While folly is not beyond humans, neither is the minimization of folly; in keeping with this, I thought I'd indite a few tips, geared towards veteran and fledgling KP fans alike, as semantic guidelines to perhaps consider when referencing the construct, and dually as means by which the fanbase can be disabused of faulty perceptions regarding the construct. By no means will I enforce these, I'm just trying to ameliorate the general consensus and understanding on and of these matters.

There is no 65 episode rule, limitation, policy, frim-frangler, zoob-zoobler or anything of the sort, nor has there been.

It is important this is said directly and up-front-- there never has been, up until and including the time of writing (8th of November, 2005), any proclamation, avouchment, promulgation, annunciation, averment, avowal, ratification or general confirmation of a "65 episode [rule / limitation / policy]" in the written or spoken world, contextually, by any credible sources whatsoever. Much to the contrary, in fact. It is true many syndicated Disney television cartoon series end at 65 episodes. However, it is also true a stark majority of syndicated television cartoon series in general end at 65 episodes. I'd hazard to place the number or percentage of the aforementioned at perhaps 75%-- this 65 episode termination is not, by any means, exclusive to Disney. Also, while I'm not fond of Michael Eisner's pecuniary approach to the industry, Eisner is not culpable, nor was he ever, for any 65 episode terminus, inasmuch as the executives of other businesses or conglomerates are, in employing the same 65 episode approach. 65 episodes, in many production circles, is the minimally required episode amount for syndication, and so a queue of 65 is often preempted. If you take the time to glimpse through some airings of network or syndicated animation and their termini, 65 is recurrent over and over again. If the studio produces 65 episodes, simple market economics point out they're then endowed with the capacity of broadcasting each weekday (5 / 7) for (65 / 5), or 13, weeks. 52 weeks (year) / 4 = 13, or, in other words, a season lasts 13 weeks. Not only is this basic market economics, but it is basic market economics well-familiar to Mark McCorkle, in that he had personally explained it himself (source: UCLA KP convention).

Most propaganda posit "policy" or "rule," erroneously, alongside "65 episode." This is factually inaccurate, unless used in the metaphorical case, in which case it'd be instead equivocal. The "65 episode rule," as it were, is a bit of a misnomer; there's no rule (verbatim; source Mark McCorkle, UCLA KP convention). A "rule," in standard and non-metaphorical usage, is a standard verbal, written, or contractual enforcement, often by a superordinate to a subordinate, but generally "rules," and "policies," are two synonyms, and while most synonyms aren't equal I must say these quite certainly approach equality, of which govern behaviour. This imaginary "65 episode [rule / policy]," to put it simply and patently, doesn't exist. It's fictional, not factual. It's just not real. Disney will, indeed, surpass 65 episodes, as will any syndicate or network animation broadcaster, without the necessitation of any sort of orders. The sticker plastered on Ron's mirror, reading "NO ON 65," was just a little joke (verbatim; source Mark McCorkle, November 6th of 2005 [chat]), aimed at humoring the fans. For this reason, the "NO ON 65" sticker is not acceptable or admissible evidence for any fallacious advancement of the existence of a "65 episode rule," nor would there be any intragroup reprimand, or remote possibility of an intragroup reprimand, for this action taken in animation, since it wasn't by any means an offending one. There's no rule, it's a matter of resources the studio has to look at (verbatim; source Mark McCorkle, UCLA KP convention). These resources could either all / mostly be expended on Kim Possible, or directed elsewhere; if directed elsewhere, the studio, on a decent budget and Steve's fat wallet, can undertake projects extraneous to KP, without a crippling monetary deficit.

The predominant arbiter in judging whether a series will or will not continue is the fiscal benefit and viewership, one of which belongs to the other. This, or rather StD as an example of this, preposes S4, or future seasons of x syndicated or network airing, and is largely the impetus for the imaginary "abolishment" of the imaginary "65 episode rule," since its success astonished the channel and opened their eyes to the cash cow they had before them (paraphrasis, source Steve Loter and Mark McCorkle, UCLA KP convention). While such a "rule" wouldn't matter if it did exist what with the advent of S4, many persons online are all, "we gotta fight the rule!!!!" There's no rule, y'know (verbatim, source Mark McCorkle, UCLA KP convention). The market economics upon reaching 65 episodes would be defined merely one of the formulas for television (source Mark McCorkle, UCLA KP convention). "Limitation" is a prescriptive prohibition, which is false. Rule and policy are basically equal synonyms, in that, non-metaphorically and of common usage, they are procedures to govern a behaviour, action, or (set / sphere) of (behaviours / actions). The "65 episode rule," then, does not exist. The phrase "there's no rule" not only has been declared firmly, undeniably and absolutely by Mark McCorkle, but it has by the mouth of John DiMaggio, Bob Schooley et al as well, and literatim too. The market politics and economics aside, 65 episodes is just a common number of episodes for a company to consider its library full for a specific show, and plenty of shows go beyond that number for a variety of reasons (verbatim; source Mark McCorkle, November 6th of 2005 [chat]). Not one reason, not two reasons, but a variety. TSR, for example, is running an exceptionally long time because it has had high ratings and a broad viewership. TSR, again, is not running for a long time because Darth Eisner had chosen to mock fans of other shows by means of employing some imaginary "65 episode rule" that ambushes shows from the rear like some kind of depraved, pugilistic war soldier and ruthlessly ends their serial lives. Market economics is incapable of intent, and thus can't consciously decide to deride. It's dependent upon chunk numbers of episodes (verbatim; source Mark McCorkle, UCLA KP convention), and the broadcasting of these episodes. 65 is the normative syndicated / network standard for animation. This is in no way exclusive to Disney.

To summarize the above compactly, refer to paragraph (line) 2 of this apprisal. If such a construct were to be addressed, my personal recommendation would be to address it as the 65 episode point, since this means "the point at which 65 episodes were produced," and works best to convey truth. Truth is my primary goal with this post; well, disburdening the misconceptions of the people as to aid Mark, Bob and Steve in that they'll not have to continually read and be rankled or irritated by misinformation and iterations of the "65 episode rule" is another huge motivation (and I do sincerely hope this helps with that), but principally, I just want to increase the overall understanding of this issue, and make known to you (the reader), whether to prevent you from succumbing to misinformation or to relieve you from it, that a "65 episode rule" is illusory or deceptive at best. I hope I've accomplished my purpose.