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

[pendell]

I think that would be vigilante modding.

You ARE the thread curator. I do know that while I know you have no power to enforce your rulings I nonetheless take close notice of your suggestions, for the benefit of everyone reading the thread. And I think if you elevate the thread going off track to the attention of the mods they are more likely to take action than if it comes from Joe Schmo.

You'd have to get a definitive mod ruling, but if I were a mod I would not issue an infraction to the thread curator posting publicly that the thread was off the rails and needed to get back on. If you called out individual posters, that WOULD be vigilant modding. But the thread curator is perfectly within his/her rights to comment on the state of the thread, and ask politely that it get back on course. What else is a curator for?


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[ChristianSt]

@thread curator rights:

Certain project threads are curated by member volunteers who take responsibility for maintaining the consensus of conclusions from discussion, often because they have made the opening post in the thread and thus are the only non-moderators that can edit it. These curators bear no special title, and have no official authority; they are not moderators, and cannot ban discussion of issues they consider settled. Their sole responsibility is to maintain lists of information as represents the threads community's conclusions. Specifically, the curator cannot prevent certain topics from being discussed, prevent any given poster from participating, or make any sort of executive decision on what is or is not included in the opening post of a curated topic. Disruptive or chronically off-topic posters can still be reported to the forum moderation as normal, of course.

As this is an open forum, and multiple threads on a single topic (with competing curators and selection processes) are not allowed, choosing and agreeing to thread curators is a somewhat fraught process. We would prefer for there to be universal agreement, or, at least, broad consensus on appropriate curators, and that curators do their duty conscientiously and without bias. If a dispute arises about curation (either who is the curator or how the curator is doing their duty), it should be referred to the Moderators, who will contact the curator and the interested parties. In some cases, curators may, with moderator approval, determine some sort of democratic method for inclusion or exclusion of given material, as long as that method is fair and does not give them any unusual influence over the results.

In all cases, posters and curators must abide by the forum rules. Failure to do so will result in warnings or infractions, as appropriate. Continued dispute on the status of a thread may also result in it being closed for an indefinite period of time.

(emphasis mine)

So I think ThePhantasm reaction to not wanting to do so is right (whether it can be called vigilante modding or not.)

[Silver Swift]

@thread curator rights:

(emphasis mine)

So I think ThePhantasm reaction to not wanting to do so is right (whether it can be called vigilante modding or not.)

Yeah, I should have remembered that rule (I actually went through that post pretty recently) and I apologize for the suggestion. But that does leave the problem of discussions continuing way past the point when all arguments have been made. We used to solve that situation by calling a vote, this was actually the primary purpose of those votes in my mind, but in the new system that is no longer possible.

[Zherog]

In the new system ThePhanasm just makes a post that says, "I'll put this quote up to a vote when it comes time to make an update." Same basic effect.

[ThePhantasm]

There's not much of a point to continuing a discussion on a quote after the community has already made a decision about the quote. I mean, I suppose people could keep discussing it if they wanted to but the decision will have been made.

[Throknor]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Kalmegil]

{{Scrubbed}}

A significant amount of the traffic has been people complaining about those other posts.

[Porthos]

What's this? A new comment?

Yes it is!

On Blackwing, Rifts, and Just Who Remembered That Darn Bird and Why.

[The Linker]

This is not a thing I would have thought would needed to be said, but as you can see for yourself in that thread, I spent a great deal of effort arguing against this crazy conspiracy theory and got pretty much nowhere.

Whether it goes in the index or not, I'm certainly going to go back to that thread to find his quote if it comes up again.

However, the fact that it goes into so much detail around the joke, and even states that it has the useful plot aspect of helping delay V's confession to Roy to the end of the book (which I actually theorized! yaaaay), means it actually contains some fair amount of insight in my eyes. And anyway, the fact that Kish made a thread that said "Now we can put this theory to bed!" and eight pages of argument commenced about it tells me... it'll probably come up again.

[Porthos]

This is not a thing I would have thought would needed to be said, but as you can see for yourself in that thread, I spent a great deal of effort arguing against this crazy conspiracy theory and got pretty much nowhere.

Whether it goes in the index or not, I'm certainly going to go back to that thread to find his quote if it comes up again.

However, the fact that it goes into so much detail around the joke, and even states that it has the useful plot aspect of helping delay V's confession to Roy to the end of the book (which I actually theorized! yaaaay), means it actually contains some fair amount of insight in my eyes. And anyway, the fact that Kish made a thread that said "Now we can put this theory to bed!" and eight pages of argument commenced about it tells me... it'll probably come up again.

One of the good things about the quote is that it also goes down into detail about who was joking there, who had the memory of a goldfish (as he put it) and who had no real cause to remember. Even if we ignored the Rift angle, the above and the plot relevance he brings up makes it more than worthwhile commentary IMO.

[RMS Oceanic]

"Blackwing has been Scarygoround-Hell'd" is almost as popular a thing as "Who was scrying on them in the desert?" I support its inclusion whole-heartedly.

[Loreweaver15]

Oh thank heavens.

[ti'esar]

Anyone who participated in that thread will know that I wholly favor including this quote in the index.

[allenw]

Anyone who participated in that thread will know that I wholly favor including this quote in the index.

I participated!
So, are we back to posts *not* going in the index by default?

[Flame of Anor]

I participated!
So, are we back to posts *not* going in the index by default?

That was never the default.

[allenw]

That was never the default.

My point exactly.

[Sir_Leorik]

What's this? A new comment?

Yes it is!

On Blackwing, Rifts, and Just Who Remembered That Darn Bird and Why.

Add this one to the Index, pronto!

[Ceaon]

Nobody is arguing that it shouldn't be included, right? So let's not keep repeating that we want to include it; ThePhantasm will add it when he does.

[Silver Swift]

There's not much of a point to continuing a discussion on a quote after the community has already made a decision about the quote. I mean, I suppose people could keep discussing it if they wanted to but the decision will have been made.

I'm not actually talking about the time after the vote has ended, I'm talking of the period of time between when a vote is called and when the quote is actually voted on (because in the new system this can be a significant amount of time).

But I suppose it is possible that these periods are going to be small enough in practice that this won't be a huge deal. Right now I think the best course of action is picking a method and going for it (which we are doing).

[ThePhantasm]

Soon... maybe this evening.

[Jasdoif]

I participated!
So, are we back to posts *not* going in the index by default?

You probably missed the giant post ThePhantasm made about adjustments to the voting process, it's been a busy half-dozen pages.

Spoiler: Spoilered for Length

Show

Alright, everyone, sorry for the delay. I'm settling into a new job and things have been hectic.

I haven't been able to read everything everyone has said over the past few pages, although I made an attempt. Its simply too much... too many suggestions to get a handle on. I'm just going to go with what I think will work best for me as the thread curator.

In the early days of the index, we had very few votes. The few votes that we did have had few participants and were resolved quickly. The index has grown a lot since then, and many from the GiTP community have been participating (that's a good thing!) but the growth of voices has resulted in some confusion, and we need some new guidelines on voting to help everything run smoothly and to help ensure no one's input or voice is lost in mayhem.

First of all, many have (I think rightly) suggested that the index should err towards inclusion. Indeed, most of our votes end with inclusion as the result anyways. So I'll be invoking rule F2 more often and just putting quotes in that are obviously in accord with the thread rules. Now, of course, any quote can be voted out of the index, so my say isn't final here - but it will obviously have to be voted out for some good reasons in order to sway everyone! I don't think it will ever actually happen that I include a quote that the majority is against anyways (given that most people seem to be in favor of inclusion). I don't think I've ever been in the minority arguing for inclusion, and only (occasionally) in the minority arguing for exclusion.

Secondly, quotes will be added to the index either a) when there are at least 6 of them on the docket or b) when it has been two months since the last new quote. We're due for an update now, and I'll be getting to that soon. Obviously updates can get delayed by life and stuff but I'll try to attend to them promptly when I can.

Before any update, the thread will vote (if needed). For a vote to be called, two separate posters need to PM me requesting a vote. No spontaneous voting (i.e. voting not called by the curator) will be counted! I simply can't keep up with it all! Requests for a vote will only be considered if friendly discussion has not brought consensus - remember, voting is a last resort, not a first resort!

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. Why in thread? I think it will be simply easier for me to count the votes by scanning down a page rather than opening individual PMs (and multiple votes may not fit in PM subject titles). Plus with how the voting numbers seem to grow each time I'm not sure my inbox could handle it for long! So it will be in thread, but ONLY before each update so that we minimize thread clutter.

Speaking of thread clutter - discussing whether a quote should be in the index is not clutter. I realize it can be tiring to see constant discussions going on, but again, this is a community project, and so everyone gets a say. Once a quote has been accepted or rejected by vote, the discussion should be able to conclude amicably. In other words, it would be time to move on.

I hope everyone finds this fair and agreeable. I am, as always, open to further suggestions.

So as I understand the whole process, between this post and how things have been run thus far (and someone please correct/clarify for me if I'm getting something wrong):

• 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 (in the rules in the first post of the thread) 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.

[Bird]

Thoughts on including this? The revelation that you shouldn't kill people for being different than you is not new or earth-shattering. However, I found it interesting that The Giant specifically wants to save this thread and point to it as an example when anyone thinks the comic's themes are too obvious.

[137beth]

Thoughts on including this? The revelation that you shouldn't kill people for being different than you is not new or earth-shattering. However, I found it interesting that The Giant specifically wants to save this thread and point to it as an example when anyone thinks the comic's themes are too obvious.

Yes, I'm for inclusion. It should say something like "There are people who believe it is acceptable to kill someone for their appearance, and they are wrong."

[The Linker]

Mm, I thought we had something exactly like that, though. I think there's at least one quote that clearly states Rich's 'genocide is always wrong' views along with other stuff.

[Kish]

There will never be enough preserved phrasings of it. People's resistance to Rich's themes is infinitely morphic.

(If you think I am being at all sarcastic or humorous, you are quite wrong. I am, in fact, in despair.)

[NerdyKris]

Tempers were running high in those two threads (myself included), so maybe we should try to keep it neutral in the Index.

I'd say "Killing Black Dragons simply because they're Black Dragons is not okay" would do for the quote.

[martianmister]

I'm against its inclusion, we already had similar posts.

[Silver Swift]

I'm against its inclusion, we already had similar posts.

I agree, there are better worded versions of the genocide is wrong argument.

[orrion]

I'm against its inclusion, we already had similar posts.

Yeah, this. The quote is redundant.

[Throknor]

Yeah, this. The quote is redundant.

How? With which? I'm looking at the main post and don't see it.

And I think any post where he literally says "I'm going to save this" should be placed automatically, even if they end up in a 'Things Giant wants everyone to know' section.