User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-26845762-20160212224340/@comment-4028641-20170125112115

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-26845762-20160212224340/@comment-4028641-20170125112115 I think you don't understand what I'm saying.

The original thread was about BBV products. The decision was that all stories that had licensed Doctor Who monsters or characters were valid. All stories with BBV-only story-lines and characters were not.

It was believed that the story mentioned here did not have any non-BBV characters. But now we've pretty strongly debunked that. This is an extremely minor thing to fix -- it's an incredibly easy over sight to make that doesn't need arguing outside of the fact that no one in the original thread knew this factor (none of them had likely listened to this story) and thus they discounted it. We are not breaking how the original discussion ended, we're correcting a minor error that came as a side-effect of the mass-sweep. This isn't a discussion that should have taken a year to sort out.

I think it's fine to invite him to hear his thoughts on where the mistake came about, but I don't think that it is essential that we keep this open for any longer then we have unless anyone has a dissenting opinion.