The Index of the Giant's Comments IV - A Rich Source of Quotassium

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Infrequent poster dropping in to voice my support for including the quote- I can imagine a situation where I'd want to dig it up, and if one forgets that it was on twitter instead of the forum, it could be tricky to find without using the index.

Why would you want to use this quote, when you could just point them to 670? I am honestly curious about this - I cannot comprehend why you'd prefer second hand canon confirmation (aka "word of god", which is usually contested with claims of "death of the author") when you can just point to first-hand canon.

Grey Wolf

[DaggerPen]

Why would you want to use this quote, when you could just point them to 670? I am honestly curious about this - I cannot comprehend why you'd prefer second hand canon confirmation (aka "word of god", which is usually contested with claims of "death of the author") when you can just point to first-hand canon.

Grey Wolf

I can't speak for the others, but I'd say that for myself, I support it because if you got the impression from Roy's "big, fulfilling blur" that he couldn't remember any details, upon reading 670, you could easily get the impression that the punchline of Roy's "recovering from my mom" joke was that Roy couldn't remember any details but his mother's surprise extramarital youthful sex life was just that traumatizing , and then read 1022's "home cooking comment" with a "Hang on. I thought he didn't remember details? Oh wait, no, he was eating the Mombalaya in the elevator, so that must be why he remembered it. And Roy's Archon hung out with him on the cloud, so it all adds up." I know this because that's literally what happened to me in the discussion thread for 1022 until I saw the quote, despite specifically thinking about 670 and rereading it as a part of that.

Obviously, I was completely off base, but I don't think my interpretation was sufficiently uncommon or invalid that just linking 670 would be confirmation for anyone who was confused. Hence my support.

[Keltest]

I can't speak for the others, but I'd say that for myself, I support it because if you got the impression from Roy's "big, fulfilling blur" that he couldn't remember any details, upon reading 670, you could easily get the impression that the punchline of Roy's "recovering from my mom" joke was that Roy couldn't remember any details but his mother's surprise extramarital youthful sex life was just that traumatizing , and then read 1022's "home cooking comment" with a "Hang on. I thought he didn't remember details? Oh wait, no, he was eating the Mombalaya in the elevator, so that must be why he remembered it. And Roy's Archon hung out with him on the cloud, so it all adds up." I know this because that's literally what happened to me in the discussion thread for 1022 until I saw the quote, despite specifically thinking about 670 and rereading it as a part of that.

Obviously, I was completely off base, but I don't think my interpretation was sufficiently uncommon or invalid that just linking 670 would be confirmation for anyone who was confused. Hence my support.

Well for one, if he couldn't remember any details at all, he wouldn't know it was his mother that he was traumatized from. I also don't think his reaction is at all consistent with a reflexive reaction that he doesn't know the source of, but that at least is a per-person conclusion.

[littlebum2002]

It seems pretty obvious to me.

Some people think this was already covered in the comic.

Some don't.

Since there are therefore people to whom this is new information, it should be kept. I mean, I could point to any number of quotes in this index which some people believe were already solved in the strip. But the point is that not all people thought it was answered in the strip, and that's why other quotes were added and that's why this one should be added as well.

If "some people think this was answered in the comic before" is a viable reason to keep a quote out of the index, then we should take a dozen other quotes out immediately.

[Keltest]

It seems pretty obvious to me.

Some people think this was already covered in the comic.

Some don't.

Since there are therefore people to whom this is new information, it should be kept. I mean, I could point to any number of quotes in this index which some people believe were already solved in the strip. But the point is that not all people thought it was answered in the strip, and that's why other quotes were added and that's why this one should be added as well.

If "some people think this was answered in the comic before" is a viable reason to keep a quote out of the index, then we should take a dozen other quotes out immediately.

The thing is "is this information available in the comic" isn't really a matter of opinion. It either is, or it isn't there.

[Ron Miel]

Why would you want to use this quote, when you could just point them to 670? I am honestly curious about this - I cannot comprehend why you'd prefer second hand canon confirmation (aka "word of god", which is usually contested with claims of "death of the author") when you can just point to first-hand canon.

Grey Wolf

Because, no matter what you say, it is NOT obvious from the comic. I thought it was an inconsistency when I read it, and I thought the same about 670 too. The quote makes it clear that it was consistent after all.

If you don't accept that, then consider that it might be easier to locate a quote in the index than a single line of dialogue in the comic.

[Peelee]

Because, no matter what you say, it is NOT obvious from the comic. I thought it was an inconsistency when I read it, and I thought the same about 670 too. The quote makes it clear that it was consistent after all.

Assume there was no quote. How many "inconsistencies" would you require before you accepted that it is, in fact, consistent?

[Keltest]

Assume there was no quote. How many "inconsistencies" would you require before you accepted that it is, in fact, consistent?

Exactly this. At that point, you have entered "stop making assumptions that don't fit with the text" territory, and we have a quote for that already.

[Pyrous]

Because, no matter what you say, it is NOT obvious from the comic. I thought it was an inconsistency when I read it, and I thought the same about 670 too. The quote makes it clear that it was consistent after all.

If you don't accept that, then consider that it might be easier to locate a quote in the index than a single line of dialogue in the comic.

And the inconsistency stems from an assumption about the meaning of "blur". We already have a quote about making assumptions that don't fit the comic. It's redundant and shouldn't be included.

EDIT: ninja'd

[Jasdoif]

Eesh, I'm going to have to put more of an effort on keeping a scorecard on this one (until the update cycle, at least), it looks like....

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
ReaderAt2046
ORione
Zherog
Gilphon
Totals
14	9
Current Disposition
VOTE-ABLE

Spoiler: Scorecarding Notes for Self Not to Lose

Show

import itertools,collections

def WritePostLink(postTuple):
    if postTuple is None:
        return ""
    return "[post={0[1]}]{0[0]}[/post]".format(postTuple)

def ProduceBbcodeScorecard(yesColumn,noColumn,title):
    # (in)Sanity Check
    NameCounter=collections.Counter((x[0] for x in itertools.chain(yesColumn,noColumn)))
    if max(NameCounter.values())>1:
        raise Exception("There are duplicate names.  Don't do that.")
    # Header
    print('[table="class:grid head alt1"]')
    print('[tr][th="colspan:2,align:center"][b]Assessment for {0}[/b][/th][/tr]'.format(title))
    print('[tr][td="align:center"][b]PROPONENTS[/b][/td][td="align:center"][b]OPPONENTS[/b][/td][/tr]')
    # Rows
    for thisRow in itertools.zip_longest(yesColumn,noColumn):
        print("[tr][td]{0}[/td][td]{1}[/td][/tr]".format(WritePostLink(thisRow[0]),WritePostLink(thisRow[1])))
    # Footer
    yesCount=len(yesColumn)
    noCount=len(noColumn)
    print('[tr][td="colspan:2,align:center"][i]Totals[/i][/td][/tr]')
    print('[tr][td="align:center"][b][i]{0}[/i][/b][/td][td="align:center"][b][i]{1}[/i][/b][/td][/tr]'.format(yesCount,noCount))
    disposition="INCLUDE"
    if (yesCount*2)<noCount:
        disposition="EXCLUDE"
    elif yesCount<(noCount*2):
        disposition="VOTE-ABLE"
    print('[tr][td="colspan:2,align:center"][b]Current Disposition[/b][/td][/tr]')
    print('[tr][td="colspan:2,align:center"][b][u][size=5]{0}[/size][/u][/b][/td][/tr]'.format(disposition))
    print("[/table]")

if __name__=="__main__":
    yesSupporters=[('Sniffoy', '20398929'), ('2.5 cats', '20399077'), ('unbeliever536', '20401277'), ('littlebum2002', '20402356'), ('snowblizz', '20402628'), ('pendell', '20402659'), ('tomandtish', '20404777'), ('137ben', '20405185'), ('DaggerPen', '20405437'), ('Ron Miel', '20405966'), ('ReaderAt2046', '20416363'), ('ORione', '20422805'), ('Zherog', '20430166'), ('Gilphon', '20434373')]
    noSupporters=[('Gwynfrid', '20402178'), ('Keltest', '20402533'), ('Peelee', '20402588'), ('Cizak', '20405900'), ('Grey_Wolf_c', '20406601'), ('Kalmegil', '20407085'), ('Emanick', '20424732'), ('Lissou', '20428446'), ('Pyrous', '20435067')]
    ProduceBbcodeScorecard(yesSupporters,noSupporters,"Afterlife Memory Tweets")

[littlebum2002]

The thing is "is this information available in the comic" isn't really a matter of opinion. It either is, or it isn't there.

Know what else is 100% settled in the comic, with no need for any input from Rich?

That when a vampire enters gaseous form, they take their gear with them, but when they are destroyed, they don't. You can determine this with 100% certainty from reading the strip.

And yet this quote is still in the index. So if we don't include this tweet because "it can be deduced from the comic", then that one needs to be removed.

However, it shouldn't be removed, and this one should be added, because "you can deduce this from piecing together a few different things that happened in multiple strips" is different from "this is stated outright". And none of the new information is stated outright, it has to be deduced.

So what is it? Should we include quotes which clarify something that otherwise has to be deduced? If so, then both of these quotes belong. If not, then neither do.
It's like Pluto and Eris: Either they're both planets, or neither are planets, or we're hypocrites. You can't assign one designation to something and another designation to something else that has identical properties.

It's honestly kind of starting to sound like "I found this confusing." "No you didn't." Like, congratulations on your successful interpretation, but not everyone got it from the comic.

This. If people found it confusing, then it belongs in the Index. Period. The fact that you, personally, don't find it confusing is irrelevant. That's like a bit of information doesn't belong in the encyclopedia because you, personally, already know it.

[Keltest]

Know what else is 100% settled in the comic, with no need for any input from Rich?

That when a vampire enters gaseous form, they take their gear with them, but when they are destroyed, they don't. You can determine this with 100% certainty from reading the strip.

And yet this quote is still in the index. So if we don't include this tweet because "it can be deduced from the comic", then that one needs to be removed.

However, it shouldn't be removed, and this one should be added, because "you can deduce this from piecing together a few different things that happened in multiple strips" is different from "this is stated outright". And none of the new information is stated outright, it has to be deduced.

So what is it? Should we include quotes which clarify something that otherwise has to be deduced? If so, then both of these quotes belong. If not, then neither do.





This. If people found it confusing, then it belongs in the Index. Period. The fact that you, personally, don't find it confusing is irrelevant. That's like a bit of information doesn't belong in the encyclopedia because you, personally, already know it.

For my part, im perfectly OK with removing the "Vampires drop gear when they die" quote as well. I think its a poor comparison, but im not attached to it.

And "Someone, somewhere found it confusing" is a terrible standard for entry. We have already rejected several quotes, some very recently, on the basis of "the information is there even if it isn't obvious."

[littlebum2002]

For my part, im perfectly OK with removing the "Vampires drop gear when they die" quote as well. I think its a poor comparison, but im not attached to it.

And "Someone, somewhere found it confusing" is a terrible standard for entry. We have already rejected several quotes, some very recently, on the basis of "the information is there even if it isn't obvious."

The quote should only be included if it provides new information or clarity, or if it expounds upon information included in a prior comment

Please explain how this does not provide clarity to the situation. I'll readily admit it does not provide new information, but I would love to understand how it does not greatly clarify what ROy does and does not remember.

(FYI: Jasdoif, the rule I just quoted is posted twice in a row. I think that's a typo)

[Keltest]

Please explain how this does not provide clarity to the situation. I'll readily admit it does not provide new information, but I would love to understand how it does not greatly clarify what ROy does and does not remember.

(FYI: Jasdoif, the rule I just quoted is posted twice in a row. I think that's a typo)

I have no particular desire to repeat myself (again). That argument has been hashed out up thread if you care to bring up any specifics from it. As it is, I think I have adequately explained my stance on how the Giant's tweets do not say anything different from what is already present in the comic.

[Ruck]

I would vote to include the quote. I don't believe the information in it is clear from the comics alone.

[Porthos]

Gods I've tried to stay the hell away from this, but....

"Someone, somewhere found it confusing"

It's not someone, it's someseveral. That several people felt Rich's comment cleared their confusion would make this a slam dunk, I would have thought.

As for the "information is in the comic" argument? Since when has THAT settled anything? I say that because people won't agree on their interpretations:

Person A: The comic clearly says this because of X Y and Z.
Person B: No, I don't agree with you because of A B and C.
Person A: No no, you're not looking at this right. It's because of X Y and Z.
Person B: Sorry, don't agree.
Rich: Person A is right. Here's why.
Person B: Oh, OK, thanks, Rich.
Person A (mutters under breath): Still don't see why Rich needed to chime in...

Simply put, it's an authority on the matter clearing something up that some people felt needed to be cleared. It is letting people know which interpretation of the comic is correct.

===

As for me, Rich's comment did in fact a tiny bit more of info in that it helped define just what could be subjected to a blur and what couldn't. But the fact that several people think it helps them seems to me that it should be included on the face of it.

[Jasdoif]

(FYI: Jasdoif, the rule I just quoted is posted twice in a row. I think that's a typo)

The Department of Redundancy Department re-okayed it, since it's redundant rule text about redundant quotes. (In all seriousness, I'm not sure whether ThePhantasm intentionally duplicated it back in the second Index thread....But leaving it that way is intentional on my part )

[littlebum2002]

I have no particular desire to repeat myself (again). That argument has been hashed out up thread if you care to bring up any specifics from it. As it is, I think I have adequately explained my stance on how the Giant's tweets do not say anything different from what is already present in the comic.

Again, I totally agree. They present no new information. But if you think "this information is given in one tweet" doesn't have more clarity than "this information is spread out over 3 strips", then the English language must have redefined the word "clarity" since the last time I looked in a dictionary.

clarity
[klar-i-tee]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
clearness or lucidity as to perception or understanding; freedom from indistinctness or ambiguity.

Nope, they didn't. Now, perhaps in some other universe "this information is spread out in three different places" is just as clear to understand as "this information is presented in one place", but in this universe, using the english language, having something in one place as opposed to three places makes it clearer and therefore this tweet increases clarity and therefore belongs.

Did Roy remember the jambalaya? Was ambiguous, now it's not. Which means this tweet improved clarity, and thus belongs.

What does Roy remember from the clouds? He never says, he just says "I remember the clouds". Now, we find out he remembers everything from the clouds. Ambiguity is removed, clarity is increased, therefore the quote belongs.

The Department of Redundancy Department re-okayed it, since it's redundant rule text about redundant quotes. (In all seriousness, I'm not sure whether ThePhantasm intentionally duplicated it back in the second Index thread....But leaving it that way is intentional on my part )

Ahhh, it's a joke. Wen't right over my head. Just like the joke about the sky everyone keeps telling me about.

[Keltest]

Again, I totally agree. They present no new information. But if you think "this information is given in one tweet" doesn't have more clarity than "this information is spread out over 3 strips", then the English language must have redefined the word "clarity" since the last time I looked in a dictionary.

At best the information is more condensed, but it isn't that much better to link to a couple of tweets than it is to say "He remembers something specific here and here."

[Markozeta]

Hi! I'd like to vote yes to include the tweets.

That's it.

[Ron Miel]

Assume there was no quote. How many "inconsistencies" would you require before you accepted that it is, in fact, consistent?

I don't understand the question. I'd say it was consistent if there were zero inconsistencies. Any one inconsistency, and I wouldn't say it was consistent.

[Keltest]

I don't understand the question. I'd say it was consistent if there were zero inconsistencies. Any one inconsistency, and I wouldn't say it was consistent.

Lets pretend for a moment the giant had never tweeted anything. If you were confused about how Roy couldn't remember anything from the mountain, and someone linked you to the two pages weve been discussion, what would your reaction be?

[Murk]

It seems those against inclusion feel that the evidence in the comic is clear enough, objective enough or simple enough to solve discussions.
The fact that this index thread has been hosting a discussion about it for three entire pages seems to me to be evidence of the contrary.

I don't really care why. Maybe the people for inclusion are all idiots. Maybe they don't know how to read English. Maybe they are actively looking to undermine the Giants authority. Maybe it's all a conspiracy.
To me, it doesn't matter:

If including this tweet can prevent this discussion from ever happening again, I think that's worth the cost. We should save mankind from such a thing. Let us learn lessons from what happened here, and say to ourselves: "Never again."

Now all together: "Never again."

[Grey_Wolf_c]

If including this tweet can prevent this discussion from ever happening again, I think that's worth the cost.

The cost is to continue to make the index fail at its primary function of facilitating finding relevant Giant quotes. I don't need a quote where the Giant explains something I can explain myself by linking to the relevant comic(s), especially not when that quote will addd to the cruft of the index that makes finding the quotes I do need tiresome or sometimes downright impossible to find.

Yes, I'd love to take a scalpel and remove quotes like vampire smoke quote, or indeed this one. If it came to a vote, you will probably find that I almost certainly voted against including it in the first place. Because then maybe I'd be able to start using this index to find quotes, instead of just using it as a subscription for Rich's posting.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

I don't understand the question. I'd say it was consistent if there were zero inconsistencies. Any one inconsistency, and I wouldn't say it was consistent.

You said that you thought the content was inconsistent with Roy's earlier "big blue" statement, as well as thinking the earlier comment about his mother was inconsistent as well. Please correct me if I'm wrong here; that'd how i read your post.

Now, assuming you initially believed those to be inconsistent, how mamy more of these references would you require before you changed your mind and believed they were all consistent with a very poor, hazy recollection that could be quipped as a big blur?

[Ron Miel]

Lets pretend for a moment the giant had never tweeted anything. If you were confused about how Roy couldn't remember anything from the mountain, and someone linked you to the two pages weve been discussion, what would your reaction be?

My reaction would have been that it was an error by the author, albeit a trivial one. No big deal, any multi-volume work of fiction is going to have one or two of them. An example is Durkon saying in #847 that he hasn't prepared Detect Magic, then in #894 Durkon casts Detect Magic. The Giant has acknowledged this as a mistake, and that he had forgotten the original line.

When I saw the comic, I thought it was a similar thing. One throwaway line says that beyond the gate it's a blur, several years and several hundred strips later another throwaway line suggests he remembers his mother's cooking. Upon seeing that I instantly came to the conclusion that the author had forgotten the first line from several years before, as he did in the Durkon case.

Nothing in the online comic so far resolves the apparent contradiction. Pointing to other strips where he has shown memories beyond the gate only make further contradictions.

The Giant's comments resolve the matter in a way that the strip does not.

[Ron Miel]

You said that you thought the content was inconsistent with Roy's earlier "big blue" statement, as well as thinking the earlier comment about his mother was inconsistent as well. Please correct me if I'm wrong here; that'd how i read your post.

Now, assuming you initially believed those to be inconsistent, how mamy more of these references would you require before you changed your mind and believed they were all consistent with a very poor, hazy recollection that could be quipped as a big blur?

The question still doesn't make sense. Look at it his way:

In #847, Durkon says he hasn't prepared Setact Magic

In #894 Durkon uses Detect Magic.


Are those strips inconsistent?

Now, assuming you initially believe them to be inconsistent, how many more times would Durkon have to use Detect Magic before you changed your mind and believed that there is no contradiction?

[FujinAkari]

I dusted myself off from retirement to say I don't agree with including the quote. It offers absolutely nothing that the strip doesn't. Quotes that exist should add to our ability to understand the strip, not merely re-state information already apparent.

[Peelee]

The question still doesn't make sense. Look at it his way:

In #847, Durkon says he hasn't prepared Setact Magic

In #894 Durkon uses Detect Magic.


Are those strips inconsistent?

Now, assuming you initially believe them to be inconsistent, how many more times would Durkon have to use Detect Magic before you changed your mind and believed that there is no contradiction?

Your analogy is flawed, as that is an explicit and direct contradiction. There is no vagueness, and no matter how many times Durkon used Detect Magic that day, it would not change that there was an inherent contradiction.

The same does not hold true for this scenario. In both instances of the recollections, it could be reasonably surmised that it still fell in line with the original statement; Detect Magic allowed for no reasonable assumption. Ergo, false equivalence.

[littlebum2002]

I dusted myself off from retirement to say I don't agree with including the quote. It offers absolutely nothing that the strip doesn't. Quotes that exist should add to our ability to understand the strip, not merely re-state information already apparent.

The problem is, these tweets do add to some people's ability to understand the strip. The fact that they don't add to your ability, in particular, is irrelevant.

I will reiterate a point I made before, only slightly differently. Let's say you are writing a paper trying to teach people about particle physics. Do you omit everything from the paper that you already know? Of course not, since this paper is not written for you, it's written for everyone. It's the height of egotism to think "I don't find this confusing, therefore no one should find it confusing". If these quotes help some people understand the comic, which they obviously do, then they belong in the index.

I can point out a bunch of quotes from the index that don't aid in my understanding of the comic, but I still feel they should be in there because I am aware of the fact that I'm not the only human being on this planet. An awareness, it seems, not all of us have.

It's like Sheldon Cooper is here deciding what should go in or not. Anyone who doesn't understand everything he does is dumb and doesn't deserve to be reading this index anyway.