User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Tales from the Tardis/@comment-188432-20130325173913/@comment-188432-20130413214017: Difference between revisions
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
That's illogical, SOTO. If it is ''intentionally vague'' and ''can'' be interpreted either way, then therefore there is ''at least'' a suggestion by the people behind it that it's not set in the DWU. | That's illogical, SOTO. If it is ''intentionally vague'' and ''can'' be interpreted either way, then therefore there is ''at least'' a suggestion by the people behind it that it's not set in the DWU. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 6: | ||
Conversely, if we banned it because Big Finish said it wasn't a ''Doctor Who'' spin-off, everyone in this thread could wrap their minds around that statement and know that it was a ''true'' statement. ''That'' rationale would at least be completely transparent and provable by showing legitimate quotes. | Conversely, if we banned it because Big Finish said it wasn't a ''Doctor Who'' spin-off, everyone in this thread could wrap their minds around that statement and know that it was a ''true'' statement. ''That'' rationale would at least be completely transparent and provable by showing legitimate quotes. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Tales from the Tardis/20130325173913-188432/20130413214017-188432]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 15:50, 27 April 2023
That's illogical, SOTO. If it is intentionally vague and can be interpreted either way, then therefore there is at least a suggestion by the people behind it that it's not set in the DWU.
Like Josiah said, they Spragg is offering us a choice. The question before us is why would we not choose the easier option that doesn't require a rewrite of a core policy? Why would we opt to make narrative continuity the reason for accepting this thing which is completely consistently described by Spragg and Richardson as "not a spin-off of Doctor Who"?
And who's going to write the rationale for including Vienna? Because I sure as heck don't see a clear and straightforward way to do it. If someone comes up to me a year from now and asks me, "Why do we include Vienna but not the Fantastic Four?" I really wouldn't have a clue what to say to them.
Conversely, if we banned it because Big Finish said it wasn't a Doctor Who spin-off, everyone in this thread could wrap their minds around that statement and know that it was a true statement. That rationale would at least be completely transparent and provable by showing legitimate quotes.
