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

[The Linker]

while the harm in adding the quote is "none."

This entire thread is filled with arguments against adding quotes of little worth because cluttering up the index diminishes the worth of every other quote in there as well is the index's worth as a resource; bloating it makes it harder to find what you are actually looking for.

Like, if you think that's hardly worth concerning ourselves with, that's fine, that's a valid opinion, but that's not 'no harm'. People are indeed making an argument as to the harm of putting the quote in.

[orrion]

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."

The harm of any individual quote is none, which means that's a worthless standard of consideration.

[Jasdoif]

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

To head off confusion over which rule is which...B2 is not the "redundancy" rule, that's E. The mesh of letters and numbers can be unclear (I keep having to remember that the rules are letters and the subrules are numbers, I'm so used to it being the other way around....), so let me try some paraphrasing of the guidelines....

• Rule A is the "Still Online" rule, that we can't index things that aren't accessible on the Internet. (A1 says it doesn't have to be a forum post, A2 says it has to be something Rich said directly, A3 says it has to be freely accessible in a legal fashion)
• Rule B is the "About Rich's Stuff" rule, where quotes need to be about the Giant's fiction works. B2 (which comes into play rather frequently) allows quotes about stuff indirectly related, if consensus can be attained. (B1 reiterates that quotes wholly unrelated to his fiction works aren't allowed, B3 says information about the forum itself are to be excluded)
• Rule C is the "For Discussion"..."rule". I air-quote "rule" because there are no actual criteria on this one, it's meant to be a reminder that the Index is not supposed to be a trivia collection. Or at least, that's the answer I got after I asked why the rule existed, since I was the only one who voted against its inclusion as a rule way back when.
• Rule D is the "Keep the New" rule, where in the case of two quotes contradicting each other, only the most recent one should be included.
• Rule E is the "Redundancy is Redundant" rule, where quotes with redundant information should not be included.
• Rule F is the "Bylaws" rule, outlining some of the actions the thread curator can be expected to do.

The vast majority of the time the exact designations don't matter. But if we're mentioning rules by designation, it's best to use the right one.

[Throknor]

To head off confusion over which rule is which...B2 is not the "redundancy" rule, that's E. The mesh of letters and numbers can be unclear (I keep having to remember that the rules are letters and the subrules are numbers, I'm so used to it being the other way around....), so let me try some paraphrasing of the guidelines....

• Rule A is the "Still Online" rule, that we can't index things that aren't accessible on the Internet. (A1 says it doesn't have to be a forum post, A2 says it has to be something Rich said directly, A3 says it has to be freely accessible in a legal fashion)
• Rule B is the "About Rich's Stuff" rule, where quotes need to be about the Giant's fiction works. B2 (which comes into play rather frequently) allows quotes about stuff indirectly related, if consensus can be attained. (B1 reiterates that quotes wholly unrelated to his fiction works aren't allowed, B3 says information about the forum itself are to be excluded)
• Rule C is the "For Discussion"..."rule". I air-quote "rule" because there are no actual criteria on this one, it's meant to be a reminder that the Index is not supposed to be a trivia collection. Or at least, that's the answer I got after I asked why the rule existed, since I was the only one who voted against its inclusion as a rule way back when.
• Rule D is the "Keep the New" rule, where in the case of two quotes contradicting each other, only the most recent one should be included.
• Rule E is the "Redundancy is Redundant" rule, where quotes with redundant information should not be included.
• Rule F is the "Bylaws" rule, outlining some of the actions the thread curator can be expected to do.

The vast majority of the time the exact designations don't matter. But if we're mentioning rules by designation, it's best to use the right one.

Sorry; I was quoting without referring back. But I still say any argument for non-inclusion should have the Rule backing it, otherwise either the argument or the rules themselves are meaningless.

[The Linker]

Sorry; I was quoting without referring back. But I still say any argument for non-inclusion should have the Rule backing it, otherwise either the argument or the rules themselves are meaningless.

Though they're labeled as Rule A, Rule B, etc. they're also all listed under the general heading of 'guidelines' and referred to as such in ThePhatasm's opening statement.

I think guidelines is indeed a much more apt description; if a majority of people can agree that a quote doesn't belong despite it following the letter of the rules/guidelines, I heavily disagree that it should be included because "Well, technically, it doesn't break any rules..."

Anyway. That's my opinion. I think they're better serviced being seen as guidelines rather than rules. I would open to a clarification from ThePhatasm, though.

[Jasdoif]

But I still say any argument for non-inclusion should have the Rule backing it, otherwise either the argument or the rules themselves are meaningless.

Well, B2 itself says a consensus is needed to include the quote in the case of uncertainty...which this particular quote certainly seems to have. Exclusion because it doesn't satisfy B, because there's no consensus in favor as required to be included under B2, is entirely valid under the rules.

The consensus portion of B2 is kind of the whole point of it, I think: Trying to assemble an exhaustive set of rules for every quote would result in a byzantine code that's difficult/impossible to determine/apply fairly. So instead, less-than-clearcut cases are resolved by the community via debate (and in extreme cases, by vote), so consensus can determine what would take an excruciating amount of rules to even attempt.

[allenw]

Well, B2 itself says a consensus is needed to include the quote in the case of uncertainty...which this particular quote certainly seems to have. Exclusion because it doesn't satisfy B, because there's no consensus in favor as required to be included under B2, is entirely valid under the rules.

Except that B2 (and thus its consensus) only applies to quotes that aren't actually about the comic. This one *was* actually about the comic, as are most quotes that people nonetheless argue against including.

If you instead want to argue against inclusion based on Rule E (redundancy), then while I disagree with your argument, I don't disagree with it being appropriate to argue about in the first place.

[Jasdoif]

Except that B2 (and thus its consensus) only applies to quotes that aren't actually about the comic. This one *was* actually about the comic, as are most quotes that people nonetheless argue against including.

If you instead want to argue against inclusion based on Rule E (redundancy), then while I disagree with your argument, I don't disagree with it being appropriate to argue about in the first place.

There are three aspects of the quote in question (link here, since it was first proposed two pages ago) that have been argued as reasons for inclusion:

• That all the wights were in fact destroyed.
• That Redcloak was referring to his Command Undead ability and not the command undead spell.
• That the Giant didn't show it because it would be horrific.

The first one is redundant, since there's already a quote in the Index saying that. But discarding the other two reasons simply because the first one happens to be redundant strikes me as inappropriately restrictive.

The other reasons aren't directly about the comic (one's about the D&D rules behind the comic, one's about the Giant's choices on how/what precisely to depict the comic), which is where B2 and consensus comes in. I don't feel either reason is sufficient for inclusion, personally, but neither am I going to claim the redundant portion is grounds for excluding the quote regardless of what else may be in there.

I feel the rules need to be considered in a way that can accommodate posts talking about more than one thing, and that acceptance of any single reason should be sufficient to include (instead of rejection of any single reason being sufficient to exclude).

[Flame of Anor]

The other reasons aren't directly about the comic (one's about the D&D rules behind the comic, one's about the Giant's choices on how/what precisely to depict the comic), which is where B2 and consensus comes in.

Those absolutely are directly about the comic. The comic is based on D&D rules and written by the Giant. Discussion of how the comic relates to D&D rules and to the Giant is 100% relevant.

[Jasdoif]

Those absolutely are directly about the comic. The comic is based on D&D rules and written by the Giant. Discussion of how the comic relates to D&D rules and to the Giant is 100% relevant.

Being about something that affects the comic, rather than being about the comic, is pretty much the definition of "indirectly related the comic".

A prime example of "directly about the comic" is Durkon Throws Diamond Dust in 844: it's in the comic that Durkon's throwing something, and the quote establishes that "something" as diamond dust.

[orrion]

Those absolutely are directly about the comic. The comic is based on D&D rules and written by the Giant. Discussion of how the comic relates to D&D rules and to the Giant is 100% relevant.

There's no reason to cite the Giant clarifying the rules when we can just cite the rules.

I'd see the point of including this under a rules premise if it were an instance where the rules were thrown out the window, but the comic in question happens to follow them. And that's already the default assumption - that the comic does follow them unless told/shown otherwise.

[Bird]

And that's already the default assumption - that the comic does follow them unless told/shown otherwise.

Everyone's default assumption?

[Flame of Anor]

Being about something that affects the comic, rather than being about the comic, is pretty much the definition of "indirectly related the comic".

A prime example of "directly about the comic" is Durkon Throws Diamond Dust in 844: it's in the comic that Durkon's throwing something, and the quote establishes that "something" as diamond dust.

The comic is not merely "the images that tell the story". It includes the creative process.

There's no reason to cite the Giant clarifying the rules when we can just cite the rules.

I'd see the point of including this under a rules premise if it were an instance where the rules were thrown out the window, but the comic in question happens to follow them. And that's already the default assumption - that the comic does follow them unless told/shown otherwise.

Well, I'm not arguing for the quote's inclusion, just that it is about the comic.

Everyone's default assumption?

It should be, at least.

[allenw]

Being about something that affects the comic, rather than being about the comic, is pretty much the definition of "indirectly related the comic".

I think I now see our point of contention.
I agree with the above-quoted statement, assuming the word 'rather' is stressed. However, I consider it axiomatic that a quote that is about HOW something affects the comic is, ipso facto, about the comic. By way of contrast, a quote that deals with Rich's views about D&D in general, or Wizards of the Coast, or vegetarianism, etc., without reference to the comic, would be covered by the quoted statement (and also by Rule 2B).

[ti'esar]

On an unrelated note: I remember the Giant at one point responding to criticisms of 901 by explaining his thought process behind that strip, including the fact that he was trying to respond to criticisms of OOTS as being overly wordy. Is that quote in the index? I can't seem to find it.

[Jasdoif]

I think I now see our point of contention.
I agree with the above-quoted statement, assuming the word 'rather' is stressed. However, I consider it axiomatic that a quote that is about HOW something affects the comic is, ipso facto, about the comic. By way of contrast, a quote that deals with Rich's views about D&D in general, or Wizards of the Coast, or vegetarianism, etc., without reference to the comic, would be covered by the quoted statement (and also by Rule 2B).

The problem I have here, is that decisions in the writing process involve deciding against a myriad ways of portraying events, in a favor of one/few ways to do so. The vast majority of it won't have any notable impact on the comic (as any given instance would be equal in standing to the rest of that vast majority), so saying it all "is directly related to the comic" isn't exactly useful.

More to the point, a blanket inclusion on those grounds (which would be the end result, since such quotes would qualify under B and not need to gather consensus first under B2) would mean a lot of quotes that don't tell us anything useful would get fast-tracked for inclusion in the Index, which would do little more than increase clutter.

It is for both these reasons that I think the writing process falls under B2. It's also why I'm far more likely to support (towards consensus) a quote saying why the Giant wrote a scene/panel/etc. a certain way than I am for why he didn't write it a certain way: The connection to what's in the comic is a lot more solid than the connection to what's not in the comic.

On an unrelated note: I remember the Giant at one point responding to criticisms of 901 by explaining his thought process behind that strip, including the fact that he was trying to respond to criticisms of OOTS as being overly wordy. Is that quote in the index? I can't seem to find it.

The quote itself doesn't seem to be; but it was on the same page as a couple of the ones in the Index so I did manage to find it. I don't remember any discussion here on this one...maybe it didn't get proposed for inclusion for some reason?

[Loreweaver15]

The quote itself doesn't seem to be; but it was on the same page as a couple of the ones in the Index so I did manage to find it. I don't remember any discussion here on this one...maybe it didn't get proposed for inclusion for some reason?

Man, that was a fascinating conversation to read.

[Throknor]

The quote itself doesn't seem to be; but it was on the same page as a couple of the ones in the Index so I did manage to find it. I don't remember any discussion here on this one...maybe it didn't get proposed for inclusion for some reason?

I'm guessing it was vetoed because what the giant said is either obvious or in a random rule book that could be referenced.

[Jasdoif]

I'm guessing it was vetoed because what the giant said is either obvious or in a random rule book that could be referenced.

Hmm....I'm pretty sure I would've remembered something like that, if only because I'd be interested in knowing what rule book says "cutting three pages of dialog down to two pages of dialog can result in clumsy dialog", or what the signs were that made it obvious that the comic originally had an extra page.

Or are you trying to be funny, and the comedy isn't carrying well?

[ti'esar]

New one today: Why the Azurites had a much more diverse army than the hobgoblins.

[DaggerPen]

The hobgoblin forces are all male and the Azurite forces are gender integrated because Rich wanted the hobgoblins to feel interchangeable and the Azurite forces to feel more progressive and sympathetic.

Edit: I am positive that comment was not there when I went to make mine.

[Kalmegil]

Well, despite the fact that this post is apparently only indirectly about the comic, spends a good portion of its content discussing ways that the comic wasn't drawn, and says something rather obvious about the use of automated tools for drawing multiple characters that anyone could find by reading up on Adobe Illustrator, I think this post should go in the index.

[Jasdoif]

The hobgoblin forces are all male and the Azurite forces are gender integrated because Rich wanted the hobgoblins to feel interchangeable and the Azurite forces to feel more progressive and sympathetic.

Sounds worth including to me.

[Jasdoif]

OK, to make a long story short....ThePhantasm got really busy with life and stuff, and asked if I would take over curating. I said I would. The plan was to turn it over around at the normal time of a new time, when this one hit page 50; but it turned out ThePhantasm had underestimated the magnitude of busy-tude, and asked Roland St. Jude if we could move to a new thread in advance....

Well, anyway.

NEW THREAD IS HERE!

Assume I gave a speech about how much of an honor it is, how I will endeavor to maintain the integrity of the Index, and other neat stuff like that.