@Executor
You wrote quite
a lot so im only going to address part of that reply of yours.
Executor N0 said:
We are in the age of social media, so it is more than normal for social media to get into it. Digimon in the last few years has had whole stories being published on Twitter because the producers thought it would be a good way to get close to the fans, it's not like we're going to deny trivias and whole stories simply because it was revealed on Twitter or Facebook, currently they are just a very efficient means of disseminating information.
If someone wanted to answer the fans, they would have to wait maybe weeks or months to get space in a magazine or book to be able to do that. If he wants to respond on twitter or facebook, he will be saving time and space, would we disregard the information simply because it is being disseminated in a more efficient way?
I dont think you fully understand the main issue thats being addressed here Executor. No one here, not me or the others who argued about this in the thread the OP linked, said anything about denying entire stories just because they come from social media. Why would we? It's quite obviously information that is well detailed, took time to answer and it coming from social media wouldnt change its legitimacy. It would only increase it if anything.
What we're arguing against is being able to strictly use
author answers from social media if it doesnt come from an official interview, databook, guidebook or anything similar to the former 3 things. Especially if people are going to try and use them to argue for tiers that other verses would normally need FAR bigger evidence than that to ever reach.
Your point about how social media can be "more efficient" can be used right back against you too. Because as it would be very efficient for authors to use social media to engage with fans, it's also very easy for fans to use it to engage with authors. To spam them with many different questions to extract answers and annoy them with it despite it not being their job to ask those kind of questions. Which is part of why some of us have huge disbelief in these answers being legit, especially on platforms that limit the amount of information put in replies like Twitter.
I'll comment on more of this later on because I have schoolwork to deal with soon. But I do want to point out one thing I said earlier in regards to this:
Even if answers from social media posts have some kind of backing to them, and are acceptable under some conditions, we
absolutely shouldn't accept
any of them to use as justifications
ludicriously high tiers like
2-A and higher.....like seriously? Have we fallen so low that we're going to be desperate enough to turn to social media platforms to scrap together evidences for tiers that, normally, require far more extraordinary justifications than that?
Tiers like those shouldn't be so freaking easy to reach just because of small social media comments instead of in-canon material. An interview?
Completely fine. Databook? Fine too. Hell, a guidebook? I can live with that. But social media??? It should be
harder and harder to reach those tiers using actual concrete evidence. For us to sit here and casually accept such low-tier evidence like this to upgrade verses to tiers that other verses would normally need
FAR bigger evidence to reach is just.......no.