User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-6032121-20200517150418/@comment-6032121-20200607183729

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-6032121-20200517150418/@comment-6032121-20200607183729 Incoming Message was posted with little-to-no promotion, and does not appear to have been produced or organised by Emily Cook in any way; it was just Russell T Davies's own idea of a fun thing to add to the tweetalong event. So that's already one example. While the circumstances are obviously different, The Best of Days also notably wasn't released as part of a tweetalong. So those are already two "ones out" that don't fit into your criteria either.

You say that "ALL of the other releases were produced / organised by Emily Cook" and Monk is the odd one out. But I could flip this argumentation back at you and say that all the other releases, without fail, had one of the relevant hashtags and were either by Cook or by one of the official Tweetalong hosts — so that my criterion fits all the releases under consideration, while your criterion rules one of them out arbitrarily.

In either case, the problem is we're kind of… assuming the conclusion. Which of the two sets of criteria we pick is going to be based on whether we want How The Monk Got His Habit to be on the list (and, in some form, on the Wiki, though not necessarily as valid depending on how the other thread goes) or not; that's literally the only practical difference between the two sets of criteria. Again, with Lockdown! over, we're not creating any greater precedent.

It's up to us, as a community, to come up with the policy we want to be held to. Given that there are no greater concerns at stakes, I really don't see what we have to lose by going with our criterion and ruling How The Monk Got His Habit "in".

(I'm not going to argue with Castellan, because this isn't the thread to do that and I'm honestly thinking we'll probably have to delete it in the end. But all I meant about the "no evidence" is that for a project by an established DWU creator and professional filmmaker besides, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" and we have a duty to look for evidence of licensedness. If no such evidence surfaces, naturally we will delete the page. But it's different from something which wears its unlicensedness on its sleeve like e.g. Time Rift or Gallifrey Stands and is never really up for consideration.)