User:OttselSpy25/Sandbox/Speedround Two

This isn't quite an OP, more a place to write down ideas. I figure that I might do a second "Speed round" eventually, hopefully with segments written by other users.

So this is both a rough "planning area" for the concept and just a place to write down topics I might want to discuss in the context of validity. As I've said elsewhere, I find fewer and fewer topics I care about these days. So if I have an idea for one, it's nice to have somewhere to jot it down.


 * Intended title: Validity Speedround 2.0: Charity stories, Infidel's Comet, Hacker T Dog, K9, and Sleeze Brothers

Feel certain about including in Speedround
(Last time I did 10 topics. That was too many, and I apologize. This time I want five at most.)
 * 1) Charity stories - See finished OP below.
 * 2) Infidel's Comet - See finished OP below.
 * 3) The Robot Reveal - I've watched this over a few times. I would say this is my #1 story that I feel should be valid. I could even write an OP now if I wanted.
 * 4) "The Kermit Factor"
 * 5) K9 Appearances
 * 6) The Computer Programme - The Thinking Machine - Untitled Maze Segment, where someone has a K9 Unit named "Spot"
 * 7) K9's Question Time
 * 8) Some other fifth thing, might have someone do a guest slot about the Sleeze Brothers

Charity Stories that are TECHNICALLY licensed...
Alright, so now that we have the "real forums" back, I hope you all don't mind me opening a few debates which are... Well, not super interesting.

Before the forums returned, I was working on the "Validity Speedround 2," which was supposed to have 5 very mundane topics all pertaining to validity and coverage. But now that we have the regular forms, I'll naturally be posting these by themselves. So if you think this debate is a little underwhelming, it's probably because I wrote it to go with four other topics.

However, in spite of not exactly being the most controversial forum ever, this post will be changing existing policy which has been around for over ten years. So if that's the case, why did I ever consider it for the speedround system?

Well... because I can literally only come up with three stories that I'm certain will be impacted by this. And they're short stories - the kind you'd find in a completely forgotten back-issue of Short Trips or the like. But I think it's clear that we have a situation here where our rules got really, well, confused about something and we should just quickly correct it past judgements. Trust me, when you hear what I'm talking about it won't sound so sensational.

So our rules about Charity novels and anthologies basically date back to one of the first rules we ever had on the website: No fan fiction. The belief was that Charity publicans, while occasionally made with approval passive or otherwise from the BBC, were still fan creations. You can see this cited in Forum:Response to user introducing info from charity publications into in-universe articles. This was apparently especially a controversial topic when it came to the famous Time's Champion, a Sixth Doctor Charity novel that began as an official pitch.

In February 2011, Forum:Charity anthology short stories was launched. The forum meant to clarify that Charity stories which used licensed DW concepts and characters were no different from fan fiction. User:CzechOut, User:Tangerineduel, and User:Revanvolatrelundar spoke of this through June before the forum closed after few words. The topic was seen as unanimous and quite obvious and saw no pushback from any other users (at least in those few months).

Since this, it has consistently been policy that whenever the BBC occasionally allows someone to use BBC-owned concepts only if the work benefits Charity and the creator sees no other profits, we recognize the existence of these stories but do not even create special pages for them. This is why Rule 2 in Tardis:Valid sources has that specific phrasing. "A work of fiction which isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count."

So what am I seeking to change about this policy today? Not a damn thing. I don't want to change a single thing about everything we've spoken of so far.

However, we have recently come across at least two stories which are more complicated that this topic has historically been treated.

Consider this. Paul Magrs owns the character Iris Wildthyme. If Magrs writes a charity story with Iris and the Sixth Doctor, we don't cover it, obviously. But what if he's writing a charity story, uses Iris, and no other concepts he would need permission to use... Would we cover that story?

Historically, you might be shocked to hear, the answer is no. Because it has essentially been our position that in said case, Paul Magrs has given himself a non-commercial license to use his own creation. This... Doesn't make any legal sense.

Basically, while someone needing a "commercial license" is written into Rule 2 of T:VS, Rule 3 has no such distinction. It's "a work of fiction must be officially released to be valid", not "a work of fiction must be commercially released to be valid." So if someone has a commercial license, then uses that commercial license to create a non-commercial story, that is not against our rules! But we functionally act as if it is.

I'd also like to bring up that, realistically, there are probably several Red Nose Day and Children in Need segments which should be effected by this implied rule but aren't because... Duh. The BBC doesn't give themselves a non-commercial license. So it's just a rule we're not using in a coherent way!

Again, changing how we do this is moving against active precedent. BUT it's for the sake of validating, as far as I can tell, three short stories while codifying a novel which is already valid despite being an example of this. And it's a topic the original debates never even brought up because they were clearly discussing charity publications that used the Doccy, the TARDIS, etc. Not Paul Magrs doing a little charity work with a character that is owned only by him.

So, as far as I can tell, these are the stories which would be effected by this idea:
 * 1) Baron (Count) Dracula and Count (Baron) Frankenstein in Perfect Timing - Features licensed use of Miles Dashing and Crocker, uses some public domain characters but there's no Doctor, TARDIS, etc.
 * 2) Being an extract from "The Amazing Adventures of Iris Wildthyme on Neptune" by Paul Magrs - Features Iris but no other DW characters or concepts.
 * 3) Moon Eyes by Stuart Douglas, featured in "Storyteller – A Found Book". Features the Manleigh Halt Irregulars, who originate in an Iris short story. It's important to note that while Storyteller is a charity anthology, it is not a Who charity anthology.
 * 4) Mother, Maiden, Crone - This almost is kind of an example of this, as we currently cover it as valid but with a long paragraph explaining why it should be okay. Something I hate is when an article has as much or more content explaining our rules than the actual material of the story... :/

On top of that, these are stories that I'm less certain about, but might be an example under a slanted reading of this:
 * 1) It's Raining Gin from The Curse of Fanfic! - This one's a little more contentious than the rest, and not only because it's from a book titled The Curse of Fanfic! It features Iris crossing over with the BBC TV series . Now, the Sooty elements are not licensed as far as I can tell... But that's not against our rules technically? For instance, Spock cameos in a lot of DW stories without being licensed. Rule 2 only applies to DWU concepts. HOWEVER, the story does name drop Metebelis IV from The Edge of Time. This alone might be disqualifying, but it's complicated. If a non-Charity Iris story did something like this, I'd think we'd just look the other way. Additionally, T:VS specifically states in the fine text of Rule 2 that "a one-line namedrop is not legally a form of copyright infringement." But some might want us to have a much higher standard for these stories.

I've also come across quite a few charity stories which qualify for this and were later republished in non-charity works. For instance, Team Up reprinted material from 2011's Voices from the Past, thus meaning they're already allowed on-site if they had a validity debate. I think the existence of "charity-only" stories being reprinted in non-charity publications indicates that this is a more complex situation than Paul Margs giving himself a non-commercial license to use his own characters.

If you can think of any more examples or have any reason we shouldn't call these valid, please tell me. OS25🤙☎️ 21:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Licensed Charity Stories discussion
to be added

Infidel's Comet
This forum post was originally written for Speedrounds 2.0. Obviously we no longer need a concept like a speedround, but I hope this context explains why this forum is about a topic so obscure. It really would have worked better with a group of other things, but I Degrassi...

So this topic was historically discussed at Forum:Infidel's Comet and The Pattern, Thread:191574, and Talk:BBV Productions. It is the middle Thread post which is most important to the history of why this isn't valid. When I first wrote this OP this middle thread was also lost, but you can now find it at User:SOTO's archive at User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates 1.

The forum began with User:TheChampionOfTime starting the debate by citing the previous discussions, wherein Czech had stated that the story had absolutely no DWU connections. Shockingly, as the debate went on, more and more connections were found. There was a near complete agreement that, while the story was obscure and hardly a shining gem, it did pass our rules.

Then, radio silence. Back in the old days, even when an agreement was found, it could take months or even years to get the topic closed. Then, one day, User:CzechOut did close it... Saying the story wasn't DWU, indisputably.

Here were Czech's closing arguments


 * 1) As the Sontaran's cameo is not hyper-specific, we should look at it as an unlicensed cameo by default, like the Doctor appearing in the back of a Buffy comic.
 * 2) As the BBV website did not list it as a Doctor Who story when we had this debate, it doesn't count.
 * 3) He then goes on an (honestly random) rant about how the wiki shouldn't validate Star Trek because of the Assimilation comic, so we can't validate this.

"When we first looked at all these stories, we didn't stop and give details for every single one. But neither were we uncareful. The thing is, Infedel's Comet doesn't feature any DWU elements. It has a cameo in which the Sontaran doesn't even quite identify himself fully. And that's a world of difference. ... There's independent and contemporaneous evidence that: This was definitely produced and contemporaneously received as an original work. It was part of BBV's broader efforts -- after Big Finish emerged as the winner of the DW audio licence -- to find a new source of audio revenue. So, no. This thing won't be coming back to the site. The rule is definitely not, "If  makes even a cameo in a story, then the story in which it appears is in the DWU by implication.""
 * 1) says the Sontaran appearance here is a "cameo"
 * 2) claims "The cast and characters have practically no direct link with Doctor Who -- bar a brief cameo by a Sontaran."
 * 3) calls it "BBV's attempt at original sf" [science fiction]

- CzechOut's closing statement, trimmed for brevity

Now, I understand that we have to consider all former closing statements and take them into account when making arguments. But I must admit that this reads to me as one of those old quotes which has nothing to do with current policy.

So Czech's basic argument here is that despite featuring the Sontarans in the story, there is not concrete evidence that this proves the story is set inside the Doctor Who Universe. And thus, as this story fails Rule 4... It doesn't get a page? Which has not been the standard practice at any point that I can remember, at least in the last five years.

Even if you think this story doesn't pass Rule 4, it does pass Rules 1-3. So it should at least have a page and have coverage.

But regardless... I do indeed think that a Sontaran cameo is enough to say that this story passes Rule 4. In fact, I would go as far as to say that most Bill Baggs material passes Rule 4. This is not really a controversial take! It's just the basic foundation of our historical judgement about BBV!

When Baggs invented something like the Cyberons, he was trying to tell stories about the Cybermen without a license. So the original Cyberon movie passes Rule 4 cleanly. It just doesn't pass rule 2 - the prerequisite of needing something from the DWU which was commercially licensed.

I also think Czech is trying to either argue that the Sontaran cameo is unlicensed or that the cameo being so minor means it's basically like a pop-culture cameo. My response is that the important factor is that this is, as far as we know, a licensed appearance, meaning it automatically passes Rule 2. I will go as far as to say that if the Doctor's cameo in Buffy bad been officially licensed, it would at the very least justify non-valid coverage as a starter.


 * (Czech's instinct to call the Sontaran cameo potentially unlicensed because no character says "Oh hey, a Sontaran" is similar to his ruling that the LEGO Batman movie did not obtain permission to use the Daleks because an actor ad libbed calling them "British Robots," a claim which has been consistently proven to be incorrect. I don't think this is an implied policy which is realistic to enforce. Regardless, there's ample evidence that BBV did have permission to use the Sontarans at this stage, so there's little merit to claiming the cameo is unlicensed.)

But even if we put this to the side, I take great issue with the claim that a DWU element appearing in a story is not a great piece of evidence of that thing passing Rule 4. If Erimem appears in a story, there's little pause to consider if that story is DWU. Same for, say, Keepsake appearing in the Death's Head series.

I'm not saying this is universally true! But often it is a strong piece of evidence that can, by itself, be all we need in some cases. So this is clearly a T:BOUND case where current precedent has made this closing post dated and impractical.

The fact that Czech cited, as one of his biggest pieces of evidence, a review calling the story original is even worse precedent. We can not go around saying that if something is called "original fiction" by a reviewer it fails Rule 4.

The bigger issue is that the Sontarans alone are not the only DWU concept in the story, as was directly stated in the debate before this. These are the connections that I currently know to exist:


 * 1) The Sontarans cameo in the story.
 * 2) A Zygon appears and has a speaking role.
 * 3) A Nestene appears briefly (but it really only name dropped by the narrator in a list)
 * 4) The Krynoids are name-dropped (in a different scene)
 * 5) The chemical Cobalt Blue is featured. This was an important plot detail introduced in AUDIO: Old Soldiers, a valid story.

In the original debate it was also stated, without controversy, that K9 and the Mistress appear in the story. If they do, I missed this detail somehow I must admit.

Now, in my opinion, any one of these five things would justify a story passing Rule 2 today. Instead, we have all five, cementing that Infidel's Comet does use five licensed DWU elements. If you want an extra piece of evidence, the story was apparently recently included in a Zygon themed boxset of some kind. The BBV Twitter even announced a new cover for the story, stating: "Our Audio Adventure In Time & Space, Infidel's Comet, set in the universe of Doctor Who." 1 So basically, Czech's argument that BBV doesn't consider this DWU is now provably and absolutely bunk.

Thus, I think, it should have a page on this website and should be a valid source. Not much more to say, I think this one's pretty open and shut. OS25🤙☎️ 20:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Infidel's Comet discussion
to be added