MitD 007: GoldenEyes (Please Read the First Post)

[Tubercular Ox]

Before I would add yet another different classification tier, I personally would just remove FBS altogether. Which (if I understand you correctly) would also end this discussion instantly, because listing it there alongside any other stuff with the drawback "altered CoC WoR needed" would let everyone choose how severe that drawback is.

Yup. But I'm sorry, the way it's set up right now, the first post gives the strong impression that there's the FBS list, and the trash heap, especially when you scroll through the trash heap without opening anything and see a bunch of ridiculous suggestions on there. Why should I open up the Zodar at all when he's almost next to the Yeti?

I personally think that any Argument that is based on "what Rich might have thought" is really, really bad. I think the only way this thread works is to look at it as a puzzle.

An eye opening POV for me. Yes you've told it to me before but it's only now sinking in. I've been operating under the deep assumption that it's like a murder mystery -- you have to account for means, motive, and opportunity -- to the point that I included those exact words in my write up of the HH without thinking about it.

I'm not intending that thought to go in any particular direction, I definitely don't want to argue which is better, just throwing it out there.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Wow, what happened to introduce venom and the ignore button? Last time I checked in things were perfectly cordial.

I should clarify, for the newcomers, that the Ignore button is because I tend to get very angry with arguments of the style "in my opinion, X" that are not resolvable through canon and evidence, since at the end of the day, we have to agree to disagree. It is, essentially, my control valve. It says nothing bad, nor good, about the people on it - just that for my sake and theirs, those are people who I just don't agree with, and if I keep answering them, we are likely to end up carded.

Instead, their posts are nicely hidden away, and I can read them at my leisure, without any feelings that I must answer, when refreshes come along. It has worked well enough so far.

Now, that said, if Tubercular really just called the proposed list a "trash heap", then we have a problem. Someone that after being told at least four times, twice by me, twice by ChristianSt, of the purpose and intention of the FBS list nevertheless continues to ignore us and decide that his own interpretation of "make it to the FBS, or to the trash" is the correct one cannot be reasoned with.

So one last time: the proposed list is not the trash heap. The FBS is not the Glorious List of Only Viable candidates. ChristianSt is correct when he says Zodar is one of my two personal favourites, even though it does not fit the Circus Scene without heavy tinkering.

Grey Wolf

[Tubercular Ox]

Now, that said, if Tubercular really just called the proposed list a "trash heap", then we have a problem. Someone that after being told at least four times, twice by me, twice by ChristianSt, of the purpose and intention of the FBS list nevertheless continues to ignore us and decide that his own interpretation of "make it to the FBS, or to the trash" is the correct one cannot be reasoned with.

Understanding your explanation does not make the proposed idea list well presented. The surface meaning of dumping the aboleth mage, the zodar, and the hunting horror in the same bin as the velociraptor, the yeti, bigfoot, and Audrey II contradicts your intentions for the list, no matter how many times you explain those intentions.

Spoiler: Offensive example

Show

I really wish I could come up with something better off the top of my head, so let me say that this is highly exaggerated for effect, but I can't walk around with a shirt that says "Screw you" and be frustrated that I have to keep explaining I'm just a proponent of free love, nor can I claim that people are impervious to reason because they remain annoyed with me after the explanation.

[Jay R]

Understanding your explanation does not make the proposed idea list well presented.

Agreed. Specifically, calling something a trash heap when everybody knows that it is not a trash heap is a deliberate falsehood, and remains a deliberate falsehood no matter how many times you try to pretend otherwise.

Until you withdraw the phrase "trash heap" and (ideally) apologize for it, you will not succeed in convincing anybody of anything. You will just grind the discussion of the HH to a halt.

The surface meaning of dumping the aboleth mage, the zodar, and the hunting horror in the same bin as the velociraptor, the yeti, bigfoot, and Audrey II contradicts your intentions for the list, no matter how many times you explain those intentions.

No, it doesn't. It's just categorizing - which is his legitimate job. And even if your interpretation were correct, and it's the wrong category for your idea, that wouldn't make it contradict his intentions; it would merely be a mistake in categorizing.

If you wish him to change the category, complaints won't help.

I urge you to instead present arguments explaining why you believe it should be categorized elsewhere.

DO NOT say "trash heap".

DO NOT say it contradicts his intentions.

These threads have been going on for years, and will continue going on for years. Even if you (or somebody) find the right answer, the deliberations will take a lot of time.

Your idea is now in the mix. People will think about it, talk about it...

...unless you poison the well, making people disinterested in talking about it at all, which is what I think you're doing.

Calm down. You succeeded in getting it listed. Your next move is to back off, and let people begin to digest the idea. If your idea is the correct one, and if it's possible that the forum will agree that it's the right one, that process will take months - maybe years.

And I strongly suggest that you stop making people dislike talking about the HH by such emotional, negative phrases as "trash heap" and "contradict your intentions".

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Even if you (or somebody) find the right answer, the deliberations will take a lot of time.

Point of order: if someone ever finds the right answer, we will know at The Reveal, and not a second sooner. Convincing others that you are right will have as much of an impact as a cheerleader does to the final score of a game.

The purpose of the thread, as you so correctly said, is classification. Unless the upcoming thread upgrade includes the hidden function "balloons from the ceiling"*, we cannot possibly know which suggestion is the correct one before the author tells us.

Other than that, I agree with you.

Grey Wolf

*Although it would be cool if it did: "I think V is male"... nothing. "I think V is female"... balloons. "I think Tarquin is a pure fighter"... balloons. Mind you, I suspect it might kill half the conversations in the forum if it was that easy.

[Tubercular Ox]

Until you withdraw the phrase "trash heap" and (ideally) apologize for it, you will not succeed in convincing anybody of anything.

What's the scope of this apology? I still have opinions I can't apologize for, which, per your advice, I shall defer, but if it's language and behavior, I'm ready. In particular, trash heap was harsh. I don't know how far to go on that. It was my first impression. I regret it.

Oh and I agree with both of gwc's comments. There's no winning until the reveal, but balloons would be awesome.

[Loreweaver15]

To be fair, classing something alongside such obviously-not-going-to-happen things as Audrey II and Bigfoot does send a pretty clear message about what you think about those possibilities. Perhaps it might be best to incorporate an actual trash heap, and move not-quite-nonsense entries to it, to avoid this sort of thing?

[Steven]

Sorry Grey Wolf, the last thing I want is to add to your stress when it comes to this thread.

Just to be clear: We can be pretty sure that the tower scene cannot be explained by RAW. This means we have to fudge things. Which is fine with me because I accept that Rich might use cartoon physics for a laugh or even to simply show, for the benefit of this thread, that the MitD is really, really strong.

My reaction to the greater teleport issue might have been a bit strong but we know that it IS explainable by raw. Wish could do it easily and the fact we haven't found a candidate that has access to wish means very little as far as I can see.
IF something fit everything else to a T and the only issue was the escape I might vote for it to be included in the FBS list if it has greater teleport. Not WoR though.

But you're right. I've been here long enough not to care about the FBS so I'll just leave it at that.

On another topic: Why people think that the MitD has to have some thematic attachment to darkness bemuses me. He's hidden because Xycon decided to hide him. X was using the Evil Boss trick of having his secret weapon hidden in the darkness. As far as I know at NO POINT is there a single bit of evidence in the comic that suggests he produces, naturally lives in, or even likes darkness. He's in the darkness because he does what he's told and Xycon, and for meta reasons Rich, doesn't want anyone to know what he is.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

To be fair, classing something alongside such obviously-not-going-to-happen things as Audrey II and Bigfoot does send a pretty clear message about what you think about those possibilities. Perhaps it might be best to incorporate an actual trash heap, and move not-quite-nonsense entries to it, to avoid this sort of thing?

And who gets to decide who goes in the trash heap? Me? No, thanks, I get enough scowls sent my way as it is. You young'uns probably weren't around for the big flame war of the psammead, but in short: a poster, as zealous as tubercular is about WoR and I am about... well, everything really, proposed the psammead. This is a two-foot tall creature killed by water, whose species in on the verge of extinction (because of the water thing), with no physical strength whatsoever and that looks cuddly and adorable (if a bit like an old man). Two things can be said in its favour: it can grant wishes (just not its own wishes) and it can grow to human size (note that this doesn't grant it super human strength).

The poster that proposed this, however, was utterly convinced that it belonged in the FBS list, and raged against me, the unfairness of the 3 scenes, the amount of fudging, etc, for pages (and eventually, of course, I got carded - fun times). It is to shield myself as much as possible from this kind of zeal that I created an organisation scheme that does not depend on me passing judgement on any proposals - only on the fudging itself. If it is copyrighted, it goes in the copyrighted list. If it fits the scenes, it goes on the FBS. If I think it is funny, to the funny proposals (that category is mostly inertia based these days). If the number of people suggesting it passes a vague point (somewhere past half dozen), to the Frequently Proposed. Everything else, good, bad, excellent and stupid goes in the proposed list, in alphabetical order.

Assume for a second that we did have a "middle layer" (lets say we had a system of points, so each scene you fit gives you a point). The immediate consequence is that instead of having to deal only with proposals who are close to being FBS and their defenders complaining when I don't see it their way, I also have to deal with proposals that almost make it to the second tier, with same effect.

Furthermore, it further feeds the egos of those desperate to have their ideas in a higher tier. I do not comprehend this impulse: why would anyone want so badly to have idea in the FBS list? If it gives them fuzzy feelings, or a sense of superiority, or some kind of "honor" then they needs to chill the $%&# out, because this is just a stupid thread. They will neither get a higher status nor will it increase the chances of "winning" if it is in the FBS or anywhere else.

About the only other use for the FBS is to provide me and others (but mostly just me) with a fast go-to place to grab examples when discussing proposals. But if I don't like an idea - and at this point I loathe HH - then I won't use it to illustrate points down the line (unless it is in the negative sense of psammead above). People come and go, and the point of this thread is to remember everyone's arguments, classify what we know about MitD, and keep a record of what has been proposed (a common question). The FBS also adds a service for those who have an idea and wonder how it stacks against what has been proposed, by having a few select creatures which happen to fit our arbitrary classification of FBS, which shows how we think and how we approach proposals (i.e. the kind of questions that the proposals must answer to warrant further prodding).

Sorry Grey Wolf, the last thing I want is to add to your stress when it comes to this thread.

Eh, no harm done.

Just to be clear: We can be pretty sure that the tower scene cannot be explained by RAW. This means we have to fudge things. Which is fine with me because I accept that Rich might use cartoon physics for a laugh or even to simply show, for the benefit of this thread, that the MitD is really, really strong.

And I understand what you mean, but fair's fair, the other scenes allow fudging (sometimes a lot of it), so it feels wrong to hold the Escape scene to a RAW standard we don't hold everything else. I see your position, and I believe you see mine, and which one picked is down to personal preference. I prefer the one that allows for a broad (but not too broad) spectrum of FBS examples, myself (obviously), but had things turned out differently, your approach would be equally valid.

On another topic: Why people think that the MitD has to have some thematic attachment to darkness bemuses me. He's hidden because Xycon decided to hide him. X was using the Evil Boss trick of having his secret weapon hidden in the darkness. As far as I know at NO POINT is there a single bit of evidence in the comic that suggests he produces, naturally lives in, or even likes darkness. He's in the darkness because he does what he's told and Xycon, and for meta reasons Rich, doesn't want anyone to know what he is.

Preach it, brother!

Grey Wolf

Edit: One final point. I don't think it has ever been proposed, but I suppose we could vote on each proposal like it is done in other curator threads. I hate that idea. I designed the thread to operate as autonomously as possible, keeping the number of voting required as low as possible. I gave myself enough executive powers that I could do the refreshes, and gave you guys enough overriding powers that the mods would not boot me out for doing so. Voting is reserved for changing the thread rules, rather than what goes where, and I honestly believe that is for the better - at least the discussion is on the thread topic (even if it is to fight over how much fudging is too much) rather than over what the rules mean or should mean.

[ChristianSt]

An eye opening POV for me. Yes you've told it to me before but it's only now sinking in. I've been operating under the deep assumption that it's like a murder mystery -- you have to account for means, motive, and opportunity -- to the point that I included those exact words in my write up of the HH without thinking about it.

I'm not intending that thought to go in any particular direction, I definitely don't want to argue which is better, just throwing it out there.

I don't really say that your reasoning can't be valid or can't arrive at the correct MitD. But in case of arguing about Rich's motives etc. it just is basically impossible to use other arguments than "I think Rich thought <that>" vs. "I believe Rich wouldn't do <this>", which can only result in endless battles without any solution at arriving somewhere. Also there is the problem that this thread cannot reach the point "We know what the MitD is". So all we can realistically can do is judge how likely we think X can be MitD or not.

Understanding your explanation does not make the proposed idea list well presented. The surface meaning of dumping the aboleth mage, the zodar, and the hunting horror in the same bin as the velociraptor, the yeti, bigfoot, and Audrey II contradicts your intentions for the list, no matter how many times you explain those intentions.

As Grey Wolf explained in his last post. Yes theoretically we could add more layers to the proposed ideas list. But that would imo probably shift the "How well can <X> account for being MitD or not?" focus the thread has to "Belongs <X> into category <Y> or category <Z>?". I think the former helps us to "narrow down MitD", while the latter is meaningless shifting of items from one list to another.


I think the FBS isn't really for regular users of this thread, but more to "present" a list of more likelier option for posters who visit and are just curious what MitD could be. (Then yes, imo some of the proposed ideas are rather ridiculous.)

For a healthier discussion it would probably better to get rid of the FBS category altogether, but I think it serves a purpose for people not really interested in discussing about possible candidates.


@Grey Wolf: I really wouldn't like voting on proposals whether they are <X>, <Y> or <Z>. I personally like the approach the OP has (basically cataloging what is said). The only thing I would consider is maybe establishing thread consensus on whether method/spell/ability <X> is valid to explain <Y>. This should be rather easy and would give a consensus on whether a proposal is a FBS without doing the work for each proposal most of the time if we can check whether it's ability is enough or not. [Though feel free to disagree on that, because I'm not really interested in voting on it. But if we just would have thread consensus on say Greater Teleport and Word of Recall then we could just stop this discussion]


My personal favorite (though I think it is somewhat unlikely) is Snorlax. If it wouldn't have a fixed spot in the "copyrighted list" I wouldn't have a problem with it being in the "proposed list" (even though from what I see it could be a valid FBS), because it doesn't change how I view it, but only how it is labeled. (At most it can tell me how the thread consensus views a monster anyway.)

[Tubercular Ox]

As Grey Wolf explained in his last post. Yes theoretically we could add more layers to the proposed ideas list. But that would imo probably shift the "How well can <X> account for being MitD or not?" focus the thread has to "Belongs <X> into category <Y> or category <Z>?".

What about "has printed stats" vs. "does not have printed stats"? I think "Would you consider a monster without printed stats?" is a big question people need to ask themselves, and the split is both objective and binary.

Total change of subject: I'll come out as absolutely against voting. Putting parts of the FBS list into the judgement of anyone is what guarantees you a steady stream of people with their knickers in a twist. Democracy would make this worse, because intended or not, every Democracy is victim to referendum, recount, and recall.

On another topic: Why people think that the MitD has to have some thematic attachment to darkness bemuses me.

Are you asking my opinion or am I supposed to ignore that?

Spoiler: Sometimes I can't help myself.

Show

For me the key line is where Rich says he "figured out" what the MitD was supposed to be, which implies he was thinking about the MitD's existing attributes while considering alternatives. Round about strip 100, hiding in the dark was just about the only attribute the MitD had. I don't think it's critical, but I do think it's a measurable difference in the suitability of a monster, if only with calipers.

[SavageWombat]

What about "has printed stats" vs. "does not have printed stats"? I think "Would you consider a monster without printed stats?" is a big question people need to ask themselves, and the split is both objective and binary.

We have considered monsters without printed stats. I personally think it's a stronger contender than the ones we have. But it's harder than you might think to come up with monsters that DON'T have printed stats.

[Steven]

Are you asking my opinion or am I supposed to ignore that?

Spoiler: Sometimes I can't help myself.

Show

For me the key line is where Rich says he "figured out" what the MitD was supposed to be, which implies he was thinking about the MitD's existing attributes while considering alternatives. Round about strip 100, hiding in the dark was just about the only attribute the MitD had. I don't think it's critical, but I do think it's a measurable difference in the suitability of a monster, if only with calipers.

You're welcome to respond to it although I'll admit your response was pretty much exactly what I expected.

What I'm saying is that I see zero reasons to have a link with darkness aside from it being an easy way to hide a monster. That's the reason we've been told he is in the darkness and it's the only reason needed.

It's not a mark against a creature to have a thematic connection with darkness, although I'd argue that any creature that has it's own darkness aura is a worse pick because how would he leap out? But nor is it a mark in it's favor. It's like having green scales. It makes no difference.

However I think I'm done for now and will go back to lurking.
-----------------
I would object to voting on everything so I would vote against voting in any poll about voting.

[Jay R]

What's the scope of this apology? I still have opinions I can't apologize for, which, per your advice, I shall defer, but if it's language and behavior, I'm ready. In particular, trash heap was harsh. I don't know how far to go on that. It was my first impression. I regret it.

Thank you. That's hard to do, and I appreciate it.

: The healing can begin.

Oh and I agree with both of gwc's comments. There's no winning until the reveal, but balloons would be awesome.

And if, at the end, it's an HH, you will win. It's in the list at your suggestion.

[ChristianSt]

What about "has printed stats" vs. "does not have printed stats"? I think "Would you consider a monster without printed stats?" is a big question people need to ask themselves, and the split is both objective and binary.

First you need to define what you mean with "printed stats" .
If you mean with "printed stats" some D&D (or maybe other RPG) statblock, then no, having such one is not mandatory or gives a candidate bonus points of any sort [Just look at the various lists in section 3 - you will find all kinds of proposal that have no stats (or I wouldn't know why they should have such stats, other than maybe some fan-made stats for them.)].

But we surely need some kind of "source material" that says something about the monster and whether it shows abilities how he could achieve the things MitD did. Especially most of the stuff in 3c (copyrighted ideas) doesn't have something I would call "printed stats". Though yes, the most proposal seem to have "printed stats", but I think that is most likely because most/some contributors think that it is most likely a D&D-monster or that they are more familiar with D&D/RPGs. Also you can start digging random sourcebook monster lists and judge whether any creature might fit or not and propose some of those here. But with creatures from other sources you can't basically do that (or not that easy).

[Grey_Wolf_c]

"Would you consider a monster without printed stats?" is a big question people need to ask themselves, and the split is both objective and binary.

Objective, yes. Binary, not even close - as you should know, since you are arguing that we need to use a different set of stats for the HH than we had been using until now (see also: Zodar). But more importantly, no matter what the answer is, it is of no consequence to the fitness of the proposal. Carbosilicate Amorphs don't fit the tower scene less just because we cannot put a D&D STR number to their ability to use heavy shielding as a flyswatter.

If we used such gauge, then someone with a non-D&D proposal could accuse the thread of bias towards D&D creatures, and they would be right.

Grey Wolf

[Tubercular Ox]

If we used such gauge, then someone with a non-D&D proposal could accuse the thread of bias towards D&D creatures, and they would be right.

I'm not arguing that it be used to reject a creature, just that it splits up the list around something fundamental.

The HH and Zodar are in the "has stats" column, even without deciding which version of the stats to use. The only corner case is something that both has stats and doesn't have stats... which I can't really reject, but it does feel like some sort of objective policy could be crafted.

Edit: No, I lie, you've persuaded me. This was a bad idea.

Another possibility is to make it free for all:

• Put all of the creatures in a single list, including the FBS monsters.
• Put next to each creature the number of yes votes and no votes
• Do not require people to vote. Abstaining is an option with tangible meaning.
• Highlight (bold, italic, different color. Don't use green.) creatures that fit the current definition: 2 yes votes more than no votes.
• Ditch the definition of FBS, make it a strictly subjective vote.
• Monsters will still have write ups explaining to what extent they fit the big scenes.

Yes, it's scary to have a vote where there are no hard requirements like "eats and sleeps," but newcomers looking at the list are going to see right away that most of the creatures have one yes vote (suggester) and jack all else, so even something like the HH, with two yes votes (I hope DaggerPen is still with me) and 3 or 4 no votes ( ) is going to draw the eye and elicit interest...

The definition of the votes needs to be crafted. "Does it fit the big scenes?" implies ... things. I suggest:

• A yes vote means you would not feel cheated if this were the MitD.
• A no vote means you think there are interesting arguments but the whole is not (entirely) valid
• An abstain means you are simply not considering the creature at this time.

The no vote needs work. Should the psammead have 1 yes vote and nothing else, or should it have 1 yes vote and, oh, 7 no votes? People pop in, open up the psammead because of all its no votes, and immediately have a good example of what kinds of things go on in this thread.

Also, at this point, if I change my argument a lot, it's because you guys are persuading me.

[Throknor]

If we're going to start voting for the FBS lots of crazy things will start getting introduced. Like the jungle was sunny and darkness favoring monsters need to explain that. Or that around strip 100 Rich was still in D&D 3.5 mode and that should be a qualifier - anything not there shouldn't be listed there. Or that the tower scene is clearly a gag and should not be used. (And I'm not proposing any of those now; just trying to make an exaggerated point. There is another interesting thread series that is being rendered useless with voting; I'd hate to have that happen here.)

I have to say I've followed a number of these threads and have no idea what the last twenty pages were for. The 'FBS' qualifier simply states scenes that it would be great for suggestions to completely cover and lists those that seem to be closest. No serious proposal has ever left off the list, simply classified by how well it fits what little we know. HH is already listed as possible, and the CoC information didn't really change that.

And since we're in the high 40s I'll reiterate my vote for 'MITD Thread the Eighth I Am'.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

And since we're in the high 40s I'll reiterate my vote for 'MITD Thread the Eighth I Am'.

Ah-HA! Your sneaky attempt to stuff the ballot has been caught by your appropriate use of the word "reiterate".

Seriously, I've been keeping track of voting here. Please don't repeat voting preferences, I would rather not back-track to see if you have voted before or not. If you change your vote, it would be helpful to know what you previously voted for so I can subtract from the appropriate category. And if you propose multiple names, you do get a free vote on each, but please don't vote on anything else without telling me which names you proposed (so they can loose your free votes).

Finally, if you do want to vote, but don't have anything OT to say, you can always PM me.

Edit:

Another possibility is to make it free for all <snip>

:: Takes a guess at the amount of work involved if this was implemented ::
:: shudders in horror ::

If that method is implemented, you'll have to find a new curator. There is no way in hell, heaven or purgatory I'm signing up to keep track of such detailed voting protocol.

Grey Wolf

[Kornaki]

I think trying to make a finer classification system is a waste of time along any lines. Something either fits everything we know about MitD or it does not. What could be worthwhile is voting on what qualifies as fitting (word of recall, greater teleport, does it need 30 or 40 strength for the tower scene etc).

I found this creature which has an interesting ability (though in literally no other way satisfies the MitD requirements)

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/mon...tes%2Fprint%2F

An arcanoplasm can mimic any arcane spell cast within 30 feet of it on its next turn.

This got me thinking that V casts greater teleport during the fight (only to have it interrupted) and obviously also casts epic teleport to arrive at the tower. The escape scene might be explained by something that doesn't have the ability to teleport people innately, but instead has the ability to copy spells that have been cast nearby.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

This got me thinking that V casts greater teleport during the fight (only to have it interrupted) and obviously also casts epic teleport to arrive at the tower. The escape scene might be explained by something that doesn't have the ability to teleport people innately, but instead has the ability to copy spells that have been cast nearby.

That is quite similar to the approach the protean takes to explain the Escape, although obviously different in that the protean can't copy actual spells*. If we do find other creatures with that ability, I'd certainly like to take a closer look at them.

Grey Wolf

* I've mentioned this before, but bears repeating: the fact that the protean cannot just copy any power, only the extraordinary ones (and not the far more common SLAs) is the one reason why I don't think the protean is overpowered. Ridiculously powered, yes, of course, because epic, but it is not a completely broken Pun-pun level of shapechanging. Given Rich's views on the subject, I truly believe this is the one shapechanger he wouldn't mind having in the story (well, that and Sabine, who only ever uses it for disguising purposes, and kinky sex).

[Tubercular Ox]

:: Takes a guess at the amount of work involved if this was implemented ::
:: shudders in horror ::

If that method is implemented, you'll have to find a new curator. There is no way in hell, heaven or purgatory I'm signing up to keep track of such detailed voting protocol.

It's definitely a balance between the effort you want to put in and the kinds of arguments you want to have. Making a single list and highlighting the FBS creatures somehow is still a "low effort" alternative. Anecdotal evidence, it would've shut me up a lot sooner.

I'd also suggest that things with one line dismissals not get spoiler boxes. It saves some characters and helps sort the list in a different way, but I do see the possibility for increased argument, so I have to defer to your experience on that.

[ChristianSt]

I'm not arguing that it be used to reject a creature, just that it splits up the list around something fundamental.

The HH and Zodar are in the "has stats" column, even without deciding which version of the stats to use. The only corner case is something that both has stats and doesn't have stats... which I can't really reject, but it does feel like some sort of objective policy could be crafted.

But why is that a fundamental difference? And one problem you have stated was currently that

The surface meaning of dumping the aboleth mage, the zodar, and the hunting horror in the same bin as the velociraptor, the yeti, bigfoot, and Audrey II contradicts your intentions for the list, no matter how many times you explain those intentions.

Yet that wouldn't really change that much, because some of those would still be in the same list (I'm not sure on bigfoot, but I'm pretty sure there are D&D velociraptor and yeti stats).

It doesn't really do anything useful other then to enable arguements about whether to use/included the stated version or not and on which list (or even both) to include it. [An example listed in the proposed list for this would be the jabberwock]

It also makes searching the lists harder. If I want to look up if a certain monster was proposed I either need to be sure to search the right list (and maybe I don't even know that there is a stated version of it), or open both lists every time.

From that PoV the FBS in itself isn't that great (since is already a category that we need to worry about a bit in where the line is, even if the rules try to enable a line that is as sharp and objective as possible). But imo it serves an somewhat important function, especially when thinking about people that are just take a quick glance at this thread.

Another possibility is to make it free for all:
<bunch of stuff about voting and doing lots of voting>

That is imo just a horrible idea. First of all I wouldn't want to do the bookkeeping on all this voting (I think just the normal bookkeeping isn't a pleasant work), and I certainly wouldn't want to vote on each random proposal. I don't want to arbitrary rank creatures. I want to evaluate whether a creature might fit or not (especially if we learn something about MitD in the process). [I would say that was the main initial reason for the HH discussion, and the question how it can explain the Escape. But after having said all arguments on it, mashing opinions against each other doesn't help (and yes, I did that a bit to eagerly, too).]

And after presenting the possibilities a creature has to offer, everyone can basically judge for himself how likely he thinks a monster can be MitD. And since your voting doesn't really take into account any reasoning, but only personal opinion, it even probably doesn't tell me what I want to know: For example if the yeti is a creature with more yes votes than no votes, I still need to judge whether I think the yeti is likely or not [Which I would say it is unlikely]. So the classification on which list yeti is, doesn't change anything about yeti, but only shows how it is presented (and how likely it is that I stumble across it while just reading the proposed list without searching something specific). [And add a bunch of personal opinion on it, which imo has not that much value.]

[Tubercular Ox]

But why is that a fundamental difference?

What's the polite way to say, "I no longer believe this," without sounding accusatory or anything? Maybe I've just found it.

[ChristianSt]

What's the polite way to say, "I no longer believe this," without sounding accusatory or anything? Maybe I've just found it.

Sorry, haven't noticed your edit there. Changing opinion is totally valid

It's definitely a balance between the effort you want to put in and the kinds of arguments you want to have. Making a single list and highlighting the FBS creatures somehow is still a "low effort" alternative. Anecdotal evidence, it would've shut me up a lot sooner.

I think how to highlight things is not the horror Grey Wolf talks about. It is the voting process and how to keep track of them and organizing them. I think just to do the voting on the so far proposed stuff should take forever - and then it would needed to be done for each new proposal. Heck if I don't even want to participate in such a crazy amount of voting, why should anybody want to organize it?

The only amount of voting I think might be fine is to establish on some corner cases whether <X> is a valid explanation for <Y> to say "This is FBS (or not) because of <Z, Thread Consensus>, and not because of some random arguments". I have actually said this a few post(/pages?) above, have other posters positive or negative feelings about this?

[Tubercular Ox]

I think how to highlight things is not the horror Grey Wolf talks about.

Mix and highlight was an alternative suggestion, not a counter argument. I agree the voting is effort heavy. If I'm forced to explain, I suggested it because I thought it was similar in effort to the current voting system, but the reaction is more than enough proof that it isn't.

[ChristianSt]

Mix and highlight was an alternative suggestion, not a counter argument. I agree the voting is effort heavy. If I'm forced to explain, I suggested it because I thought it was similar in effort to the current voting system, but the reaction is more than enough proof that it isn't.

The problem is not the voting system. It is that you propose voting on each proposed monster at all.

The current voting process is there if there is need to vote on thread-rules and such general things, so voting at all is a rather rare thing. Proposing to essential do 100(?) votes right now and one every few weeks (or more frequent, I have no real idea how fast proposals arrive) is just an amount of work I don't even want to do as a person only voting on it. Most likely I would vote on 2-3 things I have any real feeling about and just ignore the rest Or just vote yes on the current FBS and no on everything not on it . And if most people would do the same it would have really no effect at all. [Or even just drop out because voting after voting after voting is just boring.]

The last vote this thread has seen (I think somewhere in the middle of thread VI) was to change the FBS definition. [At least if my memory serves me right.]

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The last vote this thread has seen (I think somewhere in the middle of thread VI) was to change the FBS definition. [At least if my memory serves me right.]

Technically speaking, the last voting is ongoing, to name the next thread, and so was the previous voting. Thread naming votes aside, yes, the last voting was to add rules to the FBS category. Consensus was to add the three extra rules (size, mind control, creation post-#100).

GW

[Tubercular Ox]

The problem is not the voting system. It is that you propose voting on each proposed monster at all.

Because of this and other arguments, I think that if the system is salvageable at all (if), it would begin with a heavy encouragement to abstain. Even a "no" vote would be defined in terms of seeing the monster as separate from the rest somehow -- either because it comes close, like the HH, or because it's a hideous example that should serve as warning to later thread goers, like the Psammead. There would never be a roll call. Either you're interested enough in an option to say, "Tally me please," or you abstain -- which is the encouraged choice, not the default one. If you can't decide, abstain. If you do not think an entry is special somehow, whether it meets all (or any) of the requirements or not, abstain. Save Grey_Wolf_c the effort.

But! Gosh, how do I say this... The idea is unpopular and I'm willing to let it rest, but I'm not sure I can ever resist talking about something.

Edit: In fact, I've dug myself into a corner on this one. The goal for me is to suck the air out of arguments before they start, and barring a new vocabulary to put people in the right mindset, this is just another way to start procedural arguments. So, yeah, I'm done with this idea.

[ChristianSt]

Technically speaking, the last voting is ongoing, to name the next thread, and so was the previous voting. Thread naming votes aside, yes, the last voting was to add rules to the FBS category. Consensus was to add the three extra rules (size, mind control, creation post-#100).

GW

Yeah, right - but I wouldn't it really consider voting in that sense. Even with the "ongoing thread name business" and stating my opinion on it (though obviously nobody likes kobolds ), I haven't thought about. It is just fun to have a bit funnier thread titles than "MitD I" through "MitD IX" (although I generally don't like the winning title. But the current one is really nice . Kinda sad it will end soon )

And to be overly correct it isn't voting in the sense of the OP, since it doesn't follow those rules.


@Tubercular Ox/Voting:
Do I understand your post right that you want to propose a voting system in which I should normally not vote at all?
Because I kinda thought normally voting systems are used that people can (and should) use them to voice their opinion. Not to not use them.
If you want heavy focus on abstaining, wouldn't it best to even enforce abstaining by not doing a vote in the first place?