225
edits
Forum:Temporary forums/Inclusion debates speedround (view source)
Revision as of 21:13, 15 April 2023
, 15 April 2023→Fourth Wall discussion
OttselSpy25 (talk | contribs) Tag: 2017 source edit |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 368: | Line 368: | ||
So, as an example of something that would clearly be hit by a vaguely formed, codified rule like this, any segment in ''Doctor Who Magazine'' where the Doctor is writing about his travels and addresses the readers would be ''instantly'' defined as "taking place in the real world, and not the world of the Doctor" when that was absolutely not the authorial intent. Even saying there is a distinction in every era is blatant speculation. I just don't agree with it as a foundational rule. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 20:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC) | So, as an example of something that would clearly be hit by a vaguely formed, codified rule like this, any segment in ''Doctor Who Magazine'' where the Doctor is writing about his travels and addresses the readers would be ''instantly'' defined as "taking place in the real world, and not the world of the Doctor" when that was absolutely not the authorial intent. Even saying there is a distinction in every era is blatant speculation. I just don't agree with it as a foundational rule. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 20:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC) | ||
:Well said. The burden of proof has always lied with those wishing to prove a claim. This is just part of the rational part of the human brain! The burden of proof would be for someone making the claim that the story breaks the rules, and is thus invalid. | |||
:We are not making the claim they break the rules. The presumption should be that all stories are valid '''unless''' the rules are broken. It's a reasonable way of doing these things, and yet we're doing the exact opposite and it's come back to bite us during this discussion thread. Two sides that won't budge. | |||
:And yet for the vast, ''vast'' majority of these stories, barring the aforementioned few, they break zero rules. I think it would be far more of a procedural issue to a) make a rule 5 that ruins the site by rewriting the idea of the burden of proof, or b) automatically default to cherry-picking whatever the general consensus of "what's real" is and making those valid. That's canon. | |||
:As a whole, the proposal of presupposing invalidity is like "guilty until proven innocent." Which, I guess, is fine if that's what you wish to do. But it's not benefiting the site. It's sabotaging it. Sorry for going full r/atheism, but the logic here is backwards. [[User:LilPotato|LilPotato]] [[User talk:LilPotato|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
== ''TARDIS Yule Logs'' == | == ''TARDIS Yule Logs'' == | ||