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

[ChristianSt]

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.

So just do be sure: It is fine to exclude option from the vote because they seem unpopular (like any Rule without a "Redundancy doesn't apply clause" or the "we don't do Q&As") to make voting easier, but because of some technicalities you still want to do a vote despite nobody saying that they have something against adding the rule?

I think the vastly improved thing to do would be to establish a sensible list of possible rules alternatives and do a vote on which of those will handle Q&As (which right now are imo K(= the amended L), the initial L and X). Otherwise imo it is just a waste of time even doing this vote. Because I would be surprised if any vote on a Rule "Q&As can be included. <Stuff>" will yield no.

Spoiler: On Voting Systems

Show

...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.)

The problem I support them in such unequal degree that it just basically doesn't make sense to support them equally. I would vote for any, no matter how ridiculous if it means that we leave this gray area. If there would be a a rule "Any Q&A from Rich posted on the third after full moon and it contains 20 to 40 questions with a total wordcount up to 8000 words, will be included in the Index. Any Q&A on other days with at least 50 questions or 10000 words will be included, too. All other Q&As will not be included" I would find it much better than staying in this grey area we are right now. But saying I think it would be a rule I would even like to being implemented is just a lie. Yet from what you said I'm kinda stuck with <voting for all rules>.

The comparison with quotes doesn't make sense. Because quotes are more or less independent. But we want basically exactly one Rule how to handle Q&As. Or if we have a vote containing Rule H and L, will we add both, since both are >50%? In the case of quotes we will add all with majority support.

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.

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.

If I wouldn't have cared about the order I would have said <rest of rules>. But since I wanted to give X my least support, I would vote that way (and actually this would be my voting order anyway, whether I write it that way or not).

The AV voting system doesn't force you to order all candidates. It would be perfectly valid to vote only rule G. Which says I don't really like any other of the rules. So if we put rules fitting for all tastes, if someone doesn't care he simple doesn't need to vote at all.

But my opinion is not "I want a rule". My opinion is "I want H or K if possible, but I would pick any other rule before no rule will emerge at all". And this is something I can't achieve without knowing what other peoples vote. And even arguing "well, wait with your vote until you know what others voted" is imo a really, really bad argument when you want to argue about benefits of a voting system.

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

No. I think the way you want it to do is just more or less a farce to be able to say "we have done a vote". I think either we should have a meaningful vote or just go ahead and basically pick one rule at random (though it would make most sense to pick the amended L (though I don't really like that wording) and in any case don't pick X) and add it to the rules.

Because yes, the thread has voted on it, but I don't really think that doing a vote to have done a vote (and later to say "but we have done a vote") dose makes sense. If that is really what you want, I will just stop arguing about the rule until it is done, because it just is imo a useless waste of time and basically a scam.

Yes, I know that my choice of words is pretty harsh, but that is just the feeling I have right know. I don't want to say that it needs to be the way I have suggested, but artificially limiting the rules proposal to the single one we would like while simultaneous saying "It was a fair vote" is just mind-boggling wrong in my opinion. And I'm not going to spend any (more) time to establishing an imo clearly unfair vote, with the intent "Basically some posters have agreed on one rule, but we will do a vote to later be able to say 'it was a fair vote'".

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?

So is there right now a vote ongoing on which rule to vote later on?

[Jaxzan Proditor]

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?

Sure. I think that it's nice and simple, and hopefully will cover any objection that is brought up. I suppose, since it is somewhat unlikely that there will be many Q&As, that is will work fine.

[Jasdoif]

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

Well to be fair, that comment was made before the emergence of the banana.

So just do be sure: It is fine to exclude option from the vote because they seem unpopular (like any Rule without a "Redundancy doesn't apply clause" or the "we don't do Q&As"), to make voting easier, but because of some technicalities you still want to do a vote despite nobody saying that they against adding the rule?

If by "unpopular" you mean "no one has actually expressed support for", then that's pretty much correct, yes.

Spoiler: Vote-tastic!

Show

The comparison with quotes doesn't make sense. Because quotes are more or less independent. But we want basically exactly one Rule how to handle Q&As. Or if we have a vote containing Rule H and L, will we add both, since both are >50%? In the case of quotes we will add all with majority support.

It's the same voting process, so it doesn't require voters to do anything different than they'll be used to already. Clarity of procedure and stuff.

If I wouldn't have cared about the order I would have said <rest of rules>. But since I wanted to give X my least support, I would vote that way (and actually this would be my voting order anyway, whether I write it that way or not).

Sorry, when you said "<rest of rules in alphabetical order>" I thought you meant you didn't have a preference between them but wanted to be thorough (and not risk no rule getting past 50%).

The AV voting system doesn't force you to order all candidates. It would be perfectly valid to vote only rule G. Which says I don't really like any other of the rules. So if we put rules fitting for all tastes, if someone doesn't care he simple doesn't need to vote at all.

Hmm. That's a fair point.

No. I think the way you want it do do is just more or less a farce to be able to say "we have done a vote".

I figure if/when we have a case of something like everyone saying "Proposal I is a refined and better version of Proposal G", then we shouldn't need to have Proposal G as an option on a vote.

Repeat until we have a single option that works for everyone, or just a few distinct entries to hold a vote on.

Because yes, the thread has voted on it, but I don't really think that doing a vote to have done a vote (and later to say "but we have done a vote") dose makes sense. If that is really what you want, I will just stop arguing about the rule until it is done, because it just is imo a useless wast of time and basically a scam.

Yes, I know that my choice of words is pretty harsh, but that is just the feeling I have right know. I don't want to say that it needs to be the way I have suggested, but artificially limiting the rules proposal to the single one we would like while simultaneous saying "It was a fair vote" is just mind-boggling wrong in my opinion. And I'm not going to spend any (more) time to establishing an imo clearly unfair vote, with the intent "Basically some posters have agreed on one rule, but we will do a vote to later be able to say 'it was a fair vote'".

It's not like the proposals are inherently irreconcilable the way political candidates are (barring some sort of process/ritual to physically, mentally and psychologically meld people together, anyway). It's well within the realm of possibility that we can come up with a single rule that everyone can support. That's where the discussion comes in.

But not all of our voting audience chimes in on discussions very often (far from it, is the impression I get). Their opinions are just as important, and I'm not willing to presume they'll all support a rule just because we came up with one. Which is where the vote comes in, to help ensure that the consensus of a small subset of our users is actually reflective of the group as a whole.

If that vote falls through, we can try to figure out why, and try again....Or if necessary, leave it un-ruled. I wouldn't like it either, but we've managed to go two threads without one, so it's not the end of the world; and I wouldn't establish a rule in spite of consensus even if thread curators were allowed to do so.

If that all feels like a scam to you...well, I honestly don't know what to tell you.

[Gwynfrid]

I'd like to express agreement with Jasdoif on the matter of voting systems. There doesn't seem to be a major disagreement on the fundamentals : let's allow Q&As provided they're freely accessible online, redundancy isn't a problem, the rest is a matter of community consensus. So let's try to resolve this as quickly and painlessly as possible, as opposed to trying to find the absolute perfect rule.

Spoiler: @ ChristianSt:

Show

Having feelings of frustration is entirely within your rights. However, I think the term "scam" was totally uncalled for. Jasdoif is trying his best to corral a decent consensus, that's all.

[Morty]

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.

Yeah, it seems to me like this argument started eating its own tail...

[ChristianSt]

I totally agree that a vote is good to ensure to get opion from more posters (especially with thr hiatus), but if that is that the case, who of us has the right to eliminate other (clearly different) proposals (like the "no redundancy allowance" or "no Q&As")?

Because if we can establish that certain rules are invalid, why can't we establish consensus?

E.g. what is when those "voting only posters" would prefer to exclude quotes from the Index that appear in Q&As, why have we the right to exclude that option, but on the same time say "we want a vote so they opinion is heard"?

And before someone starts: "Then they should speak up now!", I will answer: "I haven't heard anyone saying they don't want Q&As. So why do they don't need to say at least something to have a vote, but to get other options they need to say something?"


And yes, it may be harsh to say so, but doing it the way it is planned right now is imo just a scam. I'm not saying that Jasdoif is doing bad (I think Jasdoif makes a great maintainer so far), but if we do make a vote to make a fair process, we should try our best to make it fair. Otherwise right now it would just be better to skip the voting altogether and simple say "thread consensus was reached (without disagreement)".

[Zherog]

I'm starting to feel sorry for the corpse of the horse...

[Jasdoif]

"I haven't heard anyone saying they don't want Q&As. So why do they don't need to say at least something to have a vote, but to get other options they need to say something?"

That's easy enough: because they're not required to get involved in discussions over rules proposals if they don't want to. At the same time, not getting involved in discussions over rules proposals means...not being involved in discussions over rules proposals.

If they want to influence what options are available to vote on, they should get involved in the discussion on what options will be available to vote on. Anyone capable of participating in the vote is capable of participating in the discussion, so this seems fair to me.

If they don't want to get involved in the wordsmith-ery, they can leave it up to the more verbose of us, and they can still shoot our proposals down if they disagree with what we ultimately. This is pretty much a "committee deliberating on phrasing for the entire group to vote on" scenario.

And yes, it may be harsh to say so, but doing it the way it is planned right now is imo just a scam. I'm not saying that Jasdoif is doing bad (I think Jasdoif makes a great maintainer so far), but if we do make a vote to make a fair process, we should try our best to make it fair. Otherwise right now it would just be better to skip the voting altogether and simple say "thread consensus was reached (without disagreement)".

Help me out here: why is it a scam? If there's more votes for a proposal than against it, we have a genuine majority demonstrating approval. Where, exactly, is the deception coming from?

I'm starting to feel sorry for the corpse of the horse...

Look, casting gentle repose can only do so much.

[Gwynfrid]

Look, casting gentle repose can only do so much.

Disintegrate strikes me as a more decisive option. No less than 3 in-comic cases: Pretty conclusive evidence.

[ChristianSt]

First of all: I want to apologize for using the word scam. It just means a deliberate intent to do a wrong thing. That is not that what is happening.


But I still think that how I see this is planned it looks really unfair (and like a farce).

If I understand correctly was is planned, then right know the plan is to make a vote on "Q&As can be included. <A>" and vote yes/no on it.
If that result is yes, we have a rule.
If that result is no, it seems that it is planned to try Q&As can be included. <B>".

Yet this is approach makes absolutely no sense to me:

• It hides option <B>: If most people only care about "Q&As can be included.", then we may implement <A>, yet it is possible that thread consensus would prefer <B>. But we (a small part - because that is the one reason that is brought up why to do a vote) have eliminate <B> because we don't like it.
• It encourages voting yes: Imo it encourages voting yes, no matter what. If for most people the important part is "Q&As can be included.", why should they vote no? Saying no to "Q&As can be included. <A>" heavily implies that they don't want any Q&As. Also maybe they just don't want to go back to the grey area / rule proposal thing / doing another vote and just vote yes, no matter what. [I can say you that I will vote yes on pretty much any proposed rule if the question is "Do we add this rule? Yes or no". Not because I think that would be a great rule, but because I believe that we need a rule. And sorry if I think that a voting system in which I imagine I would vote basically yes no matter what the proposed rule is, is imo highly flawed.]
• It just ignores everyone that don't want Q&As: So say we do our vote "Q&As can be included. <A>" and get the result "no". If the next step is to vote on "Q&As can be included. <B>", then from a perspective of someone that do not want Q&As this must look like a scam, because it just seems that we want to force Q&As into the Index.

If the thread wants to follow that path, then feel free to do so, but I will just stop participating in it - because from what I have heard, unless I grossly have misunderstood what is planned, you can't me convince this is fair. [To be fair, since I think we are right now pretty much finished with identifying alternatives (unless someone pops in with a smart idea), then there is imo nothing really left to discuss anyway].


[And to be clear: I don't want to vote on all those different fuzzy quantification wordings and different formulations. I think we have established that they boil down to essentially the same thing. But I don't see any reason to exclude imo fine alternatives like a rule with "Q&As are generally considered part of the Index, no quote from an included Q&A can be included in the regular Index" or "No Q&As". (And yes, it maybe boils down to me wanting to have a rule at the end, so I think it is vastly better to just have the essential alternatives in a vote and see which rule emerges as consensus. But with the currently planned voting system that imo just don't work, because we just firing one proposal and see if it sticks. But we don't even try if other solutions we have identified might stick better.)]


EDIT: And if we think no proposal we might find could be right, we could also have the option "non of the proposed rules are ok." [with encouraging to state what the problem with them is, btw what a fine rule would be]

[ti'esar]

I'm fine with having a vote on something that no one has objected to so far. What does bother me about all this is the vast amount of effort that's being put into finding the absolute most precise way of wording "Q&As can be included". It's kind of silly to begin with, but it seems really pointless and detached from reality when no one has said "Q&As shouldn't be included".

[Kalmegil]

An amendment process where some group of people proposes an amendment to be voted up or down is not only common, but the most common way to amend things in the real world. And it's absolutely fair when the group of people doing the proposing is self-selected, making the process open to literally everyone who wants to be included (and hasn't been banned from the board).

Voting is not the only means of consensus building. It's not even the best means. It's simply sometimes the only feasible means when the group is big enough.

And there's a big difference between holding a vote to amend the core rules of the thread and trying to make sure that every proposal anyone ever considered (but no one actually advocated) is included. The former, when applied in a case where a clear consensus exists, simply acknowledges and solemnizes the concept of group self rule. The latter isn't about group self rule, but about hypothetical self rule. It's not needed.

[Gwynfrid]

First of all: I want to apologize for using the word scam. It just means a deliberate intent to do a wrong thing. That is not that what is happening.

Thanks. I appreciate that you're recognizing this distinction.

But I still think that how I see this is planned it looks really unfair.

It is unfair only if people exist that would be on the losing side of the alleged unfairness. Such people haven't spoken up so far: We can only conclude they either don't exist, or don't care enough to post disagreement.

But I don't see any reason to exclude imo fine alternatives like a rule with "Q&As are generally considered part of the Index, no quote from an included Q&A can be included in the regular Index" or "No Q&As".

These alternatives haven't received any support, as far as I can determine, during the whole month this discussion has lasted (since the Twitter Q&A was first proposed for inclusion).

I concur with Kalmegil and ti'esar: The consensus building process has run its course, via the discussion on this thread. All what's left to do it to formalize it through a vote, the only purpose of which is to verify majority support for that consensus. Discussion of alternatives that have no more than hypothetical support isn't necessary.

@Jasdoif: Mind adding a link to ThePantasm's old thread in the OP?

[ChristianSt]

I just can't really understand the distinction why there is any need for anyone to speak up for some for those other options but no need for anyone to say they want a vote on it. But since I don't think it will lead anywhere, I don't really want to discuss this further.

@Jasdoif: Mind adding a link to ThePantasm's old thread in the OP?

Since it is already there, I don't think Jasdoif will have a problem with it

(Unless you think it is not prominent enough where it is, it is after the Geekademia Interview in Post 4)

[Gwynfrid]

(Unless you think it is not prominent enough where it is, it is after the Geekademia Interview in Post 4)

I'm not sure if it's prominent enough or not. The fact is I missed it when I went to find it. I only looked in the first post as I just didn't imagine it might be anywhere else.

[Jasdoif]

Disintegrate strikes me as a more decisive option. No less than 3 in-comic cases: Pretty conclusive evidence.

That would remove the possibility of future damage to the corpse, yes...but this banana does not have the Destruction domain.

Also, it would make me feel really silly for casting gentle repose in the first place

But I still think that how I see this is planned it looks really unfair (and like a farce).

If I understand correctly was is planned, then right know the plan is to make a vote on "Q&As can be included. <A>" and vote yes/no on it.
If that result is yes, we have a rule.
If that result is no, it seems that it is planned to try Q&As can be included. <B>".

That would be a farce, yes. Which is why it's not what's planned.

There is no <B> option going up. If there were, it would be up in the same vote as <A>, because to do otherwise would be to bury the <B> option...like you said. If the result on <A> is not a majority to approve, then we have no rule; and we're done with this rule-making exercise. For the time being at least.

I suppose it's my fault if I wasn't clear that "narrowing it down to one choice" wasn't meant as "iterate through multiple choices individually until one sticks", so I apologize.

And if we think no proposal we might find could be right, we could also have the option "non of the proposed rules are ok." [with encouraging to state what the problem with them is, btw what a fine rule would be]

That's kind of what I was thinking "no" votes could accomplish.

I'm not sure if it's prominent enough or not. The fact is I missed it when I went to find it. I only looked in the first post as I just didn't imagine it might be anywhere else.

It's after the Geekademia Interview, solely because that's where it was in the last thread and I didn't see any reason to do otherwise.

Where are you thinking would be a better place for it?

[Gwynfrid]

It's after the Geekademia Interview, solely because that's where it was in the last thread and I didn't see any reason to do otherwise.

Where are you thinking would be a better place for it?

Not a big deal for me, since now I know where to find it if I ever want to refer it again in the future. In general, I would say the most logical place for it is at the bottom of the 1st post. But that's just me.

[Jasdoif]

Not a big deal for me, since now I know where to find it if I ever want to refer it again in the future. In general, I would say the most logical place for it is at the bottom of the 1st post. But that's just me.

Hmm. I'd be more inclined to agree if normal use of the Index had an advantage to looking at the old threads, personally. But if it's not a big deal for you any longer....Does anyone else think the old threads should be linked in the first post somewhere?

[ChristianSt]

Hmm. I'd be more inclined to agree if normal use of the Index had an advantage to looking at the old threads, personally. But if it's not a big deal for you any longer....Does anyone else think the old threads should be linked in the first post somewhere?

I'm not even sure, whether I care enough about it that I should even post.

.
.
.

Wait, somehow this plan has a problem.

[Loreweaver15]

Pretty much every serial thread maintains a list of old threads for reference.

[Jasdoif]

Pretty much every serial thread maintains a list of old threads for reference.

Yes. This is one of them, even.

I'm wondering if anyone thinks it's worthwhile to have it somewhere in the first post, instead of after the other posts at the beginning of the thread like it is now. My opinion isn't strong either way, and Gwynfrid's opinion doesn't seem to be either once he located where it is now.

It's only there now because that's where it was in the last thread, and because it is there is not sufficient reason to climb a mountain assume it needs to stay there.

[Loreweaver15]

I think, perhaps, the fact that I stopped looking after the first post because that's where I assumed it would be will give you my answer :P

[Jasdoif]

I only looked in the first post as I just didn't imagine it might be anywhere else.

I think, perhaps, the fact that I stopped looking after the first post because that's where I assumed it would be will give you my answer :P

Fair enough.

Conveniently the Index has an accepted format for citing posts, so I just used the same format to list the first posts of all the Index threads at the bottom of the initial post.

[Porthos]

We have comment!

On destinations of children's souls in the afterlife (if you really need to know), their eventual status (ditto), and the destination of souls in general.

I'm sure someone could come up with something better, but those are the three main points.

Well that and the observation that D&D cosmology doesn't make a lick of sense (Rich's take on it included).

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I'll support including this quote because I think that tells something interesting about how Rich's version of the after life is supposed to allow the story to progress, not make tons of sense. Also, it says more information of how the after life works in OOTS verse.

[Gwynfrid]

A refreshingly frank viewpoint on D&D afterlife... To be included, I think, as a matter of course.

[NerdyKris]

Yes yes yes.

It is invaluable in the sense that people can point to it and say "No, this wasn't thought out that far because it's not relevant to the story beyond that point."

[Gift Jeraff]

I thought we're only supposed to go "yes, include this quote because of these reasons" if there's someone against its inclusion.

[Jasdoif]

I thought we're only supposed to go "yes, include this quote because of these reasons" if there's someone against its inclusion.

Stating reasons for support is quite fine and even encouraged. A discussion would have to start somewhere, after all.

You might be thinking of if/when a quote is being voted on; in those cases, voting "yes, include this quote because of these reasons" is preferred over discussing those reasons during the vote; since the discussion should have already happened by the time a vote gets called (and tracking votes amidst discussion can be difficult).

[Jasdoif]

{table="class:grid,align:center,width:100%"]

Hey neat, I actually updated the initial posts early enough that it got affected by the mass-table-tag change. Guess I better re-fix it now....