The Index of the Giant's Comments V―On a Saner Forum, We Wouldn't Need this Index

[Keltest]

I think that votes to remove should be done pretty much the same as votes to include, so they should have the majorities to overrule, need +2 to remove, and should be done during the bimonthly cycle. The only thing I'm iffy about is that this quote had a few people saying to remove it with no dissenting voices but the actual vote was much closer, and wouldn't even have been removed under the new proposed rules.

I think that the new quote about the O-Chul PDF is worth including.

well if we were doing it the same way as votes to include, it wouldn't have even come to a vote, because it was near unanimous during the initial discussion, such as it was, that it should be removed.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

well if we were doing it the same way as votes to include, it wouldn't have even come to a vote, because it was near unanimous during the initial discussion, such as it was, that it should be removed.

Yeah, which is why I feel a little uncertain about making it in line with additions if something like that happens again. Hopefully, if it is formalized and the timing is brought in line with the herbal update it won't happen but it would be awkward if it did.

[Kalmegil]

But if the vote was handled just like other votes, it wouldn't have happened yet and people would be on notice that removal could occur without voting. Plus we'd have gotten a post describing what would be voted on and what would happen without voting while there was time to do something about it.

[dancrilis]

My take on it:

Vote Margin: Should removal require the same +2 margin in favor of removing (like inclusion requires +2 in favor of including), or is simply more for removal than keeping sufficient?
- +2 to remove.

Timing: Should removals get to the vote/action stage immediately after their discussion, or should they be staged alongside additions for the next update cycle?
- Update Cycle

Minimum to Proceed: Should removals not be considered with less than one-third support in the discussion as additions are, or should a removal require at least one-half support to proceed?
- One third support on discussion to move to a vote

Vote Necessity: Should removals have the same vote bypassing with two-thirds support in discussion that additions do, or should a vote be mandatory?
- Mandatory Vote (people have already voted to include it, and passed the relevant hurdle - it shouldn't be overruled without a second vote.

[Jasdoif]

Since I've only seen it mentioned twice, did everyone see the second proposed quote?

O-Chul's story will be done in the current art style, as will everything from now on unless I'm trying to specifically insert material into the middle of an older story for some reason, such as when I drew the bonus materials for Blood Runs in the Family. There wasn't any art completed on the O-Chul prequel beyond that cover image until recently, only outlines and scripts, so there's no need to match the older style if I don't want to (and I don't want to).

O-Chul's story will also be greyscale. The bluescale is nice in theory but the big problem with it is that without color, my art relies heavily on that black line to differentiate between blocks of grey that are sometimes only a little bit apart. Every blue I tried failed to do as good a job at separating darker tints (60-80%) as black does when separating equivalent greys. And any blue that even came close looked more like grey or purple when scaled back to 10-20%. The only way to make it work would have been to use different blues for different parts, at which point you're using multiple inks when printing and you might as well work in full color. The main reason I started using greyscale in the first place was due to the massive cost savings of 1-color printing anyway.

---

Also, since we've gone across pages...We were talking about getting removal procedures together, and I'm seeking input on what everyone thinks those procedures should entail:

Seems there's widespread agreement that it should take more than an even vote to remove an entry. I see a lot of what looks like implication that a removal should require the same +2 margin an addition requires, too...But there's a bit more to it then that. So, for clarity in vision, what's everyone think about....

• Vote Margin: Should removal require the same +2 margin in favor of removing (like inclusion requires +2 in favor of including), or is simply more for removal than keeping sufficient?
• Timing: Should removals get to the vote/action stage immediately after their discussion, or should they be staged alongside additions for the next update cycle?
• Minimum to Proceed: Should removals not be considered with less than one-third support in the discussion as additions are, or should a removal require at least one-half support to proceed?
• Vote Necessity: Should removals have the same vote bypassing with two-thirds support in discussion that additions do, or should a vote be mandatory?

Alternatives at any point are certainly welcome, as well as general discussion and pointing out anything I've failed to consider; but that should be enough to tie down procedural questions I recall coming up before, at least.

[Peelee]

I'm happy with it, since I was one of the ones who missed that it was no longer in bluescale to begin with.

[SaintRidley]

If we're going to continue having procedures for removal, I would like to move that removal always requires a vote, that a vote is only called if there is majority interest in removal during the initial discussion, and that a removal not be made without winning a vote with at least 2 more votes than the number of votes to keep a quote.

Removal should be difficult.

[DataNinja]

If we're going to continue having procedures for removal, I would like to move that removal always requires a vote, that a vote is only called if there is majority interest in removal during the initial discussion, and that a removal not be made without winning a vote with at least 2 more votes than the number of votes to keep a quote.

Removal should be difficult.

This sounds reasonable to me. I second this.

[Kish]

I third it.

[Jasdoif]

Well, given the time frame I better add the second quote into the tentative list; if discussion switches course abruptly I can handle it then.

"How the Paladin Got His Scar" is Almost as Long as "On the Origins of PCs" "...and will probably get a full book release of some sort (i.e. print and PDF)."	#1041	06/29/2016	Tentative, appears will be included without vote.
"How the Paladin Got His Scar" Will Be in the New Art Style As will everything going forward, unless it's meant to be inserted in the middle of older art. Also, the story will be in grayscale instead of bluescale; because the color-less art's reliance on dark separating lines didn't work out with a single blue color.	#1042	07/03/2016	Tentative, appears will be included without vote.

---

As for the removal procedure talk....So far it looks like there's unanimous support for a removal vote needing two or more votes for removal than against to actually remove an entry, and no dissent that the removals should happen during the normal update cycle. It's about even on whether a removal needs to get to one-third or one-half of the people during the discussion to move forward, though; and it's also about even between whether a vote should be mandatory or not even if there's overwhelming support for the removal during the discussion.

[Gwynfrid]

As for the removal procedure talk....So far it looks like there's unanimous support for a removal vote needing two or more votes for removal than against to actually remove an entry, and no dissent that the removals should happen during the normal update cycle. It's about even on whether a removal needs to get to one-third or one-half of the people during the discussion to move forward, though; and it's also about even between whether a vote should be mandatory or not even if there's overwhelming support for the removal during the discussion.

Those differences are minor enough. By and large, we have consensus, and I would be happy with either of the variants you mention. I suggest you just write the wording of the new rule that you feel is most appropriate, and easiest for you to manage as the curator (you're the one who will have to enact this rule after all). Then we have an up or down vote on it, and call it a day.

[Ron Miel]

Let me just say that I foresee possible confusion if a removal vote is part of the update cycle. Somebody might forget that its a removal and vote YES to include, which couild then be taken as a yes to remove.

Better to have include votes, and remove votes on separate ballots.

[Jasdoif]

Let me just say that I foresee possible confusion if a removal vote is part of the update cycle. Somebody might forget that its a removal and vote YES to include, which couild then be taken as a yes to remove.

Better to have include votes, and remove votes on separate ballots.

I was thinking about having the vote for entries to include (if one is necessary), followed by the vote for entries to remove. And probably stating a preference for "keep/remove" or "include/exclude" over "yes/no" during the removal vote.

[Ron Miel]

That would work.

[Peelee]

As the mandatory vote issue is in contention, i wish to explain that no small part of my reasoning in rejecting it is in the hopes that more discussion will be fostered (and a more accurate feel for a possible consensus) if/when another proposal for removal comes up.

[Zherog]

As the mandatory vote issue is in contention, i wish to explain that no small part of my reasoning in rejecting it is in the hopes that more discussion will be fostered (and a more accurate feel for a possible consensus) if/when another proposal for removal comes up.

We could have a mandatory vote and (assuming our fearless Banana Overlord intends to keep Include and Remove votes separate), we could hold the vote just like we did this time, where discussion was not only permitted but also encouraged. So a cycle would look like:

• Vote on inclusions, no discussions
• Banana Overlord posts inclusion results and updates as needed
• Vote on removals, with debate permitted and encouraged
• Banana Overlord posts removal results and updates as needed

[SaintRidley]

Yeah, I'm thinking that at any point someone might come up with a proposal for removal. There's then discussion. If the majority of the discussion favors removal, then Jasdoif will formally announce a vote (and that no matter if the discussion before hand is barely a majority or unanimous, that there be a vote). Always a vote, and always after there has been discussion on the proposed removal.

[Peelee]

Yes, but if more discussion is already fostered, the vote could be skipped. When in contention, voting is useful. When a clear majority of people agree one way or the other, voting is tedious and unnecessary. If more potential voters chime in before a vote, then it is more likely we can skip a vote for clear consensus options and only have them for highly contentious options. Fewer unnecessary votes is my ideal here, but without discussion it is difficult to know which would be unnecessary vs. necessary.

[Kish]

I can't speak for anyone else, but a requirement for someone to say "I oppose this being removed" for something not to be removed without a vote will not, in and of itself, inspire me to more than the required, noncommittal, not-an-asset-to-the-thread five-word post. I'm only going to spell out why if I think there is lack of clarity about the situation rather than disagreement, and will attempt to correct such lack of clarity whether there is a mandatory vote rule or not.

[Zherog]

Yes, but if more discussion is already fostered, the vote could be skipped. When in contention, voting is useful. When a clear majority of people agree one way or the other, voting is tedious and unnecessary. If more potential voters chime in before a vote, then it is more likely we can skip a vote for clear consensus options and only have them for highly contentious options. Fewer unnecessary votes is my ideal here, but without discussion it is difficult to know which would be unnecessary vs. necessary.

So two points that I think are worth bringing up.

A) Some people don't really have anything to contribute to a discussion - they want to keep/reject/remove, but they don't really believe they have anything to contribute to help sway anybody else to their viewpoint. We see this frequently, to be honest, when there's votes to include with numerous people who post a vote without having been involved in the debate previously.

B) My other point to make in reply to this has - I believe - been made. Given that a previous vote was held, or there was such obvious consensus that a vote wasn't even required, I think it's reasonable to require a vote for removals. A majority wanted the quote originally, so we should ensure a majority wants to remove it. I don't really see it as a hassle, to be honest. *shrug*

[SaintRidley]

Yes, but if more discussion is already fostered, the vote could be skipped. When in contention, voting is useful. When a clear majority of people agree one way or the other, voting is tedious and unnecessary. If more potential voters chime in before a vote, then it is more likely we can skip a vote for clear consensus options and only have them for highly contentious options. Fewer unnecessary votes is my ideal here, but without discussion it is difficult to know which would be unnecessary vs. necessary.

I believe that with removals, there should never be skipping of the voting process. A very high bar for removal seems preferable to me, if we're going to allow for it at all, rather than allow for removals to even be possible without a vote. I want there to be a high bar for removal (actually, I want there to be no removal, but I'm compromising) precisely because we've already gone to the trouble of having a very detailed process to ensure consensus on the idea of inclusion. To be able to override inclusion (which should be privileged over removal, in the compromise version of my opinion) should not be easy, and it certainly shouldn't happen without a vote - ever.

[Kalmegil]

Given that a previous vote was held, or there was such obvious consensus that a vote wasn't even required, I think it's reasonable to require a vote for removals. A majority wanted the quote originally, so we should ensure a majority wants to remove it. I don't really see it as a hassle, to be honest. *shrug*

I believe that with removals, there should never be skipping of the voting process. A very high bar for removal seems preferable to me, if we're going to allow for it at all, rather than allow for removals to even be possible without a vote. I want there to be a high bar for removal (actually, I want there to be no removal, but I'm compromising) precisely because we've already gone to the trouble of having a very detailed process to ensure consensus on the idea of inclusion. To be able to override inclusion (which should be privileged over removal, in the compromise version of my opinion) should not be easy, and it certainly shouldn't happen without a vote - ever.

Agree with both these.

[DataNinja]

So two points that I think are worth bringing up.

A) Some people don't really have anything to contribute to a discussion - they want to keep/reject/remove, but they don't really believe they have anything to contribute to help sway anybody else to their viewpoint. We see this frequently, to be honest, when there's votes to include with numerous people who post a vote without having been involved in the debate previously.

B) My other point to make in reply to this has - I believe - been made. Given that a previous vote was held, or there was such obvious consensus that a vote wasn't even required, I think it's reasonable to require a vote for removals. A majority wanted the quote originally, so we should ensure a majority wants to remove it. I don't really see it as a hassle, to be honest. *shrug*

I believe that with removals, there should never be skipping of the voting process. A very high bar for removal seems preferable to me, if we're going to allow for it at all, rather than allow for removals to even be possible without a vote. I want there to be a high bar for removal (actually, I want there to be no removal, but I'm compromising) precisely because we've already gone to the trouble of having a very detailed process to ensure consensus on the idea of inclusion. To be able to override inclusion (which should be privileged over removal, in the compromise version of my opinion) should not be easy, and it certainly shouldn't happen without a vote - ever.

Agree with both these.

Likewise for me.

[Jasdoif]

OK, so that's a majority on the mandatory votes for removals, and an even split on the threshold for getting a removal to a vote...well, if the main change people want is that it takes more than a tie for a change, let's be thematic and keep it at the half I've been using

---

Since the entire update procedure was rather untested when we/I started using it...over two years ago, geez...And various questions and adjustments have come up since then, and there's a push to get the removals aligned with the additions....My thinking is to rephrase the update cycle stuff, add removal things to it, and when it's reasonably nailed down put it to a vote.

So first of all: the current draft.

---

General Update Procedure

• To reduce how many posts in the thread are consumed by votes instead of discussion, normal changes to the Index are done in groups of quotes. Each update cycle happens when there are six quotes queued for addition/removal, or when it has been two months since the last update cycle.
• For a quote to be queued for an update requires community support. The criteria varies between additions and removals:
  
  • Additions: An addition requires at least one third of the users participating in the discussion of the quote to be in favor of adding it. If at least two thirds of the discussing users are in favor of adding it, the quote is also exempted from having a vote called before it can be included.
  • Removals: A removal requires over one half of the users participating in the discussion of the quote to be in favor of removing it. A vote is always required for an entry to be removed.
• 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 quote(s) to added (unless the earlier discussion favored addition at the two-thirds level, as mentioned above). Two separate posters must request a vote on a quote for it to occur, otherwise the quote will be included. This step is done to ensure active opposition to including the quote is still present.
• If a vote is necessary for any additions, the curator will call for voting on those additions. Discussion, beyond reiterating personal reasons for voting alongside the vote, is discouraged while the vote is going on. Addition must "win" a majority by at least 2 votes for to the quote to be added.
• If any quotes are queued for removal, the curator will call for voting those removals, separately from any voting for additions. Removal must "win" a majority by at least 2 votes for to the quote to be removed.

Special Update Cases

• If the curator finds a quote to be clearly aligned with the agreed-upon thread rules, the quote may be immediately added to the update queue. When the update cycle happens, the quote is still held to usual procedure with regards to possible votes on additions.
• If the curator finds an already-present quote to be unequivocally violating the agreed-upon thread rules, most likely if the cited quote ceases being available online, the quote may be removed immediately without regard to the update cycle.

---

How's that look?

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I like the look of it. I think now that removal votes have been popping up it's good to finally get a good idea of how they'll be implemented.

[Peelee]

I'm happy with it.

[Kish]

Looks good to me.

[DataNinja]

Seems fine here.

[Gwynfrid]

I'm fine with this.

[Kalmegil]

Fine with me, too.