Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-26285319-20170104192003/@comment-1827503-20170610014016

I would prefer rejecting OP's proposal as unnecessary, and clarifying the edge-case stories in a different way.

The proposal is written to permanently invalidate Shalka despite the story being written with the intent of validity. Despite my views on Shalka itself as clearly outside the bounds of validity, we cannot assume that it will permanently remain as such, so we should not make policy permanently invalidating it.

The important thing to remember about T:VS is that it is not just a collection of rules. It also contains a section on why stories are valid/invalid, which can be used to clarify the status of Shalka et al.