User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-28349479-20161216221639/@comment-28349479-20161220232419

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-28349479-20161216221639/@comment-28349479-20161220232419 DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Fair play, though why would I not be suited hypothetically?

I don't see how this is remotely relevant to the thread. We've repeatedly agreed that the existence of a Faction Paradox Wiki independent from this one is ridiculous; even if the FP Wiki was "freed", there'd still be ridiculous and unnecessary copying of material from this one. It's not a good solution to this problem. Neither is making Faction Paradox "invalid", for reasons Fwhiffahder mentioned. Instead, we should be focused on the reasons Faction Paradox should be considered valid.

Given that (as has been repeatedly pointed out) this isn't down to a vote but instead the Four Little Rules, I think we should stay on-task and stop clogging this thread, unless anyone has any new evidence pertaining to the application of those Rules, like Obverse's references to the Naxians. (The reasons for FP's invalidity are listed in the OP and discussed here and here.) As Shambala108 pointed out, this is a busy time of year, so I think we should just be patient and wait for the admins to come around and judge the new evidence. Then the argument can begin again. Until then, let's leave this be.