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

[Precure]

I agree with Ron. That's the most interesting part, as the strip already confirmed the rest.

[Ruck]

Hmm....

Works well enough for me.

[Kish]

Same here.

[Jasdoif]

The fact that the snacks are officially one of the former worlds is clearly stated in the strip itself, and doesn't really need the Giant to confirm it. Barely worth including.

I suppose if you disregard 301, its standalone nature, and the comic's tendency to have non-serious self-referencial panels; you might not find anything worth including there. Feels like taking a wrong turn to me, though.

In any case, there hasn't been much movement on this point and I haven't come up with (or received) any good suggestions for adding the "I didn't think of it as a previous world at the time, even though I had thought about there being previous worlds at the time" into the description....And since the descriptions are at my discretion I can simply update it if either of those points change, so delaying the update solely on account of this is kind of silly.

---

Spoiler: Summary

Show

#	Question	In Favor	Against	Disposition	Posters
1	"I've noticed that when someone asks you about your favorite thing you tend to pick something from Good Deeds Gone Unpunished. Is that your favorite story you've written overall?" (Yes.)	11	0	Include	In Favor: Fyraltari, Kish, Sir_Norbert, Precure, Satohika, mjp1050, Gwynfrid, Throknor, Ron Miel, ti'esar, Ruck Against:
2	"You said that the Twelve Gods are functionally all true neutral, as their worshippers' alignments average out to true neutral. Does this mean that alignment is roughly evenly distributed in OotS-verse? Are most people true neutral and the other alignments are comparatively uncommon? Or (for example) are most people good and there's a few Xykon-sized outliers bringing down the average?" (Mostly True Neutral.)	13	0	Include	In Favor: Fyraltari, Kish, b_jonas, Sir_Norbert, Metastachydium, Precure, Satohika, mjp1050, Gwynfrid, Throknor, Ron Miel, ti'esar, Ruck Against:
3	"What was the purpose of including Tinkertown? Nothing that happened there had anything to do with the gnomes and could have been in Cliffport instead." (Sidestepping Cliffport plot threads. With gnomes.)	11	1	Include	In Favor: Fyraltari, Kish, Sir_Norbert, Metastachydium, Precure, mjp1050, Gwynfrid, Throknor, Ron Miel, ti'esar, Ruck Against: Satohika
4	"Did Thor basically confirm that the movie theater intermission strip is canon?" (Yes!)	11	1	Include	In Favor: Fyraltari, Kish, Sir_Norbert, Metastachydium, Precure, mjp1050, Gwynfrid, Throknor, Ron Miel, ti'esar, Ruck Against: Satohika
5	"Was the purpose of the scene with Xykon not being able to taste coffee [that occurs in Start of Darkness] to show that as the moment he became truly irredeemable?" (Not what I meant.)	12	0	Include	In Favor: Fyraltari, Kish, Sir_Norbert, Metastachydium, Precure, Satohika, mjp1050, Gwynfrid, Throknor, Ron Miel, ti'esar, Ruck Against:
6	"Who can break the Fourth Wall? I thought it was only the main heroes but then I realized that the demon roaches do it alot and so does Thor." (Anyone.)	9	3	Include	In Favor: Kish, Sir_Norbert, Precure, Gwynfrid, Throknor, Tzardok, Ron Miel, ti'esar, Ruck Against: Fyraltari, Satohika, mjp1050
7	"You have talked in the past about how Teleport and Resurrection make writing stories in a D&D setting difficult. Are there any other spells or character abilities that you find are constantly getting in your way?" (Yes.)	11	1	Include	In Favor: Fyraltari, Kish, Sir_Norbert, Metastachydium, Precure, mjp1050, Gwynfrid, Throknor, Ron Miel, ti'esar, Ruck Against: Satohika
8	"Do you like Denouements? I know that's an abrupt question and obvious lead in to something else, but some people I'm arguing with are saying one of your longest running subplots isn't having its ending foreshadowed and isn't going to have a denouement after the climax." (Yes.)	11	1	Include	In Favor: Fyraltari, Kish, Fve_Abeoreg, Metastachydium, Precure, mjp1050, Gwynfrid, Throknor, Ron Miel, ti'esar, Ruck Against: Satohika
10	"All six members of the order have evolved over time. Have any of them become easier or harder to write because of the ways they changed?" (Harder more often than easier.)	11	1	Include	In Favor: Fyraltari, Kish, Sir_Norbert, Metastachydium, Precure, mjp1050, Gwynfrid, Throknor, Ron Miel, ti'esar, Ruck Against: Satohika

Spoiler: Breakdown by Poster

Show

Poster	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	10
Fyraltari
Kish
b_jonas
Sir_Norbert
Metastachydium
Precure
Satohika
mjp1050
ti'esar
Gwynfrid
Throknor
Tzardok
Ron Miel
Ruck

---

Updates for Index 6.11
🍌On Breaking the Fourth Wall(#6) "Anyone in the comic could theoretically do it...."	#1277	2023/03/10	No vote required, will be included.
🍌On Denouements(#8) "So I guess the real question here is, is the subplot you're concerned about necessarily one that I think is important enough to deserve a denouement?"	#1277	2023/03/10	No vote required, will be included.
🍌On Xykon Losing His Ability to Taste Coffee(#5) "...the purpose of that scene was more to show Xykon losing touch with his humanity, specifically the way that his biological body may have actually been preventing him from becoming a true monster."	#1277	2023/03/10	No vote required, will be included.
🍍🍌The Giant's Favorite Book(#1) Good Deeds Gone Unpunished, for "the freedom to create all-new characters and write plots that only tangentially affected the main storyline of the comic". (Of main storyline books, Blood Runs in the Family, "the most recent one" at the time.)	#1277	2023/03/10	No vote required, will be included.
🍌The Movie Theater World Is Canon(#4) #301 and the panel in #1140 are "...something that happened on one of the other worlds before the current one."	#1277	2023/03/10	No vote required, will be included.
🍌The Purpose of Creating Tinkertown(#3) Instead of having to revisit plot threads tied to e.g. Cliffport, it "was better to have a fresh location"; and then the Giant "saw an opening to draw an adorable town of steampunk gnomes".	#1277	2023/03/10	No vote required, will be included.
🍌Writing Characters As They Have Evolved(#10) "Everyone except Durkon is harder, because....I often will write a punchline then stare at it and realize that the character can't say that anymore because they grew out of that mindset a while back." "With Durkon....Even just having Minrah there to serve as his cohort sort of automatically gives him something to do."	#1277	2023/03/10	No vote required, will be included.
🍍🍌D&D Rules that Harm the Story True Resurrection, and also Teleport. See also here(#7) ("At the power level that the heroes are at right now, there are a lot of 'invisible' spells that would often affect the outcome of a fight. Especially things like fire immunity or mind blank, where having it means being able to completely no-sell an enemy attack. It's become a bit awkward to constantly need to either show those spells being cast or have someone discuss how they have such-and-such a spell running....")	#980	2015/04/25	No vote required, will be included.
🍍🍌Who Else is Neutral A long list of Neutral characters in the comic. See also here and here(#2) ("...most normal mortal people are True Neutral...").	#903	2013/07/22	No vote required, will be included.

With nothing eligible to be voted on, there will be no vote; the Index has been updated.

---

Now....

When our founder ThePhantasm, long ago, proposed the Index update mechanism that's the basis of how it's done today; the Index threads were picking up pages of votes with each of the Giant's sproadic posts, making it difficult to keep up with the threads. The whole point of the system was to accumulate questions so they could be considered en masse to reduce needless overhead via centralization.

As the Giant is now using Patreon to accumulate questions en masse himself, the current system itself has needless overhead. Most notably: the "six quotes or two months" threshold is effectively meaningless since six or more quotes come in at once, and thus the use of private messages to confirm whether resistance still exists before calling a vote is wasted since there's neglible delay between the questions and the potential vote (as opposed to the prior two month delay).

At the same time, I like how the current arrangement allows bypassing a vote entirely if there's a clear consensus...and, while "like" would not be the word I'd choose for this, there are definitely people who only participate via voting; as much as I'd prefer greater involvement in the discussion, trying to coerce it by eliminating formal votes would be inappropriate regardless of how ineffective it would be.


So....

I'm thinking some changes are warranted.

• First off, no "six quote or two month" postponement period; with the Patreon posts being three years old, it's more confusing than anything else at this point...plus if a forum post does become relevant for indexing, it'll annoy me to have to keep track of it for two months.
  
  • Since a vote will necessarily be a refined quantification of the ongoing consensus (as opposed to a remeasuring after up to two months after the fact), posts in the discussion that are definitely votes will be counted as so people won't feel the need to "vote twice" or whatever the exact term is. Naturally I'll need to include a list of which posters/posts the vote is starting off with, and those posts can be supplanted by a new post if the poster does change their mind (as with any other scenario where that occurs).
• Cutting out the PM stage, since it serves no purpose; if the situation is questionable enough to call for a vote, a vote will simply be called.
  
  • Without the two-PM threshold, the two-vote margin for inclusion makes no/less sense; a simple majority (i.e. anything greater than 50/50) should be adequate.

To that end....

---

I am proposing to update Rule F4 to the following:

4) | If a comment's inclusion is uncertain, a vote requires a majority. If there is a tie the comment will not be included. Remember, the purpose of the discussions and votes are to reach some measure of consensus, not division.

Spoiler: For Reference, Current Rule F4

Show

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.

As well updating Rule H1 to the following:

1) | General Update Procedure

• For a quote to be queued for an update requires community support. Additions will only be voted on if discussion doesn't reveal a clear and strong consensus; removals are always voted on.
• If a vote is necessary for any additions, the curator will call for voting on those additions. At the curator's discretion, posts in the discussion that qualify as votes may be counted as votes; these posts will be noted when the vote is called for. Further 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 one vote) for 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 one vote) for the quote to be removed.

Spoiler: For Reference, Current Rule H1

Show

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 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 the quote to be removed.

Naturally any rule changes will themselves need to be voted on....What's everyone think?

[Tzardok]

I aggree with the changes.

[Kish]

I'm all for making it easier to include quotes, so yes.

[137beth]

Sounds like good changes to the process for making changes.

[Gwynfrid]

Very reasonable. The Giant’s current method for addressing questions makes the legacy voting procedure obsolete. This simplification is welcome.

[Metastachydium]

For what it's worth, I approve of the proposed changes. If the Giant endeavoured to make the Banana's life easier, there's no point in not reducing those superfluous administrative burdens.

[Joerg]

I'm very much in favor of these changes.

[Jasdoif]

It occurs to me that "queued" is probably not the best word to use, as we'd no longer have a queue in the typical sense; here's an updated draft for proposed rule H1 replacement:

1) | General Update Procedure

• Any update to the Index requires community support. Additions will only be voted on if discussion doesn't reveal a clear and strong consensus; removals are always voted on.
• If a vote is necessary for any additions, the curator will call for voting on those additions. At the curator's discretion, posts in the discussion that qualify as votes may be counted as votes; these posts will be noted when the vote is called for. Further 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 one vote) for the quote to be added.
• If any quote removals have community support, the curator will call for voting on those removals, separately from any voting for additions. Removal must "win" a majority (by at least one vote) for the quote to be removed.

---

I am, however, primarily posting to note that if anyone else has ideas on how voting, or any of the other thread rules, could be improved or should be formalized; this would be a good time for proposals.

[Jasdoif]

Well then.

---

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 entirety of Rule F4 will be replaced with the following:
    

    4) | If a comment's inclusion is uncertain, a vote requires a majority. If there is a tie the comment will not be included. Remember, the purpose of the discussions and votes are to reach some measure of consensus, not division.

  • The entirety of Rule H1 will be replaced with the following:
    

    1) | General Update Procedure

    • Any update to the Index requires community support. Additions will only be voted on if discussion doesn't reveal a clear and strong consensus; removals are always voted on.
    • If a vote is necessary for any additions, the curator will call for voting on those additions. At the curator's discretion, posts in the discussion that qualify as votes may be counted as votes; these posts will be noted when the vote is called for. Further 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 one vote) for the quote to be added.
    • If any quote removals have community support, the curator will call for voting on those removals, separately from any voting for additions. Removal must "win" a majority (by at least one vote) for the quote to be removed.

It is believed that these changes will drastically streamline the thread's voting process, without altering the end result in nearly all cases.

---

• 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 (the current) 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 April 2nd, 6PM PDT.

---

And this is me voting yes.

[Kish]

Yes.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I vote yes. This strikes me as a healthy modernization of the voting procedures

[Sir_Norbert]

The only responsible option is the most cautious one.

Sir_Norbert votes Yes.

[pearl jam]

I also vote yes.

[Throknor]

Yes is not ten characters long.

[Tzardok]

I vote Aye.

[Metastachydium]

Tear down the world the previous version of the rules! Murder everyone! Piss on their its graves!

Metastachydium, the Happy Little Blue Flower of Whirling Death for Humans votes YES.

[Precure]

Will we be able to re-introduce the previously outvoted quotes? If so, my vote is yes.

[Peelee]

Will we be able to previously outvoted quotes?

I think you might have there.

[Precure]

I think you might have there.

Mysterious vanishable lines

[Jasdoif]

Will we be able to re-introduce the previously outvoted quotes?

You will continue to be able to propose quotes that aren't in the Index, yes. (Being absent from the Index due being voted down/out is only a factor when the vote is so recent that it reasonably still reflects current consensus.)

[Joerg]

I vote yes.

[Gwynfrid]

Yes, my vote is.

[Jasdoif]

My poor time management aside, that was straightforward enough....

• The rule revision passed; 11 for, 0 against.

The Index rules have been updated.

[Peelee]

So i know I'm a week late, but i have to strenuously object to this absolute sham of a process. Notably, the frankly obscene lack of the following:

• We still have a banana in charge. Hi.

[Jasdoif]

So i know I'm a week late, but i have to strenuously object to this absolute sham of a process. Notably, the frankly obscene lack of the following:

• We still have a banana in charge. Hi.

• I try to keep a serious tone with systemic changes; anyone having an issue with curation could require moderator interpretation, so the less you have to wonder "was this serious?" the better.
• For similar reasons, the thread rules describe for potentially anyone on the face of the planet how we intend to conduct ourselves; not betraying that implicit trust is, in fact, Serious Business^tm.
• I change that line in the normal votes for each thread, so your quote's a bit incomplete:

  • We've left a banana in charge. Hi.

  • There's still a banana in charge. Hi.

  • There's still a banana in charge. Hi.

  • We still have a banana in charge. Hi. (I neither confirm nor deny a zapped status.)

[Peelee]

• I try to keep a serious tone with systemic changes; anyone having an issue with curation could require moderator interpretation, so the less you have to wonder "was this serious?" the better.
• For similar reasons, the thread rules describe for potentially anyone on the face of the planet how we intend to conduct ourselves; not betraying that implicit trust is, in fact, Serious Business^tm.
• I change that line in the normal votes for each thread, so your quote's a bit incomplete:
  
  
  

In order:

• That's bananas!
• Just run it as a banana republic.
• Hey, i had to an annoying search to find even that much. Add some pun about bananas.

[Jasdoif]

Add some pun about bananas.

You've got your A/2/III thing, I've got my direct/overview/amuse thing; it all stems from there, no matter how much we might slip up on the way to our musallaneous and sundry ends.