User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20190928203157/@comment-6032121-20191006081156

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20190928203157/@comment-6032121-20191006081156 @Amorkuz, you write: “''If you think that establishing facts is not necessary in validity debates, it is your opinion. I disagree and believe that facts matter and will endeavour to establish them as best I can.''”

I have nothing against establishing facts per se. Obviously I believe facts matter in inclusion debates. But not just any facts. Is there anything anywhere in Tardis's policies to state that "whether a story's publisher is a self-publisher or a company is relevant to a story's validity"? If there isn't, how are these particular facts relevant? How are they a good use of the thread's time and attention when they have no way of affecting the decision? You might as well argue that researching James Wylder's mother's maiden name is relevant because it's a fact.

As for the rest of your reply to me, I apologize if I misunderstood what your wishes regarding self-publishers are. But then, what are they? Being that (as far as I know; but you haven't put forward any hard policy to correct my impressions on this matter) Tardis's policies do not currently have anything against self-publishers (and as always I mean that in the common-sense meaning, not your lawyerspeak above), then why would you pursue a line of argument based on whether the stories are self-published, unless you believed that Tadis's policies should care whether something is self-published rather than published by a company?

At any rate, I concur with User:Borisashton that scolding people about misunderstanding your intentions in this or that matter is all well and good, and it might even be justified, but we would still like to get back to the actual meat of this debate and address our object-level arguments. Starting with my question of clarification on where you stand on the anthology release.