OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

[KorvinStarmast]

I see no need to limit ourselves to one made-up language. Lets use both!

Grey Wolf

Concordius harmonious it is, then.

[Fyraltari]

I approve of our recent tendency to move from English to Latin when conducting discussions.

Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est

Grey Wolf

I agree, after all quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

[CriticalFailure]

Is this website some sort of bizarro land where making inferences based on what the story reveals is frowned upon? Last time I checked that was expected when consuming media.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Is this website some sort of bizarro land where making inferences based on what the story reveals is frowned upon? Last time I checked that was expected when consuming media.

When the inferences run contrary to the explicit intention of the author to be more cognizant of inclusiveness and serve to further certain negative trends such as heteronormativity and bi-erasure? Yeah, I feel they should be frowned upon. Especially when doing so requires to ignore current evidence and uphold as the only valid one pre-#100 early installment weirdness.

To be clear: I am not expecting anyone to buy into my own "Sigdi's words should be parsimoniously interpreted to mean most dwarves are monogamous and bi". I accept that, lacking harder evidence, that is mostly headcanon. But equally, "Durkon felt qualms about placing his hands on the naked body of a coworker" isn't some kind of fool-proof evidence that he is 0-Kinsley (oh, and the less it is said about the garbage "he is likely heterosexual because humans in the real world are", the better).

For less contentious and dangerous topics? Infer away.

Grey Wolf

[Doug Lampert]

Wolves don't talk (Also I think Greyview has more Int than Elan). Also the forum isn't the comic and I think we've established that particular wolf is definitively not hiding under that umbrella.

Which is entirely irrelevant to the point that any Int score of 3 or more is entirely adequate to use good tactics.

Elan's tactics are not a function of his D&D intelligence score, they are a factor of his personality. Elan's tactics are suboptimal because Elan uses suboptimal tactics. Not because there's a number on a sheet that is low.

Just concentrating on the issue of whether one has a smarter player than the other, your post demonstrates that Belkar employed tactics when it was to his advantage. What is it that makes you think that Hayley's player is smarter?

They don't have players at all, but one is consistently, throughout the entire comic, shown as ACTING smarter than the other, even in ways where the D&D Int score would be irrelevant. Haley consistently fights smarter than Belkar, this is enough to make up for any difference in build and class in determining who would win a fight.

[Fyraltari]

Which is entirely irrelevant to the point that any Int score of 3 or more is entirely adequate to use good tactics.

Elan's tactics are not a function of his D&D intelligence score, they are a factor of his personality. Elan's tactics are suboptimal because Elan uses suboptimal tactics. Not because there's a number on a sheet that is low.

Yes, and the number on his "sheet" is a consequence, of his personnality as decided buy the author, because that's what the number represents. It's not that hard.

[D.One]

I agree, after all quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

I also agree, since Ifus yous sayus sous, itus mustus beus truthus.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I also agree, since Ifus yous sayus sous, itus mustus beus truthus.

I believe the phrase you want is Pliny the Elder's "I legitur quod per interrete et verum est"
I read it on the internet so it is true, as per Google translate
Grey Wolf

[CriticalFailure]

It’s not really a touchy topic given that there has been an explicitly bi character for a while. Concluding that he’s straight based on his relationship with Hilgya, interest in Haley (human), and disinterest in Elan (explicitly attractive human) and other men is a pretty reasonable inference.

The smugness over being unwilling to take in any information that isn’t flat out spelling out the answer and insistence that everyone who does so is “supporting heteronormativity” makes zero sense to me.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

smugness

Good bye.

Grey Wolf

[zimmerwald1915]

Treating a character's sexuality as a thing that can be known by the audience, and engaging in analysis and speculation towards that end, is supporting heteronormativity, inasmuch as heteronormativity is about categorizing people the better to know how to treat them socially. It is not a thing we should seek to know.

[Doug Lampert]

Yes, and the number on his "sheet" is a consequence, of his personnality as decided buy the author, because that's what the number represents. It's not that hard.

And, were Haley and Elan to fight (unlikely, but exactly the part of the topic I was addressing that has anything to do with Elan's Int), Elan would lose because he uses bad tactics, not because of a number on a sheet.

The number's on the hypothetical sheets say that Elan should win. He would not, because Haley fights smarter, and that isn't a function of the numbers on the sheet either.

You can use whatever phrase you want to describe this, but Haley would win because she fights smarter in ways that are not a reflection of her sheet.

[jwhouk]

I agree, after all quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Semper ubi sub ubi!

[CriticalFailure]

Of course it’s something that can be known and of course people are going to discuss the characters and what they think their character traits are. Given that Durkon is a fictional character I’m pretty sure no one is going to be treating him any way about it. Unless they have magical powers to insert the self into stories. Which would be pretty cool but I doubt anyone would decide that the best use would be bothering fictional bisexuals.

[Fyraltari]

Semper ubi sub ubi!

Okay I, now know a joke I can only tell to english-speaking latinists. I don't think that's going to be much use but thank you nonetheless.
(I ahd to google it to get it.)

[The Aboleth]

I really think it's just a joke. I doubt Giant put any more thought into it other than "Belkar makes a joke about Durkon's failed marriage proposal; Durkon responds to Belkar with a joke in a similar vein." Others are free to speculate about any sort of deeper meaning behind Durkon's joke, of course, but to me that scene read as "playful banter" rather than as a serious comment on Durkon's sexuality.

[pendell]

ilgaHey isye evilye.

ongue-in-cheekTay,

Brian P.

[Fyraltari]

Of course it’s something that can be known and of course people are going to discuss the characters and what they think their character traits are. Given that Durkon is a fictional character I’m pretty sure no one is going to be treating him any way about it. Unless they have magical powers to insert the self into stories. Which would be pretty cool but I doubt anyone would decide that the best use would be bothering fictional bisexuals.

Yeah so #959 is the strip where bandana mentions her female ex. Two pages into the corresponding discussion thread and people are already complaining how "forced" that was. so yes, I do think that people will "treat the characters" or at least react to them differently according to their sexuality.

[zimmerwald1915]

Yeah so #959 is the strip where bandana mentions her female ex. Two pages into the corresponding discussion thread and people are already complaining how "forced" that was. so yes, I do think that people will "treat the characters" or at least react to them differently according to their sexuality.

Never mind the characters. The way we consume fiction impacts the way we see and behave in the real world. It is completely inappropriate to try and divine the sexuality of people you meet; if they care to, they will tell you. Until then, you must remain ignorant, and after that point, you must take it on faith.

[Fyraltari]

Never mind the characters. The way we consume fiction impacts the way we see and behave in the real world. It is completely inappropriate to try and divine the sexuality of people you meet; if they care to, they will tell you. Until then, you must remain ignorant, and after that point, you must take it on faith.

I'm 100% behind this.

[D.One]

I really think it's just a joke. I doubt Giant put any more thought into it other than "Belkar makes a joke about Durkon's failed marriage proposal; Durkon responds to Belkar with a joke in a similar vein." Others are free to speculate about any sort of deeper meaning behind Durkon's joke, of course, but to me that scene read as "playful banter" rather than as a serious comment on Durkon's sexuality.

This. That's exactly what I think.

Never mind the characters. The way we consume fiction impacts the way we see and behave in the real world. It is completely inappropriate to try and divine the sexuality of people you meet; if they care to, they will tell you. Until then, you must remain ignorant, and after that point, you must take it on faith.

And this.

Theme decurrit ad disputandum est et permanet

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah so #959 is the strip where Bandana mentions her female ex. Two pages into the corresponding discussion thread and people are already complaining how "forced" that was. so yes, I do think that people will "treat the characters" or at least react to them differently according to their sexuality.

I am glad that I was not a participant in that thread, since those complaints make no sense to me. The delivery in that scene was very matter of fact and sincere; well, to me it was.
*scratches head*

I really think it's just a joke. I doubt Giant put any more thought into it other than "Belkar makes a joke about Durkon's failed marriage proposal; Durkon responds to Belkar with a joke in a similar vein." Others are free to speculate about any sort of deeper meaning behind Durkon's joke, of course, but to me that scene read as "playful banter" rather than as a serious comment on Durkon's sexuality.

I'll bet 20 GP on the Over.

[Fyraltari]

I am glad that I was not a participant in that thread, since those complaints make no sense to me. The delivery in that scene was very matter of fact and sincere; well, to me it was.
*scratches head*

You and me both.

I'll bet 20 GP on the Over.

I don't understand that saying, would you be kind enough to explain it? What is "the Over"?

[Nion]

1st, my name is not "Gray Wolf". Given that I sign every post, I have to assume you are being deliberately offensive. After all, "statistically", that is most likely the case.

2nd, my statement is perfectly correct: you cannot assume a non-null hypothesis without evidence. I don't give a damn what you think is "most likely" for a fictional race of beings. For all you know, dwarves are all bisexual except a tiny irrelevant percentage that fall into the other possible orientations. Your entire thesis and therefore conclusion is based on bull**** statistics and unsuported and unsupportable assumptions. Absent such evidence - evidence which you must definitely don't have - the only valid approach is to assume equiprobability, thus "statistically", the chance that Durkon is heterosexual is at best 50/50, and if we throw in, say, pansexual, a mere 33%. Or, even better, you accept we don't know and stop trying to reach a conclusion from no valid support.

Grey Wolf

I am sorry for getting your name wrong, Grey Wolf. It was not intentional, and I should have been more carefully considerate to ensure that I got it right. I will edit my post to correct the error.

It's okay if you don't care what I think is more likely. We are all here to express our opinions about the epic story that The Giant is writing for us. We are all entitled to our own opinions and the right to express them.

The reason I think that real life statistics are generally good indicators for unknowns in a fictional story is this: authors are humans living in the real world. And although it is true that authors very frequently write their stories about unusual events happening to unusual characters, most things in fiction tend to emulate real life. The things that are different/weird/unusual are things that the author chooses. But everything else in a story is typically normal/average/ordinary or even cliché.

So to say that you think Durkon has a 50% chance of being bisexual is to say that there is a 50% chance of: 'The Giant considered making Durkon bisexual, and then decided to make him bisexual.' Both of those things needed to happen.

And I just don't think the likelihood is that high. I mean, if we were taking cash bets here, how many people do you think would bet on Durkon being bisexual? I wouldn't.

But just to make sure you know, you don't have to agree with me. I am not demanding that anyone thinks the same way that I do. I offer my thoughts as we all do, knowing that some will agree, and some will not. And either is acceptable.

[Ruck]

I am glad that I was not a participant in that thread, since those complaints make no sense to me. The delivery in that scene was very matter of fact and sincere; well, to me it was.
*scratches head*
I'll bet 20 GP on the Over.

You and me both.

I don't understand that saying, would you be kind enough to explain it? What is "the Over"?

In gambling, the "over/under" bet usually refers to some total number in a contest. (For example, total number of points scored in a football game.) That said, I'm not sure how it applies here.

Semper ubi sub ubi!

Heh, one of the things I first learned in high school freshman-year Latin.

Aside, I really don't get what's so hard about "We don't know Durkon's sexuality for sure, and it's okay that we don't know. We don't have to try to figure it out." (Basing that speculation on in-comic evidence is, admittedly, better than appealing to flawed and probably-not-applicable real-world statistics. But it's also okay to let it be inconclusive!)

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't understand that saying, would you be kind enough to explain it? What is "the Over"?

Yes. It comes from the over/under betting method. Usually used in betting on sports, the over/under line is the 'total number of points scored in a game' as a betting proposition, not who wins the game. The line is set by a bookie, or betting establishment.
Example: University of Michigan plays University of Wisconsin. The over/under is 54. (american football) If the game ends up 27 -26(or any lesser combined total) Wisconsin, whomever bet the under wins. If it ends up 28-27 Michigan (or any greater combined total), whomever bet the over wins. Who wins the game matters not, it's the combined score.

A few decades ago, I was reading a novel by Dan Jenkins and found him using "I'll bet the under on that" as a riff on that gambling scheme when his character was referring to something not being likely to happen, and then "I'll take the over" on the prospects of someone accepting a marriage proposal. Since living in Texas for the past couple of decades, I have found that a number of people use that same kind of colloquialism to express "yeah, likely," as "I'll take the over" and "not bloody likely" as "I'll bet the under on that." I have folded that usage into my informal communication, and have been using it for some years. For about the last 40 years, the betting lines get talked about a lot on US TV for various pro sports, either as point spreads or the over/under, so for those who follow sports that bit of jargon is quite familiar. I can see how it might not scan outside of that cultural base.

That said, I'm not sure how it applies here.

There ya go.

[Ruck]

I was a professional gambler; I know what over/under is. I don't understand how it applies to the question "Was Durkon's line about who he would marry in the party just a throwaway joke?" It's a yes or no question; there's no total number to bet over or under against.

[Aveline]

I am sorry for getting your name wrong, Grey Wolf. It was not intentional, and I should have been more carefully considerate to ensure that I got it right. I will edit my post to correct the error.

It's okay if you don't care what I think is more likely. We are all here to express our opinions about the epic story that The Giant is writing for us. We are all entitled to our own opinions and the right to express them.

The reason I think that real life statistics are generally good indicators for unknowns in a fictional story is this: authors are humans living in the real world. And although it is true that authors very frequently write their stories about unusual events happening to unusual characters, most things in fiction tend to emulate real life. The things that are different/weird/unusual are things that the author chooses. But everything else in a story is typically normal/average/ordinary or even cliché.

So to say that you think Durkon has a 50% chance of being bisexual is to say that there is a 50% chance of: 'The Giant considered making Durkon bisexual, and then decided to make him bisexual.' Both of those things needed to happen.

And I just don't think the likelihood is that high. I mean, if we were taking cash bets here, how many people do you think would bet on Durkon being bisexual? I wouldn't.

But just to make sure you know, you don't have to agree with me. I am not demanding that anyone thinks the same way that I do. I offer my thoughts as we all do, knowing that some will agree, and some will not. And either is acceptable.

Firstly, to say "either is possible" is a different thing from saying the likelihoods are 50/50. I'll stick with "either is possible". Moving on...

Secondly, what's so unlikely about Rich establishing a main character as not being straight? Is three out of six too many for you? Would it challenge your suspension of belief to not see us as some threatened population?

Lastly, here's a thought: What if Durkon's "type" is... Small-sized?

[Spanish_Paladin]

My God, 20 pages of serious debate about a Joke o_O

[Fyraltari]

My God, 20 pages of serious debate about a Joke o_O

Just another day in the Playground.