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

[oppyu]

I'd prefer voting in-thread, but only doing big group votes before every thread update, but I would be willing to settle for literally anything else on the proviso that this thread cease the pages-long argument about voting about voting about voting about whatever immediately.

[DrBurr]

"Uninterested in digging through three pages of voting" ≠ "idiots".



Which is why exactly no-one has proposed secret ballots.

Seriously, stop it with the straw man. Try to at least bother to read what "voting by PM" means (now explained 4 times by me) before attacking something it is not.

Grey Wolf

You clearly don't understand what a secret ballot is because what you describe is a secret ballot.

Secret Ballot
1. A type of voting in which each person's vote is kept secret, but the amassed votes of various groups are revealed publicly.

What you proposed Is a people send the curator, or perhaps sub-curators, their votes and that they be tallied and placed in a table on the thread. But Until they are counted and tabled they are secret votes hence this is a secret ballot.

Enter any reader who wishes to get an idea of the current vote and they are completely dependent on Phantasm's schedule. Even if Phantasm posted that morning the current vote it could have already changed by the time lunch comes and anyone wishing to know the current status is using an outdated poll.

[DaggerPen]

It's been several pages, so my memory may be failing me, but didn't the original proposal call for including usernames along with the PM'd in votes for the purposes of accountability and easy vote changing?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

You clearly don't understand what a secret ballot is because what you describe is a secret ballot.

Or maybe you don't understand what I and others proposed: a single post with a list of people voting, and what their vote is, rather than pages full of single-word posts.

What you proposed Is a people send the curator, or perhaps sub-curators, their votes and that they be tallied and placed in a table on the thread. But Until they are counted and tabled they are secret votes hence this is a secret ballot.

That is the exact thing as saying that voting by post is also secret voting because until they post the vote, it is a secret what they are going to vote for. A delay of a couple of hours is irrelevant when voting periods are measured in days.

Grey Wolf

[orrion]

You clearly don't understand what a secret ballot is because what you describe is a secret ballot.

Secret Ballot
1. A type of voting in which each person's vote is kept secret, but the amassed votes of various groups are revealed publicly.

What you proposed Is a people send the curator, or perhaps sub-curators, their votes and that they be tallied and placed in a table on the thread. But Until they are counted and tabled they are secret votes hence this is a secret ballot.

Enter any reader who wishes to get an idea of the current vote and they are completely dependent on Phantasm's schedule. Even if Phantasm posted that morning the current vote it could have already changed by the time lunch comes and anyone wishing to know the current status is using an outdated poll.

Who cares what the current status is? If you're only going to vote when the vote is either in your favor or close enough for you to try and swing it in your favor then I don't really care about your vote. You should be voting because you feel one way or the other about the quotes in question rather than because you want the illusion of feeling special when your vote is cast.

[D.KnightSpider]

*pokes head into thread*

*sees six more weeks of arguing*

*goes back to hibernation*

---

In the interest of actually contributing something beyond a half-spammy post...

I've never voted on any quote in the thread; I doubt that I ever will. I'm a casual user of this index who generally uses it to keep track of any new interesting tidbits or trivia regarding OoTS or the Giant's rather awe-inspiring smackdowns, or to find that one quote that I half-remember and of which I have need.

But I have no problem with voting in thread. It seems to me that it'd be easier to just keep all the votes in one centralized location than to flood ThePhantasm's inbox with people voting on quotes. Voting in-thread would also allow people to see each other's reasoning and possibly switch their votes if they decide to do so.

Votes do tend to get switched around during the open in-thread voting. That's a good thing because it means that discussion is taking place. I'd hate to have that lost.

But I do think it would be wise to limit the discussion to a simple vote + explanation during voting periods.

[Kish]

While I once held out hope for the thread losing the annoying arguments whenever Rich posts something nowadays, at this point I would accept arguments over the inclusion of every comment Rich ever makes again, even the post where he explains what the creature in the darkness is, which afterlife Miko went to, and what Vaarsuvius would need to do to be officially classified as redeemed, if we could just stop the current meta-argument.

[KillianHawkeye]

Who cares what the current status is? If you're only going to vote when the vote is either in your favor or close enough for you to try and swing it in your favor then I don't really care about your vote. You should be voting because you feel one way or the other about the quotes in question rather than because you want the illusion of feeling special when your vote is cast.

I think I agree with orrion. If you want to vote, then vote. It shouldn't matter how many other votes there are or which side is winning, because nobody actually wins until the end of the voting period. If you don't care enough to vote regardless of the current vote count, then you just shouldn't vote at all because your heart is clearly not really in it.

The other thing, about people being convinced and changing their minds, should happen as a course of natural discussion regardless of whether or not the convincing post also included a vote.

[Jasdoif]

It's been several pages, so my memory may be failing me, but didn't the original proposal call for including usernames along with the PM'd in votes for the purposes of accountability and easy vote changing?

I believe that was actually an explanation by Gray_Wolf_c. One that does alleviate my concerns over vote inaccuracy for as not-really-formal as this thread is, since individuals would be able to verify their own votes when presented like that.

Enter any reader who wishes to get an idea of the current vote and they are completely dependent on Phantasm's schedule. Even if Phantasm posted that morning the current vote it could have already changed by the time lunch comes and anyone wishing to know the current status is using an outdated poll.

I'm not sure why the immediate availability of interim vote tallies is really a concern. I'm all for voting in posts, and letting people decide for themselves if they want to count the votes thus far or just skim the newest page or whatever; but expecting a current tally to be there seems unreasonable.

Besides....Having done interim counts here while a vote was going on, I assure you that they can and do change mid-count, even with the realtime availability of votes in posts. I don't think it's feasible to get any more responsiveness.

....but I would be willing to settle for literally anything else on the proviso that this thread cease the pages-long argument about voting about voting about voting about whatever immediately.

While I'm here...a few pages back, someone was asking why we can't just deal with thread problems when they happen (the subject at the time being being index clutter).

Well, this multi-page meta-vote argumentation is "dealing with thread problems when they happen". It's messy, and frequently frustrating. Which is why I'd prefer to prevent these kind of things from needing to happen in the first place.

[oppyu]

While I'm here...a few pages back, someone was asking why we can't just deal with thread problems when they happen (the subject at the time being being index clutter).

Well, this multi-page meta-vote argumentation is "dealing with thread problems when they happen". It's messy, and frequently frustrating. Which is why I'd prefer to prevent these kind of things from needing to happen in the first place.

Does this kind of thing need to happen? Like, ever? At all?

*climbs on soapbox*

People, through your overthinking you have taken the pure process of following someone across threads, forums and even mediums, writing down anything they say even remotely related to the comic and archiving it into the online equivalent of a creepy stalker murder shrine, and made it boring. Why debate this? I'm sure Phantasm has a perfectly reasonable plan that may not be everyone's first choice, but it involves Phantasm continuing to do all the work so I think it should be good enough that we can all go back to compiling the online creepy stalker murder shrine in peace.

[Jasdoif]

People, through your overthinking you have taken the pure process of following someone across threads, forums and even mediums, writing down anything they say even remotely related to the comic and archiving it into the online equivalent of a creepy stalker murder shrine, and made it boring. Why debate this?

We're debating the best way to make it less boring. We ended up at the state where multi-page votes were becoming a matter of course prior to the current debating, after all; and I haven't seen much/any support for returning to that state of affairs.

[oppyu]

We're debating the best way to make it less boring. We ended up at the state where multi-page votes were becoming a matter of course prior to the current debating, after all; and I haven't seen much/any support for returning to that state of affairs.

Hey, it's the proper usage of irony! A debate to make the thread less boring has exponentially increased the boredom. Ok, making the thread less boring suggestion.

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?

Hey, what a great plan ThePhantasm has! It will limit votes to once per major thread update, it will involve ending this argument, and does anyone really feel strongly enough against this that they want to continue arguing? Apathy is next to godliness people.

[ThePhantasm]

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.

[Gwynfrid]

[a long post with lots of common, practical sense remarks.]

Thanks. I agree 100% with what you propose, and even if I agreed only 80% I would still support it, because well, you're the one who bears the brunt of any mess we create here. You're suggesting something that results in:
- more rare votes
- no spontaneous votes
- an amount of work for you, that you can manage (and you're the best judge of that by far)
- bias towards inclusion, which I think is consensus.

That's it, as far as I'm concerned. Thanks!

[Jasdoif]

Hey, it's the proper usage of irony! A debate to make the thread less boring has exponentially increased the boredom.

It's one of those "investment" things, making the thread more boring for a bit now so it will be less boring in the future. (Also, the pages of debate over whether voting by PM is better than voting by post are less boring than the pages of votes, so that's like an improvement! I suspect my personal fascination with decision-making processes is a factor, though.)

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.

If we're due for an update, let me repeat my list of quotes that are outstanding, maybe save you some time:

{table=head]{colsp=3}

Fourth Verse: Vote Overload Curse

[div]Elan is (Still) Chaotic Good[/div]Elan let Tarquin fall because he was using a different interpretation of Chaotic Good.|#936|01/11/2014
[div]"Lovable" Does Not Mean "Not Evil"[/div]Case in point, Thog.|#936|01/11/2014
[div]Haley is Still Chaotic Good[/div]|#936|01/12/2014
[div]OOTS is Not Still in Girard's Illusion[/div]|#942|01/28/2014
[div]Art Colors can Change[/div]Whether because the Giant doesn't like the old color, or because his system doesn't.|#942|01/28/2014
[div]Bandana Orders a Crewman Around in #943 to Break up Comic Monotony[/div]Also, "hit the head" means "use the restroom".|#943|02/05/2014
[/table]

(Reminder, the Girard's Illusion one was already voted to be included.)

[Loreweaver15]

Bandana orders a crewman around in 943, not 936. Also, is that really something people were confused about?

[factotum]

Bandana orders a crewman around in 943, not 936. Also, is that really something people were confused about?

No, the Giant just randomly decided to say it because he saw no confusion on the issue at all. Nope, none.

[Loreweaver15]

No, the Giant just randomly decided to say it because he saw no confusion on the issue at all. Nope, none.

Oh, reading the previous posts shows that it was the navy slang people were confused about, and one singular person who was wondering what Bandana was up to, rather than the other way 'round.

I didn't realize "the head" was an uncommon phrase.

[ti'esar]

Oh, reading the previous posts shows that it was the navy slang people were confused about, and one singular person who was wondering what Bandana was up to, rather than the other way 'round.

I didn't realize "the head" was an uncommon phrase.

If most of the confusion was over what "the head" meant, then I'm more convinced than ever that this doesn't belong in the index. It's a real term, and if someone doesn't recognize it they can look it up - we don't need a comment for that. The Bandana thing is marginal at best, but it loses even more justification if it's not an issue that a lot of people were asking about.

[Jasdoif]

Bandana orders a crewman around in 943, not 936.

I must've been looking at the wrong strip number when I did that title....OK, that's fixed; Thanks.

If most of the confusion was over what "the head" meant, then I'm more convinced than ever that this doesn't belong in the index. It's a real term, and if someone doesn't recognize it they can look it up - we don't need a comment for that. The Bandana thing is marginal at best, but it loses even more justification if it's not an issue that a lot of people were asking about.

Yeah, I'm not seeing how it would merit inclusion on either angle...although if the quote does get included because of the Bandana thing, I figure we may as well mention the bit about "hit the head" with it too.

[ChristianSt]

Yeah, I'm not seeing how it would merit inclusion on either angle...although if the quote does get included because of the Bandana thing, I figure we may as well mention the bit about "hit the head" with it too.

I personally think if we want to include it we should explicitly omit the "hit the head": I don't think we should adding statement when Rich says something that is just true and is easily verifiable by an outside source.

By adding this comment the next time Rich says "A table is something you can put things on" (or other true statements that can be answered as easily without the author needing to say anything on it), someone might start arguing: So explaining "head" is something we collect, but explaining "table" doesn't fit?

(Also I find it weird from a thematic standpoint on top of that, it just doesn't belong in any category where the Bandana would be put into. And normally the paragraph below a quote does add stuff that has something to do with the topic stated from the link.)

[nogall]

I personally think if we want to include it we should explicitly omit the "hit the head": I don't think we should adding statement when Rich says something that is just true and is easily verifiable by an outside source.

we could always suggest to the Phantasm to include a lmgtfy link in the first post:
http://en.lmgtfy.com/?q=hit+the+head


by the way, thanks Phantasm for the thread and I fully concur with all your suggestions in your last post.

[pendell]

Oh, reading the previous posts shows that it was the navy slang people were confused about, and one singular person who was wondering what Bandana was up to, rather than the other way 'round.

I didn't realize "the head" was an uncommon phrase.

I suggest we include it even so. The problem is that we have a number of people here for whom English is not a first language, and if they trust google to tell them what 'head' means, they may fail to note the nautical context and assume Julio is striking himself on the skull or -- if they read urban dictionary and conclude that 'head' refers to a part of the male genitalia -- that he is doing something unmentionable in a family-friendly forum.* The Giant HAS made jokes of that nature before.

So while "hit the head" unequivocally means "used the bathroom to relieve himself before the trip" to ME, because I am both an English-speaker and familiar with nautical terminology, I can well see that it might be confusing to a reader in Hong Kong or Russia.

So it is both right and proper for the Giant to clarify , and the forum to index the comment, rather than send someone on a google hunt which will lead them to a radically incorrect conclusion.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

* Although, realistically, I sometimes wonder if EVERY English word is a double entendre of some kind or other, somewhere , in some usage.

[Loreweaver15]

On the other hand, yes, every English word is a double entendre in the right context.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

* Although, realistically, I sometimes wonder if EVERY English word is a double entendre of some kind or other, somewhere , in some usage.

Yes, yes they are:

Mind you, the Elizabethans had so many words for the female genitals that it is quite hard to speak a sentence of modern English without inadvertently mentioning at least three of them.

However, I would sincerely request to all participants that we stop the discussion on the quotes. These discussions should only happen when ThePhantasm posts his update post, and then announces that enough people object to his choices. If he decides to include (or not to include) the "break monotony" quote and you disagree, PM him. But until then, please, lets keep the thread empty of discussion.

Grey Wolf

[orrion]

I suggest we include it even so. The problem is that we have a number of people here for whom English is not a first language, and if they trust google to tell them what 'head' means, they may fail to note the nautical context and assume Julio is striking himself on the skull or -- if they read urban dictionary and conclude that 'head' refers to a part of the male genitalia -- that he is doing something unmentionable in a family-friendly forum.* The Giant HAS made jokes of that nature before.

So while "hit the head" unequivocally means "used the bathroom to relieve himself before the trip" to ME, because I am both an English-speaker and familiar with nautical terminology, I can well see that it might be confusing to a reader in Hong Kong or Russia.

So it is both right and proper for the Giant to clarify , and the forum to index the comment, rather than send someone on a google hunt which will lead them to a radically incorrect conclusion.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

* Although, realistically, I sometimes wonder if EVERY English word is a double entendre of some kind or other, somewhere , in some usage.

C'mon, really? All you need to do is type "hit the head" - Julio's exact phrase - into Google and the first 3 hits are all "going to the bathroom." Similarly, typing in "what does hit the head mean" into Google brings up a giant definition box at the front of the search that says "to go to the bathroom."

We don't need to index such a comment when there are various other ways of figuring it out (such as the "Things you didn't understand" thread). The index is for quotes about the story and not for joke clarifications. I would posit that there's a joke or reference in every single one of the 943 comics that someone doesn't get.

[Jasdoif]

By adding this comment the next time Rich says "A table is something you can put things on" (or other true statements that can be answered as easily without the author needing to say anything on it), someone might start arguing: So explaining "head" is something we collect, but explaining "table" doesn't fit?

I would answer that argument the same way I came to my conclusion above: An explanation of a common term does not warrant inclusion in the Index on its own, even if it's a recurring question. However, if a quote with such an explanation is included in the Index for other reasons, and the explanation is a repeated question, then it makes no sense not to include it in the summary since we already have the quote in the Index.

(Also I find it weird from a thematic standpoint on top of that, it just doesn't belong in any category where the Bandana would be put into. And normally the paragraph below a quote does add stuff that has something to do with the topic stated from the link.)

Normally, yes; but we have made ancillary connections before:
{table=head]{colsp=3}

Culture and Religion

[div]Class Systems and Careers[/div]Also, FYI, Durkon isn't "white."|#882|04/08/2013
[/table]

These discussions should only happen when ThePhantasm posts his update post, and then announces that enough people object to his choices. If he decides to include (or not to include) the "break monotony" quote and you disagree, PM him. But until then, please, lets keep the thread empty of discussion.

I think we got different impressions from ThePhantasm's post above, particularly where he said "discussing whether a quote should be in the index is not clutter."

[Rodin]

I think we got different impressions from ThePhantasm's post above, particularly where he said "discussing whether a quote should be in the index is not clutter."

Indeed.

For the record, I am also against the Bandana quote. The question basically came down to:

Reader: I don't get the joke with Bandana.
Giant: ....What joke?

And "hit the head" is easier to Google than it is to rummage through the Forum Index for it.

[Silver Swift]

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.

I am very much in agreement here, this thread shouldn't just serve to notify people whenever Rich post something, so the following should not be seen as a critique, but may I make the suggestion that when an argument drags on past a certain point (well past the point that voting is going to happen) that you can put a stop to the discussion until the vote happens. Otherwise I fear we may again be looking at discussions that drag on for weeks after everything meaningful has been said.

[ThePhantasm]

I am very much in agreement here, this thread shouldn't just serve to notify people whenever Rich post something, so the following should not be seen as a critique, but may I make the suggestion that when an argument drags on past a certain point (well past the point that voting is going to happen) that you can put a stop to the discussion until the vote happens. Otherwise I fear we may again be looking at discussions that drag on for weeks after everything meaningful has been said.

I think that would be vigilante modding.