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

[littlebum2002]

I agree it may be silly for Protection from Law to be illegal, but that's the word we have on the canon so it's the best we've got.

TBH, the various "protection" spells are so similar I never really understood why they are different spells in the first place. I mean the majority of the utility from the spells comes from the parts which are the same, the "AC bonus and save bonus for certain alignments" helps, but isn't really interesting enough to justify having 4 separate spells.

[Kish]

I think you greatly underestimate the number of players who would (and do) cast Protection from Evil with no expectation of mind control being a serious possibility.

[Dunsparce]

I agree it may be silly for Protection from Law to be illegal, but that's the word we have on the canon so it's the best we've got.

TBH, the various "protection" spells are so similar I never really understood why they are different spells in the first place. I mean the majority of the utility from the spells comes from the parts which are the same, the "AC bonus and save bonus for certain alignments" helps, but isn't really interesting enough to justify having 4 separate spells.

That's nothing, The 3.5 Forgotten Realms book Shining South had a variant called Protection from Winged Flyers. Basically Protection from Good/Evil/Law/Chaos but against anything with both wings and a fly speed.

[Emanick]

We can second-guess the Giant, but it's always going to be inconclusive. To the question, why did Belkar not ask for a Protection from Law item, there are (at least) two possible answers: #1 because Belkar didn't know any better, or #2 because he didn't want to ask for something illegal. The original poster suggested the answer is #1. Then Rich posted to say the answer is #2. Joke or no joke, this is a valid answer. We have no reason to dismiss it.

Yeah, I too think it's a valid answer and should be kept. The other comments on the cutting board, I'm in favor of jettisoning.

[Jay R]

I agree it may be silly for Protection from Law to be illegal, but that's the word we have on the canon so it's the best we've got.

It makes perfect sense to me that interfering with the law should be against the law.

It's not good to use Protection from Good.
It's not evil to use Protection from Evil.
It's not chaotic to use Protection from Chaos.
It's not lawful to use Protection from Law.

[Keltest]

It makes perfect sense to me that interfering with the law should be against the law.

It's not good to use Protection from Good.
It's not evil to use Protection from Evil.
It's not chaotic to use Protection from Chaos.
It's not lawful to use Protection from Law.

Being lawful is not the same thing as obeying the law, and many evil being use Protection from Evil to summon fiends and not get ripped apart by them.

It seems clear to me its a joke, and while I cant argue against the idea that its the only word we have on the subject, I don't think we need any word on it either.

[Peelee]

I don't know why it wasn't just called Order instead of Law.

[Keltest]

I don't know why it wasn't just called Order instead of Law.

Blame Law and Order.

[Pyrous]

I don't know why it wasn't just called Order instead of Law.

It would certainly be better. Would you rather read a comic called The Order of the Stick, or one called The Law of the Stick?

[Peelee]

Blame Law and Order.

I could see a character worshipping Lenny Briscoe or Hang 'Em High McCoy.

[Jasdoif]

OK. Let's see, memory-from-the-afterlife tweets....

Assessment for Afterlife Memory Tweets
PROPONENTS	OPPONENTS
Sniffoy	Gwynfrid
2.5 cats	Keltest
unbeliever536	Peelee
littlebum2002	Cizak
snowblizz	Grey_Wolf_c
pendell	Kalmegil
tomandtish	Emanick
137ben	Lissou
DaggerPen	Pyrous
Ron Miel	FujinAkari
ReaderAt2046	Gray Mage
ORione
Zherog
Gilphon
Ruck
Porthos
Markozeta
factotum
ChristianSt
Kish
SaintRidley
Dr. Gamera
The Linker
pearl jam
Jaxzan Proditor
Totals
25	11
Current Disposition
INCLUDE

So that still looks like it's outside of having a vote called on it.

---

That means the tentative list is still:

The OotS Strips in Gygax Magazine Will Be in a Collection Someday	#1020	01/22/2016	Tentative, appears will be included without vote.
Blackwing's Explosion in #1020 is a Scroll Activation Mishap Furthermore, the writing on the scroll reads "STRIP #970 P5 ESTABLISHES THAT MAGIC ITEMS EXPLODE WHEN ACTIVATED IMPROPERLY".	#1020	01/22/2016	Tentative, appears will be eligible for vote.
On the Ephemerality of Memories from the Afterlife Roy can remember anything that happened in the clouds, and the rest is "fuzzy" but not completely forgotten.	#1022	02/08/2016	Tentative, appears will be included without vote.

So unless things change in eight days, that's what the update cycle will be working on.

---

As for proposed deletions, looks like a definite trend towards removal (the Protection from Law entry is the highest right in retention support right now, at 50/50), so I better list them:

Entries Suggested for Removal
Protection from Law is Illegal in Many Places	#969	12/01/2014
V's Children The Giant made them adopted to leave open the possibility that V/Inkyrius are gay or lesbian.	#882	04/09/2013
Durkon Throws Diamond Dust Durkon threw diamond dust into the air in 844.	#844	03/09/2012
Orrin Draketooth's Daughter She's not Haley.	#816	11/21/2011
Haley's Boots of Speed Yes, she did get them dyed to match her brown/tan garb.	#793	05/29/2011
Elan's Rapiers He has two. His original, and one from Julio Scoundrel.	#723	05/13/2010

With an update cycle so close, I don't think it's wise to get to removals until after that's taken care of.

Which, incidentally, means if anyone wants removal procedures codified, now's the time to bring it up (again).

---

TBH, the various "protection" spells are so similar I never really understood why they are different spells in the first place. I mean the majority of the utility from the spells comes from the parts which are the same, the "AC bonus and save bonus for certain alignments" helps, but isn't really interesting enough to justify having 4 separate spells.

Clerics can't cast spells with alignments opposed to their own or their deity's. An evil cleric, or a neutral cleric of an evil deity, can't cast protection from evil because it's a Good spell.

I presume having a single protection from alignment spell with text like "when you use this spell to protect against good, evil, law or chaos; it is a spell of its opposite type (a good spell when used to protect against evil, and so forth)", and then expecting people to remember the alignment restriction at that time, was deemed too complicated in wording for the core rulebook.

Or maybe they thought it'd be too advantageous to have access to the full set (a neutral cleric of a neutral deity, a neutral cleric with no deity, or any sorcerer/wizard) with a single spell? Hard to tell.

I could see a character worshipping Lenny Briscoe or Hang 'Em High McCoy.

Briscoe, McCoy and Carmichael form a pantheon by themselves.

[Rodin]

I didn't realize the "V's Children are adopted" quote was up for removal. I firmly oppose that one being removed.

A) It's non-obvious that's why he did it...or at least, I didn't know it until Word of Giant came down and found it interesting at the time.

B) It's not something that can be answered in-comic or by referring to a particular page.

C) It's about the writing process, which firmly places it in "relevant" territory.

D) Did I mention it's really interesting?

E) The original proposal was not to remove, but to modify the index entry to make it clear that V's kids are stated to be adopted in-comic, and the quote is clarifying the writing process. I haven't seen anyone specifically say they want it removed (although paging through 4 pages of posts makes it easy to miss something...my respect for our illustrious banana grows).

[Peelee]

D) Did I mention it's really interesting?

I realize Rule C was rescinded, but is "that's really interesting" a good reason to include and/oor not remove?

[Jasdoif]

The original proposal was not to remove, but to modify the index entry to make it clear that V's kids are stated to be adopted in-comic, and the quote is clarifying the writing process. I haven't seen anyone specifically say they want it removed (although paging through 4 pages of posts makes it easy to miss something...my respect for our illustrious banana grows).

Hmm, I missed that part in Quild's post. Well, let me see what's left here....

Spoiler: Banan-analysis

Show

I support removing all of these.

The entry for Vaarsuvius' children had been mentioned at that point, so I'd have to consider this a proposed removal....

I support all of the proposed removals.

I'm in support of most of the removals but abstain with respect to Protection from Law being illegal.

...so I'd have to consider those later posts in favor of removal of it as well.


That would put you (Rodin) and Throknor in favor of keeping it after the removal was proposed. Two for keeping and three for removing still warrants getting it listed, I think.

In any case, I don't intend to remove any entries without a vote on the individual entries to be removed; so if I am grossly misreading the situation it'll become apparent during the vote, before any removal could occur.



And, as the one who decides on the entry descriptions...I don't see what advantage mentioning 631 is supposed to have. Vaarsuvius mentions the children are adopted with nothing more than an adjective, in the style of saying something that needs to be taken at face value...just as the quote does (and the entry's description, for that matter). It fails to qualify as a supplementary reference on account of the comic having nothing to add to what the quote already says.

[Gwynfrid]

Hmm, I missed that part in Quild's post. Well, let me see what's left here....

I didn't read Quild's point about the adopted children quote as a proposal to remove, and I don't see any reason why we would want to get rid of it. It's just to avoid such ambiguity that I listed Quild's suggestions for removal one by one, when expressing support.

And, as the one who decides on the entry descriptions...I don't see what advantage mentioning 631 is supposed to have. Vaarsuvius mentions the children are adopted with nothing more than an adjective, in the style of saying something that needs to be taken at face value...just as the quote does (and the entry's description, for that matter). It fails to qualify as a supplementary reference on account of the comic having nothing to add to what the quote already says.

I agree. There's no need to change anything here.

[Rodin]

I realize Rule C was rescinded, but is "that's really interesting" a good reason to include and/oor not remove?

While not sufficient on its own, I certainly feel that it gives additional weight to whether a quote should be kept or not. Given that it clearly qualifies for several other reasons (see original post), the only reason not to keep it would be if it were a small bit of trivia that nobody was likely to want/need in future. Statements of authorial intent like the quote are both neat to know and useful for future debates involving V's family, gender roles in OOTS, discussions of V's gender...yadda yadda.

[137beth]

I didn't realize the "V's Children are adopted" quote was up for removal. I firmly oppose that one being removed.

A) It's non-obvious that's why he did it...or at least, I didn't know it until Word of Giant came down and found it interesting at the time.

B) It's not something that can be answered in-comic or by referring to a particular page.

C) It's about the writing process, which firmly places it in "relevant" territory.

D) Did I mention it's really interesting?

E) The original proposal was not to remove, but to modify the index entry to make it clear that V's kids are stated to be adopted in-comic, and the quote is clarifying the writing process. I haven't seen anyone specifically say they want it removed (although paging through 4 pages of posts makes it easy to miss something...my respect for our illustrious banana grows).

I agree with all of these reasons except (d). While I do think it's really interesting, I don't think that alone is a worthy enough reason for inclusion. However, reasons (a), (b), (c), and (e) are all enough to convince me to oppose removing this quote.

[unbeliever536]

if anyone wants removal procedures codified, now's the time to bring it up (again).

Hiya!

I think the following should be the case:

-The current rules (or at least the procedure for adding quotes) should be modified to refer to entries. Mostly, we should update when six new, edited, or removed entries are up for consideration, rather than at six new quotes.
-Removals of and edits to entries should be treated exactly like additions to the index, with the same biasing towards the index changing. That is, a removal needs middle-third support lack of clear consensus to be up for a vote, and two positive votes in favor of removal for it to actually go through. Same with edits.

---

Two for keeping and three for removing still warrants getting it listed, I think.

I thought I was clear that I supported editing the entry, not deleting it. Did you miss my post?

And, as the one who decides on the entry descriptions...I don't see what advantage mentioning 631 is supposed to have. Vaarsuvius mentions the children are adopted with nothing more than an adjective, in the style of saying something that needs to be taken at face value...just as the quote does (and the entry's description, for that matter). It fails to qualify as a supplementary reference on account of the comic having nothing to add to what the quote already says.

The quote is about that specific comic, though. Any reason the reader might have for looking up a comic as relates to that quote (such as, for example, the one Quild gives), they want comic #631, not #882, which doesn't even mention Vaarsuvius, much less the kids. If that's not a good enough reason for a supplementary reference, it should be.

[Jasdoif]

The current rules (or at least the procedure for adding quotes) should be modified to refer to entries. Mostly, we should update when six new, edited, or removed entries are up for consideration, rather than at six new quotes.

Feels too mutable for my tastes; an update cycle could be triggered if we get consensus to include quotes before a consolidation of multiple quotes into a single entry gets consensus. I like the stability of using criteria independent of the thread (atomic distinct posts/tweets by the Giant).

Removals of and edits to entries should be treated exactly like additions to the index, with the same biasing towards the index changing. That is, a removal needs middle-third support lack of clear consensus to be up for a vote, and two positive votes in favor of removal for it to actually go through. Same with edits.

I don't recall anyone having a problem with editing procedure before. Why do you think introducing such a change for edits is warranted?

I'm also curious why you'd want a path to remove entries without a vote.

I thought I was clear that I supported editing the entry, not deleting it. Did you miss my post?

No, you were clear that you supported editing the entry...but "super-duper-agreed re: mentioning the comic establishing that V's children are adopted" doesn't really distinguish between "we should keep and edit it" and "we should edit it if we keep it", so I didn't count it.

This post, on the other hand, seems clear in favor of keeping it. So noted.

The quote is about that specific comic, though.

No, it's not. The quote is about Vaarsuvius' children.

[Quild]

I didn't read Quild's point about the adopted children quote as a proposal to remove.

Tbh, me neither

No, it's not. The quote is about Vaarsuvius' children.

Right. But the Giant made V's children adopted in #631 (and as far as I know, in #631 only, it's not even reminded in #678). Back in 2009.

Some 4 years and 251 comics laters, the Giant say something about the importance of that adjective in that specific comic.
Now, before reading this quote I had somehow missed that V's children where adopted even if I've read the comics several times. And the index only points me to #882 (which was up when the Giant made this remark). And I've been unable to understand why he says V's children were adopted for months. Really. And I've searched.
One day, reading back the soul-selling thing, I finally saw it!

This quote comes so long after what it refers to, that I think it should be clarified. I do realize it's unusual for the index to work that way.

[Jasdoif]

Right. But the Giant made V's children adopted in #631 (and as far as I know, in #631 only, it's not even reminded in #678). Back in 2009.

Some 4 years and 251 comics laters, the Giant say something about the importance of that adjective in that specific comic.
Now, before reading this quote I had somehow missed that V's children where adopted even if I've read the comics several times. And the index only points me to #882 (which was up when the Giant made this remark). And I've been unable to understand why he says V's children were adopted for months. Really. And I've searched.
One day, reading back the soul-selling thing, I finally saw it!

This quote comes so long after what it refers to, that I think it should be clarified. I do realize it's unusual for the index to work that way.

It's straightforward, really: He said Vaarsuvius' children were adopted because Vaarsuvius' children were adopted. Just like 631 shows Vaarsuvius saying Vaarsuvius' children were adopted because Vaarsuvius' children were adopted. There's nothing to be found in 631 that can't be found in the quote itself.

[unbeliever536]

Feels too mutable for my tastes; an update cycle could be triggered if we get consensus to include quotes before a consolidation of multiple quotes into a single entry gets consensus. I like the stability of using criteria independent of the thread (atomic distinct posts/tweets by the Giant).

I don't recall anyone having a problem with editing procedure before. Why do you think introducing such a change for edits is warranted?

I'm also curious why you'd want a path to remove entries without a vote.

As it is, we can get update cycles before we have consensus on how to actually do the update. Or at least that's how it feels to me; not sure what other people think (obviously you don't feel this way or you wouldn't update ).

I also feel that this thread operates mostly on entries, rather than quotes. We present entries, some of which point to a single quote and some of which point to a headline quote with additional relevant/supporting quotes. The number of entries also seem (to me) like the best measure of clutter in the index - if we have a bunch of see also's on a particular entry, maybe it's harder to distinguish one from the other, but not if they're described in the link (which they should be, to justify/explain their inclusion), but if we have a lot of additional entries, it becomes hard to navigate the index at all.

Because of that focus on entries, it's always looked weird to me when we get update cycles with only four or even three entries up for consideration. Adding an entry pretty much the same no matter how many links it has, so each one represents about the same amount of change to the index. In my ideal world, it would work like this: when the Index would change substantially (arbitrarly defined as six entries changing state), we go through the formal update process and note that it's happening. Otherwise, changes happen every two months to keep things up to date.

The structure for entry deletion follows from that. From there, adding the edits is also a natural thing, especially when dealing with "see also" quotes (to be added or deleted). That said, I don't have a problem with how that's gone in the past and wouldn't support formalizing just the editing procedure. It makes little sense to formalize it without doing the same for deletion, and none at all without the refocus to entries rather than quotes. A "quick edit" clause for things like spelling/grammar correction would be perfectly reasonable if that goes through, though.

As far as removal potential is concerned, clear consensus is clear consensus, and not filling up the thread with Yes posts is a good plan. You are, quite frankly, an excellent curator, and any successor you have would almost certainly follow your example; I'd be very surprised to see that sort of power used to genuinely stifle discussion. After all, the quote can always be re-proposed if it comes up again. Plus, keeping things parallel seems like the best way to ensure that the index reflects the thread's current collective desires, rather than the collective desires of the entire thread over the four-ish years since it began. I wouldn't support a dictator clause in parallel with the one for adding quotes, as that would allow a suddenly-hostile curator to do serious damage to the index. (Not that I believe our current banana will ever go rotten, of course)

(for the record, I'm don't in general favor of tracking literally everything, though I think I may come off as such some times. As I said last thread, I treat the Index as a "state of canon" regarding the comic, and sometimes as a tool for understanding the same. Some things in or proposed for the index aren't really relevant to someone interested in understanding what is or is not true about OOTS and its world)

No, you were clear that you supported editing the entry...but "super-duper-agreed re: mentioning the comic establishing that V's children are adopted" doesn't really distinguish between "we should keep and edit it" and "we should edit it if we keep it", so I didn't count it.

Point.

Although, it has just occurred to me that the Zz'dtri scrying entry is almost totally redundant with the comic since #801, when Nale mentions that he knows the Order was off in the desert. So I'd like to change my vote there from "edit" to "delete, but edit if keeping"

No, it's not. The quote is about Vaarsuvius' children.

It is about Vaarsuvius's children, but specifically it's about why the Giant chose to write them as adopted children. That is, why the Giant chose to write V's line in #631 the way he did.

edit: if the quote is just about the fact that Vaarsuvius's children are adopted, then it's clearly redundant (with comic #631, from 251 pages and four years before the comment). But it's not, because it's also about why they're adopted. Everyone in that conversation knows V's kids are adopted (the poster the Giant is replying to mentioned the possibility of V not being straight as a good thing); the only reason for the Giant to comment at all is to say why he made that decision. There is no extra information to be found in #631, but we provide comic numbers for context. In this case, the context is in #631, not #882.

[Quild]

It's straightforward, really: He said Vaarsuvius' children were adopted because Vaarsuvius' children were adopted. Just like 631 shows Vaarsuvius saying Vaarsuvius' children were adopted because Vaarsuvius' children were adopted. There's nothing to be found in 631 that can't be found in the quote itself.

It wasn't that straightforward for me.

The way I read it, the poster to whom the Giant answered with this quote did not realize that V's children were adopted and that what he was looking for (subtle possible representatation rather that hamfisted and plot-induced one) was already here.

The Giant made the comment that V's children were adopted in that exact purpose.

Reading that comment, I wondered myself where it was stated that V's Children were adopted. In the index, the quote directs to a comic page that absolutely do not answer that question.

Of course, the answer is in comics and I'm not willing to put in the index things that are answered in the comics.
But since the quote is here to stay because it is an interesting one I think it should be less confusing and even helpful about what it refers to. My suggestion is simply to replace:
"The Giant made them adopted to leave open the possibility that V/Inkyrius are gay or lesbian."
by:
"The Giant made them adopted in 631 to leave open the possibility that V/Inkyrius are gay or lesbian."

I think that my point is clear enough now and that I don't have much more to say about it :). As far as I'm concerned, your work, your call. I now know where it was stated in a first place anyway.

[Keltest]

It wasn't that straightforward for me.

The way I read it, the poster to whom the Giant answered with this quote did not realize that V's children were adopted and that what he was looking for (subtle possible representatation rather that hamfisted and plot-induced one) was already here.

The Giant made the comment that V's children were adopted in that exact purpose.

Reading that comment, I wondered myself where it was stated that V's Children were adopted. In the index, the quote directs to a comic page that absolutely do not answer that question.

Of course, the answer is in comics and I'm not willing to put in the index things that are answered in the comics.
But since the quote is here to stay because it is an interesting one I think it should be less confusing and even helpful about what it refers to. My suggestion is simply to replace:
"The Giant made them adopted to leave open the possibility that V/Inkyrius are gay or lesbian."
by:
"The Giant made them adopted in 631 to leave open the possibility that V/Inkyrius are gay or lesbian."

I think that my point is clear enough now and that I don't have much more to say about it :). As far as I'm concerned, your work, your call. I now know where it was stated in a first place anyway.

Im not sure how that reduces any confusion, if only because there isn't likely to be confusion in the first place. The quote flat out says theyre adopted. That establishes the entire context needed to understand everything else in it. From there the quote further explains some of the logical implications of their being adopted. You don't need to see the comic where it was stated theyre adopted to understand the quote at all.

[Lissou]

In my opinion, the fact that V's children are adopted was established by #629, not #631, when we see that the kid are a different race than either their parents. To me, V mentioning that the kids were adopted was pretty redundant... and I find this quote confusing anyways. I've always understood "progeny" to mean specifically genetic children, so "adopted progeny" rings very oddly to me, close to an oxymoron (you can adopt someone who is genetically related to you, I guess, but usually the people you adopt aren't).

At any rate, the word does appear in the comic, so if the skin color being completely different isn't enough for people who ask, we can direct them to that comic, which means the quote is, in my opinion, not extremely useful. It seems to me to be very similar to "The giant made the kid 15 so that she couldn't be Haley". It only explains the reasoning behind a detail of the story, and in this case it's even less useful because that reasoning could be deduced easily. I understood it when #629 came out, and Inkurius was androgynous too, like V, and the kids, who looked adopted (and also androgynous), called their parents "Parent" and "Other Parent". It's clear to me that none of the genders of the family are specified.

So yes, I do support removing that quote altogether.

[Quild]

The quote flat out says theyre adopted.

That's my problem actually.
The way the entry is made, is looks like the quote is self-sufficient and doesn't refer to anything.

The quote about Hinjo being red-green color-blind is a direct response to a guy saying that if a color-blind character was to be introduced, it should serve the story.
The Giant threw that quite gratuitous answer. It's not the first nor the last time that he reacts that way to some (usually stupid) comments he doesn't like about his writing.

The one about V is very different. The Giant put that in the comics 4 years ago. It wasn't, as far as I know, a response to anything. It's subtle, I don't think it raised comments about it to be "forced" like some other things did (Bandana for instance).
But the quotes makes it looks like the Hinjo thing in a way.

when we see that the kid are a different race than either their parents

They look elvish to me
Now it never occurred to me until right now, that two white elves should have white kids.
I look even less than usual at character's skin color in fiction. It took me some years to realize that Roy was supposed to be black and I only realized that Durkon was "non-white" by reading the quote about it. So... I've been entirely unaware that they hadn't the same skin color that their parents.

[Gwynfrid]

As it is, we can get update cycles before we have consensus on how to actually do the update. Or at least that's how it feels to me; not sure what other people think (obviously you don't feel this way or you wouldn't update ).

What rules there are about the update cycle are primarily useful to the curator, not so much for thread contributors. The point is to ensure the curating work for an update doesn't become overwhelming due to sheer volume of quotes and opinions to be counted (as it would be, if updates were once a year for example) or too much relative to added index content value (as it would be, if updates were at each new quote). The balance was found by Jasdoif and I recommend we leave this matter to his fruity wisdom.

In the same vein, I don't think we need rules about edits at all. Debates about the wording of quotes are rare and, generally, folks have been content to leave most of the wording to Jasdoif. We can resolve what few disputes there are in an ad hoc manner.

Rules for deletion were proposed in the past and we didn't reach consensus. I think we agreed deletions were rare enough that it's not a huge deal. If you feel it's important, then please propose a self-contained rule (not one that refers to existing rules, that's hard to parse). Also, I recommend that we deal with deletions in completely separate votes, not merging with additions of new quotes. This will avoid confusion.

They look elvish to me
Now it never occurred to me until right now, that two white elves should have white kids.
I look even less than usual at character's skin color in fiction. It took me some years to realize that Roy was supposed to be black and I only realized that Durkon was "non-white" by reading the quote about it. So... I've been entirely unaware that they hadn't the same skin color that their parents.

Me too - I'll add that to the list of Things I Never Noticed Before. Also, in this world, the term "race" refers to elves, dwarves, humans etc., not skin color, as far as I can understand.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Me too - I'll add that to the list of Things I Never Noticed Before. Also, in this world, the term "race" refers to elves, dwarves, humans etc., not skin color, as far as I can understand.

This Pratchett quote is surprisingly accurate to OotS:
“Racism was not a problem on the Discworld, because - what with trolls and dwarfs and so on - speciesism was more interesting. Black and white lived in perfect harmony and ganged up on green.”
~Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad

GW

[littlebum2002]

I will third the notion that I had no idea the children were a different skin color than their parents. Also that this quote should remain.

Since I also enjoy proposing rules that would make Jasdoif's life more difficult, I also propose having a "strong support / weak support / weak oppose / strong oppose" system like Wikipedia does.

I don't actually propose it of course, just something I was thinking about.

This Pratchett quote is surprisingly accurate to OotS:
“Racism was not a problem on the Discworld, because - what with trolls and dwarfs and so on - speciesism was more interesting. Black and white lived in perfect harmony and ganged up on green.”
~Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad

GW

I find it very curious that Rich never read Pratchett, since so much of his comic mirrors that world. I mean Redcloak basically said this exact same thing using slightly different words, and the deities in this world seem to operate on a very similar "more followers=more power" system as the Discworld deities do.

[Kish]

That's why he hasn't read it, he said; he's consciously avoiding it while he's still writing OotS because he's concerned it's too similar to what he's writing and would bleed over into OotS.

I oppose any decisions here being made out of a desire to accommodate the "wah why did Bandana mention having a female ex hamfisted lesbianism in my face" crowd. It's both pointless and unrelated to the purpose of the Index. Of all the things Rich says about OotS that we do not record, surely him pointing out a single word that is in the comic is more obviously expendable than almost any other.

(This does not address the debate over whether to include Rich's statements of why he had them be adopted, but strictly the argument that the specific comic where Vaarsuvius says they are adopted should be highlighted.)