MitD XII: This Space Intentionally Left Dark

[Crusher]

It feels like everyone’s extra-combative these days. I mean, debates used to get heated sometimes, but now I almost feel like people are looking for reasons *to* get confrontational with each other rather than looking for ways to *avoid* being confrontational. I liked it better before. :(

Worth bearing in mind is that we’re solving a puzzle in which we don’t have all the pieces. And not only are we missing some, we don’t know how many we’re missing! Maybe we have 50%, maybe we have 10%! As such, a little humility is in order. None of us know the answer, nor do we know what *isn’t* the answer, nor do we even know for sure the right way to interpret the data.

The best we can do it to work together. Evaluate the data and think of different ways of interpreting it. Speculate on what even *IS* data. Build consensus on what we think the process should be. Why? Because *we* decided it was the best way to do it.

Also, I think its important to focus more on the process than the result. We don’t know if any given answer is right or wrong. For example, I support the Glabrezu, but I don’t KNOW its correct and I CAN’T know if its right. So, fighting to get it on the FBS list should be like... finding an interesting answer to a legendarily difficult math problem. Its not being celebrated because its *right*, because we have no idea. Its celebrated because its INTERESTING and, looked at the right way, a good fit for the clues we have.

If our interpretation of the clues change, then our FBS list has to change. The Glabrezu is a good fit now, but if we decide MitD needs a 40+ STR then it’ll be gone in a heartbeat. We should be focused on the process of evaluating the clues, The clues should be driving it.

The FBS candidates are the monsters who we realize fit the clues the best. Changing our interpretation of the clues in advocacy of a candidate is very dicey. If its a perceptual shift (“Oh, wait, maybe Rich meant X when he said that, rather than Y”), then it can be ok as long as the consensus agrees on it. Some of our best ideas have come that way. On the other hand, not all ideas are good ones. If the consensus doesn’t agree with a change in interpretation then it should be a sign that maybe you’re heading in the wrong direction and should re-think. And flat our trying to change requirements to get a candidate accepted is anathema to our intellectual work, because its putting the unverifiable cart before the horse, so to speak.