Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-1272640-20161223201024/@comment-1272640-20170125212551

OncomingStorm12th wrote: Pluto2 wrote: Amorkuz wrote: I'm sorry, was there a consensus? I can find three posts by CzechOut saying it is invalid. I cannot find him agreeing that it is valid. Could you quote him on this please?

Because my understanding of the word consensus is when everybody agrees, not when somebody said their piece and doesn't see anything that would change their opinion. It's not about a consensus on its own. It's about majority AND consensus. Except validity/inclusion are hardly (if ever) about consensus or majority. It is about evidence. And, right now, as I see it, User:CzechOut has stronger evidences that it wasn't meant be DWU than anyone else has evidence that it was. How so?

Authorial intent when making this was to create a new story with the same Doctor that was played by Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, Baker, Hurndall, Davison, Baker, McCoy, and McGann, but in a new incarnation. The fact is, this was promoted as being a new Doctor, but it absolutely wasn't meant to be a separate universe. It was only when Davies decided to ignore it that it got shoved off to the side. Authorial intent refers to the intention when the story was being made. Even if someone's position changed a few months later when the revival was announced, it doesn't count.