User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-25041817-20180409125033/@comment-24894325-20180413222927

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-25041817-20180409125033/@comment-24894325-20180413222927 Ok, I'm switching from moderating to discussing mode.

I agree, that if information from this website is included, then it should not be a blank cheque for the reasons we just discussed. In other words, either we're discussing a new type of validity or, instead of including the whole website as a whole, we need to switch to discussing separate parts of it individually. To quote BananaClownMan, "the encounters page is like a series of short stories." Since the validity rules state that "only stories count", maybe it makes sense to talk about the validity of those individual encounters rather than the whole website.

In fact, maybe this is the wisdom of only including stories. Whichever form a story takes, it is supposed to wrap up the plot. In other words, though some characters can at some point be mistaken or lie, by the end of the story the reader usually gets an objective picture (or at least is alerted to possible remaining mysteries). Sure, this rule is not absolute, for instance, Basil is still unexplained. But in most cases, if Mickey is sure of something that is false, eventually we will learn of his folly. With comments and encounters on this website, there is simply no such expectation.