FANDOM


  • SOTO
    SOTO closed this thread because:
    see final post
    09:34, January 18, 2020

    Thread:258247, the previous discussion on the validity of Rachel Survived, White Canvas and The Gendar Conspiracy, was closed recently. However, I believe there is crucial evidence that was not discussed in the two previous forum threads that supports the validity of these three stories, and a fourth. I will centre this post around the points raised in User:Shambala108's final judgement as that represents the actual decision reached.

    Undoubtedly the largest change in the status quo since the conclusion of the last debate is the fact that a new story featuring Doctor Who characters has been released Arcbeatle, namely Life After Death by Michael Robertson. Unlike the other three, Life After Death was released as episode five of the spin-off Lady Aesculapius: Series 1. Coloth from the 1998 Short Trips story War Crimes appears and Auteur is mentioned, both of whom had previously crossed over in White Canvas. It seems to be a similar situation to the other three crossover stories. It can be read for free here. Despite the fact it is episode five of the series, the story itself is self-contained and makes sense on its own.

    We seem to have gotten away from considering Rule 4. From the posts here, in the original post, and in the comments left by User:Amorkuz on User talk:Borisashton and User talk:NateBumber, there are a lot of confusing, contradictory, or ambiguous statements. Researching the material on the internet in general didn't help clarify anything. The clearest statement I found was on the author's website calling this "a whole new universe" and "a new science fiction universe".Shambala108 [src]

    Just to remind everyone of the points regarding rule 4 that were raised in the debate I will repost that section of the OP now:

    Borisashton wrote: Rule 4: "If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it’s probably not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination."

    The second part of this rule is not relevant, as this is the community discussion in question, but I left the full rule in to ensure clarity regarding the "probably" clause.

    Harkening back to the rule 2 argument, one struggles to imagine why Wylder would go to such an effort to get permissions for characters and concepts from the DWU only to set the stories outside of it, but let’s look at the evidence. These three stories have very clearly been established as crossovers between 10,000 Dawns and Faction Paradox and/or Doctor Who. Once again, it has been well-established (see Assimilation²) that we only cover the crossovers which is why this debate is only focused on these three stories.

    In its 2017 release, Rachel Survived is described as “a 20th anniversary crossover”, and as being the product of “[getting] permission from a Faction Paradox author to write a story crossing over a character from his novel [Head of State] with the universe-hopping heroes of [Wylder’s] 10,000 Dawns book series”.

    In its 2018 release, White Canvas is described as a “licensed crossover between the 10,000 Dawns, and characters from the universes of Doctor Who and Faction Paradox”. It features concepts and characters from the Virgin New Adventures, BBC Eighth Doctor Adventures, and Short Trips. Additionally, it is said that the novella “acts as something of a prequel to a few of the stories” in Obverse Books' The Book of the Peace, and at the time of its original release Obverse itself acknowledged the story as “some Faction Paradox crossover fiction”. The intention of its DWU setting doesn’t come much clearer than that.

    In its March 2019 release, The Gendar Conspiracy is described as “a prequel to [Wylder’s] novella White Canvas” and “like Rachel Survived and White Canvas, [is] a licenced crossover, pulling characters and settings from the universes of Doctor Who and Faction Paradox”.

    Finally, in the anthology release of August 2019, the release of the three stories and their relation to the DWU is described as follows: “In 2017, Arcbeatle Press put out the first of our beloved licensed crossovers between 10,000 Dawns and the Universes of Doctor Who titled Rachel Survived. Since then, we went on to put out two more stories…”.

    In every iteration of their releases, these three stories have unambiguously been described as crossovers between 10,000 Dawns and the DWU. So in regard to rule 4, the three stories clearly pass.

    It is my belief that rule 4 wasn’t discussed as much as rule 2 because the consensus was that most people agreed with the interpretation above.

    As outlined above this repeated claim that these three stories are crossovers with Doctor Who is hardly ambiguous, contradictory, or confusing. Instead, it is clear in every iteration of the stories' release that the three stories are crossovers between 10,000 Dawns and Doctor Who and Faction Paradox.

    In this tweet, posted in order to familiarise readers of Life After Death with the other characters that the titular Lady Aesculapius had met, states “You can read all three of the 10,000 Dawns stories set in the Doctor Who Universe (for free) here”. Any reading of that that isn’t these stories were intended to be set within the DWU is frankly a stretch.

    The quotes of “a whole new universe” and “a new science fiction universe” are some great quotes but I don’t think they accurately represent Rachel Survived, White Canvas and The Gendar Conspiracy because Shambala is one hundred per cent correct in asserting that the series that these quotes refer to, namely 10,000 Dawns, is invalid. There has never been any question about that fact. Instead, just these three crossover stories are the focus of the debate.

    The quotes come from here, which is a summary of the non-DWU 10,000 Dawns as a whole. “A new science fiction universe” is in response to the statement “10,000 Dawns is:”. Additionally, a more complete version of the other quote is “10,000 Dawns isn't just this story though, this is the start of a whole new universe” which is clearly stating that the single piece of 10,000 Dawns literature that had been released at the time is its own thing rather than deciding to set it in the universe of H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds, for example. It is also worth noting that at this point 10,000 Dawns had absolutely no official affiliation with Doctor Who whatsoever. Would we invalidate 2012's Assimilation² because an interview from 1987 said that Star Trek: The Next Generation was in a distinct universe from Doctor Who? Of course not, because precedent suggests we cover the crossover and nothing else which is what is proposed. A very poignant fact that I surprisingly could not find mentioned in either of the two threads was that the titular 10,000 Dawns is a multiverse of ten thousand universes that exist independent of N-Space and characters from the Dawns sometimes leaves their realities to visit the Doctor’s universe. This means the comments about Dawns being a new universe hold up even within the crossovers.

    In the judgement, there were also some concerns regarding rules 2 and 3:

    We do have to consider how decisions regarding new situations will affect the wiki in the future. The confusing nature of the posting, selling, and licensing of these stories would allow too much of a loophole in the future for other stories. [...] The nature of how these stories were published and distributed would just allow for too much abuse further down the line.Shambala108 [src]

    I just don’t see it. It’s not that hard to understand. T:OFF REL dictates that the official release date is the date set by the publisher, in this case Arcbeatle Press. This means that the releases that should be covered by the wiki are located here, here, here and here. The first three stories were then collected in an anthology here. I hope this clears up any confusion about the posting of these stories.

    At the time of these releases, the stories were free and not available physically. A post on Arcbeatle's blog in July 2018 confirmed that at least Rachel Survived was available physically at a cost via Patreon. The Patreon terms of use prohibit creations or benefits that use others’ intellectual properties so we can be sure on that front that these stories were properly licensed. This is not strictly relevant as the proposal to cover the original releases that are available online for free does not extend to the physical editions which were published later. A small note on the pages (if anything) would suffice in regard to this wiki covering the physical editions. To clarify, T:VALID does not preclude stories published online or stories published for free. I hope this clears up any confusion of the selling of these stories.

    What precisely the loophole and abuse the coverage of this story could cause has now been helpfully elaborated upon:

    My main concern came from comments (or quotes) by the author regarding other people using his licensed characters. This was mostly mentioned in the original post, so we don't have a record for it, but that was my concern, that the freedom with this licensing would lead to later abuse.Shambala108 [src]

    Once again, I’ll repost a section from the OP of the previous debate to outline why these concerns are had unnecessarily.

    Borisashton wrote: One of the concerns raised in the original thread weren’t directly related to any of these rules about validity, but rather concerned Wylder’s tweet saying that he would be willing to let “any other folks writing officially licensed Whoniverse works (that is, not fanworks)” borrow the 10,000 Dawns characters for their own writing. This led to a tangent in which it was claimed that the validity of these three crossover stories would lead to “anyone” being able to publish works in the DWU that the wiki would have to cover. This is not true, as the tweet clearly only opens the request to those who are writing stories already set in the DWU; furthermore, even if it was open to anyone it specifically concerns Wylder’s 10,000 Dawns characters, and as per the analogy to Assimilation², non-DWU related 10,000 Dawns stories are of no concern to our wiki.

    This tangent also led to a discussion about how people like Gareth Roberts, who have been accused of posting trans-misogynistic posts online, could take advantage of Wylder’s offer to force the wiki to cover transphobic slurs. Most posters in the last thread seemed to agree that this had nothing to do with the matter at hand, as policy dictates we “do not consider the quality of the narrative” when deciding validity; we already have an (albeit obscured) page for the n-word without purging everything relating to The Celestial Toymaker from the wiki.

    Just to add to that last point, there is precedent of FANDOM intervening if these hypothetical slurs made it onto the wiki. The pages for N*gger and F*ck buddy were both censored as per FANDOM’s request that they better comply with the terms of use. The conversation at Talk:Penis#Image also saw FANDOM intervene and disallow the image in question from Zygon: When Being You Just Isn’t Enough as it was in violation of the terms of use. I’m sure if FANDOM didn’t intervene, a community discussion would be in favour of purging any hypothetical slurs from this hypothetical book if this unlikely scenario were to ever occur.

    Finally, I’d just like to address this statement:

    As has been pointed out before, the large majority of readers/users on this site only care about Doctor Who. We do allow a very large percentage of other stories onto the wiki, but unfortunately sometimes we have to draw the line for those that are two or more times removed from the DWU.Shambala108 [src]

    As has been pointed out by User:NateBumber at User talk:Shambala108#10,000 Dawns thread closure clarification, I struggle to see how these three stories are two or more times removed from the DWU. White Canvas features Miranda Dawkins, the Doctor’s own daughter. I think if we exclude White Canvas on the basis of it being too far away from the DWU we need to reconsider a great deal of spin-off media, probably ranging in the hundreds of pages that will need to be deleted from the wiki.

    I hope we can now rediscuss this matter on a more informed basis.

    (Again, just a reminder that as per Thread:256955 anyone professionally involved with Arcbeatle Press should refrain from joining this thread.)

      Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • And so it begins again.

      It's important to not get ahead of ourselves, and not to assume anyone meant something they didn't say. Especially where James Wylder and Arcbeatle Press are concerned; both sides in the deleted first thread were citing different things Wylder said, without considering what he meant.

      I'll once again start by supporting these stories' validity, as I did the last two times. If some evidence comes out that they might not pass our rules, things may change; I sincerely hope those who argued against validity last time would change their own opinions in the reverse case.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I concur that full context and attribution is vital information to be included in quotes. I also share in your willingness to switch my point of view if new evidence comes to light. In addition, I have notified both User:Shambala108 and User:Amorkuz of the existence of this thread and that their input would be appreciated considering their involvement in the previous debates.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • AeD

      My opinion in previous threads has consistently been that these are obviously valid -- the addition of Life After Death only confirms this stance. Every bar has been either neatly or more than thoroughly met.

      Borisashton gets at a good point at the end of the opening post here, though: If Miranda Dawkins, a companion and adopted daughter of the Eighth Doctor, is in White Canvas, then surely excluding these stories would be a much, much more severe slippery slope, leading to the exclusion of hundreds upon hundreds of currently considered-valid stories, than the inclusion of these stories would be?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • It's been over a week. Does anybody have any new evidence they wish to give or can an admin rule on this soon?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Seems like a cut and dry case.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I also still think these stories are valid.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Doug86 wrote: I also still think these stories are valid.

      Just to clarify, is that your opinion as a participant of the debate or your verdict on the validity of the stories as a closing admin?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Borisashton wrote:

      Doug86 wrote: I also still think these stories are valid.

      Just to clarify, is that your opinion as a participant of the debate or your verdict on the validity of the stories as a closing admin?

      Both.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I see. Shouldn't you officially close the thread so no one else can comment on it then?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • User:Borisashton, stop trying to tell admins how to do their jobs.

      Since this thread aims to overturn a recently closed thread (potentially violating Tardis:You are bound by current policy and potentially starting a precedent where someone can re-open any debate with whose closure they don't agree), closing arguments have to be especially convincing.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • What? In no way was I trying to tell admins how to do their jobs. I was merely concerned that if the thread was still open to comments I would be technically violating T:BOUND even though a judgement had been given.

      I'm not sure about any potential precedents of which you speak that could be set since it is my understanding that forum threads that don't contain any new evidence than that of previous threads are very quickly closed whereas this thread has given a bunch of new evidence.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Yes, that seems like an aggressive response to what looks like a misunderstanding. Borisashton asked Doug86 if his support was the closing opinion of an admin, and they said yes, but did not close the thread. It seems like a perfectly natural thing to ask about. Perhaps Doug misread the question, had second thoughts, or simply forgot to close it, but we wouldn't know which without asking.

      EDIT: Just realized that you probably meant the admin's closing arguments had to be well-worded and that could be the source of the delay. Still a bit strongly-worded, but thank you for the information.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • It's been another week and there has still not been any opposition based on the new evidence. Am I right in thinking that as per Shambala108's comments the only thing preventing thread closure is a detailed closing statement?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Anyone? There has been zero opposing opinions in light of the new evidence and none whatsoever in half a month. Those contacted by me have had ample time to respond and yet have failed to actively take part in the debate. Why is this thread still open?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Because no one's yet bothered to make a closing statement. Don't overthink it.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Give me a SHORT version of the new evidence, because the previous threads and this one are so long I don't care to sift through them again to see if there is actually any new evidence.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • The new evidence is pretty clearly laid out in the OP but to shrink it down to a barebones form:

      A new story was released in a similar way to the others. This isn't actually a new point but is the biggest change in the status quo since the last debate.

      Then this:

      Borisashton wrote: In this tweet, posted in order to familiarise readers of Life After Death with the other characters that the titular Lady Aesculapius had met, states “You can read all three of the 10,000 Dawns stories set in the Doctor Who Universe (for free) here”. Any reading of that that isn’t these stories were intended to be set within the DWU is frankly a stretch.

      There was also discussion of your somewhat flawed closing statement. Please take any explanations of your closing statement from the far more in depth version in the OP rather than the following extremely shortened version.

      Basically I found the quotes regarding universes were referencing 10,000 Dawns as a series (which is unambiguously invalid) rather than than the crossover stories. See the Assimilation² precedent outlined in more detail above. Also I brought up the never-mentioned fact that the titular 10,000 Dawns is a multiverse of universes meaning the fact that they are set in different universes is also established narratively.

      I also concisely explained the "confusing" situation regarding the publication of the stories:

      Borisashton wrote: T:OFF REL dictates that the official release date is the date set by the publisher, in this case Arcbeatle Press. This means that the releases that should be covered by the wiki are located here, here, here and here. The first three stories were then collected in an anthology here.

      Finally, there was a section about the concerns you had about other authors using Wylder's liscened characters. This one is covered in way more detail in the OP but the short version is that quote specified "not fanworks" and we don't cover non-crossovers anyway so what other authors do with Wylder's characters is of no concern to this wiki.

      This isn't technically "short" but I have truncated it as much as possible. I'm sure you appreciate how much evidence had been presented in this and the previous two lengthy debates.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Yes, it seems like closing the previous discussion based on Rule 4 rather than the Rule 2 that was anticipated left people feeling like they hadn't had an opportunity to address that side of the discussion; they never talked about Rule 4 because they expected it to hinge on Rule 2.

      I see how the fear of "wiki creep" is a real issue, with things spreading out further and further from Doctor Who, but, with this particular crossover, we already have a statement from the creator that the universe is, as a whole, non-DWU. We have a solid "The buck stops here" for anything not included in crossovers ever being considered valid for inclusion, so it seems just like other non-DWU crossovers in that there's a firm line between anything that's a licensed crossover and anything that's not.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Absolutely agree in regard to wiki creep. We don't want to be covering stuff not related to the DWU but in this case, as you say, the writer and the publisher have stated that their series as a whole should not be covered and have clarified which stories are crossovers.

      At the end of the day, if we don't cover a story featuring the Doctor's daughter what can we cover? Most of Bernice Summerfield, Iris Wildthyme, Graceless, anything from Reeltime or BBV, and many others probably wouldn't even make the cut. Non-BBC stuff like K9 would certainly be in peril.

      As alluded to earlier, closing this thread because the stories don't pass rule four is a much more dangerous precedent than if they passed.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OK, I have to correct a mistake that is pervasive throughout this thread and several others.

      Validity is not determined by appearances. There are several stories that contain the Doctor and/or his companions that are nevertheless invalid. For example,

      This is just a small random sample.

      These stories are considered invalid, despite having the Doctor in them, but the wiki hasn't ground to a halt. Please do not use character appearance to argue for a story's validity. Posts doing so may be subject to deletion.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Um, okay? Surely validity is determined by appearances to some extent, though.

      An appearance is indicative of rules 2 and 4 being passed. Just to give an example, if the Hulk appeared in a story by himself the story wouldn't be valid because the story was not intended to be set in the DWU. Would you agree that if a DWU character does not appear that is indicative or even confirmation that a story fails rule 4. Similarly, if the appearance of a character isn't liscened, that is indicative of a rule 2 failiure and vice versa.

      The point I and others have made is the appearance of the Doctor's family is more indicative that these stories were intended to be set in the DWU than if they didn't and instead featured Walter the Worm. It was hardly a mistake merely common sense.

      Aside from that, what was the point of listing those stories, they're really bad examples. Was it just that there are some things that feature the Doctor aren't valid? If so, you just could have listed any one of the thousands of fanfictions on the internet. That list of "stories" includes fourth-wall breaking stories, deleted scenes, and even one thing we have deemed not worthy of the moniker "story". The only useful point I can get from it is that Tardis:Valid sources being composed of only "Validity is not determined by appearances" is a bad idea but that has never, and will never happen.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Either way, are you any closer to making a decision after the summary of the new evidence I gave?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I concur with Borisashton. You're of course right that stories can be invalid in spite of featuring licensed appearances of major DWU characters like the Doctor. However, in the absence of any separate reasons for invalidity, surely a licensed appearance of a major DWU character makes validity the default.

      That is to say, Planet of the Rain Gods was a priori valid for featuring a licensed appearance by the Eleventh Doctor; that is superseded by evidence of a Rule 4 break in the form of the fact that it's a deleted scene; but if that Rule-4-breaking wasn't precedent, it would be enough to declare it valid.

      When a story features the Doctor's daughter as a major character, the onus is on people who argue that it nevertheless doesn't take place in the DWU to substantiate their claim. In the absence of evidence that the authors of a story featuring a major DWU character didn't mean for it to take place in the DWU, it would be sheer madness to require further evidence of intent of being set in the DWU.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I'm sorry, Shambala108, but I really have to contest your point as well. I can't find any foundation in the policies for it. Four of the seven stories you mentioned were deemed invalid for very specific reasons which do not apply here, two are up for debate in this very forum right now and really shouldn't be cited until a decision is made, and Dermot and the Doctor seems to have never had an actual discussion, with two admins arguing for inclusion on its talk page, but (forgive me for a subjective interpretation) the story seeming to be so minor that no one really cared to follow through (if there was a discussion that I haven't found, please forgive me).

      I can't find anything in the policies that doesn't essentially say that any licensed appearance of an in-universe character is valid as long as it doesn't break any other of a few specific criteria.

      I will grant that an argument could be made that crossovers can be tricky to consider "in-universe," since the whole point is that they cross over with another universe, but we have to set a consistent standard, and I don't see how to include Assimilation² and not these. Honestly, I'd be okay with the policy going either way, but whatever it is has to be consistent.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • You know what, Schreibenheimer, I've been an admin here for six and a half years, and you've been here less than a year, but if you don't trust my experience, that's fine. I will address this issue more thoroughly on your talk page later, as I don't want to derail this "discussion".

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • What exactly is the problem with Schreibenheimer's post that is different from mine or User:Scrooge MacDuck's? T:WARN states "The basic idea of the system is to create [...] messages that point to specific parts of the MOS and other policy pages." Therefore as far as I can tell policy states that Schreibenheimer was perfectly within their right to want a link to the specific policy that you seemed to have quoted from. T:FAITH states that "Show them that you are assuming good faith about their intentions, whether they are new or regular editors" so I don't see a need to bring up the amount of time both of you have been a part of this community.

      Schreibenheimer never said that they don't "trust" you and I think I can speak for everybody in this discussion that we have total faith in the admin team to do the jobs that they do for free but we are all human and all sometimes make mistakes.

      Getting back on track, do you need more information to close the thread or is the summary I gave in post #18 sufficient?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I apologize if I caused any offense; it was not intended. I'm just worried about the precedent of a Rule 4 ruling in this case.

      However, going back to the old thread, I honestly wasn't 100% convinced by the Rule 2 arguments. I'm not sure how easy it would be going forward to solidly determine licensing if we allow things from authors' personal blogs, even if they have been stated to be an official part of a publishing company's releases. It definitely seems like a grey area to me, and I would have no problem with the decision going either way if it's decided by that issue. I just think we need to treat crossovers consistently.

      It was stated in the old thread that some of these may be released commercially next year, so this thread would still have relevance for if that happens. Rule 2 would not apply then, but Rule 4 still would, so I feel that's something worth looking at.

      EDIT: After having a bit of time today to think this over, I wanted to lay out my Rule 4 problems in more detail.

      In the original ruling, it stated, ". . . sometimes we have to draw the line for [stories] that are two or more times removed from the DWU." As the discussion had revolved around Rule 2, the discussion hadn't touched on how White Canvas features one of the Doctor's companions, which is as closely tied to the DWU as a non-doctor story can be, so it doesn't fit that description at all, but that was an easy thing to miss when the people talking hadn't been focusing on it.

      If licensed crossovers featuring companions are not valid, that contradicts a recent ruling on The Worlds of Big Finish, which features Bernice Summerfield as its "strongest" tie to the DWU. Even ignoring that, I'd like to raise a hypothetical: what if Captain Jack Harkness were to make a fully-licensed, non-parodical appearance in a non-DWU TV show? Would we not include that? If so, how is this different for Rule 4 purposes?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Responding to your rule 2 concerns, a couple of things to talk about. First off, these stories were not published on an author's personal blog. jameswylder.com is owned by James Wylder and Arcbeatle Press and "All content on [the] website is either the property of Arcbeatle Press, or has been used with permission by its creator excluding content in guest posts". This is absolutely not something you would expect on a blog used for personal purposes. Also for the record, the definition of "blog" is broad and does not necessarily connote a personal connection.

      As for the issue of whether we can be sure of the licensing of these stories, it's pretty clear we can. Niki Haringsma (one of the co-licensor's of White Canvas) and Nate Bumber (another co-licensor of White Canvas as well as one of two for Life After Death) have both gone on record by confirming these stories were, indeed licensed. If you couple this with the claims that both Wylder and Arcbeatle Press as a company have given, it becomes pretty clear this is a sound legal operation. I don't want to get into the legal trouble FANDOM could get into if we openly accuse a company of copyright violation.

      Another thing to note is that this discussion is necessary because Arcbeatle is a "new source" of DWU stories. However, after this initial check has been completed precedent has suggested we trust publishers of a similar size such as Obverse or Candy Jar and question examples of potential copyright infringement on a case-by-case basis.

      This thread would not create a precedent of allowing stories published on a personal blog, it would merely show that we trust Arcbeatle as a publisher to tell the truth.

      Please elaborate if you have any further concerns.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Helpfully, User:Shambala108 has now elaborated on her "Validity is not determined by appearances" comment at User talk:Schreibenheimer#Policy. It seems this stance was affected by User:CzechOut's closing comments of Thread:191574 instead of anything actually written in policy, such as Tardis:Valid sources.

      The thread in question was a debate regarding the inclusion of BBV Productions' Infidel's Comet that attempted to rectify an apparent oversight from Forum:BBV and canon policy. Let's take a look at some of the comments in that closing argument.

      CzechOut wrote: The thing is, Infidel's Comet doesn't feature any DWU elements. It has a cameo in which the Sontaran doesn't even quite identify himself fully. And that's a world of difference.

      The analogue here is No Future for You, a Buffy comic strip that has a panel depicting the Tenth Doctor and Rose. Or, if you prefer, the episode of Young Justice that depicts a/the TARDIS.

      I'm afraid to say, this example is almost incomparable with White Canvas with how different it is.

      Auteur, painted warriors, Gideon, Hole, Littlejohn, Cá Bảy Màu, Axastyakis, Mullion, Coloth and Miranda Dawkins, the Doctor's daughter are all characters from the DWU that fully feature. They are all explicitly identified and appear throughout the story, hardly in the capacity of cameos. Miranda, in her previously established role as supreme ruler of the universe, even helps negotiate the Christmas Needle Agreement which concludes the story.

      Unlike, the Buffy and Young Justice examples, this was fully licensed and we already have two people that gave permission for their characters to be used to testify for that!

      CzechOut wrote: Even the BBV website as it existed upon the original release of this thing makes no attempt whatsoever to tie it into DW at all.

      This is a stark contrast to this situation. We have a tweet from the publisher stating this story was "set in the Doctor Who universe".

      Finally, I'd like to quote a pertinent part of the closing message of the original Forum:BBV and canon policy:

      CzechOut wrote: The thing is, we've made a lot of progress in this thread. This thread has firmly established the need for some sort of legal usage of characters in a story before we'll touch it. We didn't actually have that concept before.

      This kind of undermines the point that validity is not affected by appearances as the above is pretty much what you can find today as rule 2 of our "four little rules", outlined at Tardis:Valid sources.

      I'm quite confident we had mostly agreed that these stories passed rule 4 already, but I still wanted to make this post reiterating that fact in light of the new sources.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • For the sake of completeness, it's worth noting that the Buffy comic in question would have been invalidated by a later comic which reveals it was the real David Tennant, not the fictional Tenth Doctor.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Borisashton, the arguments you provided are why I would be totally okay with inclusion, and I agree that the licensing is pretty clear here. My worry is that it may not be the case in similar situations in the future, so I would be okay with drawing the line before these stories. Yes, Arcbeatle has ownership of the website, but it being listed in the author's name rather than theirs gives me some pause as to how much oversight Arcbeatle gives it. We have evidence of licensing for the current stories, but, if he ever decides in the future to post a story that he fully-intends to be noncommercial (and thus being fanfiction, exempt from licensing), would we know? And, even if that's unlikely here with this specific setup, could another author do something like this in the future that could cite this as precedent?

      Basically, I see it as a grey area where we need to draw a line, and that line could go on either side of these stories without much of a complaint from me.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • As Boris explained, the answer to that is to make it clear that what we're doing here is setting a precedent that we trust Arcbeatle Press specifically, not that anything published on a blog goes.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Yes, the precedent this would create would be that we trust Arcbeatle not that we allow anything posted on personal blogs.

      Just to put to rest your concerns about future Arcbeatle releases, there is a precedent on the wiki to delete publications from trusted publishers if we deem them to be committing copyright infringement. See When Times Change... (short story) for an example and Talk:Legacies (short story) for a massive, massive discussion about copyright violation in that story that ultimately went nowhere. This is on a case-by-case basis, so future publications that were more obviously under the Lethbridge-Stewart brand were allowed without another discussion questioning Candy Jar's integrity.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Borisashton wrote: Auteur, painted warriors, Gideon, Hole, Littlejohn, Cá Bảy Màu, Axastyakis, Mullion, Coloth and Miranda Dawkins, the Doctor's daughter are all characters from the DWU that fully feature. They are all explicitly identified and appear throughout the story, hardly in the capacity of cameos.

      Just to go straight from the horse's mouth in regard to the characters from the crossover stories appearing as cameos or not, this page that centres on the companions of Lady Aesculapius written especially by author James Wylder to help aid in explaining the backstory of Aesc to readers upon the release of Life After Death has some interesting info. It lists Auteur and Coloth and specifies its parameters as "list[ing] characters who traveled with Aesc, and played a significant role in her adventures. (That is, she didn't simply transport that person from place to place, or cameo.)" So there, explicit confirmation from the author that they weren't cameos.

      It's pretty clear from reading the stories that they weren't cameos, but it's always nice to have access to authorial intent wherever possible.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Me again. I don't usually like posting more than two times in a row but it really is a shame nobody seems to be actively partaking in the debate anymore. Anyway, Simon Bucher-Jones (who licenced characters for White Canvas and Life After Death) confirmed on Facebook that one of his achievements for the year was episode 4 of Lady Aesculapius: Series 1 proving that his involvement with Arcbeatle Press isn't just the result of Wylder and Arcbeatle lying completely about the liscening.

      I don't know if this point is still up for debate since nobody has opposed the validity of these stories on this thread. But if it is, it's more evidence to the pile of "Arcbeatle are a real company and are not breaking the law".

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Sorry for not having contributed to this thread of late, but it's for the same reason that all anyone can bring anymore is a lot of unnecessary icing on an already plentiful cake.

      As the thread stands, I'm fairly sure there's already far more evidence than we usually require, supporting these stories' inclusion. I don't want to step on any admins' toes: it's ultimately their decision. But the New Year is a time for resolutions, if you catch my meaning, and it'd be nice to start 2020 on an inclusive note.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I believe Arcbeatle Press' legitimacy is established by now. The very fact the stories remain on the wiki as invalid proves this point.

      If Arcbeatle Press were illegitimate, these pages would have been deleted under T:NO FANFIC, per Amorkuz' earlier claim.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Indeed. There was a lot of talk about legitimacy in the previous thread, but that's not what it was closed for, and it was (and is) well-established that they did have the various commercial licenses required.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Bwburke94 wrote: If Arcbeatle Press were illegitimate, these pages would have been deleted under T:NO FANFIC, per Amorkuz' earlier claim.

      This argument is not based on any policies and directly contradicts what happened in this case. To avoid those who did not participate in the preceding two debates (one of which is not available anymore) being mislead, I will recall the facts the way they happened.

      Firstly, the presence of stories on the wiki before the validity debate about them is concluded is not a sign of legitimacy. Consider, for comparison, a small company called Tiny Rebel Games. I do not remember any doubts that it is a legitimate company. The validity debate over the stories in their latest game Infinity can be found at Thread:237184 (full disclosure: I started it). It is common knowledge that the stories are sold under a Doctor Who license from the BBC. They feature various Doctors, employ original actors for voiceover, are written and directed by well-established Doctor Who creators such as, among others, Gary Russell and Scott Handcock. The former announced that his work for the game was his final Doctor Who story. The inclusion debate has been open more than twice longer than all three Arcbeatle debates combined. In short, Infinity stories are more relevant to this wiki than Arcbeatle stories in every objective way. And yet, no one has thought of creating pages for those stories before the debate is concluded. Nobody claims the fact that the last Doctor Who story of Gary Russell does not have a page to be "a great disservice to the readers".

      If one follows Bwburke94's reasoning, then Arcbeatle Press is much more legitimate than Tiny Rebel Games because Arcbeatle story pages were created without an inclusion debate and recreated despite one.

      Let me remind the history of how these pages came to be on the wiki. First TheChampionOfTime created pages for these stories without starting an inclusion debate. All three pages had been created by him (sometimes months) before James Wylder started collecting money for a future publication at the Kickstarter in March 2019. Thus, CoT could not predict the possibility of future commercial releases. When he created the pages, they could not have been classified as anything but fan fiction. If there is any consensus around these debates, it is that CoT was wrong to create these pages without an inclusion debate.

      When the pages came to the attention of several Tardis admin, they were deleted as fan fiction because at that point, in August 2019, they only existed at a personal website of James Wylder, available for free, with no copyright notice nor any claim, let alone proof of the existence of a commercial license.

      These pages were then recreated by another admin, Revanvolatrelundar. He first started the inclusion debate, then recreated the pages without waiting for the results of the debate. Moreover, he recreated the pages as valid and added information from the stories to in-universe parts of other pages, as if the whole inclusion debate were a mere pretence. To avoid provoking an edit war between admin, the pages were not deleted after this. Meanwhile, Revanvolatrelundar, in ways quite uncharacteristic of his prior behaviour (especially if compared to his behaviour in the Infinity debate), kept pushing the inclusion debate to be closed, starting a couple of days after opening it. He was so impatient to validate these stories that he even asked a non-admin, OncomingStorm12th, to close the debate (see a later deleted post Special:Diff/2768841).

      So intemperate and unusual (for any admin) was his conduct that I, knowing from his posts that he was an author himself, had to make sure he was not acting out of hidden ulterior motives, that he had no business/professional relationship with James Wylder/Arcbeatle Press. His response was that he had nothing to do with the (then still) three stories in question and that his own stories were to be published in a Cwej-themed anthology (as opposed to a 10k crossover). Following Help:Assume good faith, I took him at his word.

      Imagine my surprise when I learned from recent edits by Borisashton that James Wylder is also an author of the said Cwej-themed anthology and, moreover, that the anthology is going to be published by Arcbeatle Press. After an independent verification of this information, I am sad to report that

      • Revanvolatrelundar chose to conceal his professional and business relationship with James Wylder/Arcbeatle Press from the Tardis wiki community,

      while engaging in forceful efforts to validate Wylder stories.

      Thus, the reason these stories exist on the wiki, in contrast, say, to the stories from Infinity, is not because Arcbeatle Press is legitimate but because Arcbeatle Press has coopted one of Tardis wiki admin to act in their interests while concealing the conflict of interests from the community.

      I strongly encourage Revanvolatrelundar to explain to the community the exact nature of his relationship to James Wylder and Arcbeatle Press, as well as the reasons why he chose to deceive the Tardis wiki community by obfuscating his business ties to Arcbeatle Press and James Wylder.

      To prevent him from hiding behind the request from FANDOM that "anyone professionally involved with Arcbeatle Press [...] refrain from joining this thread", as repeated in the OP, I would like to point out that Revanvolatrelundar has already joined this thread, albeit, once again, in a way that masked his involvement. He has given kudos to pro-validity messages, which is not visible by default but can be verified by clicking on yellow "n kudos" links.

      What we need to decide as a community is whether such deceptive practices by publishers and/or individual editors, especially admin, should be tolerated, let alone rewarded. Should admin be allowed to offer their wiki services, including protection, to publishers and hide these arrangements from the community? Should such corruption be allowed to stand?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Scrooge MacDuck wrote: it was (and is) well-established that they did have the various commercial licenses required.

      I must have missed this evidence. Could you repeat it please, specifically with regard to commercial licenses?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Amorkuz wrote: Imagine my surprise when I learned from recent edits by Borisashton that James Wylder is also an author of the said Cwej-themed anthology and, moreover, that the anthology is going to be published by Arcbeatle Press.

      Sorry, what?!? You learned from edits by me? This is an absurd claim to make.

      Since this response was clearly well-researched you would know that I have only made a single edit to the anthology page in question. In fact, it was part of a series of edits I made literal minutes after midnight on New Year's Day to link 2020 (releases) to the appropriate places, namely spoilery anthologies, so to even have assumed that I had absorbed all the information when all I was doing is CTRL+Fing for the figure "2020" is bold. See here, here and here for examples. If I recall, I also did the same for New Year's Day in 2019. Did you somehow discover the anthology was from Arcbeatle Press when you learned it was 2020 in at least one time zone?

      I didn't think much of it of the time, if that answers your question. I am confused why you didn't mention OncomingStorm12th (who created the page) and admin SOTO who edited the page mutiple times.

      You attributed all this to me apparently in an attempt to discredit me, or at the very least in violation of Help:Assume good faith which you ironically cite in this post. You accuse Revanvolatrelundar of "deceptive practices" and ask the community to decide whether corruption of this nature should be allowed to stand. I would like to raise the same question to the community regarding yourself in light of these clear untruths you have spread.

      I will respond your points in the morning if I have time but did not feel comfortable with this portrayal of my person lasting a second longer than neccesary.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • This could use some deescalation. Regardless of anyone's motivations or past actions, I'm pretty sure this thread should be decided on the facts alone. While Amorkuz may be right that we need to decide whether Revanvolatrelundar's conduct is acceptable, that seems to me to be more of a matter of user discipline and should not prejudice this thread, inappropriate as it may be for them to still be submitting kudos in it. As this thread's Rule 2 precedent could become significant in our increasingly digital age, it is important for it to be decided based on our policies alone and not on the poor decisions of potentially bad actors.

      I think Amorkuz raises a good point that rights-holders allowing Arcbeatle to host a story on their website does not necessarily equal having commercial rights, which tend to be the standard this wiki goes by. It was stated above that some of the creators have "gone on the record" as saying these are licensed, but would it be possible to provide links to where that happened? I feel like exact words may be pretty pivotal here.

      I still maintain, though, that I have serious objections to the previous Rule 4 ruling and think it sets bad precedent.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I haven't really addressed this yet in this thread, but on this wiki, it is up to the admins to decide matters of forum consensus, forum closure, personal attacks, vandalism, and the like. I also feel it's necessary to suggest everyone become familiar with Tardis:Discussion policy.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Not for the first time, the first to react to a question regarding commercial interests of Arcbeatle Press was NateBumber, even though a question was to Revanvolatrelundar. I copy the response of NateBumber for the whole community:

      Hey Amorkuz, I know that you'd prefer that we forever forgo any semblance of friendly conversation, but I think I could provide some helpful context about the timeline of the Cwej anthology. Namely, as you can see in the initial tentative announcement, the anthology didn't originally have any connection with Arcbeatle; instead, it was expected that Andy Lane would be releasing it in his own publishing house. If you scroll down, you'll see also that the Arcbeatle connection wasn't announced until December 20th. As someone who was pitching a story to the anthology throughout the initial debate, I wasn't even informed by the Cwej editor about Arcbeatle's potential involvement until after the deletion of the first thread, and I would be somewhat surprised if Revan's experience was any different! Since you expressed your frustration that you could no longer see a way to maintain good faith in Revan, I just figured you'd be interested in this information, as it provides an easily-accessible explanation that doesn't involve accusing Revan of deliberately concealing his involvement.

      PS: It was my understanding that T:FORUM indicates that kudos don't count as contributions to any conversation, since they are not counted by admins for the counting of opinions. But just in case, I've gone through and carefully expunged my kudos from Thread:260549.NateBumber's response to the questions to Revanvolatrelundar [src]

      Several points in this message are worth noting:

      • It is not clear why NateBumber thinks he is sufficiently aware of business arrangements between James Wylder and Revanvolatrelundar to respond on the latter's behalf.
      • It is not clear why NateBumber treats the description from T:FORUM of "a statement of being for" as non-participation. T:FORUM does call it unhelpful. In this particular case, NateBumber's kudos were also against the explicit requests of FANDOM. But expressing one's support for validity is very far from not participating in a validity debate.
      • NateBumber misrepresents T:FORUM. There it is stated that "your [kudos] will likely be discounted in the final closure of the thread", which is not the same as "are not counted by admins" as stated by NateBumber. All T:FORUM does is gives an admin an option not to take kudos into account. The closing admin may equally well take them into account, especially if kudos look overwhelmingly in favour of validity, an effect that is easy to achieve if all collaborators "non-participate" by giving kudos to every pro-validity post.
      • It is not clear why NateBumber thinks that removing his kudos well after Thread:260549 was closed changes anything. However, I appreciate him being public and clear about what he did and why.
      • NateBumber's link to Gallifrey Base is not "easily accessible" because the link does not work without a login. Accordingly, I did not verify whether the details provided by NateBumber match the link.

      More importantly, NateBumber fails to mention two important chapters in the fate of this anthology.

      1. In May 2019, Hunter O'Connell (aka "Cwej editor") unsuccessfully tried to crowdfund this anthology [1]. The crowdfunding page never once mentions Andy Lane or his publishing outfit Slow Decay Books. Neither Lane's Facebook/Twitter nor the website of Slow Decay Books ever mention the anthology either.
      2. In May 2019, the back-cover-artist of the anthology called it a "charity book" here. As a reminder, charity books are explicitly prohibited by our validity rules.

      Whatever the source of information supposedly provided at Gallifrey Base and whatever NateBumber meant by "it was expected" above (expected by whom? expected based on which evidence?), that information does not seem to be independently verifiable, unlike the unsuccessful attempt by the Cwej editor to crowdfund a "charity book".

      NateBumber's post creates more questions than answers:

      • Were Andy Lane planning to publish the book, why would Hunter O'Connell collect money for it without mentioning Andy Lane as the publisher?
      • Was Andy Lane planning to publish a charity book of his own character with zero publicity?
      • How and when did this charity book become an allegedly fully commercially licensed regular book?
      • Just like with all other future projects of Arcbeatle Press, what is the evidence that commercial license was granted by all copyright holders?

      Finally, given the provided evidence of the project considered a "charity book" by one of its participants and the lack of evidence of commercial license from all the rights holders, was it not premature to create the page for this anthology?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Just to clarify so we can discuss this more effectively, is this thread now exempt to Tardis:Spoiler policy given your in depth discussion of Cwej: Down the Middle in that last response?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • No.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • So Amorkuz's last post should be removed then as T:SPOIL prohibits "any information" from future releases being shared on the forums?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • First and foremost, User:Shambala108, I second User:Borisashton's queries.

      Concerning the kudos thing… I see User:Amorkuz's point about a seemingly-large number of kudos being liable to give off a false sense of consensus, and to be honest, ultimately, I'm not sure kudos in general are a good thing to have in a serious forum at all.

      But equally, I still don't think they constitute "expressing one's support for validity", even so. If this were a classic-style public, spoken debate (rather than a written forum thread), I would argue that leaving kudos on this or that post would be akin to the audience in the stand cheering or clapping at this or that statement from one of the speakers. It's not necessarily expressing an opinion on the issue itself, but, instead, equivalent to "well said!", "well-put!".

      In such a classical debate, it would, of course, be the prerogative of the master-of-ceremony or whoever to bang with their gavel and call for the audience to stop cheering, if it's getting distracting. So by all means ask for kudos not to be added.

      But I don't think it was at all obvious that posting kudos fell within the realm of what User:Revanvolatrelundar was being asked not to do. And we are getting into quite esoteric territory as policy-interpretations go — NateBumber may not be an administrator, but Revanvolatrelundar is; begging your pardon, but assuming (as one well might) that Revan shares NateBumber's interpretation of the Wiki's policy on kudos, why should one admin's interpretation (yours) trump another's?

      At any rate, this feels like a good time to remind everyone (and myself) that future releases by Arcbeatle of which no more shall hopefully be spoken here, or any alleged misinterpretations of the Wiki's policy about kudos, aren't actually the subject of this debate. The subject of this debate is the validity of the already-released Rachel Survived, White Canvas, The Gendar Conspiracy and Life After Death.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Here is the response of Revanvolatrelundar for the whole community to read:

      Thanks Nate for fighting my corner. I'd like to post this message as a full disclosure on the subject. I have always tried to remain as transparent as possible when it comes to my status on the wiki, and I think further clarification over accusations made about my behaviour is necessary. The Cwej anthology started out as a publication of Andy Lane's imprint Slow Decay Books. At the time of the Dawns thread opening, as far as my knowledge went, this was still the case, so I took part in the debate without any kind of agenda. However, towards the end of the original debate, I did learn of the Cwej anthology's move to Arcbeatle, and when Fandom asked that anyone involved with Arcbeatle not participate in future threads, I followed their wishes. You'll notice from my edit history that I've made no contributions to the further two Dawns threads, as that would cause the conflict of interest from which you imply. At the time I could not divulge the reason for my silence on those threads, but with the announcement from Arcbeatle about the anthology I'm able to clarify things.

      I have to say, I am disappointed this issue was first brought up on a public thread. By assuming good faith I would have expected the first questions about my involvement with Arcbeatle to come from my talk page. In future I'd like that to be where the discussion (if you feel there needs to be any) to continue, as I refuse to partake in the thread because of my interests with Arcbeatle.

      ThanksResponse of Revanvolatrelundar [src]

      Revan kudo 1
      Revan kudo 2

      I would like to emphasise the following passage, "I refuse to partake in the thread because of my interests with Arcbeatle." What Revanvolatrelundar concealed in his response is that he silently went and deleted the traces of his participation in this thread, deleted his kudos. His actions make it appear that I was lying earlier stating that he had participated in this thread and present him as fully in compliance with FANDOM explicit instructions. Thus, to demonstrate this further deception on Revanvolatrelundar's behalf, you can find the screenshots of his now deleted kudos to the right. He did participate in this thread and then tried to cover up his participation.

      I will respond to the contents of his message later.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Can we stay on topic please? Discussion of another user's actions and repeated violations of T:SPOIL are not helpful.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • @User:Amorkuz: Please see my post above. You may disagree with your fellow administrator on whether posting kudos on a thread constitutes participating in this thread. But since, as I argued fairly thoroughly, thinking kudos don't count as "participating" is a perfectly understandable position to hold, could you maybe lay off terms like "deceit" when talking about said fellow admin, when it's likely all a matter of intellectual disagreement/misunderstanding?

      Please also see User:Shambala108's extremly clear statement that this thread is not exempt from T:SPOIL.

      As for User:Revanvolatrelundar then deleting the offending kudos, I think it's fairly clear, given their statements, that this is not an attempt to make a liar out of you, but simply to comply with FANDOM's wishes — as well as your apparent ones: if the potential influence of the kudos on this thread would be to give undue feelings of there being a consensus to the eventual closing administrator, surely removing the kudos before that admin reads through the thread solves that problem?

      (Note that Revan says "thanks to Nate for fighting my corner", thus endorsing everything NateBumber said in his reply to the question originally asked to Revan himself.)

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Dear User:Amorkuz, while we’re talking about the need for transparency among the wiki’s admins and editors, would you mind disclosing for us the identities of all of the “three admins” involved in the original decision to exclude the 10,000 Dawns crossovers⁠—you know, for the records?

      Given that Shambala108's closing statement on Thread:258247 was explicitly phrased in terms of "I have to agree with the original three admins [. . .]," I daresay that this is a relevant point to clarify for the present discussion.

      Thank you very much for your good faith and cooperation.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Shambala108 wrote: I haven't really addressed this yet in this thread, but on this wiki, it is up to the admins to decide matters of forum consensus, forum closure, personal attacks, vandalism, and the like. I also feel it's necessary to suggest everyone become familiar with Tardis:Discussion policy.

      I posted the above for new users, but now I'd like to specifically address User:Borisashton and User:Scrooge MacDuck: leave the admin matters up to the admins. Any future comments that do not directly relate to answering User:Amorkuz' concerns or addressing the matter under discussion will be deleted. Let's keep this post on track.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Quick admin note: Can we stick to the matter at hand please, on its own merits, and remember our long-standing maxim: "Argue the point, not the person." Thank you.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • A lot has been made from the fact that NateBumber confirmed licensing his character(s). Although, in principle, validity rules require commercial licenses from all copyright holders, the argument above, as I understand it: if NateBumber (and Niki Haringsma) licensed it, then all the rest must have also given a commercial license. I never understood this extension from two to all. But it is useful to look at how NateBumber approaches permissions to use FP characters when not arguing validity here on the wiki. The following is an excerpt from his tumbler feed, only slightly predating the first debate:

      Anonymous asked: Do you think it's okay for people to include FP in things like fanfic even if they're very new to FP and don't know very much yet?

      [NateBumber:] Absolutely! No gatekeeping here, and if you ever have any questions, always feel free to hit me up :)NateBumber on FP policies regarding permissions [[src]]

      I do not know whether NateBumber has the authority to respond on behalf of Obverse Books, as well as of all the other FP authors, including Lawrence Miles, who created the FP.
      • If not, then we need to find confirmations of commercial license from all other licensors, as NateBumber does not speak for them.
      • If yes, then all the stories discussed in this thread neatly fall into "like fanfic" category, at least until they are published commercially.

      If, as NateBumber states, FP authors and characters truly do not care who posts FP stories online, then having an FP character in a story published online is really not in any way significant. Any anonymous Internet user has NateBumber's permission to do that, and it would be a mistake to validate stories based on FP characters used (unless proof of a commercial license is provided).

      I would also like to contrast NateBumber's response to this anonymous user online ("no gatekeeping") to his stance in the original, now deleted first debate. There he claimed that nobody wanted a free for all and that FP characters would not be given to just everyone. These two contemporaneous positions do not seem to be compatible, which brings us back to the question of credibility.

      One could point out that Obverse confirmed their involvement in a Facebook post. However, it has been established in Thread:259152 that even hosting stories on their own website does not automatically mean granting a commercial license and that an additional proof of the latter is needed.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Oh for heaven's sake. You appear to be overlooking the second part of the fan's question:

      Do you think it's okay for people to include FP in things like fanfic even if they're very new to FP and don't know very much yet?Anonymous
      The fan isn't asking for legal permission to use a character in anything. They're starting with the premise that the people with the licenses won't mind that people write DW fanfic, and from that point on, the question is whether it's offensive to authors to use FP ideas without being that familiar to them.

      Whether people can use FP characters in fanfics in general isn't the meat of the question; it is seemingly taken for granted by both sides that fans can and will put FP characters in fanfic. No question of "permission" for fanfic is even involved.

      And this is where the alleged contradiction naturally resolves itself. That "free-for-fall" which Nate Bumber said he didn't want, it would be one where commercial licenses were granted to everyone and their mother; this is distinct from acknowledging that fanfic exists and being generally supportive of it.

      Anyway, although Bumber cannot participate in this specific thread by FANDOM request, it would be trivial to ask him to clarify this point again in another Tumblr post (for your convenience and that of anyone to whom the wording of the original Tumblr post is unclear and by the way it's called a Tumblr blog, not a "tumbler feed").

      As for the concerns below,…

      Amorkuz wrote: A lot has been made from the fact that NateBumber confirmed licensing his character(s). Although, in principle, validity rules require commercial licenses from all copyright holders, the argument above, as I understand it: if NateBumber (and Niki Haringsma) licensed it, then all the rest must have also given a commercial license. I never understood this extension from two to all.

      …this "extension from two to all" which you say is beyond your understanding. Well, let me elaborate what I think everyone who made or restated this argument has been thinking: if Arcbeatle Press were copyright-fraudsters, why on Earth would they bother to acquire commercial licenses for some rightsholders but not other? If they were going to break the law anyway, why would they bother to selectively get a couple of copyrights cleared but not others?

      Or to put it another way, if we have compelling evidence that Arcbeatle Press isn't lying when they say that "DWU Thing X" is licensed, then for what reason should we doubt their words when they say "DWU Thing Y" is licensed too?

      Oh, and once again, I'd like to remind you that licensing issues were already explored in the previous thread about these stories, and that the thread was closed by User:Shambala108 on Rule 4 concerns, leading to the stories being covered-as-invalid on the Wiki in the interim between that closure and the opening of the present debate. Aside from that Nate Bumber quote which I insist you're quite missing the point of, what new evidence do you have to reopen an area of discussion which was already talked over in the original debate, only for the closing admin not to deem it one of the concerns that would invalidate the story?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • My next question is to the OP. Among a series of his edits that drew my attention to the anthology was this Special:Diff/2826049. There he created a red link for a book called An Eloquence of Time and Space written by James Wylder, self-published [1] and described as "The Unauthorized, Unofficial, poetic guide". However, Arcbeatle Press lists this book on its website and Borisashton clearly believes the book should be present here on the wiki.

      My question is regarding the picture of the TARDIS on the cover. The TARDIS is well-known to be copyrighted and trademarked by BBC. It is one of the best recognisable symbols of the show and is very useful to have on the cover for marketing a book about Doctor Who. However, the book bears the inscription "This book is not authorised by the BBC or any of its affiliates."

      Hence, my question: why was it legal for James Wylder to use somebody else's trademark on the cover of his commercially sold book without permission? Since Borisashton thinks the book belongs on the wiki, he clearly understands this. Which part of the copyright law allows this?

      The book does state "All illustrations are limited in scope and serve to enhance the text, and do not represent an accurate depiction of any elements from the shows they are depicting, aside from the image of K-9, which is licensed from Welkin Productions." But it is the whole TARDIS and having a TARDIS on the cover of a book about Doctor Who shows a clear intention of using a copyrighted and trademarked image.

      K-9 is on the back cover. So could the OP please explain why it was necessary to license the image of K-9 on the back cover but not necessary to license the image of the TARDIS on the front cover?

      One might ask, what is the relevance of this to the validity debate. By now two users, the OP and Scrooge MacDuck suggested that this debate should simply trust Arcbeatle Press's statements:

      The precedent this would create would be that we trust Arcbeatle not that we allow anything posted on personal blogs.Borisashton
      what we're doing here is setting a precedent that we trust Arcbeatle Press specifically, not that anything published on a blog goes.Scrooge MacDuck
      Thus, the argument hinges on Arcbeatle Press's understanding of copyright law. Part of trusting them is our confidence that they know the copyright law and always abide by it. Hence, I would appreciate if the OP could contribute to this confidence.
        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • A quick response to Scrooge MacDuck's hypothetical in the immediately preceding post:

      why on Earth would [Arcbeatle Press] bother to acquire commercial licenses for some rightsholders but not other?Scrooge MacDuck
      I do not know why but that is exactly what they did with images on the covers of An Eloquence of Time and Space. They obtained a permission for K-9 for the back cover but did not obtain a permission (according to the book itself) for the TARDIS on the front cover. Thus, the strategy of obtaining licensing from some rights holders but not others is not a hypothetical anymore. Arcbeatle Press has employed this strategy in the past. I am sure the OP would soon explain how exactly it squares with the copyright law, after which we would be able to project his explanation to the stories at hand.
        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • An Eloquence of Time and Space is a reference book; more specifically, an episode guide. As such, like any academic work, it has some license to use images and imagery from what it is discussing, under fair use.

      Also, not to be cheeky, but technically speaking, in terms of copyright, in what way precisely is the image of the TARDIS copyrighted? It is, after all, an image of a police box. That may well be why specific authorisation for the very unique image of K9 was sought, but not for that of the 1960's British police box. I don't know! (EDIT: I was right to be unsure; apparently for some arcane reason the BBC does control the trademark on the police box image at present? But bear in mind my next sentence.) Though again, I don't think that we can reliably "project [this] explanation to the stories at hand", because copyright for academic work and copyright for new fiction are obviously two very different things.

      Consequently, I posit that the situation isabout equivalent to, say, About Time 9. It too is a reference book. It too features an image on the cover of something which, in context, is clearly a Doctor Who element (the vespiform from The Unicorn and the Wasp), but is visually identical to something from the real world, anyway — and thus of debatable visual copyright.

      I don't think as well-established a publisher of licensed DWU fiction as Mad Norwegian Press would be indicted by this picture of a giant-wasp-implied-to-be-a-vespiform on the cover of a reference book. So why should the picture of a hovering-police-box-implied-to-be-the-TARDIS on a reference book indict Arcbeatle Press?

      …Also, what is this focus on the OP being the one to give explanations? The OP was the one to raise concerns about a question, yes, but this isn't his fight or anyone else's in particular. It's a bunch of editors trying to get at the truth, not a personal trial. If anyone has evidence either way regarding Arcbeatle licensing, surely they should bring it up, rather than the burden lying solely with the OP.

      Also also, I am, again, no legal expert but how does accusing a company (or indeed an individual) of using a copyrighted image without permission on the cover of an unquestionably commercial release (the TARDIS) not constitute libel? I'm not saying that you're intentionally trying to do something slanderous/unlawful here, to be clear. Not at all. But my advice is t be careful what you say about real life entities and individuals. Talk on the Internet can have consequences, not just for an individual editor but for FANDOM at large, and I'd rather Tardis and everyone within it remained very careful on this point and others like it. It is my understanding that T:NPA isn't just for other users on the Wiki, but also for people associated with behind-the-scenes Who.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • AthenodoraKitten wrote: would you mind disclosing for us the identities of all of the “three admins” involved in the original decision to exclude the 10,000 Dawns crossovers⁠—you know, for the records?

      I agree with you. It has been a great disservice to the wiki that the other two admin failed to take the responsibility for their decision. Now that SOTO decided to join this debate, I asked them to finally do that. They kept the community in the dark for 4 months despite everyone's pleas (including my private pleas). They seem to believe that although they did agree to delete the stories originally and even poked light-hearted fun at the reaction of several editors who objected to the deletion, they bear no responsibility for their decision. They continue arguing for various outcomes privately, instead of arguing their position here publicly.

      I, on the other hand, believe that they owe an explanation to the community on why they went along with the original decision (which they apparently regret), why they kept silent for so long, and why now, all of a sudden, they decided that they are completely impartial, even threatening me to close this debate in favour of validity. Shouldn't they explain their reasoning to the community and let a truly impartial admin make the decision?

      Incidentally, in our discussions, An Eloquence of Time and Space was discussed. SOTO's position then was that it has no place here on the wiki. Clearly, the OP disagrees, and I explained above why it is important to clarify that point. Thus, I would be interested if this is another decision/statement that SOTO does not stand by.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I would ask again that discussion remain confined to the topic of this thread, and that all users pay special mind to T:ATTACKS, as well as T:POINT, and refrain from

      1. attacking users rather than the points being made
      2. publishing potential slander about real-life persons or businesses

      Those policies are quite simply understood.

      (Since I am now being spoken about as well, though, I will state for the record that in the original discussion which led to the initial deletion of these pages, held in private amongst multiple admin, I refrained from taking a position, and continually re-affirmed my neutrality, because while it was taking place I did not have the time to devote to looking into this matter. When a proposal was brought forward, I stated that I would not get in the way of whatever is decided, so long as it was consistent with precedents and policy. I do not appreciate being misrepresented, and I approached Amorkuz in private immediately after he made the claim about "three admins" actively taking part in the decision to express that I did not appreciate this false claim. I have kept away from all three discussions thus far, and my quick admin note above does not constitute participation.
      What is referred to above as me "arguing for various outcomes privately" was in fact me approaching Amorkuz, ahead of any public post as a matter of respect, with some of the results of the extensive research I have undertaken in the last few days to work out the best resolution of this thread, according to precedents and policy. I do not understand the implication being made about my not being impartial, as I am affiliated with no one, have nothing to lose or gain here, and have refrained from all participation since this topic first entered the forums.)

      Now, since it seems I have to say it again, will all contributors to this thread please keep discussion here to matters of policy, evidence and past decisions, and keep discussion of matters related to individual users confined to user talk pages, in keeping with T:POINT and T:ATTACKS, going forward.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • (EDIT: I began typing this before SOTO posted the reply directly above this one.)

      I will leave User:SOTO to answer on the charges you lay upon them (i.e. whether they indeed supported the original deletions, their supposed involvement in this thread or lack thereof, the arguable lateness of said involvement), though let's all bear in mind what SOTO themself reminded us of upthread, in their capacity as an administrator of the Tardis Data Core Wiki:

      Quick admin note: Can we stick to the matter at hand please, on its own merits, and remember our long-standing maxim: "Argue the point, not the person." Thank you.{{{2}}}
      But that aside, I can't help but notice, User:Amorkuz, that you have only half-answered the query which you said you supported the answering of. Those original three admins. Who were they? You were one of them, and you say SOTO was another. But that leaves one. Who was "the third man"?
        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • but how does accusing a company (or indeed an individual) of using a copyrighted image without permission on the cover of an unquestionably commercial release (the TARDIS) not constitute libel?Scrooge MacDuck
      This is a direct misrepresentation of my words. I clearly stated that I would like OP (or indeed anyone else) to explain how it fit with the copyright. I did not state that it does not. I do not understand how it does and asked for a clarification. Asking for clarification is not an accusation.

      As for your explanation, firstly, I do not believe vespiforms are trademarked. In fact, I first thought that this is an image of a Zarbi, which indeed proves that this is an image of a generic insect. Neither are vespiforms characteristic of Doctor Who Insects. A police box, on the other hand, is as you admit trademarked by the BBC and is immediately associated with the show.

      Forgive me for saying this, but I find the idea that this unauthorised poem book is an academic publication laughable. I do academic publications for a living. Academic publications involve research. Reader's Digest is not research, even when rhymed. But if you are in doubt that this is a commercial project rather than a scholarly endeavour, suffice it to say that James Wylder also released a deluxe version of this book (ISBN-10: 1-5001-9718-1; ISBN-13: 978-1-5001-9718-6). The Deluxe edition has a recommended price of $40 instead of $25 and was released at the same time. Academic projects do not have deluxe editions, unlike commercial ones.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • We are not using the same sense of "academic". I was using "academic" in the sense of "being about a piece of media, spoken about from a RL point of view, as opposed to being an in-universe continuation of its fiction". Not in the narrow sense of "scholarly work done within the sphere of accepted academia". It is academic in the sense that About Time is academic.

      At any rate, I apologise for apparently misunderstanding your questions, but they did seem to be to be leading questions. If you trust that what Arcbeatle Press did does fit with copyright, and are only confused as to the how, how does your personal confusion about how copyright works constitute evidence that we shouldn't trust Arcbeatle in matters of copyright?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I will let the community decide who misrepresents SOTO's vote to delete the stories. Here are their exact words:

      As long as we're being fully consistent, I vote delete. Sets a good precedent to shut down future dodgy cases, as well.SOTO on August 20, 2019.
        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • the results of the extensive research I have undertaken in the last few days to work out the best resolution of this thread, according to precedents and policySOTO
      I am sure the whole community would highly appreciate to learn about these results. Personally I am ready to argue about your finding, but here publicly rather than in private. As we've seen, our private conversations do not lead to any consistent results.

      Since you yourself now think that you were wrong during the initial decision, it stands to reason that you might be wrong in (some parts) of your researched material. Thus, it would make sense to present it to the community before doing anything rash.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • (I have provided further quotes over at Amorkuz's user talk page, three from the same day and another from 7 days later when it became clear there was a need for clarification. I hope this clears up any confusion around the apparent inconsistency expressed upthread.)

      As for An Eloquence of Space and Time, that book is not the topic of this thread, so I will remind everyone once again to stick to the four stories under discussion here. (That said, I do not foresee us covering that book, if indeed it contains any works of fiction within it, as there seem to have been no licenses involved in its publication. But for those wishing to contest this point, that would be the subject of a different thread.)

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Meanwhile, here is a quote from the copyright law regarding academic fair use:

      107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

      Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

      (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

      (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

      (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

      (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

      The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

      The nonprofit clause is clearly failing in this case. Thus, I do not believe that the "academic work" explanation works. Even if this were a textbook on, say, calculus, it is rather obvious that a publishing house cannot arbitrarily slap, say a Millennium Falcon on the cover to sell it better, even though the book is intended for teaching students. The situation with lecture notes distributed to students for free is a bit murkier, but I would still not put any copyrighted/trademarked image on something that bears my name and can be further copied and distributed by students.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Shambala108
      Shambala108 removed this reply because:
      please leave admin jobs up to the admins
      01:11, January 12, 2020
      This reply has been removed
    • I was going to give more time to those participating in this thread, but some of the most recent contributions have veered discussion still further off-course. Multiple violations of T:FORUM and T:SPOIL demand, as I believe we've done before, that this thread be closed — temporarily without resolution — in order to halt and prevent more such policy breaches.

      More to come.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Part 1: Foreword

      First off, I'd like to thank everyone who has put their time and energy into these discussions, helpfully exploring the context and content of these four stories. It is always important, when the community is of two minds, that we clarify the boundaries laid out by policy, making sure that new decisions fall in line with past deliberations, and always with an eye for future applicability, for the precedent we're ultimately laying down.

      It's here that policies like Tardis:Valid sources are really brought into practice, and all perspectives are immensely valuable in the work of shaping out each case as they come. After all, it's often been necessary for us to condense years of local precedents, having mixed in all sorts of outside evidence, before a truly consistent approach can be found.

      And more often than not, the push and pull brought out by the community during these debates make way for the solution to rise up, out of a growing understanding, out of the points made and the level of specificity so often sought after. However, when disagreements turn away from points and counter-points, and into the realm of ad hominem attacks, they are never allowed to continue down this trajectory. When it comes to attacks on other users, we take a no-tolerance approach.

      Part 2: Forum policies

      It cannot be stressed enough how seriously this wiki takes our forum policy. It's what makes all this possible. I will quote briefly from that policy, but really, it's all there, in quite a bit more depth.

      Just remember: personal attacks won't be tolerated, and information about any un-released story in any medium is not allowed. Also, you should make every effort to stay on topic in any given thread.

      I did say briefly. That's it.

      Even though it started strong, this thread ultimately had to be closed after participants wound up violating policy along all three of the above offences. Most importantly, personal attacks directed at other users are not permitted anywhere on the wiki, including the forums. More specifically, the substance of arguments made in the forums should always be based on the facts of the case, on each other's arguments (note: this is not equal to "on each other"), or in matters of precedent and policy.

      Never should we see ad hominem attacks cropping up instead, focused on attacking the character of other users, rather than the substance of their arguments. Disagreements are expected, to be sure, but any efforts to discount the contributions of other participants (and, strangely, non-participants) through the means of personal attacks are clear violations of policy. Potential slander being made about real world persons or businesses are also not to be taken lightly. But perhaps most prominently: given the need to stay on topic, the public forum is really not the place to be airing out issues of a personal manner.

      Such behaviour between users is never tolerated. And some cases require a little more than getting rid of a post or two to get things back on track. So as T:FORUM outlines, you should expect in such cases that an admin will come along and enforce this. "When your post may be deleted or moved" covers this in greater detail. Leading us, at last, to...

      Part 3: Going forward

      Given the circumstances requiring this thread's sudden closure, I think we'd all still like to give a fair shake to the matter of whether these four stories ought to join others of their kind on the list of valid sources. I would like to give everyone a chance to participate, in accordance with T:FORUM this time around. As a result, any user is permitted and invited to start a new discussion in a few weeks' time, without any need for new evidence.

      This will be to clear the air with final arguments, and it will have a tentative close date of 3 weeks from the time of the first post. Any messages violating T:ATTACKS or T:SPOIL will be promptly deleted. If they do occur, do not respond to them. This will be the last chance for those wishing to prove that one of the four rules for validity has not been cleared.

      Additionally, until such a time as evidence presents itself to suggest we should not be covering these stories, the pages will remain on the wiki. To quote again from policy, this time Tardis:Valid sources:

      "Except in the most obvious of cases, community discussion is required to declare a story invalid. In these discussions, sufficient evidence must be provided that the story either doesn't have permission from all relevant copyright holders, or that there are solid non-narrative reasons to believe the story does not occur in the DWU."Tardis:Valid sources


      Part 4: Where are we now?

      As of the time of this thread's closure, I do not see that sufficient evidence has been provided to show that these stories are any different to comparable releases from Candy Jar Books or BBV Productions, which are founded on licensing agreements with individual authors (or their estates). These have a long (and storied) history of being covered. And naturally, we have precedents for short stories released exclusively for the web (see: WEB short stories), including those released in blog format (see: Christmas Special), for stories released for free that make use of known licenses (see: Free Comic Book Day and The Paul Spragg Memorial Short Trip Opportunity) and finally for crossovers (see: Stories that crossover with non-DWU series).

      Tardis:Valid sources tells us that we need sufficient evidence that one of the four little rules has in fact been broken, if community discussion is to declare these invalid. But all here seems to be in order.

      In point of fact:

      "Stories licensed by an individual author are generally allowed here."Tardis:Valid sources

      The first collection containing these stories has a copyright note on, well, the copyright page, which lists exactly whose rights have been acquired, and the introduction to this same release explicitly states these are "commercially licensed" stories.

      We even get this more extensive account:

      "Every story required not only that I get the rights and approval to use every story element I borrowed, but that the creators of them get the opportunity to make sure they lined up with their own vision. The fun thing about that was that every little thing I ended up having to change made the stories better: creators, of course, know their characters well!"James Wylder [src]


      Part 5: What does all this mean?

      So, a little history. In the 2011-12 original discussion on BBV, Forum:BBV and canon policy, CzechOut establishes that (1) a quote from DWM in which the makers of P.R.O.B.E. (and not the rights holders) discuss at length how they went about acquiring a license from the BBC, along with (2) the "acknowledgement at the end" itself that the two parties had agreed on, provides a "pretty comprehensive statement of the legal picture". In this discussion, each BBV production was dealt with on a case-by-case basis. This one was one of the more clear-cut examples, for reasons which map out exceedingly well to the evidence that's also been established here.

      Conversely, for The Killing Stone, CzechOut opts instead for us to wait for "incontrovertible proof that it had the BBC's blessing", because the story made use of "[Sarah Jane Smith], the Fourth Doctor, the Brig, Benton, the Master and Yates": a tall order for small-business rights acquisition which he finds "just seems so unlikely". So a statement and an acknowledgement have always been sufficient grounds to determine the legal situation for a story, except in those most obvious of cases (like where a small outfit like BBV, which usually acquires rights for DWU stories from individual authors, seems to be using BBC-owned elements without any clear record of actual rights acquisition). Or in other words, as also quoted above, "This thread has firmly established the need for some sort of legal usage of characters in a story before we'll touch it. We didn't actually have that concept before."

      The same idea came up again in a more recent case, where The Lego Batman Movie was correctly denied a page, after much discussion, because no indication was given in the movie's extensive credits that permission had ever been obtained from the Terry Nation estate for their use of Daleks. As outlined in that closing post, again by CzechOut, the film had to be excluded (that is, not even given a page) because there were no behind-the-scenes statements, and there were no credits given at the end of the film to indicate these rights had been acquired. So we decided not to touch it.

      Here, however, we are in no shortage of such evidence for rule 2 — with credits attached to the stories, and statements from the publisher, and statements from some of the authors that they have in fact been involved — and, honestly, I'm not sure that rule 4 has ever been clearer.

      Multiple quotes have been drawn up from the publisher indicating, quite clearly, that the intent is for these stories to cross over with the Doctor Who universe. The most salient piece of information, which formed the basis of this thread — a quote from Wylder which plainly reads, "You can read all three of the 10,000 Dawns stories set in the Doctor Who Universe (for free) here" — was, of course, absent from the last discussion. Another reads, "Getting to play around in the edges of the Whoniverse has been an honor". No matter how you slice it, the intent (which forms the basis of rule 4) has been directly stated.

      Where does all this leave us? Early on, this thread established that the quote from Wylder which had been central to the last closing statement, regarding "a whole new universe" and "a new science fiction universe", were in fact referring to the 10,000 Dawns universe, with which these short stories are intended to cross over. To be clear, we will not be covering the 10,000 Dawns universe.

      Instead, we take the same approach as with Assimilation², indeed the same approach as with Death's Head, and the same approach as with Decalog 5: Wonders. That is, we only look at covering those stories which are intended to be set in the Doctor Who universe. All others do not so much as get pages.

      The final part

      So, you may be asking, is this unusual? Slightly. As established at Thread:208233, as elsewhere, the universal admin approach here is usually to conduct research — independently, generally as an admin who has not yet participated in discussion — and then to both present these findings and come to a final decision within the same closing post.

      But it seems to me this is an unusual situation: twice has a thread on this topic had to be shut down for improper forum use. So in case this discussion, cut short, might have led back to good-faith, productive dialogue, I'd like to make sure that everyone is given the opportunity to participate within the confines of policy, so that all voices can be heard.

      Once again, in order to prove that these stories should be treated as invalid, sufficient evidence needs to be provided that one of our four little rules has not been passed.

      Some other points have also been brought up which do not belong here, but which absolutely can be explored in their own forum threads. First off, the reference book brought into question does not fall within the topic of this inclusion debate. Any suggestion to cover this would require its own discussion. As well, any new rules being proposed that would affect all stories that are released for free, which would necessarily affect Big Finish and Titan output that up to this point have not been questioned, would also need to be the subject of its own Panopticon debate.

      I will end with a quick reminder that, in the final thread, this is the golden rule which must be followed:

      Argue the point, not the person.Tardis:No personal attacks


      I wish you all happy editing, and that we should encounter only good spirits in the course of our discussions in the days and weeks to come.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.