Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-28349479-20161216221639/@comment-20607870-20161223102942

Facts...here we go. Let's break this discussion down.

We have a behind the scenes statement from Miles that states he believed it was in the DWU. That has been provided with proof.

We have three other FP writers and the publisher who state they believed it was in the DWU. We even have proof that it was them thanks to a FB status.

Rule 1 & 3, they've passed them.

Rule 1) It's a story [/]

Rule 2) Officially licensed.

Rule 3) It's been officially released. [/]

Rule 4) Authorial intent

The problem lies with Rules 2 & 4. Well since they've only used code names, then to say definitely that they are to whom they are referring to would be mere speculation.

Authorial intent... we have major writers saying there intention was for it to be in the DWU with proof.

So now after that breakdown we need to study rules 2 & 4 and only then will a final decision be made.