Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-24894325-20170121220436/@comment-28349479-20170123061002

Amorkuz wrote: For me there is more than one level of novelty here to get used to. Because I also have a complete picture of the part of the DWU I'm familiar with. Most writers I consume respect the main tenets, so I have this comfortable view over TV, books, comics, and audios that has painted a particular picture of what a TARDIS is. And what it is not. I've seen the difficulties the TARDIS has communicating with its passengers. I've seen it behaving like a dumb machine doing the Doctor's enemies' bidding. What I haven't seen is a humanoid TARDIS. And I'm asking myself: why is it a TARDIS? Can you enter it? Where is the door? Yes, you've mentioned already it was from EDA. But in AUDIO: Zagreus it is heavily implied that EDA happens in an alternative universe. There is a scene where the Doctor sees various versions of himself, including, I am told, the one from the EDA. So in my mind, these humanoid TARDISes are not necessarily on the same plain of reality that I'm interested in. I may be wrong here: never investigated it properly. What the hell is this about? It really seems as if you're admitting that you consider the EDAs to be a less reliable source than other Doctor Who stories, based solely on your unfamiliarity with them. This goes against the heart of this wiki's rules: policy states that we cannot classify the EDAs as an alternate or lesser universe in any way, regardless of whatever speculatory (and, based on the smallest familiarity with the debated material, inaccurate) statements are made in Zagreus. If you're genuinely curious about how one gets into a humanoid TARDIS, why don't you read Marie's introduction in Alien Bodies? If you want to know whether the Doctor's TARDIS is the Ship, why don't you read about its description in Toy Story? You're straight-up admitting to be making snap decisions in the absence of any knowledge about the source material, and I don't see why your illusory seniority should make you any better an authority on this than anyone else.

I do not recognise this TARDIS's behaviour. I do not recognise its abilities. It is not called the TARDIS. Its pilot is not called the Doctor. Yes, he's called cuckoo. Hardly a unique characteristic. Yes, his female companion has an earpiece and pale skin. Yes, the pilot did something to the male companion. For every action, I'm pretty sure there dozens of stories in the DWU where this action is performed. You're right! It's not called the TARDIS. Instead, it's named with a word that has been elsewhere demonstrated to be a functional replacement for the "TARDIS", and described to be a blue police box that's bigger on the inside. I freely welcome you to hit me with the "dozens of stories in the DWU" where this exact combination has been met, outside of the Doctor's TARDIS; then I'll be very willing to bow down.

The "affirming" Thread:208233 has not been closed by an admin. Which means that no affirmation has been reached and no edits are allowed based on to-be-achieved conclusions at the time of their closing. Thread:206566 is properly closed, yes. The word "Lolita" is mentioned there twice, both times in the context of "House Lolita". Was it decided on that thread that specifically Lolita is a TARDIS? No. As I think I've specified several times now, what was decided in that thread wasn't that Lolita is a TARDIS! I was trying to say that in Thread:206566, we established that the Great Houses' "timeships" are TARDISes, which was affirmed in CzechOut's comment there and his OP in [[Thread:208233]; since Lolita is a timeship, it logically follows that Lolita is a TARDIS. There was no explicit discussion about Lolita, just as there hasn't been one for any of the Great Houses' other timeships! It's a logical syllogism, one of the oldest forms of deductive reasoning. The debate about whether Lolita is a TARDIS, is a subset of the debate about whether the Great Houses' timeships are TARDISes, which was already settled (and closed by an admin) in the original thread. Yes, the debate has been reopened in this thread and the previous one; no, no new information has been presented. Per [[T:POINT]], this simply isn't enough to reconsider the decision.

What is a non sequitur for you is somehow important for me to orient myself in the brave new world of FPentry. I know it's a happier occasion than Brexit but it still requires getting used to. Moreover, this question is directly relevant to the original topic. Hey, cheers to that! But if you're looking for an orientation to Faction Paradox, I think you should start a different thread, or maybe read the original debate.

PS Are proper names ever used in FP, or is it written so as to torment poor editors here with all those Ships, Pilots, 101-forms, baby-timeship-monster-non-TARDISes, etc.? Oh, the novels are very good at giving names. (Lots of names, sometimes. Far, far too many names. So many red links.) The short stories like Toy Story can usually afford to be much much more ambiguous with their casts, though most don't choose to. There is a lot of funniness with naming, though, and everyone and their mom seems to have an interchangeable yet rarely spelled out sobriquet.

As an aside, I don't know of any baby timeship monster non-TARDISes, though Lolita has many 103-form children :)