User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-26285319-20170104192003/@comment-24894325-20170305144638

I have a strong suspicion that it would make us a world of good if we drop any attempt at absolute statements. Completely ruling something out or completely ruling something in is completely unrealistic, IMHO. "All universal statements are false" as they say. Including this one, that is.

My ambition is much smaller. It never follows from the current formulation of the rules that the onus should be on proving the connection to DWU to make a story valid. We use our common sense, and admins use their knowledge of precedents, but these situations do not follow from the rules. They only cover the situation when one needs to prove the connection does not exist to make a story invalid.

What I would like to see is a rule-based acknowledgment of the existence of "at first sight valid" vs. "at first sight invalid" stories. And I propose to draw the line separating them before spinoffs of spinoffs, making the latter "at first sight invalid" unless evidence is provided of robust connections to DWU.

In this vain, Iris Wildthyme and The City of the Saved stories remain "at first sight valid" and extraordinary evidence against them would be required to kick them out. But Vince Cosmos stories would be "at first sight invalid" making it necessary to make a case for them being connected to the DWU.

For instance, Keep Space Without Time, the adventures of Daqar Keep would be considered "at first sight valid" despite the absence of time in the underlying Divergent Universe because Keep was created for Big Finish audio story with Doctor Who on the cover. On the other hand, Safe Travels in Time, detailing how Safe, the son of Daqar Keep and Perfection born in Keep Space Without Time series, found a way into a universe with time, time-traveled there and maybe even crossed paths with some less licensed characters of DWU---such a story would be "at first sight invalid" and something like the presence of Rassilon would be needed to justify its validity.