The Index of the Giant's Comments V―On a Saner Forum, We Wouldn't Need this Index

[SaintRidley]

Top of the page. Gonna paste that here so Jasdoif doesn't have to do it.

OK, so that's a majority on the mandatory votes for removals, and an even split on the threshold for getting a removal to a vote...well, if the main change people want is that it takes more than a tie for a change, let's be thematic and keep it at the half I've been using

---

Since the entire update procedure was rather untested when we/I started using it...over two years ago, geez...And various questions and adjustments have come up since then, and there's a push to get the removals aligned with the additions....My thinking is to rephrase the update cycle stuff, add removal things to it, and when it's reasonably nailed down put it to a vote.

So first of all: the current draft.

---

General Update Procedure

• To reduce how many posts in the thread are consumed by votes instead of discussion, normal changes to the Index are done in groups of quotes. Each update cycle happens when there are six quotes queued for addition/removal, or when it has been two months since the last update cycle.
• For a quote to be queued for an update requires community support. The criteria varies between additions and removals:
  
  • Additions: An addition requires at least one third of the users participating in the discussion of the quote to be in favor of adding it. If at least two thirds of the discussing users are in favor of adding it, the quote is also exempted from having a vote called before it can be included.
  • Removals: A removal requires over one half of the users participating in the discussion of the quote to be in favor of removing it. A vote is always required for an entry to be removed.
• When an impending update is announced by the curator, and prior to the update being done, people can PM the curator requesting a vote on the quote(s) to added (unless the earlier discussion favored addition at the two-thirds level, as mentioned above). Two separate posters must request a vote on a quote for it to occur, otherwise the quote will be included. This step is done to ensure active opposition to including the quote is still present.
• If a vote is necessary for any additions, the curator will call for voting on those additions. Discussion, beyond reiterating personal reasons for voting alongside the vote, is discouraged while the vote is going on. Addition must "win" a majority by at least 2 votes for to the quote to be added.
• If any quotes are queued for removal, the curator will call for voting those removals, separately from any voting for additions. Removal must "win" a majority by at least 2 votes for to the quote to be removed.

Special Update Cases

• If the curator finds a quote to be clearly aligned with the agreed-upon thread rules, the quote may be immediately added to the update queue. When the update cycle happens, the quote is still held to usual procedure with regards to possible votes on additions.
• If the curator finds an already-present quote to be unequivocally violating the agreed-upon thread rules, most likely if the cited quote ceases being available online, the quote may be removed immediately without regard to the update cycle.

---

How's that look?

I can live with that.

[137beth]

Seconding everything SaintRidley has said.

[Joerg]

Additions: An addition requires at least one third of the users participating in the discussion of the quote to be in favor of adding it. If at least two thirds of the discussing users are in favor of adding it, the quote is also exempted from having a vote called before it can be included.

I'm not happy with these fixed quotas during discussion. In my eyes, they seem to lead to a kind of 'pre-vote' about the quotes before the actual vote. People will post their support for or against including without really discussing it just so that a later vote will happen, and other people may then think that it's not the dicussion, but that it is the actual vote; in particular if they don't visit the thread so often.

So I would prefer a rule like "a vote is called if at least three users in the discussion are in favor of including the quote and at least three other users are against including it. If at least three users are in favor, but less than three users are against, the quote is included without a vote. If less than three users are in favor, the quote is not included."

I think it likely that a vote makes sense if three users have chimed in for and against inclusion even if there is a larger majority during the discussion because it is a sign that more people may be of the same opinion. I even think there won't be large majorities (in absolute numbers) during discussion any more because there won't be a need to post in the discussion without new arguments once three other users have voiced the same opinion.

(Note: compared to the current rules, there is one special case, 3:2, where a quote would be automatically included without a two thirds majority; and quotes would be rejected instead of included or voted on in the cases 1:0, 1:1, 1:2, 2:0, 2:1, 2:2, 2:3 and 2:4. But I'm sure that a vote will find three supporters in the discussion if it is worthy of inclusion.)

[Gwynfrid]

I'm not happy with these fixed quotas during discussion. In my eyes, they seem to lead to a kind of 'pre-vote' about the quotes before the actual vote. People will post their support for or against including without really discussing it just so that a later vote will happen, and other people may then think that it's not the dicussion, but that it is the actual vote; in particular if they don't visit the thread so often.

This is a valid point, and it makes me rethink my agreement with the proposed text. Any fixed count, whether two thirds, or three people in favor, or any metric-based mechanism effectively defines a vote. We don't need that much precision, and it has in fact a negative impact because it's confusing.

The existing guidelines are much more flexible:

• Quotes with a clear consensus to include or exclude after discussion will be included in or excluded from the next update, as appropriate.
• Quotes the curator deems clearly aligned with the inclusion guidelines will default to be included in the next update without needing extended discussion, but may be voted upon at the time of the update (see below).
• Quotes without a clear consensus to include/exclude after discussion will default to be included in the next update, but may be voted upon at the time of the update (see below).
• Updates will happen when there are six quotes ready to be included or if it has been two months since the last update.
• When an impending update is announced by the curator, and prior to the update being done, people can PM the curator requesting a vote on the particular "default" inclusion quote(s) (the quotes with strong consensus to include do not need to be voted on). Two separate posters must request a vote on a quote for it to occur, otherwise the quote will be included.
• If a vote is necessary, the curator will call for voting on all quotes set to be voted upon. Discussion, beyond reiterating personal reasons for voting alongside the vote, is discouraged while the vote is going on. Per thread rules, to be included a quote must "win" a majority by at least 2 votes.
• Only votes called for by the curator are binding.

Effectively this means we trust the curator to decide if there is a clear consensus or not, based on whatever he feels at the time. This is fine! In fact we've been operating under this informal rule for a very long time and I don't recall anybody ever disagreeing with Our Most Ripe Banana on whether a clear consensus existed. Even if this happens, it's easy to raise the issue in-thread and trigger another round of discussion, leading to a vote (or not).

Therefore, I would like to suggest we just add the mechanism for removal into the loose guidelines that already exist, rather than creating rigid rules from scratch. A possible wording:

• Existing quotes in the Index can be proposed for removal.
• Quotes with a clear consensus to keep in the Index will remain, without the need for a vote.
• Quotes without a clear consensus to keep will be voted upon at the time of the next update. This means a vote for removal is mandatory even if there is an apparent consensus to remove.
• If any quotes are queued for removal, the curator will call for voting on those removals, separately from any voting for additions. Removal must "win" a majority by at least 2 votes for the quote to be removed.

[Joerg]

The existing guidelines are much more flexible:
<snip>

Oh, I didn't even realize that the new proposal changed the guidelines for the addition of quotes. Yes, I'm quite content with those existing guidelines; though I have seen such 'pre-votes' happening, they probably just happened because people haven't been aware that there obviously is no clear consensus if four or five people have voiced a different opinion.

Therefore, I would like to suggest we just add the mechanism for removal into the loose guidelines that already exist, rather than creating rigid rules from scratch. A possible wording:

• Existing quotes in the Index can be proposed for removal.
• Quotes with a clear consensus to keep in the Index will remain, without the need for a vote.
• Quotes without a clear consensus to keep will be voted upon at the time of the next update. This means a vote for removal is mandatory even if there is an apparent consensus to remove.
• If any quotes are queued for removal, the curator will call for voting on those removals, separately from any voting for additions. Removal must "win" a majority by at least 2 votes for the quote to be removed.

Seconded.

[Peelee]

I, too, would like to withdraw my previous support and throw it behind Gwynfrid's proposal.

[Kish]

I'll support that too.

[Keltest]

I also find Gwynfrid's suggestion appealing. It has my support.

[Jasdoif]

Huh. So committing to how I've been doing it the entire time, and how I've described it on multiple occasions, is apparently not a good idea? Weird....

[Peelee]

Fear of commitment is a standard trope, ya know.

[Jasdoif]

Fear of commitment is a standard trope, ya know.

I thought that applied to the party making the commitment, though.

[Peelee]

There's no time to discuss this in a committee.

[Gwynfrid]

Huh. So committing to how I've been doing it the entire time, and how I've described it on multiple occasions, is apparently not a good idea? Weird....

You can totally continue doing it the same way. But writing it down creates the perception of a vote ahead of the actual vote, and that's confusing. You'll see people starting to question the lack of a vote because just one opinion was missing to make the 2/3rd cut, that sort of thing. There's such a thing as too many rules...

[Jasdoif]

There's no time to discuss this in a committee.

Sure there is, what do you think we're doing right now?
I am not a committee!

You'll see people starting to question the lack of a vote because just one opinion was missing to make the 2/3rd cut, that sort of thing.

Well...we are discussing this in the first place largely because of what happened when a vote fell on the 50/50 point. I don't think questioning our process is inherently bad, and the sense of stability from anyone being able to see how we run things is the biggest advantage of having thread rules.

Besides, would those questions be particularly different from questions about not including a quote because just one vote was missing to meet the two-vote threshold?

[Jasdoif]

Well first off, today's the two-month day. So.

---

Proposed Items for Index 5.3
"How the Paladin Got His Scar" is Almost as Long as "On the Origins of PCs" "...and will probably get a full book release of some sort (i.e. print and PDF)."	#1041	06/29/2016	No vote required, will be included.
"How the Paladin Got His Scar" Will Be in the New Art Style As will everything going forward, unless it's meant to be inserted in the middle of older art. Also, the story will be in grayscale instead of bluescale; because the color-less art's reliance on dark separating lines didn't work out with a single blue color.	#1042	07/03/2016	No vote required, will be included.

With nothing eligible to be voted on, there will be no vote; both entries are now in the Index.

---

...and with the reversals a few days ago, it appears there's an even split on people in favor of updating the thread rules to reflect how I actually run updates, and people who would prefer just adding removals into the existing guidelines. If I was the overly suspicious sort I'd think someone is trying to force me into making an executive decision

[Peelee]

---

Proposed Items for Index 5.3
"How the Paladin Got His Scar" is Almost as Long as "On the Origins of PCs" "...and will probably get a full book release of some sort (i.e. print and PDF)."	#1041	06/29/2016	No vote required, will be included.

Can I suggest the summary and main link title be swapped? "X will be as long as Y" is only relevant until X comes out, but other parts in that quote (will not be released like Uncivil Servant, will probably get full book release) will likely remain relevant for far longer.

[Jasdoif]

Can I suggest the summary and main link title be swapped? "X will be as long as Y" is only relevant until X comes out, but other parts in that quote (will not be released like Uncivil Servant, will probably get full book release) will likely remain relevant for far longer.

You mean do something like...

"How the Paladin Got His Scar" Will Probably Get a Full Book Release of Some Sort And is almost as long as "On the Origins of PCs".

#1041

06/29/2016

?

[Peelee]

You mean do something like...

"How the Paladin Got His Scar" Will Probably Get a Full Book Release of Some Sort And is almost as long as "On the Origins of PCs".

#1041

06/29/2016

?

Pretty much, if there are no objections.

[Ron Miel]

Sounds good to me. Seconded.

[Jasdoif]

Pretty much, if there are no objections.

Sounds good to me. Seconded.

Seems reasonable enough. Done.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

If it helps to avoid making executive decisions I'll go ahead and say that I'm fine with having the rules stick with the idea of a general consensus rather than specifically 2/3, even if that is the guideline that you as curator choose to follow.

[Gwynfrid]

Besides, would those questions be particularly different from questions about not including a quote because just one vote was missing to meet the two-vote threshold?

My point is that if you present the process as two votes with different thresholds, you increase the chances of such situations. Plus, it's confusing to most people especially occasional thread contributors.

[Jasdoif]

My point is that if you present the process as two votes with different thresholds, you increase the chances of such situations. Plus, it's confusing to most people especially occasional thread contributors.

Sounds like more explanation that the discussion stage isn't a vote would be the solution there. On the other hand, I can see how confusing the numerical portions could happen, and more text volume is likely to obscure rather than clarify the matter.

That said...I like my rewording, so I counter-propose removing the explicit criteria for queueing from it.

For a quote to be queued for an update requires community support. Additions have more leniency on being queued than removals; and additions with strong community support are exempt from potential votes during the update, while removals are always voted on.

So, the current draft:

---

General Update Procedure

• To reduce how many posts in the thread are consumed by votes instead of discussion, normal changes to the Index are done in groups of quotes. Each update cycle happens when there are six quotes queued for addition/removal, or when it has been two months since the last update cycle.
• For a quote to be queued for an update requires community support. Additions have more leniency on being queued than removals; and additions with strong community support are exempt from potential votes during the update, while removals are always voted on.
• When an impending update is announced by the curator, and prior to the update being done, people can PM the curator requesting a vote on the quote(s) to added (unless the earlier discussion strongly favored addition, as mentioned above). Two separate posters must request a vote on a quote for it to occur, otherwise the quote will be included. This step is done to ensure active opposition to including the quote is still present.
• If a vote is necessary for any additions, the curator will call for voting on those additions. Discussion, beyond reiterating personal reasons for voting alongside the vote, is discouraged while the vote is going on. Addition must "win" a majority by at least 2 votes for to the quote to be added.
• If any quotes are queued for removal, the curator will call for voting those removals, separately from any voting for additions. Removal must "win" a majority by at least 2 votes for to the quote to be removed.

Special Update Cases

• If the curator finds a quote to be clearly aligned with the agreed-upon thread rules, the quote may be immediately added to the update queue. When the update cycle happens, the quote is still held to usual procedure with regards to possible votes on additions.
• If the curator finds an already-present quote to be unequivocally violating the agreed-upon thread rules, most likely if the cited quote ceases being available online, the quote may be removed immediately without regard to the update cycle.

---

[Gwynfrid]

Looks good to me.

[Jasdoif]

Lots of silence on the rule text proposals....Well, if memory serves, waiting for discussion is what stalled this the last time; and since there was a last time I don't think letting this get put on hold again is a good idea.

So it's time to do what I can with what I got, as the saying goes.

---

VOTING FOR RULE REVISION OPEN

Since the thread rules have the potential to impact the inclusion of any future quote, all rule changes must be approved by vote.

• The proposal at hand contains two steps:
  
  • The existing block of text that describes the inclusion procedure will be struck out and put in a spoiler tag.
    

    The inclusion procedure below was proposed and adopted in a more informal fashion than the rules above, but still represents how this community project is expected to be run with regards to including new quotes.
    
    Participating doesn't require an understanding of this procedure: we discuss the merits of quotes after they're proposed in the usual forum fashion, and the curator will call for nominations or votes at the appropriate time.
    
    But for those interested in the details:
    

    • Quotes with a clear consensus to include or exclude after discussion will be included in or excluded from the next update, as appropriate.
    • Quotes the curator deems clearly aligned with the inclusion guidelines will default to be included in the next update without needing extended discussion, but may be voted upon at the time of the update (see below).
    • Quotes without a clear consensus to include/exclude after discussion will default to be included in the next update, but may be voted upon at the time of the update (see below).
    • Updates will happen when there are six quotes ready to be included or if it has been two months since the last update.
    • When an impending update is announced by the curator, and prior to the update being done, people can PM the curator requesting a vote on the particular "default" inclusion quote(s) (the quotes with strong consensus to include do not need to be voted on). Two separate posters must request a vote on a quote for it to occur, otherwise the quote will be included.
    • If a vote is necessary, the curator will call for voting on all quotes set to be voted upon. Discussion, beyond reiterating personal reasons for voting alongside the vote, is discouraged while the vote is going on. Per thread rules, to be included a quote must "win" a majority by at least 2 votes.
    • Only votes called for by the curator are binding.

  • The following text will be inserted into the rules:

    Rule H: To reduce how many posts in the thread are consumed by votes instead of discussion, normal changes to the Index are done in groups of quotes.
    
    1) | General Update Procedure

    • Each update cycle happens when there are six quotes queued for addition/removal, or when it has been two months since the last update cycle.
    • For a quote to be queued for an update requires community support. Additions have more leniency on being queued than removals; and additions with strong community support are exempt from potential votes during the update, while removals are always voted on.
    • When an impending update is announced by the curator, and prior to the update being done, people can PM the curator requesting a vote on the quote(s) to added (unless the earlier discussion strongly favored addition, as mentioned above). Two separate posters must request a vote on a quote for it to occur, otherwise the quote will be included. This step is done to ensure active opposition to including the quote is still present.
    • If a vote is necessary for any additions, the curator will call for voting on those additions. Discussion, beyond reiterating personal reasons for voting alongside the vote, is discouraged while the vote is going on. Addition must "win" a majority by at least 2 votes for to the quote to be added.
    • If any quotes are queued for removal, the curator will call for voting on those removals, separately from any voting for additions. Removal must "win" a majority by at least 2 votes for to the quote to be removed.

    
    
    2) | Special Update Cases

    • If the curator finds a quote to be clearly aligned with the agreed-upon thread rules, the quote may be immediately added to the update queue. When the update cycle happens, the quote is still held to usual procedure with regards to possible votes on additions.
    • If the curator finds an already-present quote to be unequivocally violating the agreed-upon thread rules, most likely if the cited quote ceases being available online, the quote may be removed immediately without regard to the update cycle.

  
  
  
  Spoiler: Expected Format if Proposal Passes

  Show

  The Index provides easy access to direct statements about the Order of the Stick comic from its author, for the purpose of forum discussion. It is intended as a research aid; its entertainment value as a trivia collection is incidental.

  Spoiler: Index Guidelines (PLEASE READ - Updated ??/??/????)

  Show

  These rules were decided by forum vote. They specify what sorts of comments are suitable for inclusion in the Index and what sorts are not. This thread is run by its caretaker in accordance with forumgoer consensus.
  
  Rule A: The quote or comment must still be accessible online.
  
  1) | This includes the use of The Internet Wayback Machine and other methods of accessing comments that may not still exist in the archive.
  
  2) | This does not include second-hand sources, like "I remember Rich said this, but the thread does not exist anymore." Even if you are 100% certain Rich said that, if the quote is not demonstrable or provable it cannot be included.
  
  3) | This does not include Rich's commentary in books or in any medium that cannot be legally accessed for free.
  
  Rule B: The Index is for collecting only quotes that have to do with the Order of the Stick comic or other fiction works by Rich Burlew.
  
  1) | This excludes non-comic-related opinions, statements, etc. from Rich. So if he says "I like Italian food" or something like that, it is not to be included.
  
  2) | This may include information related to the comic, like Rich's views on Dungeons and Dragons, book publishing, art design, etc. . . so long as these quotes are still within the sphere of comic-related discussion. Uncertainty should be decided by thread poster consensus.
  
  3) | This excludes GiTP forum rules, updates, or general information. That is for the admins and mods to publicize and spread word about, not this index.
  
  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. (rescinded as rule on 12/16/2014)
  
  Rule D: If two quotes seem to contradict each other, only the quote that illustrates Rich's most recent and current opinion or position will be included. The index is not meant to be a complete collection for leisurely reading. It is meant to be an accurate research aid for forum discussions. (reference to rescinded rule removed on 12/16/2014)
  
  Rule E: Quotes that contain redundant information need not be included. This reduces clutter. The quote should only be included if it provides new information or clarity, or if it expounds upon information included in a prior comment. This reduces clutter. The quote should only be included if it provides new information or clarity, or if it expounds upon information included in a prior comment.
  
  Rule F: The index-keeper (Jasdoif) has the job of updating the index in keeping with thread-goer consensus.
  
  1) | He/She may reorganize the index if deemed necessary, though all reorganizations can be reversed by majority vote.
  
  2) | He/She may immediately add a comment to the index without any vote, discussion, or consensus required if the comment obviously is in accordance with these agreed rules.
  
  3) | He/She may never fully "reject" a comment's inclusion, however, he/she may postpone its inclusion until further discussion (and, if the divide in opinion appears even, a vote) decides the matter.
  
  4) | If a comment's inclusion is uncertain, a vote requires a clear majority. If there is a tie the comment will not be included. The majority must have at least 2 more votes than the minority. Remember, the purpose of the discussions and votes are to reach some measure of consensus, not division.
  
  Rule G: 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.
  
  Rule H: To reduce how many posts in the thread are consumed by votes instead of discussion, normal changes to the Index are done in groups of quotes.
  
  1) | General Update Procedure

  • Each update cycle happens when there are six quotes queued for addition/removal, or when it has been two months since the last update cycle.
  • For a quote to be queued for an update requires community support. Additions have more leniency on being queued than removals; and additions with strong community support are exempt from potential votes during the update, while removals are always voted on.
  • When an impending update is announced by the curator, and prior to the update being done, people can PM the curator requesting a vote on the quote(s) to added (unless the earlier discussion strongly favored addition, as mentioned above). Two separate posters must request a vote on a quote for it to occur, otherwise the quote will be included. This step is done to ensure active opposition to including the quote is still present.
  • If a vote is necessary for any additions, the curator will call for voting on those additions. Discussion, beyond reiterating personal reasons for voting alongside the vote, is discouraged while the vote is going on. Addition must "win" a majority by at least 2 votes for to the quote to be added.
  • If any quotes are queued for removal, the curator will call for voting on those removals, separately from any voting for additions. Removal must "win" a majority by at least 2 votes for to the quote to be removed.

  
  
  2) | Special Update Cases

  • If the curator finds a quote to be clearly aligned with the agreed-upon thread rules, the quote may be immediately added to the update queue. When the update cycle happens, the quote is still held to usual procedure with regards to possible votes on additions.
  • If the curator finds an already-present quote to be unequivocally violating the agreed-upon thread rules, most likely if the cited quote ceases being available online, the quote may be removed immediately without regard to the update cycle.

  
  
  
  
  

  Spoiler: Old Inclusion Text (Rescinded ??/??/????)

  Show

  The inclusion procedure below was proposed and adopted in a more informal fashion than the rules above, but still represents how this community project is expected to be run with regards to including new quotes.
  
  Participating doesn't require an understanding of this procedure: we discuss the merits of quotes after they're proposed in the usual forum fashion, and the curator will call for nominations or votes at the appropriate time.
  
  But for those interested in the details:
  

  • Quotes with a clear consensus to include or exclude after discussion will be included in or excluded from the next update, as appropriate.
  • Quotes the curator deems clearly aligned with the inclusion guidelines will default to be included in the next update without needing extended discussion, but may be voted upon at the time of the update (see below).
  • Quotes without a clear consensus to include/exclude after discussion will default to be included in the next update, but may be voted upon at the time of the update (see below).
  • Updates will happen when there are six quotes ready to be included or if it has been two months since the last update.
  • When an impending update is announced by the curator, and prior to the update being done, people can PM the curator requesting a vote on the particular "default" inclusion quote(s) (the quotes with strong consensus to include do not need to be voted on). Two separate posters must request a vote on a quote for it to occur, otherwise the quote will be included.
  • If a vote is necessary, the curator will call for voting on all quotes set to be voted upon. Discussion, beyond reiterating personal reasons for voting alongside the vote, is discouraged while the vote is going on. Per thread rules, to be included a quote must "win" a majority by at least 2 votes.
  • Only votes called for by the curator are binding.

It is believed this update will support removals, along with other miscellaneous clarifications that were resolved ad hoc before, while still handling updates in more or less the same fashion.

---

• Please bold your yes/no vote, it'll make it easier for me to notice when I go through and count everything.
• Since a rule revision is not a quote itself, the normal request not to discuss the item being voted on does not apply.
• In keeping with the intent of Rule F4, the revision will need to have at least two more votes in favor than votes against to be accepted.

Voting will be open until July 22nd, 9PM EDT.

---

And this is me voting yes.

[dancrilis]

Spoiler: Expected Format if Proposal Passes

Show

• If the curator finds an already-present quote to be unequivocally violating the agreed-upon thread rules, most likely if the cited quote ceases being available online, the quote may be removed immediately without regard to the update cycle.

Yes
Fine with the rules changes, can I suggest that quotes that are removed due to inaccessability (rather than from request from Giant, Vote for removal etc) be held in an 'no longer accessable' section.

Theoritically the onlt reason they were referenced initally is because they were accessable and so storing them somewhere has merit I would think.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I vote yes.

[Kish]

Yes. .....

[Peelee]

Yes.

• Only votes called for by the curator are binding.

I find it mildly amusing that we can't Star Wars you and call for a vote of no confidence, under this guideline.

[Kalmegil]

Yes. and other stuff to make this long enough.