The Index of the Giant's Comments VI―Making Dogma from Zapped Bananas

[Schroeswald]

On Q11... isn't "As far as influencing the other animals, you have it backwards: Mr. Scruffy came first. I had his role planned out before Shojo was even killed." worthy of note?

I agree, I think its a pretty interesting part of the quote.

[Jasdoif]

On Q11... isn't "As far as influencing the other animals, you have it backwards: Mr. Scruffy came first. I had his role planned out before Shojo was even killed." worthy of note?

I didn't think it was noteworthy...but I don't see much reason not to mention it, either, so okay.

---

Tentative Updates for Index 6.4
🍌Malack's "'Snakey' Lower Half" Was Not Intentionally a Secret(#7) "The thing is, there is a slightly different type of 'snake person' in D&D that's one of those monsters that has been trademarked, so it was better to gloss over that detail in dialogue."	#1201	2020/04/30	Tenative, appears will be included without vote.
🍌On Greyview's Personality(#11) The main idea was to give the Monster in the Darkness a counterpoint to everything O-Chul told him, to show that he had internalized the lessons and wasn't going to backslide.	#1201	2020/04/30	Tenative, appears will be included without vote.
🍌On the Expansion of Blackwing's Role(#10) "Blackwing provided someone who would already know everything that had happened and could serve as V's confidant...And second, I felt like the moment when Blackwing popped into existence to carry Xykon's phylactery was the pinnacle of that particular running joke." Also, Mr. Scruffy's role was "planned out before Shojo was even killed."	#1201	2020/04/30	Tenative, appears will be included without vote.
🍌On the Greenhilt Sword(#3) It was magical in the beginning, despite the Shatter. The legacy powers "did not exist until recently".	#1201	2020/04/30	Tenative, appears will be included without vote.
🍌The "Official" Elan Song Tune(#4) "I think of it as being similar to Row, Row, Row Your Boat, except with four rows and an extra repeat at the end, like: Row, row, row, row your boat, your boat-boat."	#1201	2020/04/30	Tenative, appears will be included without vote.
🍌The "Shadowy Sea Monster" in the Don't Split the Party Bonus Strips was the Ancient Black Dragon(#1) "...I wrote that sequence while the story was in progress and then cut it. So it was intended as foreshadowing for events that hadn't happened yet at that time."	#1201	2020/04/30	Tenative, appears will be included without vote.
🍌The End of House Kubota(#4) "...the house was probably disbanded and his remaining assets seized by Hinjo to be used setting up the town seen in the first story of Good Deeds Gone Unpunished."	#1201	2020/04/30	Tenative, appears will be included without vote.
🍌The Giant Has a Sounding Board(#5)	#1201	2020/04/30	Tenative, appears will be included without vote.
🍍🍌The Giant on Future Projects(#10) "I 100% fully expect to continue writing after OOTS is finished....What form that writing takes is still uncertain." See also here(#2): "I have definitely considered science fiction, yes....I have zero interest in horror, however."	#1193	2020/03/01	Tenative, appears will be eligible for vote.

---

And while the most recent posts haven't changed any dispositions, we are across a page boundary....

Spoiler: Summary

Show

#	Question	In Favor	Against	Disposition	Voters
1	"What was the giant shadowy sea monster that scared off the giant crab during the underwater section in the bonus pages of dont split the party?" (The ancient black dragon.)	5	1	Include	In Favor: Schroeswald, Gwynfrid, Fyraltari, littlebum2002, 137ben Against: Jaxzan Proditor
2	"Outside of fantasy, which is clearly a genre you have a lot of experience and input on, are there other genres of fiction you have considered exploring? Have you ever considered writing something in the realm of sci-fi or horror?" (Sci-fi. Not horror.)	4	5	Vote-able	In Favor: Fyraltari, Ron Miel, SaintRidley, 137ben Against: Schroeswald, Gwynfrid, Jaxzan Proditor, Joerg, littlebum2002
3	"What's the deal with the Greenhilt sword? I mean, was it magic when the adventure starts? I'd venture that yes, since Roy's grandpa, being a high level warrior, probably wouldn't have gone so far with a normal sword. But then, it was broken by the spell Shatter, which can't break magic objects. But, then again, it is possible you brewed a houserule, so I don't know. Then it got improved by the starmetal sidequest, ok, but this legacy stuff: since when is that a thing? Was it within the whole time or was it something (or even the colective of things) Roy did?" (Magical earlier, legacy now.)	6	0	Include	In Favor: Gwynfrid, Jaxzan Proditor, Joerg, Fyraltari, littlebum2002, 137ben Against:
4	"After Daiymo Kubota met his elfen end, was his House absorbed by the rest of the Azurite nobles, or did they find an heir that was more loyal to Lord Hinjo?" (Nationalized.)	6	0	Include	In Favor: Gwynfrid, Jaxzan Proditor, Joerg, Fyraltari, littlebum2002, 137ben Against:
5	"Do you have anyone who you go over the story with, or show your comic to before posting to get feedback on plot development, characters staying in character, or even basic proofreading?" (Married to her.)	7	0	Include	In Favor: Schroeswald, Gwynfrid, Jaxzan Proditor, Joerg, Fyraltari, littlebum2002, 137ben Against:
6	"Is there an official tune I can sing, sing, sing, Elan's songs too?" (Sort of a mutant row row row your boat.)	6	0	Include	In Favor: Gwynfrid, Jaxzan Proditor, Joerg, Fyraltari, littlebum2002, 137ben Against:
7	"I assume the reason Malack's "snakey" lower half was kept a secret to the reader was for the sake of the battle with Durkon, but is there an in-universe reason why he would hide it? Or was it not even meant to be a secret?" (Sidestepping yuan-ti.)	6	1	Include	In Favor: Gwynfrid, Jaxzan Proditor, Fyraltari, ti'esar, littlebum2002, 137ben Against: Schroeswald
8	"How are you doing with the whole COVID thing? I hope you're well and keeping safe and healthy. The same goes for all the other OOTS fans too." (Quite well for now.)	0	8	Exclude	In Favor: Against: Schroeswald, Gwynfrid, Jaxzan Proditor, Joerg, Fyraltari, SaintRidley, littlebum2002, 137ben
9	"Snips, Snails and Dragon Tales has been out of stock at Ookoodook for a while now, any ETA on the pdf version?" (Probably May.)	1	5	Exclude	In Favor: Schroeswald Against: Joerg, Fyraltari, Ron Miel, littlebum2002, 137ben
10	"What drove you to make Blackwing a deeper and more relevant character as the comic went on? Was that growth planned ahead of time? If not, did that change lead to a different philosophy or larger role for other animals (ie Mr. Scruffy, Bloodfeast) in the Order?" (Dialog sounding board for Vaarsuvius, after hitting peak comedy on the forgotten familiar shtick.)	7	0	Include	In Favor: Schroeswald, Gwynfrid, Jaxzan Proditor, Joerg, Fyraltari, littlebum2002, 137ben Against:
11	"How did you get the idea to have Greyview be the way he is? The grimdark outlook Russian accent just slays me and he's endlessly quotable." (To serve as a foil for MitD by being the opposite of O-Chul.)	7	0	Include	In Favor: Schroeswald, Gwynfrid, Jaxzan Proditor, Joerg, Fyraltari, littlebum2002, 137ben Against:

Spoiler: By Individual

Show

Voter	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11
Schroeswald
Gwynfrid
Jaxzan Proditor
Joerg
Fyraltari
ti'esar
Ron Miel
SaintRidley
littlebum2002
137ben

Still taking comments on titles/descriptions/etc., and generally about whether those questions from the Patreon post should be included; as well as whether or not the entry about the comic titles should be (voted on to be) removed....

[Yendor]

Yes on 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, and 11; No on 8 and 9; remove the entry about comic titles.

P.S. The note on the Elan song should be #6, not #4.

[Jasdoif]

The note on the Elan song should be #6, not #4.

So noted.

....And I guess we're not going to get anything further, so!

---

UPDATE COMING, CALLING FOR PMs TO REQUIRE VOTES

Anyone thinking the entry marked "Accepting PMs to require vote" should not be included in the Index should send me a private message, saying the entry should require a vote. (The default is to include, an item not voted on will be included in the Index.) If I get PMs from two or more people about the particular entry, it will be voted on to decide inclusion; the vote will be the next stage, and I'll announce it when the vote is ready.

The other additions below reached strong consensus already. A vote is considered unnecessary in that case; they will be included. Similarly, a removal always requires a vote; no PMs are necessary there.

Proposed Additions for Index 6.4
🍌Malack's "'Snakey' Lower Half" Was Not Intentionally a Secret(#7) "The thing is, there is a slightly different type of 'snake person' in D&D that's one of those monsters that has been trademarked, so it was better to gloss over that detail in dialogue."	#1201	2020/04/30	No vote required, will be included.
🍌On Greyview's Personality(#11) The main idea was to give the Monster in the Darkness a counterpoint to everything O-Chul told him, to show that he had internalized the lessons and wasn't going to backslide.	#1201	2020/04/30	No vote required, will be included.
🍌On the Expansion of Blackwing's Role(#10) "Blackwing provided someone who would already know everything that had happened and could serve as V's confidant...And second, I felt like the moment when Blackwing popped into existence to carry Xykon's phylactery was the pinnacle of that particular running joke." Also, Mr. Scruffy's role was "planned out before Shojo was even killed."	#1201	2020/04/30	No vote required, will be included.
🍌On the Greenhilt Sword(#3) It was magical in the beginning, despite the Shatter. The legacy powers "did not exist until recently".	#1201	2020/04/30	No vote required, will be included.
🍌The "Official" Elan Song Tune(#6) "I think of it as being similar to Row, Row, Row Your Boat, except with four rows and an extra repeat at the end, like: Row, row, row, row your boat, your boat-boat."	#1201	2020/04/30	No vote required, will be included.
🍌The "Shadowy Sea Monster" in the Don't Split the Party Bonus Strips was the Ancient Black Dragon(#1) "...I wrote that sequence while the story was in progress and then cut it. So it was intended as foreshadowing for events that hadn't happened yet at that time."	#1201	2020/04/30	No vote required, will be included.
🍌The End of House Kubota(#4) "...the house was probably disbanded and his remaining assets seized by Hinjo to be used setting up the town seen in the first story of Good Deeds Gone Unpunished."	#1201	2020/04/30	No vote required, will be included.
🍌The Giant Has a Sounding Board(#5)	#1201	2020/04/30	No vote required, will be included.

Proposed Alterations for Index 6.4
The Giant on Future Projects(#10) "I 100% fully expect to continue writing after OOTS is finished....What form that writing takes is still uncertain."	->	🍍🍌The Giant on Future Projects(#10) "I 100% fully expect to continue writing after OOTS is finished....What form that writing takes is still uncertain." See also here(#2): "I have definitely considered science fiction, yes....I have zero interest in horror, however."	#1193	2020/03/01	Accepting PMs to require vote. Will be included.

Proposed Removals for Index 6.4
Why the Strip Titles Weren't On the Strip Pages The titles are "bonus" jokes; The Giant prefers not to put them above the strip itself. (As of the 2020 server migration, the strip titles are visible below the strips)	#759	2010/11/20	Removals are always voted on.

PMs will be accepted until May 8th, 9PM EDT. I'll try to update the table if/when entries get sufficient PMs.

To send me a PM, click my username (The vaguely-pronounceable(?)-looking word above the spellcasting-and-invocation-using banana with purple hair) and select "Private Message". Or I guess you could click here. Anyway, include the title of the entry you're nominating in the message. Mentioning something about "Index Nomination" in the subject line would be helpful.

A few final reminders:

• Don't post suggestions to require votes. They're sent by PM to avoid filling up the thread with them, posts will not be counted.
• Only PM for entries you think should be excluded. They'll be included if they don't receive sufficient nominations.
• We're not voting on the entries yet. The voting will be the next stage; I'll call for the vote at an appropriate time.
• We still have a banana in charge. Hi. (I neither confirm nor deny a zapped status.)

Further discussion of entries is encouraged at this point. In particular, recommendations for different titles and descriptions for the quote entries are things I'd be happy to consider.

[Jasdoif]

Well, no vote on the updated entry certainly makes this easier....

---

Item up for voting:

• The removal of Why the Strip Titles Weren't On the Strip Pages, on the basis of that being insufficiently relevant compared to the original-and-now-misleading "Why the Strip Titles Aren't Above the Strip" title.

---

• Please bold your keep/remove votes, it'll make it easier for me to notice when I go through and count everything.
• If you feel inclined to vote with "yes" or "no", please describe your position so I can tell the difference between "yes, keep it" or "yes, remove it".
• Per Rule H1, removal by vote requires a quote to have two more votes in favor of removal than votes against removal.

Voting will be open until May 11th, 8PM EDT.

---

The additions/update will be implemented after the vote is concluded.

[Ron Miel]

Vote for removal

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I‘m voting to keep the quote, barring some superseding quote by the Giant. I don’t think that it is redundant without any such quote and I don’t think it’s necessarily outdated material, since the fact that the Giant thinks of the strips as bonus could still be true.

[Joerg]

I'm voting to keep it because I still consider the information that the titles are bonus jokes relevant.

[Gwynfrid]

Voting to remove.

[Ortho]

Voting to keep.

I'm not convinced the quote is redundant, or even superseded. The reason the strip titles weren't shown previously isn't the reason that they're shown now.

So I think the quote's still relevant.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Remove

GW

[Throknor]

I'm voting to keep it because I still consider the information that the titles are bonus jokes relevant.

Ditto.

Keep.

[hroþila]

Remove. I don't see how "they're bonus jokes" isn't self-evident as things stand now - that had a different meaning when they weren't visible and it was easy to miss them altogether.

[littlebum2002]

Remove. It's obsolete.

[Schroeswald]

I've been watching this discussion the whole time without weighing in and I've finally been convinced that Remove is the best option.

[Doug Lampert]

Remove

Added characters to build character.

[Jasdoif]

• The entry for Why the Strip Titles Weren't On the Strip Pages failed to remain included (4 for keeping, 7 for removing); it will be removed.
  
  • Keep Votes: Jaxzan Proditor, Joerg, mjp1050, Throknor
  • Remove Votes: Ron Miel, Gwynfrid, Grey_Wolf_c, hroþila, littlebum2002, Schroeswald, Doug Lampert

The Index has been updated.

---

I'm aware the rules disagree with me. Or rather, I disagree with the rules and would remove that rule in a heartbeat if I could have it my way.

What would you recommend for Rule D instead? Ideally without going too far in the other direction and ending up at "in the case of concurrent conflicting entries on the same subject, cite whichever one supports your position and ignore the others; prolonging pointless 'debates'"; the prevention of which is the intent of the rule (or at least, the most legitimate effect of it that I can see).

[Ortho]

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)

(Posted for reference)

What would you recommend for Rule D instead? Ideally without going too far in the other direction and ending up at "in the case of concurrent conflicting entries on the same subject, cite whichever one supports your position and ignore the others; prolonging pointless 'debates'"; the prevention of which is the intent of the rule (or at least, the most legitimate effect of it that I can see).

Personally, I actually do use this thread as a complete collection for leisurely reading, just because I find behind-the-scenes stuff fascinating. I prefer touring the farm over eating the hamburger (if there's a better metaphor, I don't know it). I'm here because I enjoy this thread's entertainment value as a trivia collection. So if you were to ask me, I'd be in favor of striking Rule D entirely.

Now, I realize that's never going to happen for a wide variety of reasons, but I think a deletion log of some sort would be nice to have. The old, obsolete quotes would still accessible to us rulebreakers, but at the same time, it's still clear that the quotes are no longer relevant.

---

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)

...

(reference to rescinded rule removed on 12/16/2014)

Completely tangential to the topic at hand, but why is this still in the rules? We're six years and three threads away from this change; do we really need to keep notifying people of it?

[Jasdoif]

....I think a deletion log of some sort would be nice to have. The old, obsolete quotes would still accessible to us rulebreakers, but at the same time, it's still clear that the quotes are no longer relevant.

Sounds almost like you want the Index to retain "removed" entries, violating the trust of anyone who rightfully believes a vote for removal from the Index could cause a removal from the Index

Spoiler: Now, if you just want a list....

Show

(Known) Removed Entries
"How the Paladin Got His Scar" Will Probably Get a Full Book Release of Some Sort And is almost as long as "On the Origins of PCs".	#1041	2016/06/29
About Roy Fighting HPoH ( ) at the Godsmoot It's the beginning of the arc, not the climax of it.	#1016	2015/12/19
eBooks PDFs of Dungeon Crawlin' Fools and On the Origin of PCs are now available. It's not yet certain when/if other books will receive the same treatment.	#999	2015/08/27
Crystal is a Flesh Golem	#972	2015/01/13
Hel Has No Living Worshippers "That means literally not one single living person, ever." We'll find out why someday.	#962	2014/09/11
Vampire Durkon Can Cast Spells A cleric doesn't have to worship a deity to cast spells.	#883	2013/04/09
The Kickstarter Cameo It hasn't happened yet. "When it happens, I will almost certainly mention it in the News."	#869	2013/02/14
Durkon Throws Diamond Dust Durkon threw diamond dust into the air in 844.	#844	2012/03/09
Orrin Draketooth's Daughter She's not Haley.	#816	2011/11/21
Haley's Boots of Speed Yes, she did get them dyed to match her brown/tan garb.	#793	2011/05/29
eBooks Digital PDFs are currently not in the works, as the Giant prefers to sell physical books. He has said he'll "consider it when (he's) finished all the Kickstarter stories," however.	#786	2011/04/11
Why the Strip Titles Weren't On the Strip Pages The titles are "bonus" jokes; The Giant prefers not to put them above the strip itself. (As of the 2020 server migration, the strip titles are visible below the strips)	#759	2010/11/20

---

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)

...

(reference to rescinded rule removed on 12/16/2014)

Completely tangential to the topic at hand, but why is this still in the rules? We're six years and three threads away from this change; do we really need to keep notifying people of it?

Because I don't want to change the lettering of the rules, nor explain a gap in the lettering of the rules.

[Ortho]

Sounds almost like you want the Index to retain "removed" entries, violating the trust of anyone who rightfully believes a vote for removal from the Index could cause a removal from the Index

Well, when you phrase it like that...it is kind of a silly proposal, isn't it?
Thank you for the list; that's exactly what I was looking for.

Because I don't want to change the lettering of the rules, nor explain a gap in the lettering of the rules.

Eh, that's fair.

[Ron Miel]

I don't understand why rule C was removed in the first place. It seems like a good rule to have. Proposal to re-insert it. Any seconders?

[Jasdoif]

I don't understand why rule C was removed in the first place.

General worthlessness as a "rule"; the lack of an objective standard means it didn't result in anything constructive since we already have update cycle procedures to handle subjective standards. Also because the vote to move it out of the rules (and the rules spoiler) and into a statement of intent (above the rules spoiler) passed 10-1.

[Gwynfrid]

I don't understand why rule C was removed in the first place. It seems like a good rule to have. Proposal to re-insert it. Any seconders?

The removal was the outcome of a pretty heated debate about the purpose of the Index, prompted by a quote that some felt should have been excluded by rule C, while others disagreed with the existence of rule C. The rule wasn't worded in such a way it could be normative. Removing the rule was a clarification: We got rid of interpretative debates, and I think this improved the thread.

[Throknor]

I don't understand why rule C was removed in the first place. It seems like a good rule to have. Proposal to re-insert it. Any seconders?

Sure. If I can propose putting up every quote that's ever been voted out for new votes as well.

[Peelee]

Sure. If I can propose putting up every quote that's ever been voted out for new votes as well.

What changed with those quotes that a new vote should be considered?

[Jasdoif]

If I can propose putting up every quote that's ever been voted out for new votes as well.

You can certainly propose older quotes to be included; I don't feel previously-included quotes are special in that regard. (The one that was recently removed still has the well-established consensus against its inclusion, of course.)

It'd be more moving if you had reasons to include the quotes on their own merits, however; same as it would be any other additions.

[Throknor]

You can certainly propose older quotes to be included; I don't feel previously-included quotes are special in that regard. (The one that was recently removed still has the well-established consensus against its inclusion, of course.)

It'd be more moving if you had reasons to include the quotes on their own merits, however; same as it would be any other additions.

Well, I could list every single one in separate posts with just "it seems a good quote to have". But instead I'll apologize for not making my sarcasm plainer. Revoting decided matters when nothing has changed other than the passage of time is the worst kind of thread clutter. Rule C specifically led to many contentious arguments; things have been much calmer without it.

[Kish]

What changed with those quotes that a new vote should be considered?

Rich was explicitly quoted repeatedly by multiple people, me among them, as having said that anything he said on the message board was fair game, that he had only objected to someone submitting a quote from his Twitter account that had nothing to do with OotS for inclusion. And the "Rich said he hates this thread, let's include as little as possible!" people finally, eventually, stopped being quite so overt about that being their reasoning.

[Jasdoif]

Rich was explicitly quoted repeatedly by multiple people, me among them, as having said that anything he said on the message board was fair game, that he had only objected to someone submitting a quote from his Twitter account that had nothing to do with OotS for inclusion.

It was a forum post about Avatar (the animated series), actually.

Let me pull the relevant posts out of the earlier Index thread, in case anyone here didn't see any of the exchange when it happened around seven years ago....

For the last ten years, the dependence of the very first OOTS strip on knowledge of D&D 3.5 has been a barrier to new readers.

OK, I think I’m going to have to chime in here.

I am fully in support of this project to document stuff I’ve said about OOTS so that people can stop arguing about it, but there has to be a line drawn. And I think that line is when I’m talking about other topics on other parts of this message board. Because otherwise, it’s like following me around with a tape recorder and everything I say about any topic becomes “on the record.” And that’s just creepy.

When I responded to that thread, I did so because I wanted to talk about that subject, not OOTS. But even as I did, a voice in the back of my head said, “They’ll probably link this for some reason in the index.” And here we are. Which means that ultimately, I can’t hold a casual conversation on the message board that I own—I can only make pronouncements that will be relinked and analyzed by the whole community. The end result of that will be me not talking about anything, because that makes me uncomfortable. So if your interest is in reading my thoughts on the creative process, linking them here is a surefire way to guarantee I never share such thoughts again.

If you want to follow everything I say about every topic because you like to read every word I write, I would ask that you do so under your own initiative. Please don’t just link here to every post I make. If it’s not about OOTS and/or it’s not in the OOTS board, I'd ask that it not be in the index.

To be clear, if I post it in the OOTS forum, I am fine with it being indexed, regardless of how tangental the topic is. Whether or not it should be indexed is up to you, but you won't bother me by doing so.

What is NOT fair game is anything you say anywhere else in the world. The friendly banter forum, the role playing forum, your twitter feed.

If I make explicit comments about the characters or plot or whatever of OOTS, then that would be OK. I can't imagine a situation where I would do that except maybe for the Twitter feed, but it would theoretically be OK.

[Peelee]

Rich was explicitly quoted repeatedly by multiple people, me among them, as having said that anything he said on the message board was fair game, that he had only objected to someone submitting a quote from his Twitter account that had nothing to do with OotS for inclusion. And the "Rich said he hates this thread, let's include as little as possible!" people finally, eventually, stopped being quite so overt about that being their reasoning.

Given that that was said when ThePhantasm was running the first iteration, then despite being a rebuttal to the "Rich said he hates this thread, let's include as little as possible!" people, I fail to see how it answers the question of "what changed".