The Index of the Giant's Comments III - We've Left a Banana In Charge

We could have a new proposed rule.

Any Q&A's that are predominately centered on The Order of the Stick are automatically eligible to be included in their entirety, subject to copyright concerns.

Thus if there ever is a Reddit Q&A or something similar, it would fall under the scope of this thread, but something with an offical publication wouldn't due to copyright (unless permission was given, of course). Likewise, a People-style interview also wouldn't qualify for inclusion, because of the preponderance of the content.

This should help respect Rich's wishes in regards to the 'stalking' concerns while still stasifying the thread's main purpose.

I draw a disctinction between a Q&A and forum posts because Rich, presumably, knows going into a Q&A that he is going to be quoted far and wide, as opposed to a more personal/private type discussion on a fourm.

Just a thought at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Porthos

We could have a new proposed rule.

Any Q&A's that are predominately centered on The Order of the Stick are automatically eligible to be included in their entirety, subject to copyright concerns.

---

Seconded.

We are in charge of the rules. If we think that the Geekademia Interview doesn't fit the rules, we have two options:

1. Get rid of the interview
2. Change the rules

Since I think that this is a good home for such things I find option 2 much better. It also enables us to include the Twitter Q&A if we want.

At least I don't think that "it was there before the rules" is a valid reason for inclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChristianSt

Seconded.

---

Thirded...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kish

Thirded...

---

Fourthed. This is really such a natural home for Q&A transcriptions that are otherwise hard to browse.

Fifthed. I think the Q&A transcript here is easier to read and find stuff in than, say, having a link to the Twitter feed. I also like having everything in one place. Also, I think that the Q&A rule works very well.

On second thought, I'm going to change my mind. While the Twitter Q&A isn't nearly as good a read as the Geekademia interview, due to the medium limitations, it's still nice to have. And it doesn't qualify as clutter, since it would sit in a different post than the Index proper. So, I have no objection to inclusion.

About the new proposed rule: It makes sense, but if many such Q&As end up here, we may want to apply the anti-redundancy rule to them as well. It's not an issue today, though.

Wow, less than 48 hours on the job and we've already got six people in favor of a rule change. Must be the power of Banan-Acceleration :smalltongue:

But I'm leery of doing something as structural as a rule change without a vote (since the other rules were ratified by vote), and I'm leery of holding a vote in the middle of a comic hiatus (when our regular visitors may not all be present to cast their votes). So what I'm thinking right now...barring opposition arising in the meantime, I'll put both the "Twitter-Q&A-in-entirety" and a new rule up for a vote along with the next chunk of quote updates. If we hit the six-quote trigger for an update before the comic returns...well, I'll just have to accept that it'd be unreasonable to delay it any longer.

Speaking of the rule, I'm thinking....

Quote:

---

Rule G: Transcripts of Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in secondary posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source of such transcripts must fit with established rules, although only Rule A must apply to all parts; only a majority of the content must abide by other rules.

---

So the whole thing needs to be freely accessible online (rule A), but the occasional tangent or redundancy is explicitly allowed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChristianSt

We are in charge of the rules. If we think that the Geekademia Interview doesn't fit the rules, we have two options:

1. Get rid of the interview
2. Change the rules

Since I think that this is a good home for such things I find option 2 much better. It also enables us to include the Twitter Q&A if we want.

At least I don't think that "it was there before the rules" is a valid reason for inclusion.

---

Option 3 is "leave what we have in the Index in the Index, if we don't have a specific reason to remove it". It's got precedent, in that it was in use during the majority of the first thread and the entirety of the second. "No reason either way" is just as valid as "reason to include" or "reason to exclude", so "lack of reason to include" is not automatically the same as "reason to exclude". (This is also important in the application of B2, something I don't think I expressed clearly near the end of the last thread when the subject came up.)

Besides which, in the case of applying the rules retroactively I couldn't remove the Geekademia transcript solely due to it not fitting in the rules, because of F3. We'd need to get consensus to remove it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasdoif

Besides which, in the case of applying the rules retroactively I couldn't remove the Geekademia transcript solely due to it not fitting in the rules, because of F3. We'd need to get consensus to remove it.

---

From a RAW stanpoint there isn't even a rule for removing anything (ok, there is D to handle contradictions and E for redundancy), but F only highlights how to decide whether to add something or not. But it doesn't say anything about actually removing something. :smallwink:

But imo if there is something that is outside the rules, it should be removed without needing a discussion. I think if we decide to not include the Twitter Q&A because Q&As are outside the scope of this thread, then imo the Interview should be removed.

(But it is certainly possible to establish a Rule G without adding the Twitter Q&A.)

BTW, does anyone have stats for a banana PC? I'd imagine it would have the usual plant characteristics and some natural armor that's ignored by slashing weapons, but I'm not sure what else.

Also, new thread!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChristianSt

From a RAW stanpoint there isn't even a rule for removing anything (ok, there is D to handle contradictions and E for redundancy), but F only highlights how to decide whether to add something or not. But it doesn't say anything about actually removing something. :smallwink:

But imo if there is something that is outside the rules, it should be removed without needing a discussion.

---

While the rules don't spell out the process for removing an entry, I do believe that a desire to remove an entry constitutes disagreement about its inclusion, so F3 and F4 would apply.

And F3 says the curator can't fully reject a comment's inclusion. Which is what me removing a comment (like any comment made in the Geekademia transcript) without consensus would be. Even if the intent was to remove something not in accordance with the other rules, it would still be a violation of F3 for me to do so without establishing consensus.

So I'd have to break a rule to enforce a rule. :smallconfused: It's a little unusual, but I think F3 reinforces that the curator is supposed to be a facilitator, and not a final judge. And being able to freely reject an entry after its inclusion would make any restrictions about rejecting them before their inclusion meaningless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReaderAt2046

BTW, does anyone have stats for a banana PC? I'd imagine it would have the usual plant characteristics and some natural armor that's ignored by slashing weapons, but I'm not sure what else.

---

I was thinking +2 Con, DR 3/slashing or bludgeoning, 2 Plant Hit Dice (2d8+{2*Con} hit points, +1 BAB, +3 base Fort save, 5*{2+int} skill points), +2 racial bonus on Balance and Escape Artist checks, 5 automatic ranks in Balance (so they aren't flatfooted while trying not to slip on their own peels)....Not sure what the "class" skills for their Plant hit dice would be, though; Balance is implied since they'd start with max ranks and Escape Artist makes sense given the bonus, but I'm not sure what else I'd give them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasdoif

But I'm leery of doing something as structural as a rule change without a vote (since the other rules were ratified by vote), and I'm leery of holding a vote in the middle of a comic hiatus (when our regular visitors may not all be present to cast their votes). So what I'm thinking right now...barring opposition arising in the meantime, I'll put both the "Twitter-Q&A-in-entirety" and a new rule up for a vote along with the next chunk of quote updates. If we hit the six-quote trigger for an update before the comic returns...well, I'll just have to accept that it'd be unreasonable to delay it any longer.

Speaking of the rule, I'm thinking....

Rule G: Transcripts of Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in secondary posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source of such transcripts must fit with established rules, although only Rule A must apply to all parts; only a majority of the content must abide by other rules.

So the whole thing needs to be freely accessible online (rule A), but the occasional tangent or redundancy is explicitly allowed.

---

Our Curator speaks with the voice of Wisdom.

Congratulations on your promotion Jasdoif! I hope that your tenure as curator is as fruitful as The Phantasm's was. :smallbiggrin:

Why have we left a banana in charge?
Thanks for picking up the work, hopefully ThePhantasm doesn't get too busy.

At least you've got a 'break' until the end of the month when the comic picks back up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasdoif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReaderAt2046

BTW, does anyone have stats for a banana PC? I'd imagine it would have the usual plant characteristics and some natural armor that's ignored by slashing weapons, but I'm not sure what else.

Also, new thread!

---

I was thinking +2 Con, DR 3/slashing or bludgeoning, 2 Plant Hit Dice (2d8+{2*Con} hit points, +1 BAB, +3 base Fort save, 5*{2+int} skill points), +2 racial bonus on Balance and Escape Artist checks, 5 automatic ranks in Balance (so they aren't flatfooted while trying not to slip on their own peels)....Not sure what the "class" skills for their Plant hit dice would be, though; Balance is implied since they'd start with max ranks and Escape Artist makes sense given the bonus, but I'm not sure what else I'd give them.

---

Perform (Slapstick Comedy)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZedarFlight

Why have we left a banana in charge?

---

There was a typo in the last thread in which someone misspelled Bandana as Banana. It led to a series of jokes and a photoshop of Bandana as a Banana that was later removed by the mods due to editing the Giant's artwork, but the joke stuck around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasdoif

While the rules don't spell out the process for removing an entry, I do believe that a desire to remove an entry constitutes disagreement about its inclusion, so F3 and F4 would apply.

And F3 says the curator can't fully reject a comment's inclusion. Which is what me removing a comment (like any comment made in the Geekademia transcript) without consensus would be. Even if the intent was to remove something not in accordance with the other rules, it would still be a violation of F3 for me to do so without establishing consensus.

So I'd have to break a rule to enforce a rule. :smallconfused: It's a little unusual, but I think F3 reinforces that the curator is supposed to be a facilitator, and not a final judge. And being able to freely reject an entry after its inclusion would make any restrictions about rejecting them before their inclusion meaningless.

---

But in any case I wouldn't say you would remove it (and certainly not freely), but you are forced to do it by the rules. Which have an established consensus.

If for example if there is (for whatever reason) a quote "I like Italian food" in the Index, I think it should be removed without any voting/consensus needed. Because it violates the rules. The rules mostly (A-E) covers which content is allowed/not allowed in the Index, while rule F covers how we reach consensus when something isn't clear, but not to override the other rules. I think in the case if for example most posters start wanting to include "I like Italian food"-quotes, I think we shouldn't do that because of rule F allows it, but we should amend rule B to allow "I like Italian food"-quotes. And without amending rule B there shouldn't any such quote listed whether or not the majority wants it or not. (But if the majority wants it we should seriously considering changing the rules.)

That at least is my opinion on it. [Which might be a bit based on my logical reasoning, but any other procedure would make absolutely no sense to me.] But I think maybe that it is better not to focus on that, since unless there are problems I think it isn't really worthwhile to spend time on such rule detail shenanigans.


At least we should get to some sort of consensus how to deal with such Q&A in general (can we include them at all? Right now it is only kinda there because it is there. But from the rules it is kinda dubious if it should even be there), and I think your amended Rule G (specifying that they will go after the regular Index) is exactly what we should have. (Or if people don't like it we should establish a rule that this is outside the scope of this thread and get rid of the Geekademia Interview.)

Since I haven't heard anyone saying "we should remove the Interview", I think we don't need any further discussion if we add that rule (which I have the feeling right now that it will be easy to add). After that we can revisit the Twitter Q&A discussion [or we can just add that to the vote options and make it in one sweep].


Also while we're at it, I think there should be a link to the podcast (and not only to highlight Rule A, but also to give proper credit to all involved): Link to Geekademia Interview. (Sure there is a link at the end of the transcript, but it is kinda burried and only points to the general Geekademia Page, but doesn't help finding the actual Interview.)


[And if you think it is better to wait after the hiatus ends to do the voting, I don't have a problem with waiting. As long as this gets resolved sometime]

Jasdoif, would you consider replacing your avatar pic by a banana? :smallbiggrin:

As the one who typo'd in the first place, I am unduly proud of this title.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChristianSt

But in any case I wouldn't say you would remove it (and certainly not freely), but you are forced to do it by the rules. Which have an established consensus.

If for example if there is (for whatever reason) a quote "I like Italian food" in the Index, I think it should be removed without any voting/consensus needed. Because it violates the rules. The rules mostly (A-E) covers which content is allowed/not allowed in the Index, while rule F covers how we reach consensus when something isn't clear, but not to override the other rules. I think in the case if for example most posters start wanting to include "I like Italian food"-quotes, I think we shouldn't do that because of rule F allows it, but we should amend rule B to allow "I like Italian food"-quotes. And without amending rule B there shouldn't any such quote listed whether or not the majority wants it or not. (But if the majority wants it we should seriously considering changing the rules.)

That at least is my opinion on it. [Which might be a bit based on my logical reasoning, but any other procedure would make absolutely no sense to me.]

---

Now, if this were a formal project, or intended for use by automated resources, or maybe even just had a way to filter out entries on demand; I'd agree entirely.

But it's not. It's an informal project meant for a Humanoid (and Fey polymorphed into Plant) audience, and the only way to filter entries is for the curator to manually remove them. Because the intended audience is composed of independently thinking creatures, unexpected removal of entries they remember to be here is a severe psychological disincentive to trust the thread; because the project is informal, there's no strong sense of "this is the way we expect it to be" to overcome that disincentive because we have no authoritative angle to back us up; and because entries have to be manually removed, retroactive application of rules would require someone to go through all the entries whenever there's a rules adjustment.

It's for those reasons that I view the rules as applying as an entry/exit gate to the Index, rather than applying to the Index content directly. It has tradeoffs, like the occasional inconsistency with some of the things we have in the Index like the transcript, but I think the reduction in workload and increase in perceived reliability more than makes up for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChristianSt

But I think maybe that it is better not to focus on that, since unless there are problems I think it isn't really worthwhile to spend time on such rule detail shenanigans.

---

I keep explaining my reasoning here because how the curator intends to apply the rules is a critical portion of how the thread's run. My interpretation is not automatically the best or most-agreed-upon; If I'm off my rocker, it's better to find out sooner than later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChristianSt

Also while we're at it, I think there should be a link to the podcast (and not only to highlight Rule A, but also to give proper credit to all involved): Link to Geekademia Interview. (Sure there is a link at the end of the transcript, but it is kinda burried and only points to the general Geekademia Page, but doesn't help finding the actual Interview.)

---

Sounds reasonable to me. The interview title's a good place, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurald Galain

Jasdoif, would you consider replacing your avatar pic by a banana? :smallbiggrin:

---

Kinda like this?

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3...nanaThread.png

I may have to at this rate, but I'd want to make adjustments first. Portraying a banana crossing its arms was more difficult than I would have thought, and I don't think it carries on its own. Tarquin managed it pretty well, but he had the unfair advantage of shoulders :smalltongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasdoif

It's for those reasons that I view the rules as applying as an entry/exit gate to the Index, rather than applying to the Index content directly. It has tradeoffs, like the occasional inconsistency with some of the things we have in the Index like the transcript, but I think the reduction in workload and increase in perceived reliability more than makes up for it.

I keep explaining my reasoning here because how the curator intends to apply the rules is a critical portion of how the thread's run. My interpretation is not automatically the best or most-agreed-upon; If I'm off my rocker, it's better to find out sooner than later.

---

Your reasoning certainly makes sense. But I personally don't think that the approach I would use would make really more work. It only would cause any work if someone sees a comment that breaks (for whatever reason) one of the rules or the thread rules change (and even in that case you could just change the rules and only remove something if someone points out it is against certain rules). And to add: We never had a change in thread rules since they where established. I also wouldn't really see Rule G as a rules change, but only as a Rules Errata/Addendum/Clarification, to make it clear what we should/can do with such Q&As. Because right now it isn't really covered.

Imo the thread rules are there to say "we have established the rules and try to enforce them. But we are human and make errors, so if we find errors we should try to fix them and not say 'Mh ok, it is wrong, but since it is there we just leave it be' ". (But I might be wrong on that part - at least this is my interpretation of the rules.)


I also wouldn't say that it would be unreliable. Since it clearly has a reason why that change would happen. You could even do an announce prior changing something [and/or keeping a backup handy if needed], to see whether there is a problem or not. (And in that case maybe we can fix a broken rule.) Also if something isn't clear (like the Interview case) nothing stops you/us from first having a discussion about it before anyone does some crazy things.

Just for example: If some post we have Indexed becomes unaccessible (e.g. Internet Wayback Machine failure or a post gets deleted somehow), would you want to keep it in the Index because thread consensus was to include it and we would need to re-vote first on it to remove it? Or if Rich posts "Belkar is Lawful Good" would you require us to un-vote the "Belkar is Evil" quote?

Because I think that would be the (I admit kinda extreme) logical conclusion of your statement. But imo from the thread rules it should be clear what should happen in both cases - without anyone actually needing to say something about (other than pointing it out). And I don't think that would make sense to have those Rules established to later just ignore them if someone feels like doing so. [Don't get me wrong: If we see the need I certainly think we should change the rules. But imo the rules are there to reduce the need (or even the possibility) to discuss quotes that fall outside of them.]


TL;DR: Imo Rule F isn't above the other rules. We shouldn't be allowed to sneak in quotes that violate the rules. And if something managed to sneak by somehow, we should try our best to get rid of it. (Otherwise I think they are basically meaningless)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kish

Thank you for everything you've done for the index, Phantasm. Thank you for taking it over, Jasdoif the Banana.

---

Fully agreed. Thank you, Phantasm. And thank YOU , Jasdoif.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChristianSt

I also wouldn't really see Rule G as a rules change, but only as a Rules Errata/Addendum/Clarification, to make it clear what we should/can do with such Q&As. Because right now it isn't really covered.

---

I think we've just identified what sets this apart from the other examples: The Geekademia transcript and the use of secondary posts in general doesn't really fit in the established rules, but I don't think it actually violates any of the rules either.

I can certainly agree with "OK, the rules represent consensus, and the rules say this one shouldn't be included, so we have consensus to remove", but this is just a "not clearly established" area. And for those, I think "leave it where it is" is the fair way to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasdoif

I think we've just identified what sets this apart from the other examples: The Geekademia transcript and the use of secondary posts in general doesn't really fit in the established rules, but I don't think it actually violates any of the rules either.

I can certainly agree with "OK, the rules represent consensus, and the rules say this one shouldn't be included, so we have consensus to remove", but this is just a "not clearly established" area. And for those, I think "leave it where it is" is the fair way to go.

---

Ah ok - I think we kinda run in a sort of misunderstanding there. Maybe (or if I reread my posts quite likely) I should have formulated things better (especially my posts with listing two options).

With the current rules, yeah this is a grey area which could be "solved" with keeping the status quo.

But imo the far better option is to consider a rule that covers it, and if we want a rule: "Q&A are outside the scope" (which would a valid reason to turn down the Twitter Q&A without any further discussion) then we also need to take the consequence of removing the Interview.

Or adding a rule that allows them and maybe (or maybe not) include the Twitter Q&A.

But just keeping this grey area just seems wrong to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChristianSt

With the current rules, yeah this is a grey area which could be "solved" with keeping the status quo.

But imo the far better option is to consider a rule that covers it, and if we want a rule: "Q&A are outside the scope" (which would a valid reason to turn down the Twitter Q&A without any further discussion) then we also need to take the consequence of removing the Interview.

Or adding a rule that allows them and maybe (or maybe not) include the Twitter Q&A.

But just keeping this grey area just seems wrong to me.

---

Establishing a rule to cover a relevant grey area is the ideal solution, yes; but having a "grey area approach" is still necessary. Both so we have an expectation of what may happen when a grey area first becomes relevant, and so we can handle a scenario where a rule can't established (a rule for inclusion would need consensus, as much as a rule for exclusion would; it's possible neither gains consensus).

And we seem to be in agreement on what that grey area approach should be, so...yay! This is way more fun than half a dozen pages arguing about voting about voting. Possibly because this thread has a higher banana reference density.

For any rules discussion, we should consider the value vs effort ratio. We have a grand total of two Q&A sessions in existence so far. Establishing complex rules requires more discussion than such a limited field of material warrants. I recommend we keep the grey area, and make an ad-hoc decision for any future Q&A. That's likely the more efficient approach, as opposed to a lengthy debate on a rule that would apply very rarely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gwynfrid

For any rules discussion, we should consider the value vs effort ratio. We have a grand total of two Q&A sessions in existence so far. Establishing complex rules requires more discussion than such a limited field of material warrants. I recommend we keep the grey area, and make an ad-hoc decision for any future Q&A. That's likely the more efficient approach, as opposed to a lengthy debate on a rule that would apply very rarely.

---

Have I missed someone stating the desire to establishing complex rules? :smallconfused:

Yes, Jasdoif and I had a discussion about rules in general. But as I said it was imo mostly out of a misunderstanding about what exactly we talk about. That is settled now (and nevertheless I think it was a good discussion where at least I learned things about how Jasdoif sees the rules [which after getting rid of the misunderstanding there seems to be pretty similar to what I think of them]).

Right now basically the only rules establishing going on is a new Rule G on how to possible handle Q&A. And basically we only had people supporting a Rule G "Q&A can be included in their entirety".

Jasdoif amended that proposal to

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasdoif

Rule G: Transcripts of Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in secondary posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source of such transcripts must fit with established rules, although only Rule A must apply to all parts; only a majority of the content must abide by other rules.

---

which imo is basically the same.

Though on a second thought I would change it to "Rule G: Transcripts of Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in secondary posts to the Index, in their entirety, if they fulfill Rule A. Other rules don't need to be enforced. Whether they will be included or not in their entirety is up to thread consensus." That would eliminate any possible discussions about what exactly "only a majority of the content must abide by other rules." turns out to be. [But it has the same intention as the other stated rules G]


Also since there seems to be soon a vote on it: I think to make it fair there should also be at least one alternative to vote on. The imo logical clear alternative is "Rule G.Alt: Complete Transcripts of Q&A are outside the scope of this thread."

If there is consensus on one of those Rules they should be added to the OP and make it clear how such things will be approached in the future. [It is possible that someone will figure out another possible way to deal with them, so maybe there could be another option to vote on I think.] With that out of the way we can then decide what to do with the Twitter Q&A (or just do it one voting process.)


Or I think if no one says anything against that Rule G (I don't think we exactly should need a vote on the exact formulation) we could just skip the whole voting thing (at least on Rule G). So far I have heard 5 people saying they like that rule and no one saying that they don't want it (though some posters haven't said anything on it). So if it remains such a clear consensus (X-0) I don't see any reason to actually do a vote, unless Jasdoif wants to do it. Because we only need to find consensus. If there is clear consensus (which X-0 is. If at least one person would say something I could understand an argument "someone said they don't like it, so I wanted to wait for the vote on it to reduce clutter") then there is imo absolutely no benefit in doing a vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChristianSt

Though on a second thought I would change it to "Rule G: Transcripts of Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in secondary posts to the Index, in their entirety, if they fulfill Rule A. Other rules don't need to be enforced. Whether they will be included or not in their entirety is up to thread consensus." That would eliminate any possible discussions about what exactly "only a majority of the content must abide by other rules." turns out to be. [But it has the same intention as the other stated rules G]

---

I'm loath to put in blanket exceptions to so many rules like that, even in the limited cases where this would apply.

The majority thing was my attempt to focus on archiving things we're likely to use anyway. So for example, a Q&A about OOTS with an isolated question about Italian food is perfectly fine, while a Q&A about Italian food with an isolated question about OOTS is not. (Whether the isolated question about OOTS warrants inclusion as a normal entry would be determined through the usual process, but including the entire Q&A would be out of the question since most of it doesn't satisfy Rule B.)

A more plausible (but less entertaining) scenario would be if a portion of an OOTS Q&A was excerpted separately from the entire Q&A, and transcripts of both are made; the complete makes the excerpt redundant, so we could only include the larger one instead of both because of Rule E.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChristianSt

Or I think if no one says anything against that Rule G (I don't think we exactly should need a vote on the exact formulation) we could just skip the whole voting thing (at least on Rule G). So far I have heard 5 people saying they like that rule and no one saying that they don't want it (though some posters haven't said anything on it). So if it remains such a clear consensus (X-0) I don't see any reason to actually do a vote, unless Jasdoif wants to do it. Because we only need to find consensus. If there is clear consensus (which X-0 is. If at least one person would say something I could understand an argument "someone said they don't like it, so I wanted to wait for the vote on it to reduce clutter") then there is imo absolutely no benefit in doing a vote.

---

I'm thinking we should discuss it to come up with a well-accepted formulation (or to adopt an alternative instead of the current direction and things), and then I'll put that formulation up for a vote.

Partly so we've got input on the matter even from people who might not be inclined to debate it, and partly so I won't have to remove or amend "These rules were decided by forum vote" at the beginning of the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasdoif

I'm loath to put in blanket exceptions to so many rules like that, even in the limited cases where this would apply.

The majority thing was my attempt to focus on archiving things we're likely to use anyway. So for example, a Q&A about OOTS with an isolated question about Italian food is perfectly fine, while a Q&A about Italian food with an isolated question about OOTS is not. (Whether the isolated question about OOTS warrants inclusion as a normal entry would be determined through the usual process, but including the entire Q&A would be out of the question since most of it doesn't satisfy Rule B.)

---

Yeah, your reasoning is perfectly sound. I just made an attempt to eliminate possible shenanigans to arguments like "4 of 8" answers are already included elsewhere or something like that. Heck I'm not even sure how much of the Geekademia Inerview is or is not redundant with other stuff we have Indexed or Rich said somewhere else. Maybe just change it to mostly/partly/largly or some other not so exact word, because "majority" imo just implies a hard >50%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChristianSt

Have I missed someone stating the desire to establishing complex rules? :smallconfused:

---

The suggested rule isn't that complex really, my bad. The discussion about it, however... If not complex, it is, at least, long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChristianSt

Though on a second thought I would change it to "Rule G: Transcripts of Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in secondary posts to the Index, in their entirety, if they fulfill Rule A. Other rules don't need to be enforced. Whether they will be included or not in their entirety is up to thread consensus."

---

I still think it isn't particularly necessary to formalize things to such a degree, but hey, we have a inter-book hiatus right now, I guess we need something to talk about :smallcool:

If we have to have a rule, then I think Jasdoif's wording makes the most sense. I wouldn't worry about the exact meaning of "majority"... That would be sorted out by thread consensus, if ever the case arises.

And, for sure, any rule addition needs a vote, if only to avoid protest further down the line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Porthos

We could have a new proposed rule.

Any Q&A's that are predominately centered on The Order of the Stick are automatically eligible to be included in their entirety, subject to copyright concerns.

Thus if there ever is a Reddit Q&A or something similar, it would fall under the scope of this thread, but something with an offical publication wouldn't due to copyright (unless permission was given, of course). Likewise, a People-style interview also wouldn't qualify for inclusion, because of the preponderance of the content.

This should help respect Rich's wishes in regards to the 'stalking' concerns while still stasifying the thread's main purpose.

I draw a disctinction between a Q&A and forum posts because Rich, presumably, knows going into a Q&A that he is going to be quoted far and wide, as opposed to a more personal/private type discussion on a fourm.

Just a thought at least.

---

Yes, this. I think other points in favor of it have been made already.