MitD XIII: Learning is happening

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: This is a reminder to keep discussion civil. If you disagree with an idea, challenge the idea, not the poster.

[Squire Doodad]

Nah. (Batman!)

Good rule of thumb: assume the guy who has effectively dedicated a small fraction of their soul to this site and who runs the thread happens to have more experience on these matters and, after addressing your scenario, has determined with that nifty experience that odds are the current way of things is pretty darn efficient as is.

It's not an absolute decree that your actions or decisions are bogus, but if you've brought it up once before in the last few years, odds are it won't do much bringing up again.

[Keltest]

I suppose I'll have to explain again how simple it is, because your objection has already been addressed in the past. Here's how it would work:

Anyone who would only be in favor of implementing Kish's #1 (adding "must be minimum Challenge Rating of 18, if a D&D creature") if it's paired with some other thing simply votes "no" to the vote about implementing Kish's #1 As A Standalone Modification. (And if they're so inclined, they can actually suggest a simple binary vote on their pet pairing; if that particular pairing is seconded by enough people, then it can get to the point where a vote on it is called.)

And anyone who would only be in favor of implementing Kish's #2 (changing current criteria 7 from "Is vulnerable to mind-affecting effects (SoD)" to "lacks god-level mind-affecting effect immunity (SoD)") if it's paired with some other thing simply votes "no" to the vote about implementing Kish's #2 As A Standalone Modification. (And if they're so inclined, they can actually suggest a simple binary vote on their pet pairing; if that particular pairing is seconded by enough people, then it can get to the point where a vote on it is called.)

That seems like a good way of knowing what people don't want, but not what they do want. Unless youre suggesting that GW is supposed to hold a separate binary vote for every permutation of changes that could happen?

[lio45]

That seems like a good way of knowing what people don't want, but not what they do want. Unless youre suggesting that GW is supposed to hold a separate binary vote for every permutation of changes that could happen?

I explained already that all we have to do is set a higher seconding threshold for triggering a vote.

This way, only those very rare permutations that have a chance of being supported would ever reach the stage of (binary) vote.

And yes, if a certain suggestion is rejected on its own, then that's a good way of knowing what people don't want... which is the exact point. And the good way of knowing what people DO want is through the calls for a vote. If someone (say, Kish) suggests a standalone modification (say, any of the two Kish did just suggest), and enough people chime in to say "yeah, I'd vote to implement that", then it reaches the stage where a binary vote on that modification happens.

[Squire Doodad]

That seems like a good way of knowing what people don't want, but not what they do want. Unless youre suggesting that GW is supposed to hold a separate binary vote for every permutation of changes that could happen?

I'm going to go with a no on doing 9 separate votes at once

I explained already that all we have to do is set a higher seconding threshold for triggering a vote.

This way, only those very rare permutations that have a chance of being supported would ever reach the stage of (binary) vote.

And yes, if a certain suggestion is rejected on its own, then that's a good way of knowing what people don't want... which is the exact point. And the good way of knowing what people DO want is through the calls for a vote. If someone (say, Kish) suggests a standalone modification (say, any of the two Kish did just suggest), and enough people chime in to say "yeah, I'd vote to implement that", then it reaches the stage where a binary vote on that modification happens.

...with all due respect, I don't see how setting a higher seconding threshold at all fixes how the vote itself will have to be done with your suggested "plan". Even if it did, that doesn't change how lots and lots of suggestions tend to be done at once during a vote, resulting in what is basically an avalanche of scenarios. Because you have to incrementally do all of these votes, and it may well take months just to filter everything through.
Also, in this thread I'd say knowing what people want is somewhat more important than what they don't want.

[Keltest]

I explained already that all we have to do is set a higher seconding threshold for triggering a vote.

This way, only those very rare permutations that have a chance of being supported would ever reach the stage of (binary) vote.

And yes, if a certain suggestion is rejected on its own, then that's a good way of knowing what people don't want... which is the exact point. And the good way of knowing what people DO want is through the calls for a vote. If someone (say, Kish) suggests a standalone modification (say, any of the two Kish did just suggest), and enough people chime in to say "yeah, I'd vote to implement that", then it reaches the stage where a binary vote on that modification happens.

The only way this is sounding like less work to me is that you have theoretically reduced the number of votes occurring entirely by virtue of the higher barrier to entry, and that is entirely separate from your binary voting system. It also doesn't really do anything for those situations where you do have, say, 5 different proposed changes that have all been called for a vote, unless you want to make the amount of support so high as to be impossible to meet anyway (which seems to defeat the purpose of even allowing for a vote).

[lio45]

Good rule of thumb: assume the guy who has effectively dedicated a small fraction of their soul to this site and who runs the thread happens to have more experience on these matters and, after addressing your scenario, has determined with that nifty experience that odds are the current way of things is pretty darn efficient as is.

The thing is, here's what the guy who has effectively dedicated a small fraction of their soul to this site and who runs the thread has to say about how exhausting "the current way of running things" is:

As to another vote, I'm going to be honest: I'm completely opposed because it is exhausting to run one of those things, and I just had to do two in a row.

Grey Wolf

But if GW says he's fine with running a "traditional" vote (where anyone can vote on anything and you need to formally cast separate votes for all the permutations of the changes you'd support), then no problem. Again, the idea was to simplify everyone's lives. I don't mind dropping it entirely... except that if you guys keep asking questions about how my method would run, I don't see any harm in answering them, provided it's in a friendly manner.

I'm going to go with a no on doing 9 separate votes at once

As explained already, only the well-seconded suggestions would ever reach the voting stage. You'd never see anywhere near nine at a time.

[CriticalFailure]

I don't really understand the voting process here.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I don't really understand the voting process here.

It's easy: anyone can suggest changes they'd like. Then everyone votes on which suggestions they want, via ranked choice (e.g. "I want x & y. But if I can't have that, x alone will be good. No matter what, I don't want z", etc.). I then use ranked voting to determine the option with the biggest support, and either implement it myself, or tell the person that suggested it to implement it.

Beyond that broad outline, I'd ask for a bit more detail on what you don't understand so I can help you further.

Grey Wolf

[b_jonas]

I don't see why "juvenile members of very large species will be comically small compared to their adult size" is deemed unlikely and a reason MiTD can't get that much bigger given how common it seems to be in comics or cartoons

Can you give examples for this? Because I don't recall cartoons or comics that behave that way, but maybe I don't watch enough cartoons and don't read enough comics.

CriticalFailure: I don't think OotS does that. See the teenager goblins in #93 and the infant and child hobgoblins in #703. Update: also Roy as an infant, child, and teenager, Roy's brother.

[GrayGriffin]

Has it been suggested yet that O-Chul specifically looking for an Azurite scribe to confirm his suspicions might mean the MitD is specifically a creature from Asian mythology, or adapted from such a creature? Admittedly, this doesn't apply to any of the FBS monsters, but it's still a direction I thought of.

EDIT: An example of "comically small offspring" I can recall is the Ursa Minor/Major from MLP:FiM, where the former is about the size of an actual teddy bear compared to the latter.

[Quebbster]

Has it been suggested yet that O-Chul specifically looking for an Azurite scribe to confirm his suspicions might mean the MitD is specifically a creature from Asian mythology, or adapted from such a creature? Admittedly, this doesn't apply to any of the FBS monsters, but it's still a direction I thought of.

O-Chul asked for "the most learned scribe". No requirement for it to be an Azurite, though it would presumably be easiest to find an Azurite scribe on short notice...

[b_jonas]

EDIT: An example of "comically small offspring" I can recall is the Ursa Minor/Major from MLP:FiM, where the former is about the size of an actual teddy bear compared to the latter.

The adult is between 3 and 4 times larger, and that's the only shot we get of the adult. I wouldn't call it tedy bear sized, but then, there are teddy bears big enough for that. Nice example, but I'd like to see more.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Has it been suggested yet that O-Chul specifically looking for an Azurite scribe to confirm his suspicions might mean the MitD is specifically a creature from Asian mythology, or adapted from such a creature? Admittedly, this doesn't apply to any of the FBS monsters, but it's still a direction I thought of.

I believe this has not been suggested before. That said, as per canon, "What is this Japan you speak of", The Giant is carefully not attaching real-life geography to OotS. That the scribe was an azurite is less important, I feel, than that he was the most learned one (which, if we are going to be nitpicky, might not even be an azurite - neither O-Chul nor Hinjo clarify). If anything, given the SBGH, one would feel that MitD would need to be an African cryptid or similar, but even that'd be a stretch.

The adult is between 3 and 4 times larger, and that's the only shot we get of the adult. I wouldn't call it tedy bear sized, but then, there are teddy bears big enough for that. Nice example, but I'd like to see more.

That looks regularly proportioned parent/baby? I'm guessing that the small one is not a baby?

---

Re: the vote: Between now and the weekend, if anyone wants to add any suggestions, please do. I will continue to accept them all the way through the voting process, of course, but past experience suggests that late suggestions are not given the same attention. And please, please don't do a Kish and come up with change suggestions immediately after we are done. That is the worst time to come up with them.

As it stands, we will be voting on the following:

• Add "must be minimum Challenge Rating of 18, if a D&D creature" to the FBS requirements
• Replace "7) Is vulnerable to mind-affecting effects (SoD)" with "lacks god-level mind-affecting effect immunity (SoD)."

@Jasdoif: I'm going to try a slightly new notation for tallying the votes. If it feels less confusing, I'll make it the official system and add it to the voting details in the OP. That said, I'm still hoping for suggestions.
It'll be three notations:

• + indicates both selections (i.e. A + B + C indicates a vote for A and B and C, but not for any subgroup thereof)
• Any() indicates any subgroup of the selection (i.e. Any(A, B, C) indicates votes for A + B + C, A + B, A + C, B + C, A, B, C). I don't like this one because in case of a draw between any of the internal components, I'll be in a pickle, but experience suggests it will be of much use, and that figuring out the internal ranked preferences probably will not come up. Still, by default I'll assume they are ranked alphabetically, and if it does have an impact, we'll deal with it when it happens.
• ! indicates a vote against a selection (i.e. !A is a vote to NOT implement A)

Grey Wolf

[b_jonas]

That looks regularly proportioned parent/baby? I'm guessing that the small one is not a baby?

The small one sucked milk from a bottle then went to sleep. It's either a baby or at most a small child. (Small by age that is; he's huge compared to the other characters, which is what the conflict was in that episode.)

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The small one sucked milk from a bottle then went to sleep. It's either a baby or at most a small child.

Then there is nothing strange about the size, I'd say. As I mentioned last time, humans are half-adult-sized at the age of 2. As newborns, they're probably a quarter or less. That seems to track proportionally to these bears.

Grey Wolf

[Crusher]

As explained already, only the well-seconded suggestions would ever reach the voting stage. You'd never see anywhere near nine at a time.

Except that you've already noted you have 5 or 6 things you'd like to see voted on. If you were running the vote, 9 feels like a likely number of things to have to vote on. Sure, if you set high thresholds, you cut that down, but who sets the thresholds and how are they determined? You, as the vote holder doing it arbitrarily?

It feels far more arbitrary and vulnerable to manipulation by the person running it, unless you have voting ahead of time on where to set the thresholds and other details, but that requires you to have a vote on the details (ok, how many people say 60%? How about 40%? etc). When you have to set up a committee to decide how to set up the committee, it usually means you're heading in more-cumbersome direction.

Edit -

Then there is nothing strange about the size, I'd say. As I mentioned last time, humans are half-adult-sized at the age of 2. As newborns, they're probably a quarter or less. That seems to track proportionally to these bears.

Grey Wolf

This is being a bit pedantic, and its probably just me, but to me "size" implies "mass" but you're really talking about height, right?

[GrayGriffin]

I believe this has not been suggested before. That said, as per canon, "What is this Japan you speak of", The Giant is carefully not attaching real-life geography to OotS. That the scribe was an azurite is less important, I feel, than that he was the most learned one (which, if we are going to be nitpicky, might not even be an azurite - neither O-Chul nor Hinjo clarify). If anything, given the SBGH, one would feel that MitD would need to be an African cryptid or similar, but even that'd be a stretch.

True, but that's why I referred to "Asian" in general instead of specifically "Japanese," since Azure City culture does seem to be a mixture of Asian cultures. Thus that would also include Sun Wukong, Li Lung, and Chi You alongside Baku and Oni. I'm most familiar with Chinese and Japanese mythology, so those are the ones that stood out to me as Asian at a quick skim. While technically Indian-mythology based creatures could also count, I believe we've seen a separate Indian-culture based region in a panel before. You've got me on the "not Azurite" part, though.

Then there is nothing strange about the size, I'd say. As I mentioned last time, humans are half-adult-sized at the age of 2. As newborns, they're probably a quarter or less. That seems to track proportionally to these bears.

Grey Wolf

Ah, I suppose I misremembered that scene.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

True, but that's why I referred to "Asian" in general instead of specifically "Japanese," since Azure City culture does seem to be a mixture of Asian cultures. Thus that would also include Sun Wukong, Li Lung, and Chi You alongside Baku and Oni. I'm most familiar with Chinese and Japanese mythology, so those are the ones that stood out to me as Asian at a quick skim. While technically Indian-mythology based creatures could also count, I believe we've seen a separate Indian-culture based region in a panel before.

The three sets of extant pantheons are, broadly, Norse, Babylonian and East Asian, plus the extinct Hellenistic. Indian mythological creatures are none of those, but we have seen what is likely a naga (see here an original - warning for weathered artistic nudity), so the gods aren't limiting themselves to their "own" culture.

But really, my bigger problem is that the connection between MitD and azurite culture is tenuous at best. That O-Chul only had azurite scribes to help doesn't indicate he'd expect them to be better at helping him than if he had a selection of scribes from around the world.

ETA:

This is being a bit pedantic, and its probably just me, but to me "size" implies "mass" but you're really talking about height, right?

Yes, since that's what the category comparison charts always seem to focus on. I've also been told that mass is a completely unreliable means to classify creatures by size, with creatures such as the ANB being way too light for their size.

Grey Wolf

[Crusher]

The three sets of extant pantheons are, broadly, Norse, Babylonian and East Asian, plus the extinct Hellenistic. Indian mythological creatures are none of those, but we have seen what is likely a naga (see here an original - warning for weathered artistic nudity), so the gods aren't limiting themselves to their "own" culture.

I know its a smaller point, but the monster on the far-right in the link is a Marilith (a type of Demon) rather than a naga. I do feel like we've seen a naga in-strip, but I can't remember it at all.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I know its a smaller point, but the monster on the far-right in the link is a Marilith (a type of Demon) rather than a naga. I do feel like we've seen a naga in-strip, but I can't remember it at all.

I knew I should’ve clarified. I’m not saying it’s a d&d naga, but a creature that to me is rather clearly sourced from Indian mythology, where such creatures with snake legs and multiple arms are sometimes called nagas.

Grey Wolf

[Squire Doodad]

The three sets of extant pantheons are, broadly, Norse, Babylonian and East Asian, plus the extinct Hellenistic. Indian mythological creatures are none of those, but we have seen what is likely a naga (see here an original - warning for weathered artistic nudity), so the gods aren't limiting themselves to their "own" culture.

But really, my bigger problem is that the connection between MitD and azurite culture is tenuous at best. That O-Chul only had azurite scribes to help doesn't indicate he'd expect them to be better at helping him than if he had a selection of scribes from around the world.

I wonder if there are any Mesoamerican/Native American monsters that we've seen? Of course, they don't exactly have lots of popular creatures (it's like Quetzalcoatl as a creature and a bunch of obscure things), so it's unlikely.

I imagine that the Azurites have a few people they picked up on their travels, but I doubt any of them is some uberscribe.

Yes, since that's what the category comparison charts always seem to focus on. I've also been told that mass is a completely unreliable means to classify creatures by size, with creatures such as the ANB being way too light for their size.

Grey Wolf

Of course, mass doesn't quite correspond to weight (w=(mg)), though that assumption generally applies to an object on different planets, so unless an entity generates a gravitational field "mass" will still refer to being "heavy" or "light", at least in a more casual context...I'll stop talking now.

[Crusher]

I knew I should’ve clarified. I’m not saying it’s a d&d naga, but a creature that to me is rather clearly sourced from Indian mythology, where such creatures with snake legs and multiple arms are sometimes called nagas.

Grey Wolf

That makes sense.

Edit - I do feel like we've seen a naga before, but I simply cannot find it.

[Fish]

I’m torn on the debate re: size.

One the one hand, all adults would look large to children, when speaking of beings that grow (ie, not static constructs). All we can really say is that the MITD is probably such a growing being, because his father seemed larger than himself. Is the MITD fully grown? He seems juvenile and inexperienced ... but is that a well-founded fact, or an assumption? It’s possible the MITD used to be smaller, and is remembering his father from a time when seemed much bigger. Perhaps he doesn’t realize that he’s fully grown; he certainly seems to be unaware of his own power.

But... on the other hand, it’s a Clue. Rich presumably dropped the Clue to inform us about the creature’s traits. It’s unlikely that Rich dropped a Clue that simply said, “Yes, he’s a non-unique creature with a child-adult life cycle,” because that’s not particularly informative. We knew most of that already.

Unless the Clue is meant to be true, but in a misleading way. Perhaps his father was “large” in some dimension other than D&D size categories. My favorite pet theory is that the MITD is a Thesaurus; his father could be “large,” meaning he contains more words, without necessarily changing size categories. (As the Thesaurus from “Bored of the Rings” was 50 feet tall, this is not a perfect example.)

So yeah, I’m just overthinking things. Carry on.

[Fyraltari]

That makes sense.

Edit - I do feel like we've seen a naga before, but I simply cannot find it.

Does she qualify?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I’m torn on the debate re: size.

One the one hand, all adults would look large to children, when speaking of beings that grow (ie, not static constructs). All we can really say is that the MITD is probably such a growing being, because his father seemed larger than himself. Is the MITD fully grown? He seems juvenile and inexperienced ... but is that a well-founded fact, or an assumption? It’s possible the MITD used to be smaller, and is remembering his father from a time when seemed much bigger. Perhaps he doesn’t realize that he’s fully grown; he certainly seems to be unaware of his own power.

<snip>

So yeah, I’m just overthinking things. Carry on.

I mean, it's not just MitD's faulty perception of a long-gone dad, it's also Oona's statement that MitD will continue to grow.

The question is not -and has never been- if MitD is fully grown, it is how much bigger we'd expect him to become. Currently, he is a big Medium-sized (i.e. a bit taller than O-Chul). But his eye size indicates matches more those of Large species such as Ogres (fun fact: our eyes don't change size from birth to death, whilst our nose and ears do). This, on top of both MitD's recollection and Oona's words, pretty much tells us that his species is unlikely to be Medium or smaller - i.e. likely Large or Huge.

Some people feel that his species might be larger than Huge, but those arguing for it have not found ways around the strength issues. Possibly amusingly, the one creature we've seriously examined who could drop two size categories and still be strong enough is also the one that doesn't need to, since it is Large: the protean.

Does she qualify?

That's the one I linked to and Crusher already identified as some kind of demon.

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

My bad, I thought Crusher meant on the statue one.

[dmc91356]

Crusher - there was this:

https://gumroad.com/l/amfesspring2#



I know that 3Power linked it in an earlier post regarding the fact that we now have a bona fide Rich Burlew naga drawing . . .

[Jasdoif]

• Any() indicates any subgroup of the selection (i.e. Any(A, B, C) indicates votes for A + B + C, A + B, A + C, B + C, A, B, C). I don't like this one because in case of a draw between any of the internal components, I'll be in a pickle, but experience suggests it will be of much use, and that figuring out the internal ranked preferences probably will not come up. Still, by default I'll assume they are ranked alphabetically, and if it does have an impact, we'll deal with it when it happens.

I was actually thinking about this....

The alternative I came up with is that, when removing votes towards a combination because none of them have a majority (the instant run-off portion of instant run-off voting)...instead of counting and removing the least expressed combination from the leading choices, you could count and remove the least expressed individual option. That is...in the case of B being the least expressed option:

• "A+B+C" is removed, as the combination can no longer be obtained (and the next preference on the ballot moves up)
• "Any(A, B, C)" becomes "Any(A, C)", as those subsets are still valid.

While I haven't done actual analysis for weird side effects in the end results, it seems like this could work out fine:

• In the event of a vote mostly-split between "Any(A, B, C)" and "Any(A, C)" whether neither manages a majority, the removal of B would result in "Any(A, C)" and "Any(A, C)"; which would make "Any(A, C)" a majority
  
  • And because of that auto-trimming, counting "Any(A, B, C)" as equivalent to "A+B+C" is fine. In the event of a vote mostly-split between "Any(A, B, C)" and "A+C", the removal of B would result in "Any(A, C)" and "A+C"; and treating them as equivalent means you've got the majority right there.

So basically this would handle subsets without requiring you to expand them into individual options, obviating the need to worry about the ordering. As an added bonus, it caps the number of runoffs to the number of options instead of the number of combinations of options (n rather than 2ⁿ)


Personally I'd use "ABC" instead of "Any(A, B, C)", and "(ABC)" instead of "A+B+C"; but concise and confusing go hand-in-hand, and the explicit operators would help with clarity. (Also, "A" and "Any(A)" would be identical regardless, so the simple case doesn't need anything special.)

---

• ! indicates a vote against a selection (i.e. !A is a vote to NOT implement A)

I'm...not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. Simply not choosing an option seems most intuitive way to not support an operation, and "anything but A" runs the risk of someone supporting an option that hadn't been introduced when the vote was placed. Enumerating choices before voting starts would handle that, but....well, if options were being set in stone like that, shifting to parallel up-down votes (ie approval voting) would be a better way to go; but I get the impression that you're specifically trying to avoid being the arbiter of what's allowed to be voted on, and this whole thing is the price you're willing to pay for decentralized options.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I was actually thinking about this....

The alternative I came up with is that, when removing votes towards a combination because none of them have a majority (the instant run-off portion of instant run-off voting)...instead of counting and removing the least expressed combination from the leading choices, you could count and remove the least expressed individual option.

That feels wrong to me. If someone tells me they want A & B, and don't tell me that they want A, I don't think I should convert their vote from "A and B" to "Only A". If they had wanted A as an option, they'd have voted for it. Doing it to the Any(A, B) is fine. But doing it to the A+B is not.

Speaking of the instant runoff voting, I keep trying to think of scenario where the instant-instant runoff I did (i.e. discard all combinations that weren't capable of reaching a majority) could lead to complications, and I keep coming up empty. I appreciate it is not the way it is supposed to be done by the theory, but I don't see how it would have made any difference. No matter how the votes were arranged, any combination that couldn't reach 50% of the votes was going to be discarded before the end, so by discarding them from the start and centering on the ones with a chance, and how their vote distribution ranked them, it simplified the runoff without endangering it. Is there something I am missing? And more importantly, is this getting off-topic enough we should move it to Friendly Banter or Mad Science? (I consider it more meta-topic than off-topic, but I appreciate not everyone will be interesting on sausage making)

I'm...not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. Simply not choosing an option seems most intuitive way to not support an operation, and "anything but A" runs the risk of someone supporting an option that hadn't been introduced when the vote was placed. Enumerating choices before voting starts would handle that, but....well, if options were being set in stone like that, shifting to parallel up-down votes (ie approval voting) would be a better way to go; but I get the impression that you're specifically trying to avoid being the arbiter of what's allowed to be voted on, and this whole thing is the price you're willing to pay for decentralized options.

I find that "I don't care if A gets voted, it's just not getting my vote" and "I definitely don't want A" are separate stances that deserve separate listings. More importantly, it is a expression of intent that came up at least twice in the last vote, so this isn't even a hypothetical, but something I had to patch in last time, and that therefore I want clearly spelled out in advance.

Now, it is true that !A is equivalent to Any(B, C, D, ...) only as long as new options are not added, and that I do allow options to be added, so technically, if someone PMs with "not A" when options are {A, B, C}, and I list them as !A, and then option D is proposed that they also don't like, the onus is on them to alter their vote at that time, while if I listed them as Any(B, C), they'd not have to do anything once D came along to also exclude it. But on the flipside, if they did like D, in that it is still not A, then with !A they don't have to do anything, whilst with Any(B, C), they'd have to change their vote to Any(B, C, D). I feel that my approach of transcribing a "I don't want A" as, literally, not A, should in principle be a more accurate representation of their intent.

Yours,

Grey Wolf