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

[ChristianSt]

Mh, I would be fine with adding it somewhere in the OP, but if we do that I don't really see a reason why we shouldn't add the other interviews listed in the sticky "OOTS in the media", though probably the most content from these interviews is pretty easy to "summarize" as "a bunch of stuff about the Kickstarter".

(The more interesting question is why that interview isn't listed there.)

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Mh, I would be fine with adding it somewhere in the OP, but if we do that I don't really see a reason why we shouldn't add the other interviews listed in the sticky "OOTS in the media", though probably the most content from these interviews is pretty easy to "summarize" as "a bunch of stuff about the Kickstarter".

(The more interesting question is why that interview isn't listed there.)

Yeah, I think we can add those other ones in as well.

Perhaps no one has mentioned that interview in that thread?

[Gift Jeraff]

It's from 5 years before that thread was made.

[ChristianSt]

It's from 5 years before that thread was made.

The OP even says that it is ok to point out older stuff (and it even includes some reviews from 2008 - which isn't that far away from the interview). So I think the answer "no-one mentioned it" seems better than "is older than the thread"

[Jasdoif]

Mh, I would be fine with adding it somewhere in the OP, but if we do that I don't really see a reason why we shouldn't add the other interviews listed in the sticky "OOTS in the media", though probably the most content from these interviews is pretty easy to "summarize" as "a bunch of stuff about the Kickstarter".

Wait. There's an official thread that contains a list of links to interviews in its first post? ...OK, I'm changing my mind on including a link to the interview; I don't think it's efficient/wise to duplicate the purpose of an official thread in a curated thread. (The Geekademia interview is another story, since the transcription reflects a completely different type of effort.)

Citing the interview (or any of the other ones, for that matter) for entries is still a fine option, though.

[DaggerPen]

Whereas I'm actually going to chime in for inclusion of at least a link to said sticky, because I had no idea that thread had interviews linked, and I'm I doubt I'm the only one.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Whereas I'm actually going to chime in for inclusion of at least a link to said sticky, because I had no idea that thread had interviews linked, and I'm I doubt I'm the only one.

I think this works fine actually. We say something like "Link to sticky listing other interviews". We can combine this with Jasdoif's idea of citing the interview for entries.

[137beth]

Whereas I'm actually going to chime in for inclusion of at least a link to said sticky, because I had no idea that thread had interviews linked, and I'm I doubt I'm the only one.

You aren't the only one--
I hadn't realized either.

[Jasdoif]

Whereas I'm actually going to chime in for inclusion of at least a link to said sticky, because I had no idea that thread had interviews linked, and I'm I doubt I'm the only one.

Seems reasonable. Done.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Seems reasonable. Done.

Looks good. When would we start voting for entries in the Index that can be answered by the interviews?

[Jasdoif]

Looks good. When would we start voting for entries in the Index that can be answered by the interviews?

If anyone has entries they want to propose, using an interview as the source, they can do so. The only real extra I'd ask (compared to linking a post for a proposed entry) is an exact quote from the relevant section of the interview, so it'll be easier to find in the interview.

If the intent is to add a "see also" to an existing entry, including the name and main link of that entry would save us the trouble of trying to find exactly which entry is meant to be updated.

[DaggerPen]

If anyone has entries they want to propose, using an interview as the source, they can do so. The only real extra I'd ask (compared to linking a post for a proposed entry) is an exact quote from the relevant section of the interview, so it'll be easier to find in the interview.

If the intent is to add a "see also" to an existing entry, including the name and main link of that entry would save us the trouble of trying to find exactly which entry is meant to be updated.

I'd try to include a timestamp for about when it starts, too.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

If anyone has entries they want to propose, using an interview as the source, they can do so. The only real extra I'd ask (compared to linking a post for a proposed entry) is an exact quote from the relevant section of the interview, so it'll be easier to find in the interview.

If the intent is to add a "see also" to an existing entry, including the name and main link of that entry would save us the trouble of trying to find exactly which entry is meant to be updated.

Oh, alright, so there's no specific time, just propose an entry whenever?

[Jasdoif]

I'd try to include a timestamp for about when it starts, too.

Four of the five interviews listed in the thread are text. The fifth is the Geekademia Interview that we continue to host a transcript for in the thread. And the interview that started the chain of discussion is also text. So I don't think we'd need to worry about timestamps.

If a situation comes up where we'd want to cite something without a text version...well, I think we'd need to have a discussion on how to handle it; it can be quite a bit more difficult to cite something that way.

Oh, alright, so there's no specific time, just propose an entry whenever?

Yep! We don't have a statute of limitations or any such thing, and trying to anticipate entries to add/update based on the interviews seems horribly inefficient compared to letting people propose entries they think worthy of addition/updating (updation?).

Incidentally, if anyone comes across an older post of the Giant's that isn't in the Index but you think should be...propose away!

[DaggerPen]

Four of the five interviews listed in the thread are text. The fifth is the Geekademia Interview that we continue to host a transcript for in the thread. And the interview that started the chain of discussion is also text. So I don't think we'd need to worry about timestamps.

If a situation comes up where we'd want to cite something without a text version...well, I think we'd need to have a discussion on how to handle it; it can be quite a bit more difficult to cite something that way.

Oh, duh, yeah. I donno how I missed that one. Then yeah, I think just a quote and a link to the interview (to clarify which one it's from) should do it.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

There's an new quote in the strip discussion that seems like it could go in the index. I don't know quite how to summarize it.

[Mollez]

There's an new quote in the strip discussion that seems like it could go in the index. I don't know quite how to summarize it.

Perhaps something to the effect of, "Rich is making a deliberate effort to add LGBT diversity to the comic because he feels it was a mistake to go so long without doing so."?

[Gwynfrid]

Two follow-up comments on the same subject, here and here. I guess we can enter them as additional material under the existing quotes about inclusiveness in the comic and/or about the purpose of works of fiction.

[137beth]

Also, there are a few new tweets about gender inclusiveness in D&D. Most notably, the gender-ambiguous elves in 5e are the best thing to come out of D&D in years.
If it is going to be included, it would need to be included with the context of his previous exchange with James Wyatt on the subject.

[Jasdoif]

Yay there's new quotes to discuss!

There's an new quote in the strip discussion that seems like it could go in the index. I don't know quite how to summarize it.

It certainly seems to tie into an existing entry in the Index:

LGBT Characters Why there aren't more in the comic. Also see this.

#882

04/08/2013

I guess the question is if the new one would work better as another "see also", or if the entry should be rewritten to use this new quote as the main point and make the others "see also"s.

[137beth]

There's also one more follow-up to that discussion.

One of them could also be added as a "see also" under the story taking a moral stance.

Additionally, perhaps this post from later in the discussion could get its own entry.

[Gwynfrid]

I guess the question is if the new one would work better as another "see also", or if the entry should be rewritten to use this new quote as the main point and make the others "see also"s.

There's an evolution in the Giant's thinking from that initial quote to today. I would include the quotes in chronological order, but instead of just "see also" I would write something to indicate this evolution.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

There's an evolution in the Giant's thinking from that initial quote to today. I would include the quotes in chronological order, but instead of just "see also" I would write something to indicate this evolution.

I like this suggestion.

I believe we are up to four new quotes plus the tweets.

[theangelJean]

Also, there are a few new tweets about gender inclusiveness in D&D. Most notably, the gender-ambiguous elves in 5e are the best thing to come out of D&D in years.
If it is going to be included, it would need to be included with the context of his previous exchange with James Wyatt on the subject.

Actually I don't think that is the correct context. The quote is:

.@aquelajames In all seriousness, those two paragraphs are the best thing to come out of D&D in years. Well done, sir.

Having read the article in the Mary Sue that he linked in a previous tweet, it seems "those two paragraphs" he is referring to are the "Sex" section of the Personality and Background guidelines in the new D&D 5e rules (which I believe @aquelajames is responsible for: from the article, "With all of that in mind, I talked with James Wyatt, one of our writers, about crafting the text"). I can't link to the actual paragraphs he is talking about, as it's in a pdf file, but there is a picture of it in another Mary Sue article. There is a lot more in those two paragraphs than just gender-ambiguous elves, and I think that's the point.




Also, I've been wanting to propose a change to the description of this quote in the Character Development and Backstory section:

Parental Problems Background info on the parents of various characters like Elan and Haley, including character/plot development history.

#815

11/18/2011

My proposed description is along these lines:
"Parents are written in the story to introduce conflict, and absent otherwise. The fact that fathers are included and mothers are absent for three human characters is coincidence, a result of early strips when the plot hadn't been developed."

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Also, I've been wanting to propose a change to the description of this quote in the Character Development and Backstory section:

Parental Problems Background info on the parents of various characters like Elan and Haley, including character/plot development history.

#815

11/18/2011

My proposed description is along these lines:
"Parents are written in the story to introduce conflict, and absent otherwise. The fact that fathers are included and mothers are absent for three human characters is coincidence, a result of early strips when the plot hadn't been developed."

I support this change.

[137beth]

Actually I don't think that is the correct context. The quote is:


Having read the article in the Mary Sue that he linked in a previous tweet, it seems "those two paragraphs" he is referring to are the "Sex" section of the Personality and Background guidelines in the new D&D 5e rules (which I believe @aquelajames is responsible for: from the article, "With all of that in mind, I talked with James Wyatt, one of our writers, about crafting the text"). I can't link to the actual paragraphs he is talking about, as it's in a pdf file, but there is a picture of it in another Mary Sue article. There is a lot more in those two paragraphs than just gender-ambiguous elves, and I think that's the point.




Also, I've been wanting to propose a change to the description of this quote in the Character Development and Backstory section:

Parental Problems Background info on the parents of various characters like Elan and Haley, including character/plot development history.

#815

11/18/2011

My proposed description is along these lines:
"Parents are written in the story to introduce conflict, and absent otherwise. The fact that fathers are included and mothers are absent for three human characters is coincidence, a result of early strips when the plot hadn't been developed."

Now that I looked at the article I think you are right.
And yea, I support that change too.

[Jasdoif]

I believe we are up to four new quotes plus the tweets.

Umm...I don't recall anyone saying we should include all four of the quotes. In particular, "All of that falls under either 'non-obvious' or 'non-characters,' or both." doesn't seem to say anything that really warrants inclusion.

Having read the article in the Mary Sue that he linked in a previous tweet, it seems "those two paragraphs" he is referring to are the "Sex" section of the Personality and Background guidelines in the new D&D 5e rules (which I believe @aquelajames is responsible for: from the article, "With all of that in mind, I talked with James Wyatt, one of our writers, about crafting the text"). I can't link to the actual paragraphs he is talking about, as it's in a pdf file, but there is a picture of it in another Mary Sue article. There is a lot more in those two paragraphs than just gender-ambiguous elves, and I think that's the point.

Hmm. Citing a tweet that references an article that the Giant didn't participate in...that could get unintuitive in a hurry.

Parental Problems Background info on the parents of various characters like Elan and Haley, including character/plot development history.

#815

11/18/2011

My proposed description is along these lines:
"Parents are written in the story to introduce conflict, and absent otherwise. The fact that fathers are included and mothers are absent for three human characters is coincidence, a result of early strips when the plot hadn't been developed."

Seems rather verbose. How about...

Parental Problems Parents are in the story only to introduce conflict. That fathers are included and mothers are absent for the human characters is simply a coincidence.

#815

11/18/2011

?

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Umm...I don't recall anyone saying we should include all four of the quotes. In particular, "All of that falls under either 'non-obvious' or 'non-characters,' or both." doesn't seem to say anything that really warrants inclusion.

So far, people have said that the four quotes can be added in as a "see also" to existing entries.

[Gwynfrid]

The comic is a tool to express Rich's ideas and it has evolved to better reflect his view of the world. (And by the way, Hinjo is color-blind).

I'm thinking about a possible change in the categorization of some quotes, because there have been many debates on these matters recently. Quotes relevant to what Rich wants to do with the comic are a bit all over the place.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I'm thinking about a possible change in the categorization of some quotes, because there have been many debates on these matters recently. Quotes relevant to what Rich wants to do with the comic are a bit all over the place.

That's a good point. A category about what points Rich wants to make with the comic?