Talk:Murrlin

Objection to personal exclusion

After his recent stint at FWA, an all-ages con, I think he should not get personal exclusion as people should know about his inappropriate public behaviour —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.254.235.59 (talk • contribs) .

For context: Murrlin and Tekpup were filmed "wrestling" (so to speak) in pup gear on the floor of a public area in the hotel. While facts point that they were still clothed, the activities still were apparently sexual enough in nature for YouTube to remove the video that Murrlin and Tekpup posted. This does appear to have generated a good amount of controversy, the original video gaining 1.4k likes on Twitter and 56.8k views, 740 replies not including those made on other threads. (stats as of 4/8/18 @ 3:06am EST) --FrostTheFox ^(talk) 03:13, 8 April 2018 (EDT)

I was originally on the fence about this, but now that it’s reaching mainstream media coverage I’m leaning more towards supporting this. My only issue is I’m not really too familiar with that many cases of personal exclusion being revoked or denied so I’m not sure if this is an acceptable reason. --V. CA (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2018 (EDT)

I think one path that might be taken, initially, is including any truly notable instances on the articles surrounding such events, i.e. Furry Weekend Atlanta 2018. It's already there as a link, but if they have been identified then conversion of it into a reference and including mention of their name might be appropriate. Personal exclusion is not total exclusion - if you put yourself in public as doing something of note in relation to some event, it may be noted with respect to that event. Acting in such a way at an event as to be the topic of mainstream news coverage would seem to be included. --GreenReaper^(talk) 15:57, 14 April 2018 (EDT)