The Index Reloaded --- (Index of the Giant's Comments II)

[Peelee]

The Giant has said that there are a number of things about the comic he wished he had never done and would undo if that were possible. The best he can do is to never make reference to them or repeat them.

Actually, the best he can do is to delete them from the archives and have all reprints be of the altered comic. Which I must note that the Giant has not done.

So long as we don't try to claim that he still thinks such strips are valid comedic material or that he doesn't regret them, I see no reason that we are not ever to discuss them in an objective manner.

[oppyu]

I do know about the Giant, and he considers this thread incredibly useful :P

Hey, he's also used the word 'creepy' and implied that he may be less likely to post knowing that whatever he says will be catalogued and archived. So there .

Damn it, I just realised I'm doing the same weird thing of arguing about what the Giant really thinks about something. Disregard me.

[Porthos]

You know, this discussion is starting to remind me of a certain Monty Python sketch.

...

It's funny how apropos many of the Python sketches are in regards to the internet.

[137beth]

Let me clarify first that I'm not contradicting Throknor, just using her/his comment as a jumping-off point to mention something that's been bothering me.

What Rich requested, specifically, was that the Index not record things he said that were not about OotS and that were not in the OotS forum. The sudden tide of, "Let's not include that!" that followed mystifies me; Rich was not ambiguous about what he didn't want included, and it wasn't "Catalog less of everything."

If people were gritting their teeth at what they perceived as a mountain of trivia being unduly immortalized but not speaking up because they considered the forum passion for recording all Rich's words unopposable before it became clear that Rich could actually say things and have them not recorded, then fair enough. But I'm getting the impression some people misunderstand Rich's request to be something like, "I want you to catalog a lot less; figure out what can go and cut the Index down to 25% of its current content."

This. The whole "let's include as little as possible!" came out of a forum telephone game.

If it's about Order of the Stick and on this forum, I don't see any reason to bar it from inclusion. The whole voting thing seems ridiculous, given the above. Does it seem obvious? Sure, it might, but not everybody is as skilled at reading. Is it redundant? If it is truly and completely redundant, and offers absolutely no possible additional insight, then yeah, there might not be a need to include it. Does it contradict a previous quote? Keep them both. It's worthwhile to see what a creator's thoughts are at different points in the completion of the project, not just the most recent thoughts. But I think we should err very much on the side of inclusion.

This as well.

I think the idea that we supposedly need to keep the index short to avoid it being "overwhelming" is...odd. Anyone going to an index of forum comments made by the author of a webcomic is enough of an OOTS-geek to be happy diving through tons of the Giant's comments.

[Flame of Anor]

stuff

100% agreed.

[Tragak]

You know, this discussion is starting to remind me of a certain Monty Python sketch.

...

It's funny how apropos many of the Python sketches are in regards to the internet.

No it isn't

[Sylian]

I'm in favor of voting through PM.

Also note that there hasn't been a new quote since page 23, where there were two new. Before that, the last newest quote was at page 20. We're at page 27 now. I do believe there is too much padding in this thread. Some of it is voting, some of it is discussion on relevant issues, some of it is discussion on irrelevant issues, some of it off-topic (jokes etc).

Here is my suggestion of what should be done: Vote via PM, and don't vote as often. If you'd like to suggest a vote, PM ThePhantasm about it, and if he deems a vote useful, then he'll post in this thread that a vote has been opened, and then people can PM him with their vote. It would clutter the thread less and would make it easier for ThePhantasm to count the votes. One downside is that it'd prevent people from discussing whether the quotes should be included or not. Either we skip the discussion (and let each person decide on their own), or we keep the discussion in this thread. Still, even with the discussion in this thread, eliminating the "Include" and "Do not include" posts would save a lot of space and make the thread less cluttered.

Also, try to keep all discussion in this thread related to the thread. Off-topic discussion and jokes should be kept in other threads.

[Kalmegil]

The Giant has said that there are a number of things about the comic he wished he had never done and would undo if that were possible. The best he can do is to never make reference to them or repeat them.

I don't think he has ever made a statement as to how he would prefer us to handle situations which he no longer feels a specific sentiment, but I would presume he'd want us to stick to the same policy.

I don't think this presumption is justified. The Giant in fact mentions his changes in the board. That doesn't sound like he's trying to hide his old position. In fact, one of his themes lately has been that when one has a change in values (and as the Giant presents it, typically it's less a change as much as taking the time to actually consider the specific issue in the context of one's existing values), one should change one's art to reflect that.

Watching that change is highly educational, and in fact makes the point more strongly than simply presenting the new position. This is better accomplished when the original expression of the old view can be directly contrasted with the new.

[Scow2]

How about we have a more objective standard to including quotes - namely, following the first five rules?

For quotes that are an update on Rich's stance, discard the old quote, and put in the new one. For quotes that are redundant (Most frequent when he's posting several times in one thread), put only the most complete quote... and avoid including multiple quotes from one thread in the Index.

This thread is NOT about writing, or education, or any higher purpose than recording what the Giant has said about Part of the Comic X.

[Kalmegil]

Could you please explain how your proposed standard is more objective than any of the others proposed here?

There is not rule that says this isn't about writing or education (among other things, of course). When those have to do with OOTS, they are clearly within the bounds of the proposed purpose of the index, as they relate to the topics discussed on the OOTS forum.

There is a rule (Rule D, specifically) about removing older, contradictory quotes. Some people are talking about proposing a change to that rule (although it hasn't been put in those terms exactly, that's what the most recent line of discussion has been about). There's nothing more objective about the current rule D than a modified one that relegates older, contradictory posts to a note position in the newer entries. In fact, in some ways it's more objective, since there's no need to determine if a new post is contradictory, something that at the edge cases will be highly subjective. Of course, I'm not sure objectivity is a useful criteria for determining whether one proposed rule is better than another. But it's the standard you raised, and it doesn't support your preferred rule.

[Sir_Leorik]

But I think we should err very much on the side of inclusion.

Mostly I agree about erring on the side of inclusion. I think I've voted once to remove a quote and once against including one (though I could be wrong on that number). Maybe we need to rigorously enforce the current system for nominating quotes to be voted on for including or not, and if that system is ignored The Phantasm can put his foot down and say "I'm not calling a vote on this topic, it's going into the Index".

[ThePhantasm]

Okay, so here's the deal:

(1) Voting was intended to be a rare event, and in the first years of the index it was. Voting is a last resort.

(2) Voting takes up too much thread space to simply be called on a whim.

(3) Thread posts need to be constrained to suggestions and friendly discussion.

So I recommend we do this:

(a) If you feel a vote needs to be called, PM me. In the thread, say something like "I PMed a vote suggestion to ThePhantasm."

(b) NO VOTE WILL BE CALLED UNTIL TIME TO UPDATE THE INDEX. At that point any necessary vote(s) will be held together. There are two ways to do this:

- - 1 - - The vote(s) are held by PMing the curator.

- - 2 - - Votes will be held in the thread to facilitate case-making. What do I mean by that? I mean you vote in bold and along with your vote you can write your reasons for voting that way. But once you've made your case, leave it be... don't continue to argue no matter how tempting. It isn't always necessary to have the last word on the internet. Try to make constructive cases for your vote and don't focus too much on criticizing the cases of others (since they can't respond). Remember, the time for discussion was earlier - this is the time for voting.

(c) The index, unfortunately, is not updated on a particular schedule, and voting can end up prolonging that. Usually I try to wait until there are at least 5-6 new quotes on the docket before I update the index.

Thoughts?

[Kish]

I think it would be better for votes to be by PM. Though I am skeptical that getting votes out of the thread will fix the thread-spam problem, which strikes me as far more caused by the preliminaries to votes (i.e., the "Look, a quote!" followed by "We shouldn't include that quote!" and "Yes we should!").

[Grey_Wolf_c]

(c) The index, unfortunately, is not updated on a particular schedule, and voting can end up prolonging that. Usually I try to wait until there are at least 5-6 new quotes on the docket before I update the index.

I like it. Make it official, I think. E.g. "OP will be updated every 6 posts, or two months, whatever happens first". Proposed quotes should be added automatically unless you have received 2 PMs against adding them (or one, and you agree). Voting will be requested during thread refresh post.

- - 1 - - The vote(s) are held by PMing the curator.

It will surprise no-one when I say that this is my preferred option.

I like the "only one post per person to make the case" restriction, but I'm wary that we can't enforce it. I'd say pencil it in, but if the thread starts operating smoothly (waiting for refresh to vote will help I lot, I think), we may want to drop it.

Grey Wolf

[ChristianSt]

To (a):

I don't really see the sense to PM and post when someone thinks a vote is needed. I would make it one of the two (how you think is better), unless you think you want the information public, but want the PM to not miss it that easy.
Or do you mean only the initial vote proposer should post something about it so other peoples can chip in with PM?
Or is it meant that one PM will initiate the vote, so that others don't need to PM you about it?
I think a threshold of 1 will not prevent voting from happening, I think a better threshold would be 3, but I'm certainly not sure on that number. It is an important point how easy/hard it is to initiate voting. A to low threshold and we can just skip that part and vote and all and every quote which I think would be a bad decision. [And this point is rather unclear as of now]



If we default to "proposal->include it" then you don't need to announce it beforehand what you do with a quote (unless you think the thread has come more to the position to not include it). Anyway it should be clear what you indent to do with a certain quote with the next update*, so that I don't need to bother you if the thing I want you to do is the thing that will happen.

*I really don't care what the "official update schedule" for this thread is. Make it how you feel comfortable with it. If you want to update it each quote, do it. If you feel like once a month, do it once a month. I don't see a problem with a "random" schedule either. I also don't see a problem if you just have the time/mood like doing an update for 1-2 quotes (especially if the thread doesn't see a reason to vote about it) and just doing so. So however you want to update this thread, you have my support.


How to vote I'm not sure. From a thread-space perspective PM would be the only logical choice, but I personally don't think that this is really a valuable resource in itself. So I would do it the way it is easier for you [I personally think voting in the thread would be easier for me, but if you say PMing is easier for you, I would gladly take that little extra work to make it easier for you]. I don't have a problem with delayed (and possible) combined voting on multiple topics - this should help to cut down the amount of posts/PM needed totally to vote (since I can just combine multiple Yes/No to a single post/PM).



And personally I would go ahead and like to add/propose an additional rule:
"Rule 0: Please reduce any discussion that is not directly related to this thread to an absolute minimum - which best is zero at all."
(and maybe even put it outside of the Rules Spoilers and maybe even make it larger/bold, to give people a better chance to catch it easily). Those off-topic ramblings are just distracting and I don't really like to chip in and point it out, because it would most of the times be another off-topic post in itself, and also iit s something I'm not that comfortable with in regards to forum rules (Vigilante Modding).


TL;DR:
(a): More details needed on how to initiate a vote
(b): Whatever is easier for ThePhantasm
(c): However ThePhantasm wants to update the thread

+: New rule addition?: Upfront warning to not go off-topic.

[137beth]

I prefer voting in the thread, as it makes it easier for me to keep track of what's going on.

I fully support waiting until the index is going to be updated before calling a vote.

[ThePhantasm]

Thanks for these suggestions, guys... I'm going to read over everyone's input and think on it for a bit. I'll try to update the thread "rules" soon. It may be a day or two before I do.

[Savannah]

I don't participate regularly in this thread, but I do follow it fairly closely. I've only voted twice in the entire time that voting has been around. If the voting had been via PM, I would never have voted at all. I also really enjoy reading the comments during voting. Upshot being, I prefer option 2 for voting, as option 1 means I'll probably never vote again. Whether or not you care about that is up to you

[Jasdoif]

While I agree with the general idea for the new voting process....

(a) If you feel a vote needs to be called, PM me. In the thread, say something like "I PMed a vote suggestion to ThePhantasm."

I don't think this makes a lot of sense. A two-step process including both PMs and posts is a bit of a hassle for a casual user, and still amounts to posts indicating a vote may be called (and which itself might prompt people to "vote", before the new system is well-known).

Instead, I would suggest that people feeling a vote need to be called only PM you, and you later post saying the quote will be on the agenda for the next vote, assuming of course you agree the scenario warrants a vote. This way, the number of PMs you receive is itself an indicator of how much dissent there is, and we reduce the number of posts that are not suggestions/discussion/votes.

(b) NO VOTE WILL BE CALLED UNTIL TIME TO UPDATE THE INDEX. At that point any necessary vote(s) will be held together. There are two ways to do this:

- - 1 - - The vote(s) are held by PMing the curator.

- - 2 - - Votes will be held in the thread to facilitate case-making. What do I mean by that? I mean you vote in bold and along with your vote you can write your reasons for voting that way. But once you've made your case, leave it be... don't continue to argue no matter how tempting. It isn't always necessary to have the last word on the internet. Try to make constructive cases for your vote and don't focus too much on criticizing the cases of others (since they can't respond). Remember, the time for discussion was earlier - this is the time for voting.

I'm in favor of option #2. If we're condensing voting into multiple-entries-per-vote, introducing another change (going from vote-by-post to vote-by-PM) at the same time will make it difficult to judge which change is responsible for what effect on the thread. (I reserve the right to change my mind if the vote condensing fails to have the desired effect.)

[Flame of Anor]

I think voting should remain in the thread. I totally agree that it has been taking over, and that that should stop, but I think the Phantasm's proposal of only holding a vote when it is time to update the index will fix that problem.

[oppyu]

I vote that we vote on voting in the thread.

Yes, I'm hilarious.

[Gwynfrid]

There has been an excess of voting of late for sure, but moving votes or calls to vote to a PM medium doesn't help, because:
- It's not enforceable, unless we ask the mods to enforce it. That would be really heavy handed, and an unnecessary burden for them.
- It's not practical because your forum in-box will overflow quickly.
- As mentioned by others, there is more value in a vote with an argument, than a plain yes or no.

I'm therefore in favor of this:

(b) NO VOTE WILL BE CALLED UNTIL TIME TO UPDATE THE INDEX. At that point any necessary vote(s) will be held together.

And this:

- - 2 - - Votes will be held in the thread to facilitate case-making. What do I mean by that? I mean you vote in bold and along with your vote you can write your reasons for voting that way. But once you've made your case, leave it be... don't continue to argue no matter how tempting. It isn't always necessary to have the last word on the internet. Try to make constructive cases for your vote and don't focus too much on criticizing the cases of others (since they can't respond). Remember, the time for discussion was earlier - this is the time for voting.

To help curb the excess flow of voting, I suggest adding this:

Votes cast before the curator calls for a vote will not be counted.

This keeps the frequency of voting firmly under the curator's control, without the need to moderate the thread.

As for off-topic posts, I don't think we need to add a rule. There is a warning against this in the general forum guidelines already.

[pendell]

If I had my druthers, this is what I would want:

1) This thread to be clear save for recording comments from the giant for potential storage in the index.

2) At some point Phantasm would collate them into a single post and invite discussion as to whether they should be included or not.

3) Debate would then ensure, followed by a vote. We would then leave the thread clear until the next round -- say every 3 months or so?

I say this because so far as I can tell this thread is about 3/4 arguing about whether a comment should or should not be included in the index, and some times those arguments can become rather heated. Thus, I propose to reduce the thread overhead in order to concentrate on content -- things that the giant said which add to our understanding and enjoyment of the strip.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

- It's not enforceable, unless we ask the mods to enforce it. That would be really heavy handed, and an unnecessary burden for them.

On the contrary, it is easily enforced: "votes posted in the thread don't count, only PM votes count".

- It's not practical because your forum in-box will overflow quickly.

Absolutely false. This thread does not receive more than 100 votes each time, and the inbox allows you to download the PMs at any time. Unless ThePhantasm keeps his inbox past the 80% mark, he should not have a problem.

- As mentioned by others, there is more value in a vote with an argument, than a plain yes or no.

And no-one is saying you can't post your argument. What we are trying to curtail is pages of posts with single words.

Votes cast before the curator calls for a vote will not be counted.

So people vote, then curator calls for a vote, and they repost? Instead of curtailing voting, you just doubled the posts. Or are you suggesting that people who vote early don't get a vote at all?

Grey Wolf

[Jasdoif]

To help curb the excess flow of voting, I suggest adding this:

Votes cast before the curator calls for a vote will not be counted.

This keeps the frequency of voting firmly under the curator's control, without the need to moderate the thread.

I don't think this needs to be added. Until a vote is called for there's nothing to actually cast a vote on. The presence of the curator's post calling for the vote should clearly delineate when voting is actually an option.

Or...are you trying to state/emphasize that only the curator can call for official votes?

[Gwynfrid]

I don't think this needs to be added. Until a vote is called for there's nothing to actually cast a vote on. The presence of the curator's post calling for the vote should clearly delineate when voting is actually an option.

Or...are you trying to state/emphasize that only the curator can call for official votes?

Yes. I'm hoping to dissuade spontaneous voting (ie voting that starts before ThePhantasm calls for anything). That happened a couple of times and I think it was a contributor to the frustration.

@ Grey_Wolf: I can see your points, but I think if we can indeed stop spontaneous voting, and if ThePhantasm waits until there are several comments to vote on, then the issue is solved, whether we vote via PM or forum.

[Shale]

Yeah, I agree that it's worthwhile to have a policy that people shouldn't just start voting in the middle of a discussion. That has a tendency to snowball.

[Emanick]

Yes. I'm hoping to dissuade spontaneous voting (ie voting that starts before ThePhantasm calls for anything). That happened a couple of times and I think it was a contributor to the frustration.

@ Grey_Wolf: I can see your points, but I think if we can indeed stop spontaneous voting, and if ThePhantasm waits until there are several comments to vote on, then the issue is solved, whether we vote via PM or forum.

I think spontaneous voting will die away if it's clear that it's more or less useless; if The Phantasm studiously ignores any votes not following an explicit call by him to enter the voting cycle, people should catch on pretty quickly and realize that what they're doing makes no sense. I think "spontaneous voting" has only happened so far because our favorite apparition of a thread caretaker has effectively allowed other people to take the lead on deciding when a vote occurs; if he takes the decision on whether or not to call a vote into his own hands, that should dismiss most of the problem.

[martianmister]

I vote that we vote on voting in the thread.

Yes, I'm hilarious.

I vote that we vote on voting in the thread.

[Procyonpi]

I vote that we vote on voting in the thread.

Well I vote that we shouldn't vote on voting on voting in the voting thread. :p