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

[Kalmegil]

It's a reason. It might not be the only reason. For instance, he may have chosen to forgo showing that because it was even more chilling to show Redcloak's impassive demeanor in the face of it, and also because the audience, left to their own imaginations, will dream up their own horrors. Or because Tsukiko isn't a very important character, and Redcloak is. Or none of those reasons. Or 10 additional ones I didn't think of.

Again, please explain why something that doesn't say everything that could be said about a topic isn't useful.

The specific reason tells us zilch. It's not a rule, it's not a tenet, and it's not an explanation of or method for how/when/where to apply the reason.

NO! That's simply not true. Knowing that this was a reason is new knowledge. It's not not "zilch." It's greater than zero.

Nowhere in the rules of this thread does it say that only general statements of rule/tenet/method/how/when/where should be included.

It has to provide what fits the definition of the word. You're throwing "insight" around with regard to the creative process like it means "every single decision ever made no matter how big or small." That's not what "insight" means. That's like me telling you I had an orange for a snack yesterday afternoon because I was hungry and you telling me it provides insight into my eating habits.

Can you point to the word "insight" in the thread rules? 'Cause I don't see it.

Moreover, your example is simply wrong. It does provide insight into your eating habits. For example, I now know that you are not allergic to citrus, that you eat fruit, and specifically that you eat oranges.

Might the huge combination of data eventually give you some insight? Yes, which I suppose is your point. Does that mean each individual comment is itself insightful? No. At best it's a misnomer.

Fine, forget insight if that will get us off this stupid semantic track. Use "more verified information than we had before." It still fits within the rules of the thread. And it's not "zilch."

But regardless of the applicability of "insight" to this remark, it definitely applies to the combination of remarks like this. If someone wants to learn and discuss about how the comic is put together, they're likely to learn far more from simply reading lots of specific examples about creative decisions than from a synthesis of those. It's the nitty gritty application of general rules and principles that actually matter. Dismissing the specifics because they don't individually establish the general is ignoring a host of information.

And that's where we disagree because such an analysis has no guarantee of being accurate.

So? Why does it have to be guaranteed to be useful? Almost everything I know about this comic is not guaranteed to be accurate. It's impressions formed by tons of individual little things we learn while reading it and the Giant's writings on it.

This is supposed to help in discussions on the forum. Discussions about things that can be outright proved accurate are not really discussions; they're recitations of fact.

The whole point of discussing a literary work is to figure out what can't be gleaned from reading the work directly. Additional information, such as the Giant didn't show wights chowing down on each other because it was horrific tells us something, especially when put in context with a hundred thousand other observations from the comic (including, for example, that he showed a horrific image of Miko cut in half).

You cite the social sciences where they use the method to create a hypothesis to be tested - how exactly are you going to test yours here?

I also cited other areas where there isn't a way to scientifically test your answers.

But, more importantly, why does it have to ultimately be testable?

We're just not going to agree on this, period. If you want to keep the quote for your own purposes, that's fine, but i don't think it needs to be indexed. Ironically, I think the quote Jasdoif mentions provides more insight than this one ever will.

And if you want to ignore its presence in the index if it gets added there, that's fine. Why even say that? Do you think I don't know I could create my own index?

But what harm does it do to index it when some people find it useful? This cramped little view you have of the index--specifically that only things that can be guaranteed accurate should be included--makes it worthless for most uses other than stopping discussions based on premises that the Giant has expressly rejected. I would hope that the effort being expended on it could be used for something better than that.

There are people who aggressively campaign to make the index less useful for discussion. It makes no sense to me. When asked, no one has really articulated what the harm is, other than the thoroughly debunked "stalking" theory (that is, the Giant has not expressed any discomfort with posts in this thread about OOTS being included, whereas he has expressed discomfort about certain other types of posts) and vague references to "clutter."

[Sir_Leorik]

I don't see why serious business and comedic masterpieces should be mutually exclusive, myself.

Darn it, now you've made me think about Harold Ramis, ob"m.

[Jasdoif]

This is supposed to help in discussions on the forum. Discussions about things that can be outright proved accurate are not really discussions; they're recitations of fact.

I think you're overlooking the benefit of the narrowing effect: recitations of fact can head off discussion/bickering over facts, allowing a discussion to continue on to more interesting/useful matters. (I mean geez, this thread itself has multiple pages devoted to voting structure, pages that would have been unnecessary if there had been clearly established voting guidelines to reference.) Personally, I think it's best to focus on cutting short needless arguments, and letting everyone discuss their own conclusions on what's left.

I also cited other areas where there isn't a way to scientifically test your answers.

But, more importantly, why does it have to ultimately be testable?

If it's not verifiable, there's a great deal less value in referencing it. Arguments over facts can simply shift into arguments over the meaning of the Giant's comments on those facts.

It makes no sense to me. When asked, no one has really articulated what the harm is, other than the thoroughly debunked "stalking" theory (that is, the Giant has not expressed any discomfort with posts in this thread about OOTS being included, whereas he has expressed discomfort about certain other types of posts) and vague references to "clutter."

I'm going to quote our thread curator here:

One more thing. Why does the vote have to have a majority for inclusion? What is magical about 50% approval? It's not a zero-sum game, where if one quote is put in, another is left out. If 10 people vote against inclusion and 6 people vote for inclusion, we know that at least 6 people think it's worthwhile. And the 10 naysayers will not lose anything by that hypothetical quote's inclusion. I think quotes should be included on the criterion of "a significant number of people think it's worthwhile", not "more than half of participants think it's worthwhile".

Simple: the basis for inclusion isn't that "someone thinks this comment is worthwhile." Almost every comment has one person that wants it in the index. And why, by your system, should that one person's opinion not be as important as the six you mention? Or why should those six not get their way if one hundred others vote against the comment's inclusion? Your system is too ambiguous to be helpful. Your criteria for inclusion are similarly vague. And under that system, the index ceases to function as a community project with a unified vision and instead just becomes a collection of stuff the Giant said, organized poorly because there are so many comments. Indeed, under your system there would really be no point of voting at all. It would cease to be a community project.

Emphasis mine.

The more comments that are in the Index, the more unwieldy the Index is to use; intentionally adding comments with the expectation that they have no worth on their own seems counterproductive.

[Kalmegil]

If it's not verifiable, there's a great deal less value in referencing it. Arguments over facts can simply shift into arguments over the meaning of the Giant's comments on those facts.

Which is valuable in and of itself. And this criticism applies to everything in the index.

The more comments that are in the Index, the more unwieldy the Index is to use; intentionally adding comments with the expectation that they have no worth on their own seems counterproductive.

That's certainly not my intent. As best I can tell, it's no one's intent here (those who think it valueless on its own don't want it included, whereas I think it does have value on its own, and more in collection with other similar quotes).

[orrion]

Again, please explain why something that doesn't say everything that could be said about a topic isn't useful.

For the same reason that telling someone that there's water in a desert isn't useful. Sure, it's true, but unless you give him more information to go with it he's probably going to die when he goes in.

NO! That's simply not true. Knowing that this was a reason is new knowledge. It's not not "zilch." It's greater than zero.

Nowhere in the rules of this thread does it say that only general statements of rule/tenet/method/how/when/where should be included.

No, but those are some of the things that would qualify as insight.

Can you point to the word "insight" in the thread rules? 'Cause I don't see it.

Thanks for pointing out there's no inclusion-by-default rule if the post had something to do with insight? Seems like you're arguing against yourself with that one.

Moreover, your example is simply wrong. It does provide insight into your eating habits. For example, I now know that you are not allergic to citrus, that you eat fruit, and specifically that you eat oranges.

That's NOT insight. That's basic deductive reasoning.

So? Why does it have to be guaranteed to be useful? Almost everything I know about this comic is not guaranteed to be accurate. It's impressions formed by tons of individual little things we learn while reading it and the Giant's writings on it.

... Because it's apparently your contention that it is useful.

By the way, I should point out that there are branches of literary criticism (since you brought that up) that outright ignore authorial intent and reasoning.

The whole point of discussing a literary work is to figure out what can't be gleaned from reading the work directly. Additional information, such as the Giant didn't show wights chowing down on each other because it was horrific tells us something, especially when put in context with a hundred thousand other observations from the comic (including, for example, that he showed a horrific image of Miko cut in half).

About half of my professors would completely disagree with you about the point of discussing a literary work, and would argue that in fact everything important can be gleaned from the work directly. A few would call it fallacy to consider anything outside the work itself. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I don't think your definition works either.

I also cited other areas where there isn't a way to scientifically test your answers.

But, more importantly, why does it have to ultimately be testable?

It doesn't, necessarily, but you're the one who put emphasis on the testing. If you didn't attach any importance to it, why mention it?

But what harm does it do to index it when some people find it useful? This cramped little view you have of the index--specifically that only things that can be guaranteed accurate should be included--makes it worthless for most uses other than stopping discussions based on premises that the Giant has expressly rejected. I would hope that the effort being expended on it could be used for something better than that.

That's not my view of the Index. That's merely my view on insight. The insight must be accurate or it kind of fails at being insight at all, and is instead just a false impression. If you gather up all your specifics and then you decide to post something about them, and the Giant comes along and says flat out "That's wrong" then were you actually insightful with regard to his creative process? I'd argue no.

There are people who aggressively campaign to make the index less useful for discussion. It makes no sense to me. When asked, no one has really articulated what the harm is, other than the thoroughly debunked "stalking" theory (that is, the Giant has not expressed any discomfort with posts in this thread about OOTS being included, whereas he has expressed discomfort about certain other types of posts) and vague references to "clutter."

Why would this quote be useful for discussion when there's already another quote saying why Redcloak did what he did (see Jasdoif's link)?

What hypothetical discussion does the rejection of this quote destroy?

[Kalmegil]

Why would this quote be useful for discussion when there's already another quote saying why Redcloak did what he did (see Jasdoif's link)?

People have already pointed out other aspects of the quote under consideration that Jasdoif's link does not address.

... Because it's apparently your contention that it is useful.

Thanks for pointing out there's no inclusion-by-default rule if the post had something to do with insight? Seems like you're arguing against yourself with that one.

It doesn't, necessarily, but you're the one who put emphasis on the testing. If you didn't attach any importance to it, why mention it?

OK, it's now apparent that we're simply not communicating here. These responses seem to be to something almost the exact opposite of my meaning.

I'm going to step back to avoid frustration for now, since I don't see any obvious way to clarify my meaning. In the meantime, I urge anyone trying to interpret what I've posted not to rely on orrion's responses for purposes of that interpretation. (That's NOT saying his posts should be ignored, rather saying that either I stated something poorly or he read it poorly, and therefore his interpretation of what I'm saying isn't useful for purposes of understanding what I'm saying.)

[Gwynfrid]

When asked, no one has really articulated what the harm is, other than the thoroughly debunked "stalking" theory (that is, the Giant has not expressed any discomfort with posts in this thread about OOTS being included, whereas he has expressed discomfort about certain other types of posts) and vague references to "clutter."

Regarding clutter, the reference is here:

Rule E: Quotes that contain redundant information need not be included. This reduces clutter. The quote should only be included if it provides new information or clarity, or if it expounds upon information included in a prior comment.

The reason for that rule isn't a vague, general distaste for clutter. It is that clutter makes any collection of objects less useful. This is valid for data, too.

For any particular quote, mileage may vary. In the case of the quote presently under discussion, I think mileage is low enough that it merits the "clutter" qualifier.

[Kalmegil]

Regarding clutter, the reference is here:



The reason for that rule isn't a vague, general distaste for clutter. It is that clutter makes any collection of objects less useful. This is valid for data, too.

For any particular quote, mileage may vary. In the case of the quote presently under discussion, I think mileage is low enough that it merits the "clutter" qualifier.

That rule is about clutter in redundant quotes. This isn't redundant: of the three main points it makes, only one is present in the link already in the index.

Which is why I referred to vague references to clutter: people have taken a specific rule (no redundancy) and applied the justification to non-redundant quotes.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}
I apologize for the off-topicness.

That was so funny! I agree, you should win this thread, and perhaps several honorary ones.

[The Linker]

That's NOT insight. That's basic deductive reasoning.

I just feel like your arguments are getting too caught up on terminology. At some point you can just say "OK, so you consider insight to mean 'any new piece of information extrapolated from something given'. Even if that's the case, I still think there's not enough 'insight' in this to make it worthy of inclusion."

Like, the argument should be about the quote's viability. Once you're on the same page in regards to the word (and I think it's been repeatedly hashed out by this point what your differing views on it are,) you can just move on, you know?

[Throknor]

If there is new information by definition it isn't redundant, so that criteria can't possibly apply.

It hits the criteria that it's about the comic itself, it is from the Giant himself. It obviously answers a questions someone had - he didn't just interject it for the sake of doing so.

Is there a rules-based reason to keep it off I don't see? There are only six (A-F) and it seems to fit them all fine. The only reasons I've seen are either disproved above or along the lines of 'Well, I don't think it should be there'.

It seems to me to say something shouldn't be included one should include which rule is actually violated, or else the rules mean nothing and we're back to opinions and voting.

[Jasdoif]

It seems to me to say something shouldn't be included one should include which rule is actually violated, or else the rules mean nothing and we're back to opinions and voting.

Both aspects of the quote still being debated, why the Giant didn't show Tsukiko getting eaten and the differences between the command undead spell and the Command Undead ability, fall under the purview of B2 (since the former is about how the Giant draws the comic and the latter is about ambiguity in D&D rules; neither is about events in the comic itself).

B2 is a "maybe" rule, saying such quotes may be included and that uncertainty on whether it merits inclusion should be decided by consensus. Which I imagine is why we're all discussing the status of its merits for inclusion.

[Throknor]

Both aspects of the quote still being debated, why the Giant didn't show Tsukiko getting eaten and the differences between the command undead spell and the Command Undead ability, fall under the purview of B2 (since the former is about how the Giant draws the comic and the latter is about ambiguity in D&D rules; neither is about events in the comic itself).

B2 is a "maybe" rule, saying such quotes may be included and that uncertainty on whether it merits inclusion should be decided by consensus. Which I imagine is why we're all discussing the status of its merits for inclusion.

Thank you. While I don't see a discrepancy I can now argue why: In my view the quote makes it clear that the method used by Redcloak doesn't allow the Wights to exercise their limited free will aside from the Spell/Ability D&D clarification. I can show it as more important to include under rule C: it implies that RC doesn't have the level difference to use it against Xykon and leaves open the question of whether it can be used against the Durkon-Vampire.

I don't want to get sidetracked into that discussion, but I could see the quote mattering there when they (RC & Dv) do face each other and the argument is debated about whether RC is high enough level to use it: a direct quote response that shows he'd need to be twice the level. And given that the rules are admittedly applied hit-and-miss then referring to an external source would not useful to that discussion.

I apologize if that seems like a tangent, but in order to show how it could be used to fulfill "C" I just went ahead and did it. The ability/spell distinction only matters to those who know of both; the 'twice hit dice' note can matter to future plot elements.

[Shale]

But the strip says it was the ability rather than the spell, and we already know RC doesn't have the levels to use Command Undead against Xykon, because he is a mid-high cleric who just gained 9th level spells that day, rather than the unstoppably powerful 40th-level cleric that he would need to be to Command an epic-level lich.

We don't need to point out every single instance of when Rich follows rules, especially when he is citing a D&D rule in the comic in the first place.

[orrion]

Thank you. While I don't see a discrepancy I can now argue why: In my view the quote makes it clear that the method used by Redcloak doesn't allow the Wights to exercise their limited free will aside from the Spell/Ability D&D clarification. I can show it as more important to include under rule C: it implies that RC doesn't have the level difference to use it against Xykon and leaves open the question of whether it can be used against the Durkon-Vampire.

No, it doesn't imply anything of the sort nor does it leave open the question about Durkon. Redcloak has to be twice the level of the undead in question. He is nowhere near twice the level of Durkon, and Xykon is higher. He just received 9th level spells, which means he's level 17. He'd need to be at least level 28 to use it against Durkon and 42 to use it against Xykon.

Besides.. if he could use it against Xykon he'd have already done so. There's no reason not to. Remember, Redcloak's entire plan hinges on deceiving Xykon. If he could just Command him there would be no need for deception.

[Malimar]

But the strip says it was the ability rather than the spell, and we already know RC doesn't have the levels to use Command Undead against Xykon, because he is a mid-high cleric who just gained 9th level spells that day, rather than the unstoppably powerful 40th-level cleric that he would need to be to Command an epic-level lich.

Redcloak has to be twice the level of the undead in question. He is nowhere near twice the level of Durkon, and Xykon is higher. He just received 9th level spells, which means he's level 17. He'd need to be at least level 28 to use it against Durkon and 42 to use it against Xykon.

Not that it makes any difference to the matter at hand, but lichs have +4 turn resistance; a cleric would have to be at least 50 to command Xykon. Vampires have turn resistance, too, so at least 36 to command Durkula (Redcloak can, however, still rebuke Durkula, if he rolls well on his turning check).

[Shale]

Your turning check can get up to four HD above your actual level, though, so it balances. That's why Malack had to bolster himself against Durkon's attempt, even though his resistance put his effective level for turning purposes above Durkon's

Edit: no, ignore me, I forgot that destroying or commanding undead uses your raw level.

[LadyEowyn]

I vote for keeping the quote about Redcloak, because it confirms the specific spell that was used and that spell's capacities, which is not common knowledge for many readers.

[NCoffin]

Alright, so there are three reasons to consider this quote, yeah?

1) Reason for Redcloak's actions
2) Specifying Command Undead ability vs. command undead spell
3) Reason the wights' and Tsukiko's fate weren't directly shown, namely due to being "pretty horrific"

The first has been addressed upthread.

The second strikes me as unnecessary trivia. The exact method used only mattered in debunking a specific theory that was based on incorrect information about the rules in the first place. Anyone could have pointed the same thing out. As for readers who don't know what exact method was used, how does it help to know, exactly? An assumption that whatever was used worked exactly as it was shown to work seems reasonable.

EDIT: As pointed out by The Linker below, even this information was already available in the comic.

The third is, as far as I can see, the only worthwhile reason to consider the quote. The reasons behind The Giant's decisions art-wise are of some possible interest, but I fail to see what use this could be in further discussions.

Personally, I'm against inclusion; I don't see enough merit in the quote. I don't think it's necessarily a clutter issue so much as a bogged down in trivia issue, if that makes any sense. If the index is meant to help discussions, small things like this just don't make the my cut.

If I've missed any reasons for including the quote, please let me know.

[allenw]

Both aspects of the quote still being debated, why the Giant didn't show Tsukiko getting eaten and the differences between the command undead spell and the Command Undead ability, fall under the purview of B2 (since the former is about how the Giant draws the comic and the latter is about ambiguity in D&D rules; neither is about events in the comic itself).

I strongly disagree with your interpretation of Rule B2.

Rule B: The Index is for collecting only quotes that have to do with the Order of the Stick comic or other fiction works by Rich Burlew.

1) | This excludes non-comic-related opinions, statements, etc. from Rich. So if he says "I like Italian food" or something like that, it is not to be included.

2) | This may include information related to the comic, like Rich's views on Dungeons and Dragons, book publishing, art design, etc. . . so long as these quotes are still within the sphere of comic-related discussion. Uncertainty should be decided by thread poster consensus.

3) | This excludes GiTP forum rules, updates, or general information. That is for the admins and mods to publicize and spread word about, not this index.

Rule B2 is talking about information that *is not directly about the comic*, but that is arguably related (and hence, may be argued about ).
By way of contrast, in this and too many other disputed cases, the quote *is* directly about the comic. In this case, it's even a direct answer to a direct question about the comic, which I would think would warrant automatic, non-controversial inclusion (barring a successful "redundancy" argument). The fact that a quote is *also* about D&D rules, or art decisions, etc. should be irrelevant to Rule B2.

[The Linker]

I vote for keeping the quote about Redcloak, because it confirms the specific spell that was used[...]

The second strikes me an unnecessary trivia. The exact method used only mattered[...]

Redcloak specifically says "[...]one use of my Command Undead ability[...]" Rich's quote provides no additional clarity as to whether it was the spell or the ability because Redcloak specifically mentions which one it was. Right there in the comic. He would have said 'one casting of Command Undead' or 'a simple Command Undead' or 'one Command Undead spell' if it wasn't the ability.

If he'd said 'one use of Command Undead,' then sure, it'd be somewhat vague and clarification would be beneficial. As is, there's no ambiguity. Redcloak was 100% clear.

[orrion]

Redcloak specifically says "[...]one use of my Command Undead ability[...]" Rich's quote provides no additional clarity as to whether it was the spell or the ability because Redcloak specifically mentions which one it was. Right there in the comic. He would have said 'one casting of Command Undead' or 'a simple Command Undead' or 'one Command Undead spell' if it wasn't the ability.

If he'd said 'one use of Command Undead,' then sure, it'd be somewhat vague and clarification would be beneficial. As is, there's no ambiguity. Redcloak was 100% clear.

That sums it up rather well.

[factotum]

Surely it was clear even without that, given that the Command Undead spell is not on the cleric lists? Unless somebody thinks Redcloak took a few levels in Sorcerer or Wizard, he has to be using the cleric ability, not the spell!

[Jasdoif]

Both aspects of the quote still being debated, why the Giant didn't show Tsukiko getting eaten and the differences between the command undead spell and the Command Undead ability, fall under the purview of B2 (since the former is about how the Giant draws the comic and the latter is about ambiguity in D&D rules; neither is about events in the comic itself).

I strongly disagree with your interpretation of Rule B2.

....

Rule B2 is talking about information that *is not directly about the comic*, but that is arguably related (and hence, may be argued about ).
By way of contrast, in this and too many other disputed cases, the quote *is* directly about the comic. In this case, it's even a direct answer to a direct question about the comic, which I would think would warrant automatic, non-controversial inclusion (barring a successful "redundancy" argument). The fact that a quote is *also* about D&D rules, or art decisions, etc. should be irrelevant to Rule B2.

The "successful redundancy argument", as you put it, had already been made; there's already a quote in the Index saying that the corpses of the wights (and Tsukiko) had been disposed of.

Which is why I opened my post with "both aspects of the quote still being debated." If the quote is still to be included, it needs to be because of the worth of the non-redundant aspects...and both of them fall under B2.

[ORione]

Surely it was clear even without that, given that the Command Undead spell is not on the cleric lists? Unless somebody thinks Redcloak took a few levels in Sorcerer or Wizard, he has to be using the cleric ability, not the spell!

It wouldn't be clear to people who don't know exactly what's on the cleric spell list.

People who don't know Dungeons and Dragons rules wouldn't know that, or what rebuking undead is, but they also wouldn't know the limitations of the Command Undead spell, so they wouldn't be bothered if they did think it was a spell. The important information would still come across: Redcloak used his cleric powers to take over Tsukiko's wights.

[Throknor]

It wouldn't be clear to people who don't know exactly what's on the cleric spell list.

People who don't know Dungeons and Dragons rules wouldn't know that, or what rebuking undead is, but they also wouldn't know the limitations of the Command Undead spell, so they wouldn't be bothered if they did think it was a spell. The important information would still come across: Redcloak used his cleric powers to take over Tsukiko's wights.

Which leads nicely to my point: not knowing anything about the ability it was easy to infer that it works on straight level difference and might be revisited in the future. The wights are lower and can be controlled, Xykon is higher and cannot. The double-HD restriction cannot be inferred from the comic and is new information that was not previously in either the comic or the index. The fact that it is known to some is irrelevant; just as Mass Death Ward's outside spell level was known to some but was irrelevant to the comic.

To reiterate my point: the double-HD information is not redundant in either the index or online strip. Rule B2 does not apply.

[Rodin]

It wouldn't be clear to people who don't know exactly what's on the cleric spell list.

People who don't know Dungeons and Dragons rules wouldn't know that, or what rebuking undead is, but they also wouldn't know the limitations of the Command Undead spell, so they wouldn't be bothered if they did think it was a spell. The important information would still come across: Redcloak used his cleric powers to take over Tsukiko's wights.

Just to chip in as someone who is not terribly familiar with D&D rules - the important information certainly did come across in the strip proper. Redcloak used an ability, wherever it was sourced, to take control of the wights.

That the munching happened off-screen is a pretty standard media device.

I think the only times I've been confused by something relating to D&D in the comic were the "Holy Word" spell, which was explained in the immediate next comic by Tarquin, and the effects of Prismatic Spray on the Triceratops, which did need a look at the forums to figure out what exactly happened.

[The Linker]

Which leads nicely to my point: not knowing anything about the ability it was easy to infer that it works on straight level difference and might be revisited in the future. The wights are lower and can be controlled, Xykon is higher and cannot. The double-HD restriction cannot be inferred from the comic and is new information that was not previously in either the comic or the index. The fact that it is known to some is irrelevant; just as Mass Death Ward's outside spell level was known to some but was irrelevant to the comic.

To reiterate my point: the double-HD information is not redundant in either the index or online strip. Rule B2 does not apply.

We should not be linking to Rich explaining the rules of D&D when we can just link to the rules. Mass Death Ward was an special case because he made it up, and didn't know it was an actual spell until after the fact. Furthermore, he pegged the spell level of it as different from canon, meaning it's important to note his distinction -- it's a non-canon, homebrewed spell that differs from any other official version in existance.

The ability to command undead is a basic ability that we can literally just link to.

There's no reason Rich saying it makes it special. He's just explaining the rules, and no better than you or I could. It's only noteworthy when he explains that he is not following the rules.

[Lord Torath]

I'm going to agree with my mustachioed friend above me. There's no real need to include this quote in the index.

[137beth]

I still feel like the people arguing against inclusion haven't really demonstrated potential harm that would be caused by including the quote. Many people have voiced what they consider a benefit to including the quote about the wights, and Orrion and others have countered by saying they don't consider those to be benefits. No one has given an example of a benefit of not including the quote, just arguments for why they feel including it has little or no benefit. Either way, just based on the arguments presented in the thread, it appears the benefits for adding the quote are somewhere between "very very little" and "a moderate amount",
while the harm in adding the quote is "none."