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

[Jasdoif]

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

I figure establishing a rule is preferable to having multi-page debates like happened with voting in the last thread, especially since we've got a bunch of people interested in having a rule established. And as long as we're making a rule, we may as well make it a good one. Speaking of which....I'm amending my suggestion:

Rule G: Transcripts of interviews and 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.

1) Individual entries in main Index may be drawn from secondary posts, to make it easy to find important comments. Therefore, entries are not considered redundant with secondary posts for the purposes of rule E.

Basically, changes are that we can include non-Q&A stuff (like the Geekademia interview), and we can have individual entries for stuff in Q&As and interviews (so there's no grounds for removing the six Twitter-sourced entries if/when the Twitter Q&A gets included).


ANYWAY, to sum up recent happenings....

• ThePhantasm no longer has enough time to properly take care of the Index, so I've taken over curatorship.
• I'm intending to use the "six-quote or two-month" procedure recommended by ThePhantasm in the last thread, and it is listed in the rules spoiler; the two-month mark would be May 9.
• The only currently outstanding quote is the one about why the hobgoblin army was homogenous, with two proposers and two supporters at the end of the last thread.
• Currently plan is, when the next update happens, to hold a vote for including the Twitter Q&A in a secondary post, and for the introduction of a rule (mentioned above) covering the use of secondary posts. Discussion/Debate about these is highly welcome.
• I may be taking the "banana" theme that gave us the thread subtitle too far. Possibly.

[ChristianSt]

Rule G: Transcripts of interviews and 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.

1) Individual entries in main Index may be drawn from secondary posts, to make it easy to find important comments. Therefore, entries are not considered redundant with secondary posts for the purposes of rule E.

Basically, changes are that we can include non-Q&A stuff (like the Geekademia interview), and we can have individual entries for stuff in Q&As and interviews (so there's no grounds for removing the six Twitter-sourced entries if/when the Twitter Q&A gets included).

Since you want discussion about it: I think the added "interviews" is redundant, since an interview is only a special kind of Q&A (namely the sort of where there is an interviewer asking the questions that someone answers).

Also while I like the thought behind the addendum 1) [which I thought of as kinda implied anyway], I don't like the fact that it is a "1)" without a "2)" and the talk about "secondary posts" is imo potential confusing/unclear. Does this mean secondary posts related to Q&As? Some other kind of secondary posts? All potential types of secondary posts? I know it is clear what it should mean. But couldn't it be worded in a precise way?
[speaking of secondary posts: Do we need a distinction between secondary and primary posts? Wouldn't it be better to just say "additional posts"? Or maybe "after the regular Index" if it is the position of the posts you want to focus on. Because "secondary" doesn't need to be necessarily mean that.]

I would reformulate it as

Rule G: <Basically the same stuff as before> Those Q&As aren't considered part of the Index with regard to the Redundancy Rule E.

If you want to be verbose we could still add a subordinate clause ", i.e. it is perfectly valid to include a certain comment in the regular Index and even multiple Q&As."

I know it kinda allows the scenario you made as an example with the hypothetical scenario with a potential Q&A with the complete transcript "AB" and a partial transcript "A". But I think this has to be prevented through thread consensus.

Because otherwise I could present the following scenario to you: Say Rich's makes a few more Q&As where he answers some question. They consist of multiple (for ease of discussion equally long) parts.
The first includes the parts ABCE.
The second includes the parts ABDF.
The third includes the parts CDG.
From a rules standpoint each Q&A would be mostly redundant (the first featuring ABC, the second ABD and the third CD redundant with content from the others). Yet each has a unique part we might want to keep (E, F and G respectively). [And it is possible that those parts aren't that easy to separate.]

So in my opinion the rule we want to establish shouldn't prevent that scenario (however unlikely it is), because I don't think it should be hard to establish thread consensus to prevent the partial transcript scenario should it arise. (Maybe I would go even so far and explicitly state that all Q&A aren't subject to Rule E in any way to allow them to be included even if they mostly consist of parts already in the Index)

So with that being said I amend my suggestion to:

Rule H: Transcripts of Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in additional posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source must fulfill the established rules with the following exceptions:

• Q&As aren't required to fulfill the Rules B, C and D fully. Even if parts of a Q&A violate these rules, it can be included in its entirety.
• The Q&As aren't subject to Rule E, i.e. if thread consensus is reached a Q&A can be included even if most of its content is redundant with the regular Index or other Q&As.
• The Q&As aren't considered part of the Index with regard to Rule E, i.e. it is perfectly valid to include a comment in the regular Index and even multiple Q&As.

(I have renamed this proposal to Rule H to make it easier to discuss and I think it is different enough compared to the so far proposed and slightly different worded versions of Rule G. In the final version I would naturally still put it into the rules as G)

[Dumbestupidiot]

I may be taking the "banana" theme that gave us the thread subtitle too far. Possibly.

One can never take a banana theme too far
unless said person is a porn star.

[Loreweaver15]

[*]I may be taking the "banana" theme that gave us the thread subtitle too far. Possibly.[/list]

That is unpossible.

[Jasdoif]

Since you want discussion about it: I think the added "interviews" is redundant, since an interview is only a special kind of Q&A (namely the sort of where there is an interviewer asking the questions that someone answers).

Now, this is probably a difference in how we use the terms....But I think the defining feature of a Q&A is that a large number of people are asking distinct/isolated questions, which are answered individually; while an interview has an individual or small group of people getting information in the form of a conversation, which naturally references things previously said.

They're different definitions, rather than one being a subset of the other, which is I wanted to make sure we'd have both covered. 'cause I'd feel silly if I introduced a rule to accommodate the Geekademia Interview and the Twitter Q&A, and it accidentally didn't apply to both.

I know it kinda allows the scenario you made as an example with the hypothetical scenario with a potential Q&A with the complete transcript "AB" and a partial transcript "A". But I think this has to be prevented through thread consensus.

Because otherwise I could present the following scenario to you: Say Rich's makes a few more Q&As where he answers some question. They consist of multiple (for ease of discussion equally long) parts.
The first includes the parts ABCE.
The second includes the parts ABDF.
The third includes the parts CDG.
From a rules standpoint each Q&A would be mostly redundant (the first featuring ABC, the second ABD and the third CD redundant with content from the others). Yet each has a unique part we might want to keep (E, F and G respectively). [And it is possible that those parts aren't that easy to separate.]

So in my opinion the rule we want to establish shouldn't prevent that scenario (however unlikely it is), because I don't think it should be hard to establish thread consensus to prevent the partial transcript scenario should it arise. (Maybe I would go even so far and explicitly state that all Q&A aren't subject to Rule E in any way to allow them to be included even if they mostly consist of parts already in the Index)

If I'm following your scenario right...you're worried that a lot of the same questions will be asked in multiple Q&As, enough that including both Q&As would be redundant. Even if each has a few important parts we'd want to include (let's say...one reveals Vaarsuvius' gender and the other reveals what the MITD is).

OK, that's a good point. Let me think....

Rule I(-Am-A-Banana): Transcripts of interviews and Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in additional posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source of such transcripts must fit with established rules, with the following clarifications for the slightly different nature of these additional posts compared to the "main" Index:
1) Most of the transcript must meet Rules B and C to be included; small portions are allowed to vary from.
2) If the question arises on whether Rules D and E are met, the answer must be determined by consensus.
3) Entries in the "main" Index are never considered redundant with additional posts, and vice versa; the same information can appear in both places.

I put D in alongside E, to avoid a similar problem to your example scenario (where answers on ABC change after the ABCE transcript, making it automatically run afoul of Rule D even though section "E" is still unique).

That should cover everything...I hope. Because I think we'll be at the point where we need a separate set of rules (or a separate curated thread) if it gets much more complex in how this rule interacts with the others.

One can never take a banana theme too far
unless said person is a porn star.

That is unpossible.

Oh. OK!

[ChristianSt]

First of all: Imo Q&A is just a abbreviation of "Questions and Answers" without really any meaning other than there is a bunch of questions and a bunch of answers (for those questions). But since you talked about definition: Where is the source for your definition? I have searched for one and the only thing I found was Wiktionary (which is imo a rather good source) with:

Etymology
Shortened form of question and answer

Abbreviation
Q and A

1. A period of time in which questions are asked of a person; an interview.

Alternative forms

• Q&A , Q & A , Q.&A. , Q. & A.
• Q. and A.
• Q+A , Q + A , Q.+A. , Q. + A.
• QnA , Q'n'A

(I haven't found anything more, since I don't think it is worth to spent time on it, and it is relatively hard to search for it)


If you still think that Interview isn't a subset of Q&A, I will not argue with you. But imo (and from the source I could find) specifying interview is just redundant. But since it is not wrong, it doesn't really hurt anyone.



To Rule H vs. Rule I:

I understand the intent (and reasoning) behind the additional exception of Rule D. But nevertheless I would prefer Rule H:
I don't think it has a good value to keep Q&As with a lot of contradiction. It would needed to be amended (which isn't that problematic, the Geekadmia Interview has some stuff amended, too - which is imo a good thing), but if a rather large part would need such changes, I don't think it would provide really good value.

Spoiler: Example of Q&A massively violating Rule D

Show

[Disclaimer: this is more or less random text - none of this is a statement some has maid. (And I also just repeated the questions a few times to highlight the effect)]

• Q: Do you like Italian Food?
  A: Yes Italian is my favorite kind of Food. [N.B. As of 3/15/2014 XXX has stated that he actually can't see it any more. -YYY]
  
  
• Q: Do you like American Food?
  A: I eat it, but it is nothing I consider really special.
  
  
• Q: Do you like Indian?
  A: No. [N.B. As of 2/17/2014 XXX has started to really like it -YYY]
  
  
• Q: Do you like Mexican Food?
  A: Depends on the type. Some stuff is really great, others I don't like.
  
  
• Q: Do you like German Food?
  A: Haven't tried it yet. [N.B. As of 3/21/2014 XXX has tasted it and has said he like it a lot -YYY]
  
  
• Q: Do you like Italian Food?
  A: Yes Italian is my favorite kind of Food. [N.B. As of 3/15/2014 XXX has stated that he actually can't see it any more. -YYY]
  
  
• Q: Do you like American Food?
  A: I eat it, but it is nothing I consider really special.
  
  
• Q: Do you like Indian?
  A: No. [N.B. As of 2/17/2014 XXX has started to really like it -YYY]
  
  
• Q: Do you like Mexican Food?
  A: Depends on the type. Some stuff is really great, others I don't like.
  
  
• Q: Do you like Italian Food?
  A: Yes Italian is my favorite kind of Food. [N.B. As of 3/15/2014 XXX has stated that he actually can't see it any more. -YYY]
  
  
• Q: Do you like American Food?
  A: I eat it, but it is nothing I consider really special.
  
  
• Q: Do you like Indian?
  A: No. [N.B. As of 2/17/2014 XXX has started to really like it -YYY]
  
  
• Q: Do you like Mexican Food?
  A: Depends on the type. Some stuff is really great, others I don't like.
  
  
• Q: Do you like German Food?
  A: Haven't tried it yet. [N.B. As of 3/21/2014 XXX has tasted it and has said he like it a lot -YYY]
  

While yes, it might contain still some interesting value (especially if we cannot really single quote comments like with the Geekademia Interview), I think with too much contradiction it loses too much value. I think Rule D is there to make things easier and to kinda prevent to dig up outdated answers because they don't help in any discussion (which is the main focus, as of Rule B). I'm fine with a few things changed (since the less is amended the more each addendum stands out), but if it is basically just a large pile of stuff that needs such warning, I don't see any real value in keeping it.


And that is the reason I'm fine with dodging Rule E: Rule E is imo mainly there to prevent clutter (which makes it hard to find stuff in the Index). Since those Q&As are in a separate part of the Index they don't add any clutter to the Index and therefore don't need to be redundancy-free. Sure, single comments might be hard to find in any given Q&A (especially if there are multiple and the only information I can remind "it was a Q&A"), but we still (if it is possible) can include it in the regular Index if we think it is important and I don't see any way to prevent this from happening (unless we just make a "Q&A"-Index, which I think is just not really worth it).


And that is why I would completely disable rule E for Q&As, while leaving the other Rules mostly intact. it enables that a Q&A can still be included when some comments in isolation wouldn't fit the Index. In a larger Q&A it is just basically guaranteed that some things violate certain rules, through example just some kinda off-topic questions in an interview or just a common question that is asked and answered every time. So demanding they fit all is imo just unrealistic.


Actually the problems with redundancy and Rule E was basically the only reason I had a problem with "majority" in the previous Rule G. I think all other rules should still be more or less followed.

[Jasdoif]

I don't think it has a good value to keep Q&As with a lot of contradiction. It would needed to be amended (which isn't that problematic, the Geekadmia Interview has some stuff amended, too - which is imo a good thing), but if a rather large part would need such changes, I don't think it would provide really good value.

I think we're approaching this in slightly different ways, here. I(-Am-A-Banana)2 isn't meaning "Rules D and E aren't in effect", but "Rules D and E are in effect, but whether they are met needs to be determined by consensus; there shall be no official method to quantify what percentage of a transcript is contradictory or redundant, nor shall there be a numeric threshold which a transcript must meet to be considered in compliance of Rules D and E".

Except including all that would be way too verbose, so I stuck with the short "needs consensus" portion. We don't want contradictory or redundant transcripts, but I don't think there's a good way to determine that with guidelines since it's tied into how included transcripts relate to other included transcripts. So it goes to getting consensus instead (in both our proposals I do believe, at least in the redundancy case).

[Rogar Demonblud]

I'm sorry, I really tried to resist the pun.

We've Left a Banana In Charge

"But would that be the top banana, or the second banana?"

[ChristianSt]

I understand why we want to ditch the Redundancy Rule. It is mainly there to reduce clutter, and I think adding a Q&A doesn't add any clutter to the Index.

But I don't really understand why we should ignore another Rule (like D).
The rules say "We don't want a contradicting quote [Rule D]" and "We don't want off-topic quotes [Rule B]". (Rule C doesn't establish anything on itself really. But it states what the goal of this whole thread is.)

Why can a Q&A with a bunch of contradicting quotes be included, while a Q&A with bunch of off-topic quotes not? Is Rule D less important than Rule B? And if so, why doesn't the Rules say so?

In either way, I think each Q&A can only be include if there is thread consensus. Imo no Q&A should be automatically included because of something in the rules. Imo the rules should only state clear which Q&As aren't eligible (sort of with the rules for the regular quotes).


So I think either way the new Rule should basically say "Q&As can go in. Besides Rule E which can be completely ignored, the Q&A must mostly fulfill the Rules, but they are allowed to have some comments normally not allowed in the regular Index. Thread consensus is needed to include any Q&A." [Basically Rule H with an explicit mentioning of the thread consensus, which is imo automatically through Rule F anyway.]

Or there is a much looser definition only dealing with Thread consensus, basically the original submission from Porthos:

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.

I would reformulate it as

Rule K: Any Q&As with Rich Burlew can be included in their entirety in additional posts if they fulfill Rule A. Any Q&A needs explicit thread consensus to be included and should fit the overall goal of the Index. The Q&As aren't considered part of the Index with regard to Rule E, i.e. it is perfectly valid to include a comment in the regular Index and even multiple Q&As.

This basically is the loosest rule we can have (again with the imo unneeded explicit mentioning of the thread consensus + stating that a quote can be in Q&As and the regular Index). It basically allows to ignore all other rules if thread consensus can be reached.

The difference to the initial submission is only that it specifies Rich, since I don't think we want any Q&A not from Rich, even if it is about OotS and that it clearly says that we need to fulfill the concerns Rule A deals with. So a Q&A in a paper magazine (or behind a paywall) is out without a question for example - just like for regular quotes. (Which "subject to copyright concerns" doesn't really specify. Also I really don't like the mention of copyright there, because it is a topic we should not touch in any way [and if only because of potential problem with forum rules like giving legal advice])


I personally prefer Rule H the most. Because it clearly limits the ability to include certain Q&As which are filled with mostly quotes that are stuff we don't want in the Index, and imo should be rather avoided for Q&As, too. [But yes, Rule H (and G/I) features all some sort of quantitative words (majority, parts, small portions or something like that) - which can make the exact border hard to judge (and that is exactly the same thing we have to do with some quotes anyway. Some posters think quotes are redundant, some not. Some posters say a certain quote fits Rule B, some say it don't.)]

Or we should imo just ditch any references to quantitative statements completely (on the basis that Thread consensus is needed anyway) and go with the (probably most compact and easiest to grasp) Rule K (which is imo basically the initial submission most started jumping on that they want something like this).


[Mh, If we keep posting alternate definition like this, the whole letter-naming thing can get out of hands rather quickly ]

Spoiler: Collection of proposed Rules alternatives

Show

[Unquoted to enable Quoting if needed]

Rule G: Transcripts of interviews and 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.

1) Individual entries in main Index may be drawn from secondary posts, to make it easy to find important comments. Therefore, entries are not considered redundant with secondary posts for the purposes of rule E.

---

1
Rule H: Transcripts of Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in additional posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source must fulfill the established rules with the following exceptions:

• Q&As aren't required to fulfill the Rules B, C and D fully. Even if parts of a Q&A violate these rules, it can be included in its entirety.
• The Q&As aren't subject to Rule E, i.e. if thread consensus is reached a Q&A can be included even if most of its content is redundant with the regular Index or other Q&As.
• The Q&As aren't considered part of the Index with regard to Rule E, i.e. it is perfectly valid to include a comment in the regular Index and even multiple Q&As.

---

1
Rule I(-Am-A-Banana): Transcripts of interviews and Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in additional posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source of such transcripts must fit with established rules, with the following clarifications for the slightly different nature of these additional posts compared to the "main" Index:
1) Most of the transcript must meet Rules B and C to be included; small portions are allowed to vary from.
2) If the question arises on whether Rules D and E are met, the answer must be determined by consensus.
3) Entries in the "main" Index are never considered redundant with additional posts, and vice versa; the same information can appear in both places.

---

1
Rule K: Any Q&As with Rich Burlew can be included in their entirety in additional posts if they fulfill Rule A. Any Q&A needs explicit thread consensus to be included and should fit the overall goal of the Index. The Q&As aren't considered part of the Index with regard to Rule E, i.e. it is perfectly valid to include a comment in the regular Index and even multiple Q&As.

[And I don't know if is a good or a bad sign that only we two seem to discuss on Rules formulations right now ]


Edit: I noticed a slightly discrepancy between some wordings of certain rules proposals with each other (e.g. "Any Q&As" vs. "Transcripts of interviews and Q&A sessions" vs. "Transcripts of Q&A sessions"). I really don't care which version should make the final rule [I said interview is redundant, so I would like to keep it out, but I don't think it worth to really argue about], so fill free to reformulate them as you think is needed. I really think we shouldn't argue about slight changes in formulation as long as the intend and meaning is the same.

Edit2: I missed to put the redundancy in respect to the regular Index into rule K at first, which I think should be there in either case.

[Jasdoif]

"But would that be the top banana, or the second banana?"

Both, at the same time. Does that make it...a banana split?

But I don't really understand why we should ignore another Rule (like D).
The rules say "We don't want a contradicting quote [Rule D]" and "We don't want off-topic quotes [Rule B]". (Rule C doesn't establish anything on itself really. But it states what the goal of this whole thread is.)

Why can a Q&A with a bunch of contradicting quotes be included, while a Q&A with bunch of off-topic quotes not? Is Rule D less important than Rule B? And if so, why doesn't the Rules say so?

In either way, I think each Q&A can only be include if there is thread consensus. Imo no Q&A should be automatically included because of something in the rules. Imo the rules should only state clear which Q&As aren't eligible (sort of with the rules for the regular quotes).

You know, I think we're in agreement on Rule D here, except for the details on how to express it.

I don't think we want to have a bunch of contradicting quotes in a transcript either. But how are we going to determine if a transcript has "a bunch" of contradicting quotes? Counting words, or sentences, or paragraphs? Those are easily measured themselves, to be sure, but aren't reflective of the usefulness of the information in them. So I'm thinking we don't have a quantitative measurement. Instead, if someone thinks a transcript has become outdated and violates Rule D, we need to arrive at consensus to remove it.

And if we're doing that for Rule D, doing the same for Rule E takes a trivial amount of extra effort/space in the rules. Plus we'll have an established way to handle things if redundancy between transcripts becomes an issue, like Gwynfrid mentioned.


As for needing consensus to include a transcript, I agree. That was specifically why I used the word "may" in G...although in retrospect I realize I was using the definition for IETF documents, which is far too niche to expect anyone to also be using.

[Mh, If we keep posting alternate definition like this, the whole letter-naming thing can get out of hands rather quickly ]

Honestly, I used "Rule I" after your "Rule H" primarily so I could do "Rule I(Am-A-Banana)". I think these kind of conversations can benefit from the occasional (attempt at) comedy

Anyway, if we really can't narrow it down to a single rule proposal by the time the next voting period comes, I guess we'll hold a separate vote for the various proposals.

[And I don't know if is a good or a bad sign that only we two seem to discuss on Rules formulations right now ]

I noticed that myself....It's fine if no one else wants to get involved in rulemaking (it's not as interesting as the Giant's quotes, after all), but it's really difficult to gauge community support this way.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I think the rules that I would support are Rules G and K, because (to me) they are the simplest ones. If I may propose my own rule:

Rule J: Transcriptions of interviews/Q&As are to be included in their entirety in the Index. These Q&As must follow Rule A (that is, they must be accessible online), and must, for the majority, abide by Rule B (that is, they must pertain to The Order of the Stick). Occasional deviations are acceptable. Rules C,D, and E do not apply to Q&As. Q&As will be added to the Index in the same manner as comments are.

One thing I would say is that a potential way to get around the problems caused by not following Rule D (which I'm not including because I would rather have the Q&As in their entirety, outdated information or no) is to arrange them chronologically.

Thoughts?
Ironically, this Rule is probably more complex than G or K.
And why did we skip over J?

[ChristianSt]

Is there a way to say "may" without without meaning (or at least implying) that something is optional?
I only included the whole thread consensus sentence to make it clear that no matter what, no Q&A shoul be included automatically. Because even without no rule version so far said that they needed to be added. Even if they didn't mentioned thread consensus. If you and others think it is redundant, feel free to cut it.

You know, I think we're in agreement on Rule D here, except for the details on how to express it.

I don't think we want to have a bunch of contradicting quotes in a transcript either. But how are we going to determine if a transcript has "a bunch" of contradicting quotes? Counting words, or sentences, or paragraphs? Those are easily measured themselves, to be sure, but aren't reflective of the usefulness of the information in them. So I'm thinking we don't have a quantitative measurement. Instead, if someone thinks a transcript has become outdated and violates Rule D, we need to arrive at consensus to remove it.

Actually I'm not sure whether we agree on Rule D or not. Why can't the same technique that is be used to determine whether only "small portions are allowed to vary from" Rule B/C of your Rule I be used to do the same for D? If the rule is allowed to say only a limited amount of B/C is used, why can't we say the same for Rule D, without needing do define how much is allowed and what not?

Or if we can, why should we value Rules B/C higher than Rule D and just not do the same for all Rules?

@Rule J
[I deliberately skipped over J. I personally don't have anything against using it, but in alphabetic lists it isn't (or at least I have the experience/perception) that rare to skip over J. Most likely because those letters are kinda similar (IJ/ij - especially the lowercase versions) and it doesn't help that they are adjacent.]

I really don't like the "Q&As will be added to the Index in the same manner as comments are". I think you mean "thread consensus" with it, but it is certainly possible to read it as "each question/answer will be sorted in the Index in the same way other comments are included". And that would be imo a bad thing to do.

I personally have the same problem with this: Is Rule B more important than C and D? Or are C/D somehow good for the regular Index but not for Q&As? I think there should be equal "rights" for B, C and D.

While a chronological approach to include Q&As makes the most sense, I wouldn't want to add that to any rule. Because it might be better to use other sorting mechanisms (source, thematic, how to use less posts). Basically the same way we do it for normal quotes (we specify what quotes are go into the Index, but we don't specify how they get sorted). And it doesn't really help against the contradiction thing. Because we don't know in which order any user might read any part of this thread (especially if someone just wants to read a single (maybe specific) Q&A and not all).

I (and I haven't seen anyone else) haven't said that parts of a Q&A should be removed. I think each rule proposed so far said to include the Q&A in its entirety and not removing random stuff (And I really don't want to do establish thread consensus on which part should be removed and which part not). But if an answer is outdated it should imo be amended like the Geekademia Interview [i.e. not removing any information, but adding additional information in parentheses that the original provided answer is not outdated].



If we continue to discuss about any formulation on to what degree (majority, parts, mostly, small portions, etc...) which of the Rules B, C and D apply (and how we can't give a valid and easy to use definition of how this can be applied to any given Q&A), I think the by far best would be Rule K because it is the only proposal so far without mentioning any fuzzy words.

Spoiler: Collection of proposed Rules alternatives

Show

[Unquoted to enable Quoting if needed]

Rule G: Transcripts of interviews and 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.

1) Individual entries in main Index may be drawn from secondary posts, to make it easy to find important comments. Therefore, entries are not considered redundant with secondary posts for the purposes of rule E.

---

1
Rule H: Transcripts of Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in additional posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source must fulfill the established rules with the following exceptions:

• Q&As aren't required to fulfill the Rules B, C and D fully. Even if parts of a Q&A violate these rules, it can be included in its entirety.
• The Q&As aren't subject to Rule E, i.e. if thread consensus is reached a Q&A can be included even if most of its content is redundant with the regular Index or other Q&As.
• The Q&As aren't considered part of the Index with regard to Rule E, i.e. it is perfectly valid to include a comment in the regular Index and even multiple Q&As.

---

1
Rule I(-Am-A-Banana): Transcripts of interviews and Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in additional posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source of such transcripts must fit with established rules, with the following clarifications for the slightly different nature of these additional posts compared to the "main" Index:
1) Most of the transcript must meet Rules B and C to be included; small portions are allowed to vary from.
2) If the question arises on whether Rules D and E are met, the answer must be determined by consensus.
3) Entries in the "main" Index are never considered redundant with additional posts, and vice versa; the same information can appear in both places.

---

1
Rule J: Transcriptions of interviews/Q&As are to be included in their entirety in the Index. These Q&As must follow Rule A (that is, they must be accessible online), and must, for the majority, abide by Rule B (that is, they must pertain to The Order of the Stick). Occasional deviations are acceptable. Rules C,D, and E do not apply to Q&As. Q&As will be added to the Index in the same manner as comments are.

---

1
Rule K: Any Q&As with Rich Burlew can be included in their entirety in additional posts if they fulfill Rule A. Any Q&A needs explicit thread consensus to be included and should fit the overall goal of the Index. The Q&As aren't considered part of the Index with regard to Rule E, i.e. it is perfectly valid to include a comment in the regular Index and even multiple Q&As.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I really don't like the "Q&As will be added to the Index in the same manner as comments are". I think you mean "thread consensus" with it, but it is certainly possible to read it as "each question/answer will be sorted in the Index in the same way other comments are included". And that would be imo a bad thing to do.

I meant something more along the lines of "the process for approving Q&As will be the same as that for approving comments" so that way the same voting rules will apply.

I personally have the same problem with this: Is Rule B more important than C and D? Or are C/D somehow good for the regular Index but not for Q&As? I think there should be equal "rights" for B, C and D.

I think that ensuring that the majority of the Q&A pertains to OOTS is more important than removing or noting contradictory answers. With that said, I suppose their should be some mechanism for keeping Q&As Rule D compliant, but I am unsure what the best way to do so is.

[NCoffin]

Is it fair to say that, regardless of exact wording, there will always be debate over what should be included in the Index? If so, I'd argue that all this proposed rule needs to do is allow for the inclusion of Q&As, as it's currently a grey area.

How about something like the following:

Rule L: Transcripts of Q&As with Rich Burlew may be included, in their entirety, in additional posts to the Index. Rule A applies as normal, but all other Rules may be varied contingent on community acceptance.

Rather than trying to legislate the exact boundaries of acceptable variance from the rules, this leaves pretty much all discussion up to the community at large, and will likely always involve a vote on inclusion in the end, rather than a quick addition. However, given the relative lack of such transcripts to come up so far, I'm willing to bet that at least for the immediate future Q&As will be sporadic. An occasional in-depth discussion is not necessarily a problem.

I trust that the case-by-case debate of transcripts will keep up the quality of Index input without the need for an excessively complex rule. Frankly, even an exhaustively-worded rule isn't going to prevent people from debating inclusion.

[Porthos]

Yeah, I just wanted to propose a nice simple rule precisely to avoid all of this back and forth.

I mean, I see no reason to make this anymore complex than it need be.

[ChristianSt]

@Rule L: The only difference I see between this and Rule K (minus slightly different wording) is that Rule K specifies that Q&As aren't considered part of the Index with regard to redundancy.

Is this deliberate? I.e. if there is a quote in a Q&A, do you think it can or it cannot be included in the first post of the Index?

Because I think it should be possible to include answers from Q&As there to, to make it easier to find them. And in that case I think the rule should clearly state it. (Or the other choice I see is to amend Rule E that redundancy is only considered for regular included quotes. But since the information is needed somewhere imo, it is imo better to leave Rule E as is and include that information in the new Rule).

So while I personally would like a Rule with a more strict meaning (but without the intent to really enforce it, since it is basically impossible to do so), from the last responses, I think a rule "Rule A + Thread Consensus (- Rule E for dealing with the regular Index)" is the thing that makes the most sense.

Although only a few people have said something on the redundancy part. But all posters that have said something on it have said nothing against including a quote in a Q&A and the regular Index. So I think it would be natural to include such an exception.

And to enable a fair vote (whether or not all proposals should be voted on or not. I think it can be narrowed down a lot before doing any voting), I think we just need at least one formulation that is against including Q&As.

Rule eXclude: To include Q&As in its entirety is outside the scope of the Index. Specific answers can be included as regular in the Index if they fulfill the rules as normal.


If I would have to put up a limited amount of candidates for the vote, I would use K, L and X. Rules K and L to enable a consensus on whether Q&As are considered redundant to the proper Index or not. So Rule L would prevent us from including those six Twitter Quotes in the regular Index if we decide to include the Twitter Q&A, while Rule K would allow it. Rule X is just to say that Q&As are definitely not something for this thread and would result in removing the Geekademia Interview.

I don't really think that any rule variant from G, H, I or J is that great, because they all feature some sort of fuzzy quantification. Since in cases where we need thread consensus anyway to establish whether or not we are on this or that side of the border, we imo can just skip that part and just say that thread consensus is needed. [And imo the only rule that really can't be overthrown by thread consensus is Rule A, because imo otherwise this thread might risk to overstep forum/board rules etc... - But nobody has proposed to skip Rule A so far, so I think we don't really need to argue about that.]

Spoiler: Collection of proposed Rules alternatives

Show

[Unquoted to enable Quoting if needed]

Rule G: Transcripts of interviews and 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.

1) Individual entries in main Index may be drawn from secondary posts, to make it easy to find important comments. Therefore, entries are not considered redundant with secondary posts for the purposes of rule E.

---

1
Rule H: Transcripts of Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in additional posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source must fulfill the established rules with the following exceptions:

• Q&As aren't required to fulfill the Rules B, C and D fully. Even if parts of a Q&A violate these rules, it can be included in its entirety.
• The Q&As aren't subject to Rule E, i.e. if thread consensus is reached a Q&A can be included even if most of its content is redundant with the regular Index or other Q&As.
• The Q&As aren't considered part of the Index with regard to Rule E, i.e. it is perfectly valid to include a comment in the regular Index and even multiple Q&As.

---

1
Rule I(-Am-A-Banana): Transcripts of interviews and Q&A sessions with Rich Burlew may be included in additional posts to the Index, in their entirety. The original source of such transcripts must fit with established rules, with the following clarifications for the slightly different nature of these additional posts compared to the "main" Index:
1) Most of the transcript must meet Rules B and C to be included; small portions are allowed to vary from.
2) If the question arises on whether Rules D and E are met, the answer must be determined by consensus.
3) Entries in the "main" Index are never considered redundant with additional posts, and vice versa; the same information can appear in both places.

---

1
Rule J: Transcriptions of interviews/Q&As are to be included in their entirety in the Index. These Q&As must follow Rule A (that is, they must be accessible online), and must, for the majority, abide by Rule B (that is, they must pertain to The Order of the Stick). Occasional deviations are acceptable. Rules C,D, and E do not apply to Q&As. Q&As will be added to the Index in the same manner as comments are.

---

1
Rule K: Any Q&As with Rich Burlew can be included in their entirety in additional posts if they fulfill Rule A. Any Q&A needs explicit thread consensus to be included and should fit the overall goal of the Index. The Q&As aren't considered part of the Index with regard to Rule E, i.e. it is perfectly valid to include a comment in the regular Index and even multiple Q&As.

---

1
Rule L:Transcripts of Q&As with Rich Burlew may be included, in their entirety, in additional posts to the Index. Rule A applies as normal, but all other Rules may be varied contingent on community acceptance.

---

1
Rule eXclude: To include Q&As in its entirety is outside the scope of the Index. Specific answers can be included as regular in the Index if they fulfill the rules as normal.

[NCoffin]

You're right in that K and L are basically the same. I've only tried to simplify the wording as much as possible.

Personally, I too am in favour of adding quotes from the Q&As to the Index proper. The only reason I see to include the Q&As at all is to preserve the original source of the quotes in the same way that forum links do for normal quotes. I don't see them as part of the Index itself, so much as preserved sources for the Index.

EDIT: I fully agree with your reasoning below, ChristianSt, and withdraw this argument. I still see the Q&As as being distinct from the Index and only kept here for ease of use.

So yes, the individual quotes can be put into the Index. I hadn't thought to include this in my original wording, so I amend it (in green) as follows:

Rule L: Transcripts of Q&As with Rich Burlew may be included, in their entirety, in additional posts to the Index. Rule A applies as normal, but all other Rules may be varied contingent on community acceptance. Quotes can be added to the Index proper from the Q&As. This is not considered redundancy for the purposes of Rule E.

[Jasdoif]

I don't really think that any rule variant from G, H, I or J is that great, because they all feature some sort of fuzzy quantification. Since in cases where we need thread consensus anyway to establish whether or not we are on this or that side of the border, we imo can just skip that part and just say that thread consensus is needed.

I think the "fuzzy quantification" is more for the benefit of the users, than for the process. A simple "by consensus" could mean "all of it must meet the rule" as easily as "none of it must meet the rule", which doesn't carry much information for when exactly a transcript might be considered for removal.

Terms like "mostly" or "small portions of" carry some sense of what direction consensus tends toward, so users can tell prior to attempting to remove/add a transcript. Even if someone still tries to do so against the direction indicated, it should at least serve as a warning against expecting success. Preventing/mitigating disappointment is a good thing, and reducing clutter (from not holding debates unlikely to change things) is a bonus.


I feel the rules should reflect both how we intend for the thread to be run, and what users can expect the thread to have.

[ChristianSt]

I think the "fuzzy quantification" is more for the benefit of the users, than for the process. A simple "by consensus" could mean "all of it must meet the rule" as easily as "none of it must meet the rule", which doesn't carry much information for when exactly a transcript might be considered for removal.

Terms like "mostly" or "small portions of" carry some sense of what direction consensus tends toward, so users can tell prior to attempting to remove/add a transcript. Even if someone still tries to do so against the direction indicated, it should at least serve as a warning against expecting success. Preventing/mitigating disappointment is a good thing, and reducing clutter (from not holding debates unlikely to change things) is a bonus.


I feel the rules should reflect both how we intend for the thread to be run, and what users can expect the thread to have.

I'm sorry, but I can't really follow your argumentation. After I proposed Rule H and altered the part concerning Rule D and I asked you why we shouldn't used the same approach for D as for B & C you said

I don't think we want to have a bunch of contradicting quotes in a transcript either. But how are we going to determine if a transcript has "a bunch" of contradicting quotes?

For me this statement makes only if there is a problem with "fuzzy quantification".

Otherwise I don't see any problem with Rule H, it basically encourages to honor the other rules (other than E) as best as possible. I don't see any reason why ignoring Rule D is less severe than ignoring the other Rules. Especially if you say it should only give a direction of whether it should be added or not, but basically doesn't mean anything.

I think that if the discussion shifts towards "It fits the definition of the Rule or not" instead of "I think it fits the Index or not" it doesn't really reduce any reason of discussion (other than distracting from the really important part of the why the discussion is done).

@K vs. L: If you agree that the rules are basically the same, then I personally don't care that much about which one is picked. I don't think K is really more complicated than L but I don't care that much about the exact wording (but I like the K wording more). But I would keep an alternative without the redundancy part if there are posters preferring not to include content in the regular Index and Q&As.

Personally, I too am in favour of adding quotes from the Q&As to the Index proper. The only reason I see to include the Q&As at all is to preserve the original source of the quotes in the same way that forum links do for normal quotes. I don't see them as part of the Index itself, so much as preserved sources for the Index.

I personally think "preserve the original source" isn't a valid argument for Q&A inclusion. With that intent it basically says that they are there to circumvent Rule A.

For example if the Geekademia Interview should become unavailable for some reason, I think it would be best to remove it from the Index. (I wouldn't like it, but without a valid source imo nothing should be in the Index.)

The reason I see is that those Q&As should be included is because they are hard to read. The source of the Geekademia Interview is just a podcast. It is really hard work if you want to quote from it without the transcript. It is even hard just trying to read (or search for!) specific parts. Twitter has its own limitations. It just isn't that easy to read the Twitter Q&A from Twitter (because some Answers are without question in Rich post and you have to open that conversation to see the answer).

[Gwynfrid]

I noticed that myself....It's fine if no one else wants to get involved in rulemaking (it's not as interesting as the Giant's quotes, after all), but it's really difficult to gauge community support this way.

I think the fact that the vast majority of the rule debate has been conducted by just the two of you is simply a sign that there isn't that much interest in detailed wordsmithing for a rule that will be used very infrequently, if at all. This is pretty much what I tried to say earlier on, and I read NCoffin's and Porthos' reactions in the same way as well.

Now, you are absolutely welcome to discuss this as much as you see fit and try to cover for every possible contingency down the road. You're trying to prevent chaos, that is a worthy goal.

I just humbly suggest that you try and close the discussion with a vote in the not too distant future, lest this thread become ChristianSt & A Banana's Authoritative, Exhaustive and Definitive Treatise on How to Define the Thread Rule to Rule Them All.

[Jasdoif]

I'm sorry, but I can't really follow your argumentation. After I proposed Rule H and altered the part concerning Rule D and I asked you why we shouldn't used the same approach for D as for B & C you said

I don't think we want to have a bunch of contradicting quotes in a transcript either. But how are we going to determine if a transcript has "a bunch" of contradicting quotes?

For me this statement makes only if there is a problem with "fuzzy quantification".

The problem is coming up with a single method to derive a number that doesn't rely on personal interpretation (a precise quantification rather than a fuzzy one). I don't think such a thing really exists to be found, which is why I think it needs to be taken to consensus (sapient minds are really good at working with things that aren't fully known and/or can't be quantified).

The "fuzzy quantification" terms don't really change that, except the rules suggest up front what direction is more likely to gain consensus, instead of someone having to suggest a removal/addition just to find out from the community after the fact. Even if it were redundant, making things more apparent to our contributors upfront and saving their time seems a worthy goal.

I don't see any reason why ignoring Rule D is less severe than ignoring the other Rules. Especially if you say it should only give a direction of whether it should be added or not, but basically doesn't mean anything.

Why I treat D and E differently than B and C, is because B and C are tied to the content of the quote/transcript and thus supremely unlikely to change. Whereas D is related to the current view of the Giant and E is related to the other quotes/transcripts in the Index; either of which could easily change.

It's far more likely for a quote/transcript to be challenged on either D or E after its been included, so I felt a more thorough treatment in the rules of how to determine post-inclusion if those applied was warranted.

But I would keep an alternative without the redundancy part if there are posters preferring not to include content in the regular Index and Q&As.

In case I missed it...Do we have anyone actively supporting such a view?

I personally think "preserve the original source" isn't a valid argument for Q&A inclusion.

I agree. That's more of a reason for a new curated thread specifically for "preserving the original source". (Although if such a thread were to be created, I'd be perfectly fine with linking it from the Index.)

I just humbly suggest that you try and close the discussion with a vote in the not too distant future, lest this thread become ChristianSt & A Banana's Authoritative, Exhaustive and Definitive Treatise on How to Define the Thread Rule to Rule Them All.

Hmm. Are you thinking "after the hiatus ends" is too distant in the future?

[Gwynfrid]

Hmm. Are you thinking "after the hiatus ends" is too distant in the future?

I'm not thinking about a hard date, that would be arbitrary. I'm more along the lines of "before the proposed rule count reaches rule Z" or maybe "before the rules discussion reaches the 50-page thread limit"... Just wondering a little how you're going to converge, that's all.

[Jasdoif]

I'm not thinking about a hard date, that would be arbitrary. I'm more along the lines of "before the proposed rule count reaches rule Z" or maybe "before the rules discussion reaches the 50-page thread limit"... Just wondering a little how you're going to converge, that's all.

My original plan, which we'll go with if we can narrow it down to a clear consensus supporting a single option above all others, is to hold a yes/no vote on the rule at the same as the next update cycle for the Index (six quotes or two months, with two months being at May 9).

Otherwise...I'll hold a separate vote on the rule proposals before opening the quotes for nominations to exclude, or when we have six distinct proposals with support. I'm thinking approval voting, to eliminate the need to rank proposals or dilute votes between multiple options: everyone who wants to vote gives a yes or no on which proposals they support (all, none, one, or any combination), and the proposal with the highest percentage of support amongst all the voters is adopted...if more than 50% support it; if we don't have more for than against any proposal, then no rule will be added. (I'm still evaluating tiebreaker options, though I hope the situation doesn't actually occur)

[ChristianSt]

The problem is coming up with a single method to derive a number that doesn't rely on personal interpretation (a precise quantification rather than a fuzzy one). I don't think such a thing really exists to be found, which is why I think it needs to be taken to consensus (sapient minds are really good at working with things that aren't fully known and/or can't be quantified).

I never said that I want a method with a precise quantification. I even argued against using the majority, because imo it was too precise (and it was also majority in regards to redundancy). So right now I really don't know why we are arguing about this.

Why I treat D and E differently than B and C, is because B and C are tied to the content of the quote/transcript and thus supremely unlikely to change. Whereas D is related to the current view of the Giant and E is related to the other quotes/transcripts in the Index; either of which could easily change.

It's far more likely for a quote/transcript to be challenged on either D or E after its been included, so I felt a more thorough treatment in the rules of how to determine post-inclusion if those applied was warranted.

So, you think if a Q&A slowly goes from "no contradictions" to "a lot contradictions" the rules shouldn't tell us that we maybe should look upon it again to see whether thread consensus still wants it there? [Also I would find it highly unlikely that will happen in a degree that we will need to worry about it. I'm not sure, but had we even a contradicting quote, yet*?] So why should we encourage the breaking of rules, if there is imo no real good reason to do so and if it seems unlikely to happen in the first place. And yes, Rule D is something that changes over time. Yet we have that rule for the regular Index anyway. What would be so bad about it applying it to Q&As?

*There is the "Vampire can casts spells without a deity" quote, but honestly I have read it as "it doesn't really state anything about Durkon" the whole time.

As I said, I think we don't need to deal with Redundancy in either case. Since Rule E imo basically is only there to keep the Index as usable as possible (since redundancy leads to clutter which leads to the Dark Side ... or something like that ) and since those Q&As would be outside the regular Index they would have basically zero impact on the usability of the regular Index.

In case I missed it...Do we have anyone actively supporting such a view?

Not really. But since you said you wanted a vote in all cases, I thought it would be good to have at least some realistic options/alternatives (hence Rule X) available. (Otherwise, why do we need a vote in the first place? From what I read here I will say that if there would be a yes/no vote for any of those proposal (-X) without any possible alternative, it will most likely win. Not because it is a good rule, but because I think the thread consensus is to allow Q&As and due to "fuzzy quantification" they are all more or less the same [not considering the redundancy with respect to the regular Index part]).


@approval voting: I really don't like this voting system. I would have no idea what I should vote with it: My clear favorite Rule is H (because it has the most strict and equal views on all Rules besides E), followed by K. I don't really like the other Rules (especially X), but I would prefer any rule (even X) in favor of no rule. So should I just approve all rules to higher the chances that any rule makes the cut? Or should I vote only H and K to higher the chances that one of those will will, but risk that none will reach the threshold?

I'm not sure if it is really better, but I would prefer the Alternative Voting /Instant-runoff voting [or maybe a similar system - I'm not sure what for voting systems out there and which is better at dealing with specific problems]. I know that Grey_Wolf_c likes this voting system (he has used it for the MitD-Thread in the past) and there is also a really nice video explaining it.

With AV, I could just Vote H, K, <rest of rules in alphabetical order>, without worrying to find the sweet spot between "selecting only the candidate I want to win" and "selecting enough candidates that at least one will win".


After writing (and thinking) more about this whole problem my so far reached personal opinion is that we just should use the easiest/clearest way to basically say "Q&As are allowed". The only things that this lacks is clarification. Namely that we still require Rule A, that we don't consider them to be in the Index while discussing redundancy and that we need thread consensus to tell whether they should be included or not. [Which yes, is the intent of Rule K.] I really think now that discussing whether "mostly <this>" or "partly <that>" is the better formulation is just a huge waste of time.

At least that it is what I think about it and what I think is the thread consensus. (If the amount of posters is a fair representation of the thread consensus.)

[Loreweaver15]

*pokes head back in*

Have you guys reached an understanding yet? I think we're all in favor of keeping the Q&As.

[ti'esar]

*pokes head back in*

Have you guys reached an understanding yet? I think we're all in favor of keeping the Q&As.

Agreed. I think it's a bit silly that so much effort is being devoted to hammering out the precise details of an answer to an objection that no one has actually raised yet.

[Jasdoif]

Spoiler: Stuff that Doesn't Matter Unless You're Curious What Appeals to a Peel With a Banana Attached

Show

I never said that I want a method with a precise quantification. I even argued against using the majority, because imo it was too precise (and it was also majority in regards to redundancy). So right now I really don't know why we are arguing about this.

I...don't recall saying you wanted a method with a precise quantification.

You said you didn't understand how I could say 'But how are we going to determine if a transcript has "a bunch" of contradicting quotes?' unless there was a problem with fuzzy quantification. So I tried to explain my view: that there was a bigger problem with precise quantification, and using vague fuzzy terms to help inform the decision process of each individual contributor/voter is a more useful standard.

I'm not sure why trying to clarify my own statements counts as arguing o_o

Not really. But since you said you wanted a vote in all cases, I thought it would be good to have at least some realistic options/alternatives (hence Rule X) available. (Otherwise, why do we need a vote in the first place? From what I read here I will say that if there would be a yes/no vote for any of those proposal (-X) without any possible alternative, it will most likely win. Not because it is a good rule, but because I think the thread consensus is to allow Q&As and due to "fuzzy quantification" they are all more or less the same [not considering the redundancy with respect to the regular Index part]).

I want a vote to ensure we actually have consensus, even among forum-goers who aren't inclined to get involved to the back-and-forth on coming up with the proposals. (That and so I don't have to change the first sentence in the rules spoiler to "These rules were decided by forum vote (except G)" )

Since we're not going to be adding a rule if we don't have consensus on it, I'm not seeing an advantage to proposing an option no one supports.

@approval voting: I really don't like this voting system. I would have no idea what I should vote with it: My clear favorite Rule is H (because it has the most strict and equal views on all Rules besides E), followed by K. I don't really like the other Rules (especially X), but I would prefer any rule (even X) in favor of no rule. So should I just approve all rules to higher the chances that any rule makes the cut? Or should I vote only H and K to higher the chances that one of those will will, but risk that none will reach the threshold?

...OK, I have an unhealthy fascination with voting systems, so I'm trying not to go overboard on the subject. Apologies in advantage if I fail

Vote for the proposals you support, don't vote for the proposals you don't support. Exactly like we do with quotes. (That was a big draw for approval voting: The vote itself would be conducted exactly the same way as the multi-quote votes we've done in the past and will do in the future, only determining the end result will be any different.)

And, well...voting would be open, just like with the quotes (posts in thread); so if you're so inclined you could wait to see the general direction of the voting before deciding whether to vote for the non-H-K options.

With AV, I could just Vote H, K, <rest of rules in alphabetical order>, without worrying to find the sweet spot between "selecting only the candidate I want to win" and "selecting enough candidates that at least one will win".

That "<rest of rules in alphabetical order>" is exactly my problem with IRV/AV in a scenario with closely related options: it needs a sequential order, resulting in arbitrary ordering if a natural order isn't present. A common arbitrary ordering can skew results.

Suppose we have a lot of voters who don't have a preference as long as a rule is adopted (which seems to be the case at the moment), and they go with alphabetical order for all of the rules...and G gets adopted not because it's got the strongest support (you said you don't particularly like it, and I would prefer I over G), but because it was first in alphabetical order.

Whereas with approval voting, voting for all the proposals supports each equally, increasing the likelihood of a proposal being adopted without influencing which proposal gets adopted...which I think is a good representation for just wanting a rule. Also, voting for only H (let's say) supports H exactly as much as voting for H and K, or voting for all the options, or any vote that includes H.


...all that said, I'd vastly prefer if we can narrow it down to a single proposal. Any vote to choose from more than three options has issues of some sort; so getting down to a "yes-or-no" on one option is ideal.

After writing (and thinking) more about this whole problem my so far reached personal opinion is that we just should use the easiest/clearest way to basically say "Q&As are allowed". The only things that this lacks is clarification. Namely that we still require Rule A, that we don't consider them to be in the Index while discussing redundancy and that we need thread consensus to tell whether they should be included or not. [Which yes, is the intent of Rule K.] I really think now that discussing whether "mostly <this>" or "partly <that>" is the better formulation is just a huge waste of time.

At least that it is what I think about it and what I think is the thread consensus. (If the amount of posters is a fair representation of the thread consensus.)

*pokes head back in*

Have you guys reached an understanding yet? I think we're all in favor of keeping the Q&As.

Agreed. I think it's a bit silly that so much effort is being devoted to hammering out the precise details of an answer to an objection that no one has actually raised yet.

Ah, we seem to be thinking as one. Excellent.

Just so I'm clear here, are we all in favor of NCoffin's amended L being the sole rule proposal in the upcoming vote?

Rule L: Transcripts of Q&As with Rich Burlew may be included, in their entirety, in additional posts to the Index. Rule A applies as normal, but all other Rules may be varied contingent on community acceptance. Quotes can be added to the Index proper from the Q&As. This is not considered redundancy for the purposes of Rule E.

[Loreweaver15]

Yes, indeed.

[The Linker]

Man, I still can't believe the Geekery tread was ever called nerdier than this one.

[Gwynfrid]

Just so I'm clear here, are we all in favor of NCoffin's amended L being the sole rule proposal in the upcoming vote?

Yes. As a bonus benefit, this sidesteps the emerging debate over voting methods... I'm all for it.