User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-6032121-20200517150418/@comment-6032121-20200520210012

It is my position that any story released during a Lockdown! tweetalong, by one of the people officially promoted as taking part in the tweetalong by Emily Cook (there's your fabled Cook ConnectionTM), should be considered part of Lockdown! in earnest. It never occurred to me that this would ever become a controversial position.

I mean, take Dalek alternative script extract. Such a thing simply could not be released as a YouTube video and remain the same kind of story. Making YouTube-upload the deciding factor skirts near a breach of T:NPOV, in that it implies that the "default" medium of Doctor Who should be video or audio, and that prose is somehow more suspicious.

…This is as distinct from saying any Lockdown! story is automatically valid. Again, it seems pretty clear that Dalek alternative script extract is a fourth-wall-breaking parody, and thus not intended to be set inside the DWU. So it fails Rule 4, and so it is covered as an invalid source.

Of course, whether Lockdown! stories as a whole are licensed by default is a point worthy of investigation. A recent edit of User:Shambala108's to one of the clauses of Tardis:No personal attacks reinstated the long-held policy of this Wiki that we should do our utmost to get a clear idea of a story's legal situation.

But though such a thread might be useful, this is not the thread to discuss whether Lockdown! passes Rule 2.

This thread, as I created it, is concerned only with how to decide what we call a Lockdown! story out of what we do cover, and to decide what we do with the stories we find to fall outside that label. It is a thread to figure out a clear, practical answer. Vague agreement that splitting the table somehow would be an acceptable middle-ground (that's the word I used; personally I'd still want to keep just the one table if it were up to me)… that simply doesn't cut it.