I suspect people interpreting something as an ostensible fan rule may be a side-effect of arguing in absolutes.Gotta be honest. I'm getting the feeling, "BLARGH fan rules!" has become this thing where it's applied to things people don't like that literally aren't even being passed off as rules.
Most of the time, I'm finding things I'm saying about Spirits, or past precedence being labeled as "Fan rules" when it's...literally speculation. Are we here to talk about which characters have chances because of certain things? Or are we just going to act as though every fictional video game character has "equal chances" and not try to narrow anything down?
Where I come from, in order to make a strong claim you have to back it up with something. I'm fine with people saying what they think, but I don't find some of this stuff likely unless people can back it up, or bring something to support it.
When I say that I feel as though all DLC picks will be main protagonist regardless of series of origin (because every newcomer DLC in Smash history has been), or that I don't believe upgrades will happen (because it hasn't happened yet in Ultimate, and not a single Challenger Pack has reproduced content), it's an observation of something, and I'm putting thoughts together because of evidence, or evidence based on precedent.
You can believe what you want. But please, let's not pass everything off as a fan rule. Let's actually talk about potential outcomes. I'm trying to post things that I'm honestly thinking about, so to see folks shut it down as, "Nuh uh, you're a lame ass with your 'restricting fan rules'" it gets frustrating.
What might help is accounting for the possibility the unlikely situation occurs, even if remote. Then no one can say you're propagating some "rule".