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

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Rule H2 would allow such if the quote unequivocally violated Index rules...but which rule(s) are you thinking it violates? If we were adding the announcement for Good Deeds Gone Unpunished into the Index, the redundancy might make for a good case, but we aren't...and that announcement doesn't have the note about eventual eBooks and Snips, Snails and Dragon Tales that the Blood Runs in the Family announcement does, so trying to incapacitate those two birds with one merciful stone isn't an option.

I took the redundancy clause in Rule E to mean that quotes where the information in the quote was rendered clearly superfluous in any sense, not just strictly because of another quote in the Index, could be removed. I now realize that is not the only reading, so I guess it's not really unequivocal at all.

[Jasdoif]

I now realize that is not the only reading, so I guess it's not really unequivocal at all.

Neat, huh?

---

For anyone just seeing this new page, there's a vote going on:

Item up for voting:

• The removal of "How the Paladin Got His Scar" Will Probably Get a Full Book Release of Some Sort; on the basis of it being obviated by the announcement of that full book release.

---

• Please bold your keep/remove votes, it'll make it easier for me to notice when I go through and count everything.
• If you feel inclined to vote with "yes" or "no", please describe your position so I can tell the difference between "yes, keep it" or "yes, remove it".
• Per Rule H1, removal by vote requires a quote to have two more votes in favor of removal than votes against removal.

Voting will be open until June 22nd, 8PM EDT.

[Gwynfrid]

I took the redundancy clause in Rule E to mean that quotes where the information in the quote was rendered clearly superfluous in any sense, not just strictly because of another quote in the Index, could be removed. I now realize that is not the only reading, so I guess it's not really unequivocal at all.

Come on. Rule E is meant to exclude things that are redundant. It doesn't say "redundant with another quote in the Index". Just "redundant". This quote obviously falls under that rule, we have unanimity (including SaintRidley!) on the matter. We could twist the reading in such a way as to ignore the intent of the rule, but I fail the see the benefit in doing so.

[Peelee]

Come on. Rule E is meant to exclude things that are redundant. It doesn't say "redundant with another quote in the Index". Just "redundant". This quote obviously falls under that rule, we have unanimity (including SaintRidley!) on the matter. We could twist the reading in such a way as to ignore the intent of the rule, but I fail the see the benefit in doing so.

Devil's Banana's Advocate: that rule is for inclusion. The quote is already included. The intent is to not allow redundant quotes to be enshrined to begin with. Removing quotes was not even a consideration for quite a long time, and is a highly divisive topic. There is also currently only one rule for removal. This is correctly functioning both RAW and RAI.

[Kish]

There is no downside to having a vote to remove everything. And like SaintRidley, I have scars from the Era of Quotes Need To Do The Twelve Tasks of Hercules To Be Included.

[Jasdoif]

In what's probably not a surprise....

• The removal of "How the Paladin Got His Scar" Will Probably Get a Full Book Release of Some Sort passed; 13 in favor of removal, 0 in favor of keeping. It has been removed.

The Index has been updated.

---

Now since this is apparently a point of some contention, we agreed that....

...removals are always voted on

. Without a qualification of "unless the curator assumes a vote to be a foregone conclusion". My job is to keep the Index updated according to community consensus, not according to what I might imagine community consensus to be. That's what the guidelines are ultimately for...and by extension, what the votes are ultimately for.

That said, this is the first time we've used this particular procedure...so if there's now consensus that removals need some sort of no-vote threshold like additions do, now's a good time to come up with a rule revision reflecting that consensus.

---

Additionally, comments/suggestions/ideas on entry organization or presentation are still welcome.

[Kish]

No, there is no consensus on that.

[Keltest]

I don't specifically have a problem with requiring a vote to remove no matter how much unanimity there appears to be, when somebody believes there is no longer value in keeping it, but since it came up I do think we may want to consider formalizing a stance on what to do about quotes that, for whatever reason, no longer meet the guidelines for inclusion. For example, lets say Rich makes a clarification about something, then deletes the comment after it gets indexed. Do we still need to vote to remove that from the index? Personally, I don't think we do, I think we should just skip straight to removing it. But under current rules for removal, we would have to, and we could even conceivably end up having indexed a quote that no longer exists. I don't think this specific scenario is too terribly likely, but since were on the topic anyway, I believe we should codify a procedure.

[Jasdoif]

....but since it came up I do think we may want to consider formalizing a stance on what to do about quotes that, for whatever reason, no longer meet the guidelines for inclusion. For example, lets say Rich makes a clarification about something, then deletes the comment after it gets indexed. Do we still need to vote to remove that from the index?

That, we have a stance on:

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.

[Keltest]

That, we have a stance on:

Oh, hey. So we do. Weird. I even specifically read through the guidelines looking for that.

huh.

In that case, I agree with Gwynfrid.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Come on. Rule E is meant to exclude things that are redundant. It doesn't say "redundant with another quote in the Index". Just "redundant". This quote obviously falls under that rule, we have unanimity (including SaintRidley!) on the matter. We could twist the reading in such a way as to ignore the intent of the rule, but I fail the see the benefit in doing so.

I mean, we clearly don’t have unanimity on that matter, since Jasdoif didn’t see it that way. I’m content to vote on removal consistent in the way I read Rule E, although I’d be open to amending it in the spirit of the language it’s written in so it’s clear to all it applies to redundancy from any source.

ETA:

That said, this is the first time we've used this particular procedure...so if there's now consensus that removals need some sort of no-vote threshold like additions do, now's a good time to come up with a rule revision reflecting that consensus.

I think that this current system works fine; I like erring towards making removal more difficult. I know it isn’t too pressing of a concern, but as I said above it might be a good idea to clarify rule E. I think Rule H1 and H2 themselves are good, but having the grounds for removal in H2 be crystal clear is a good idea, even if it might not matter until the distant future.

[Ephemera]

I think Rule H2 would allow Jasdoif to remove the quote without our input, personally, but I think it's also perfectly fine to put it up to a vote as they've chosen.

I vote to remove the rule to require voting for removals. Oh, wait, we’re not voting on that? I’m that case vote that we hold a vote to vote on removing the rule for voting on removals. No, wait, I remove my vote for voting to remove the rule for voting on removals.

Never mind, I remove myself from this discussion about voting.

[Ephemera]

More seriously, though, this isn’t rocket science. I’d suggest that it be kinda the inverse of inclusion, and that Jasidoif would say “this appears to be a candidate for removal” and there’s say, a 2-day period during which if two people don’t object (or at least call for a vote), it goes. Or it could be stricter and we could say that it only requires one objector to call for a vote.

But by all means, let’s discuss for 3 more pages before we vote on a rule. :)

[Gwynfrid]

I mean, we clearly don’t have unanimity on that matter, since Jasdoif didn’t see it that way.

I meant we have unanimity on the removal of this particular quote. Not unanimity on the rules, of course. Such a thing could only happen in a parallel universe, one that never heard about rule lawyers, devil advocacy, or the thrill of 99%-pointless Internet debating

Now, it turns out rule H2 already covers the situation. Thanks to the Most Honorable Gentlebanana for pointing that out.

[Joerg]

I don't see a problem with having a vote. Nobody is forced to vote, after all. If there is unanimous consens to remove a quote, it's enough that two people vote "remove" and the others can abstain (as I did this time).

On the other hand, the "unofficial vote" procedure on whether there should be a vote for inclusion of a quote still seems unnecessarily complicated to me.

[martianmister]

There is no harm with having a vote, despite how unnecessary it seems.

[137beth]

Yea, I agree that for removing a quote, a vote should always be required. If everyone wants a particular quote removed, then there is no harm in keeping it in an extra few days while the vote happens.

[Emanick]

Yea, I agree that for removing a quote, a vote should always be required. If everyone wants a particular quote removed, then there is no harm in keeping it in an extra few days while the vote happens.

It seems unnecessary to have a vote in cases like this. But it seems even more unnecessary to have a long discussion about whether that should change and then vote on when, if ever, to change how we vote. So I vote that we keep the voting procedures the same, and not worry about it anymore.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I meant we have unanimity on the removal of this particular quote. Not unanimity on the rules, of course. Such a thing could only happen in a parallel universe, one that never heard about rule lawyers, devil advocacy, or the thrill of 99%-pointless Internet debating

Now, it turns out rule H2 already covers the situation. Thanks to the Most Honorable Gentlebanana for pointing that out.

Ah, my apologies for misunderstanding you! It was nice to have a vote where we all get along. As for rules lawyering, well...what else is there to do between quotes.

[137beth]

It seems unnecessary to have a vote in cases like this. But it seems even more unnecessary to have a long discussion about whether that should change and then vote on when, if ever, to change how we vote. So I vote that we keep the voting procedures the same, and not worry about it anymore.

Your claim that it is unnecessary to discuss whether we should change the voting procedures is highly controversial: I propose that we have a vote on whether we should discuss whether we should have a vote on whether we should remove certain quotes.

But before that, we should have a vote on whether we have a vote on whether we should discuss whether we should have a vote on whether we should remove certain quotes.


Yes this post is sarcastic if you couldn't tell.

[Emanick]

Your claim that it is unnecessary to discuss whether we should change the voting procedures is highly controversial: I propose that we have a vote on whether we should discuss whether we should have a vote on whether we should remove certain quotes.

But before that, we should have a vote on whether we have a vote on whether we should discuss whether we should have a vote on whether we should remove certain quotes.


Yes this post is sarcastic if you couldn't tell.

You know what? You’re right, I was out of line. Let’s do that instead.

[Ephemera]

You know what? You’re right, I was out of line. Let’s do that instead.

Didn’t I already propose that a page ago? I guess technically I didn’t, I just expressed my willingness to vote for or against such a move.

[Jasdoif]

But before that, we should have a vote on whether we have a vote on whether we should discuss whether we should have a vote on whether we should remove certain quotes.

Are you even trying?

[D.One]

If there's a vote about such, I then vote we keep voting about the subject.

[b_jonas]

In multiple other threads (especially now near #1128 when all the Order is down unconscious), I have seen people claim that the Giant said that when the Oracle makes the prophecy that Elan is going to get a happy ending, the Giant has written that for the readers to tell them that the OotS story is going to have a happy ending. In particular, they use this as an argument saying that the illusion in #887 does not fulfill this prophecy, nor does the whistle in #334 or the dinosaur slide on his best day ever with Tarquin. But I can't find the Giant saying this. Did he really, and can I get a link?

[Mad Humanist]

In multiple other threads (especially now near #1128 when all the Order is down unconscious), I have seen people claim that the Giant said that when the Oracle makes the prophecy that Elan is going to get a happy ending, the Giant has written that for the readers to tell them that the OotS story is going to have a happy ending. In particular, they use this as an argument saying that the illusion in #887 does not fulfill this prophecy, nor does the whistle in #334 or the dinosaur slide on his best day ever with Tarquin. But I can't find the Giant saying this. Did he really, and can I get a link?

There is a glorious thread at the beginning of the thread. I spent an enlightening half-hour browsing it but I did not find the quote.

[hroþila]

It's in the commentary to War and XPs:

Consider it my way of turning around to the audience and saying, "Don't worry, folks! It might get scary for a while, but it will all work out in the end!"

[snowblizz]

In multiple other threads (especially now near #1128 when all the Order is down unconscious), I have seen people claim that the Giant said that when the Oracle makes the prophecy that Elan is going to get a happy ending, the Giant has written that for the readers to tell them that the OotS story is going to have a happy ending. In particular, they use this as an argument saying that the illusion in #887 does not fulfill this prophecy, nor does the whistle in #334 or the dinosaur slide on his best day ever with Tarquin. But I can't find the Giant saying this. Did he really, and can I get a link?

That the Happy Ending is supposed to be security blanket for the readers is a comment found in the published books (which is why it doens't feature here). Basically it does insure us from things like literal happy endings by reptilian ladies of the night e.g.

The Giant does also point out at the same time that "happy ending" may not be the same thing for the character as it is for the reader. Ie Durkon is happy about going to die and return home (as he thinks). It all boils down to Elan being a happy and optimistic person in general and that grimdark sad ending is not going to be happy for Elan, in the view of many readers.

[NerdyKris]

It's from the War and XPs book commentary.

I determined that Elan's answer would set the reader's mind at ease. Yes there might be some major character deaths coming up (heck, there are two before this book finishes!) but in the end, this is still a comedy-adventure, not a drama. When the entire The Order of the Stick saga is over, Elan will have a happy ending. Not everyone in the story will be able to say the same, but it doesn't take much work to extrapolate a few things that simply could not happen without invalidating Elan's prophecy-assured happy ending. Consider it my way of turning to the audience and saying, ""Don't worry folks! It might get scary for a while but it will all work out in the end.!"

[b_jonas]

Thank you for the answers, hroþila, snowblizz, NerdyKris. That explains why I couldn't find the quote.