Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-4028641-20150917235441/@comment-4028641-20151005123508

Thefartydoctor wrote: I think what you're saying is just common sense. But I don't agree that things like TARDISODE 5 are difficult to classify. There's a reason it was accepted it as a valid source and that's because it's a prequel to a valid source. The Doctor, Rose and Mickey soon pop into that parallel world and make everything better. Prequels are no problem here. In which case, my "retort", as you so kindly put it, would still ring a true analysis of a true source.

Your missing the point entirely. What universe the story is set in has noting to do with its classifacation as valid or not. If the writer of The Infinity Doctors has said "it's an alternate universe," the book would still be as accepted as valid as it is now. NOTDWU stories are not, according to our policy, stories that aren't set in our universe. They're stories we don't deem valid, sometimes because the writers didn't mean for it to be set in the Doctor Who continuum whilst not clarifying it to be an alternate reality/dimension. And, as mentioned above, if any of the "NOTDWU" Doctors were to be clearly clarified as "alternate dimension Doctors" in an audio or comic, then that Doctor would be pulled to a valid position, meaning that a Doctor not from our universe would still not be a NON DOCTOR WHO UNIVERSE Doctor. Not all invalid stories are meant to be set in an alternate continuum, and not all of our alternate dimension stories are invalid. That means that, practically, the prefix and the category are just always going to be wrong the way that they are.

The fact that you continuously reference the universal setting of a story as the primary function of invalid stories means that it's just more clear that this prefix is confusing, and yes, difficult. And if wanting our prefix to represent our policies is "meddling" and "changing" too much, then I guess you can call me a renegade.