User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-1789834-20170428005653

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-1789834-20170428005653 Well, I've not called it weird. In fact, the only thing I've done is praise how awesome the movie is. My tone is honestly not "Why won't you listen?". That's a bit of a silly thing to assume when this is an Inclusions debate. Here, I've only ever played devil's advocate and made sure that we cover all bases. Valid is never and should never be the back-up. That's purely illogical. License or no license, without intent to secure it, it's simply not right to say "valid unless stated otherwise". Moreover, a rule isn't necessarily written.

You've spent tonnes of time on these threads, as have I. Admins work like that when they shut these threads down. It's generally "No consensus. No clear evidence. No validity." Again, unspoken rules of the Wiki. Of course, an admin has the right to overrule what we decide if they think we've missed a bit of common sense reasoning. It may be the case that an admin thinks I'm being too nitpicky and rules this valid... I simply don't know.

But call me stubborn, or call me cautious. I'm sticking to my guns and saying that this movie lacks sufficient evidence to be called valid. And I'm also sticking to my opinion that a movie such as this requires evidence to be called valid, license or no license.