Forum:A Fix with Sontarans: Fixing Fix's Validity: Difference between revisions

Forum:A Fix with Sontarans: Fixing Fix's Validity (edit)

Revision as of 20:38, 16 July 2023

2,554 bytes added , 16 July 2023

no edit summary

Scrooge MacDuck

Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators

38,171

edits

@@ Line 81: / Line 81: @@
 :::::: Although I reckon that the ending was ignored, that doesn't mean that the whole of ''A Fix with Sontarans'' is out of continuity with ''Fixing a Hole'' — that makes no sense, given the entire story is literally a sequel which aims to not-so-subtly ''fix the plot holes'' of ''AFwS''. And a retconning the ending is still continuity, as it is forcefully making ''AFwS'' by pretending the bit with Savile just didn't happen. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 20:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
+::: @Epsilon, I do feel compelled to point out that there is a distinction Najawin is correctly gesturing at here, though with wording that is slightly at odds with the language I used in the relevant closing post. For R4BP purposes, continuity is ''circumstantial evidence of'' implicit intent to bring something into the DWU via the continuity reference; there can be cases where something ''is'' a continuity reference to the invalid source, but other factors prove, or suggest, that in fact, in that instance, those continuity references were not evidence of intent. Ignoring parts of it could certainly be countermanding circumstantial evidence of that kind.
+::: That being said, when it exists, it has been one of the few points we've more or less all agreed upon from the start that a BTS statement of "the present DWU story is a sequel to [X]" is ''stronger'' evidence than continuity. Doesn't ''Fixing a Hole'' have a little "this is a sequel to ''A Fix with Sontarans''" note at the top? I seem to recall it doing so. If it is understood as a premise that ''FaH'' passes Rule 4 on its own merits, this would render all concerns about poring over the text itself moot.
+::: @Najawin: you write:
+:::: ''If you prefer the phrasing "the reasoning behind R4bp as enshrined in the thread discussing it and in [[T:VS]] entails X" rather than "R4bp entails X" I'm fine with accepting this. But I fundamentally see no daylight, as R4bp *is* the rule as expressed at [[T:VS]].''
+::: No, this still does not satisfy me. You're smuggling in a presupposition which is in faxt the crux of our disagreement. Your apparent argument is more accurately expsummarised, in my view, as:
+:::: "''the reasoning behind R4bp as enshrined in the thread discussing it and in [[T:VS]],'' '''''if it were applied to other questions than when to validate stories that seem to fail Regular Rule 4'''''', '''''would then''''' ''entail X''"
+::: ''You'' believe it is wrong for such a "narrow" policy to exist for one specific purpose. But like it or not, the "law of the land" is specifically that the mechanics of R4BP apply ''in that one narrow band of cases''. This does not "corrode" our other policies, and it certainly does not entail any more than what it is intended to entail. It ''would'' corrode and entail etc. etc. ''if'' we applied the same standard of evidence to invalidations as we do to validations, which is why we quite simply choose not to. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 20:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)