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

[Jasdoif]

Since I believe this makes a new page, reminder that there's a vote going on:

VOTING FOR RULE REVISION OPEN

Since the thread rules have the potential to impact the inclusion of any future quote, all rule changes must be approved by vote.

• The proposal at hand contains two steps:
  
  • The existing block of text that describes the inclusion procedure will be struck out and put in a spoiler tag.
    

    The inclusion procedure below was proposed and adopted in a more informal fashion than the rules above, but still represents how this community project is expected to be run with regards to including new quotes.
    
    Participating doesn't require an understanding of this procedure: we discuss the merits of quotes after they're proposed in the usual forum fashion, and the curator will call for nominations or votes at the appropriate time.
    
    But for those interested in the details:
    

    • Quotes with a clear consensus to include or exclude after discussion will be included in or excluded from the next update, as appropriate.
    • Quotes the curator deems clearly aligned with the inclusion guidelines will default to be included in the next update without needing extended discussion, but may be voted upon at the time of the update (see below).
    • Quotes without a clear consensus to include/exclude after discussion will default to be included in the next update, but may be voted upon at the time of the update (see below).
    • Updates will happen when there are six quotes ready to be included or if it has been two months since the last update.
    • When an impending update is announced by the curator, and prior to the update being done, people can PM the curator requesting a vote on the particular "default" inclusion quote(s) (the quotes with strong consensus to include do not need to be voted on). Two separate posters must request a vote on a quote for it to occur, otherwise the quote will be included.
    • If a vote is necessary, the curator will call for voting on all quotes set to be voted upon. Discussion, beyond reiterating personal reasons for voting alongside the vote, is discouraged while the vote is going on. Per thread rules, to be included a quote must "win" a majority by at least 2 votes.
    • Only votes called for by the curator are binding.

  • The following text will be inserted into the rules:

    Rule H: 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.
    
    1) | General Update Procedure

    • 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. Additions have more leniency on being queued than removals; and additions with strong community support are exempt from potential votes during the update, while removals are always voted on.
    • 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 strongly favored addition, 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 on 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.

    
    
    2) | 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.

  
  
  
  Spoiler: Expected Format if Proposal Passes

  Show

  The Index provides easy access to direct statements about the Order of the Stick comic from its author, for the purpose of forum discussion. It is intended as a research aid; its entertainment value as a trivia collection is incidental.

  Spoiler: Index Guidelines (PLEASE READ - Updated ??/??/????)

  Show

  These rules were decided by forum vote. They specify what sorts of comments are suitable for inclusion in the Index and what sorts are not. This thread is run by its caretaker in accordance with forumgoer consensus.
  
  Rule A: The quote or comment must still be accessible online.
  
  1) | This includes the use of The Internet Wayback Machine and other methods of accessing comments that may not still exist in the archive.
  
  2) | This does not include second-hand sources, like "I remember Rich said this, but the thread does not exist anymore." Even if you are 100% certain Rich said that, if the quote is not demonstrable or provable it cannot be included.
  
  3) | This does not include Rich's commentary in books or in any medium that cannot be legally accessed for free.
  
  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 C: The index is a forum tool, meant primarily to provide easy access to direct statements from the author for the purpose of forum discussion. Thus, while the index may be fun to read through on a whim, this is not its primary purpose or focus - it is a research aid more than it is a trivia collection. It is for discussions more than it is for leisurely reading. (rescinded as rule on 12/16/2014)
  
  Rule D: If two quotes seem to contradict each other, only the quote that illustrates Rich's most recent and current opinion or position will be included. The index is not meant to be a complete collection for leisurely reading. It is meant to be an accurate research aid for forum discussions. (reference to rescinded rule removed on 12/16/2014)
  
  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. 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.
  
  Rule F: The index-keeper (Jasdoif) has the job of updating the index in keeping with thread-goer consensus.
  
  1) | He/She may reorganize the index if deemed necessary, though all reorganizations can be reversed by majority vote.
  
  2) | He/She may immediately add a comment to the index without any vote, discussion, or consensus required if the comment obviously is in accordance with these agreed rules.
  
  3) | He/She may never fully "reject" a comment's inclusion, however, he/she may postpone its inclusion until further discussion (and, if the divide in opinion appears even, a vote) decides the matter.
  
  4) | If a comment's inclusion is uncertain, a vote requires a clear majority. If there is a tie the comment will not be included. The majority must have at least 2 more votes than the minority. Remember, the purpose of the discussions and votes are to reach some measure of consensus, not division.
  
  Rule G: Transcripts of Q&As with Rich Burlew may be included, in their entirety, in additional posts to the Index. Rule A applies as normal, but all other Rules may be varied contingent on community acceptance. Quotes can be added to the Index proper from the Q&As. This is not considered redundancy for the purposes of Rule E.
  
  Rule H: 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.
  
  1) | General Update Procedure

  • 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. Additions have more leniency on being queued than removals; and additions with strong community support are exempt from potential votes during the update, while removals are always voted on.
  • 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 strongly favored addition, 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 on 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.

  
  
  2) | 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.

  
  
  
  
  

  Spoiler: Old Inclusion Text (Rescinded ??/??/????)

  Show

  The inclusion procedure below was proposed and adopted in a more informal fashion than the rules above, but still represents how this community project is expected to be run with regards to including new quotes.
  
  Participating doesn't require an understanding of this procedure: we discuss the merits of quotes after they're proposed in the usual forum fashion, and the curator will call for nominations or votes at the appropriate time.
  
  But for those interested in the details:
  

  • Quotes with a clear consensus to include or exclude after discussion will be included in or excluded from the next update, as appropriate.
  • Quotes the curator deems clearly aligned with the inclusion guidelines will default to be included in the next update without needing extended discussion, but may be voted upon at the time of the update (see below).
  • Quotes without a clear consensus to include/exclude after discussion will default to be included in the next update, but may be voted upon at the time of the update (see below).
  • Updates will happen when there are six quotes ready to be included or if it has been two months since the last update.
  • When an impending update is announced by the curator, and prior to the update being done, people can PM the curator requesting a vote on the particular "default" inclusion quote(s) (the quotes with strong consensus to include do not need to be voted on). Two separate posters must request a vote on a quote for it to occur, otherwise the quote will be included.
  • If a vote is necessary, the curator will call for voting on all quotes set to be voted upon. Discussion, beyond reiterating personal reasons for voting alongside the vote, is discouraged while the vote is going on. Per thread rules, to be included a quote must "win" a majority by at least 2 votes.
  • Only votes called for by the curator are binding.

It is believed this update will support removals, along with other miscellaneous clarifications that were resolved ad hoc before, while still handling updates in more or less the same fashion.

---

• Please bold your yes/no vote, it'll make it easier for me to notice when I go through and count everything.
• Since a rule revision is not a quote itself, the normal request not to discuss the item being voted on does not apply.
• In keeping with the intent of Rule F4, the revision will need to have at least two more votes in favor than votes against to be accepted.

Voting will be open until July 22nd, 9PM EDT.

---

can I suggest that quotes that are removed due to inaccessability (rather than from request from Giant, Vote for removal etc) be held in an 'no longer accessable' section.

Theoritically the onlt reason they were referenced initally is because they were accessable and so storing them somewhere has merit I would think.

We can certainly discuss it....You would need to rally enough support to get Rule A modified with an exemption for already-Indexed quotes, of course, but that would be the purpose of the discussion.

• Only votes called for by the curator are binding.

I find it mildly amusing that we can't Star Wars you and call for a vote of no confidence, under this guideline.

Only now, at the end, do you understand....That guideline will be stricken if the vote passes, so this could indeed be its end.

[Gwynfrid]

Yes. .

[Zherog]

Yes. .

Yeah, what he said...

[Joerg]

Yes. Though there is now some redundancy between rules F and H, and once it's the "index-keeper", once the "curator". But I think that's just cosmetic, the rules are clear.

[Peelee]

Though there is now some redundancy between rules F and H, and once it's the "index-keeper", once the "curator". But I think that's just cosmetic, the rules are clear.

Should we rename "curator" to "quote-master?" That way, the index-keeper and the quote-master could usher in the age of Forum-Gozer.

[TheWombatOfDoom]

Should we rename "curator" to "quote-master?" That way, the index-keeper and the quote-master could usher in the age of Forum-Gozer.

QA - Quote Administrator, which doubles for Quality Assurance.

[Jasdoif]

Should we rename "curator" to "quote-master?" That way, the index-keeper and the quote-master could usher in the age of Forum-Gozer.

I'm not into crossing the streams, on account of not swimming.

[Jasdoif]

Well that was straightforward enough....

• The rule revision passed; 9 for, 0 against.

The Index rules have been updated.

---

Yes. Though there is now some redundancy between rules F and H, and once it's the "index-keeper", once the "curator". But I think that's just cosmetic, the rules are clear.

Well, Rule F has been there for quite some time (the "curator" thing hadn't really taken off outside the Class and Level Geekery threads yet, if I recall)...and as for redundancy, I rechecked with the Department of Redundancy Department and Rule E does not apply to rules (and I really didn't want to start labelling things "informative, not normative"...).

I suppose revising Rule F is an option...but as you noted it's probably not worth the effort it'd take to get it done.

[137beth]

So, should the quote that was unexpectedly removed under the old rule be readded, or do we need another vote for that?

[dancrilis]

... can I suggest that quotes that are removed due to inaccessability (rather than from request from Giant, Vote for removal etc) be held in an 'no longer accessable' section.

Theoritically the only reason they were referenced initally is because they were accessable and so storing them somewhere has merit I would think.

We can certainly discuss it....You would need to rally enough support to get Rule A modified with an exemption for already-Indexed quotes, of course, but that would be the purpose of the discussion.

So now that the vote has passed I will raise this again to see if anyone agrees with the above proposal.

So, should the quote that was unexpectedly removed under the old rule be readded, or do we need another vote for that?

I would say a second vote would be needed - retroactively applying new rules seems like it could be cumbersome ... should all other decisions (if any have ever occured) also be reviewed in light of the new rules (and while I would have been in favour of keeping it had I voted others may not have voted as they felt they had won without having to post).

[Jasdoif]

So, should the quote that was unexpectedly removed under the old rule be readded, or do we need another vote for that?

It was removed. It's removed.

That said, the change in removal procedure (such as "having a removal procedure") would justify bringing removed entries back into discussion for re-inclusion normally, if anyone wants to go that route.


In fact, here, have a (not necessarily complete) list of entries that were removed without replacement:

Removed Entries
Crystal is a Flesh Golem	#972	01/13/2015
Vampire Durkon Can Cast Spells A cleric doesn't have to worship a deity to cast spells.	#883	04/09/2013
Durkon Throws Diamond Dust Durkon threw diamond dust into the air in 844.	#844	03/09/2012
Orrin Draketooth's Daughter She's not Haley.	#816	11/21/2011
Haley's Boots of Speed Yes, she did get them dyed to match her brown/tan garb.	#793	05/29/2011

[SaintRidley]

Because of the historical record of how Rich answers fan speculations like these, and because of their insight into the forum's understanding of the comic at the time the quotes occurred (and the insight into which kinds of speculation or confusion causes Rich to step in with definitive statements), I'll be the first (and probably only) to suggest re-integration of all of them.

[Keltest]

I see no particular reason to re-include any of them. One of them was only just voted out, and the others are all just the Giant clarifying someone's misreading of the comic/D&D rules.

[137beth]

Because of the historical record of how Rich answers fan speculations like these, and because of their insight into the forum's understanding of the comic at the time the quotes occurred (and the insight into which kinds of speculation or confusion causes Rich to step in with definitive statements), I'll be the first (and probably only) to suggest re-integration of all of them.

I second SaintRidley's proposal(s). You are not the only one.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I see no particular reason to re-include any of them. One of them was only just voted out, and the others are all just the Giant clarifying someone's misreading of the comic/D&D rules.

I agree.

GW

[Peelee]

I see no particular reason to re-include any of them..

I agree.

GW

I, too, am in this camp.

[Gwynfrid]

I, too, am in this camp.

+1.

All these quotes were removed due to redundancy with in-comic information. They're just as redundant as they were when voted upon. They might add something to the type of purpose SaintRidley mentioned (such as insight on how the Giant historically responded to the forum), but they add nothing to the stated purpose of the Index.

[SaintRidley]

I understand that reason for removal. I simply disagree with it as a reason for removal.

[Zherog]

Since the current discussion is whether or not to mass-reinclude deleted quotes... I'm against that idea. They were removed for a reason, even if at the time they followed different removal procedures than what is in place now.

If somebody wanted to talk about a specific quote and give specific reasons why it should be re-added, I would be more open to listening to arguments.

[Jasdoif]

If somebody wanted to talk about a specific quote and give specific reasons why it should be re-added, I would be more open to listening to arguments.

Agreed. The list was a "hey, who if anyone thinks we should include any of these again?"...which of course involves discussing each quote on its own merits.

I don't think anyone's actually said "we should include these just because they were included before," though. But at the same time, while I understand that SaintRidley's criteria (criterium? criterion?) appears to be "the Giant said something about the comic or its development process", in the absence of a successful push to make the rules conform solely to that view it doesn't rise the level of being the quote's own merits.

[dancrilis]

Of those removes I would say there is most reason to return this one:

Isn't a diamond needed for Resurrection? Or a I missing/forgetting something? (The latter being quite possible.)

The stuff Durkon is throwing in the air in Panel #6 is diamond dust.

My rational is that this shows why the diamond dust was purchased.
Normally Resurrection requires 'A sprinkle of holy water and diamonds worth a total of at least 10,000 gp' where diamond dust is used for Stoneskin, Restoration or Nondetection (from SRD).

As such knowing what happened to some of the dust and how diamonds are not needed for resurrection means that if needed Vaarsuvius may have sufficent spell ingredients for the other spells (from the Wizard list - (40 casting of stoneskin would raise Durkon for example).
Alternatively if they need to avoid detection Vaarsuvius may now be out of dust after pooling it to try to raise the Draketooth.

[Peelee]

Of those removes I would say there is most reason to return this one:


My rational is that this shows why the diamond dust was purchased.
Normally Resurrection requires 'A sprinkle of holy water and diamonds worth a total of at least 10,000 gp' where diamond dust is used for Stoneskin, Restoration or Nondetection (from SRD).

As such knowing what happened to some of the dust and how diamonds are not needed for resurrection means that if needed Vaarsuvius may have sufficent spell ingredients for the other spells (from the Wizard list - (40 casting of stoneskin would raise Durkon for example).
Alternatively if they need to avoid detection Vaarsuvius may now be out of dust after pooling it to try to raise the Draketooth.

I was about to agree to all this, but had a nagging thought in the back of my mind, and upon research, confirmed it.

Showing why the diamond dust was purchased, as well as confirming it to be a valid material requirement for casting Resurrection, is confirmed in-comic in literally the first word bubble of the first panel of the very next strip.

[Gwynfrid]

I understand that reason for removal. I simply disagree with it as a reason for removal.

Sure, I get that. It's just that you unfortunately have been in the minority regarding the purpose and rules of the Index. I'm afraid I can't think of a way to reconcile your goals with the majority's, sorry.

[5a Violista]

Rereading each of those five, these are my current impressions on them:
Crystal is a Flesh Golem: The quote is literally "It's not a revenant. It's a flesh golem. Give it up already." It was in response to someone claiming Crystal was a revenant in Comic 972, where Haley says, "I thinks she's some weird new kind of flesh golem" after Crystal is shown to not be affected by holy water. Multiple comics then later outright state she's a golem/flesh golem/"Crystal" golem/made by a known golem-maker. That quote adds nothing that can't be proven multiple times (in more detail, even!) by linking to several strips between #972 and #980. I feel there's no reason to add it back in.
Vampire Durkon can Cast Spells: In comic #883, The Giant links to RAW which says that vampire clerics do not lose their ability to cast spells, and it was in response to someone claiming that "The author has [taken] artistic license [...] too far." I like the part where The Giant says "The only thing worse than the usual irrelevant rules pedantry is incorrect irrelevant rules pedantry" but, to be honest, this quote really doesn't have to do with the comic. It just really is correcting a false pedant who was claiming The Giant was a bad writer. Readers who care about the rules can be linked to the rules directly; readers who don't care about the rules won't care about the rules. I feel there's little reason to add it back in.
Durkon Throws Diamond Dust: Comic #844, all The Giant says is "The stuff Durkon is throwing in the air in Panel #6 is diamond dust" in response to "Isn't a diamond needed for Resurrection?" The next comic strip (first panel) pretty clearly answers that. I don't think there's a reason for it to be added back in.
Orrin Draketooth's Daughter: Comic #816. Later comics definitely answer this (because the Draketeeth are all dead) and earlier comics also answer this (because Haley is definitely not fifteen years old). The only line in this quote I feel could be worth keeping record of is "In fact, I put the line about it being 15 years in specifically to avoid people speculating that it was Haley." I don't know what question this would answer, so it may not be important enough to put back in.
Haley's Boots of Speed: The Giant confirms that the dyed boots were, in fact, the Boots of Speed. "I thought that was pretty obvious" is how he said it; I thought it was pretty obvious, too, because Haley tells them to dye the lime green boots, and the only lime green boots in the comics are the Lime Green Boots of Speed. Later comics (when Haley uses them) confirms this. I can see the lines "What I can't figure out is why it matters enough to start a thread over." and "Just to make sure no one else thinks its a good idea to start a thread just to get me to answer, thread locked." as worth keeping. It answers the question "Does Rich think threads should be made to ask him questions that are already answered in the comic?" I wasn't around when this question was removed so I don't know why it was removed (or added in in the first place).

So, those are my opinions of each of the removed quotes, and whether they should be added back in. Except for possibly the last two, I don't think they should.

[Peelee]

That was an excellent analysis. Thank you!

[Ron Miel]

Agreed. Well said.

[5a Violista]

Sure, I get that. It's just that you unfortunately have been in the minority regarding the purpose and rules of the Index. I'm afraid I can't think of a way to reconcile your goals with the majority's, sorry.

Just thought of something that may not make everyone happy but it could be a useful compromise:
We could add a line or so to the first post saying something along the lines of "Rich has a history of directly answering the readers' questions and misunderstandings as they come up, even when the comic itself answers those questions shortly afterward." (Unless we already have this line there somewhere; I looked but couldn't find it.)

[Kalmegil]

I'd lie to point out that those comics were not removed "under the old rules." They were removed under an ad hoc procedure that was always controversial and never the subject of consensus. Also, at least one was removed with less than a majority.

[martianmister]

I agree with Greywolf, removed quotes should stay removed.

[Keltest]

You know, I could have sworn that we had a quote in the index about how Hel and the Dwarven Honor system work, and why characters who don't believe in dishonor the way Dwarves do aren't affected by it. Does anyone know where that got to?