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

[ChristianSt]

I hope I get used to the new theme, doesn't really feels that good for me right now .


I think with the return of the search function we should get rid of that Google link. [I personally never liked that, and now you can get a more useful result with the forum search anyway]


Since I noticed the main Index got spilled over to the second post (that table code got much more verbose), maybe it would better to turn of your signature for the first post? It would just reduce the distance between the content a bit - and since there is no real "topic switch", I think it would be better. [Only a suggestion. I have no problem if you want to keep your signature in all posts, I only wanted to address that topic, since I just looked at the OP and noticed that.]

[Jasdoif]

I hope I get used to the new theme, doesn't really feels that good for me right now .

I hope the new theme gets touched up to look a little better, personally....But I've done enough forum upgrades to know they tend towards the tedious and time-consuming, so I'm opting for patience at the moment.

I think with the return of the search function we should get rid of that Google link. [I personally never liked that, and now you can get a more useful result with the forum search anyway]

Seems reasonable; and if something happens to the forum search I can just pull the Google link back out of the second thread. Done.

Since I noticed the main Index got spilled over to the second post (that table code got much more verbose), maybe it would better to turn of your signature for the first post? It would just reduce the distance between the content a bit - and since there is no real "topic switch", I think it would be better.

Also seems reasonable. Done.

[Loreweaver15]

I'm willing to concede the ugly layout for now to the fact that this upgrade was done for hardware reasons, not cosmetic ones.

[ChristianSt]

I hope the new theme gets touched up to look a little better, personally....But I've done enough forum upgrades to know they tend towards the tedious and time-consuming, so I'm opting for patience at the moment.

Yeah, I didn't want to sound annoyed by the forum upgrade per se. I really like it, and from what I see it brought some really nice benefits. I'm rather annoyed at myself that I have the feeling that it did look better before. But I really hope I will get used to seeing it [And I really would like to see a complete BBCode-Guide, especially what is doable with tables...].

For sure I don't will go and say "This looks ugly, do something to make it like before". It is pretty much impossible to change something without doing some things some people don't like. (But not changing anything isn't the good solution, either.) And layout and such is a pretty personal taste to begin with (and probably seeing something for 5+ years has something to do with it, too.)

Done. Done.

Yeah, progress!


BTW: I haven't said it before: nice work at updating the OP. [I know you said you have a script/program to do the heavy lifting. But I know from my thread, that it is still not that easy to get something that looks satisfying with the table changes (I'm not even sure whether to use table borders or not ).]

[Porthos]

As an aside, polls did not make the cut during the upgrade. So we don't have to worry about that potential problem.

[RMS Oceanic]

A bit of info about the new font, and confirmation the online size increase won't translate to the books.

[ChristianSt]

A bit of info about the new font, and confirmation the online size increase won't translate to the books.

I think your summation is a bit misleading. At least I read that the second part only applies to font sizes, which isn't true. Basically the Giant only says that the online comic is bigger than before (which is easy to see), and that it would not carry over in print. But since the print version isn't really tied to the online version (resolution, border changes, more error correction), I don't think this is really needed. (It doesn't even really confirm that the future books will have the same size as the past books.)

[Jasdoif]

I haven't said it before: nice work at updating the OP. [I know you said you have a script/program to do the heavy lifting. But I know from my thread, that it is still not that easy to get something that looks satisfying with the table changes (I'm not even sure whether to use table borders or not ).]

Thanks. I still miss colspan, though; the use of nested tables works, but I don't really like the doubled borders, and all the added table tags make the BBCode look ugly.



Anyway, since the latest proposal has hit contention; let me recap the stuff we still have on course for inclusion/voting in the next go-around, in case anyone's lost track between the forum downtime and the thread getting on a new page.

I'm still planning on running this by the six-quotes-or-two-months update schedule and...I'm presently leaning towards both the Twitter-Q&A-as-separate-post and the mostly-agreed-upon-Q&A-related-rule counting towards those six "quotes"; So the next update (and corresponding vote) will happen when we decide on two more quotes or sometime during May, whichever comes first.

(New Rule Proposal) "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."	(n/a)	(special)
(Twitter Q&A) Using ChristianSt's transcription in a second post.	(n/a)	(special)
Why the Hobgoblin Army Was Homogenous "I didn't really want the audience to weep for the hobgoblin dead, though, so I made them all interchangeable."	#946	03/02/2014
On Children, Souls and Afterlives Also, D&D cosmology makes no sense.	#946	03/19/2014

[ChristianSt]

Thanks. I still miss colspan, though; the use of nested tables works, but I don't really like the doubled borders, and all the added table tags make the BBCode look ugly.

Have you considered to just drop the "class:border" for the outer tables? I just tried it and I think it looks much better. It gets rid of the double borders, and the table headers stick a bit more out (since they are in the outer table and a bit wider than the inner cells). [That no-border option is so good! You can even use it to improve signature space . If we get vertical alignment and col/rowspan this alone would be worth an upgrade. ]

(Yeah, can't really help about messed up BBCode - though it should be easy to intent the original source so that it works better. I personally move any bigger post I edit to a separate text editor before posting it to the forum editor.)

[Jasdoif]

Have you considered to just drop the "class:border" for the outer tables? I just tried it and I think it looks much better. It gets rid of the double borders, and the table headers stick a bit more out (since they are in the outer table and a bit wider than the inner cells).

Huh. It's weird how the default style has borders on the th cells and not on the td cells...but I think that's an improvement, yes! Now I'll just add a little size option so the headers don't look identical to adjacent subheaders, like I already should have...Done.

(Yeah, can't really help about messed up BBCode - though it should be easy to intent the original source so that it works better. I personally move any bigger post I edit to a separate text editor before posting it to the forum editor.)

As it turns out, if I add any indenting (even single space indents) the first post runs past the character limit again.

[Zherog]

As it turns out, if I add any indenting (even single space indents) the first post runs past the character limit again.

Ouch !

[ChristianSt]

As it turns out, if I add any indenting (even single space indents) the first post runs past the character limit again.

Character Limit is truly a pain in the ass ....

But if it makes your life easier to have a bit indention, since there is already a second post, I think it wouldn't hurt to spill another table or two into the second post. (I think nobody should be bothered whether the spoiler box split is 5/2 or 4/3 [or whatever, haven't checked the OP])

[Jasdoif]

Ouch !

Yeah; adding one space for the (inner) row tags and two for the cell tags adds a bit short of 2000 characters to the Index as a whole. We've got a lot of data....

Character Limit is truly a pain in the ass ....

But if it makes your life easier to have a bit indention, since there is already a second post, I think it wouldn't hurt to spill another table or two into the second post. (I think nobody should be bothered whether the spoiler box split is 5/2 or 4/3 [or whatever, haven't checked the OP])

Good idea...With the first post only a few thousand characters away from being full again, it'd be a prudent move regardless. I moved one of the sections to the second post and added a little indenting, now they've both got over 20k characters' worth of room to grow.

[ChristianSt]

Quick, I need to throw more ideas at this thread, before my run of useful ideas stops!!
(Or turn my focus to more important things )

But it is nice to see that I can make at least some useful posts here from time to time, instead of having heated discussion about rules

[Jasdoif]

I still miss colspan, though; the use of nested tables works, but I don't really like the doubled borders, and all the added table tags make the BBCode look ugly.

OK, so it turns out the option's already there and I just didn't know how to do it until now. So now the main posts are colspan-ing.

[thatSeniorGuy]

Somewhat surprised that this hasn't been noted yet*:
The new hands style takes (almost) exactly the same time to draw as the old style. (Feet and dwarven tunnel entrances are another matter).


* Unless I'm an idiot and missed it being mentioned despite just checking the thread.

[ChristianSt]

Somewhat surprised that this hasn't been noted yet*:
The new hands style takes (almost) exactly the same time to draw as the old style. (Feet and dwarven tunnel entrances are another matter).


* Unless I'm an idiot and missed it being mentioned despite just checking the thread.

No, you haven't missed such a proposal.

I personally wouldn't really want to include it anyway. In my eyes it is only needed for discussions which are awfully close to an inappropriate topic (i.e. update schedule): I can only see that post useful in a discussion on the topic "how long takes a comic (or certain element of the comic) to draw". And from that the inappropriate topic is just too close for my taste.

So in favor of Rule C:

Rule C: The index is a forum tool, meant primarily to provide easy access to direct statements from the author for the purpose of forum discussion. Thus, while the index may be fun to read through on a whim, this is not its primary purpose or focus - it is a research aid more than it is a trivia collection. It is for discussions more than it is for leisurely reading.

I personally would not include it, because I honestly think that most (or even all) discussions wanting that quote are pretty sketchy regarding board rules anyway, and I personally tend to err on the side of caution.

[Vargtass]

Somewhat surprised that this hasn't been noted yet*:
The new hands style takes (almost) exactly the same time to draw as the old style. (Feet and dwarven tunnel entrances are another matter).


* Unless I'm an idiot and missed it being mentioned despite just checking the thread.

Contrary to ChristianSt, I would like to have the quote included, for exactly the reason that it would be very useful for stopping topics from drifting into inappropriate topics. The question has been raised at several occasions since the art style shift, and the Giant's response was done to end speculation on the topic. I think it will be needed occasionally also in the future.

- Vargtass

[ChristianSt]

Contrary to ChristianSt, I would like to have the quote included, for exactly the reason that it would be very useful for stopping topics from drifting into inappropriate topics. The question has been raised at several occasions since the art style shift, and the Giant's response was done to end speculation on the topic. I think it will be needed occasionally also in the future.

While it shuts down the question whether the hands take more time or not, it also openly states that the feet take more time - so potentially merely shifting the discussion from "X takes longer than before" to "Y takes longer than before".
Also the quote alone gives no reason to stop that topic.


The only thing the forum rules allow us to do is either reporting the posts in questions or writing a PM to a Moderator. The only thing we are even allowed to do to directly interact with other users is to "courteously link to" the Forum Rules. And this I can do whether or not Rich said something about the topic or not.

Vigilante Modding
If you're not a Moderator, don't act like one. Rich has selected a few people he trusts to keep an eye on conversations here. Please refrain from chastising other posters over breaking the rules, especially concerning minor things. The proper response when you see someone breaking these rules is to report the post as discussed above or to a PM to the local Moderator. At most, you may courteously link to this announcement. But whatever you do, do not tell other posters what to do, what rules they have broken, that they are spamming, etc. Posters who do so will be issued an Infraction for their actions.

[Kalmegil]

Contrary to ChristianSt, I would like to have the quote included, for exactly the reason that it would be very useful for stopping topics from drifting into inappropriate topics. The question has been raised at several occasions since the art style shift, and the Giant's response was done to end speculation on the topic. I think it will be needed occasionally also in the future.

- Vargtass

Agreed, although I think there are other reasons, too, including people just being interested in the techniques and difficulty of the art style. The blob brush information is the kind of thing that's useful in forum discussions about the art style.

While it shuts down the question whether the hands take more time or not, it also openly states that the feet take more time - so potentially merely shifting the discussion from "X takes longer than before" to "Y takes longer than before".

A quote doesn't have to perfectly resolve an issue for it to still be useful.

The only thing the forum rules allow us to do is either reporting the posts in questions or writing a PM to a Moderator. The only thing we are even allowed to do to directly interact with other users is to "courteously link to" the Forum Rules. And this I can do whether or not Rich said something about the topic or not.

You could also post a link to the quote, saying, "Hands take same time, feet longer, but some kinds of scenery even longer than that." No need to mention rules at all.

Just because we can't talk about the update schedule doesn't mean we aren't interested in knowing what goes into drawing a comic.

[ChristianSt]

I never did say that this would be against the rules. I only said that this topic is too close related to the inappropriate one in my eyes.

If it is interesting that Rich used the blob brush (which could be the case), then the summary should be "Rich uses the blob brush to make the new hands." and not something about how long they take draw.

[Jasdoif]

Rawhide's provided table classes similar to the old table style, so I've updated the Index to use them. The alternating row colors in particular should help readability.

Now then.

I personally would not include it, because I honestly think that most (or even all) discussions wanting that quote are pretty sketchy regarding board rules anyway, and I personally tend to err on the side of caution.

While I understand what you mean...To me, wanting to exclude a quote for the purpose of preventing possible discussions seems unduly restrictive in general. And ineffective, really; the quotes linked in the Index already exist, and someone really wanting to discuss it is going to find the quote whether we have it in the Index or not (especially now that forum searching has returned). Besides which, The Giant making the post outside his administrator capacity (no red text) strongly suggests he finds it an acceptable topic of discussion.

I think it's better to decide on the quote's own merits. And having said that....

Agreed, although I think there are other reasons, too, including people just being interested in the techniques and difficulty of the art style. The blob brush information is the kind of thing that's useful in forum discussions about the art style.

I'm having a hard time seeing why the fine points of the vagaries of Adobe Illustrator would have much relevance to OOTS. Now if the post in question were instead something like the hand style is not going to be changed, directly talking about what will be in the comic, I'd have an easier time of it.

[Kalmegil]

Hence it being an "other reason," not the main one.

[Jasdoif]

Hence it being an "other reason," not the main one.

OK, but I'm still not seeing how it works as a reason at all, main or otherwise.

[Kalmegil]

In fairness, I don't see how Rich giving details on how he draws a particular recurring body part in OotS isn't about OotS. And I doubt I can adequately explain my position until I understand yours.

[The Linker]

I'm surprised there's resistance to this quote's inclusion. It helps shed light on what parts of the comic are harder for Rich to draw as well as how he draws them, which seems very clearly relevant, interesting, and useful. I'd most certainly say it's more than distinct enough from talk about the comic's update schedule to warrant inclusion on its own merits. Let's not let those who would use it to argue about schedules ruin a good, useful look into the process for the rest of us.

[Jasdoif]

In fairness, I don't see how Rich giving details on how he draws a particular recurring body part in OotS isn't about OotS. And I doubt I can adequately explain my position until I understand yours.

Well, it's more of a case of which method in Illustrator he uses to draw a particular recurring body part in a particular way in OOTS.

Which is quite a run-on sentence, so let me try putting it this way: If the Giant used a different brush and manually merged parts together as had been suggested upstream in that thread, instead of using the Blob brush that automatically does the merging...would there be any noticeable difference in the comic at all? I don't think there would. There could be some difference in the rate of comic output, but once the comic is out there that's not an observable factor. (That part's kind of the same thing I said against including Rich's explanation of how the Saga of the Thumb impacted his output way back in the first Index thread, although I don't think my reasoning was why it was ultimately rejected from the Index)

The exact method used is certainly relevant for Illustrator, but I don't feel it has that kind of impact on OOTS. If he said he started doing the new hand style because of the availability of the Blob brush, that'd be different; then the Blob brush is responsible for the art style, and we could fast-track that into the Index, instead of needing to gather some consensus for it first.


Of course, I'm still surprised the art style thread moved from people not liking the art style of the hands to people questioning the amount of time involved in it, so I could be misunderstanding the whole scenario in the first place.

[ChristianSt]

While I understand what you mean...To me, wanting to exclude a quote for the purpose of preventing possible discussions seems unduly restrictive in general. And ineffective, really; the quotes linked in the Index already exist, and someone really wanting to discuss it is going to find the quote whether we have it in the Index or not (especially now that forum searching has returned). Besides which, The Giant making the post outside his administrator capacity (no red text) strongly suggests he finds it an acceptable topic of discussion.

That's your opinion. My opinion is another.
Yes not putting it in the Index doesn't prevent that topic from being discussed, but at least it prevents people from "I see it in the Index - so lets stat a thread about the topic!". And yes - that topic alone is certainly fine (and the Giant didn't say anything about not to discuss is), but that doesn't stop me from feeling that it might cause much more harm than being relevant for useful appropriate discussion.

And honestly I can also use that argument against its inclusion: Because it is possible to dig it up with the search function, we don't need it in the Index.


But I would be fine with including it for other reasons (e.g. the blob brush thing), but I wouldn't actively want to put it in for that other reason.

[Gwynfrid]

I agree with Jasdoif. The relevance of the quote isn't readily apparent. Sure if Rich was explaining why he uses certain tools to convey certain things in the comic that would be interesting. But here, he isn't doing that, or only to such a minuscule degree that the quote's value to the Index is not obvious to me.

[Emanick]

The art style is likely to be a continued point of interest to readers, and the quote answers some questions readers might have about how The Giant draws the new style of the comic. It relates directly to OOTS, relates to things that have come up in discussion already and are likely to reappear in future, and is of interest to some readers. That seems like a fairly clear-cut case for inclusion to me.