User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1451563-20180913002703/@comment-6032121-20190112122851: Difference between revisions
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div class="quote"> | <div class="quote"> | ||
Amorkuz wrote: | Amorkuz wrote: | ||
| Line 10: | Line 9: | ||
By all means this thread ''should'' be closed, but because the new points have been addressed and we have found the current policy was correct after all even in the face of the new ideas — not because the discussion was just reopening the same old debate that had already been concluded. | By all means this thread ''should'' be closed, but because the new points have been addressed and we have found the current policy was correct after all even in the face of the new ideas — not because the discussion was just reopening the same old debate that had already been concluded. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20180913002703-1451563/20190112122851-6032121]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 21:09, 27 April 2023
Amorkuz wrote: And restarting old discussion without any material difference in circumstance or new arguments does not warrant a repeat discussion.
Whether the new arguments were convincing is another matter, but there certainly were new arguments not covered in Thread:152896: off the top of my head, Game-fanatic's original theory that Time Lords had a dominant gender, and my argument that the current policy (which refers to characters of fluid or unknown gender) did not apply to Time Lord, as Time Lord gender was neither, but yet another beast.
That in-universe evidence against Game-fanatic and my positions was later found does not invalidate the fact that new arguments/evidence were brought up. I refuse to see this thread closed on T:POINT when it didn't in fact fail to bring new things to the table. This has happened before with other threads and is extremely unpleasant whenever it happens.
By all means this thread should be closed, but because the new points have been addressed and we have found the current policy was correct after all even in the face of the new ideas — not because the discussion was just reopening the same old debate that had already been concluded.
