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

[Jasdoif]

Ok... sorry if i'm being a headache, but my default assumption was no mention = abstain.

You're not being a headache. (Banana-fication gives one new perspectives insight on head pains )

So just to confirm, this should be correct:

When someone votes, if they do not explicitly vote for an item, it is voted against.

When someone votes, to abstain from a certain item, you must explicitly state you are abstaining.

Example:

Yes on 2, 3

means "I vote yes on 2 and 3, but no on 1"
Yes?

That's correct. If it helps, the final outcome is equivalent to measuring votes in favor out of total votes placed, which makes abstaining a special case that alters the total vote count for a particular quote (which is why I discouraged such when I called for the vote; My verification is ensuring my yes and no counts add up to the total number of votes, so "no opinion" votes add an extra step).

We've done it this way before (where not mentioning is equal to voting against), here's out founder explaining it in the context of a multi-vote to remove quotes:

Yes, if you want all of the quotes to remain in the index, vote none or alternately vote keep all.

The reason is because the quotes are removed based on majority opinion. If only ten people vote and eight want to remove a quote, it will be removed. But if twenty people vote and eight want to remove a quote, it will stay.

So EVEN IF YOU WANT TO KEEP ALL THE QUOTES LISTED, VOTE.

[RMS Oceanic]

A tweet about the switch to a larger image size, and that the original size was because of average screen sizes in 2003.

[Dr. Gamera]

A tweet about the switch to a larger image size, and that the original size was because of average screen sizes in 2003.

Further, a tweet indicating that the characters aren't so much more difficult to draw in the new art style, but the scenery is indeed more difficult to draw -- and part of the point of the new art style is to increase the difficulty.

[ChristianSt]

Further, a tweet indicating that the characters aren't so much more difficult to draw in the new art style, but the scenery is indeed more difficult to draw -- and part of the point of the new art style is to increase the difficulty.

Compared to this quote we already included recently, this feels redundant to me. (Though I kinda like the Twitter answer more.)

[Gwynfrid]

Compared to this quote we already included recently, this feels redundant to me. (Though I kinda like the Twitter answer more.)

I agree. I was not keen on adding this quote (voted against, in fact) but I wouldn't mind adding this new Twitter remark. Now, having both... No. that would be really redundant.

[Peelee]

I agree. I was not keen on adding this quote (voted against, in fact) but I wouldn't mind adding this new Twitter remark. Now, having both... No. that would be really redundant.

I'd have voted against had I noticed a vote was going on, so that's my own fault, but I think the newest comment explains much better and more in depth than the recently added one.

[ChristianSt]

Since some people like the Twitter comment more than the forum post, what are the rules for replacing quotes?

[Jasdoif]

Since some people like the Twitter comment more than the forum post, what are the rules for replacing quotes?

Actually, I think this is more of a "supporting quote" scenario. The Twitter quote talks about characters and scenery in general, while the forum post focuses on the hands and feet (and a tunnel entrance). It seems to me that having the Twitter quote as a main entry with a "see also" for the forum post would make the most sense...assuming we want the Twitter quote in the Index, of course.

[Peelee]

Actually, I think this is more of a "supporting quote" scenario. The Twitter quote talks about characters and scenery in general, while the forum post focuses on the hands and feet (and a tunnel entrance). It seems to me that having the Twitter quote as a main entry with a "see also" for the forum post would make the most sense...assuming we want the Twitter quote in the Index, of course.

I see no problem with that set-up.

Also, on a completely unrelated note, I'm pretty late to the party, but I greatly enjoy how you've embraced the banana.

[Gwynfrid]

Actually, I think this is more of a "supporting quote" scenario. The Twitter quote talks about characters and scenery in general, while the forum post focuses on the hands and feet (and a tunnel entrance). It seems to me that having the Twitter quote as a main entry with a "see also" for the forum post would make the most sense...assuming we want the Twitter quote in the Index, of course.

Makes sense.

[Kalmegil]

I agree with Gwynfrid and Peelee agreeing with Jasdoif about the supporting quote idea.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Actually, I think this is more of a "supporting quote" scenario. The Twitter quote talks about characters and scenery in general, while the forum post focuses on the hands and feet (and a tunnel entrance). It seems to me that having the Twitter quote as a main entry with a "see also" for the forum post would make the most sense...assuming we want the Twitter quote in the Index, of course.

I agree. If we are going to include the other quote, we should include this new one as well.

[The Linker]

Yeah, I've long been a proponent for doing the 'supporting quote' thing way more often, since it increases the amount of information in the index without adding to 'clutter' in any way. Best of both worlds! Many more supporting quotes!

[Jaxzan Proditor]

There is only one method of vampirization. Any of Malack's ambiguous comments should be viewed as written so as not to spoil #946.

[137beth]

Actually, I think this is more of a "supporting quote" scenario. The Twitter quote talks about characters and scenery in general, while the forum post focuses on the hands and feet (and a tunnel entrance). It seems to me that having the Twitter quote as a main entry with a "see also" for the forum post would make the most sense...assuming we want the Twitter quote in the Index, of course.

My thoughts exactly.

[Angel Bob]

There is only one method of vampirization. Any of Malack's contradictory comments should be viewed as written so as not to spoil #946.

Oh, that's a big one. I don't see how anyone could object to that one being included.

[Zherog]

Oh, that's a big one. I don't see how anyone could object to that one being included.

Give it some time. I'm sure somebody will come up with one.

[Kalmegil]

Oh, that's a big one. I don't see how anyone could object to that one being included.

It simply restates what's already been shown in the comic, so it's redundant and would only clutter the index.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

It simply restates what's already been shown in the comic, so it's redundant and would only clutter the index.

As shown in many threads, it was not obvious to many what the actual process for vampirization is. If the comic had easily shown what the quote states, the quote would never have been given in the first place. Clearly, it was necessary, and will no doubt continue to be necessary to end any similar debates that pop up.

It is not a simple restatement.

[Koo Rehtorb]

There is only one method of vampirization. Any of Malack's contradictory comments should be viewed as written so as not to spoil #946.

Don't characterize the quote as "contradictory" comments, Rich never used that word. There were no contradictory comments. What he said was "metaphorical" and "ambiguous".

[Kalmegil]

As shown in many threads, it was not obvious to many what the actual process for vampirization is. If the comic had easily shown what the quote states, the quote would never have been given in the first place. Clearly, it was necessary, and will no doubt continue to be necessary to end any similar debates that pop up.

It is not a simple restatement.

Yeah, hence the winky icon on my post.

I will note that I myself have made the argument you just laid out and had it roundly rejected here before.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Don't characterize the quote as "contradictory" comments, Rich never used that word. There were no contradictory comments. What he said was "metaphorical" and "ambiguous".

Alright, I will change that to ambiguous.

Yeah, hence the winky icon on my post.

I will note that I myself have made the argument you just laid out and had it roundly rejected here before.

Oops, didn't notice that.

Which quote was that?

[Jasdoif]

Yeah, hence the winky icon on my post.

Post icons have an excessive amount of subtlety, in my experience.

I will note that I myself have made the argument you just laid out and had it roundly rejected here before.

If I'm remembering the correct prior argument (that was about if Tsukiko was actually eaten by her wights, wasn't it?), a big difference I'm seeing here is that the quote says "There is only one way that vampirization works" and so should apply to any vampire we run across, not just Malack and Durkon.

I'm thinking this one should go in.

---

Also, since I think RMS Oceanic's proposal may have been overlooked....

A tweet about the switch to a larger image size, and that the original size was because of average screen sizes in 2003.

This one strikes me as another "supporting quote" scenario, since it talks about page size and so would fit as a primary with the recently added quote about font size relative to page size making an excellent "see also".

[Ron Miel]

From the same comment, I think this is worth including because a lot of people have asked about it

Nothing that happens with vampires in this comic can be extrapolated to work similarly with other undead. All types of undead work differently, that's why they are different types in the first place. Xykon is still Xykon.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Post icons have an excessive amount of subtlety, in my experience.

Yeah, when I read a post, I rarely ever look at the header and look at the post itself. That's why I didn't see it until Kalmegil pointed it out.

[Kalmegil]

Sorry. For the record, it should absolutely go in.

[Loreweaver15]

As disappointing as it is that that's how vampires work, it should absolutely go in--it's the kind of quote this index was designed for: the recurring-arguments-that-have-already-been-answered kind.

[Gwynfrid]

Post icons have an excessive amount of subtlety, in my experience.

Yes. I was puzzled reading this from Kalmegil, who's pretty much come out in favor of inclusion every time so far. I totally failed to notice the smiley.

And sure, that quote should go in. Heck, it ended a debate that had been raging for well over 200 posts and showed no signs of abating - it was even on the verge of becoming nasty.

Also, I agree with the whole "see also" mechanism as suggested by Jasdoif.

[Zherog]

Since it came right after my snarky post, I assumed it was laden with sarcasm.

[Kalmegil]

It was in direct response to it.