The Index of the Giant's Comments IV - A Rich Source of Quotassium

[Lissou]

I think the issue is that "Plantain" and "Phantom" are pronounced completely differently. They're not even stressed on the same syllable. That makes the pun very poor, because the chances of people recognizing it as a reference to The Phantom Menace are very slim, unless they're unfamiliar with anything else with the word "Menace" in it.

[Ornithologist]

I vote for the bit about the saner forum.

[Jasdoif]

The Star Wars thing is debatable (personally, I love the theme), but getting the plantain joke has nothing to do with being a native English speaker. Plantain is the name for a fruit native to Spanish-speaking Latin American countries; speaking German or Japanese or Hindi doesn't make the joke any more or less difficult to get (although perhaps Americans see/eat more plantains than Europeans or Asians do).

Edit: Scratch the part about plantains being native to Latin America; apparently they're originally from Southeast Asia, Oceania, and West Africa (which seems kind of random, but whatever), although they're frequently cultivated in Latin America these days. If anything, though, that makes the reference easier to get, not harder.

It gets complicated in a hurry....Plantains are starchy and bananas are sweet, but there isn't a formal botanical distinction between them. The banana plant was first domesticated several millennia ago, and while the two wild species had strong tendencies with regards to their fruit (Musa acuminata plants tended to produce "dessert bananas", while musa balbisiana plants tended to produce plantains or "cooking bananas"), hybridization between the two has been going on for so long that species alone isn't a good indicator of what variety of fruit is produced. And in some areas, a wide variety of cultivars produced enough distinct fruits that "cooking banana" vs "dessert banana" isn't a meaningful distinction...so the distinction isn't made.

[DataNinja]

I'll vote for the "Saner Forum" one.

(Error: Sanity does not compute.)

[Porthos]

On a saner forum, I wouldn't have to vote for it.

[unbeliever536]

I think adding a rule like this would only muddy the waters. It will be partly redundant and partly contradictory with some of the existing rules, thus leaving opportunities for folks to simply pick the rule that support their point best. We often have inconclusive debates: The way to fix that isn't to add more rules to try to tip the scales in favor of one type of conclusion. That won't convince anybody. When the debate is inconclusive, a vote is the appropriate way to close it.

Which rules would it contradict? Rule C, perhaps?

Sarcasm aside, I think Rule B/D/E could stand some expansion/clarification in light of this and some previous discussions on what does and does not belong in the index, and how it should be entered. For one thing, they only list the qualities of quotes that disqualify them from inclusion, and provide no standard for what actually should be included. (Jasdoif: under what conditions would you actually exercise the power you hold under rule F2? Is there any time when an index keeper should exercise that power? If so, when? If not, why is that rule there?) Under the rules as they exist, the most natural inclusion rule is that those quotes which do are not disqualified from inclusion ought to be included. This is, obviously, a dead contradiction of all of the commentary in the rules about clutter, and not remotely what is intended by the rules.

It's also not clear in Rule E whether "redundant" means "redundant with other quotes in the index", which I would consider natural or "redundant with plausible inferences from the comic", which is the standard that seems to be used by Cizak et al in their arguments against inclusion. There's an argument to be made that the second interpretation is an extension of the first based on some entries already in the index, but it's a thin one; we record, for example, that Belkar's jokes are not necessarily reliable statements of fact.

Here's how I would (re)write things:

Spoiler: An Immodest Proposal

Show

1) This index collects the Giant's online commentary on the Order of the Stick and related topics. It is divided into sections covering broad topics, which are further divided into entries on specific topics. Quotes that cover the same topic and expand on each other should generally be included in a single entry, with a single "headline" quote and one or more "see also" sublinks, but see 2f below. Topics covered by the index include:

(a) Expansions on the OOTS world, covering topics not included in the comic.

(b) Commentary on writing, role playing, or Dungeons and Dragons in general and on those topics in relation to OOTS

(c) Clarifications of common points of confusion regarding the comic.

(d) Interviews on the Order of the Stick comic, provided they are in keeping with rule 2b below, may be added in their entirety as postscripts of the index, even if some sections might be taken as violating some other parts of rule 2. If sections of such interviews are of particular interest, they may be added as entries in the main index as well.

2) Some quotes and commentary are not appropriate for inclusion in the index. These include:

(a) Second-hand sources. Someone else saying "I remember Rich said this, but the thread does not exist anymore" is not appropriate for inclusion. We must be able to link to actual words of Rich Burlew! (A link to the Wayback Machine or a similar archive is perfectly appropriate, of course).

(b) Quotes from book commentary or similar that cannot legally be accessed for free. The contributors to this index are all fans of Rich Burlew's work and we would prefer that he be paid for the content he has chosen to put up for sale.

(c) Statements unrelated to the Order of the Stick. If Rich says something like "I like Italian food", or a similar statement unrelated to the comic, it should not be archived here. Similarly, the Giant's homebrew and game design commentary unrelated to OOTS does not belong. (Besides, all that's linked on the sidebar anyway.)

(d) Statements made in the Voice of Mod. Statements about rules are to be promoted as needed by the admins and moderators of this forum, and have no bearing on the purpose of this index. Quotes and comments containing Voice of Mod statements may be included if they have substantial index-appropriate content, but should be treated with care.

(e) Statements the Giant has specifically asked be excluded from the index. The Giant has expressed a desire that we not index some quotes of his. (generally, rebukes of specific forum posters). We respect his wishes in this regard and will endeavor to avoid indexing such quotes.

(f) Statements entirely redundant with other quotes in the index, or that will rapidly become redundant. A comment from the Giant that simply restates his opinion on a topic should not be included, though if it summarizes several previous comments it may be worth including as a "see also", or as a new entry with old comments as "see also"s. If a statement made by the Giant is contradicted by a later one, only the current statement should have an entry in the index (but consider leaving the out-of-date opinion as a see also if it is directly referenced). Similarly, if a statement is expected to become redundant or obsolete very soon (such as a comment that strip #936 is not the final strip of Book 5), it should not be included.

(g) Statements that have become outdated. Any statement referring to an event in the future need not be kept around after the event has passed, but as usual may be worth mentioning as a see also.

3) The index-keeper (currently Jasdoif) has the job of updating the index in keeping with thread-goer consensus.

(a) He/She may reorganize the index if deemed necessary, with reorganizations subject to reversal by majority vote under rule 4.

(b) He/She may add a comment to the index without a vote if the comment is clearly appropriate for the index according to the above rules or there is clear consensus on the matter.

(c) He/She may postpone the inclusion of a comment pending further discussion and/or a vote according to rule 4.

4) This thread commonly votes on updates to the index, which occur at regular intervals. Anyone may propose a change to the index, though they should ideally be clear about what they are proposing (ie adding an entry, changing an existing entry, or removing one).

(a) Updates occur when there are 6 entries proposed to be added, changed, or removed, or when two months have passed since the last update.

(b) If there is clear consensus in the thread, the index-keeper will simply note any upcoming changes (or non-changes), granting an opportunity for final discussion.

(c) If there is no clear consensus, the thread defaults to adding new entries and keeping old entries the same, subject to a possible vote. When noting a pending update, the index-keeper will mark entries where there is no consensus as possibly up for a vote. If, before the update, the index-keeper receives PM's from two separate forumgoers requesting a vote on the entries in question, then a vote will be called before the update on the requested entries.

(d) If a change to the index receives at least two more votes in favor than votes against during a formal vote, it will be carried out. Discussion during voting is discouraged. Only votes called by the index-keeper are binding. There are no qualifications for voting; any forumgoer interested in the index is encouraged to participate.

This is a full rewrite of the rules, mostly because I don't want to deal with the current ordering/lettering scheme. It generally reflects my biases for what the index should/shouldn't include and what its purpose is. It is also shamelessly written in my voice, informally, with minimal effort spent towards sounding professional, though I tried to reproduce the substance of the existing rules. If these rules seem complicated, it's because it is my preference that we have clear, exact rules and standards that we occasionally cheat by broad consensus than that we have vague standards that need 5 pages of arguing to hash out.

To summarize: rules A, B, D, E, and G are reorganized into rules 1 and 2, together with some norms that aren't currently part of the rules but should, I think, be clearly included or not included. Rule F is mostly replicated by rule 3, with some voting bits moved to rule 4. Rule 4 also incorporates the voting process standards that are currently an unofficial addendum to the main thread rules, and a few little things that I think might be good ideas with respect to the same. Note that, in addition to the changes to inclusion standards, I'm suggesting we switch from 6 quotes up for inclusion to 6 entries to be added/changed/removed as the update interval, which I think better reflects the way the index expands.

[Jasdoif]

Hey, there's a tie on the next thread's title now!

• On a Saner Forum, We Wouldn't Need this Index - 11
• The Plantain Menace - 11
• The Giant Writes Back - 3
• We're Running Out of Banana Puns - 1

---

For one thing, they only list the qualities of quotes that disqualify them from inclusion, and provide no standard for what actually should be included.

The standard for what should actually be included is whatever general consensus on what should be included is, restricted (and therefore focused) by what the rules disqualify.

Jasdoif: under what conditions would you actually exercise the power you hold under rule F2? Is there any time when an index keeper should exercise that power? If so, when? If not, why is that rule there?

Can't think of a scenario offhand, though that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

As for why it's there....It was well-received back in the second Index thread when ThePhantasm proposed it, my being unable to imagine a situation where I'd have cause to use it doesn't mean there isn't such a situation, and I see no reason to believe every possible Index-keeper must confirm to the exact same set of personal preferences that I have.

Let's be honest, here: I've been known to remember relevant quotes that weren't in the Index, because I recalled unrelated text in the same post from when I came across it years prior. I seriously doubt I'm typical of the intended audience of the Index Whether I think something's useful to note down or not probably has little correlation to whether it'll be useful to anyone the Index is intended for, so I'm loathe to put my own opinion in an elevated position.

And I think that's where our views split. It appears you prefer exact, strict guidelines instead of consensus gathering; whereas I think the innate value of community input is what makes this worth having a thread for at all. Making use of all sorts of perspectives I wouldn't necessarily have thought of, without requiring them to be codified into some sort of rule, makes the Index more generally useful than I could reasonably expect to accomplish on my own.

Some of the multipage discussions that mentality leads can be tedious to sift through, yes; but by and large I wouldn't say they're bad. I certainly wouldn't consider cutting them off with rules as an improvement...and that's assuming rules could actually cut them off, I somehow expect long discussions on a quote would become discussions on the rule (using the quote as an example) of at least equal length.

[Mad Humanist]

Hey, there's a tie on the next thread's title now!

• On a Saner Forum, We Wouldn't Need this Index - 11
• The Plantain Menace - 11
• The Giant Writes Back - 3
• We're Running Out of Banana Puns - 1

I am not a fan of Star Wars references but the "Giant Writes Back" is a better joke than "The Plantain Menace".

[Domino Quartz]

I vote for On a Saner Forum, We Wouldn't Need this Index

[CalamaroJoe]

My vote goes to "On a Saner Forum, We Wouldn't Need this Index".

[Emanick]

My vote goes to "On a Saner Forum, We Wouldn't Need this Index".

Can someone explain to me why this is funny? There's nothing humorous about it, as far as I can tell.

[Gray Mage]

Sign me up for tbe sanity title, please. Also, for not incluiding the tweet.

[Keltest]

For the record, I was joking about running out of banana puns one. Sign me up for the Plantain Menace.

[Quild]

Can someone explain to me why this is funny? There's nothing humorous about it, as far as I can tell.

It's related to a quote:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...2#post13766172

And it says a lot about us forumites :D

See Grey_Wolf_c's signature.

I'm not fond of the Plantain Menace really. SW puns do not work if the number of the title isn't right. Since "organized stalking" wasn't retained, I'll give my vote to the saner forum one.

[ORione]

I vote for The Plantain Menace, because I think it's insulting to insane people to compare them to this forum.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Huh. Today i learned, before it was deleted.

I felt it was too off topic, even for a thread that has spent the last two pages discussing the pros and cons of Star Wars-based puns. I encourage you to read into the topic, though, if interested. I find that my (British-centered) education missed a lot of that period, more interested in how awful things were in Europe.

---

I wasn't planning to vote on the title, but I'm very bored with the star wars puns, so I'll vote for saner forum, even if it does clash with my sig.

Grey Wolf

[Gwynfrid]

I think the issue is that "Plantain" and "Phantom" are pronounced completely differently. They're not even stressed on the same syllable.

I hadn't realized that, not being a native English speaker myself. I don't think I have ever heard the word "plantain" spoken. That's why the pun works for me, I guess. Also, it has a kind of extra-private-jokiness that appeals to me.

Sarcasm aside, I think Rule B/D/E could stand some expansion/clarification in light of this and some previous discussions on what does and does not belong in the index, and how it should be entered. For one thing, they only list the qualities of quotes that disqualify them from inclusion, and provide no standard for what actually should be included.

This isn't a bug, it's a feature. The rules aren't too prescriptive, because they don't need to be. There will be debates and disagreements anyway, however precise and well-written the rules are. The rules only provide a general framework for such debates, and I see no value in trying to make them more than that.

There's also the good old "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" principle. If you wish to rewrite the rules, you must first prove that the current ones don't work. Since they have been in use for a pretty long time without the thread breaking down to pieces, I believe they're good enough for our purpose.

[Lycunadari]

The Star Wars thing is debatable (personally, I love the theme), but getting the plantain joke has nothing to do with being a native English speaker. Plantain is the name for a fruit native to Spanish-speaking Latin American countries; speaking German or Japanese or Hindi doesn't make the joke any more or less difficult to get (although perhaps Americans see/eat more plantains than Europeans or Asians do).

Edit: Scratch the part about plantains being native to Latin America; apparently they're originally from Southeast Asia, Oceania, and West Africa (which seems kind of random, but whatever), although they're frequently cultivated in Latin America these days. If anything, though, that makes the reference easier to get, not harder.

But it does have something to do with not being an native English speaker, because plantains aren't called plantains in other languages - in German, they're called Kochbanane (cooking banana). So even though I know what a Kochbanane is, I didn't understand the joke before it was explained here. Plantain simply is a word that is so rarely used that non-native speakers are unlikely to know it.

That said, I don't really like any of the proposed titles, but On a Saner Forum, We Wouldn't Need this Index is okay I guess.

[ORione]

This isn't a bug, it's a feature. The rules aren't too prescriptive, because they don't need to be. There will be debates and disagreements anyway, however precise and well-written the rules are. The rules only provide a general framework for such debates, and I see no value in trying to make them more than that.

There's also the good old "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" principle. If you wish to rewrite the rules, you must first prove that the current ones don't work. Since they have been in use for a pretty long time without the thread breaking down to pieces, I believe they're good enough for our purpose.

Some might say that the frustration in arguments like the last one would be a good reason to make the rules more precise. Personally, I would rather leave room for human judgment - and I was in the middle of the last argument.

[littlebum2002]

I have to say, I love the Star Wars puns, and I think this one is still very clever despite the problems with the language barrier (which will always be an issue with puns), but I just can't bring myself to vote for an Episode I pun on Thread V.

Although no one else seems to have a problem with it, so it must not be as big of an issue as I think it is.

[Sir_Norbert]

I think the issue is that "Plantain" and "Phantom" are pronounced completely differently. They're not even stressed on the same syllable.

It works for us Brits -- our pronunciation is PLAN-tin.

[Peelee]

I have to say, I love the Star Wars puns, and I think this one is still very clever despite the problems with the language barrier (which will always be an issue with puns), but I just can't bring myself to vote for an Episode I pun on Thread V.

Although no one else seems to have a problem with it, so it must not be as big of an issue as I think it is.

This is a forum where "new comic is up" turns into a debate on the use of differing temperature scales.

There's a reason the only other competing title is what it is.

[Jasdoif]

That said, I don't really like any of the proposed titles, but On a Saner Forum, We Wouldn't Need this Index is okay I guess.

You can propose a different title, if you prefer. "The Plantain Menace" overtook "Banana Republic" pretty quickly after it was proposed, so it could certainly work.

[Dr. Gamera]

At this rate, it could get in without the possibility of a vote being called on it.

I am another proponent of including the "Afterlife Memory Tweets".

[allenw]

Fine, we'll just keep pushing toward fundamentally different goals until this thread turns into a snarl that eats us all. Don't say I didn't warn you when it happens.

"Until"? You didn't warn us when it happened.

[littlebum2002]

It works for us Brits -- our pronunciation is PLAN-tin.

So it's a pun so obscure, not only does it not work for non-english-speakers, it also doesn't work for any American english speakers?

OK, I've changed my mind. I'm withdrawing my vote (again) for The Giant Writes Back and I'm going in support for The Plainain Menace.

[ThePhantasm]

the thread needs a vote on whether "the thread documents things Rich says that dispel someone's confusion and makes no judgment on whether that confusion was legitimate" or "the thread documents only things that cannot be derived from the comic" becomes a new thread rule, and one of them should be.

Before the original index was ever created, I was collecting quotes in my sig. The reason was that there were certain topics and debates that kept resurfacing on the forum even though the Giant had addressed said topics definitively.

At that point, and in the early days of the index, the question wasn't "is this confusion legitimate." (I frequently felt that it was illegitimate, tbh.) The question was "has this been a recurring point of confusion" or "is this likely to be a recurring point of confusion." The measure of a quote's worth wasn't found in the confusion that generated it but in how often it could be used to address said confusion and nip some rather tired and played-out discussions in the bud.

When the Geekademia interview came out it addressed a number of recurring questions, so I asked for people to submit the relevant info so I could add it to the index. Instead, the whole interview ended up being transcribed, and I added it all in. It changed the shape of the index. People started reading through the index for fun or out of curiosity rather than using it as a tool. I had anticipated this development and included a rule that said the index was a tool more than a trivia collection but this rule was rather unpopular and eventual votes altered it (and now I see it was removed entirely).

The result was that the index soon grew to mammoth proportions, and the task of keeping up with it soon grew beyond what I (a busy doctoral student) could manage.

In some ways the shape of the forum has changed from when the index started. In some ways Rich's posting habits and frequency have changed. Its not unreasonable that the index had to change as well, and I don't resent the ways in which it has changed. This has always been a community project, bigger than my original plans for it. I'm glad that Jasdoif, who understands the rules and who has the time and dedication to work on this project, is the curator.

Nonetheless, if there are concerns about the index becoming too big, some new rules or guidelines about determining a quote's usefulness might be in order. I don't know what those would look like, but that's the rub right there.

[rodneyAnonymous]

I think the issue is that "Plantain" and "Phantom" are pronounced completely differently. They're not even stressed on the same syllable.

It works for us Brits -- our pronunciation is PLAN-tin.

PLAN-tin is the correct pronunciation in American English also. The first quote is incorrect: the two words are stressed on the same syllable*. Similar -ai nouns include mountain, fountain, and captain.

* No doubt some sources that say plan-TAYN is okay, but they'll probably be from countries where the plant is not native. To-MAY-to, to-MAH-to. :)

[littlebum2002]

PLAN-tin is the correct pronunciation in American English also. The first quote is incorrect: the two words are stressed on the same syllable*. Similar -ai nouns include mountain, fountain, and captain.

* No doubt some sources that say plan-TAYN is okay, but they'll probably be from countries where the plant is not native. To-MAY-to, to-MAH-to. :)

I don't really understand what you're trying to say here.

First you say that PLAN-tin is the acceptable pronunciation in American English (every American dictionary I have read says this is not the case).

Then you say that plan-TAYN is ok in countries where the plant is not native.

The problem is, America IS one of the countries where the plant is not native

Now, I understand the difference between "correct pronunciation" and "dialect", but I looked in 3 American English dictionaries and all of them have it pronounced with the stress on the first syllable.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Then you say that plan-TAYN is ok in countries where the plant is not native.

No, I said there may be some sources that say plan-TAYN is okay, but they'll probably be from non-native countries. Given the statement "if P then Q", it is a logical fallacy to conclude "if Q then P".

People often pronounce things "wrong" but insist it's right, and they're not exactly wrong to say that, heh. Language is weird. But (agreeing with your experience, I think; the second and fifth lines contradict each other) every American dictionary I've looked at agrees that PLAN-tin is primary, and some don't list any other pronunciation at all.