User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Tales from the Tardis/@comment-188432-20130325173913/@comment-188432-20130419143505

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Tales from the Tardis/@comment-188432-20130325173913/@comment-188432-20130419143505 Josiah Rowe wrote: It's akin to a police officer who makes an arrest. He or she does so in good faith, believing that the person arrested is guilty of the crime (or at least that a legitimate case can be brought). But what if a jury of the accused's peers say the accused is innocent? That doesn't mean that the police officer was in the wrong, or that the law which the police officer thought was being broken is now invalid. It just means that in this one case, the community (jury) disagrees with the police officer's interpretation of the law. This is a really interesting analogy. I'd point out, though, that it's possible for the judge to overrule the jury on a guilty verdict if he or she finds that the jury is ignoring things that a reasonable jury would not have ignored, such as a lack of evidence to support their finding.

And, in a way — though it perhaps stretches the metaphor a bit — that's what's happening here. In my view as the "judge", setting aside Big Finish's statements can only be done if you ignore the rule completely.

Arrowheadvenom wrote: If there's nothing in the audio itself that makes it uncanonical, then I say it should stay. If there's any conflict, though, I say it should go. It shouldn't go purely because of what BF said about it. See what I mean? This opinion is not taken in light of our policy at all. In fact, the opinion is rendered completely against policy. It says, as so many do upthread who are opposed the policy, as long as there is no narrative reason to exclude, it should be included.

Such opinion is, in my view, completely invalid. We are not litigating the nature of the policy in this thread. We are trying to determine whether Vienna should be excluded on the basis of existing policy. Josiah Rowe wrote: It really doesn't break the policy, because rule 4 already says that a community discussion will probably be necessary. In fact, what does go against rule 4 is the suggestion that if one admin believes that a work is excluded, it can be deleted without discussion. That's a bit unfair. I did start a forum thread which I didn't lock. Deletion before anybody started massively linking to it seemed to make good administrative sense, because that would mean less to clean up later. This isn't like I ripped up the work of something that had been on the wiki for years. This was a brand new thing that I stopped from being linked before people got too used to it being around.

And, in my eyes, the policy says probably because there are some cases which will be clear — like this one. Again, if we can't exclude on the basis of the statements that have been made by Big Finish in this case, then the rule falls.

To continue the legal analogy, law is partially made on the basis of precedent. If we set the precedent here that we're going to set aside completely what BF have said, in what case will rule 4 ever be employed? Josiah Rowe said: All I'm saying is that in this case what seems sky-is-blue obvious to CzechOut is apparently not that obvious to the rest of the community, and he seems to be having trouble accepting that. Since you made the statement, it's pretty clear that it is not me against the rest of the community. Shambala108, Imamadmad and Quest?on have also stated that, under current policy, Vienna should go.