643062803369984)
Any ETA on the next A Monster for Every Season?
RB: Won't start until I finish at least one more story PDF. May-ish? Maybe? (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435631324125089792)
Did you ever get that Cintaq?
RB: No; thumb injury made it less priority, since holding a pen is harder than using a mouse now. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435631753550499840)
Are you still having fun writing OOTS?
RB: Mostly, yes. It's hardest when I'm not feeling "funny" and need to think up a punchline anyway. The drama is always fun. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435632162037981185)
What percentage of the story would you estimate we've seen by now? How close are we to being done?
RB: 71.34502% (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435632537323335680)
So how much more time does that give us? Three more years? More?
RB: No less. Maybe more. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435650821959606272)
I love Redcloak. Who's your favorite villain to write?
RB: Mine too. Though Tarquin and Malack were fun, too. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435633047350697984)
You have any ideas for post oots projects as we draw to the prepenultimate section of the story
RB: Yes, many. Not all will wait that long. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435633292025405440)
Should we expect a break of a few months between the end of current arc and start of next one?
RB: Few months? No. Less. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435634018264952832)
Are you planning anything special for the 1000th OotS strip?
RB: Posting it shortly after 999 and not long before 1001, hopefully. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435634371840585729)
Do you get much chance to actually play D&D anymore?
RB: No, but that's OK. I'll likely check out 5th Ed when it's done. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435634646206779392)
What do you think of D&D Next?
RB: I've deliberately avoided it so far. I'm not planning on spending time playtesting, so I'd rather see it when it's done. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435635377219440640)
I love that you've incorporated dinosaurs on this continent. Is that something you include in your D&D world-building? How?
RB: In a sense. There are no bad monsters, only monsters you can find a niche for and those you leave for your next world. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435636422725206017)
Are there any arcs or storylines that in hindsight you wish you'd done differently in some way?
RB: I wish I hadn't left "Haley retrieves Roy's body" for the books. I wish I had broken this arc into two, so it'd be easier to print. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435636807607152640)
Where would you have split this arc?
RB: When they left the Empire, before the pyramid. But there are too many threads that go through both to split now. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435649388950462464)
When you were playing D&D, what was your favorite race/class to play? (On the occasion you weren't the DM)
RB: I was almost always DM, even stretching back to 1st Ed. But I like rogues and bards, because I like skills. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435638932164718592)
Is it easier for you to play/write for 'evil' characters or 'goodcharacters'?
RB: It's easiest to write a character with a strong set of beliefs and motivations. The exact nature of those matters less. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435640590374408192)
Any chance of Nale/Malach/Tarquin prequel book a la Start of Darkness?
RB: Yes, there's a chance. Not 100% chance, tho. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435641518041223168)
Have you painted yourself into any corners without meaning to do so? If so, where?
RB: A few times, mostly on little nitpicky stuff. Sometimes, that's why a given strip gets delayed. Can't think of any now. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435642206926295040)
Is the story still evolving/expanding, or pretty much set now?
RB: Sort of both. I'm trying to wrap up more than I add, but if there weren't room to add I would get bored before the end. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435643356761178112)
Is that why this book ended up so long?
RB: Partly. But I cut a whole battle with the LG when I was recuperating because I had too much material. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435644993655410688)
Might this battle reappear in the Print version?
RB: No, I actually like it better without. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435646383182196736)
Would this battle originally have been when the OOTS figured out who "Thog" actually was?
RB: Yes, exactly. But with ~4 months to think about it, I decided it wasn't necessary and let Elan pre-empt it in his recap song. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435648354219872257)
What do you use to draw the "Scribble" parts of the comics?
RB: Crayola crayons on bristol. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435643833691287553)
Which of your characters would you most like to hang out with?
RB: The flumphs. I trip a lot. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435646080890314752)
RB: A lot of near-duplicate questions, so if I skip yours, it may be because I already answered it. Or I'm deliberately dodging it. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435637909211725824)
I will file my pathfinder/3.75 question in this category
RB: No interest in Pathfinder. My goal is to move AWAY from being linked to any IP that I don't own, not toward a new one. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435646828290142208)
Is there a map of the OOTS world anywhere?
RB: Yes, on my hard drive. It will probably end up as bonus content in a book. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435647965999288320)
Any time table for rest of kick stater stories?
RB: As soon as I can. I want nothing more than to get them off my plate, but I can't let regular strip be any slower than it is. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435650433139216384)
What artwork in OotS have made you most pleased with the results?
RB: Mostly the recent stuff I've done for the KS. The wallpapers, and the Monster for Every Season. And the dino chase. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435651101786783744)
Did Tarquin's adventuring party have official name like Order of the Stick and Linear Guild do?
RB: Vector Legion. TWITTER CANON! (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435651746556149760)
Do you know how the KS stories are being put in print? One book or dispersed?
RB: That will depend on their length and whether or not I have a better place for any given story. So, no idea yet. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435652693353197568)
Do you actually have a set answer to "the big three" questions
RB: I might, if I knew what they were. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435652863914561536)
V's gender and The monster in the dark's identity I forget the third. oh right Belkars death
RB: Yes, I know all three. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435654459780108288)
Any ideas for projects after OOTS? Other than OOTS 2: Order Stickier, of course. :-P
RB: Many, many ideas. None that I can share now. Some are already in the works (tho shelved while I finish Kickstarter work). (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435653580473634817)
What class is Tarquin?
RB: Upper. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435653660412882945)
Was Thog KIA in his match with Roy or will there be more of him in the future? (or neither?)
RB: Those are not mutually exclusive scenarios. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435654851955945472)
Any chance of another strong lead female character joining the group in the next arch?
RB: Depends on your definition of "lead." If you mean equal to core 6, no. Otherwise, yes. One is already here. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435655752724647938)
Was there originally an intent to keep Durkon as Malach's thrall a while longer (hence, the 100 strip comment)?
RB: No, it was always intended to last only a short time. Thralls aren't interesting characters. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435656053493989376)
This is a summary of the discussion in the old thread, on pages 33 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=313510&page=33)/34 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=313510&page=34), before it died off (other quotes getting focus, table changes, bananas going rampant, etc...)
I have only included one post per poster and have it reduced to the most central statement. I hope I didn't missed something. The quotes are in chronological order.
All of it should go in, whether it is obviously joking comments or not.
I would just link to oppyu's post in one of the opening posts and call it a day.
Seeing as non-OOTS-related things shouldn't be included per rule B, I don't think that's necessary.
I am in favour of having that summary just compiled in a single post as it has been. A similar thing should happen if Rich ever does an AMA on Reddit or similar.
I also think oppyu's post is a good way of listing the relevant information on its own.
While it would be nice to have some(?) in the regular Index, I think the best would be a complete transcript, like we have it for the Geekademia Interview.
I agree with Jasdoif on this one.
I support including all (or nearly all) of these in the appropriate sections.
I agree it should be both. We include the transcript in full since it is a massive OOTS Q&A, but also put a few of the important things in the index.
Of those, I'd include the plot, the evolution, Vector Legion, printing the stories, and possibly Durkon as a thrall and the extra battle/split (because the question of why this book is so big is a reasonable one).
The rest don't really tell us much.
OK, archiving non-OOTS comments was sketchy enough, but Twitter? This is getting stalkery.
I say include only relevant comments in the main section, but include a link to the transcript of all the OOTS-related ones, even the jokes. They're fun enough to read and it's not any less useful than the google search.
Not really. It's a public account and he was specifically answering questions thrown at him.
Its the official twitter account for the Order of the Stick. He doesn't use it for personal updates, mostly just for site / strip updates. So no, it isn't stalkery... the Twitter account was specifically made to communicate information about the strip and about the Kickstarter project.
From what I see there are more people saying to include it than not to include and a much larger group I can't really tell what option they would prefer, with some people mentioning the idea of linking. (The last two posts I only included because they are a direct answer on Tragak's "This is getting stalkery". I can't really read any opinion on this topic out of them.)
Jasdoif
2014-03-10, 03:36 PM
I personally don't see any reason to treat the Twitter Q&A in any other way than the Geekademia Interview.I've always thought it was a little strange that the Geekademia Interview was hosted here. I decided to check the first Index thread, and I discovered why:
The Geekademia transcription was done (on page 10) before the rules vote was even started (on page 12).
The establishment of the rules in the interim is a significant enough difference that I think the two should be considered independently. So, what about the Twitter Q&A warrants it being included here in its entirety?
I would include a complete transcript in the OP (I personally would do it after the Geekademia Interview, but from a "number of post used"-metric the best place for it would probably in the post with the Geekademia ToC).I reserved an extra post (compared to the last thread) specifically in case we decided to include the Twitter Q&A in one. So if we do decide to include it, it'll go after the Geekademia transcript.
The other logical choice would imo to get rid of the Geekademia Interview, too. But I don't think that is good idea.Me either, unless the transcription becomes available elsewhere. (The optimal scenario I can think of, is if the transcript was on the Geekademia site and included anchor tags so the Index could have entries link directly to individual sections; but that's well outside the scope of this thread)
Anyway, the way I see is that the Index has some resistance to change: we add entries to the Index with a reason to add them, and we remove entries from the Index with a reason to remove them. That the Geekademia transcript doesn't seem to meet the guidelines that didn't exist at the time it was put in...doesn't strike me as a valid reason to take it out.
Porthos
2014-03-10, 03:43 PM
We could have a new proposed rule.
Any Q&A's that are predominately centered on The Order of the Stick are automatically eligible to be included in their entirety, subject to copyright concerns.
Thus if there ever is a Reddit Q&A or something similar, it would fall under the scope of this thread, but something with an offical publication wouldn't due to copyright (unless permission was given, of course). Likewise, a People-style interview also wouldn't qualify for inclusion, because of the preponderance of the content.
This should help respect Rich's wishes in regards to the 'stalking' concerns while still stasifying the thread's main purpose.
I draw a disctinction between a Q&A and forum posts because Rich, presumably, knows going into a Q&A that he is going to be quoted far and wide, as opposed to a more personal/private type discussion on a fourm.
Just a thought at least.
ChristianSt
2014-03-10, 03:59 PM
We could have a new proposed rule.
Any Q&A's that are predominately centered on The Order of the Stick are automatically eligible to be included in their entirety, subject to copyright concerns.
Seconded.
We are in charge of the rules. If we think that the Geekademia Interview doesn't fit the rules, we have two options:
Get rid of the interview
Change the rules
Since I think that this is a good home for such things I find option 2 much better. It also enables us to include the Twitter Q&A if we want.
At least I don't think that "it was there before the rules" is a valid reason for inclusion.
DaggerPen
2014-03-10, 04:57 PM
Thirded...
Fourthed. This is really such a natural home for Q&A transcriptions that are otherwise hard to browse.
Jaxzan Proditor
2014-03-10, 05:21 PM
Fifthed. I think the Q&A transcript here is easier to read and find stuff in than, say, having a link to the Twitter feed. I also like having everything in one place. Also, I think that the Q&A rule works very well.
Gwynfrid
2014-03-10, 05:32 PM
On second thought, I'm going to change my mind. While the Twitter Q&A isn't nearly as good a read as the Geekademia interview, due to the medium limitations, it's still nice to have. And it doesn't qualify as clutter, since it would sit in a different post than the Index proper. So, I have no objection to inclusion.
About the new proposed rule: It makes sense, but if many such Q&As end up here, we may want to apply the anti-redundancy rule to them as well. It's not an issue today, though.
Jasdoif
2014-03-10, 07:16 PM
Wow, less than 48 hours on the job and we've already got six people in favor of a rule change. Must be the power of Banan-Acceleration :smalltongue:
But I'm leery of doing something as structural as a rule change without a vote (since the other rules were ratified by vote), and I'm leery of holding a vote in the middle of a comic hiatus (when our regular visitors may not all be present to cast their votes). So what I'm thinking right now...barring opposition arising in the meantime, I'll put both the "Twitter-Q&A-in-entirety" and a new rule up for a vote along with the next chunk of quote updates. If we hit the six-quote trigger for an update before the comic returns...well, I'll just have to accept that it'd be unreasonable to delay it any longer.
Speaking of the rule, I'm thinking....
Rule G: Transcripts of Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in secondary posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source of such transcripts must fit with established rules, although only Rule A must apply to all parts; only a majority of the content must abide by other rules.So the whole thing needs to be freely accessible online (rule A), but the occasional tangent or redundancy is explicitly allowed.
We are in charge of the rules. If we think that the Geekademia Interview doesn't fit the rules, we have two options:
Get rid of the interview
Change the rules
Since I think that this is a good home for such things I find option 2 much better. It also enables us to include the Twitter Q&A if we want.
At least I don't think that "it was there before the rules" is a valid reason for inclusion.Option 3 is "leave what we have in the Index in the Index, if we don't have a specific reason to remove it". It's got precedent, in that it was in use during the majority of the first thread and the entirety of the second. "No reason either way" is just as valid as "reason to include" or "reason to exclude", so "lack of reason to include" is not automatically the same as "reason to exclude". (This is also important in the application of B2, something I don't think I expressed clearly near the end of the last thread when the subject came up.)
Besides which, in the case of applying the rules retroactively I couldn't remove the Geekademia transcript solely due to it not fitting in the rules, because of F3. We'd need to get consensus to remove it.
ChristianSt
2014-03-10, 07:43 PM
Besides which, in the case of applying the rules retroactively I couldn't remove the Geekademia transcript solely due to it not fitting in the rules, because of F3. We'd need to get consensus to remove it.
From a RAW stanpoint there isn't even a rule for removing anything (ok, there is D to handle contradictions and E for redundancy), but F only highlights how to decide whether to add something or not. But it doesn't say anything about actually removing something. :smallwink:
But imo if there is something that is outside the rules, it should be removed without needing a discussion. I think if we decide to not include the Twitter Q&A because Q&As are outside the scope of this thread, then imo the Interview should be removed.
(But it is certainly possible to establish a Rule G without adding the Twitter Q&A.)
ReaderAt2046
2014-03-10, 08:13 PM
BTW, does anyone have stats for a banana PC? I'd imagine it would have the usual plant characteristics and some natural armor that's ignored by slashing weapons, but I'm not sure what else.
Also, new thread!
Jasdoif
2014-03-10, 08:29 PM
From a RAW stanpoint there isn't even a rule for removing anything (ok, there is D to handle contradictions and E for redundancy), but F only highlights how to decide whether to add something or not. But it doesn't say anything about actually removing something. :smallwink:
But imo if there is something that is outside the rules, it should be removed without needing a discussion.While the rules don't spell out the process for removing an entry, I do believe that a desire to remove an entry constitutes disagreement about its inclusion, so F3 and F4 would apply.
And F3 says the curator can't fully reject a comment's inclusion. Which is what me removing a comment (like any comment made in the Geekademia transcript) without consensus would be. Even if the intent was to remove something not in accordance with the other rules, it would still be a violation of F3 for me to do so without establishing consensus.
So I'd have to break a rule to enforce a rule. :smallconfused: It's a little unusual, but I think F3 reinforces that the curator is supposed to be a facilitator, and not a final judge. And being able to freely reject an entry after its inclusion would make any restrictions about rejecting them before their inclusion meaningless.
BTW, does anyone have stats for a banana PC? I'd imagine it would have the usual plant characteristics and some natural armor that's ignored by slashing weapons, but I'm not sure what else.I was thinking +2 Con, DR 3/slashing or bludgeoning, 2 Plant Hit Dice (2d8+{2*Con} hit points, +1 BAB, +3 base Fort save, 5*{2+int} skill points), +2 racial bonus on Balance and Escape Artist checks, 5 automatic ranks in Balance (so they aren't flatfooted while trying not to slip on their own peels)....Not sure what the "class" skills for their Plant hit dice would be, though; Balance is implied since they'd start with max ranks and Escape Artist makes sense given the bonus, but I'm not sure what else I'd give them.
Gwynfrid
2014-03-10, 09:40 PM
But I'm leery of doing something as structural as a rule change without a vote (since the other rules were ratified by vote), and I'm leery of holding a vote in the middle of a comic hiatus (when our regular visitors may not all be present to cast their votes). So what I'm thinking right now...barring opposition arising in the meantime, I'll put both the "Twitter-Q&A-in-entirety" and a new rule up for a vote along with the next chunk of quote updates. If we hit the six-quote trigger for an update before the comic returns...well, I'll just have to accept that it'd be unreasonable to delay it any longer.
Speaking of the rule, I'm thinking....
Rule G: Transcripts of Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in secondary posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source of such transcripts must fit with established rules, although only Rule A must apply to all parts; only a majority of the content must abide by other rules.
So the whole thing needs to be freely accessible online (rule A), but the occasional tangent or redundancy is explicitly allowed.
Our Curator speaks with the voice of Wisdom.
Sir_Leorik
2014-03-10, 11:31 PM
Congratulations on your promotion Jasdoif! I hope that your tenure as curator is as fruitful as The Phantasm's was. :smallbiggrin:
ZedarFlight
2014-03-10, 11:39 PM
Why have we left a banana in charge?
Thanks for picking up the work, hopefully ThePhantasm doesn't get too busy.
At least you've got a 'break' until the end of the month when the comic picks back up.
ORione
2014-03-10, 11:43 PM
BTW, does anyone have stats for a banana PC? I'd imagine it would have the usual plant characteristics and some natural armor that's ignored by slashing weapons, but I'm not sure what else.
Also, new thread!
I was thinking +2 Con, DR 3/slashing or bludgeoning, 2 Plant Hit Dice (2d8+{2*Con} hit points, +1 BAB, +3 base Fort save, 5*{2+int} skill points), +2 racial bonus on Balance and Escape Artist checks, 5 automatic ranks in Balance (so they aren't flatfooted while trying not to slip on their own peels)....Not sure what the "class" skills for their Plant hit dice would be, though; Balance is implied since they'd start with max ranks and Escape Artist makes sense given the bonus, but I'm not sure what else I'd give them.
Perform (Slapstick Comedy)
DaggerPen
2014-03-11, 06:18 AM
Why have we left a banana in charge?
There was a typo in the last thread in which someone misspelled Bandana as Banana. It led to a series of jokes and a photoshop of Bandana as a Banana that was later removed by the mods due to editing the Giant's artwork, but the joke stuck around.
ChristianSt
2014-03-11, 07:36 AM
While the rules don't spell out the process for removing an entry, I do believe that a desire to remove an entry constitutes disagreement about its inclusion, so F3 and F4 would apply.
And F3 says the curator can't fully reject a comment's inclusion. Which is what me removing a comment (like any comment made in the Geekademia transcript) without consensus would be. Even if the intent was to remove something not in accordance with the other rules, it would still be a violation of F3 for me to do so without establishing consensus.
So I'd have to break a rule to enforce a rule. :smallconfused: It's a little unusual, but I think F3 reinforces that the curator is supposed to be a facilitator, and not a final judge. And being able to freely reject an entry after its inclusion would make any restrictions about rejecting them before their inclusion meaningless.
But in any case I wouldn't say you would remove it (and certainly not freely), but you are forced to do it by the rules. Which have an established consensus.
If for example if there is (for whatever reason) a quote "I like Italian food" in the Index, I think it should be removed without any voting/consensus needed. Because it violates the rules. The rules mostly (A-E) covers which content is allowed/not allowed in the Index, while rule F covers how we reach consensus when something isn't clear, but not to override the other rules. I think in the case if for example most posters start wanting to include "I like Italian food"-quotes, I think we shouldn't do that because of rule F allows it, but we should amend rule B to allow "I like Italian food"-quotes. And without amending rule B there shouldn't any such quote listed whether or not the majority wants it or not. (But if the majority wants it we should seriously considering changing the rules.)
That at least is my opinion on it. [Which might be a bit based on my logical reasoning, but any other procedure would make absolutely no sense to me.] But I think maybe that it is better not to focus on that, since unless there are problems I think it isn't really worthwhile to spend time on such rule detail shenanigans.
At least we should get to some sort of consensus how to deal with such Q&A in general (can we include them at all? Right now it is only kinda there because it is there. But from the rules it is kinda dubious if it should even be there), and I think your amended Rule G (specifying that they will go after the regular Index) is exactly what we should have. (Or if people don't like it we should establish a rule that this is outside the scope of this thread and get rid of the Geekademia Interview.)
Since I haven't heard anyone saying "we should remove the Interview", I think we don't need any further discussion if we add that rule (which I have the feeling right now that it will be easy to add). After that we can revisit the Twitter Q&A discussion [or we can just add that to the vote options and make it in one sweep].
Also while we're at it, I think there should be a link to the podcast (and not only to highlight Rule A, but also to give proper credit to all involved): Link to Geekademia Interview (http://podcasts.non-productive.com/index.php?id=542). (Sure there is a link at the end of the transcript, but it is kinda burried and only points to the general Geekademia Page, but doesn't help finding the actual Interview.)
[And if you think it is better to wait after the hiatus ends to do the voting, I don't have a problem with waiting. As long as this gets resolved sometime]
Kurald Galain
2014-03-11, 07:59 AM
Jasdoif, would you consider replacing your avatar pic by a banana? :smallbiggrin:
Shale
2014-03-11, 10:01 AM
As the one who typo'd in the first place, I am unduly proud of this title.
Jasdoif
2014-03-11, 12:54 PM
But in any case I wouldn't say you would remove it (and certainly not freely), but you are forced to do it by the rules. Which have an established consensus.
If for example if there is (for whatever reason) a quote "I like Italian food" in the Index, I think it should be removed without any voting/consensus needed. Because it violates the rules. The rules mostly (A-E) covers which content is allowed/not allowed in the Index, while rule F covers how we reach consensus when something isn't clear, but not to override the other rules. I think in the case if for example most posters start wanting to include "I like Italian food"-quotes, I think we shouldn't do that because of rule F allows it, but we should amend rule B to allow "I like Italian food"-quotes. And without amending rule B there shouldn't any such quote listed whether or not the majority wants it or not. (But if the majority wants it we should seriously considering changing the rules.)
That at least is my opinion on it. [Which might be a bit based on my logical reasoning, but any other procedure would make absolutely no sense to me.]Now, if this were a formal project, or intended for use by automated resources, or maybe even just had a way to filter out entries on demand; I'd agree entirely.
But it's not. It's an informal project meant for a Humanoid (and Fey polymorphed into Plant) audience, and the only way to filter entries is for the curator to manually remove them. Because the intended audience is composed of independently thinking creatures, unexpected removal of entries they remember to be here is a severe psychological disincentive to trust the thread; because the project is informal, there's no strong sense of "this is the way we expect it to be" to overcome that disincentive because we have no authoritative angle to back us up; and because entries have to be manually removed, retroactive application of rules would require someone to go through all the entries whenever there's a rules adjustment.
It's for those reasons that I view the rules as applying as an entry/exit gate to the Index, rather than applying to the Index content directly. It has tradeoffs, like the occasional inconsistency with some of the things we have in the Index like the transcript, but I think the reduction in workload and increase in perceived reliability more than makes up for it.
But I think maybe that it is better not to focus on that, since unless there are problems I think it isn't really worthwhile to spend time on such rule detail shenanigans.I keep explaining my reasoning here because how the curator intends to apply the rules is a critical portion of how the thread's run. My interpretation is not automatically the best or most-agreed-upon; If I'm off my rocker, it's better to find out sooner than later.
Also while we're at it, I think there should be a link to the podcast (and not only to highlight Rule A, but also to give proper credit to all involved): Link to Geekademia Interview (http://podcasts.non-productive.com/index.php?id=542). (Sure there is a link at the end of the transcript, but it is kinda burried and only points to the general Geekademia Page, but doesn't help finding the actual Interview.)Sounds reasonable to me. The interview title's a good place, I think.
Jasdoif, would you consider replacing your avatar pic by a banana? :smallbiggrin:Kinda like this?
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e317/Eldenjasdoif/BananaThread.png
I may have to at this rate, but I'd want to make adjustments first. Portraying a banana crossing its arms was more difficult than I would have thought, and I don't think it carries on its own. Tarquin managed it pretty well (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0921.html), but he had the unfair advantage of shoulders :smalltongue:
ChristianSt
2014-03-11, 01:54 PM
It's for those reasons that I view the rules as applying as an entry/exit gate to the Index, rather than applying to the Index content directly. It has tradeoffs, like the occasional inconsistency with some of the things we have in the Index like the transcript, but I think the reduction in workload and increase in perceived reliability more than makes up for it.
I keep explaining my reasoning here because how the curator intends to apply the rules is a critical portion of how the thread's run. My interpretation is not automatically the best or most-agreed-upon; If I'm off my rocker, it's better to find out sooner than later.
Your reasoning certainly makes sense. But I personally don't think that the approach I would use would make really more work. It only would cause any work if someone sees a comment that breaks (for whatever reason) one of the rules or the thread rules change (and even in that case you could just change the rules and only remove something if someone points out it is against certain rules). And to add: We never had a change in thread rules since they where established. I also wouldn't really see Rule G as a rules change, but only as a Rules Errata/Addendum/Clarification, to make it clear what we should/can do with such Q&As. Because right now it isn't really covered.
Imo the thread rules are there to say "we have established the rules and try to enforce them. But we are human and make errors, so if we find errors we should try to fix them and not say 'Mh ok, it is wrong, but since it is there we just leave it be' ". (But I might be wrong on that part - at least this is my interpretation of the rules.)
I also wouldn't say that it would be unreliable. Since it clearly has a reason why that change would happen. You could even do an announce prior changing something [and/or keeping a backup handy if needed], to see whether there is a problem or not. (And in that case maybe we can fix a broken rule.) Also if something isn't clear (like the Interview case) nothing stops you/us from first having a discussion about it before anyone does some crazy things.
Just for example: If some post we have Indexed becomes unaccessible (e.g. Internet Wayback Machine failure or a post gets deleted somehow), would you want to keep it in the Index because thread consensus was to include it and we would need to re-vote first on it to remove it? Or if Rich posts "Belkar is Lawful Good" would you require us to un-vote the "Belkar is Evil" quote?
Because I think that would be the (I admit kinda extreme) logical conclusion of your statement. But imo from the thread rules it should be clear what should happen in both cases - without anyone actually needing to say something about (other than pointing it out). And I don't think that would make sense to have those Rules established to later just ignore them if someone feels like doing so. [Don't get me wrong: If we see the need I certainly think we should change the rules. But imo the rules are there to reduce the need (or even the possibility) to discuss quotes that fall outside of them.]
TL;DR: Imo Rule F isn't above the other rules. We shouldn't be allowed to sneak in quotes that violate the rules. And if something managed to sneak by somehow, we should try our best to get rid of it. (Otherwise I think they are basically meaningless)
pendell
2014-03-11, 04:00 PM
Thank you for everything you've done for the index, Phantasm. Thank you for taking it over, Jasdoif the Banana.
Fully agreed. Thank you, Phantasm. And thank YOU , Jasdoif.
Respectfully,
Brian P.
Jasdoif
2014-03-11, 04:04 PM
I also wouldn't really see Rule G as a rules change, but only as a Rules Errata/Addendum/Clarification, to make it clear what we should/can do with such Q&As. Because right now it isn't really covered.I think we've just identified what sets this apart from the other examples: The Geekademia transcript and the use of secondary posts in general doesn't really fit in the established rules, but I don't think it actually violates any of the rules either.
I can certainly agree with "OK, the rules represent consensus, and the rules say this one shouldn't be included, so we have consensus to remove", but this is just a "not clearly established" area. And for those, I think "leave it where it is" is the fair way to go.
ChristianSt
2014-03-11, 04:19 PM
I think we've just identified what sets this apart from the other examples: The Geekademia transcript and the use of secondary posts in general doesn't really fit in the established rules, but I don't think it actually violates any of the rules either.
I can certainly agree with "OK, the rules represent consensus, and the rules say this one shouldn't be included, so we have consensus to remove", but this is just a "not clearly established" area. And for those, I think "leave it where it is" is the fair way to go.
Ah ok - I think we kinda run in a sort of misunderstanding there. Maybe (or if I reread my posts quite likely) I should have formulated things better (especially my posts with listing two options).
With the current rules, yeah this is a grey area which could be "solved" with keeping the status quo.
But imo the far better option is to consider a rule that covers it, and if we want a rule: "Q&A are outside the scope" (which would a valid reason to turn down the Twitter Q&A without any further discussion) then we also need to take the consequence of removing the Interview.
Or adding a rule that allows them and maybe (or maybe not) include the Twitter Q&A.
But just keeping this grey area just seems wrong to me.
Jasdoif
2014-03-11, 05:15 PM
With the current rules, yeah this is a grey area which could be "solved" with keeping the status quo.
But imo the far better option is to consider a rule that covers it, and if we want a rule: "Q&A are outside the scope" (which would a valid reason to turn down the Twitter Q&A without any further discussion) then we also need to take the consequence of removing the Interview.
Or adding a rule that allows them and maybe (or maybe not) include the Twitter Q&A.
But just keeping this grey area just seems wrong to me.Establishing a rule to cover a relevant grey area is the ideal solution, yes; but having a "grey area approach" is still necessary. Both so we have an expectation of what may happen when a grey area first becomes relevant, and so we can handle a scenario where a rule can't established (a rule for inclusion would need consensus, as much as a rule for exclusion would; it's possible neither gains consensus).
And we seem to be in agreement on what that grey area approach should be, so...yay! This is way more fun than half a dozen pages arguing about voting about voting. Possibly because this thread has a higher banana reference density.
Gwynfrid
2014-03-12, 06:00 AM
For any rules discussion, we should consider the value vs effort ratio. We have a grand total of two Q&A sessions in existence so far. Establishing complex rules requires more discussion than such a limited field of material warrants. I recommend we keep the grey area, and make an ad-hoc decision for any future Q&A. That's likely the more efficient approach, as opposed to a lengthy debate on a rule that would apply very rarely.
ChristianSt
2014-03-12, 07:27 AM
For any rules discussion, we should consider the value vs effort ratio. We have a grand total of two Q&A sessions in existence so far. Establishing complex rules requires more discussion than such a limited field of material warrants. I recommend we keep the grey area, and make an ad-hoc decision for any future Q&A. That's likely the more efficient approach, as opposed to a lengthy debate on a rule that would apply very rarely.
Have I missed someone stating the desire to establishing complex rules? :smallconfused:
Yes, Jasdoif and I had a discussion about rules in general. But as I said it was imo mostly out of a misunderstanding about what exactly we talk about. That is settled now (and nevertheless I think it was a good discussion where at least I learned things about how Jasdoif sees the rules [which after getting rid of the misunderstanding there seems to be pretty similar to what I think of them]).
Right now basically the only rules establishing going on is a new Rule G on how to possible handle Q&A. And basically we only had people supporting a Rule G "Q&A can be included in their entirety".
Jasdoif amended that proposal to
Rule G: Transcripts of Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in secondary posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source of such transcripts must fit with established rules, although only Rule A must apply to all parts; only a majority of the content must abide by other rules. which imo is basically the same.
Though on a second thought I would change it to "Rule G: Transcripts of Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in secondary posts to the Index, in their entirety, if they fulfill Rule A. Other rules don't need to be enforced. Whether they will be included or not in their entirety is up to thread consensus." That would eliminate any possible discussions about what exactly "only a majority of the content must abide by other rules." turns out to be.
Also since there seems to be soon a vote on it: I think to make it fair there should also be at least one alternative to vote on. The imo logical clear alternative is "Rule G.Alt: Complete Transcripts of Q&A are outside the scope of this thread."
If there is consensus on one of those Rules they should be added to the OP and make it clear how such things will be approached in the future. [It is possible that someone will figure out another possible way to deal with them, so maybe there could be another option to vote on I think.] With that out of the way we can then decide what to do with the Twitter Q&A (or just do it one voting process.)
Or I think if no one says anything against that Rule G (I don't think we exactly should need a vote on the exact formulation) we could just skip the whole voting thing (at least on Rule G). So far I have heard 5 people saying they like that rule and no one saying that they don't want it (though some posters haven't said anything on it). So if it remains such a clear consensus (X-0) I don't see any reason to actually do a vote, unless Jasdoif wants to do it. Because we only need to find consensus. If there is [B]clear consensus (which X-0 is. If at least one person would say something I could understand an argument "someone said they don't like it, so I wanted to wait for the vote on it to reduce clutter") then there is imo absolutely no benefit in doing a vote.
Jasdoif
2014-03-12, 11:53 AM
Though on a second thought I would change it to "Rule G: Transcripts of Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in secondary posts to the Index, in their entirety, if they fulfill Rule A. Other rules don't need to be enforced. Whether they will be included or not in their entirety is up to thread consensus." That would eliminate any possible discussions about what exactly "only a majority of the content must abide by other rules." turns out to be. I'm loath to put in blanket exceptions to so many rules like that, even in the limited cases where this would apply.
The majority thing was my attempt to focus on archiving things we're likely to use anyway. So for example, a Q&A about OOTS with an isolated question about Italian food is perfectly fine, while a Q&A about Italian food with an isolated question about OOTS is not. (Whether the isolated question about OOTS warrants inclusion as a normal entry would be determined through the usual process, but including the entire Q&A would be out of the question since most of it doesn't satisfy Rule B.)
A more plausible (but less entertaining) scenario would be if a portion of an OOTS Q&A was excerpted separately from the entire Q&A, and transcripts of both are made; the complete makes the excerpt redundant, so we could only include the larger one instead of both because of Rule E.
Or I think if no one says anything against that Rule G (I don't think we exactly should need a vote on the exact formulation) we could just skip the whole voting thing (at least on Rule G). So far I have heard 5 people saying they like that rule and no one saying that they don't want it (though some posters haven't said anything on it). So if it remains such a clear consensus (X-0) I don't see any reason to actually do a vote, unless Jasdoif wants to do it. Because we only need to find consensus. If there is [B]clear consensus (which X-0 is. If at least one person would say something I could understand an argument "someone said they don't like it, so I wanted to wait for the vote on it to reduce clutter") then there is imo absolutely no benefit in doing a vote.I'm thinking we should discuss it to come up with a well-accepted formulation (or to adopt an alternative instead of the current direction and things), and then I'll put that formulation up for a vote.
Partly so we've got input on the matter even from people who might not be inclined to debate it, and partly so I won't have to remove or amend "These rules were decided by forum vote" at the beginning of the rules.
ChristianSt
2014-03-12, 12:05 PM
I'm loath to put in blanket exceptions to so many rules like that, even in the limited cases where this would apply.
The majority thing was my attempt to focus on archiving things we're likely to use anyway. So for example, a Q&A about OOTS with an isolated question about Italian food is perfectly fine, while a Q&A about Italian food with an isolated question about OOTS is not. (Whether the isolated question about OOTS warrants inclusion as a normal entry would be determined through the usual process, but including the entire Q&A would be out of the question since most of it doesn't satisfy Rule B.)
Yeah, your reasoning is perfectly sound. I just made an attempt to eliminate possible shenanigans to arguments like "4 of 8" answers are already included elsewhere or something like that. Heck I'm not even sure how much of the Geekademia Inerview is or is not redundant with other stuff we have Indexed or Rich said somewhere else. Maybe just change it to mostly/partly/largly or some other not so exact word, because "majority" imo just implies a hard >50%.
Gwynfrid
2014-03-12, 12:44 PM
Have I missed someone stating the desire to establishing complex rules? :smallconfused:
The suggested rule isn't that complex really, my bad. The discussion about it, however... If not complex, it is, at least, long.
Though on a second thought I would change it to "Rule G: Transcripts of Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in secondary posts to the Index, in their entirety, if they fulfill Rule A. Other rules don't need to be enforced. Whether they will be included or not in their entirety is up to thread consensus."
I still think it isn't particularly necessary to formalize things to such a degree, but hey, we have a inter-book hiatus right now, I guess we need something to talk about :smallcool:
If we have to have a rule, then I think Jasdoif's wording makes the most sense. I wouldn't worry about the exact meaning of "majority"... That would be sorted out by thread consensus, if ever the case arises.
And, for sure, any rule addition needs a vote, if only to avoid protest further down the line.
137beth
2014-03-13, 10:36 AM
We could have a new proposed rule.
Any Q&A's that are predominately centered on The Order of the Stick are automatically eligible to be included in their entirety, subject to copyright concerns.
Thus if there ever is a Reddit Q&A or something similar, it would fall under the scope of this thread, but something with an offical publication wouldn't due to copyright (unless permission was given, of course). Likewise, a People-style interview also wouldn't qualify for inclusion, because of the preponderance of the content.
This should help respect Rich's wishes in regards to the 'stalking' concerns while still stasifying the thread's main purpose.
I draw a disctinction between a Q&A and forum posts because Rich, presumably, knows going into a Q&A that he is going to be quoted far and wide, as opposed to a more personal/private type discussion on a fourm.
Just a thought at least.
Yes, this. I think other points in favor of it have been made already.
Jasdoif
2014-03-13, 04:05 PM
I still think it isn't particularly necessary to formalize things to such a degree, but hey, we have a inter-book hiatus right now, I guess we need something to talk about :smallcool:I figure establishing a rule is preferable to having multi-page debates like happened with voting in the last thread, especially since we've got a bunch of people interested in having a rule established. And as long as we're making a rule, we may as well make it a good one. Speaking of which....I'm amending my suggestion:
Rule G: Transcripts of interviews and Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in secondary posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source of such transcripts must fit with established rules, although only Rule A must apply to all parts; only a majority of the content must abide by other rules.
1) Individual entries in main Index may be drawn from secondary posts, to make it easy to find important comments. Therefore, entries are not considered redundant with secondary posts for the purposes of rule E.Basically, changes are that we can include non-Q&A stuff (like the Geekademia interview), and we can have individual entries for stuff in Q&As and interviews (so there's no grounds for removing the six Twitter-sourced entries if/when the Twitter Q&A gets included).
ANYWAY, to sum up recent happenings....
ThePhantasm no longer has enough time to properly take care of the Index, so I've taken over curatorship.
I'm intending to use the "six-quote or two-month" procedure recommended by ThePhantasm in the last thread, and it is listed in the rules spoiler; the two-month mark would be May 9.
The only currently outstanding quote is the one about why the hobgoblin army was homogenous, with two proposers and two supporters at the end of the last thread.
Currently plan is, when the next update happens, to hold a vote for including the Twitter Q&A in a secondary post, and for the introduction of a rule (mentioned above) covering the use of secondary posts. Discussion/Debate about these is highly welcome.
I may be taking the "banana" theme that gave us the thread subtitle too far. Possibly.
ChristianSt
2014-03-13, 05:57 PM
Rule G: Transcripts of interviews and Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in secondary posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source of such transcripts must fit with established rules, although only Rule A must apply to all parts; only a majority of the content must abide by other rules.
1) Individual entries in main Index may be drawn from secondary posts, to make it easy to find important comments. Therefore, entries are not considered redundant with secondary posts for the purposes of rule E. Basically, changes are that we can include non-Q&A stuff (like the Geekademia interview), and we can have individual entries for stuff in Q&As and interviews (so there's no grounds for removing the six Twitter-sourced entries if/when the Twitter Q&A gets included).
Since you want discussion about it: I think the added "interviews" is redundant, since an interview is only a special kind of Q&A (namely the sort of where there is an interviewer asking the questions that someone answers).
Also while I like the thought behind the addendum 1) [which I thought of as kinda implied anyway], I don't like the fact that it is a "1)" without a "2)" and the talk about "secondary posts" is imo potential confusing/unclear. Does this mean secondary posts related to Q&As? Some other kind of secondary posts? All potential types of secondary posts? I know it is clear what it should mean. But couldn't it be worded in a precise way?
[speaking of secondary posts: Do we need a distinction between secondary and primary posts? Wouldn't it be better to just say "additional posts"? Or maybe "after the regular Index" if it is the position of the posts you want to focus on. Because "secondary" doesn't need to be necessarily mean that.]
I would reformulate it as
Rule G: <Basically the same stuff as before> Those Q&As aren't considered part of the Index with regard to the Redundancy Rule E. If you want to be verbose we could still add a subordinate clause ", i.e. it is perfectly valid to include a certain comment in the regular Index and even multiple Q&As."
I know it kinda allows the scenario you made as an example with the hypothetical scenario with a potential Q&A with the complete transcript "AB" and a partial transcript "A". But I think this has to be prevented through thread consensus.
Because otherwise I could present the following scenario to you: Say Rich's makes a few more Q&As where he answers some question. They consist of multiple (for ease of discussion equally long) parts.
The first includes the parts ABCE.
The second includes the parts ABDF.
The third includes the parts CDG.
From a rules standpoint each Q&A would be mostly redundant (the first featuring ABC, the second ABD and the third CD redundant with content from the others). Yet each has a unique part we might want to keep (E, F and G respectively). [And it is possible that those parts aren't that easy to separate.]
So in my opinion the rule we want to establish shouldn't prevent that scenario (however unlikely it is), because I don't think it should be hard to establish thread consensus to prevent the partial transcript scenario should it arise. (Maybe I would go even so far and explicitly state that all Q&A aren't subject to Rule E in any way to allow them to be included even if they mostly consist of parts already in the Index)
So with that being said I amend my suggestion to:
Rule H: Transcripts of Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in additional posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source must fulfill the established rules with the following exceptions:
Q&As aren't required to fulfill the Rules B, C and D fully. Even if parts of a Q&A violate these rules, it can be included in its entirety.
The Q&As aren't subject to Rule E, i.e. if thread consensus is reached a Q&A can be included even if most of its content is redundant with the regular Index or other Q&As.
The Q&As aren't considered part of the Index with regard to Rule E, i.e. it is perfectly valid to include a comment in the regular Index and even multiple Q&As.
(I have renamed this proposal to Rule H to make it easier to discuss and I think it is different enough compared to the so far proposed and slightly different worded versions of Rule G. In the final version I would naturally still put it into the rules as G)
Dumbestupidiot
2014-03-13, 10:16 PM
I may be taking the "banana" theme that gave us the thread subtitle too far. Possibly.
One can never take a banana theme too far
unless said person is a porn star.
Loreweaver15
2014-03-13, 10:25 PM
I may be taking the "banana" theme that gave us the thread subtitle too far. Possibly.[/list]
That is unpossible.
Jasdoif
2014-03-14, 02:15 PM
Since you want discussion about it: I think the added "interviews" is redundant, since an interview is only a special kind of Q&A (namely the sort of where there is an interviewer asking the questions that someone answers).Now, this is probably a difference in how we use the terms....But I think the defining feature of a Q&A is that a large number of people are asking distinct/isolated questions, which are answered individually; while an interview has an individual or small group of people getting information in the form of a conversation, which naturally references things previously said.
They're different definitions, rather than one being a subset of the other, which is I wanted to make sure we'd have both covered. 'cause I'd feel silly if I introduced a rule to accommodate the Geekademia Interview and the Twitter Q&A, and it accidentally didn't apply to both.
I know it kinda allows the scenario you made as an example with the hypothetical scenario with a potential Q&A with the complete transcript "AB" and a partial transcript "A". But I think this has to be prevented through thread consensus.
Because otherwise I could present the following scenario to you: Say Rich's makes a few more Q&As where he answers some question. They consist of multiple (for ease of discussion equally long) parts.
The first includes the parts ABCE.
The second includes the parts ABDF.
The third includes the parts CDG.
From a rules standpoint each Q&A would be mostly redundant (the first featuring ABC, the second ABD and the third CD redundant with content from the others). Yet each has a unique part we might want to keep (E, F and G respectively). [And it is possible that those parts aren't that easy to separate.]
So in my opinion the rule we want to establish shouldn't prevent that scenario (however unlikely it is), because I don't think it should be hard to establish thread consensus to prevent the partial transcript scenario should it arise. (Maybe I would go even so far and explicitly state that all Q&A aren't subject to Rule E in any way to allow them to be included even if they mostly consist of parts already in the Index)If I'm following your scenario right...you're worried that a lot of the same questions will be asked in multiple Q&As, enough that including both Q&As would be redundant. Even if each has a few important parts we'd want to include (let's say...one reveals Vaarsuvius' gender and the other reveals what the MITD is).
OK, that's a good point. Let me think....
Rule I(-Am-A-Banana): Transcripts of interviews and Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in additional posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source of such transcripts must fit with established rules, with the following clarifications for the slightly different nature of these additional posts compared to the "main" Index:
1) Most of the transcript must meet Rules B and C to be included; small portions are allowed to vary from.
2) If the question arises on whether Rules D and E are met, the answer must be determined by consensus.
3) Entries in the "main" Index are never considered redundant with additional posts, and vice versa; the same information can appear in both places.I put D in alongside E, to avoid a similar problem to your example scenario (where answers on ABC change after the ABCE transcript, making it automatically run afoul of Rule D even though section "E" is still unique).
That should cover everything...I hope. Because I think we'll be at the point where we need a separate set of rules (or a separate curated thread) if it gets much more complex in how this rule interacts with the others.
One can never take a banana theme too far
unless said person is a porn star.
That is unpossible.Oh. OK!
ChristianSt
2014-03-14, 04:23 PM
First of all: Imo Q&A is just a abbreviation of "Questions and Answers" without really any meaning other than there is a bunch of questions and a bunch of answers (for those questions). But since you talked about definition: Where is the source for your definition? I have searched for one and the only thing I found was Wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Q_and_A) (which is imo a rather good source) with:
Etymology
Shortened form of question and answer
Abbreviation
Q and A A period of time in which questions are asked of a person; an interview.
Alternative forms
Q&A , Q & A , Q.&A. , Q. & A.
Q. and A.
Q+A , Q + A , Q.+A. , Q. + A.
QnA , Q'n'A
(I haven't found anything more, since I don't think it is worth to spent time on it, and it is relatively hard to search for it)
If you still think that Interview isn't a subset of Q&A, I will not argue with you. But imo (and from the source I could find) specifying interview is just redundant. But since it is not wrong, it doesn't really hurt anyone.
To Rule H vs. Rule I:
I understand the intent (and reasoning) behind the additional exception of Rule D. But nevertheless I would prefer Rule H:
I don't think it has a good value to keep Q&As with a lot of contradiction. It would needed to be amended (which isn't that problematic, the Geekadmia Interview has some stuff amended, too - which is imo a good thing), but if a rather large part would need such changes, I don't think it would provide really good value.
[Disclaimer: this is more or less random text - none of this is a statement some has maid. (And I also just repeated the questions a few times to highlight the effect)]
Q: Do you like Italian Food?
A: Yes Italian is my favorite kind of Food. [N.B. As of 3/15/2014 XXX has stated that he actually can't see it any more. -YYY]
Q: Do you like American Food?
A: I eat it, but it is nothing I consider really special.
Q: Do you like Indian?
A: No. [N.B. As of 2/17/2014 XXX has started to really like it -YYY]
Q: Do you like Mexican Food?
A: Depends on the type. Some stuff is really great, others I don't like.
Q: Do you like German Food?
A: Haven't tried it yet. [N.B. As of 3/21/2014 XXX has tasted it and has said he like it a lot -YYY]
Q: Do you like Italian Food?
A: Yes Italian is my favorite kind of Food. [N.B. As of 3/15/2014 XXX has stated that he actually can't see it any more. -YYY]
Q: Do you like American Food?
A: I eat it, but it is nothing I consider really special.
Q: Do you like Indian?
A: No. [N.B. As of 2/17/2014 XXX has started to really like it -YYY]
Q: Do you like Mexican Food?
A: Depends on the type. Some stuff is really great, others I don't like.
Q: Do you like Italian Food?
A: Yes Italian is my favorite kind of Food. [N.B. As of 3/15/2014 XXX has stated that he actually can't see it any more. -YYY]
Q: Do you like American Food?
A: I eat it, but it is nothing I consider really special.
Q: Do you like Indian?
A: No. [N.B. As of 2/17/2014 XXX has started to really like it -YYY]
Q: Do you like Mexican Food?
A: Depends on the type. Some stuff is really great, others I don't like.
Q: Do you like German Food?
A: Haven't tried it yet. [N.B. As of 3/21/2014 XXX has tasted it and has said he like it a lot -YYY]
While yes, it might contain still some interesting value (especially if we cannot really single quote comments like with the Geekademia Interview), I think with too much contradiction it loses too much value. I think Rule D is there to make things easier and to kinda prevent to dig up outdated answers because they don't help in any discussion (which is the main focus, as of Rule B). I'm fine with a few things changed (since the less is amended the more each addendum stands out), but if it is basically just a large pile of stuff that needs such warning, I don't see any real value in keeping it.
And that is the reason I'm fine with dodging Rule E: Rule E is imo mainly there to prevent clutter (which makes it hard to find stuff in the Index). Since those Q&As are in a separate part of the Index they don't add any clutter to the Index and therefore don't need to be redundancy-free. Sure, single comments might be hard to find in any given Q&A (especially if there are multiple and the only information I can remind "it was a Q&A"), but we still (if it is possible) can include it in the regular Index if we think it is important and I don't see any way to prevent this from happening (unless we just make a "Q&A"-Index, which I think is just not really worth it).
And that is why I would completely disable rule E for Q&As, while leaving the other Rules mostly intact. it enables that a Q&A can still be included when some comments in isolation wouldn't fit the Index. In a larger Q&A it is just basically guaranteed that some things violate certain rules, through example just some kinda off-topic questions in an interview or just a common question that is asked and answered every time. So demanding they fit all is imo just unrealistic.
Actually the problems with redundancy and Rule E was basically the only reason I had a problem with "majority" in the previous Rule G. I think all other rules should still be more or less followed.
Jasdoif
2014-03-14, 05:57 PM
I don't think it has a good value to keep Q&As with a lot of contradiction. It would needed to be amended (which isn't that problematic, the Geekadmia Interview has some stuff amended, too - which is imo a good thing), but if a rather large part would need such changes, I don't think it would provide really good value.I think we're approaching this in slightly different ways, here. I(-Am-A-Banana)2 isn't meaning "Rules D and E aren't in effect", but "Rules D and E are in effect, but whether they are met needs to be determined by consensus; there shall be no official method to quantify what percentage of a transcript is contradictory or redundant, nor shall there be a numeric threshold which a transcript must meet to be considered in compliance of Rules D and E".
Except including all that would be way too verbose, so I stuck with the short "needs consensus" portion. We don't want contradictory or redundant transcripts, but I don't think there's a good way to determine that with guidelines since it's tied into how included transcripts relate to other included transcripts. So it goes to getting consensus instead (in both our proposals I do believe, at least in the redundancy case).
Rogar Demonblud
2014-03-14, 06:32 PM
I'm sorry, I really tried to resist the pun.
We've Left a Banana In Charge
:elan: "But would that be the top banana, or the second banana?"
ChristianSt
2014-03-15, 04:48 AM
I understand why we want to ditch the Redundancy Rule. It is mainly there to reduce clutter, and I think adding a Q&A doesn't add any clutter to the Index.
But I don't really understand why we should ignore another Rule (like D).
The rules say "We don't want a contradicting quote [Rule D]" and "We don't want off-topic quotes [Rule B]". (Rule C doesn't establish anything on itself really. But it states what the goal of this whole thread is.)
Why can a Q&A with a bunch of contradicting quotes be included, while a Q&A with bunch of off-topic quotes not? Is Rule D less important than Rule B? And if so, why doesn't the Rules say so?
In either way, I think each Q&A can only be include if there is thread consensus. Imo no Q&A should be automatically included because of something in the rules. Imo the rules should only state clear which Q&As aren't eligible (sort of with the rules for the regular quotes).
So I think either way the new Rule should basically say "Q&As can go in. Besides Rule E which can be completely ignored, the Q&A must mostly fulfill the Rules, but they are allowed to have some comments normally not allowed in the regular Index. Thread consensus is needed to include any Q&A." Rule H with an explicit mentioning of the thread consensus, which is imo automatically through Rule F anyway.]
Or there is a much looser definition only dealing with Thread consensus, basically the original submission from Porthos:
Any Q&A's that are predominately centered on The Order of the Stick are automatically eligible to be included in their entirety, subject to copyright concerns.
I would reformulate it as
Rule K: Any Q&As with Rich Burlew can be included in their entirety in additional posts if they fulfill Rule A. Any Q&A needs explicit thread consensus to be included and should fit the overall goal of the Index. The Q&As aren't considered part of the Index with regard to Rule E, i.e. it is perfectly valid to include a comment in the regular Index and even multiple Q&As. This basically is the loosest rule we can have (again with the imo unneeded explicit mentioning of the thread consensus + stating that a quote can be in Q&As and the regular Index). It basically allows to ignore all other rules if thread consensus can be reached.
The difference to the initial submission is only that it specifies Rich, since I don't think we want any Q&A not from Rich, even if it is about OotS and that it clearly says that we need to fulfill the concerns Rule A deals with. So a Q&A in a paper magazine (or behind a paywall) is out without a question for example - just like for regular quotes. (Which "subject to copyright concerns" doesn't really specify. Also I really don't like the mention of copyright there, because it is a topic we should not touch in any way [and if only because of potential problem with forum rules like giving legal advice])
I personally prefer Rule H the most. Because it clearly limits the ability to include certain Q&As which are filled with mostly quotes that are stuff we don't want in the Index, and imo should be rather avoided for Q&As, too.
Or we should imo just ditch any references to quantitative statements completely (on the basis that Thread consensus is needed anyway) and go with the (probably most compact and easiest to grasp) Rule K (which is imo basically the initial submission most started jumping on that they want something like this).
[Mh, If we keep posting alternate definition like this, the whole letter-naming thing can get out of hands rather quickly :smallannoyed:]
[Unquoted to enable Quoting if needed]
[B]Rule G: Transcripts of interviews and Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in secondary posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source of such transcripts must fit with established rules, although only Rule A must apply to all parts; only a majority of the content must abide by other rules.
1) Individual entries in main Index may be drawn from secondary posts, to make it easy to find important comments. Therefore, entries are not considered redundant with secondary posts for the purposes of rule E.
1
Rule H: Transcripts of Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in additional posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source must fulfill the established rules with the following exceptions:
Q&As aren't required to fulfill the Rules B, C and D fully. Even if parts of a Q&A violate these rules, it can be included in its entirety.
The Q&As aren't subject to Rule E, i.e. if thread consensus is reached a Q&A can be included even if most of its content is redundant with the regular Index or other Q&As.
The Q&As aren't considered part of the Index with regard to Rule E, i.e. it is perfectly valid to include a comment in the regular Index and even multiple Q&As.
1
Rule I(-Am-A-Banana): Transcripts of interviews and Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in additional posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source of such transcripts must fit with established rules, with the following clarifications for the slightly different nature of these additional posts compared to the "main" Index:
1) Most of the transcript must meet Rules B and C to be included; small portions are allowed to vary from.
2) If the question arises on whether Rules D and E are met, the answer must be determined by consensus.
3) Entries in the "main" Index are never considered redundant with additional posts, and vice versa; the same information can appear in both places.
1
Rule K: Any Q&As with Rich Burlew can be included in their entirety in additional posts if they fulfill Rule A. Any Q&A needs explicit thread consensus to be included and should fit the overall goal of the Index. The Q&As aren't considered part of the Index with regard to Rule E, i.e. it is perfectly valid to include a comment in the regular Index and even multiple Q&As.
[And I don't know if is a good or a bad sign that only we two seem to discuss on Rules formulations right now :smallconfused:]
Edit: I noticed a slightly discrepancy between some wordings of certain rules proposals with each other (e.g. "Any Q&As" vs. "Transcripts of interviews and Q&A sessions" vs. "Transcripts of Q&A sessions"). I really don't care which version should make the final rule [I said interview is redundant, so I would like to keep it out, but I don't think it worth to really argue about], so fill free to reformulate them as you think is needed. I really think we shouldn't argue about slight changes in formulation as long as the intend and meaning is the same.
Edit2: I missed to put the redundancy in respect to the regular Index into rule K at first, which I think should be there in either case.
Jasdoif
2014-03-15, 02:28 PM
:elan: "But would that be the top banana, or the second banana?"Both, at the same time. Does that make it...a banana split? :smalltongue:
But I don't really understand why we should ignore another Rule (like D).
The rules say "We don't want a contradicting quote [Rule D]" and "We don't want off-topic quotes [Rule B]". (Rule C doesn't establish anything on itself really. But it states what the goal of this whole thread is.)
Why can a Q&A with a bunch of contradicting quotes be included, while a Q&A with bunch of off-topic quotes not? Is Rule D less important than Rule B? And if so, why doesn't the Rules say so?
In either way, I think each Q&A can only be include if there is thread consensus. Imo no Q&A should be automatically included because of something in the rules. Imo the rules should only state clear which Q&As aren't eligible (sort of with the rules for the regular quotes).You know, I think we're in agreement on Rule D here, except for the details on how to express it.
I don't think we want to have a bunch of contradicting quotes in a transcript either. But how are we going to determine if a transcript has "a bunch" of contradicting quotes? Counting words, or sentences, or paragraphs? Those are easily measured themselves, to be sure, but aren't reflective of the usefulness of the information in them. So I'm thinking we don't have a quantitative measurement. Instead, if someone thinks a transcript has become outdated and violates Rule D, we need to arrive at consensus to remove it.
And if we're doing that for Rule D, doing the same for Rule E takes a trivial amount of extra effort/space in the rules. Plus we'll have an established way to handle things if redundancy between transcripts becomes an issue, like Gwynfrid mentioned.
As for needing consensus to include a transcript, I agree. That was specifically why I used the word "may" in G...although in retrospect I realize I was using the definition for IETF documents (https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt), which is far too niche to expect anyone to also be using.
[Mh, If we keep posting alternate definition like this, the whole letter-naming thing can get out of hands rather quickly :smallannoyed:]Honestly, I used "Rule I" after your "Rule H" primarily so I could do "Rule I(Am-A-Banana)". I think these kind of conversations can benefit from the occasional (attempt at) comedy :smalltongue:
Anyway, if we really can't narrow it down to a single rule proposal by the time the next voting period comes, I guess we'll hold a separate vote for the various proposals.
[And I don't know if is a good or a bad sign that only we two seem to discuss on Rules formulations right now :smallconfused:]I noticed that myself....It's fine if no one else wants to get involved in rulemaking (it's not as interesting as the Giant's quotes, after all), but it's really difficult to gauge community support this way.
Jaxzan Proditor
2014-03-15, 03:08 PM
I think the rules that I would support are Rules G and K, because (to me) they are the simplest ones. If I may propose my own rule:
Rule J: Transcriptions of interviews/Q&As are to be included in their entirety in the Index. These Q&As must follow Rule A (that is, they must be accessible online), and must, for the majority, abide by Rule B (that is, they must pertain to The Order of the Stick). Occasional deviations are acceptable. Rules C,D, and E do not apply to Q&As. Q&As will be added to the Index in the same manner as comments are.
One thing I would say is that a potential way to get around the problems caused by not following Rule D (which I'm not including because I would rather have the Q&As in their entirety, outdated information or no) is to arrange them chronologically.
Thoughts?
Ironically, this Rule is probably more complex than G or K.
And why did we skip over J?
ChristianSt
2014-03-15, 05:01 PM
Is there a way to say "may" without without meaning (or at least implying) that something is optional? :smallconfused:
I only included the whole thread consensus sentence to make it clear that no matter what, no Q&A shoul be included automatically. Because even without no rule version so far said that they needed to be added. Even if they didn't mentioned thread consensus. If you and others think it is redundant, feel free to cut it.
You know, I think we're in agreement on Rule D here, except for the details on how to express it.
I don't think we want to have a bunch of contradicting quotes in a transcript either. But how are we going to determine if a transcript has "a bunch" of contradicting quotes? Counting words, or sentences, or paragraphs? Those are easily measured themselves, to be sure, but aren't reflective of the usefulness of the information in them. So I'm thinking we don't have a quantitative measurement. Instead, if someone thinks a transcript has become outdated and violates Rule D, we need to arrive at consensus to remove it.
Actually I'm not sure whether we agree on Rule D or not. Why can't the same technique that is be used to determine whether only "small portions are allowed to vary from" Rule B/C of your Rule I be used to do the same for D? If the rule is allowed to say only a limited amount of B/C is used, why can't we say the same for Rule D, without needing do define how much is allowed and what not? :smallconfused:
Or if we can, why should we value Rules B/C higher than Rule D and just not do the same for all Rules?
@Rule J
[I deliberately skipped over J. I personally don't have anything against using it, but in alphabetic lists it isn't (or at least I have the experience/perception) that rare to skip over J. Most likely because those letters are kinda similar (IJ/ij - especially the lowercase versions) and it doesn't help that they are adjacent.]
I really don't like the "Q&As will be added to the Index in the same manner as comments are". I think you mean "thread consensus" with it, but it is certainly possible to read it as "each question/answer will be sorted in the Index in the same way other comments are included". And that would be imo a bad thing to do.
I personally have the same problem with this: Is Rule B more important than C and D? Or are C/D somehow good for the regular Index but not for Q&As? I think there should be equal "rights" for B, C and D.
While a chronological approach to include Q&As makes the most sense, I wouldn't want to add that to any rule. Because it might be better to use other sorting mechanisms (source, thematic, how to use less posts). Basically the same way we do it for normal quotes (we specify what quotes are go into the Index, but we don't specify how they get sorted). And it doesn't really help against the contradiction thing. Because we don't know in which order any user might read any part of this thread (especially if someone just wants to read a single (maybe specific) Q&A and not all).
I (and I haven't seen anyone else) haven't said that parts of a Q&A should be removed. I think each rule proposed so far said to include the Q&A in its entirety and not removing random stuff (And I really don't want to do establish thread consensus on which part should be removed and which part not). But if an answer is outdated it should imo be amended like the Geekademia Interview [i.e. not removing any information, but adding additional information in parentheses that the original provided answer is not outdated].
If we continue to discuss about any formulation on to what degree (majority, parts, mostly, small portions, etc...) which of the Rules B, C and D apply (and how we can't give a valid and easy to use definition of how this can be applied to any given Q&A), I think the by far best would be Rule K because it is the only proposal so far without mentioning any fuzzy words.
[Unquoted to enable Quoting if needed]
Rule G: Transcripts of interviews and Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in secondary posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source of such transcripts must fit with established rules, although only Rule A must apply to all parts; only a majority of the content must abide by other rules.
1) Individual entries in main Index may be drawn from secondary posts, to make it easy to find important comments. Therefore, entries are not considered redundant with secondary posts for the purposes of rule E.
1
Rule H: Transcripts of Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in additional posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source must fulfill the established rules with the following exceptions:
Q&As aren't required to fulfill the Rules B, C and D fully. Even if parts of a Q&A violate these rules, it can be included in its entirety.
The Q&As aren't subject to Rule E, i.e. if thread consensus is reached a Q&A can be included even if most of its content is redundant with the regular Index or other Q&As.
The Q&As aren't considered part of the Index with regard to Rule E, i.e. it is perfectly valid to include a comment in the regular Index and even multiple Q&As.
1
Rule I(-Am-A-Banana): Transcripts of interviews and Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in additional posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source of such transcripts must fit with established rules, with the following clarifications for the slightly different nature of these additional posts compared to the "main" Index:
1) Most of the transcript must meet Rules B and C to be included; small portions are allowed to vary from.
2) If the question arises on whether Rules D and E are met, the answer must be determined by consensus.
3) Entries in the "main" Index are never considered redundant with additional posts, and vice versa; the same information can appear in both places.
1
Rule J: Transcriptions of interviews/Q&As are to be included in their entirety in the Index. These Q&As must follow Rule A (that is, they must be accessible online), and must, for the majority, abide by Rule B (that is, they must pertain to The Order of the Stick). Occasional deviations are acceptable. Rules C,D, and E do not apply to Q&As. Q&As will be added to the Index in the same manner as comments are.
1
Rule K: Any Q&As with Rich Burlew can be included in their entirety in additional posts if they fulfill Rule A. Any Q&A needs explicit thread consensus to be included and should fit the overall goal of the Index. The Q&As aren't considered part of the Index with regard to Rule E, i.e. it is perfectly valid to include a comment in the regular Index and even multiple Q&As.
Jaxzan Proditor
2014-03-15, 05:12 PM
I really don't like the "Q&As will be added to the Index in the same manner as comments are". I think you mean "thread consensus" with it, but it is certainly possible to read it as "each question/answer will be sorted in the Index in the same way other comments are included". And that would be imo a bad thing to do.
I meant something more along the lines of "the process for approving Q&As will be the same as that for approving comments" so that way the same voting rules will apply.
I personally have the same problem with this: Is Rule B more important than C and D? Or are C/D somehow good for the regular Index but not for Q&As? I think there should be equal "rights" for B, C and D. I think that ensuring that the majority of the Q&A pertains to OOTS is more important than removing or noting contradictory answers. With that said, I suppose their should be some mechanism for keeping Q&As Rule D compliant, but I am unsure what the best way to do so is.
NCoffin
2014-03-15, 06:32 PM
Is it fair to say that, regardless of exact wording, there will always be debate over what should be included in the Index? If so, I'd argue that all this proposed rule needs to do is allow for the inclusion of Q&As, as it's currently a grey area.
How about something like the following:
Rule L: Transcripts of Q&As with Rich Burlew may be included, in their entirety, in additional posts to the Index. Rule A applies as normal, but all other Rules may be varied contingent on community acceptance.
Rather than trying to legislate the exact boundaries of acceptable variance from the rules, this leaves pretty much all discussion up to the community at large, and will likely always involve a vote on inclusion in the end, rather than a quick addition. However, given the relative lack of such transcripts to come up so far, I'm willing to bet that at least for the immediate future Q&As will be sporadic. An occasional in-depth discussion is not necessarily a problem.
I trust that the case-by-case debate of transcripts will keep up the quality of Index input without the need for an excessively complex rule. Frankly, even an exhaustively-worded rule isn't going to prevent people from debating inclusion.
Porthos
2014-03-15, 07:13 PM
Yeah, I just wanted to propose a nice simple rule precisely to avoid all of this back and forth. :smalltongue:
I mean, I see no reason to make this anymore complex than it need be.
ChristianSt
2014-03-16, 07:15 AM
@Rule L: The only difference I see between this and Rule K (minus slightly different wording) is that Rule K specifies that Q&As aren't considered part of the Index with regard to redundancy.
Is this deliberate? I.e. if there is a quote in a Q&A, do you think it can or it cannot be included in the first post of the Index?
Because I think it should be possible to include answers from Q&As there to, to make it easier to find them. And in that case I think the rule should clearly state it. (Or the other choice I see is to amend Rule E that redundancy is only considered for regular included quotes. But since the information is needed somewhere imo, it is imo better to leave Rule E as is and include that information in the new Rule).
So while I personally would like a Rule with a more strict meaning (but without the intent to really enforce it, since it is basically impossible to do so), from the last responses, I think a rule "Rule A + Thread Consensus (- Rule E for dealing with the regular Index)" is the thing that makes the most sense.
Although only a few people have said something on the redundancy part. But all posters that have said something on it have said nothing against including a quote in a Q&A and the regular Index. So I think it would be natural to include such an exception.
And to enable a fair vote (whether or not all proposals should be voted on or not. I think it can be narrowed down a lot before doing any voting), I think we just need at least one formulation that is against including Q&As.
Rule eXclude: To include Q&As in its entirety is outside the scope of the Index. Specific answers can be included as regular in the Index if they fulfill the rules as normal.
If I would have to put up a limited amount of candidates for the vote, I would use K, L and X. Rules K and L to enable a consensus on whether Q&As are considered redundant to the proper Index or not. So Rule L would prevent us from including those six Twitter Quotes in the regular Index if we decide to include the Twitter Q&A, while Rule K would allow it. Rule X is just to say that Q&As are definitely not something for this thread and would result in removing the Geekademia Interview.
I don't really think that any rule variant from G, H, I or J is that great, because they all feature some sort of fuzzy quantification. Since in cases where we need thread consensus anyway to establish whether or not we are on this or that side of the border, we imo can just skip that part and just say that thread consensus is needed. [And imo the only rule that really can't be overthrown by thread consensus is Rule A, because imo otherwise this thread might risk to overstep forum/board rules etc... - But nobody has proposed to skip Rule A so far, so I think we don't really need to argue about that.]
[Unquoted to enable Quoting if needed]
Rule G: Transcripts of interviews and Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in secondary posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source of such transcripts must fit with established rules, although only Rule A must apply to all parts; only a majority of the content must abide by other rules.
1) Individual entries in main Index may be drawn from secondary posts, to make it easy to find important comments. Therefore, entries are not considered redundant with secondary posts for the purposes of rule E.
1
Rule H: Transcripts of Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in additional posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source must fulfill the established rules with the following exceptions:
Q&As aren't required to fulfill the Rules B, C and D fully. Even if parts of a Q&A violate these rules, it can be included in its entirety.
The Q&As aren't subject to Rule E, i.e. if thread consensus is reached a Q&A can be included even if most of its content is redundant with the regular Index or other Q&As.
The Q&As aren't considered part of the Index with regard to Rule E, i.e. it is perfectly valid to include a comment in the regular Index and even multiple Q&As.
1
Rule I(-Am-A-Banana): Transcripts of interviews and Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in additional posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source of such transcripts must fit with established rules, with the following clarifications for the slightly different nature of these additional posts compared to the "main" Index:
1) Most of the transcript must meet Rules B and C to be included; small portions are allowed to vary from.
2) If the question arises on whether Rules D and E are met, the answer must be determined by consensus.
3) Entries in the "main" Index are never considered redundant with additional posts, and vice versa; the same information can appear in both places.
1
Rule J: Transcriptions of interviews/Q&As are to be included in their entirety in the Index. These Q&As must follow Rule A (that is, they must be accessible online), and must, for the majority, abide by Rule B (that is, they must pertain to The Order of the Stick). Occasional deviations are acceptable. Rules C,D, and E do not apply to Q&As. Q&As will be added to the Index in the same manner as comments are.
1
Rule K: Any Q&As with Rich Burlew can be included in their entirety in additional posts if they fulfill Rule A. Any Q&A needs explicit thread consensus to be included and should fit the overall goal of the Index. The Q&As aren't considered part of the Index with regard to Rule E, i.e. it is perfectly valid to include a comment in the regular Index and even multiple Q&As.
1
Rule L:Transcripts of Q&As with Rich Burlew may be included, in their entirety, in additional posts to the Index. Rule A applies as normal, but all other Rules may be varied contingent on community acceptance.
1
Rule eXclude: To include Q&As in its entirety is outside the scope of the Index. Specific answers can be included as regular in the Index if they fulfill the rules as normal.
NCoffin
2014-03-16, 03:26 PM
You're right in that K and L are basically the same. I've only tried to simplify the wording as much as possible.
Personally, I too am in favour of adding quotes from the Q&As to the Index proper. The only reason I see to include the Q&As at all is to preserve the original source of the quotes in the same way that forum links do for normal quotes. I don't see them as part of the Index itself, so much as preserved sources for the Index.
EDIT: I fully agree with your reasoning below, ChristianSt, and withdraw this argument. I still see the Q&As as being distinct from the Index and only kept here for ease of use.
So yes, the individual quotes can be put into the Index. I hadn't thought to include this in my original wording, so I amend it (in green) as follows:
Rule L: Transcripts of Q&As with Rich Burlew may be included, in their entirety, in additional posts to the Index. Rule A applies as normal, but all other Rules may be varied contingent on community acceptance. Quotes can be added to the Index proper from the Q&As. This is not considered redundancy for the purposes of Rule E.
Jasdoif
2014-03-16, 04:38 PM
I don't really think that any rule variant from G, H, I or J is that great, because they all feature some sort of fuzzy quantification. Since in cases where we need thread consensus anyway to establish whether or not we are on this or that side of the border, we imo can just skip that part and just say that thread consensus is needed.I think the "fuzzy quantification" is more for the benefit of the users, than for the process. A simple "by consensus" could mean "all of it must meet the rule" as easily as "none of it must meet the rule", which doesn't carry much information for when exactly a transcript might be considered for removal.
Terms like "mostly" or "small portions of" carry some sense of what direction consensus tends toward, so users can tell prior to attempting to remove/add a transcript. Even if someone still tries to do so against the direction indicated, it should at least serve as a warning against expecting success. Preventing/mitigating disappointment is a good thing, and reducing clutter (from not holding debates unlikely to change things) is a bonus.
I feel the rules should reflect both how we intend for the thread to be run, and what users can expect the thread to have.
ChristianSt
2014-03-16, 07:15 PM
I think the "fuzzy quantification" is more for the benefit of the users, than for the process. A simple "by consensus" could mean "all of it must meet the rule" as easily as "none of it must meet the rule", which doesn't carry much information for when exactly a transcript might be considered for removal.
Terms like "mostly" or "small portions of" carry some sense of what direction consensus tends toward, so users can tell prior to attempting to remove/add a transcript. Even if someone still tries to do so against the direction indicated, it should at least serve as a warning against expecting success. Preventing/mitigating disappointment is a good thing, and reducing clutter (from not holding debates unlikely to change things) is a bonus.
I feel the rules should reflect both how we intend for the thread to be run, and what users can expect the thread to have.
I'm sorry, but I can't really follow your argumentation. After I proposed Rule H and altered the part concerning Rule D and I asked you why we shouldn't used the same approach for D as for B & C you said
I don't think we want to have a bunch of contradicting quotes in a transcript either. But how are we going to determine if a transcript has "a bunch" of contradicting quotes?
For me this statement makes only if there is a problem with "fuzzy quantification".
Otherwise I don't see any problem with Rule H, it basically encourages to honor the other rules (other than E) as best as possible. I don't see any reason why ignoring Rule D is less severe than ignoring the other Rules. Especially if you say it should only give a direction of whether it should be added or not, but basically doesn't mean anything.
I think that if the discussion shifts towards "It fits the definition of the Rule or not" instead of "I think it fits the Index or not" it doesn't really reduce any reason of discussion (other than distracting from the really important part of the why the discussion is done).
@K vs. L: If you agree that the rules are basically the same, then I personally don't care that much about which one is picked. I don't think K is really more complicated than L but I don't care that much about the exact wording (but I like the K wording more). But I would keep an alternative without the redundancy part if there are posters preferring not to include content in the regular Index and Q&As.
Personally, I too am in favour of adding quotes from the Q&As to the Index proper. The only reason I see to include the Q&As at all is to preserve the original source of the quotes in the same way that forum links do for normal quotes. I don't see them as part of the Index itself, so much as preserved sources for the Index.
I personally think "preserve the original source" isn't a valid argument for Q&A inclusion. With that intent it basically says that they are there to circumvent Rule A.
For example if the Geekademia Interview should become unavailable for some reason, I think it would be best to remove it from the Index. (I wouldn't like it, but without a valid source imo nothing should be in the Index.)
The reason I see is that those Q&As should be included is because they are hard to read. The source of the Geekademia Interview is just a podcast. It is really hard work if you want to quote from it without the transcript. It is even hard just trying to read (or search for!) specific parts. Twitter has its own limitations. It just isn't that easy to read the Twitter Q&A from Twitter (because some Answers are without question in Rich post and you have to open that conversation to see the answer).
Gwynfrid
2014-03-16, 07:38 PM
I noticed that myself....It's fine if no one else wants to get involved in rulemaking (it's not as interesting as the Giant's quotes, after all), but it's really difficult to gauge community support this way.
I think the fact that the vast majority of the rule debate has been conducted by just the two of you is simply a sign that there isn't that much interest in detailed wordsmithing for a rule that will be used very infrequently, if at all. This is pretty much what I tried to say earlier on, and I read NCoffin's and Porthos' reactions in the same way as well.
Now, you are absolutely welcome to discuss this as much as you see fit and try to cover for every possible contingency down the road. You're trying to prevent chaos, that is a worthy goal.
I just humbly suggest that you try and close the discussion with a vote in the not too distant future, lest this thread become ChristianSt & A Banana's Authoritative, Exhaustive and Definitive Treatise on How to Define the Thread Rule to Rule Them All. :smalltongue:
Jasdoif
2014-03-16, 08:20 PM
I'm sorry, but I can't really follow your argumentation. After I proposed Rule H and altered the part concerning Rule D and I asked you why we shouldn't used the same approach for D as for B & C you said
I don't think we want to have a bunch of contradicting quotes in a transcript either. But how are we going to determine if a transcript has "a bunch" of contradicting quotes?
For me this statement makes only if there is a problem with "fuzzy quantification".The problem is coming up with a single method to derive a number that doesn't rely on personal interpretation (a precise quantification rather than a fuzzy one). I don't think such a thing really exists to be found, which is why I think it needs to be taken to consensus (sapient minds are really good at working with things that aren't fully known and/or can't be quantified).
The "fuzzy quantification" terms don't really change that, except the rules suggest up front what direction is more likely to gain consensus, instead of someone having to suggest a removal/addition just to find out from the community after the fact. Even if it were redundant, making things more apparent to our contributors upfront and saving their time seems a worthy goal.
I don't see any reason why ignoring Rule D is less severe than ignoring the other Rules. Especially if you say it should only give a direction of whether it should be added or not, but basically doesn't mean anything.Why I treat D and E differently than B and C, is because B and C are tied to the content of the quote/transcript and thus supremely unlikely to change. Whereas D is related to the current view of the Giant and E is related to the other quotes/transcripts in the Index; either of which could easily change.
It's far more likely for a quote/transcript to be challenged on either D or E after its been included, so I felt a more thorough treatment in the rules of how to determine post-inclusion if those applied was warranted.
But I would keep an alternative without the redundancy part if there are posters preferring not to include content in the regular Index and Q&As.In case I missed it...Do we have anyone actively supporting such a view?
I personally think "preserve the original source" isn't a valid argument for Q&A inclusion.I agree. That's more of a reason for a new curated thread specifically for "preserving the original source". (Although if such a thread were to be created, I'd be perfectly fine with linking it from the Index.)
I just humbly suggest that you try and close the discussion with a vote in the not too distant future, lest this thread become ChristianSt & A Banana's Authoritative, Exhaustive and Definitive Treatise on How to Define the Thread Rule to Rule Them All. :smalltongue:Hmm. Are you thinking "after the hiatus ends" is too distant in the future?
Gwynfrid
2014-03-16, 09:33 PM
Hmm. Are you thinking "after the hiatus ends" is too distant in the future?
I'm not thinking about a hard date, that would be arbitrary. I'm more along the lines of "before the proposed rule count reaches rule Z" or maybe "before the rules discussion reaches the 50-page thread limit"... Just wondering a little how you're going to converge, that's all.
Jasdoif
2014-03-16, 09:55 PM
I'm not thinking about a hard date, that would be arbitrary. I'm more along the lines of "before the proposed rule count reaches rule Z" or maybe "before the rules discussion reaches the 50-page thread limit"... Just wondering a little how you're going to converge, that's all.My original plan, which we'll go with if we can narrow it down to a clear consensus supporting a single option above all others, is to hold a yes/no vote on the rule at the same as the next update cycle for the Index (six quotes or two months, with two months being at May 9).
Otherwise...I'll hold a separate vote on the rule proposals before opening the quotes for nominations to exclude, or when we have six distinct proposals with support. I'm thinking approval voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting), to eliminate the need to rank proposals or dilute votes between multiple options: everyone who wants to vote gives a yes or no on which proposals they support (all, none, one, or any combination), and the proposal with the highest percentage of support amongst all the voters is adopted...if more than 50% support it; if we don't have more for than against any proposal, then no rule will be added. (I'm still evaluating tiebreaker options, though I hope the situation doesn't actually occur)
ChristianSt
2014-03-17, 07:13 AM
The problem is coming up with a single method to derive a number that doesn't rely on personal interpretation (a precise quantification rather than a fuzzy one). I don't think such a thing really exists to be found, which is why I think it needs to be taken to consensus (sapient minds are really good at working with things that aren't fully known and/or can't be quantified).
I never said that I want a method with a precise quantification. I even argued against using the majority, because imo it was too precise (and it was also majority in regards to redundancy). So right now I really don't know why we are arguing about this. :smallconfused:
Why I treat D and E differently than B and C, is because B and C are tied to the content of the quote/transcript and thus supremely unlikely to change. Whereas D is related to the current view of the Giant and E is related to the other quotes/transcripts in the Index; either of which could easily change.
It's far more likely for a quote/transcript to be challenged on either D or E after its been included, so I felt a more thorough treatment in the rules of how to determine post-inclusion if those applied was warranted.
So, you think if a Q&A slowly goes from "no contradictions" to "a lot contradictions" the rules shouldn't tell us that we maybe should look upon it again to see whether thread consensus still wants it there? [Also I would find it highly unlikely that will happen in a degree that we will need to worry about it. I'm not sure, but had we even a contradicting quote, yet*?] So why should we encourage the breaking of rules, if there is imo no real good reason to do so and if it seems unlikely to happen in the first place. And yes, Rule D is something that changes over time. Yet we have that rule for the regular Index anyway. What would be so bad about it applying it to Q&As?
*There is the "Vampire can casts spells without a deity" quote, but honestly I have read it as "it doesn't really state anything about Durkon" the whole time.
As I said, I think we don't need to deal with Redundancy in either case. Since Rule E imo basically is only there to keep the Index as usable as possible (since redundancy leads to clutter which leads to the Dark Side ... or something like that (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0371.html) :smallwink:) and since those Q&As would be outside the regular Index they would have basically zero impact on the usability of the regular Index.
In case I missed it...Do we have anyone actively supporting such a view?
Not really. But since you said you wanted a vote in all cases, I thought it would be good to have at least some realistic options/alternatives (hence Rule X) available. (Otherwise, why do we need a vote in the first place? From what I read here I will say that if there would be a yes/no vote for any of those proposal (-X) without any possible alternative, it will most likely win. Not because it is a good rule, but because I think the thread consensus is to allow Q&As and due to "fuzzy quantification" they are all more or less the same [not considering the redundancy with respect to the regular Index part]).
@approval voting: I really don't like this voting system. I would have no idea what I should vote with it: My clear favorite Rule is H (because it has the most strict and equal views on all Rules besides E), followed by K. I don't really like the other Rules (especially X), but I would prefer any rule (even X) in favor of no rule. So should I just approve all rules to higher the chances that any rule makes the cut? Or should I vote only H and K to higher the chances that one of those will will, but risk that none will reach the threshold?
I'm not sure if it is really better, but I would prefer the Alternative Voting /Instant-runoff voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) [or maybe a similar system - I'm not sure what for voting systems out there and which is better at dealing with specific problems]. I know that Grey_Wolf_c likes this voting system (he has used it for the MitD-Thread in the past) and there is also a really nice video explaining it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE).
With AV, I could just Vote H, K, <rest of rules in alphabetical order>, without worrying to find the sweet spot between "selecting only the candidate I want to win" and "selecting enough candidates that at least one will win".
After writing (and thinking) more about this whole problem my so far reached personal opinion is that we just should use the easiest/clearest way to basically say "Q&As are allowed". The only things that this lacks is clarification. Namely that we still require Rule A, that we don't consider them to be in the Index while discussing redundancy and that we need thread consensus to tell whether they should be included or not. [Which yes, is the intent of Rule K.] I really think now that discussing whether "mostly <this>" or "partly <that>" is the better formulation is just a huge waste of time.
At least that it is what I think about it and what I think is the thread consensus. (If the amount of posters is a fair representation of the thread consensus.)
Loreweaver15
2014-03-17, 07:17 AM
*pokes head back in*
Have you guys reached an understanding yet? I think we're all in favor of keeping the Q&As.
ti'esar
2014-03-17, 07:37 AM
*pokes head back in*
Have you guys reached an understanding yet? I think we're all in favor of keeping the Q&As.
Agreed. I think it's a bit silly that so much effort is being devoted to hammering out the precise details of an answer to an objection that no one has actually raised yet.
Jasdoif
2014-03-17, 12:27 PM
I never said that I want a method with a precise quantification. I even argued against using the majority, because imo it was too precise (and it was also majority in regards to redundancy). So right now I really don't know why we are arguing about this. :smallconfused:I...don't recall saying you wanted a method with a precise quantification.
You said you didn't understand how I could say 'But how are we going to determine if a transcript has "a bunch" of contradicting quotes?' unless there was a problem with fuzzy quantification. So I tried to explain my view: that there was a bigger problem with precise quantification, and using vague fuzzy terms to help inform the decision process of each individual contributor/voter is a more useful standard.
I'm not sure why trying to clarify my own statements counts as arguing o_o
Not really. But since you said you wanted a vote in all cases, I thought it would be good to have at least some realistic options/alternatives (hence Rule X) available. (Otherwise, why do we need a vote in the first place? From what I read here I will say that if there would be a yes/no vote for any of those proposal (-X) without any possible alternative, it will most likely win. Not because it is a good rule, but because I think the thread consensus is to allow Q&As and due to "fuzzy quantification" they are all more or less the same [not considering the redundancy with respect to the regular Index part]).I want a vote to ensure we actually have consensus, even among forum-goers who aren't inclined to get involved to the back-and-forth on coming up with the proposals. (That and so I don't have to change the first sentence in the rules spoiler to "These rules were decided by forum vote (except G)" :smalltongue: )
Since we're not going to be adding a rule if we don't have consensus on it, I'm not seeing an advantage to proposing an option no one supports.
@approval voting: I really don't like this voting system. I would have no idea what I should vote with it: My clear favorite Rule is H (because it has the most strict and equal views on all Rules besides E), followed by K. I don't really like the other Rules (especially X), but I would prefer any rule (even X) in favor of no rule. So should I just approve all rules to higher the chances that any rule makes the cut? Or should I vote only H and K to higher the chances that one of those will will, but risk that none will reach the threshold?...OK, I have an unhealthy fascination with voting systems, so I'm trying not to go overboard on the subject. Apologies in advantage if I fail :smalltongue:
Vote for the proposals you support, don't vote for the proposals you don't support. Exactly like we do with quotes. (That was a big draw for approval voting: The vote itself would be conducted exactly the same way as the multi-quote votes we've done in the past and will do in the future, only determining the end result will be any different.)
And, well...voting would be open, just like with the quotes (posts in thread); so if you're so inclined you could wait to see the general direction of the voting before deciding whether to vote for the non-H-K options.
With AV, I could just Vote H, K, <rest of rules in alphabetical order>, without worrying to find the sweet spot between "selecting only the candidate I want to win" and "selecting enough candidates that at least one will win".That "<rest of rules in alphabetical order>" is exactly my problem with IRV/AV in a scenario with closely related options: it needs a sequential order, resulting in arbitrary ordering if a natural order isn't present. A common arbitrary ordering can skew results.
Suppose we have a lot of voters who don't have a preference as long as a rule is adopted (which seems to be the case at the moment), and they go with alphabetical order for all of the rules...and G gets adopted not because it's got the strongest support (you said you don't particularly like it, and I would prefer I over G), but because it was first in alphabetical order.
Whereas with approval voting, voting for all the proposals supports each equally, increasing the likelihood of a proposal being adopted without influencing which proposal gets adopted...which I think is a good representation for just wanting a rule. Also, voting for only H (let's say) supports H exactly as much as voting for H and K, or voting for all the options, or any vote that includes H.
...all that said, I'd vastly prefer if we can narrow it down to a single proposal. Any vote to choose from more than three options has issues of some sort; so getting down to a "yes-or-no" on one option is ideal.
After writing (and thinking) more about this whole problem my so far reached personal opinion is that we just should use the easiest/clearest way to basically say "Q&As are allowed". The only things that this lacks is clarification. Namely that we still require Rule A, that we don't consider them to be in the Index while discussing redundancy and that we need thread consensus to tell whether they should be included or not. [Which yes, is the intent of Rule K.] I really think now that discussing whether "mostly <this>" or "partly <that>" is the better formulation is just a huge waste of time.
At least that it is what I think about it and what I think is the thread consensus. (If the amount of posters is a fair representation of the thread consensus.)
*pokes head back in*
Have you guys reached an understanding yet? I think we're all in favor of keeping the Q&As.
Agreed. I think it's a bit silly that so much effort is being devoted to hammering out the precise details of an answer to an objection that no one has actually raised yet.Ah, we seem to be thinking as one. Excellent.
Just so I'm clear here, are we all in favor of NCoffin's amended L being the sole rule proposal in the upcoming vote?
Rule L: Transcripts of Q&As with Rich Burlew may be included, in their entirety, in additional posts to the Index. Rule A applies as normal, but all other Rules may be varied contingent on community acceptance. Quotes can be added to the Index proper from the Q&As. This is not considered redundancy for the purposes of Rule E.
Loreweaver15
2014-03-17, 12:29 PM
Yes, indeed.
The Linker
2014-03-17, 12:42 PM
Man, I still can't believe the Geekery tread was ever called nerdier than this one. :smallamused:
Gwynfrid
2014-03-17, 01:16 PM
Just so I'm clear here, are we all in favor of NCoffin's amended L being the sole rule proposal in the upcoming vote?
Yes. As a bonus benefit, this sidesteps the emerging debate over voting methods... I'm all for it.
ChristianSt
2014-03-17, 01:42 PM
I want a vote to ensure we actually have consensus, even among forum-goers who aren't inclined to get involved to the back-and-forth on coming up with the proposals. (That and so I don't have to change the first sentence in the rules spoiler to "These rules were decided by forum vote (except G)" :smalltongue: )
Since we're not going to be adding a rule if we don't have consensus on it, I'm not seeing an advantage to proposing an option no one supports.
So just do be sure: It is fine to exclude option from the vote because they seem unpopular (like any Rule without a "Redundancy doesn't apply clause" or the "we don't do Q&As") to make voting easier, but because of some technicalities you still want to do a vote despite nobody saying that they have something against adding the rule? :smallconfused:
I think the vastly improved thing to do would be to establish a sensible list of possible rules alternatives and do a vote on which of those will handle Q&As (which right now are imo K(= the amended L), the initial L and X). Otherwise imo it is just a waste of time even doing this vote. Because I would be surprised if any vote on a Rule "Q&As can be included. <Stuff>" will yield no.
...OK, I have an unhealthy fascination with voting systems, so I'm trying not to go overboard on the subject. Apologies in advantage if I fail :smalltongue:
Vote for the proposals you support, don't vote for the proposals you don't support. Exactly like we do with quotes. (That was a big draw for approval voting: The vote itself would be conducted exactly the same way as the multi-quote votes we've done in the past and will do in the future, only determining the end result will be any different.)
The problem I support them in such unequal degree that it just basically doesn't make sense to support them equally. I would vote for any, no matter how ridiculous if it means that we leave this gray area. If there would be a a rule "Any Q&A from Rich posted on the third after full moon and it contains 20 to 40 questions with a total wordcount up to 8000 words, will be included in the Index. Any Q&A on other days with at least 50 questions or 10000 words will be included, too. All other Q&As will not be included" I would find it much better than staying in this grey area we are right now. But saying I think it would be a rule I would even like to being implemented is just a lie. Yet from what you said I'm kinda stuck with <voting for all rules>.
The comparison with quotes doesn't make sense. Because quotes are more or less independent. But we want basically exactly one Rule how to handle Q&As. Or if we have a vote containing Rule H and L, will we add both, since both are >50%? In the case of quotes we will add all with majority support.
And, well...voting would be open, just like with the quotes (posts in thread); so if you're so inclined you could wait to see the general direction of the voting before deciding whether to vote for the non-H-K options.
That "<rest of rules in alphabetical order>" is exactly my problem with IRV/AV in a scenario with closely related options: it needs a sequential order, resulting in arbitrary ordering if a natural order isn't present. A common arbitrary ordering can skew results.
Suppose we have a lot of voters who don't have a preference as long as a rule is adopted (which seems to be the case at the moment), and they go with alphabetical order for all of the rules...and G gets adopted not because it's got the strongest support (you said you don't particularly like it, and I would prefer I over G), but because it was first in alphabetical order.
Whereas with approval voting, voting for all the proposals supports each equally, increasing the likelihood of a proposal being adopted without influencing which proposal gets adopted...which I think is a good representation for just wanting a rule. Also, voting for only H (let's say) supports H exactly as much as voting for H and K, or voting for all the options, or any vote that includes H.
If I wouldn't have cared about the order I would have said <rest of rules>. But since I wanted to give X my least support, I would vote that way (and actually this would be my voting order anyway, whether I write it that way or not).
The AV voting system doesn't force you to order all candidates. It would be perfectly valid to vote only rule G. Which says I don't really like any other of the rules. So if we put rules fitting for all tastes, if someone doesn't care he simple doesn't need to vote at all.
But my opinion is not "I want a rule". My opinion is "I want H or K if possible, but I would pick any other rule before no rule will emerge at all". And this is something I can't achieve without knowing what other peoples vote. And even arguing "well, wait with your vote until you know what others voted" is imo a really, really bad argument when you want to argue about benefits of a voting system.
...all that said, I'd vastly prefer if we can narrow it down to a single proposal. Any vote to choose from more than three options has issues of some sort; so getting down to a "yes-or-no" on one option is ideal.Ah, we seem to be thinking as one. Excellent.
No. I think the way you want it to do is just more or less a farce to be able to say "we have done a vote". I think either we should have a meaningful vote or just go ahead and basically pick one rule at random (though it would make most sense to pick the amended L (though I don't really like that wording) and in any case don't pick X) and add it to the rules.
Because yes, the thread has voted on it, but I don't really think that doing a vote to have done a vote (and later to say "but we have done a vote") dose makes sense. If that is really what you want, I will just stop arguing about the rule until it is done, because it just is imo a useless waste of time and basically a scam.
Yes, I know that my choice of words is pretty harsh, but that is just the feeling I have right know. I don't want to say that it needs to be the way I have suggested, but artificially limiting the rules proposal to the single one we would like while simultaneous saying "It was a fair vote" is just mind-boggling wrong in my opinion. And I'm not going to spend any (more) time to establishing an imo clearly unfair vote, with the intent "Basically some posters have agreed on one rule, but we will do a vote to later be able to say 'it was a fair vote'".
Just so I'm clear here, are we all in favor of NCoffin's amended L being the sole rule proposal in the upcoming vote?
So is there right now a vote ongoing on which rule to vote later on? :smallconfused:
Jaxzan Proditor
2014-03-17, 01:42 PM
Just so I'm clear here, are we all in favor of NCoffin's amended L being the sole rule proposal in the upcoming vote?
Sure. I think that it's nice and simple, and hopefully will cover any objection that is brought up. I suppose, since it is somewhat unlikely that there will be many Q&As, that is will work fine.
Jasdoif
2014-03-17, 03:01 PM
Man, I still can't believe the Geekery tread was ever called nerdier than this one. :smallamused:Well to be fair, that comment was made before the emergence of the banana.
So just do be sure: It is fine to exclude option from the vote because they seem unpopular (like any Rule without a "Redundancy doesn't apply clause" or the "we don't do Q&As"), to make voting easier, but because of some technicalities you still want to do a vote despite nobody saying that they against adding the rule? :smallconfused:If by "unpopular" you mean "no one has actually expressed support for", then that's pretty much correct, yes.
The comparison with quotes doesn't make sense. Because quotes are more or less independent. But we want basically exactly one Rule how to handle Q&As. Or if we have a vote containing Rule H and L, will we add both, since both are >50%? In the case of quotes we will add all with majority support.It's the same voting process, so it doesn't require voters to do anything different than they'll be used to already. Clarity of procedure and stuff.
If I wouldn't have cared about the order I would have said <rest of rules>. But since I wanted to give X my least support, I would vote that way (and actually this would be my voting order anyway, whether I write it that way or not).Sorry, when you said "<rest of rules in alphabetical order>" I thought you meant you didn't have a preference between them but wanted to be thorough (and not risk no rule getting past 50%).
The AV voting system doesn't force you to order all candidates. It would be perfectly valid to vote only rule G. Which says I don't really like any other of the rules. So if we put rules fitting for all tastes, if someone doesn't care he simple doesn't need to vote at all.Hmm. That's a fair point.
No. I think the way you want it do do is just more or less a farce to be able to say "we have done a vote".I figure if/when we have a case of something like everyone saying "Proposal I is a refined and better version of Proposal G", then we shouldn't need to have Proposal G as an option on a vote.
Repeat until we have a single option that works for everyone, or just a few distinct entries to hold a vote on.
Because yes, the thread has voted on it, but I don't really think that doing a vote to have done a vote (and later to say "but we have done a vote") dose makes sense. If that is really what you want, I will just stop arguing about the rule until it is done, because it just is imo a useless wast of time and basically a scam.
Yes, I know that my choice of words is pretty harsh, but that is just the feeling I have right know. I don't want to say that it needs to be the way I have suggested, but artificially limiting the rules proposal to the single one we would like while simultaneous saying "It was a fair vote" is just mind-boggling wrong in my opinion. And I'm not going to spend any (more) time to establishing an imo clearly unfair vote, with the intent "Basically some posters have agreed on one rule, but we will do a vote to later be able to say 'it was a fair vote'".It's not like the proposals are inherently irreconcilable the way political candidates are (barring some sort of process/ritual to physically, mentally and psychologically meld people together, anyway). It's well within the realm of possibility that we can come up with a single rule that everyone can support. That's where the discussion comes in.
But not all of our voting audience chimes in on discussions very often (far from it, is the impression I get). Their opinions are just as important, and I'm not willing to presume they'll all support a rule just because we came up with one. Which is where the vote comes in, to help ensure that the consensus of a small subset of our users is actually reflective of the group as a whole.
If that vote falls through, we can try to figure out why, and try again....Or if necessary, leave it un-ruled. I wouldn't like it either, but we've managed to go two threads without one, so it's not the end of the world; and I wouldn't establish a rule in spite of consensus even if thread curators were allowed to do so.
If that all feels like a scam to you...well, I honestly don't know what to tell you.
Gwynfrid
2014-03-17, 03:28 PM
I'd like to express agreement with Jasdoif on the matter of voting systems. There doesn't seem to be a major disagreement on the fundamentals : let's allow Q&As provided they're freely accessible online, redundancy isn't a problem, the rest is a matter of community consensus. So let's try to resolve this as quickly and painlessly as possible, as opposed to trying to find the absolute perfect rule.
Having feelings of frustration is entirely within your rights. However, I think the term "scam" was totally uncalled for. Jasdoif is trying his best to corral a decent consensus, that's all.
Morty
2014-03-17, 03:39 PM
Agreed. I think it's a bit silly that so much effort is being devoted to hammering out the precise details of an answer to an objection that no one has actually raised yet.
Yeah, it seems to me like this argument started eating its own tail...
ChristianSt
2014-03-17, 04:22 PM
I totally agree that a vote is good to ensure to get opion from more posters (especially with thr hiatus), but if that is that the case, who of us has the right to eliminate other (clearly different) proposals (like the "no redundancy allowance" or "no Q&As")?
Because if we can establish that certain rules are invalid, why can't we establish consensus?
E.g. what is when those "voting only posters" would prefer to exclude quotes from the Index that appear in Q&As, why have we the right to exclude that option, but on the same time say "we want a vote so they opinion is heard"?
And before someone starts: "Then they should speak up now!", I will answer: "I haven't heard anyone saying they don't want Q&As. So why do they don't need to say at least something to have a vote, but to get other options they need to say something?"
And yes, it may be harsh to say so, but doing it the way it is planned right now is imo just a scam. I'm not saying that Jasdoif is doing bad (I think Jasdoif makes a great maintainer so far), but if we do make a vote to make a fair process, we should try our best to make it fair. Otherwise right now it would just be better to skip the voting altogether and simple say "thread consensus was reached (without disagreement)".
Zherog
2014-03-17, 04:39 PM
I'm starting to feel sorry for the corpse of the horse... :smallannoyed:
Jasdoif
2014-03-17, 06:37 PM
"I haven't heard anyone saying they don't want Q&As. So why do they don't need to say at least something to have a vote, but to get other options they need to say something?"That's easy enough: because they're not required to get involved in discussions over rules proposals if they don't want to. At the same time, not getting involved in discussions over rules proposals means...not being involved in discussions over rules proposals.
If they want to influence what options are available to vote on, they should get involved in the discussion on what options will be available to vote on. Anyone capable of participating in the vote is capable of participating in the discussion, so this seems fair to me.
If they don't want to get involved in the wordsmith-ery, they can leave it up to the more verbose of us, and they can still shoot our proposals down if they disagree with what we ultimately. This is pretty much a "committee deliberating on phrasing for the entire group to vote on" scenario.
And yes, it may be harsh to say so, but doing it the way it is planned right now is imo just a scam. I'm not saying that Jasdoif is doing bad (I think Jasdoif makes a great maintainer so far), but if we do make a vote to make a fair process, we should try our best to make it fair. Otherwise right now it would just be better to skip the voting altogether and simple say "thread consensus was reached (without disagreement)".Help me out here: why is it a scam? If there's more votes for a proposal than against it, we have a genuine majority demonstrating approval. Where, exactly, is the deception coming from?
I'm starting to feel sorry for the corpse of the horse... :smallannoyed:Look, casting gentle repose can only do so much. :smalltongue:
Gwynfrid
2014-03-17, 09:13 PM
Look, casting gentle repose can only do so much. :smalltongue:
Disintegrate strikes me as a more decisive option. No less than 3 in-comic cases: Pretty conclusive evidence. :smalltongue:
ChristianSt
2014-03-18, 04:32 AM
First of all: I want to apologize for using the word scam. It just means a deliberate intent to do a wrong thing. That is not that what is happening.
But I still think that how I see this is planned it looks really unfair (and like a farce).
If I understand correctly was is planned, then right know the plan is to make a vote on "Q&As can be included. <A>" and vote yes/no on it.
If that result is yes, we have a rule.
If that result is no, it seems that it is planned to try Q&As can be included. <B>".
Yet this is approach makes absolutely no sense to me:
It hides option <B>: If most people only care about "Q&As can be included.", then we may implement <A>, yet it is possible that thread consensus would prefer <B>. But we (a small part - because that is the one reason that is brought up why to do a vote) have eliminate <B> because we don't like it.
It encourages voting yes: Imo it encourages voting yes, no matter what. If for most people the important part is "Q&As can be included.", why should they vote no? Saying no to "Q&As can be included. <A>" heavily implies that they don't want any Q&As. Also maybe they just don't want to go back to the grey area / rule proposal thing / doing another vote and just vote yes, no matter what. [I can say you that I will vote yes on pretty much any proposed rule if the question is "Do we add this rule? Yes or no". Not because I think that would be a great rule, but because I believe that we need a rule. And sorry if I think that a voting system in which I imagine I would vote basically yes no matter what the proposed rule is, is imo highly flawed.]
It just ignores everyone that don't want Q&As: So say we do our vote "Q&As can be included. <A>" and get the result "no". If the next step is to vote on "Q&As can be included. <B>", then from a perspective of someone that do not want Q&As this must look like a scam, because it just seems that we want to force Q&As into the Index.
If the thread wants to follow that path, then feel free to do so, but I will just stop participating in it - because from what I have heard, unless I grossly have misunderstood what is planned, you can't me convince this is fair. [To be fair, since I think we are right now pretty much finished with identifying alternatives (unless someone pops in with a smart idea), then there is imo nothing really left to discuss anyway].
[And to be clear: I don't want to vote on all those different fuzzy quantification wordings and different formulations. I think we have established that they boil down to essentially the same thing. But I don't see any reason to exclude imo fine alternatives like a rule with "Q&As are generally considered part of the Index, no quote from an included Q&A can be included in the regular Index" or "No Q&As". (And yes, it maybe boils down to me wanting to have a rule at the end, so I think it is vastly better to just have the essential alternatives in a vote and see which rule emerges as consensus. But with the currently planned voting system that imo just don't work, because we just firing one proposal and see if it sticks. But we don't even try if other solutions we have identified might stick better.)]
EDIT: And if we think no proposal we might find could be right, we could also have the option "non of the proposed rules are ok." [with encouraging to state what the problem with them is, btw what a fine rule would be]
ti'esar
2014-03-18, 04:50 AM
I'm fine with having a vote on something that no one has objected to so far. What does bother me about all this is the vast amount of effort that's being put into finding the absolute most precise way of wording "Q&As can be included". It's kind of silly to begin with, but it seems really pointless and detached from reality when no one has said "Q&As shouldn't be included".
Kalmegil
2014-03-18, 07:14 AM
An amendment process where some group of people proposes an amendment to be voted up or down is not only common, but the most common way to amend things in the real world. And it's absolutely fair when the group of people doing the proposing is self-selected, making the process open to literally everyone who wants to be included (and hasn't been banned from the board).
Voting is not the only means of consensus building. It's not even the best means. It's simply sometimes the only feasible means when the group is big enough.
And there's a big difference between holding a vote to amend the core rules of the thread and trying to make sure that every proposal anyone ever considered (but no one actually advocated) is included. The former, when applied in a case where a clear consensus exists, simply acknowledges and solemnizes the concept of group self rule. The latter isn't about group self rule, but about hypothetical self rule. It's not needed.
Gwynfrid
2014-03-18, 07:39 AM
First of all: I want to apologize for using the word scam. It just means a deliberate intent to do a wrong thing. That is not that what is happening.
Thanks. I appreciate that you're recognizing this distinction.
But I still think that how I see this is planned it looks really unfair.
It is unfair only if people exist that would be on the losing side of the alleged unfairness. Such people haven't spoken up so far: We can only conclude they either don't exist, or don't care enough to post disagreement.
But I don't see any reason to exclude imo fine alternatives like a rule with "Q&As are generally considered part of the Index, no quote from an included Q&A can be included in the regular Index" or "No Q&As".
These alternatives haven't received any support, as far as I can determine, during the whole month this discussion has lasted (since the Twitter Q&A was first proposed for inclusion).
I concur with Kalmegil and ti'esar: The consensus building process has run its course, via the discussion on this thread. All what's left to do it to formalize it through a vote, the only purpose of which is to verify majority support for that consensus. Discussion of alternatives that have no more than hypothetical support isn't necessary.
@Jasdoif: Mind adding a link to ThePantasm's old thread in the OP?
ChristianSt
2014-03-18, 07:52 AM
I just can't really understand the distinction why there is any need for anyone to speak up for some for those other options but no need for anyone to say they want a vote on it. But since I don't think it will lead anywhere, I don't really want to discuss this further.
@Jasdoif: Mind adding a link to ThePantasm's old thread in the OP?
Since it is already there, I don't think Jasdoif will have a problem with it :smalltongue:
(Unless you think it is not prominent enough where it is, it is after the Geekademia Interview in Post 4)
Gwynfrid
2014-03-18, 08:48 AM
(Unless you think it is not prominent enough where it is, it is after the Geekademia Interview in Post 4)
I'm not sure if it's prominent enough or not. The fact is I missed it when I went to find it. I only looked in the first post as I just didn't imagine it might be anywhere else.
Jasdoif
2014-03-18, 11:01 AM
Disintegrate strikes me as a more decisive option. No less than 3 in-comic cases: Pretty conclusive evidence. :smalltongue:That would remove the possibility of future damage to the corpse, yes...but this banana does not have the Destruction domain.
Also, it would make me feel really silly for casting gentle repose in the first place :smalltongue:
But I still think that how I see this is planned it looks really unfair (and like a farce).
If I understand correctly was is planned, then right know the plan is to make a vote on "Q&As can be included. <A>" and vote yes/no on it.
If that result is yes, we have a rule.
If that result is no, it seems that it is planned to try Q&As can be included. <B>".That would be a farce, yes. Which is why it's not what's planned.
There is no <B> option going up. If there were, it would be up in the same vote as <A>, because to do otherwise would be to bury the <B> option...like you said. If the result on <A> is not a majority to approve, then we have no rule; and we're done with this rule-making exercise. For the time being at least.
I suppose it's my fault if I wasn't clear that "narrowing it down to one choice" wasn't meant as "iterate through multiple choices individually until one sticks", so I apologize.
And if we think no proposal we might find could be right, we could also have the option "non of the proposed rules are ok." [with encouraging to state what the problem with them is, btw what a fine rule would be]That's kind of what I was thinking "no" votes could accomplish.
I'm not sure if it's prominent enough or not. The fact is I missed it when I went to find it. I only looked in the first post as I just didn't imagine it might be anywhere else.It's after the Geekademia Interview, solely because that's where it was in the last thread and I didn't see any reason to do otherwise.
Where are you thinking would be a better place for it?
Gwynfrid
2014-03-18, 11:35 AM
It's after the Geekademia Interview, solely because that's where it was in the last thread and I didn't see any reason to do otherwise.
Where are you thinking would be a better place for it?
Not a big deal for me, since now I know where to find it if I ever want to refer it again in the future. In general, I would say the most logical place for it is at the bottom of the 1st post. But that's just me.
Jasdoif
2014-03-18, 04:45 PM
Not a big deal for me, since now I know where to find it if I ever want to refer it again in the future. In general, I would say the most logical place for it is at the bottom of the 1st post. But that's just me.Hmm. I'd be more inclined to agree if normal use of the Index had an advantage to looking at the old threads, personally. But if it's not a big deal for you any longer....Does anyone else think the old threads should be linked in the first post somewhere?
ChristianSt
2014-03-18, 06:00 PM
Hmm. I'd be more inclined to agree if normal use of the Index had an advantage to looking at the old threads, personally. But if it's not a big deal for you any longer....Does anyone else think the old threads should be linked in the first post somewhere?
I'm not even sure, whether I care enough about it that I should even post.
.
.
.
Wait, somehow this plan has a problem. :smallconfused:
Loreweaver15
2014-03-18, 08:34 PM
Pretty much every serial thread maintains a list of old threads for reference.
Jasdoif
2014-03-18, 08:49 PM
Pretty much every serial thread maintains a list of old threads for reference.Yes. This is one of them, even.
I'm wondering if anyone thinks it's worthwhile to have it somewhere in the first post, instead of after the other posts at the beginning of the thread like it is now. My opinion isn't strong either way, and Gwynfrid's opinion doesn't seem to be either once he located where it is now.
It's only there now because that's where it was in the last thread, and because it is there is not sufficient reason to climb a mountain assume it needs to stay there.
Loreweaver15
2014-03-18, 08:53 PM
I think, perhaps, the fact that I stopped looking after the first post because that's where I assumed it would be will give you my answer :P
Jasdoif
2014-03-19, 12:35 PM
I only looked in the first post as I just didn't imagine it might be anywhere else.
I think, perhaps, the fact that I stopped looking after the first post because that's where I assumed it would be will give you my answer :PFair enough.
Conveniently the Index has an accepted format for citing posts, so I just used the same format to list the first posts of all the Index threads at the bottom of the initial post.
Porthos
2014-03-20, 12:19 AM
We have comment!
On destinations of children's souls in the afterlife (if you really need to know), their eventual status (ditto), and the destination of souls in general.
I'm sure someone could come up with something better, but those are the three main points.
Well that and the observation that D&D cosmology doesn't make a lick of sense (Rich's take on it included). :smallwink:
Jaxzan Proditor
2014-03-20, 05:36 AM
I'll support including this quote because I think that tells something interesting about how Rich's version of the after life is supposed to allow the story to progress, not make tons of sense. Also, it says more information of how the after life works in OOTS verse.
Gwynfrid
2014-03-20, 07:46 AM
A refreshingly frank viewpoint on D&D afterlife... To be included, I think, as a matter of course.
NerdyKris
2014-03-20, 09:05 AM
Yes yes yes.
It is invaluable in the sense that people can point to it and say "No, this wasn't thought out that far because it's not relevant to the story beyond that point."
Gift Jeraff
2014-03-20, 11:06 AM
I thought we're only supposed to go "yes, include this quote because of these reasons" if there's someone against its inclusion.
Jasdoif
2014-03-20, 11:29 AM
I thought we're only supposed to go "yes, include this quote because of these reasons" if there's someone against its inclusion.Stating reasons for support is quite fine and even encouraged. A discussion would have to start somewhere, after all.
You might be thinking of if/when a quote is being voted on; in those cases, voting "yes, include this quote because of these reasons" is preferred over discussing those reasons during the vote; since the discussion should have already happened by the time a vote gets called (and tracking votes amidst discussion can be difficult).
Jasdoif
2014-03-31, 09:56 AM
{table="class:grid,align:center,width:100%"]Hey neat, I actually updated the initial posts early enough that it got affected by the mass-table-tag change. Guess I better re-fix it now....
ChristianSt
2014-03-31, 12:47 PM
I hope I get used to the new theme, doesn't really feels that good for me right now :smallannoyed:.
I think with the return of the search function we should get rid of that Google link. [I personally never liked that, and now you can get a more useful result with the forum search anyway]
Since I noticed the main Index got spilled over to the second post (that table code got much more verbose), maybe it would better to turn of your signature for the first post? It would just reduce the distance between the content a bit - and since there is no real "topic switch", I think it would be better. [Only a suggestion. I have no problem if you want to keep your signature in all posts, I only wanted to address that topic, since I just looked at the OP and noticed that.]
Jasdoif
2014-03-31, 12:57 PM
I hope I get used to the new theme, doesn't really feels that good for me right now :smallannoyed:.I hope the new theme gets touched up to look a little better, personally....But I've done enough forum upgrades to know they tend towards the tedious and time-consuming, so I'm opting for patience at the moment.
I think with the return of the search function we should get rid of that Google link. [I personally never liked that, and now you can get a more useful result with the forum search anyway]Seems reasonable; and if something happens to the forum search I can just pull the Google link back out of the second thread. Done.
Since I noticed the main Index got spilled over to the second post (that table code got much more verbose), maybe it would better to turn of your signature for the first post? It would just reduce the distance between the content a bit - and since there is no real "topic switch", I think it would be better.Also seems reasonable. Done.
Loreweaver15
2014-03-31, 01:07 PM
I'm willing to concede the ugly layout for now to the fact that this upgrade was done for hardware reasons, not cosmetic ones.
ChristianSt
2014-03-31, 01:25 PM
I hope the new theme gets touched up to look a little better, personally....But I've done enough forum upgrades to know they tend towards the tedious and time-consuming, so I'm opting for patience at the moment.
Yeah, I didn't want to sound annoyed by the forum upgrade per se. I really like it, and from what I see it brought some really nice benefits. I'm rather annoyed at myself that I have the feeling that it did look better before. But I really hope I will get used to seeing it :smallwink: [And I really would like to see a complete BBCode-Guide, especially what is doable with tables...].
For sure I don't will go and say "This looks ugly, do something to make it like before". It is pretty much impossible to change something without doing some things some people don't like. (But not changing anything isn't the good solution, either.) And layout and such is a pretty personal taste to begin with (and probably seeing something for 5+ years has something to do with it, too.)
Done. Done.
Yeah, progress! :smallcool:
BTW: I haven't said it before: nice work at updating the OP. [I know you said you have a script/program to do the heavy lifting. But I know from my thread, that it is still not that easy to get something that looks satisfying with the table changes (I'm not even sure whether to use table borders or not :smallsigh:).]
Porthos
2014-03-31, 01:30 PM
As an aside, polls did not make the cut during the upgrade. So we don't have to worry about that potential problem.
RMS Oceanic
2014-03-31, 01:48 PM
A bit of info about the new font, and confirmation the online size increase won't translate to the books. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?338534-The-New-Font&p=17229280&viewfull=1#post17229280)
ChristianSt
2014-03-31, 02:11 PM
A bit of info about the new font, and confirmation the online size increase won't translate to the books. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?338534-The-New-Font&p=17229280&viewfull=1#post17229280)
I think your summation is a bit misleading. At least I read that the second part only applies to font sizes, which isn't true. Basically the Giant only says that the online comic is bigger than before (which is easy to see), and that it would not carry over in print. But since the print version isn't really tied to the online version (resolution, border changes, more error correction), I don't think this is really needed. (It doesn't even really confirm that the future books will have the same size as the past books.)
Jasdoif
2014-03-31, 05:02 PM
I haven't said it before: nice work at updating the OP. Thanks. I still miss colspan, though; the use of nested tables works, but I don't really like the doubled borders, and all the added table tags make the BBCode look ugly.
Anyway, since the latest proposal has hit contention; let me recap the stuff we still have on course for inclusion/voting in the next go-around, in case anyone's lost track between the forum downtime and the thread getting on a new page.
I'm still planning on running this by the six-quotes-or-two-months update schedule and...I'm presently leaning towards both the Twitter-Q&A-as-separate-post and the mostly-agreed-upon-Q&A-related-rule counting towards those six "quotes"; So the next update (and corresponding vote) will happen when we decide on two more quotes or sometime during May, whichever comes first.
[i](New Rule Proposal)
"Transcripts of Q&As with Rich Burlew may be included, in their entirety, in additional posts to the Index. Rule A applies as normal, but all other Rules may be varied contingent on community acceptance. Quotes can be added to the Index proper from the Q&As. This is not considered redundancy for the purposes of Rule E."(n/a)(special)
(Twitter Q&A)
Using ChristianSt's transcription in a second post.(n/a)(special)
Why the Hobgoblin Army Was Homogenous
"I didn't really want the audience to weep for the hobgoblin dead, though, so I made them all interchangeable."#94603/02/2014
On Children, Souls and Afterlives
Also, D&D cosmology makes no sense.#94603/19/2014
ChristianSt
2014-03-31, 05:37 PM
Thanks. I still miss colspan, though; the use of nested tables works, but I don't really like the doubled borders, and all the added table tags make the BBCode look ugly.
Have you considered to just drop the "class:border" for the outer tables? I just tried it and I think it looks much better. It gets rid of the double borders, and the table headers stick a bit more out (since they are in the outer table and a bit wider than the inner cells). [That no-border option is so good! You can even use it to improve signature space :smallcool:. If we get vertical alignment and col/rowspan this alone would be worth an upgrade. :smallbiggrin:]
(Yeah, can't really help about messed up BBCode - though it should be easy to intent the original source so that it works better. I personally move any bigger post I edit to a separate text editor before posting it to the forum editor.)
Jasdoif
2014-03-31, 06:09 PM
Have you considered to just drop the "class:border" for the outer tables? I just tried it and I think it looks much better. It gets rid of the double borders, and the table headers stick a bit more out (since they are in the outer table and a bit wider than the inner cells).Huh. It's weird how the default style has borders on the th cells and not on the td cells...but I think that's an improvement, yes! Now I'll just add a little size option so the headers don't look identical to adjacent subheaders, like I already should have...Done.
(Yeah, can't really help about messed up BBCode - though it should be easy to intent the original source so that it works better. I personally move any bigger post I edit to a separate text editor before posting it to the forum editor.)As it turns out, if I add any indenting (even single space indents) the first post runs past the character limit again.
Zherog
2014-04-01, 02:15 PM
As it turns out, if I add any indenting (even single space indents) the first post runs past the character limit again.
Ouch !
ChristianSt
2014-04-01, 02:21 PM
As it turns out, if I add any indenting (even single space indents) the first post runs past the character limit again.
Character Limit is truly a pain in the ass ....
But if it makes your life easier to have a bit indention, since there is already a second post, I think it wouldn't hurt to spill another table or two into the second post. (I think nobody should be bothered whether the spoiler box split is 5/2 or 4/3 [or whatever, haven't checked the OP])
Jasdoif
2014-04-01, 03:44 PM
Ouch !Yeah; adding one space for the (inner) row tags and two for the cell tags adds a bit short of 2000 characters to the Index as a whole. We've got a lot of data....
Character Limit is truly a pain in the ass ....
But if it makes your life easier to have a bit indention, since there is already a second post, I think it wouldn't hurt to spill another table or two into the second post. (I think nobody should be bothered whether the spoiler box split is 5/2 or 4/3 [or whatever, haven't checked the OP])Good idea...With the first post only a few thousand characters away from being full again, it'd be a prudent move regardless. I moved one of the sections to the second post and added a little indenting, now they've both got over 20k characters' worth of room to grow.
ChristianSt
2014-04-01, 04:04 PM
Quick, I need to throw more ideas at this thread, before my run of useful ideas stops!! :smallwink:
(Or turn my focus to more important things :smallsigh:)
But it is nice to see that I can make at least some useful posts here from time to time, instead of having heated discussion about rules :smalltongue:
Jasdoif
2014-04-03, 03:53 PM
I still miss colspan, though; the use of nested tables works, but I don't really like the doubled borders, and all the added table tags make the BBCode look ugly.OK, so it turns out the option's already there and I just didn't know how to do it until now. So now the main posts are colspan-ing.
thatSeniorGuy
2014-04-03, 07:39 PM
Somewhat surprised that this hasn't been noted yet*:
The new hands style takes (almost) exactly the same time to draw as the old style. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17236494&postcount=154) (Feet and dwarven tunnel entrances are another matter).
* Unless I'm an idiot and missed it being mentioned despite just checking the thread.
ChristianSt
2014-04-04, 03:43 AM
Somewhat surprised that this hasn't been noted yet*:
The new hands style takes (almost) exactly the same time to draw as the old style. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17236494&postcount=154) (Feet and dwarven tunnel entrances are another matter).
* Unless I'm an idiot and missed it being mentioned despite just checking the thread.
No, you haven't missed such a proposal.
I personally wouldn't really want to include it anyway. In my eyes it is only needed for discussions which are awfully close to an inappropriate topic (i.e. update schedule): I can only see that post useful in a discussion on the topic "how long takes a comic (or certain element of the comic) to draw". And from that the inappropriate topic is just too close for my taste.
So in favor of Rule C:
Rule C: The index is a forum tool, meant primarily to provide easy access to direct statements from the author for the purpose of forum discussion. Thus, while the index may be fun to read through on a whim, this is not its primary purpose or focus - it is a research aid more than it is a trivia collection. It is for discussions more than it is for leisurely reading.
I personally would not include it, because I honestly think that most (or even all) discussions wanting that quote are pretty sketchy regarding board rules anyway, and I personally tend to err on the side of caution.
Vargtass
2014-04-04, 03:51 AM
Somewhat surprised that this hasn't been noted yet*:
The new hands style takes (almost) exactly the same time to draw as the old style. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17236494&postcount=154) (Feet and dwarven tunnel entrances are another matter).
* Unless I'm an idiot and missed it being mentioned despite just checking the thread.
Contrary to ChristianSt, I would like to have the quote included, for exactly the reason that it would be very useful for stopping topics from drifting into inappropriate topics. The question has been raised at several occasions since the art style shift, and the Giant's response was done to end speculation on the topic. I think it will be needed occasionally also in the future.
- Vargtass
ChristianSt
2014-04-04, 04:17 AM
Contrary to ChristianSt, I would like to have the quote included, for exactly the reason that it would be very useful for stopping topics from drifting into inappropriate topics. The question has been raised at several occasions since the art style shift, and the Giant's response was done to end speculation on the topic. I think it will be needed occasionally also in the future.
While it shuts down the question whether the hands take more time or not, it also openly states that the feet take more time - so potentially merely shifting the discussion from "X takes longer than before" to "Y takes longer than before".
Also the quote alone gives no reason to stop that topic.
The only thing the forum rules allow us to do is either reporting the posts in questions or writing a PM to a Moderator. The only thing we are even allowed to do to directly interact with other users is to "courteously link to" the Forum Rules. And this I can do whether or not Rich said something about the topic or not.
Vigilante Modding
If you're not a Moderator, don't act like one. Rich has selected a few people he trusts to keep an eye on conversations here. Please refrain from chastising other posters over breaking the rules, especially concerning minor things. The proper response when you see someone breaking these rules is to report the post as discussed above or to a PM to the local Moderator. At most, you may courteously link to this announcement. But whatever you do, do not tell other posters what to do, what rules they have broken, that they are spamming, etc. Posters who do so will be issued an Infraction for their actions.
Kalmegil
2014-04-04, 08:25 AM
Contrary to ChristianSt, I would like to have the quote included, for exactly the reason that it would be very useful for stopping topics from drifting into inappropriate topics. The question has been raised at several occasions since the art style shift, and the Giant's response was done to end speculation on the topic. I think it will be needed occasionally also in the future.
- Vargtass
Agreed, although I think there are other reasons, too, including people just being interested in the techniques and difficulty of the art style. The blob brush information is the kind of thing that's useful in forum discussions about the art style.
While it shuts down the question whether the hands take more time or not, it also openly states that the feet take more time - so potentially merely shifting the discussion from "X takes longer than before" to "Y takes longer than before".
A quote doesn't have to perfectly resolve an issue for it to still be useful.
The only thing the forum rules allow us to do is either reporting the posts in questions or writing a PM to a Moderator. The only thing we are even allowed to do to directly interact with other users is to "courteously link to" the Forum Rules. And this I can do whether or not Rich said something about the topic or not.
You could also post a link to the quote, saying, "Hands take same time, feet longer, but some kinds of scenery even longer than that." No need to mention rules at all.
Just because we can't talk about the update schedule doesn't mean we aren't interested in knowing what goes into drawing a comic.
ChristianSt
2014-04-04, 08:58 AM
I never did say that this would be against the rules. I only said that this topic is too close related to the inappropriate one in my eyes.
If it is interesting that Rich used the blob brush (which could be the case), then the summary should be "Rich uses the blob brush to make the new hands." and not something about how long they take draw.
Jasdoif
2014-04-04, 11:47 AM
Rawhide's provided table classes similar to the old table style, so I've updated the Index to use them. The alternating row colors in particular should help readability.
Now then.
I personally would not include it, because I honestly think that most (or even all) discussions wanting that quote are pretty sketchy regarding board rules anyway, and I personally tend to err on the side of caution.While I understand what you mean...To me, wanting to exclude a quote for the purpose of preventing possible discussions seems unduly restrictive in general. And ineffective, really; the quotes linked in the Index already exist, and someone really wanting to discuss it is going to find the quote whether we have it in the Index or not (especially now that forum searching has returned). Besides which, The Giant making the post outside his administrator capacity (no red text) strongly suggests he finds it an acceptable topic of discussion.
I think it's better to decide on the quote's own merits. And having said that....
Agreed, although I think there are other reasons, too, including people just being interested in the techniques and difficulty of the art style. The blob brush information is the kind of thing that's useful in forum discussions about the art style.I'm having a hard time seeing why the fine points of the vagaries of Adobe Illustrator would have much relevance to OOTS. Now if the post in question were instead something like the hand style is not going to be changed, directly talking about what will be in the comic, I'd have an easier time of it.
Kalmegil
2014-04-04, 12:20 PM
Hence it being an "other reason," not the main one.
Jasdoif
2014-04-04, 12:31 PM
Hence it being an "other reason," not the main one.OK, but I'm still not seeing how it works as a reason at all, main or otherwise.
Kalmegil
2014-04-04, 01:27 PM
In fairness, I don't see how Rich giving details on how he draws a particular recurring body part in OotS isn't about OotS. And I doubt I can adequately explain my position until I understand yours.
The Linker
2014-04-04, 01:28 PM
I'm surprised there's resistance to this quote's inclusion. It helps shed light on what parts of the comic are harder for Rich to draw as well as how he draws them, which seems very clearly relevant, interesting, and useful. I'd most certainly say it's more than distinct enough from talk about the comic's update schedule to warrant inclusion on its own merits. Let's not let those who would use it to argue about schedules ruin a good, useful look into the process for the rest of us.
Jasdoif
2014-04-04, 02:37 PM
In fairness, I don't see how Rich giving details on how he draws a particular recurring body part in OotS isn't about OotS. And I doubt I can adequately explain my position until I understand yours.Well, it's more of a case of which method in Illustrator he uses to draw a particular recurring body part in a particular way in OOTS.
Which is quite a run-on sentence, so let me try putting it this way: If the Giant used a different brush and manually merged parts together as had been suggested upstream in that thread, instead of using the Blob brush that automatically does the merging...would there be any noticeable difference in the comic at all? I don't think there would. There could be some difference in the rate of comic output, but once the comic is out there that's not an observable factor. (That part's kind of the same thing I said against including Rich's explanation of how the Saga of the Thumb impacted his output way back in the first Index thread, although I don't think my reasoning was why it was ultimately rejected from the Index)
The exact method used is certainly relevant for Illustrator, but I don't feel it has that kind of impact on OOTS. If he said he started doing the new hand style because of the availability of the Blob brush, that'd be different; then the Blob brush is responsible for the art style, and we could fast-track that into the Index, instead of needing to gather some consensus for it first.
Of course, I'm still surprised the art style thread moved from people not liking the art style of the hands to people questioning the amount of time involved in it, so I could be misunderstanding the whole scenario in the first place.
ChristianSt
2014-04-04, 03:10 PM
While I understand what you mean...To me, wanting to exclude a quote for the purpose of preventing possible discussions seems unduly restrictive in general. And ineffective, really; the quotes linked in the Index already exist, and someone really wanting to discuss it is going to find the quote whether we have it in the Index or not (especially now that forum searching has returned). Besides which, The Giant making the post outside his administrator capacity (no red text) strongly suggests he finds it an acceptable topic of discussion.
That's your opinion. My opinion is another. :smallwink:
Yes not putting it in the Index doesn't prevent that topic from being discussed, but at least it prevents people from "I see it in the Index - so lets stat a thread about the topic!". And yes - that topic alone is certainly fine (and the Giant didn't say anything about not to discuss is), but that doesn't stop me from feeling that it might cause much more harm than being relevant for useful appropriate discussion.
And honestly I can also use that argument against its inclusion: Because it is possible to dig it up with the search function, we don't need it in the Index. :smalltongue:
But I would be fine with including it for other reasons (e.g. the blob brush thing), but I wouldn't actively want to put it in for that other reason.
Gwynfrid
2014-04-04, 03:57 PM
I agree with Jasdoif. The relevance of the quote isn't readily apparent. Sure if Rich was explaining why he uses certain tools to convey certain things in the comic that would be interesting. But here, he isn't doing that, or only to such a minuscule degree that the quote's value to the Index is not obvious to me.
Emanick
2014-04-04, 04:25 PM
The art style is likely to be a continued point of interest to readers, and the quote answers some questions readers might have about how The Giant draws the new style of the comic. It relates directly to OOTS, relates to things that have come up in discussion already and are likely to reappear in future, and is of interest to some readers. That seems like a fairly clear-cut case for inclusion to me.
Jaxzan Proditor
2014-04-04, 04:33 PM
I don't find the new quote worthy of inclusion myself, since all it tells us is how long the new hands take to draw. If it told us something along the lines of why the Giant chose to switch to a different style, or something else related to reasoning behind the art, then I would include it. However, I feel like the quote doesn't directly relate to OOTS and it isn't really something only the Giant can answer.
The Linker
2014-04-04, 04:50 PM
It also mentions that the feet take way longer to draw, and that the cave entrance was harder than both by a large magnitude. I find the information on which pieces of the comic need the most work put into them to be highly relevant and useful for discussion on the art style. It also gives us a small look into how the new art style has or has not impacted his work process, which I do think is relevant to discussions beyond "The new updates are not coming fast enough!"
Jasdoif
2014-04-04, 05:21 PM
Now that we're on a new page, I find myself wondering if everyone saw RMS Oceanic's proposal on the last page. There's been a lot going on forum-wise, and we normally get more than one response to a proposal :smalltongue:
A bit of info about the new font, and confirmation the online size increase won't translate to the books. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?338534-The-New-Font&p=17229280&viewfull=1#post17229280)
I think your summation is a bit misleading. At least I read that the second part only applies to font sizes, which isn't true. Basically the Giant only says that the online comic is bigger than before (which is easy to see), and that it would not carry over in print. But since the print version isn't really tied to the online version (resolution, border changes, more error correction), I don't think this is really needed. (It doesn't even really confirm that the future books will have the same size as the past books.)
Zherog
2014-04-04, 06:35 PM
I'm surprised there's resistance to this quote's inclusion. It helps shed light on what parts of the comic are harder for Rich to draw as well as how he draws them, which seems very clearly relevant, interesting, and useful. I'd most certainly say it's more than distinct enough from talk about the comic's update schedule to warrant inclusion on its own merits. Let's not let those who would use it to argue about schedules ruin a good, useful look into the process for the rest of us.
+1
This quote looks good from my perspective.
Gwynfrid
2014-04-04, 09:55 PM
Now that we're on a new page, I find myself wondering if everyone saw RMS Oceanic's proposal on the last page. There's been a lot going on forum-wise, and we normally get more than one response to a proposal :smalltongue:
That's a relevant, useful quote. Minor rewording of RMS's summary will fix the ambiguity raised by ChristianSt. For example:
The new font is bigger than the old one, because of the larger on-screen comic page size. In the books, it will instead appear smaller than the old font. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?338534-The-New-Font&p=17229280&viewfull=1#post17229280)
The art style is likely to be a continued point of interest to readers.
I agree. If the "new hands style doesn't take long to draw" quote was telling us something meaningful on the art style, I would be all for inclusion.
137beth
2014-04-04, 11:26 PM
It also mentions that the feet take way longer to draw, and that the cave entrance was harder than both by a large magnitude. I find the information on which pieces of the comic need the most work put into them to be highly relevant and useful for discussion on the art style. It also gives us a small look into how the new art style has or has not impacted his work process, which I do think is relevant to discussions beyond "The new updates are not coming fast enough!"
This. It is an explanation of the development process for OOTS. That is definitely related to OOTS.
Gwynfrid
2014-04-05, 07:52 AM
I hope I get used to the new theme, doesn't really feels that good for me right now :smallannoyed:.
I found this response from Rich (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?338451-Questions-about-the-update!&p=17227521#post17227521), so yes, we'd better get used to it. I was a bit uncomfortable at first but now I think this is simply the usual reaction at losing something familiar. The features are definitely a big improvement (esp. Search) and worth the effort.
The Recreator
2014-04-06, 06:20 PM
I don't find the new quote worthy of inclusion myself, since all it tells us is how long the new hands take to draw. If it told us something along the lines of why the Giant chose to switch to a different style, or something else related to reasoning behind the art, then I would include it. However, I feel like the quote doesn't directly relate to OOTS and it isn't really something only the Giant can answer.
OOTS forum avatar/fan comic artists will benefit from a better understanding of how OOTS is drawn. There are many Illustrator techniques to achieve the same end result, but the blob brush should save lots of people lots of time. That said, drawing techniques probably belong in a thread geared towards teaching people how to draw in OOTS style.
Now that we're on a new page, I find myself wondering if everyone saw RMS Oceanic's proposal on the last page. There's been a lot going on forum-wise, and we normally get more than one response to a proposal :smalltongue:
If the scope of this thread includes art detail behind the scenes, then yes - include the quote on relative font size. Otherwise, I feel like it falls into the "trivia" category, moreso than discussions on drawing technique.
On the other hand, fan comic authors would probably love to know more about the new font and how it's used, so there's that. :smalltongue:
Jasdoif
2014-04-07, 02:43 PM
If the scope of this thread includes art detail behind the scenes, then yes - include the quote on relative font size. Otherwise, I feel like it falls into the "trivia" category, moreso than discussions on drawing technique.I think the page is the scene, so its size isn't "behind" the scenes :smalltongue: The change in page and font size is easily noticeable, and there have been questions about what that could mean for the books, and we have an answer from the Giant about that; so I think it's worth including.
That would make six things potentially up for an update, so rather than delay things any longer....
UPDATE COMING, CALLING FOR VOTE NOMINATIONS
Now since this is our first attempt at using the system ThePhantasm outlined in the last thread, and since we have a rule change in here (which naturally isn't a quote), I'll be particularly verbose this time around.
Since I've now called for nominations, anyone thinking some/all entries marked "Accepting nominations for inclusion vote" should not be included in the Index should send me a private message, saying which entries should be voted on for inclusion. (The default is to include, an item not voted on will be included in the Index.) If an entry gets two or more nominations, it will be voted on to decide inclusion; the vote will be the next stage, and I'll announce it when the vote is ready.
There are a few nonstandard cases below. One, the proposed rule addition will be voted on regardless, a rule change can affect far more than a single quote so getting confirmation of support seems warranted. Two, two of the quotes below reached very strong consensus already (unanimous support, even); a vote is considered unnecessary in these cases, so they will be included.
Proposed Items for Index 3.1
(New Rule Proposal)
"Transcripts of Q&As with Rich Burlew may be included, in their entirety, in additional posts to the Index. Rule A applies as normal, but all other Rules may be varied contingent on community acceptance. Quotes can be added to the Index proper from the Q&As. This is not considered redundancy for the purposes of Rule E."(n/a)(special)Vote required
(Twitter Q&A)
Using ChristianSt's transcription in a separate post.(n/a)(special)Will be included
Why the Hobgoblin Army Was Homogenous
"I didn't really want the audience to weep for the hobgoblin dead, though, so I made them all interchangeable."#94603/02/2014Will be included
On Children, Souls and Afterlives
Also, D&D cosmology makes no sense.#94603/19/2014Will be included
The New Font is Larger Because the Online Comic Page is Larger
"When the comic is printed in the book, though, the font will be smaller than that in the previous book."#94703/31/2014Nominated, will be voted on
The New Hands Take as Long to Draw as the Old Hands
#94704/01/2014Nominated, will be voted on
Nomination PMs will be accepted until...3PM tomorrow seems convenient for me, so nomination PMs will be accepted until April 8th, 6PM EDT April 9th, 6PM EDT already. I'll try to update the table if/when entries get sufficient nominations. I don't plan to respond to nomination PMs (so don't take it personally), nor do I intend to share who exactly has made nominations (so no one else can take it personally either :smalltongue: ).
To send me a PM, click my username (The vaguely-pronounceable(?)-looking word above the spellcasting-and-invocation-using banana with purple hair) and select "Private Message". Or I guess you could click here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/private.php?do=newpm&u=23376). Anyway, include the titles of the entries you're nominating in the message. Mentioning something about "Index Nomination" in the subject line would be helpful.
A few final reminders:
Don't post vote nominations. They're sent by PM to avoid filling up the thread with them, posts will not be counted.
Only nominate entries you think should be excluded. They'll be included if they don't receive sufficient nominations.
We're not voting on the entries yet. We're nominating entries to be voted on. I'll call for the vote at an appropriate time.
We've left a banana in charge. Hi. :smalltongue:
Further discussion of entries is encouraged at this point. In particular, recommendations for different alternate titles and descriptions for the quote entries, and if you feel I've set the nomination deadline too soon, are things I'd be happy to consider.
ChristianSt
2014-04-07, 03:37 PM
I think a better approach to have two categories "planned to include" and "not planned to include" reflecting the so far reached consensus you have noticed. From there any two PMs stating the desire to not wanting the same will trigger a vote (so a third category "will be voted" might be good for your inbox).
I really don't see any reason to disallow PMs for any quotes: If the thread consensus is right, you shouldn't get any PMs. If there are enough to trigger a vote, they might have just missed the quote before and would stuck with a decision that might not survive a vote. (Or maybe you just miss their arguments.)
(I personally think your deadline is rather harsh, but we will see how it is going .)
Jasdoif
2014-04-07, 04:22 PM
I really don't see any reason to disallow PMs for any quotes: If the thread consensus is right, you shouldn't get any PMs. If there are enough to trigger a vote, they might have just missed the quote before and would stuck with a decision that might not survive a vote. (Or maybe you just miss their arguments.)Sheesh, the procedure came from a post I made nearly two months ago paraphrasing what ThePhantasm had described, that no one said anything against....
Anyway, voting is supposed to be the fallback method for approving individual quotes, not the primary one. With the flat two-nomination limit, it'd be very easy to end up voting on anything regardless of prior consensus, if everything was available to be nominated regardless of prior consensus. The ideal scenario would be that everything's strongly supported and so we don't even need to go through the nomination-and-vote process; I just update the Index and we're good.
Now, if I've misread the support for those, please show me the posts against the quotes that I missed; if I'm off my rocker then I can open the quotes for nominations and extend the deadline.
Speaking of which....
(I personally think your deadline is rather harsh, but we will see how it is going .)As it turns out, I've already gotten the two nominations on two of the entries (and updated the table to match), and it hasn't even been two hours!
Still, what kind of time frame would strike you as more reasonable? Can't say I have much experience in calling for nominations :smalltongue:
Loreweaver15
2014-04-07, 06:13 PM
Can I just vote "include" on all six? Because I think we should include all six.
Jasdoif
2014-04-07, 06:37 PM
Can I just vote "include" on all six? Because I think we should include all six.Once we get to the voting phase, you can certainly vote to include everything being voted on. (The ones that don't get voted on will still be included, though; our default is still to include)
ChristianSt
2014-04-08, 07:30 AM
Sheesh, the procedure came from a post I made nearly two months ago paraphrasing what ThePhantasm had described, that no one said anything against....
Anyway, voting is supposed to be the fallback method for approving individual quotes, not the primary one. With the flat two-nomination limit, it'd be very easy to end up voting on anything regardless of prior consensus, if everything was available to be nominated regardless of prior consensus. The ideal scenario would be that everything's strongly supported and so we don't even need to go through the nomination-and-vote process; I just update the Index and we're good.
Now, if I've misread the support for those, please show me the posts against the quotes that I missed; if I'm off my rocker then I can open the quotes for nominations and extend the deadline.
Speaking of which....
As it turns out, I've already gotten the two nominations on two of the entries (and updated the table to match), and it hasn't even been two hours!
Still, what kind of time frame would strike you as more reasonable? Can't say I have much experience in calling for nominations :smalltongue:
I don't really know what a reasonably time frame is, but I would use at least 48h, with 72h a better minimum. (I'm not exactly sure what the voting period is (time zone sucks :smallsigh:), but I have the feeling it is more like a bit more than 1 day)
I don't have any problems with voting being a fallback method. But why do I need to state my opinion multiple times? If you see that there are multiple posters arguing for both sides, why even bother with the PM thing? Imo you could (and should) just put in "will be voted".
Since we potentially vote on multiple things anyway, adding one additional vote doesn't really add that much clutter.
I didn't say that you missed something. I'm more into the practical details of doing this nominations thingy. With that system you are potentially forcing people who just dislike a quote to post into the thread, because otherwise they wouldn't even get a chance to trigger a vote. Punishing people who intent to decrease clutter seems not useful. Also it still requires them to post it and then PMing about it again. Which to me seems just to increase the amount of work everyone needs to do. [And it also is potentially bad that if they miss to check the forum for one or two days, the opinion they stated before will not be considered. That is also I reason I think the nominating time seems rather short to me.]
[I'm also not really the biggest fan of the term "Accepting nominations for inclusion vote". For me it just kinda implies that the entry is not to be included, and will only enter a vote to be included if it is nominated. I know you wrote the rest of the post to make it clear what it means, but I needed to read it multiple times to even be sure on that part.]
Gwynfrid
2014-04-08, 08:25 AM
Do we need another meta type of debate (how to vote, how to decide how we organize a vote, how to define what we get to vote on, etc.)? We've had a lot of these already. Jasdoif's method for nominating quotes may not be perfect, but it is more than good enough.
Since we potentially vote on multiple things anyway, adding one additional vote doesn't really add that much clutter.
Well, that's true, except for the guy who's tasked with counting the votes. It's fair that Jasdoif would try to minimize the sheer amount of voting.
With that system you are potentially forcing people who just dislike a quote to post into the thread, because otherwise they wouldn't even get a chance to trigger a vote. Punishing people who intent to decrease clutter seems not useful.
I fail to see how that is a punishment. People with a strong opinion will voice it; this is, after all, a thread meant for exchanging opinions. It's only natural that people who don't feel strongly enough to post their view would have less of an influence on the outcome.
Jasdoif
2014-04-08, 01:26 PM
I don't really know what a reasonably time frame is, but I would use at least 48h, with 72h a better minimum. (I'm not exactly sure what the voting period is (time zone sucks :smallsigh:), but I have the feeling it is more like a bit more than 1 day)That's correct, a bit more than one day. But 48 hours also seems reasonable, so OK.
The nomination deadline has been extended to April 9th, 6PM EDT.
But why do I need to state my opinion multiple times? If you see that there are multiple posters arguing for both sides, why even bother with the PM thing? Imo you could (and should) just put in "will be voted".I'll be talking about this more below, but I feel I should point out that were not multiple posters arguing on both sides on the font/page size quote. There was only one person who clearly said they didn't want to include it (you, incidentally), so the fact that it attained the two nominations required shows there's some degree of merit to the nomination process.
I didn't say that you missed something. I'm more into the practical details of doing this nominations thingy. With that system you are potentially forcing people who just dislike a quote to post into the thread, because otherwise they wouldn't even get a chance to trigger a vote. Punishing people who intent to decrease clutter seems not useful. Also it still requires them to post it and then PMing about it again. Which to me seems just to increase the amount of work everyone needs to do. [And it also is potentially bad that if they miss to check the forum for one or two days, the opinion they stated before will not be considered. That is also I reason I think the nominating time seems rather short to me.]As ThePhantasm liked to point out, opinions have changed during the course of discussion in the Index threads. Getting another check before an update will help catch things, in case people have decided they've changed their minds on whether they do/don't support a particular entry. And if a quote doesn't get nominated because there are less than two people against its inclusion who care enough to send me a PM about it, well...I think that's a feature; Holding a vote over a quote with little inclination to exclude seems silly to me.
There's also the case of Rule F2, where the curator (hi) can include a quote that "obviously" in accordance with the rules, without needing voting/discussion/consensus. In those cases the quote would still be eligible for nomination, because I feel it would be inappropriate for me to have a process where the only recourse to my interpretation would be a vote to remove an entry from the Index.
Going further, if any two people are capable of triggering a vote on any quote, even if there's unanimous agreement in the thread...what's really the point of discussion in the thread? Aren't we just in a position where absolutely anything could voted on? Isn't that unfair to the people who put in the extra effort to discuss their views in the thread? Our default is to include, but per the long-established rule F4 a vote needs a majority by two to include a quote; if anything is potentially subject to a vote (that requires more than 50/50 approval) regardless of consensus, then "default to include" falls somewhere between technicality and falsehood.
I'm all for including the opinions of people who don't want to get involved in the discussion, but at the same time stating and defending one's opinion in the thread signifies a degree of personal involvement and I can't discard that in good faith. The line needs to be drawn in some fashion, and this is how I've chosen to do it (based on analyzing/reconstructing ThePhantasm's proposal in the last thread).
[I'm also not really the biggest fan of the term "Accepting nominations for inclusion vote". For me it just kinda implies that the entry is not to be included, and will only enter a vote to be included if it is nominated. I know you wrote the rest of the post to make it clear what it means, but I needed to read it multiple times to even be sure on that part.]Recommendations, then? All the other wording I thought up also seemed to imply a nomination was required for inclusion, and when I started to feel I was subconsciously using the phrasing as an excuse to procrastinate, I just picked one way to say it.
Gwynfrid
2014-04-08, 02:04 PM
Recommendations, then? All the other wording I thought up also seemed to imply a nomination was required for inclusion, and when I started to feel I was subconsciously using the phrasing as an excuse to procrastinate, I just picked one way to say it.
"Accepting nominations for vote (will be included if no vote)" - I know, it's longish.
ChristianSt
2014-04-08, 02:34 PM
I'll be talking about this more below, but I feel I should point out that were not multiple posters arguing on both sides on the font/page size quote. There was only one person who clearly said they didn't want to include it (you, incidentally), so the fact that it attained the two nominations required shows there's some degree of merit to the nomination process.
Why are you only mentioning the one case that works in your favor and not the other case that works in my favor? :smalltongue: (The hand size/blob brush discussion I think featuring 3 posters versus 4 or something like that?). If there is only one person that say something about it, then I'm fine with requiring PM's. But in a case where it is obvious that there is no clear consensus in sight, you could just skip the PM thing and just say "we will do vote". (Though that is only a minor improvement, I think the argument below is more problematic. And if you don't mind those PMs I'm fine with still requiring the process. I honestly only wanted to maybe save your inbox a few PMs. :smallwink:)
Also I think that I'm the only one stating something about the font/page size quote also somewhat illustrates my point: There seems to be more people opposed to that quote, yet they didn't say something about it in the thread. I certainly can't say why they did so (maybe they thought my statement where enough), maybe they hadn't visited the thread before/missed that discussion. Yet they PM'ed you about did. Am I correct that if I hadn't said something then no potential vote would have been allowed? I just find it unnecessary to exclude those other quotes from the process. The only reason I heard was to "stop unnecessary voting", but if people want to do unnecessary voting because they want, it doesn't really make much of a difference anyway, since the only thing they would need to do make a random post before stating that they dislike the quote. And if someone wants a vote, I don't think posting is harder than PMing.
Also in that context, what is "clear consensus"? Does this mean strictly X-0?
If yes: Are we (with the current system) allowed to exclude a proposed quote somehow? (So if it is the case, would there be a category "will be excluded, unless two PM's want a vote for inclusion")
If not: What exactly is clear consensus and how will it be used to dismiss a quote from the voting nomination and to auto-include (or auto-exclude) it?
As ThePhantasm liked to point out, opinions have changed during the course of discussion in the Index threads. Getting another check before an update will help catch things, in case people have decided they've changed their minds on whether they do/don't support a particular entry. And if a quote doesn't get nominated because there are less than two people against its inclusion who care enough to send me a PM about it, well...I think that's a feature; Holding a vote over a quote with little inclination to exclude seems silly to me.
There's also the case of Rule F2, where the curator (hi) can include a quote that "obviously" in accordance with the rules, without needing voting/discussion/consensus. In those cases the quote would still be eligible for nomination, because I feel it would be inappropriate for me to have a process where the only recourse to my interpretation would be a vote to remove an entry from the Index.
Going further, if any two people are capable of triggering a vote on any quote, even if there's unanimous agreement in the thread...what's really the point of discussion in the thread? Aren't we just in a position where absolutely anything could voted on? Isn't that unfair to the people who put in the extra effort to discuss their views in the thread? Our default is to include, but per the long-established rule F4 a vote needs a majority by two to include a quote; if anything is potentially subject to a vote (that requires more than 50/50 approval) regardless of consensus, then "default to include" falls somewhere between technicality and falsehood.
I'm all for including the opinions of people who don't want to get involved in the discussion, but at the same time stating and defending one's opinion in the thread signifies a degree of personal involvement and I can't discard that in good faith. The line needs to be drawn in some fashion, and this is how I've chosen to do it (based on analyzing/reconstructing ThePhantasm's proposal in the last thread).
I'm not against the nomination process. But if enough people are there that take the time to PM you, I think that shows that they care enough that their opinion should matter. Not everyone watches the thread as closely as others and are aware of every quote/process that is going on here. So I think if a person just spots this nominations process that posters opinion should still be valid, and not just be discarded because of timing shenanigans. (Yes sometimes there has to be a deadline, which we have - but why have different deadlines for different quotes?) If the thread consensus is as straight forward as it seems, then allowing for votes doesn't hurt, because you shouldn't get any.
I wouldn't say that it ignores the discussion or make it useless (as you said it is would in all cases be useful to highlight points, because opinions can change). It only prevents from potentially ignoring posters that (for whatever reason) couldn't or didn't post something before until the last moment. (I.e. reaching the deadline, then at some point we just need to come to a decision.)
Recommendations, then? All the other wording I thought up also seemed to imply a nomination was required for inclusion, and when I started to feel I was subconsciously using the phrasing as an excuse to procrastinate, I just picked one way to say it.
As I said I would prefer two categories, "Will be included" and "Will be excluded" [Though for this round it wouldn't have been used probably], which both transition to "Will be voted on" if enough PM's arrive. To be clearer the categories could also be "Will be included (unless vote is triggered)" and "Will be excluded (unless vote is triggered)".
This text would also work nicely with the current system.
Jaxzan Proditor
2014-04-08, 03:26 PM
I would like to say that the term "nomination" threw me off at first, because I generally associate nominate with including something rather than excluding something. Perhaps we could just say "PM to exclude" and not use the nominate or any other term at all.
Jasdoif
2014-04-08, 03:47 PM
Why are you only mentioning the one case that works in your favor and not the other case that works in my favor? :smalltongue:I mentioned it on its own because having exactly one person in favor on one side is a particularly exceptional case, and didn't warrant being included in the general statements about the process below. Kinda why I said I'd be talking more about it below :smalltongue:
Also I think that I'm the only one stating something about the font/page size quote also somewhat illustrates my point: There seems to be more people opposed to that quote, yet they didn't say something about it in the thread. I certainly can't say why they did so (maybe they thought my statement where enough), maybe they hadn't visited the thread before/missed that discussion. Yet they PM'ed you about did. Am I correct that if I hadn't said something then no potential vote would have been allowed?If you hadn't said anything, or if more people had expressed support for it, there would have been no potential vote on it.
I just find it unnecessary to exclude those other quotes from the process. The only reason I heard was to "stop unnecessary voting", but if people want to do unnecessary voting because they want, it doesn't really make much of a difference anyway, since the only thing they would need to do make a random post before stating that they dislike the quote. And if someone wants a vote, I don't think posting is harder than PMing.We had a number of posters expressing disdain for excessive voting in the last thread, to the point that we had people talking about voting about voting and even voting about voting about voting. Which I do believe is why ThePhantasm proposed the process that I adapted here.
So I don't think your view on unnecessary voting has much support.
Also in that context, what is "clear consensus"? Does this mean strictly X-0?
....
If not: What exactly is clear consensus and how will it be used to dismiss a quote from the voting nomination and to auto-include (or auto-exclude) it?A case with established consensus to reject broke down to almost exactly two-thirds majority when I ran the numbers, so I was thinking that'd be a good baseline. I don't really want to establish exact numbers for potential curators to adhere to though, and it's hard to judge when there's a very small number of posts about a particular quote.
Clear consensus for and it goes up in the update, clear consensus against and it doesn't go into the table or count towards the six for an update at all, in the middle and we accept nominations.
I'm not against the nomination process. But if enough people are there that take the time to PM you, I think that shows that they care enough that their opinion should matter. Not everyone watches the thread as closely as others and are aware of every quote/process that is going on here. So I think if a person just spots this nominations process that posters opinion should still be valid, and not just be discarded because of timing shenanigans. (Yes sometimes there has to be a deadline, which we have - but why have different deadlines for different quotes?) If the thread consensus is as straight forward as it seems, then allowing for votes doesn't hurt, because you shouldn't get any.
I wouldn't say that it ignores the discussion or make it useless (as you said it is would in all cases be useful to highlight points, because opinions can change). It only prevents from potentially ignoring posters that (for whatever reason) couldn't or didn't post something before until the last moment. (I.e. reaching the deadline, then at some point we just need to come to a decision.)RMS Oceanic proposed the font/page size quote last Monday. You were the only one who responded, which I thought was odd, which was why I re-mentioned it after the page break on Friday. We got a post in favor and an "I dunno maybe" post over the weekend. So I figured no one else was going to discuss it on Monday, and I put it up for nominations then. A week after its original proposal.
How much longer were you expecting me to wait before making a decision on it?
137beth
2014-04-08, 04:16 PM
Roy has had his share of faulds since the beginning, but he's only now acknowledged them and how they impact his leadership. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/statuses/453209037174083585)
Shale
2014-04-08, 04:36 PM
Ba-dum-cssssh!
The Linker
2014-04-08, 04:43 PM
I came very close to making that comment myself. :smallbiggrin:
ChristianSt
2014-04-08, 05:25 PM
So I don't think your view on unnecessary voting has much support.
How much longer were you expecting me to wait before making a decision on it?
Somehow I have the feeling that either I don't understand you or you tend to misunderstand my points. :smallconfused:
To "unnecessary voting": I never did say I wanted more voting. I only get the feeling that I have a hard time understanding how the procedure is working. So say there is a quote I would like to be included. One other person said why he likes the quote, which is exactly my reasoning. Five poster disagree. Am I forced to basically just say "+1 to inclusion" without adding anything, just to make a "vote nomination" possible? If so, then I kinda understand what is going on here, though I don't think that such scenarios sound useful (and maybe I'm more ok to do votes in favor of not needing potential +1 posts). I thought one reason for this procedure was to reduce the need for posts without new information. If that is the case it is possible better to just drop this discussion and sum it up as misunderstanding.
Where did I said anything about you needing to wait longer? :smallconfused: (besides the nominating time frame)
Jasdoif
2014-04-08, 11:04 PM
Roy has had his share of faulds since the beginning, but he's only now acknowledged them and how they impact his leadership. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/statuses/453209037174083585)My pun detector has performed an illegal operation and must be shut down.
To "unnecessary voting": I never did say I wanted more voting.Well, I hope you can see how "if people want to do unnecessary voting because they want, it doesn't really make much of a difference anyway" might be misread as "there's no point in trying to stop unnecessary voting".
I only get the feeling that I have a hard time understanding how the procedure is working. So say there is a quote I would like to be included. One other person said why he likes the quote, which is exactly my reasoning. Five poster disagree. Am I forced to basically just say "+1 to inclusion" without adding anything, just to make a "vote nomination" possible?You certainly could. It wouldn't hurt if you could elaborate on a particular point or possibly provide a supporting example, or otherwise find a new way to say it that might convince people unmoved by the original post; but if someone has already expressed your view completely, there's nothing wrong with just seconding their post. If nothing else, the other person might like knowing they're not alone in their opinion.
If so, then I kinda understand what is going on here, though I don't think that such scenarios sound useful (and maybe I'm more ok to do votes in favor of not needing potential +1 posts). I thought one reason for this procedure was to reduce the need for posts without new information. If that is the case it is possible better to just drop this discussion and sum it up as misunderstanding.Well, the ultimate goal of the procedure is to reduce the need for posts without new information, with a strong emphasis on reducing the number of posts consumed by votes. That's why it clusters updates together, so we can hold votes on them at once and not have a new page or two of votes every time there's a new quote. In fact, the ideal scenario would be where we have strong consensus on all six quotes, or there aren't enough people still against them at update time to trigger a vote. Then we don't need to spend time or posts on a vote at all.
Of course, we still need some consensus established for that to be an option, which is where the discussion comes in...which may result in "+1 posts" in some cases. Since such posts could happen anyway, I don't feel that's a significant issue.
Where did I said anything about you needing to wait longer? :smallconfused: (besides the nominating time frame)When you talk about people who can't/didn't post before the last moment, right after opinions being discarded due to timing "shenanigans"....I don't see how that could be considered separately from how long I leave a quote up for discussion before making a decision on it.
Kurald Galain
2014-04-09, 05:37 AM
I keep seeing Banana in the current comic :smallbiggrin:
Zherog
2014-04-09, 06:46 AM
Other than maybe tweaking the choice of words for the nomination process, my suggestion is that we give this method at least one or two voting cycles before deciding it needs to be changed. Let it play out and see how it works for reals. If there really are issues with the process, they should be obvious after a cycle or two and we can talk about revising (again).
Jasdoif
2014-04-09, 05:44 PM
Well, the PM part went quite smoothly. The font/page size quote and hand-drawing quote both got on the "need to be voted on" list within an hour. There were no suggestions that the Twitter Q&A needed to be voted on, so it will be going up when the update happens.
Now then, we have a new rule proposal and two quotes to vote on. Rather than pester everyone with back-to-back voting, we'll be voting on all of these in one round. As a reminder, the purpose of the new rule is to make it clearer how we handle things like the Geekademia Interview and the Twitter Q&A, so in the future it'll be easier to add them in.
Items up for voting:
1: A new rule covering Q&As: "Transcripts of Q&As with Rich Burlew may be included, in their entirety, in additional posts to the Index. Rule A applies as normal, but all other Rules may be varied contingent on community acceptance. Quotes can be added to the Index proper from the Q&As. This is not considered redundancy for the purposes of Rule E."
2: The New Font is Larger Because the Online Comic Page is Larger
3: The New Hands Take as Long to Draw as the Old Hands
Now for some words from our founder:
Once a vote is called, we will vote IN THREAD but please don't discuss during the voting (that way the votes can be easily counted). Votes will be quick... probably 24-48 hours.
Please bold your vote, it'll make it easier for me to notice when I go through and count everything. Vote for any combination you like; for instance if you support the rule and font quote but not the hands quote, something like "Voting for 1, 2" would be perfect. An item unmentioned in a vote is considered to be voted against; If you don't support any of them, posting "none of them" is the way to express that. If you truly don't have a preference on one or two of the entries, something like "1, no opinion on 3" is acceptable...but since this will complicate my vote counting and verifying, I ask that you avoid doing this if possible.
Per Rule F4, inclusion by vote requires a quote to have two more votes in favor than votes against; I'm extending this to the rule proposal as well.
Voting will be open until April 11th, 9PM EDT.
Any questions?
ChristianSt
2014-04-09, 06:11 PM
Voting for 1.
Jaxzan Proditor
2014-04-09, 06:14 PM
Voting for 1.
Gwynfrid
2014-04-09, 06:18 PM
Voting for 1 and 2.
Kalmegil
2014-04-09, 06:50 PM
Voting for 1, 2, and 3.
thatSeniorGuy
2014-04-09, 07:51 PM
Voting for 1, 2 and 3.
ti'esar
2014-04-09, 08:09 PM
Voting for 1.
Emanick
2014-04-09, 08:30 PM
Voting for 1, 2 and 3.
The Linker
2014-04-09, 08:34 PM
Voting for 1 and 3.
Zherog
2014-04-09, 10:34 PM
Voting for 1, 2, 3
Porthos
2014-04-09, 10:42 PM
A, B, C.... Voting for 1, 2, 3
as simple as do re mi...
etc. :smallwink:
137beth
2014-04-09, 10:53 PM
Voting for 1, 2, and 3. All of them.
Vargtass
2014-04-10, 01:55 AM
Voting for 1, 2, and 3. All of them.
CalamaroJoe
2014-04-10, 03:43 AM
My vote: 1, 2, 3
RMS Oceanic
2014-04-10, 05:43 AM
Voting for 1, 2, 3
sam79
2014-04-10, 05:47 AM
Vote for 1 2 and 3
allenw
2014-04-10, 11:16 AM
Voting for 1, 2, and 3.
Since quotes are (supposedly) included by default, why not have votes to *exclude* a quote, rather than to include one? It would make it clear that inclusion is the default, and hopefully reduce the number of votes.
ChristianSt
2014-04-10, 11:30 AM
Since quotes are (supposedly) included by default, why not have votes to *exclude* a quote, rather than to include one? It would make it clear that inclusion is the default, and hopefully reduce the number of votes.
That is basically what we do.
There was an amount of discussion on those quotes and enough people not wanting it in the Index, so a vote was needed. But we didn't started a vote for two other quotes and the Twitter Q&A for example. Because a vote isn't strictly needed to include something. But if there is no real consensus then that is not really possible.
Firemeier
2014-04-10, 11:59 AM
Voting for 1 and 2
Lord Torath
2014-04-10, 12:26 PM
Voting 1 Yes.
Voting 2 No.
Voting 3 No.
Dr. Gamera
2014-04-10, 12:32 PM
Voting Yes for 1, Yes for 2, Yes for 3.
Joerg
2014-04-10, 02:41 PM
Voting for 1,3.
DaggerPen
2014-04-10, 10:47 PM
Voting for 1, 2, 3.
Jasdoif
2014-04-11, 02:57 PM
Since quotes are (supposedly) included by default, why not have votes to *exclude* a quote, rather than to include one? It would make it clear that inclusion is the default, and hopefully reduce the number of votes.To add to what ChristianSt already said, there are presently only three ways a proposed quote could be rejected:
The quote violates thread rules, and/or including it would somehow violate forum rules.
The thread discussion has a clear consensus against inclusion.
The quote gets two PMs suggesting it needs to be voted on (instead of being automatically included), and the quote doesn't satisfy the requirements for inclusion in the resulting vote.And that last one only applies if there isn't a clear consensus after the quote was discussed; a quote with clear overall support in the thread can't be voted on and will be included.
If you're instead wondering why the voting phase is worded as "vote to include" instead of "vote to exclude"; it's because "yes" meaning "I want this quote", and "no" meaning "I don't want this quote", is very easy to understand and also happens to be how votes for the Index have been run all along. Also, the result of the vote is based on the number of votes for a quote vs votes against it; the people voting "1, 2, 3" currently would still need to vote "none of them" to have the same effect if we reversed it to voting to exclude, so there wouldn't be an actual reduction in the number of votes.
Jasdoif
2014-04-11, 08:45 PM
Alright, vote's done...and that was pretty straightforward.
The rule proposal passed unanimously; 22 for, 0 against.
The New Font is Larger Because the Online Comic Page is Larger passed; 16 for, 6 against.
The New Hands Take as Long to Draw as the Old Hands passed; 16 for, 6 against. (No, that's not a copy/paste error, the voters were different but the final tallies matched the other quote's)
So with that...everything was added. Rule G is now listed in the thread rules, the four quotes have all been added to the Index, and ChristianSt's transcription is now the first entry in the Twitter Q&As post.
Boom. Done.
Gwynfrid
2014-04-11, 10:14 PM
Great job, Jasdoif. Smooth process and clear results.
A nitpick: The wording for Rule E is in violation of itself :smallamused:
137beth
2014-04-12, 12:59 AM
The wording for Rule E is in violation of itself :smallamused:
Yet more evidence that this thread is more nerdy than the Class and Level Geekery:smallbiggrin:
Jasdoif
2014-04-12, 01:25 AM
Great job, Jasdoif. Smooth process and clear results.Thanks. The wording on the "PM me to request a vote be held" part could use some serious improvement, of course, but as a whole I think the process worked out pretty well.
A nitpick: The wording for Rule E is in violation of itself :smallamused:I checked with the Department of Redundancy Department, and because Rule E only talks about quotes, it's OK as long as Rule E isn't presented in quote tags. :smalltongue:
Jaxzan Proditor
2014-04-12, 07:56 AM
I checked with the Department of Redundancy Department, and because Rule E only talks about quotes, it's OK as long as Rule E isn't presented in quote tags. :smalltongue:
LOL. Isn't Rule E about reducing clutter or something? :smalltongue:
Peelee
2014-04-12, 07:59 AM
I have a question about the new voting process. Assume I'm a crotchety old man who enjoys Grumpy Cat's philosophical readings, and in a given vote, I don't particularly care enough to vote for anything, but I do wish to specifically vote against something. Other than PMing you a vote, which I'm not a fan of, how would I do this?
Jasdoif
2014-04-12, 03:58 PM
I have a question about the new voting process. Assume I'm a crotchety old man who enjoys Grumpy Cat's philosophical readings, and in a given vote, I don't particularly care enough to vote for anything, but I do wish to specifically vote against something. Other than PMing you a vote, which I'm not a fan of, how would I do this?OK, for the sake of thoroughness let me go through how to express a view against a particular vote at each phase....
During the normal propose-and-discuss phase (ie there's not an update being decided upon), simply participate in the discussion; Say you don't support the quote's inclusion and why (even if "why" only amounts to "I agree with everything this other poster already said").
During the "PM the curator" phase, send me a PM suggesting the quote needs to be voted on. If the quote doesn't get two such people PMing me, it will go into the Index automatically (without needing a vote); so a PM is the way to say you don't want it in the Index. (I'll update the list in my post in the thread when a quote receives sufficient PMs; If you're more worried about my PM inbox than I am, you can wait a while to see if other people take care of it before you PM me)
During the "vote in the thread" phase, when there's multiple items being voted on, a posted vote with "no opinion" on the items you don't care about would work. So using the most recent vote as an example, if you didn't support the rule proposal but truly didn't care about the quotes, "no opinion on 2, no opinion on 3" would work. Adding a note that you were specifically voting against 1 wouldn't hurt, but isn't required.
There's a couple other things to note:
If there's only one item being voted on, we'll do simple "yes" or "no" votes.
The voting occurs in the thread. A "vote" sent by PM will not count.
Peelee
2014-04-13, 09:45 AM
Ok... sorry if i'm being a headache, but my default assumption was no mention = abstain. So just to confirm, this should be correct:
When someone votes, if they do not explicitly vote for an item, it is voted against.
When someone votes, to abstain from a certain item, you must explicitly state you are abstaining.
Example:
Yes on 2, 3 means "I vote yes on 2 and 3, but no on 1"
Yes?
Jaxzan Proditor
2014-04-13, 09:56 AM
Ok... sorry if i'm being a headache, but my default assumption was no mention = abstain. So just to confirm, this should be correct:
When someone votes, if they do not explicitly vote for an item, it is voted against.
When someone votes, to abstain from a certain item, you must explicitly state you are abstaining.
Example: means "I vote yes on 2 and 3, but no on 1"
Yes?
Yes. At least, that's how I understand it to be. So, if you don't care about a vote, you would say "no opinion on 2", or something like that.
Jasdoif
2014-04-13, 01:01 PM
Ok... sorry if i'm being a headache, but my default assumption was no mention = abstain.You're not being a headache. (Banana-fication gives one new perspectives insight on head pains :smallconfused: )
So just to confirm, this should be correct:
When someone votes, if they do not explicitly vote for an item, it is voted against.
When someone votes, to abstain from a certain item, you must explicitly state you are abstaining.
Example:
Yes on 2, 3means "I vote yes on 2 and 3, but no on 1"
Yes?That's correct. If it helps, the final outcome is equivalent to measuring votes in favor out of total votes placed, which makes abstaining a special case that alters the total vote count for a particular quote (which is why I discouraged such when I called for the vote; My verification is ensuring my yes and no counts add up to the total number of votes, so "no opinion" votes add an extra step).
We've done it this way before (where not mentioning is equal to voting against), here's out founder explaining it in the context of a multi-vote to remove quotes:
Yes, if you want all of the quotes to remain in the index, vote none or alternately vote keep all.
The reason is because the quotes are removed based on majority opinion. If only ten people vote and eight want to remove a quote, it will be removed. But if twenty people vote and eight want to remove a quote, it will stay.
So EVEN IF YOU WANT TO KEEP ALL THE QUOTES LISTED, VOTE.
RMS Oceanic
2014-04-17, 06:51 AM
A tweet about the switch to a larger image size, and that the original size was because of average screen sizes in 2003. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/456760564862418944)
Dr. Gamera
2014-04-17, 10:46 AM
A tweet about the switch to a larger image size, and that the original size was because of average screen sizes in 2003. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/456760564862418944)
Further, a tweet indicating that the characters aren't so much more difficult to draw in the new art style, but the scenery is indeed more difficult to draw -- and part of the point of the new art style is to increase the difficulty. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/456781931171307521)
ChristianSt
2014-04-17, 11:08 AM
Further, a tweet indicating that the characters aren't so much more difficult to draw in the new art style, but the scenery is indeed more difficult to draw -- and part of the point of the new art style is to increase the difficulty. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/456781931171307521)
Compared to this quote we already included recently, this feels redundant to me. (Though I kinda like the Twitter answer more.)
Gwynfrid
2014-04-17, 11:13 AM
Compared to this quote we already included recently, this feels redundant to me. (Though I kinda like the Twitter answer more.)
I agree. I was not keen on adding this quote (voted against, in fact) but I wouldn't mind adding this new Twitter remark. Now, having both... No. that would be really redundant.
Peelee
2014-04-17, 11:30 AM
I agree. I was not keen on adding this quote (voted against, in fact) but I wouldn't mind adding this new Twitter remark. Now, having both... No. that would be really redundant.
I'd have voted against had I noticed a vote was going on, so that's my own fault, but I think the newest comment explains much better and more in depth than the recently added one.
ChristianSt
2014-04-17, 11:41 AM
Since some people like the Twitter comment more than the forum post, what are the rules for replacing quotes? :smalltongue:
Jasdoif
2014-04-17, 12:14 PM
Since some people like the Twitter comment more than the forum post, what are the rules for replacing quotes? :smalltongue:Actually, I think this is more of a "supporting quote" scenario. The Twitter quote talks about characters and scenery in general, while the forum post focuses on the hands and feet (and a tunnel entrance). It seems to me that having the Twitter quote as a main entry with a "see also" for the forum post would make the most sense...assuming we want the Twitter quote in the Index, of course.
Peelee
2014-04-17, 01:01 PM
Actually, I think this is more of a "supporting quote" scenario. The Twitter quote talks about characters and scenery in general, while the forum post focuses on the hands and feet (and a tunnel entrance). It seems to me that having the Twitter quote as a main entry with a "see also" for the forum post would make the most sense...assuming we want the Twitter quote in the Index, of course.
I see no problem with that set-up.
Also, on a completely unrelated note, I'm pretty late to the party, but I greatly enjoy how you've embraced the banana.
Gwynfrid
2014-04-17, 01:49 PM
Actually, I think this is more of a "supporting quote" scenario. The Twitter quote talks about characters and scenery in general, while the forum post focuses on the hands and feet (and a tunnel entrance). It seems to me that having the Twitter quote as a main entry with a "see also" for the forum post would make the most sense...assuming we want the Twitter quote in the Index, of course.
Makes sense.
Kalmegil
2014-04-17, 03:02 PM
I agree with Gwynfrid and Peelee agreeing with Jasdoif about the supporting quote idea.
Jaxzan Proditor
2014-04-17, 03:14 PM
Actually, I think this is more of a "supporting quote" scenario. The Twitter quote talks about characters and scenery in general, while the forum post focuses on the hands and feet (and a tunnel entrance). It seems to me that having the Twitter quote as a main entry with a "see also" for the forum post would make the most sense...assuming we want the Twitter quote in the Index, of course.
I agree. If we are going to include the other quote, we should include this new one as well.
The Linker
2014-04-18, 12:23 AM
Yeah, I've long been a proponent for doing the 'supporting quote' thing way more often, since it increases the amount of information in the index without adding to 'clutter' in any way. Best of both worlds! Many more supporting quotes!
Jaxzan Proditor
2014-04-18, 06:58 AM
There is only one method of vampirization. Any of Malack's ambiguous comments should be viewed as written so as not to spoil #946. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?339912-Vampire-question-settled&p=17327934&viewfull=1#post17327934)
137beth
2014-04-18, 08:12 AM
Actually, I think this is more of a "supporting quote" scenario. The Twitter quote talks about characters and scenery in general, while the forum post focuses on the hands and feet (and a tunnel entrance). It seems to me that having the Twitter quote as a main entry with a "see also" for the forum post would make the most sense...assuming we want the Twitter quote in the Index, of course.
My thoughts exactly.
Angel Bob
2014-04-18, 09:21 AM
There is only one method of vampirization. Any of Malack's contradictory comments should be viewed as written so as not to spoil #946. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?339912-Vampire-question-settled&p=17327934&viewfull=1#post17327934)
Oh, that's a big one. I don't see how anyone could object to that one being included.
Zherog
2014-04-18, 09:41 AM
Oh, that's a big one. I don't see how anyone could object to that one being included.
Give it some time. I'm sure somebody will come up with one. :smallsigh:
Kalmegil
2014-04-18, 10:34 AM
Oh, that's a big one. I don't see how anyone could object to that one being included.
It simply restates what's already been shown in the comic, so it's redundant and would only clutter the index.
Jaxzan Proditor
2014-04-18, 10:37 AM
It simply restates what's already been shown in the comic, so it's redundant and would only clutter the index.
As shown in many threads, it was not obvious to many what the actual process for vampirization is. If the comic had easily shown what the quote states, the quote would never have been given in the first place. Clearly, it was necessary, and will no doubt continue to be necessary to end any similar debates that pop up.
It is not a simple restatement.
Koo Rehtorb
2014-04-18, 10:42 AM
There is only one method of vampirization. Any of Malack's contradictory comments should be viewed as written so as not to spoil #946. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?339912-Vampire-question-settled&p=17327934&viewfull=1#post17327934)
Don't characterize the quote as "contradictory" comments, Rich never used that word. There were no contradictory comments. What he said was "metaphorical" and "ambiguous".
Kalmegil
2014-04-18, 10:45 AM
As shown in many threads, it was not obvious to many what the actual process for vampirization is. If the comic had easily shown what the quote states, the quote would never have been given in the first place. Clearly, it was necessary, and will no doubt continue to be necessary to end any similar debates that pop up.
It is not a simple restatement.
Yeah, hence the winky icon on my post.
I will note that I myself have made the argument you just laid out and had it roundly rejected here before.
Jaxzan Proditor
2014-04-18, 10:50 AM
Don't characterize the quote as "contradictory" comments, Rich never used that word. There were no contradictory comments. What he said was "metaphorical" and "ambiguous".
Alright, I will change that to ambiguous.
Yeah, hence the winky icon on my post.
I will note that I myself have made the argument you just laid out and had it roundly rejected here before.
Oops, didn't notice that.
Which quote was that?
Jasdoif
2014-04-18, 11:04 AM
Yeah, hence the winky icon on my post.Post icons have an excessive amount of subtlety, in my experience.
I will note that I myself have made the argument you just laid out and had it roundly rejected here before.If I'm remembering the correct prior argument (that was about if Tsukiko was actually eaten by her wights, wasn't it?), a big difference I'm seeing here is that the quote says "There is only one way that vampirization works" and so should apply to any vampire we run across, not just Malack and Durkon.
I'm thinking this one should go in.
Also, since I think RMS Oceanic's proposal may have been overlooked....
A tweet about the switch to a larger image size, and that the original size was because of average screen sizes in 2003. (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/456760564862418944)This one strikes me as another "supporting quote" scenario, since it talks about page size and so would fit as a primary with the recently added quote about font size relative to page size making an excellent "see also".
Ron Miel
2014-04-18, 11:04 AM
From the same comment, I think this is worth including because a lot of people have asked about it
Nothing that happens with vampires in this comic can be extrapolated to work similarly with other undead. All types of undead work differently, that's why they are different types in the first place. Xykon is still Xykon.
Jaxzan Proditor
2014-04-18, 11:11 AM
Post icons have an excessive amount of subtlety, in my experience.
Yeah, when I read a post, I rarely ever look at the header and look at the post itself. That's why I didn't see it until Kalmegil pointed it out.
Kalmegil
2014-04-18, 11:48 AM
Sorry. For the record, it should absolutely go in.
Loreweaver15
2014-04-18, 12:30 PM
As disappointing as it is that that's how vampires work, it should absolutely go in--it's the kind of quote this index was designed for: the recurring-arguments-that-have-already-been-answered kind.
Gwynfrid
2014-04-18, 12:45 PM
Post icons have an excessive amount of subtlety, in my experience.
Yes. I was puzzled reading this from Kalmegil, who's pretty much come out in favor of inclusion every time so far. I totally failed to notice the smiley.
And sure, that quote should go in. Heck, it ended a debate that had been raging for well over 200 posts and showed no signs of abating - it was even on the verge of becoming nasty.
Also, I agree with the whole "see also" mechanism as suggested by Jasdoif.
Zherog
2014-04-18, 01:39 PM
Since it came right after my snarky post, I assumed it was laden with sarcasm.
Kalmegil
2014-04-18, 01:49 PM
It was in direct response to it.
Jaxzan Proditor
2014-04-18, 07:58 PM
Malack had free will. His devotion to Nergal was because he was a lawful cleric, not because he was a vampire. Also, Nergal and Hel don't necessarily have the same goals or disposition. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?339912-Vampire-question-settled&p=17331234&viewfull=1#post17331234)
I don't know if this one is quite as essential (perhaps it could be a see also). I couldn't come up with a good summary for it, so I would appreciate your thoughts on that.
Loreweaver15
2014-04-18, 08:09 PM
Malack had free will. His devotion to Nergal was because he was a lawful cleric, not because he was a vampire. Also, Nergal and Hel don't necessarily have the same goals or disposition. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?339912-Vampire-question-settled&p=17331234&viewfull=1#post17331234)
I don't know if this one is quite as essential (perhaps it could be a see also). I couldn't come up with a good summary for it, so I would appreciate your thoughts on that.
I think it's relevant, and not just for the novelty of an entry in the Index being about the Giant taking me to town on my own faulty assumptions.
NerdyKris
2014-04-18, 08:13 PM
I agree that it's relevent for exactly the reason the Giant states. A lot of people have a very set idea of what a vampire is, or what a specific type means. This sometimes leads to some preconceived notions that don't fit the story. The term "vampire" carries a lot of pop culture baggage when introduced into a story.
I'm in favor of including, "The Giant takes Loreweaver15 to town."
Okay, okay, it can have a different caption if it has to.
Gwynfrid
2014-04-18, 08:32 PM
We should include. The debate about it has grown to nearly 300 posts, quite a few people felt strongly about it.
Porthos
2014-04-18, 09:07 PM
I am in favor of including both, but this might be one of those times when we hold back a bit to see how many comments Rich makes there.
The first, I think, gets included no matter what. It's probably the most important comment about the comic since his initial How Familicide Works one. The other might get supplanted later on as the debate continues in that thread.
Loreweaver15
2014-04-18, 09:20 PM
I'm in favor of including, "The Giant takes Loreweaver15 to town."
Okay, okay, it can have a different caption if it has to.
Why isn't there a like button for posts
Jasdoif
2014-04-19, 01:15 PM
So let me see, I think that makes...four quotes so far?
Screen sizes have grown over the past decade (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/456760564862418944)
Scenery is hard (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/456781931171307521)
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE (method of vampirization)
Loreweaver15 goes to town
...please excuse the informal summaries :smalltongue:
137beth
2014-04-19, 02:37 PM
I support including all four of them.
Jaxzan Proditor
2014-04-19, 03:22 PM
So let me see, I think that makes...four quotes so far?
Screen sizes have grown over the past decade (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/456760564862418944)
Scenery is hard (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/456781931171307521)
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE (method of vampirization)
Loreweaver15 goes to town
...please excuse the informal summaries :smalltongue:
The first two I support including as supporting quotes. The second two I support including as individual entries.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.