User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1272640-20161222080541/@comment-1789834-20161222102155

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1272640-20161222080541/@comment-1789834-20161222102155 The whole valid/invalid thing seems to tangle a lot of people up, myself included. I'd like to state, for the sake of this particular thread only, that where Doctors from the Unbound Series are concerned, I am of the opinion that they're valid due to the simple reason that there is, as you phrased it, a "point of divergence". It goes hand-in-hand with the fourth rule: is it intended to be set in the DWU? Or in this case- a split DWU? Where I'm concerned, that has to be the basic foundation for whether a Doctor is a valid alternate Doctor. Atkinson's Ninth Doctor does not follow this criteria, as there is no available backstory to his Doctor, nor is this sketch intended to be set in the DWU. We are not given any indication as to whether any of the previous adventures took place and whether they unfolded with the same outcomes. Big Finish is very clear that their alternate Doctors' timestreams only change during the story.

Admins will also state that each case is unique. I feel it right to group the Unbound Doctors, as they are a series of Doctors with the same aim/cause. However, any other Doctor stated, such as the Infinity Doctors Doctor, must be discussed individually. I can't make a sweeping statement. But I do think that the idea of divergency is key when discussing the four important rules to validity regarding Doctors and characters.

That's all I have to say on this matter. :)