Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-27280472-20161222145551/@comment-1789834-20170125205628

Pluto2 wrote: Thefartydoctor wrote: I stick to my guns. It doesn't matter than it has a DWU character in it. Vince Cosmos is in it... so what? Baker's End needs to provide its own evidence. Nothing in the series suggests or even states a connection to the DWU. If Vince Cosmos is all you've got, this debate's going nowhere. Why are you people crusading about this?

Let me break something down for you:

Paul Magrs's works exist in a multiverse - the same multiverse that is the DWU. Characters and ideas crisscross from one series to another. Iris Wildthyme debuted in the Phoenix Court trilogy, then popped up in Doctor Who. Then she got her own series, which spawned spinoffs of its own.

Pretty much every story Paul Magrs writes references other stories, or even has shared villains. It's impossible to completely draw a line in the sand as to what's part of the DWU and what isn't. You've accused authors of being biased and thus not being reliable for saying their own work is in the DWU. You've accused them of circumventing rules on a wiki they may never have visited. You're coming into inclusion debates and claiming that because of your personal standards of what's valid and what isn't, a series isn't valid. A series that you have no desire to read or listen to.

And I'll break something down for you:

Just because we don't wish to partake in the novels/audios, it does not take away our right to partake in the discussions. End of story. How many times do I have to explain free speech on this Wiki to you?

I suggest you retract my "accusations" about authors being biased, and the circumventing of rules. That's twice in this comment thread you've passively attacked me and I've let it go. Well I'm not now. You can either retract it or apologise. Choose one.

If you can't understand that authors sometimes choose to include their own characters for fun and not necessarily for literary value, then that's your problem. I find it amusing that you accuse people like me, someone who comes to these debates with a fair mind and tries to get to the bones of a discussion, of being biased when it's you that I've seen in numerous conversations standing up and saying that things that are evidently invalid or questionable have to be valid because "it's written by Paul Magrs".

I suggest to take a long, hard think about how you approach these discussions because if you can't handle someone playing devil's advocate and giving you an alternate view on a situation, then you probably shouldn't take part.