Things Rich said in books are brought into arguments on this forum regularly.
They will be, whether they're listed in this thread or not, barring Rich making a rule against posting them. The only thing not having them in this thread will do, is make people citing them go on typing in the comment in question in from the book (as we always have done).
__________________
Spoiler
"You are what you do. Choose again, and change." --Miles Vorkosigan
"The really unforgivable acts are committed by calm men in beautiful green silk rooms, who deal death wholesale, by the shipload, without lust, or anger, or desire, or any redeeming emotion to excuse them but cold fear of some pretended future. But the crimes they hope to prevent in the future are imaginary. The ones they commit in the present--they are real." --Aral Vorkosigan
There is, however, a difference between citing a work and reproducing it. One is fair use, the other is plagiarism.
[EDIT: I should clarify, I'm not discussing copyright law here, which is against forum rules... I'm talking traditional academic / research conventions.]
__________________ Thanks, Bradakhan, for the avatar!
Okay, very well, that still leaves the problem of how much of the commentaries we should post in this thread. I don't own any of the books, but I imagine that most of what is in them would be relevant for this thread, so wouldn't allowing them explode the size of the first post?
__________________
Awesome ninja wizard avatar by Dispozition
Maybe you should run the book commentary question past the Giant himself? That's actually always seemed like a gray area for me. It's content people pay extra for, so it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that should be quoted extensively -- but on the other hand, it seems unfair to not allow people who've purchased the books to talk about it amongst themselves. There are also some things you would think aren't really meant to be secret at all, little things that are still powerful enough to kill threads and threads worth of debate in a single sentence of simple clarification. (e.g. No the planet inside the Snarl is not earth.)
Not voting 'd' because one of the prominent reasons for referencing the Giant's quotes (and hence using this index) is to settle forum disputes, by clarifying what is canon and what isn't.
I believe such disputes will be more amicably settled if posters have easy access to both of the Giant's opinions on a given topic- new and old.
Instead of the discussion being along the lines of "I remember the Giant saying..." "But I clearly remember him saying somewhere else..." people can look up this index, check the dates on both comments and draw their own conclusions.
While I like how methodical you are being, this is ultimately your index and I think you should have some degree of veto power, without having some jackalope insisting "New Comic is Up" every strip and forcing it to a vote :)
__________________ Official Incense Aroma Specialist for the Vaarsuvius Fan Club!
English isn't my primary language, so please let me know if something I'm saying doesn't make sense!
a 3 should be run by the Giant but I can't imagine him being comfortable with this thread transcribing sections from his commentaries, as they are mainly incentives to buy the books.
Regarding rule d, I think LuPuWei has a point. It will make things easier, if all the relevant refuted quotes are included. It might make sense for them to be a subsection of the newest opinion clearly titled "obsolete opinion" or some such.
__________________ Not if my index finger has anything to say about it. And, as it turned out, it had quite the stirring dissertation prepared on that very subject.
I was just wondering, do we need to keep the comment about Orrin's daughter not being Haley? By now we should be able to figure it out from the comic without any input from the Giant.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Oni
Well you've got two options - you can either wait for life to throw you a bone, or you can make your own by tearing it out of Life's quivering body, with your bare teeth and nails in a frenzied bloodied act of cannibalism.
Yes, we need to keep it. Or some clever person will post, "So, how did Haley survive the Familicide?"
__________________
Spoiler
"You are what you do. Choose again, and change." --Miles Vorkosigan
"The really unforgivable acts are committed by calm men in beautiful green silk rooms, who deal death wholesale, by the shipload, without lust, or anger, or desire, or any redeeming emotion to excuse them but cold fear of some pretended future. But the crimes they hope to prevent in the future are imaginary. The ones they commit in the present--they are real." --Aral Vorkosigan
I was just wondering, do we need to keep the comment about Orrin's daughter not being Haley? By now we should be able to figure it out from the comic without any input from the Giant.
It should have been obvious before the Giant's comment, but apparently there's nothing so obvious that someone won't get it wrong.
__________________
Assistant Treasurer of the Haley fan club Secretary of the Shoes For Wights fund
These sound like solid rules to me, as for the Giant's commentary someone should PM him on the issue and at least get his consent before we start posting his commentary. Until then they should be excluded and if the Giant does give the okay we can vote to edit the rules to reflect this or just create a new Index exclusively for commentary
These sound like solid rules to me, as for the Giant's commentary someone should PM him on the issue and at least get his consent before we start posting his commentary. Until then they should be excluded and if the Giant does give the okay we can vote to edit the rules to reflect this or just create a new Index exclusively for commentary
I am with you A,B,C,D,E,F
__________________
Pony Minecraft Avatar
Rest in Peace:
Spoiler
Miko Miyazaki, Thanh, Durkon- Order of the Stick
Krunch- Looking For Group
Bill- Left 4 Dead
Soap Mactavish- Modern Warfare 3
Sandman- Modern Warfare 3
Ghost and Roach- Modern Warfare 2
Gabe- Dead Space 2
Dom- Gears of War 3
Carmine Brothers- Gears of War series
Uriel Septim VII- Elderscrolls Oblivion
Commander Shepherd- Mass Effect 3
Ned Stark- Song of Ice and Fire
Apple Jack's parents
Although it is probably neither necessary nor legal to reproduce the entirety of the giant's book commentaries here, a brief list of debate topics that they definitively settle (the good 'ol "right four words" debate comes to mind) would be nice. If you'd like, you could have people here who have the books vote on the specific language to make sure that it is clear.
Also, I'm for leaving up contradictory comments that the giant has made in the past. Most of my reasons have been covered by others, though, so I won't rehash them here.
We already have one quote in the index about that, from that same thread in fact. Does this one add any new info that isn't in that first post?
I simply didn't look under Storytelling Mistakes?. My bad.
__________________ group hug! Hold Person.
~R.I.P. Thog (possibly) and Durkon Thundershield (eventually)~
Spoiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by martianmister
Mongolian hordes. Lots of lots of mongolian hordes. With a mongolian warrior chief. They will conquer Gobbotopia and rename it as Mongolitopia. Because that makes so much sense.
I had always assumed that Redcloak's level was simply too low to turn a creature with as many hit dice as Soon, largely because Redcloak said he failed to affect him. Maybe that makes this comment noteworthy?
Rule A passed with 17 votes out of 17. 3 voters took exception to subpoint 3.
Rule B passed with 17 votes out of 17. No exceptions taken.
Rule C passed with 16 votes out of 17. No exceptions taken.
Rule D passed with 11 votes out of 17. No exceptions taken.
Rule E passed with 17 votes out of 17. No exceptions taken.
Rule F passed with 17 votes out of 17. 3 voters took exception to subpoint 3, and 2 took exception to subpoint 4.
The new thread rules have been passed in full.
To address concerns briefly:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujinAkari
a, b, c, d, e, f -3, -4
While I like how methodical you are being, this is ultimately your index and I think you should have some degree of veto power, without having some jackalope insisting "New Comic is Up" every strip and forcing it to a vote :)
Actually I meant for F.3 to protect against this in some way. If someone comes along and insists on something being included, the next step is discussion. Voting is last resort, always. I don't intend to waste people's time with constant voting. Only if it appears that there is a clear divide on a topic, with no discernible consensus, will a vote be called for. Voting is only to resolve issues of high controversy.
So if one or even two or three guys come along and insist on some clearly irrelevant comment being included, and manage through some loophole to fit their comment to all the rules criteria, even then if the thread consensus seems to be against their opinion no vote will be called. My veto power then is to say "the majority disagrees with you, sorry."
This was the best way I could think of to run the thread without me becoming "mod of the thread" or "thread tyrant" or something like that.
__________________ Thanks, Bradakhan, for the avatar!
Rule C passed with 16 votes out of 17. No exceptions taken.
Since I appear to be the only one who did not approve of rule C, perhaps I should explain my objection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhantasm
c) The index is a forum tool, meant primarily to provide easy access to direct statements from the author for the purpose of forum discussion. Thus, while the index may be fun to read through on a whim, this is not its primary purpose or focus - it is a research aid more than it is a trivia collection.
It sounds well and good at first, but what does it actually mean? "Primarily" implies exceptions exist, and "It is a research aid more than it is a trivia collection" implies it still is a trivia collection...so what's the purpose of making these distinctions, particularly since no action based on these distinctions is mentioned? B.1 covers the more obvious "non-comic-related" trivia material, and B clearly states that such things will not be included in the index....
It sounds well and good at first, but what does it actually mean? "Primarily" implies exceptions exist, and "It is a research aid more than it is a trivia collection" implies it still is a trivia collection...so what's the purpose of making these distinctions, particularly since no action based on these distinctions is mentioned? B.1 covers the more obvious "non-comic-related" trivia material, and B clearly states that such things will not be included in the index....
...so what is the purpose of C?
"Primarily" does not imply exceptions exist. It implies that a reader can use the index in a variety of legitimate ways, but that the index has one mission goal, and those other benefits of the index are simply incidental bonuses that result from that goal.
It means that all the comments in the index are trivia, but they weren't selected for that reason - they were selected and included because of their value for future forum discussions (so that people discussing certain things could find the comment quickly).
Another way of phrasing it: all comments that are helpful for research are also trivia comments, however, not all trivia comments are helpful for research. You may read the index as a trivia collection. It can serve that function just fine. But that is not the primary intention behind it - the primary attention and focus of the index is on research help.
One reason for the rule is that it is the foundation for D: i.e. that old outdated comments should not be included. They may be fun to read as trivia but they would simply confuse matters in terms of research for forum discussion.
Thus, "for the sake of completion" or "the comment may not be useful anymore, but I want it to be in there because it is interesting" are not valid arguments for a comment's conclusion . . . at least, not on their own. The index isn't meant to predict and provide for every single possible way that it can be legitimately used. It is meant to provide research aid. Not research aid only, because it can be used for many things in many ways. But research aid primarily, i.e. first and foremost, as it is the focal point and goal of the index.
__________________ Thanks, Bradakhan, for the avatar!
Thus, "for the sake of completion" or "the comment may not be useful anymore, but I want it to be in there because it is interesting" are not valid arguments for a comment's conclusion . . . at least, not on their own. The index isn't meant to predict and provide for every single possible way that it can be legitimately used. It is meant to provide research aid. Not research aid only, because it can be used for many things in many ways. But research aid primarily, i.e. first and foremost, as it is the focal point and goal of the index.
So if I'm reading this right....Rule C exists to reinforce the notion that "Because it is there is not sufficient reason to climb a mountain index a comment." A comment needs to provide or confirm information that would be relevant to a discussion of the comic or some aspect of it.
Giant Art 1 and Giant Art 2 have been posted, which will certainly be useful the next "Gah! How is OOTS so possible? This is a hack that can only draw stick figures! STICK FIGURES!" shows up :)
__________________ Official Incense Aroma Specialist for the Vaarsuvius Fan Club!
English isn't my primary language, so please let me know if something I'm saying doesn't make sense!
So if I'm reading this right....Rule C exists to reinforce the notion that "Because it is there is not sufficient reason to climb a mountain index a comment." A comment needs to provide or confirm information that would be relevant to a discussion of the comic or some aspect of it.
Am I understanding you correctly?
Sort of. That's part of it. Really it is a matter of defining the purpose of the index. Someone can't just come in and say "the index should look like this or include this comment, because here is how I particularly use the index." That particular use is subjective. It may be a legitimate use but I as the index organizer and everyone else as the contributors aren't meant to foresee every possible particular use. Rather, we are operating within a specific focused goal / objective. We make our decisions based on this goal / index use, not what someone feels like should be the goal because of how they tend to use it.
Will get to the new suggestions shortly, probably tomorrow...
__________________ Thanks, Bradakhan, for the avatar!
"You are what you do. Choose again, and change." --Miles Vorkosigan
"The really unforgivable acts are committed by calm men in beautiful green silk rooms, who deal death wholesale, by the shipload, without lust, or anger, or desire, or any redeeming emotion to excuse them but cold fear of some pretended future. But the crimes they hope to prevent in the future are imaginary. The ones they commit in the present--they are real." --Aral Vorkosigan
Giant Art 1 and Giant Art 2 have been posted, which will certainly be useful the next "Gah! How is OOTS so possible? This is a hack that can only draw stick figures! STICK FIGURES!" shows up :)
What do you think about the follow-up to that earlier comment about the gods (which was basically "read and find out")?
The one that explains it isn't contradictory for the gods to create new races AFTER using up the threads of reality to make world 2.0. Living creatures inhabit the planet but are not considered a part of the planet.
RSS Feeds: 
Re: The Index of the Giant's Comments
Official Incense Aroma Specialist for the Vaarsuvius Fan Club! 
Assistant Treasurer of the Haley fan club 
Secretary of the Shoes For Wights fund 
