User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-24894325-20170305141032

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-24894325-20170305141032 Wow, guys. For one night I leave you alone and you have a Dalek-themed party without me.

Well, since the fun was had without me, let me at least moralise a little and write a long buffer equaliser post. Watching others getting worked up in the heat of the argument and recognising myself brings me to wishing to remind of the following points that we all know in our hearts but can sometimes forget to apply in a particular argument.

First off, I think this discussion is being held at a rather high level with a clearly articulated and scrupulously argued thesis at the beginning, followed by arguments, counter-arguments, fact-finding incursions, interpretational essays and the like. I'm not saying this to pat myself or anyone else on the back. It's just a reminder that we are managing to have a meaningful conversation overall, despite our disagreements and occasional venting of steam. And meaningful it is, I believe, also for those who observe but rarely interfere. Think of them as the jury present at the deliberations of duelling attorneys.

Secondly, after reading a big portion of the discussion without actually participating, I have a definite feeling that all participants largely understand and respect views of each other. Again, I remind this because it is quite common to post counterarguments to what one disagrees with, while implicitly agreeing with other good arguments. I know I often do this, and it must be frustrating for those who made those good arguments without receiving any acknowledgment that the arguments reached their goal.

In fact, in such a rapid-fire exchange, it is quite common to choose just one of the many points made by the opponent and respond to that, sometimes forgetting or having no time to later also go through the remaining points. This can be seen as ignoring those other points and, again, is frustrating. It also happens that I hastily respond to a point but later see that my opponent provided a more nuanced analysis I did not fully processed at the time. If you recognise yourself in this description, chances are your opponent also recognises themselves. For what it's worth, I did not feel any disrespect in the remarks, just sincere frustration with not being understood.

TheFartyDoctor and I have held rather close POVs before, so I hope he forgives me for speculating our positions are still quite close. We do not deny the evidence provided. But we do want more evidence and/or less circumstantial evidence. And the reason for that is (a) for future-proofing and (b) based on the complexity of the setup. Let me expound a bit on (b): there are at least two multiverses in play, DWU and LEGO ones; these multiverses consist of multiple individual universes/realities each, of which we already discussed The relationship between all these 'verses is so complex that the director of the movie is on record saying they have not solidified it yet and will be developing and explicating it further. I think it's fair of many of us to say that we are a bit confused re how it all fits together and are hesitant to jump to conclusions. Hence, our erring on the side of caution and our desire for more connections, preferably, of indisputable kind. I know both TFD and myself have dug our heels on the invalidity side at some point. But always with the proviso that we simply need more evidence.
 * main DW continuity (warped and retconned multiple times)
 * child-playing-LEGO world
 * real world
 * LEGO DWU (= LEGO Dimensions DW levels?)
 * Potterverse
 * Potter LEGO verse
 * Batman DC universe
 * Batman LEGO universe.

On the other hand, I may not have clearly stated it before, but I did come to accept many of OS25 arguments. Especially, when it turned out the movie director sees things in much the same light. It was not because I disregarded OS25's opinion that I needed this extra confirmation. The issue for me was that no matter how well thought through and logical a mental reconstruction by one person is, it is impossible to know if it is correct of a different person's state of mind. I've come to accept that these are Daleks. I've come to accept that the creators did care about DWU. In short, based on the discussion had and based on corroborations of OS25's original pitch, I've drifted much closer to validity than I was at the beginning. In other words, the validity arguments are working.

The mutual frustration largely comes, I think, from the fact that, even after 212 posts, we are still unable to bridge the gap between our positions. In a (multiple) last-ditch effort(s) to finally close the deal, we sometimes repeat what we see as our best arguments, causing the ire of our opponents and making the discussion seem to go in circles. But let us not forget that we are moving closer and closer. We have discussed a lot of relevant details. We have discounted some arguments. We have accepted others. It's a spiral at worst.

To finish this long antirant, it would be helpful, I think, to summarise the points for and against validity that are still on the table, to give a bird's eye view of the current state of the argument as it were. And I would like to recuse myself (as seems fashionable these days) from this task as not completely impartial, having made some of the arguments myself. If an experienced user/admin arguee could do that, it would also give us, the main arguers, an idea of where we stand in terms of getting our points across to the community.