Procrastination man - Part 2

One word would sum the latest Doctor Who appearance on TV: squee!
This mini-episode, called Time Crash, was brilliantly penned by already successful writer Stephen Moffat (already responsible for NewWho's best stories: Blink, The Girl in the Fireplace, The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances. And featured, as strongly publicised, Peter Davison in the first multi-doctor (well bi-doctor) story of NewWho.

The risks of screwing up were as high as the anticipation - taking a peek at previous multi-doctor stories makes the point easily. When The Three Doctors was light fun (and introduced nicely Omega), The Five Doctors was taking itself far too seriously and was a self-referential piece of junk (still bearable, mind, and with a plot... but a plot whose elements felt forced). The Two Doctors, now, is an altogether different kind of multi-doctor story, where the bad does not come from the idea of bringing the two Doctors together (though the Trout's traits were forced and caricutarised), but from a bad plot. I still have bad dreams about the Androgums.
But Time Crash, in its limited 7-minute format, managed to stay light and touching. Not much of a plot, that much is granted, but in all fairness there's not much you can do in seven minutes. Look how overplotted The Curse of Fatal Death is (joking there). Both Doctors were pitched to perfection; and the dialogue flowed freely and easily, thanks to the acting talents of the two best Doctors who are still alive. Continuity references were plenty as well for the squeeing fan to pick up on, from the Mara (please RTD, please bring it back; I want Bailey's third story), fanbashing as well; and a lot of humorous lines, which taught me some vocabulary: I now know what beard means.
And the best bit is the emo bit, the You were my Doctor line, which shows just how much depth the show has, and how much potential it can explore now. Not too many continuity problems there (well, it even explained one of the issues, if quite daringly, that of the TARDIS interior change) - some explained away quite cheekily but cutely by the time differential idea; and some easy to resolve.
And to keep the fan busy until Christmas and Voyage of the Damned (let's hope it'll draw from Enlightenment), there's the question of "When in the Davison continuity did this occur?" And the even more canonicity question... oh Mr. Moffat, what have you unleashed?

Oh, and I nearly forgot; this was all for charity! It was part of BBC's big telethon Children in Need, fundraising for the eponymous charity, which does just what it says on the box. You can donate here.
The picture is Pudsey, the logo of the charity, in the Time Vortex from Doctor Who. This is believed to be fair use; but I will take it down upon request.
A last link for the road: the Doctor Who official website where people in the UK can watch the special again.

This entry's a bit overdue now; considering when the events leading to this streak of thought actually happen. But hey, better late than never (in most cases at least).
So here comes a (not-so) hypothetical situation where you have a choice between doing what you deem is the right thing and being an arse in the process, and not doing it, and being nicer.
The example is simple enough - imagine being responsible for a room, where a member of the audience does something borderline unlawful, or at least against rules that have been set by others. That particular member was not, at that point an annoyance to the others. So, obviously, applying measures that have been applied before is, eventually, being an arse. But still doing the right thing, so to speak; for one has to draw a line somewhere.
Admittedly, rules are made to be broken. To a point. But when you're responsible for a room at a specific point, you cannot unilaterally stretch/bend the rules, at the risk of upsetting future control, by others. The situation is different, when you created the rules and have complete mastery over it. Then, being an arse is not an option.

Being a bit obscure here, I fear. So, to sum up, when you are jointly responsible, you have just so much lee-way on what you can do; and must therefore do the right thing, even if it means being an arse.
But then, is it really different when you have no official responsibility over, say, a room? Should you not do what you feel is the right thing because it would make you, ultimately, an arse; or act out of your line?
Dwelling further on the matter, this kind of behaviour would fall under the killjoy category. In a society that insists so much on appearances; being categorised as a killjoy is about as negative as it gets. Ultimately, taking responsibilities, and living by them, is an absolute social deterrent.
It doesn't mean that one shouldn't do it. You may sound hackneyed, but you can go on defending fair trade when it buggers people; if you still feel it's the right thing. The question of what the right thing is, now, is a different matter; but my personal feeling is that one should not let social considerations come in the way of one's doing.

Responsibility, as a conclusion, is a social curse; but maybe also a proof of courage. Or of nerdness. Depending on the perspective. But ultimately, very necessary.