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

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I don't find the new quote worthy of inclusion myself, since all it tells us is how long the new hands take to draw. If it told us something along the lines of why the Giant chose to switch to a different style, or something else related to reasoning behind the art, then I would include it. However, I feel like the quote doesn't directly relate to OOTS and it isn't really something only the Giant can answer.

[The Linker]

It also mentions that the feet take way longer to draw, and that the cave entrance was harder than both by a large magnitude. I find the information on which pieces of the comic need the most work put into them to be highly relevant and useful for discussion on the art style. It also gives us a small look into how the new art style has or has not impacted his work process, which I do think is relevant to discussions beyond "The new updates are not coming fast enough!"

[Jasdoif]

Now that we're on a new page, I find myself wondering if everyone saw RMS Oceanic's proposal on the last page. There's been a lot going on forum-wise, and we normally get more than one response to a proposal

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.)

[Zherog]

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.

+1

This quote looks good from my perspective.

[Gwynfrid]

Now that we're on a new page, I find myself wondering if everyone saw RMS Oceanic's proposal on the last page. There's been a lot going on forum-wise, and we normally get more than one response to a proposal

That's a relevant, useful quote. Minor rewording of RMS's summary will fix the ambiguity raised by ChristianSt. For example:
The new font is bigger than the old one, because of the larger on-screen comic page size. In the books, it will instead appear smaller than the old font.

The art style is likely to be a continued point of interest to readers.

I agree. If the "new hands style doesn't take long to draw" quote was telling us something meaningful on the art style, I would be all for inclusion.

[137beth]

It also mentions that the feet take way longer to draw, and that the cave entrance was harder than both by a large magnitude. I find the information on which pieces of the comic need the most work put into them to be highly relevant and useful for discussion on the art style. It also gives us a small look into how the new art style has or has not impacted his work process, which I do think is relevant to discussions beyond "The new updates are not coming fast enough!"

This. It is an explanation of the development process for OOTS. That is definitely related to OOTS.

[Gwynfrid]

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

I found this response from Rich, so yes, we'd better get used to it. I was a bit uncomfortable at first but now I think this is simply the usual reaction at losing something familiar. The features are definitely a big improvement (esp. Search) and worth the effort.

[The Recreator]

I don't find the new quote worthy of inclusion myself, since all it tells us is how long the new hands take to draw. If it told us something along the lines of why the Giant chose to switch to a different style, or something else related to reasoning behind the art, then I would include it. However, I feel like the quote doesn't directly relate to OOTS and it isn't really something only the Giant can answer.

OOTS forum avatar/fan comic artists will benefit from a better understanding of how OOTS is drawn. There are many Illustrator techniques to achieve the same end result, but the blob brush should save lots of people lots of time. That said, drawing techniques probably belong in a thread geared towards teaching people how to draw in OOTS style.

Now that we're on a new page, I find myself wondering if everyone saw RMS Oceanic's proposal on the last page. There's been a lot going on forum-wise, and we normally get more than one response to a proposal

If the scope of this thread includes art detail behind the scenes, then yes - include the quote on relative font size. Otherwise, I feel like it falls into the "trivia" category, moreso than discussions on drawing technique.

On the other hand, fan comic authors would probably love to know more about the new font and how it's used, so there's that.

[Jasdoif]

If the scope of this thread includes art detail behind the scenes, then yes - include the quote on relative font size. Otherwise, I feel like it falls into the "trivia" category, moreso than discussions on drawing technique.

I think the page is the scene, so its size isn't "behind" the scenes The change in page and font size is easily noticeable, and there have been questions about what that could mean for the books, and we have an answer from the Giant about that; so I think it's worth including.


That would make six things potentially up for an update, so rather than delay things any longer....

---

UPDATE COMING, CALLING FOR VOTE NOMINATIONS

Now since this is our first attempt at using the system ThePhantasm outlined in the last thread, and since we have a rule change in here (which naturally isn't a quote), I'll be particularly verbose this time around.

Since I've now called for nominations, anyone thinking some/all entries marked "Accepting nominations for inclusion vote" should not be included in the Index should send me a private message, saying which entries should be voted on for inclusion. (The default is to include, an item not voted on will be included in the Index.) If an entry gets two or more nominations, it will be voted on to decide inclusion; the vote will be the next stage, and I'll announce it when the vote is ready.

There are a few nonstandard cases below. One, the proposed rule addition will be voted on regardless, a rule change can affect far more than a single quote so getting confirmation of support seems warranted. Two, two of the quotes below reached very strong consensus already (unanimous support, even); a vote is considered unnecessary in these cases, so they will be included.

Proposed Items for Index 3.1
(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)	Vote required
(Twitter Q&A) Using ChristianSt's transcription in a separate post.	(n/a)	(special)	Will be included
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	Will be included
On Children, Souls and Afterlives Also, D&D cosmology makes no sense.	#946	03/19/2014	Will be included
The New Font is Larger Because the Online Comic Page is Larger "When the comic is printed in the book, though, the font will be smaller than that in the previous book."	#947	03/31/2014	Nominated, will be voted on
The New Hands Take as Long to Draw as the Old Hands	#947	04/01/2014	Nominated, will be voted on

Nomination PMs will be accepted until...3PM tomorrow seems convenient for me, so nomination PMs will be accepted until April 8th, 6PM EDT April 9th, 6PM EDT already. I'll try to update the table if/when entries get sufficient nominations. I don't plan to respond to nomination PMs (so don't take it personally), nor do I intend to share who exactly has made nominations (so no one else can take it personally either ).

To send me a PM, click my username (The vaguely-pronounceable(?)-looking word above the spellcasting-and-invocation-using banana with purple hair) and select "Private Message". Or I guess you could click here. Anyway, include the titles of the entries you're nominating in the message. Mentioning something about "Index Nomination" in the subject line would be helpful.

A few final reminders:

• Don't post vote nominations. They're sent by PM to avoid filling up the thread with them, posts will not be counted.
• Only nominate entries you think should be excluded. They'll be included if they don't receive sufficient nominations.
• We're not voting on the entries yet. We're nominating entries to be voted on. I'll call for the vote at an appropriate time.
• We've left a banana in charge. Hi.

Further discussion of entries is encouraged at this point. In particular, recommendations for different alternate titles and descriptions for the quote entries, and if you feel I've set the nomination deadline too soon, are things I'd be happy to consider.

[ChristianSt]

I think a better approach to have two categories "planned to include" and "not planned to include" reflecting the so far reached consensus you have noticed. From there any two PMs stating the desire to not wanting the same will trigger a vote (so a third category "will be voted" might be good for your inbox).

I really don't see any reason to disallow PMs for any quotes: If the thread consensus is right, you shouldn't get any PMs. If there are enough to trigger a vote, they might have just missed the quote before and would stuck with a decision that might not survive a vote. (Or maybe you just miss their arguments.)

(I personally think your deadline is rather harsh, but we will see how it is going .)

[Jasdoif]

I really don't see any reason to disallow PMs for any quotes: If the thread consensus is right, you shouldn't get any PMs. If there are enough to trigger a vote, they might have just missed the quote before and would stuck with a decision that might not survive a vote. (Or maybe you just miss their arguments.)

Sheesh, the procedure came from a post I made nearly two months ago paraphrasing what ThePhantasm had described, that no one said anything against....

Anyway, voting is supposed to be the fallback method for approving individual quotes, not the primary one. With the flat two-nomination limit, it'd be very easy to end up voting on anything regardless of prior consensus, if everything was available to be nominated regardless of prior consensus. The ideal scenario would be that everything's strongly supported and so we don't even need to go through the nomination-and-vote process; I just update the Index and we're good.

Now, if I've misread the support for those, please show me the posts against the quotes that I missed; if I'm off my rocker then I can open the quotes for nominations and extend the deadline.

Speaking of which....

(I personally think your deadline is rather harsh, but we will see how it is going .)

As it turns out, I've already gotten the two nominations on two of the entries (and updated the table to match), and it hasn't even been two hours!

Still, what kind of time frame would strike you as more reasonable? Can't say I have much experience in calling for nominations

[Loreweaver15]

Can I just vote "include" on all six? Because I think we should include all six.

[Jasdoif]

Can I just vote "include" on all six? Because I think we should include all six.

Once we get to the voting phase, you can certainly vote to include everything being voted on. (The ones that don't get voted on will still be included, though; our default is still to include)

[ChristianSt]

Sheesh, the procedure came from a post I made nearly two months ago paraphrasing what ThePhantasm had described, that no one said anything against....

Anyway, voting is supposed to be the fallback method for approving individual quotes, not the primary one. With the flat two-nomination limit, it'd be very easy to end up voting on anything regardless of prior consensus, if everything was available to be nominated regardless of prior consensus. The ideal scenario would be that everything's strongly supported and so we don't even need to go through the nomination-and-vote process; I just update the Index and we're good.

Now, if I've misread the support for those, please show me the posts against the quotes that I missed; if I'm off my rocker then I can open the quotes for nominations and extend the deadline.

Speaking of which....

As it turns out, I've already gotten the two nominations on two of the entries (and updated the table to match), and it hasn't even been two hours!

Still, what kind of time frame would strike you as more reasonable? Can't say I have much experience in calling for nominations

I don't really know what a reasonably time frame is, but I would use at least 48h, with 72h a better minimum. (I'm not exactly sure what the voting period is (time zone sucks ), but I have the feeling it is more like a bit more than 1 day)

I don't have any problems with voting being a fallback method. But why do I need to state my opinion multiple times? If you see that there are multiple posters arguing for both sides, why even bother with the PM thing? Imo you could (and should) just put in "will be voted".
Since we potentially vote on multiple things anyway, adding one additional vote doesn't really add that much clutter.

I didn't say that you missed something. I'm more into the practical details of doing this nominations thingy. With that system you are potentially forcing people who just dislike a quote to post into the thread, because otherwise they wouldn't even get a chance to trigger a vote. Punishing people who intent to decrease clutter seems not useful. Also it still requires them to post it and then PMing about it again. Which to me seems just to increase the amount of work everyone needs to do. [And it also is potentially bad that if they miss to check the forum for one or two days, the opinion they stated before will not be considered. That is also I reason I think the nominating time seems rather short to me.]


[I'm also not really the biggest fan of the term "Accepting nominations for inclusion vote". For me it just kinda implies that the entry is not to be included, and will only enter a vote to be included if it is nominated. I know you wrote the rest of the post to make it clear what it means, but I needed to read it multiple times to even be sure on that part.]

[Gwynfrid]

Do we need another meta type of debate (how to vote, how to decide how we organize a vote, how to define what we get to vote on, etc.)? We've had a lot of these already. Jasdoif's method for nominating quotes may not be perfect, but it is more than good enough.

Since we potentially vote on multiple things anyway, adding one additional vote doesn't really add that much clutter.

Well, that's true, except for the guy who's tasked with counting the votes. It's fair that Jasdoif would try to minimize the sheer amount of voting.

With that system you are potentially forcing people who just dislike a quote to post into the thread, because otherwise they wouldn't even get a chance to trigger a vote. Punishing people who intent to decrease clutter seems not useful.

I fail to see how that is a punishment. People with a strong opinion will voice it; this is, after all, a thread meant for exchanging opinions. It's only natural that people who don't feel strongly enough to post their view would have less of an influence on the outcome.

[Jasdoif]

I don't really know what a reasonably time frame is, but I would use at least 48h, with 72h a better minimum. (I'm not exactly sure what the voting period is (time zone sucks ), but I have the feeling it is more like a bit more than 1 day)

That's correct, a bit more than one day. But 48 hours also seems reasonable, so OK.

The nomination deadline has been extended to April 9th, 6PM EDT.

But why do I need to state my opinion multiple times? If you see that there are multiple posters arguing for both sides, why even bother with the PM thing? Imo you could (and should) just put in "will be voted".

I'll be talking about this more below, but I feel I should point out that were not multiple posters arguing on both sides on the font/page size quote. There was only one person who clearly said they didn't want to include it (you, incidentally), so the fact that it attained the two nominations required shows there's some degree of merit to the nomination process.

I didn't say that you missed something. I'm more into the practical details of doing this nominations thingy. With that system you are potentially forcing people who just dislike a quote to post into the thread, because otherwise they wouldn't even get a chance to trigger a vote. Punishing people who intent to decrease clutter seems not useful. Also it still requires them to post it and then PMing about it again. Which to me seems just to increase the amount of work everyone needs to do. [And it also is potentially bad that if they miss to check the forum for one or two days, the opinion they stated before will not be considered. That is also I reason I think the nominating time seems rather short to me.]

As ThePhantasm liked to point out, opinions have changed during the course of discussion in the Index threads. Getting another check before an update will help catch things, in case people have decided they've changed their minds on whether they do/don't support a particular entry. And if a quote doesn't get nominated because there are less than two people against its inclusion who care enough to send me a PM about it, well...I think that's a feature; Holding a vote over a quote with little inclination to exclude seems silly to me.

There's also the case of Rule F2, where the curator (hi) can include a quote that "obviously" in accordance with the rules, without needing voting/discussion/consensus. In those cases the quote would still be eligible for nomination, because I feel it would be inappropriate for me to have a process where the only recourse to my interpretation would be a vote to remove an entry from the Index.

Going further, if any two people are capable of triggering a vote on any quote, even if there's unanimous agreement in the thread...what's really the point of discussion in the thread? Aren't we just in a position where absolutely anything could voted on? Isn't that unfair to the people who put in the extra effort to discuss their views in the thread? Our default is to include, but per the long-established rule F4 a vote needs a majority by two to include a quote; if anything is potentially subject to a vote (that requires more than 50/50 approval) regardless of consensus, then "default to include" falls somewhere between technicality and falsehood.

I'm all for including the opinions of people who don't want to get involved in the discussion, but at the same time stating and defending one's opinion in the thread signifies a degree of personal involvement and I can't discard that in good faith. The line needs to be drawn in some fashion, and this is how I've chosen to do it (based on analyzing/reconstructing ThePhantasm's proposal in the last thread).

[I'm also not really the biggest fan of the term "Accepting nominations for inclusion vote". For me it just kinda implies that the entry is not to be included, and will only enter a vote to be included if it is nominated. I know you wrote the rest of the post to make it clear what it means, but I needed to read it multiple times to even be sure on that part.]

Recommendations, then? All the other wording I thought up also seemed to imply a nomination was required for inclusion, and when I started to feel I was subconsciously using the phrasing as an excuse to procrastinate, I just picked one way to say it.

[Gwynfrid]

Recommendations, then? All the other wording I thought up also seemed to imply a nomination was required for inclusion, and when I started to feel I was subconsciously using the phrasing as an excuse to procrastinate, I just picked one way to say it.

"Accepting nominations for vote (will be included if no vote)" - I know, it's longish.

[ChristianSt]

I'll be talking about this more below, but I feel I should point out that were not multiple posters arguing on both sides on the font/page size quote. There was only one person who clearly said they didn't want to include it (you, incidentally), so the fact that it attained the two nominations required shows there's some degree of merit to the nomination process.

Why are you only mentioning the one case that works in your favor and not the other case that works in my favor? (The hand size/blob brush discussion I think featuring 3 posters versus 4 or something like that?). If there is only one person that say something about it, then I'm fine with requiring PM's. But in a case where it is obvious that there is no clear consensus in sight, you could just skip the PM thing and just say "we will do vote". (Though that is only a minor improvement, I think the argument below is more problematic. And if you don't mind those PMs I'm fine with still requiring the process. I honestly only wanted to maybe save your inbox a few PMs. )

Also I think that I'm the only one stating something about the font/page size quote also somewhat illustrates my point: There seems to be more people opposed to that quote, yet they didn't say something about it in the thread. I certainly can't say why they did so (maybe they thought my statement where enough), maybe they hadn't visited the thread before/missed that discussion. Yet they PM'ed you about did. Am I correct that if I hadn't said something then no potential vote would have been allowed? I just find it unnecessary to exclude those other quotes from the process. The only reason I heard was to "stop unnecessary voting", but if people want to do unnecessary voting because they want, it doesn't really make much of a difference anyway, since the only thing they would need to do make a random post before stating that they dislike the quote. And if someone wants a vote, I don't think posting is harder than PMing.

Also in that context, what is "clear consensus"? Does this mean strictly X-0?

If yes: Are we (with the current system) allowed to exclude a proposed quote somehow? (So if it is the case, would there be a category "will be excluded, unless two PM's want a vote for inclusion")

If not: What exactly is clear consensus and how will it be used to dismiss a quote from the voting nomination and to auto-include (or auto-exclude) it?

As ThePhantasm liked to point out, opinions have changed during the course of discussion in the Index threads. Getting another check before an update will help catch things, in case people have decided they've changed their minds on whether they do/don't support a particular entry. And if a quote doesn't get nominated because there are less than two people against its inclusion who care enough to send me a PM about it, well...I think that's a feature; Holding a vote over a quote with little inclination to exclude seems silly to me.

There's also the case of Rule F2, where the curator (hi) can include a quote that "obviously" in accordance with the rules, without needing voting/discussion/consensus. In those cases the quote would still be eligible for nomination, because I feel it would be inappropriate for me to have a process where the only recourse to my interpretation would be a vote to remove an entry from the Index.

Going further, if any two people are capable of triggering a vote on any quote, even if there's unanimous agreement in the thread...what's really the point of discussion in the thread? Aren't we just in a position where absolutely anything could voted on? Isn't that unfair to the people who put in the extra effort to discuss their views in the thread? Our default is to include, but per the long-established rule F4 a vote needs a majority by two to include a quote; if anything is potentially subject to a vote (that requires more than 50/50 approval) regardless of consensus, then "default to include" falls somewhere between technicality and falsehood.

I'm all for including the opinions of people who don't want to get involved in the discussion, but at the same time stating and defending one's opinion in the thread signifies a degree of personal involvement and I can't discard that in good faith. The line needs to be drawn in some fashion, and this is how I've chosen to do it (based on analyzing/reconstructing ThePhantasm's proposal in the last thread).

I'm not against the nomination process. But if enough people are there that take the time to PM you, I think that shows that they care enough that their opinion should matter. Not everyone watches the thread as closely as others and are aware of every quote/process that is going on here. So I think if a person just spots this nominations process that posters opinion should still be valid, and not just be discarded because of timing shenanigans. (Yes sometimes there has to be a deadline, which we have - but why have different deadlines for different quotes?) If the thread consensus is as straight forward as it seems, then allowing for votes doesn't hurt, because you shouldn't get any.

I wouldn't say that it ignores the discussion or make it useless (as you said it is would in all cases be useful to highlight points, because opinions can change). It only prevents from potentially ignoring posters that (for whatever reason) couldn't or didn't post something before until the last moment. (I.e. reaching the deadline, then at some point we just need to come to a decision.)

Recommendations, then? All the other wording I thought up also seemed to imply a nomination was required for inclusion, and when I started to feel I was subconsciously using the phrasing as an excuse to procrastinate, I just picked one way to say it.

As I said I would prefer two categories, "Will be included" and "Will be excluded" [Though for this round it wouldn't have been used probably], which both transition to "Will be voted on" if enough PM's arrive. To be clearer the categories could also be "Will be included (unless vote is triggered)" and "Will be excluded (unless vote is triggered)".

This text would also work nicely with the current system.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I would like to say that the term "nomination" threw me off at first, because I generally associate nominate with including something rather than excluding something. Perhaps we could just say "PM to exclude" and not use the nominate or any other term at all.

[Jasdoif]

Why are you only mentioning the one case that works in your favor and not the other case that works in my favor?

I mentioned it on its own because having exactly one person in favor on one side is a particularly exceptional case, and didn't warrant being included in the general statements about the process below. Kinda why I said I'd be talking more about it below

Also I think that I'm the only one stating something about the font/page size quote also somewhat illustrates my point: There seems to be more people opposed to that quote, yet they didn't say something about it in the thread. I certainly can't say why they did so (maybe they thought my statement where enough), maybe they hadn't visited the thread before/missed that discussion. Yet they PM'ed you about did. Am I correct that if I hadn't said something then no potential vote would have been allowed?

If you hadn't said anything, or if more people had expressed support for it, there would have been no potential vote on it.

I just find it unnecessary to exclude those other quotes from the process. The only reason I heard was to "stop unnecessary voting", but if people want to do unnecessary voting because they want, it doesn't really make much of a difference anyway, since the only thing they would need to do make a random post before stating that they dislike the quote. And if someone wants a vote, I don't think posting is harder than PMing.

We had a number of posters expressing disdain for excessive voting in the last thread, to the point that we had people talking about voting about voting and even voting about voting about voting. Which I do believe is why ThePhantasm proposed the process that I adapted here.

So I don't think your view on unnecessary voting has much support.

Also in that context, what is "clear consensus"? Does this mean strictly X-0?
....
If not: What exactly is clear consensus and how will it be used to dismiss a quote from the voting nomination and to auto-include (or auto-exclude) it?

A case with established consensus to reject broke down to almost exactly two-thirds majority when I ran the numbers, so I was thinking that'd be a good baseline. I don't really want to establish exact numbers for potential curators to adhere to though, and it's hard to judge when there's a very small number of posts about a particular quote.

Clear consensus for and it goes up in the update, clear consensus against and it doesn't go into the table or count towards the six for an update at all, in the middle and we accept nominations.

I'm not against the nomination process. But if enough people are there that take the time to PM you, I think that shows that they care enough that their opinion should matter. Not everyone watches the thread as closely as others and are aware of every quote/process that is going on here. So I think if a person just spots this nominations process that posters opinion should still be valid, and not just be discarded because of timing shenanigans. (Yes sometimes there has to be a deadline, which we have - but why have different deadlines for different quotes?) If the thread consensus is as straight forward as it seems, then allowing for votes doesn't hurt, because you shouldn't get any.

I wouldn't say that it ignores the discussion or make it useless (as you said it is would in all cases be useful to highlight points, because opinions can change). It only prevents from potentially ignoring posters that (for whatever reason) couldn't or didn't post something before until the last moment. (I.e. reaching the deadline, then at some point we just need to come to a decision.)

RMS Oceanic proposed the font/page size quote last Monday. You were the only one who responded, which I thought was odd, which was why I re-mentioned it after the page break on Friday. We got a post in favor and an "I dunno maybe" post over the weekend. So I figured no one else was going to discuss it on Monday, and I put it up for nominations then. A week after its original proposal.

How much longer were you expecting me to wait before making a decision on it?

[137beth]

Roy has had his share of faulds since the beginning, but he's only now acknowledged them and how they impact his leadership.

[Shale]

Ba-dum-cssssh!

[The Linker]

I came very close to making that comment myself.

[ChristianSt]

So I don't think your view on unnecessary voting has much support.

How much longer were you expecting me to wait before making a decision on it?

Somehow I have the feeling that either I don't understand you or you tend to misunderstand my points.

To "unnecessary voting": I never did say I wanted more voting. I only get the feeling that I have a hard time understanding how the procedure is working. So say there is a quote I would like to be included. One other person said why he likes the quote, which is exactly my reasoning. Five poster disagree. Am I forced to basically just say "+1 to inclusion" without adding anything, just to make a "vote nomination" possible? If so, then I kinda understand what is going on here, though I don't think that such scenarios sound useful (and maybe I'm more ok to do votes in favor of not needing potential +1 posts). I thought one reason for this procedure was to reduce the need for posts without new information. If that is the case it is possible better to just drop this discussion and sum it up as misunderstanding.


Where did I said anything about you needing to wait longer? (besides the nominating time frame)

[Jasdoif]

Roy has had his share of faulds since the beginning, but he's only now acknowledged them and how they impact his leadership.

My pun detector has performed an illegal operation and must be shut down.

To "unnecessary voting": I never did say I wanted more voting.

Well, I hope you can see how "if people want to do unnecessary voting because they want, it doesn't really make much of a difference anyway" might be misread as "there's no point in trying to stop unnecessary voting".

I only get the feeling that I have a hard time understanding how the procedure is working. So say there is a quote I would like to be included. One other person said why he likes the quote, which is exactly my reasoning. Five poster disagree. Am I forced to basically just say "+1 to inclusion" without adding anything, just to make a "vote nomination" possible?

You certainly could. It wouldn't hurt if you could elaborate on a particular point or possibly provide a supporting example, or otherwise find a new way to say it that might convince people unmoved by the original post; but if someone has already expressed your view completely, there's nothing wrong with just seconding their post. If nothing else, the other person might like knowing they're not alone in their opinion.

If so, then I kinda understand what is going on here, though I don't think that such scenarios sound useful (and maybe I'm more ok to do votes in favor of not needing potential +1 posts). I thought one reason for this procedure was to reduce the need for posts without new information. If that is the case it is possible better to just drop this discussion and sum it up as misunderstanding.

Well, the ultimate goal of the procedure is to reduce the need for posts without new information, with a strong emphasis on reducing the number of posts consumed by votes. That's why it clusters updates together, so we can hold votes on them at once and not have a new page or two of votes every time there's a new quote. In fact, the ideal scenario would be where we have strong consensus on all six quotes, or there aren't enough people still against them at update time to trigger a vote. Then we don't need to spend time or posts on a vote at all.

Of course, we still need some consensus established for that to be an option, which is where the discussion comes in...which may result in "+1 posts" in some cases. Since such posts could happen anyway, I don't feel that's a significant issue.

Where did I said anything about you needing to wait longer? (besides the nominating time frame)

When you talk about people who can't/didn't post before the last moment, right after opinions being discarded due to timing "shenanigans"....I don't see how that could be considered separately from how long I leave a quote up for discussion before making a decision on it.

[Kurald Galain]

I keep seeing Banana in the current comic

[Zherog]

Other than maybe tweaking the choice of words for the nomination process, my suggestion is that we give this method at least one or two voting cycles before deciding it needs to be changed. Let it play out and see how it works for reals. If there really are issues with the process, they should be obvious after a cycle or two and we can talk about revising (again).

[Jasdoif]

Well, the PM part went quite smoothly. The font/page size quote and hand-drawing quote both got on the "need to be voted on" list within an hour. There were no suggestions that the Twitter Q&A needed to be voted on, so it will be going up when the update happens.

Now then, we have a new rule proposal and two quotes to vote on. Rather than pester everyone with back-to-back voting, we'll be voting on all of these in one round. As a reminder, the purpose of the new rule is to make it clearer how we handle things like the Geekademia Interview and the Twitter Q&A, so in the future it'll be easier to add them in.

---

Items up for voting:

1: A new rule covering Q&As: "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."

2: The New Font is Larger Because the Online Comic Page is Larger

3: The New Hands Take as Long to Draw as the Old Hands


Now for some words from our founder:

Once a vote is called, we will vote IN THREAD but please don't discuss during the voting (that way the votes can be easily counted). Votes will be quick... probably 24-48 hours.

• Please bold your vote, it'll make it easier for me to notice when I go through and count everything.
• Vote for any combination you like; for instance if you support the rule and font quote but not the hands quote, something like "Voting for 1, 2" would be perfect.
• An item unmentioned in a vote is considered to be voted against; If you don't support any of them, posting "none of them" is the way to express that.
• If you truly don't have a preference on one or two of the entries, something like "1, no opinion on 3" is acceptable...but since this will complicate my vote counting and verifying, I ask that you avoid doing this if possible.
• Per Rule F4, inclusion by vote requires a quote to have two more votes in favor than votes against; I'm extending this to the rule proposal as well.

Voting will be open until April 11th, 9PM EDT.

---

Any questions?

[ChristianSt]

Voting for 1.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Voting for 1.