Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170306172600/@comment-4189499-20190528071303

Butting back in again with my entirely unqualified viewpoint because procrastination, it seems the only argument against this proposal is the one raised by Shambala about if these stories would still be whole stories as per Rule 1 if the invalid story didn't exist. Please correct me if that's wrong. This is just my interpretation of what's been said. This is also my interpretation of the four little rules which may in itself be incorrect, but this is how I interpret them in this context.

So, basically, are these stories still whole stories under Rule 1. If the invalid stories were never produced, are these three stories still coherent stories? Or, to put it another way, if a reader/viewer/consumer of media hadn't read/viewed/consumed any invalid material, would these stories still make sense as stories? If the answer is no, then the material is not a story in-and-of-itself.

I'll make a couple of hypotheticals based on Series 1 to demonstrate the idea, using Series 1 as I can make a fairly safe assumption that everyone here has seen it. Imagine if you will that The Empty Child was ruled invalid for whatever reason. The Doctor Dances, as the second part of that two parter, does not make sense without its first half. Therefore it is not a full story, breaking Rule 1, and therefore would not be valid.

However, if Spearhead from Space were ruled invalid for whatever reason, that wouldn't make Rose invalid despite the use of the Autons. This is because the Autons were introduced in Rose in such a way that wasn't reliant on having seen Spearhead to understand what the Autons were or any other aspect of the story. Indeed, the episode was designed as an introduction for people who'd never seen an episode of Doctor Who prior to that episode. As the episode stands entirely on its own without needing to have seen the earlier episode to make sense as a coherent story, it is indeed a story in its own right, passing Rule 1 and still being valid.

Leaving the hypotheticals and returning to the case at hand, it seems from what people are saying that these three stories in dispute are still coherent stories even for those who hadn't seen the invalid stories, making them whole stories in their own right. If they are whole stories in their own right, then they pass Rule 1, and the other rules all seem to pass for other reasons mentioned by others. If however those stories don't make sense as stories if the invalid stories weren't consumed first, then the stories aren't whole stories and would fail Rule 1. Again, I've not actually read/viewed/consumed these stories so I can't pass judgement on whether this is the case, but based on what has been said by others, these three stories do pass.

Shambala, have I correctly covered the case here? If not, can you please correct me?