User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1506468-20190827123101/@comment-30881616-20190908162212

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1506468-20190827123101/@comment-30881616-20190908162212 Amorkuz wrote: If we include the 10,000 Dawns stories based on the blog release and not the actual book published, then we will have to include also the Lil' Doctor Who stories because they are also published on Mr. Wylder's blog and because they also fall under the same legal disclaimers. I do not see a way of including one without including the other (other than waiting for the release of the book). T:VALID (section 1.1.2, "What doesn't count") very clearly states that explicitly parodical stories cannot be included as valid in-universe sources as, by their very nature, they fail to qualify under Rule 4. This is true regardless of whether they have been officially released, or who they may have been officially released by—certainly, the fact that this Wiki counts many Dalek stories from the BBC as valid in-universe sources has never compelled us to do the same for the BBC’s “many appearances of parody Daleks [. . .] not licensed by Terry Nation” described in Doctor Who parodies.

So even if—hypothetically—we consider these Lil' Doctor Who posts as non-commercial digital publications of Arcbeatle Press, the above statement from post #103 would still be a fallacious conclusion: it depends on a major premise of a radically different set of terms on T:VALID compared to the one that actually exists. I am quite willing to assume good faith, of course, and assume for the moment that User:Amorkuz did not deliberately attempt to misrepresent one of our core policies as part of his argument; however, I would like to note that if User:Amorkuz wishes us to adopt a different set of terms for T:VALID, T:CHANGE dictates that he must make his proposal at Board:The Panopticon, not here.

For the purpose of the present discussion though, T:BOUND applies.