User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20191101112654/@comment-38288735-20200109145951

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20191101112654/@comment-38288735-20200109145951 This could use some deescalation. Regardless of anyone's motivations or past actions, I'm pretty sure this thread should be decided on the facts alone. While Amorkuz may be right that we need to decide whether Revanvolatrelundar's conduct is acceptable, that seems to me to be more of a matter of user discipline and should not prejudice this thread, inappropriate as it may be for them to still be submitting kudos in it. As this thread's Rule 2 precedent could become significant in our increasingly digital age, it is important for it to be decided based on our policies alone and not on the poor decisions of potentially bad actors.

I think Amorkuz raises a good point that rights-holders allowing Arcbeatle to host a story on their website does not necessarily equal having commercial rights, which tend to be the standard this wiki goes by. It was stated above that some of the creators have "gone on the record" as saying these are licensed, but would it be possible to provide links to where that happened? I feel like exact words may be pretty pivotal here.

I still maintain, though, that I have serious objections to the previous Rule 4 ruling and think it sets bad precedent.