User:OttselSpy25/Sandbox/Speedround Two

This isn't quite an OP, more a place to write down ideas. I figure that I might do a second "Speed round" eventually, hopefully with segments written by other users.

So this is both a rough "planning area" for the concept and just a place to write down topics I might want to discuss in the context of validity. As I've said elsewhere, I find fewer and fewer topics I care about these days. So if I have an idea for one, it's nice to have somewhere to jot it down.

Intended title: Validity Speedround 2.0: Charity stories, Infidel's Comet, Hacker T Dog, K9, and Sleeze Brothers

Topics

Feel certain about including in Speedround

(Last time I did 10 topics. That was too many, and I apologize. This time I want five at most.)

1. Charity stories - See finished OP below.
2. Infidel's Comet - See finished OP below.
3. The Robot Reveal - Live
4. K9 Appearances
   1. The Computer Programme - The Thinking Machine - Untitled Maze Segment, where someone has a K9 Unit named "Spot"
   2. K9's Question Time
5. Some other fifth thing, might have someone do a guest slot about the Sleeze Brothers

Infidel's Comet

This forum post was originally written for Speedrounds 2.0. Obviously we no longer need a concept like a speedround, but I hope this context explains why this forum is about a topic so obscure. It really would have worked better with a group of other things, but I Degrassi...

So this topic was historically discussed at Forum:Infidel's Comet and The Pattern, Thread:191574, and Talk:BBV Productions. It is the middle Thread post which is most important to the history of why this isn't valid. When I first wrote this OP this middle thread was also lost, but you can now find it at User:SOTO's archive at User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates 1.

The forum began with User:TheChampionOfTime starting the debate by citing the previous discussions, wherein Czech had stated that the story had absolutely no DWU connections. Shockingly, as the debate went on, more and more connections were found. There was a near complete agreement that, while the story was obscure and hardly a shining gem, it did pass our rules.

Then, radio silence. Back in the old days, even when an agreement was found, it could take months or even years to get the topic closed. Then, one day, User:CzechOut did close it... Saying the story wasn't DWU, indisputably.

Here were Czech's closing arguments

1. As the Sontaran's cameo is not hyper-specific, we should look at it as an unlicensed cameo by default, like the Doctor appearing in the back of a Buffy comic.
2. As the BBV website did not list it as a Doctor Who story when we had this debate, it doesn't count.
3. He then goes on an (honestly random) rant about how the wiki shouldn't validate Star Trek because of the Assimilation comic, so we can't validate this.

When we first looked at all these stories, we didn't stop and give details for every single one. But neither were we uncareful.
The thing is, Infedel'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.

...

There's independent and contemporaneous evidence that:

1. says the Sontaran appearance here is a "cameo"
2. claims "The cast and characters have practically no direct link with Doctor Who -- bar a brief cameo by a Sontaran."
3. calls it "BBV's attempt at original sf" [science fiction]
   

This was definitely produced and contemporaneously received as an original work. It was part of BBV's broader efforts -- after Big Finish emerged as the winner of the DW audio licence -- to find a new source of audio revenue.

So, no. This thing won't be coming back to the site. The rule is definitely not, "If <this DWU thing> makes even a cameo in a story, then the story in which it appears is in the DWU by implication."CzechOut's closing statement, trimmed for brevity

Now, I understand that we have to consider all former closing statements and take them into account when making arguments. But I must admit that this reads to me as one of those old quotes which has nothing to do with current policy.

So Czech's basic argument here is that despite featuring the Sontarans in the story, there is not concrete evidence that this proves the story is set inside the Doctor Who Universe. And thus, as this story fails Rule 4... It doesn't get a page? Which has not been the standard practice at any point that I can remember, at least in the last five years.

Even if you think this story doesn't pass Rule 4, it does pass Rules 1-3. So it should at least have a page and have coverage.

But regardless... I do indeed think that a Sontaran cameo is enough to say that this story passes Rule 4. In fact, I would go as far as to say that most Bill Baggs material passes Rule 4. This is not really a controversial take! It's just the basic foundation of our historical judgement about BBV!

When Baggs invented something like the Cyberons, he was trying to tell stories about the Cybermen without a license. So the original Cyberon movie passes Rule 4 cleanly. It just doesn't pass rule 2 - the prerequisite of needing something from the DWU which was commercially licensed.

I also think Czech is trying to either argue that the Sontaran cameo is unlicensed or that the cameo being so minor means it's basically like a pop-culture cameo. My response is that the important factor is that this is, as far as we know, a licensed appearance, meaning it automatically passes Rule 2. I will go as far as to say that if the Doctor's cameo in Buffy had been officially licensed, it would at the very least justify non-valid coverage as a starter.

(Czech's instinct to call the Sontaran cameo potentially unlicensed because no character says "Oh hey, a Sontaran" is similar to his ruling that the LEGO Batman movie did not obtain permission to use the Daleks because an actor ad libbed calling them "British Robots," a claim which has been consistently proven to be incorrect. I don't think this is an implied policy which is realistic to enforce. Regardless, there's ample evidence that BBV did have permission to use the Sontarans at this stage, so there's little merit to claiming the cameo is unlicensed.)

But even if we put this to the side, I take great issue with the claim that a DWU element appearing in a story is not a great piece of evidence of that thing passing Rule 4. If Erimem appears in a story, there's little pause to consider if that story is DWU. Same for, say, Keepsake appearing in the Death's Head series.

I'm not saying this is universally true! But often it is a strong piece of evidence that can, by itself, be all we need in some cases. So this is clearly a T:BOUND case where current precedent has made this closing post dated and impractical.

The fact that Czech cited, as one of his biggest pieces of evidence, a review calling the story original is even worse precedent. We can not go around saying that if something is called "original fiction" by a reviewer it fails Rule 4.

The bigger issue is that the Sontarans alone are not the only DWU concept in the story, as was directly stated in the debate before this. These are the connections that I currently know to exist:

1. The Sontarans cameo in the story.
2. A Zygon appears and has a speaking role.
3. A Nestene appears briefly (but is really only name dropped by the narrator in a list)
4. The Krynoids are name-dropped (in a different scene)
5. The chemical Cobalt Blue is featured. This was an important plot detail introduced in AUDIO: Old Soldiers, a valid story.

In the original debate it was also stated, without controversy, that K9 and the Mistress appear in the story. If they do, I missed this detail somehow I must admit.

Now, in my opinion, any one of these five things would justify a story passing Rule 2 today. Instead, we have all five, cementing that Infidel's Comet does use five licensed DWU elements. If you want an extra piece of evidence, the story was apparently recently included in a Zygon themed boxset of some kind. The BBV Twitter even announced a new cover for the story, stating: "Our Audio Adventure In Time & Space, Infidel's Comet, set in the universe of Doctor Who." 1 So basically, if Czech's argument that BBV doesn't consider this DWU was one true, it no longer matches the branding of the company.

Thus, I think, the story should have a page on this website and should be a valid source. Not much more to say, I think this one's pretty open and shut. OS25🤙☎️ 20:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Infidel's Comet discussion

to be added