User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20151129015950/@comment-188432-20170525033834

Closing rationale
I'm afraid this entire discussion was based on a fallacy. The myspace blogs were never "marked out" by this wiki. Instead they were confirmed to be a narrative extension of The Pirate Loop, where they are specifically mentioned. So they're fine. They're pretty impossible to find, and I might distrust "fan backups". But, conceptually at least, they definitely are a part of the DWU.

What you call these things isn't really a matter for the inclusion debates board to settle. But (prose story) is right out. I don't think it actually needs a parenthetical, because it's a fairly unique situation. Let's just put them at Martha Jones' MySpace blog, as user:AeD suggested, and be done with it. What it is is a blog, so that's what it should be called.

Other matters
I do want to address a couple of disturbing notions in this thread, though.

First, as explained at T:BOUND, users are bound to abide by policy until it is changed. And once a discussion's been started, you can't act on it while it's still in progress. While admin can indeed set time limits on threads -- it's sometimes vital on major notions like admin nominations -- they're typically in the range of a week or a month.

Users, on the other hand, can't say things like, "Unless somene makes a move here in 24 hours, I'm going to go ahead and act on my own proposal." All admin here are volunteers (as pertains work at Tardis) and in fairness, we were bombarded with a lot of threads here in the forums in the past few months. And expecting a 24-hour turnaround is unreasonable.

Second, you absolutely can't say, "I think it would be against policy to link you to an illegal site, but I'm gonna specifically name it and then tell you that it's 'pretty easy to find'". C'mon. If I'd have seen this when originally posted, a ban would absoltuely have happened. Don't dance around the rules, please. Piracy is never, ever, ever to be even hinted at.