He also wrote about how captains had a chip planted in their heads to be used as an ultimate last resort message by the Federation to try to recall everyone, and said chip could beam images directly into people's heads.
Which is far more likely as a form of communication in the 23rd Century compared to viewscreens and holographic communication, but boring for the audience if it was done when TMP came out. Although, it would make upgrading to the next model of phone far more irritating.
He also wrote about how captains had a chip planted in their heads to be used as an ultimate last resort message by the Federation to try to recall everyone, and said chip could beam images directly into people's heads.
Which is far more likely as a form of communication in the 23rd Century compared to viewscreens and holographic communication, but boring for the audience if it was done when TMP came out. Although, it would make upgrading to the next model of phone far more irritating.
Plus I'd not too trust worthy regarding implants right now, these days.
Regardless of the Klingon's intent, which cannot be known to the character at the time of the mutiny, Georgiou's orders were in perfect synch with the law, service precedent, and morality. Burnham demonstrated that she was not qualified for the command track, should never have been allowed so close to the command chair
I think you're leaping if you from here to there:
and should never have been allowed to go back to a similar position even after a lifetime of contrition and restitution.
Redemption is always possible in fiction. And certainly in the fiction of Star Trek. We don't render absolute, finale judgment on people. We can accept proof that people have changed, they can redeem themselves.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
"The Apple" - Kirk finds a planet of peaceful, happy humanoids who worship an ancient computer. He decides that this is beneath their dignity, and in violation of even the Prime Directive of TOS destroys that computer and ruins their civilization, brutally pushing them into a hunter-gatherer society they weren't prepared for. (Yes, the computer tried to destroy the Enterprise - but only after Kirk started messing with its people.)
"I, Mudd" - I find it difficult to believe that standard Federation treatment for a serial criminal like Harry Mudd is to simply abandon him on an alien world, subject to the whims of an unknown and possibly unstable alien technology (it was pitifully simple for Spock to overcome their ability to reason, and someone with thoughts as twisty as Mudd's would have been offworld again inside a year).
"Friday's Child" - this one was more on McCoy, but he blatantly ignored the Capellans' societal mores because he preferred his own, which is pretty much exactly the sort of thing the Prime Directive is intended to stop.
"Obsession" - Starfleet isn't supposed to deal with an unknown life form that exhibits intelligence by using ship's phasers to open communication. But it's okay here, because Jim ordered it, and we know he's always right - the creature couldn't possibly have killed anyone by accident in a simple attempt to communicate with them using its own species' methods.
"A Piece of the Action" - Gangster World there might have been weird, and admittedly Kirk tried to stay within their societal mold while working with them, but he did commit the Federation to sending ships to collect tribute, essentially creating a treaty with a foreign government on his own authority. Pretty sure that's more authority than a ship's captain is supposed to take.
"A Private Little War" - It was a marvelous allegory for the expansion of the war in Vietnam, but Kirk's decision to arm his preferred side on Neural just because the Klingons were arming the other, without awaiting orders from Command first, was a clear violation of the Directive.
That's... a lot more violations of both orders and good military order than Burnham has ever even been accused of.
A few of these can be justified a little bit by the fact that in TOS they apparently didn't have the ability to communicate with Starfleet Command in real time (which they did in the later series). They drew a lot of influence in TOS from classic military fiction e.g. Horatio Hornblower, which of course was set in a time when communicating beyond visual range in real time was impossible. This means commanding officers get more latitude to act since they don't have the capability of receiving orders to the contrary the minute a flag officer back at HQ can reach a phone, and consequently can get away with certain things on the principle of "it worked, and therefore it's better to ask forgiveness than permission". Of course, this means yet another place where ENT and DSC retconned things: those series do appear to have real-time communication at long distance, so it makes less sense for the CO to have as much latitude.*
Maybe ENT and DSC stay in continuity if you assume that subspace communication can be quasi real time within a certain range limit. The Discovery stayed pretty much entirely in Federation territory, and Archer's Enterprise couldn't get all that far, either. Season 2 of DSC suggests that the Enterprise was on a 5 year mission and was not really able to return to the war in time. Maybe at these distances, real time communication simply isn't feasible.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Also, ENT showed that the NX-01 had to lay down Comm Buoys (the 'Echo' relays) as it went in order to stay in continuous contact with Starfleet Command. Kirk's Enterprise was frequently acting at the limits of known space, or areas right on the frontier of the Federation. By contrast, the Shenzhou was operating on the Klingon Border in close proximity to a Federation Starbase, judging by how quickly Starfleet responded to the confrontation at the Binary.
Even TNG made the point in one episode as to how vital comm relays were to the Federation's subspace communications network.
Here's how the chain of command works: if you are given a legal order you believe to be unwise and your superior is of sound mind, you voice your concerns to your superior. A good superior will take it into account (and in fact a major part of the job of first officer or executive officer is to act as a sounding board for the captain), and Georgiou indeed did. But if they tell you to do it anyway, you follow your orders. You do not assault and incapacitate your CO because you think you know better!
Right. You just steal a starship, violate a slew of Federation laws, commit mutiny and sabotage, lie cheat and conspire to murder etc.
Oh wait, I forgot - everyone loves Kirk and Picard and Sisko, so it was ok for them to break rules when they knew they were right... I forgot about the selective memory and double standard factors.
What double standard?
Kirk got off in Star Trek IV because of politics: he and the others returned home to honorably surrender and face trial for that slew of crimes in the previous movie, but him saving Earth for the umpteenth time made that untenable, so they busted him back down to captain and gave him a ship to get him as far away from Earth as they possibly could. It's not strictly speaking right, but it's plausible.
Until Garak killed the senator, Sisko was operating in "In the Pale Moonlight" with the full authorization of Starfleet Command: he developed the disinformation plan, but his command structure approved it. So it's a weird case where he's acting lawfully up to a certain point, but the actions are of questionable morality--I happen to agree with them in context, there are others who do not. But just to be clear: Sisko didn't conspire to murder anybody, Garak did that all on his own initiative. Sisko covered it up because the Federation was already under existential threat and the alternative would probably have been the Romulans joining the war on the Dominion's side.
Before you bring up "For the Uniform", I have no frakking idea what the writers were thinking there, that one's just awful all around. I tend to just discard that episode from my headcanon entirely because everybody is acting out-of-character there: Worf and Jadzia, for one, should have absolutely refused to follow his order to bomb that planet for exactly the reasons I laid out. The order is not lawful, absolutely immoral, and has no basis in service precedent whatsoever, and Sisko should have been court-martialed for even attempting it.
Burnham? She loses it under pressure, assaults her CO, and then tries to illegally enact an act of war against a foreign government. Her motivation? Her own prejudice against Klingons for the death of her birth parents. There's not a thing about this that's admirable.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
We really don't have any sort of solid information on how it's structured, funded, or operated. The risk is, that they get some "Renegade Cop" writers doing it and it turns into violence pron with a star trek skin, wherein the agency can do no wrong, but is unfairly seen as doing wrong by the uninformed.
This is equally true of most OTHER aspects of Federation government and Starfleet hierarchy.
Here's how the chain of command works: if you are given a legal order you believe to be unwise and your superior is of sound mind, you voice your concerns to your superior. A good superior will take it into account (and in fact a major part of the job of first officer or executive officer is to act as a sounding board for the captain), and Georgiou indeed did. But if they tell you to do it anyway, you follow your orders. You do not assault and incapacitate your CO because you think you know better!
Right. You just steal a starship, violate a slew of Federation laws, commit mutiny and sabotage, lie cheat and conspire to murder etc.
Oh wait, I forgot - everyone loves Kirk and Picard and Sisko, so it was ok for them to break rules when they knew they were right... I forgot about the selective memory and double standard factors.
What double standard?
Kirk got off in Star Trek IV because of politics: he and the others returned home to honorably surrender and face trial for that slew of crimes in the previous movie, but him saving Earth for the umpteenth time made that untenable, so they busted him back down to captain and gave him a ship to get him as far away from Earth as they possibly could. It's not strictly speaking right, but it's plausible.
Until Garak killed the senator, Sisko was operating in "In the Pale Moonlight" with the full authorization of Starfleet Command: he developed the disinformation plan, but his command structure approved it. So it's a weird case where he's acting lawfully up to a certain point, but the actions are of questionable morality--I happen to agree with them in context, there are others who do not. But just to be clear: Sisko didn't conspire to murder anybody, Garak did that all on his own initiative. Sisko covered it up because the Federation was already under existential threat and the alternative would probably have been the Romulans joining the war on the Dominion's side.
Before you bring up "For the Uniform", I have no frakking idea what the writers were thinking there, that one's just awful all around. I tend to just discard that episode from my headcanon entirely because everybody is acting out-of-character there: Worf and Jadzia, for one, should have absolutely refused to follow his order to bomb that planet for exactly the reasons I laid out. The order is not lawful, absolutely immoral, and has no basis in service precedent whatsoever, and Sisko should have been court-martialed for even attempting it.
Burnham? She loses it under pressure, assaults her CO, and then tries to illegally enact an act of war against a foreign government. Her motivation? Her own prejudice against Klingons for the death of her birth parents. There's not a thing about this that's admirable.
but she did end a war the Federation was losing
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Kirk got off in Star Trek IV because of politics: he and the others returned home to honorably surrender and face trial for that slew of crimes in the previous movie, but him saving Earth for the umpteenth time made that untenable, so they busted him back down to captain and gave him a ship to get him as far away from Earth as they possibly could. It's not strictly speaking right, but it's plausible.
Until Garak killed the senator, Sisko was operating in "In the Pale Moonlight" with the full authorization of Starfleet Command: he developed the disinformation plan, but his command structure approved it. So it's a weird case where he's acting lawfully up to a certain point, but the actions are of questionable morality--I happen to agree with them in context, there are others who do not. But just to be clear: Sisko didn't conspire to murder anybody, Garak did that all on his own initiative. Sisko covered it up because the Federation was already under existential threat and the alternative would probably have been the Romulans joining the war on the Dominion's side.
Before you bring up "For the Uniform", I have no frakking idea what the writers were thinking there, that one's just awful all around. I tend to just discard that episode from my headcanon entirely because everybody is acting out-of-character there: Worf and Jadzia, for one, should have absolutely refused to follow his order to bomb that planet for exactly the reasons I laid out. The order is not lawful, absolutely immoral, and has no basis in service precedent whatsoever, and Sisko should have been court-martialed for even attempting it.
Burnham? She loses it under pressure, assaults her CO, and then tries to illegally enact an act of war against a foreign government. Her motivation? Her own prejudice against Klingons for the death of her birth parents. There's not a thing about this that's admirable.
The very same double standard you are applying in your post. You're hand waving and making excuses for other characters because you liked them. Burnham doesn't warrant any kind of pass because you don't like her.
So you didn't even read the post you conveniently didn't fully quote (I have restored it in this version of the quotation, you're welcome) where I laid out in exacting detail how the various actions are and are not warranted, including one where I think Sisko should have been court-martialed and wasn't, the exact opposite of what you're suggesting I'm doing. Ergo, you're not interested in an honest debate, so we're done.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
> @starswordc said:
> valoreah wrote: »
>
> starswordc wrote: »
>
>
> * Kirk got off in Star Trek IV because of politics: he and the others returned home to honorably surrender and face trial for that slew of crimes in the previous movie, but him saving Earth for the umpteenth time made that untenable, so they busted him back down to captain and gave him a ship to get him as far away from Earth as they possibly could. It's not strictly speaking right, but it's plausible.
> * Until Garak killed the senator, Sisko was operating in "In the Pale Moonlight" with the full authorization of Starfleet Command: he developed the disinformation plan, but his command structure approved it. So it's a weird case where he's acting lawfully up to a certain point, but the actions are of questionable morality--I happen to agree with them in context, there are others who do not. But just to be clear: Sisko didn't conspire to murder anybody, Garak did that all on his own initiative. Sisko covered it up because the Federation was already under existential threat and the alternative would probably have been the Romulans joining the war on the Dominion's side.
> * Before you bring up "For the Uniform", I have no frakking idea what the writers were thinking there, that one's just awful all around. I tend to just discard that episode from my headcanon entirely because everybody is acting out-of-character there: Worf and Jadzia, for one, should have absolutely refused to follow his order to bomb that planet for exactly the reasons I laid out. The order is not lawful, absolutely immoral, and has no basis in service precedent whatsoever, and Sisko should have been court-martialed for even attempting it.
> * Burnham? She loses it under pressure, assaults her CO, and then tries to illegally enact an act of war against a foreign government. Her motivation? Her own prejudice against Klingons for the death of her birth parents. There's not a thing about this that's admirable.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The very same double standard you are applying in your post. You're hand waving and making excuses for other characters because you liked them. Burnham doesn't warrant any kind of pass because you don't like her.
>
>
>
>
> So you didn't even read the post you conveniently didn't fully quote (I have restored it in this version of the quotation, you're welcome) where I laid out in exacting detail how the various actions are and are not warranted, including one where I think Sisko should have been court-martialed and wasn't, the exact opposite of what you're suggesting I'm doing. Ergo, you're not interested in an honest debate, so we're done.
But you are though finding reasons for some of these violations by other characters to be excused but you won't look at the same kinds of circumstances for Burnham if her violation isn't excusable for any reason neither is theirs
Except Burnham was Court-Martialed, found guilty, and sent to prison. Point of order: Burnham wasn't pardoned, that I can tell, until she was reinstated in the finale (after she ended the war with the Klingons on favourable terms, prevented Starfleet betraying the very principles they through her in the stockade in defence of by committing genocide, etc.) She was effectively put on probation on an extremely dubious basis (which Cornwell points out when talking to Lorca), as a Science specialist based on Lorca's own judgment (which Starfleet probably accepted on the grounds that after the incident with the other prisoners on the Discovery she'd be dead within a week in prison).
Basically, Burnham wasn't excused for her actions.
Quite so Ryan, Michael earned her redemption, she saved the Federation, Kirk and his crew saved Earth. They arguably committed far worse crimes, the Temporal violations especially (they got really lucky, they could have erased the Federation with any number of things they did), nobody questions their reinstatement.
Except me. I said way back when I first saw it that a) when a captain loses his ship you don't give him another one unless it was a time of war, the loss of the ship had nothing to do with his captaining, and you are desperate to crew new hulls, and b) you don't reward criminals for being successful criminals. Even if they save the world, they at best get a commutation of sentence.
You may choose to set the bar low because of other failures in the franchise, but I don't. Your argument is on the level of, "That guy committed bank robbery and got away with it, therefore bank robbery is okay." To which I reply, "No, that other situation was just as messed up as this one. I disagree with that one too."
Comments
Which is far more likely as a form of communication in the 23rd Century compared to viewscreens and holographic communication, but boring for the audience if it was done when TMP came out. Although, it would make upgrading to the next model of phone far more irritating.
Plus I'd not too trust worthy regarding implants right now, these days.
Even TNG made the point in one episode as to how vital comm relays were to the Federation's subspace communications network.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
My character Tsin'xing
but she did end a war the Federation was losing
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
So you didn't even read the post you conveniently didn't fully quote (I have restored it in this version of the quotation, you're welcome) where I laid out in exacting detail how the various actions are and are not warranted, including one where I think Sisko should have been court-martialed and wasn't, the exact opposite of what you're suggesting I'm doing. Ergo, you're not interested in an honest debate, so we're done.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Except Burnham was Court-Martialed, found guilty, and sent to prison. Point of order: Burnham wasn't pardoned, that I can tell, until she was reinstated in the finale (after she ended the war with the Klingons on favourable terms, prevented Starfleet betraying the very principles they through her in the stockade in defence of by committing genocide, etc.) She was effectively put on probation on an extremely dubious basis (which Cornwell points out when talking to Lorca), as a Science specialist based on Lorca's own judgment (which Starfleet probably accepted on the grounds that after the incident with the other prisoners on the Discovery she'd be dead within a week in prison).
Basically, Burnham wasn't excused for her actions.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Except me. I said way back when I first saw it that a) when a captain loses his ship you don't give him another one unless it was a time of war, the loss of the ship had nothing to do with his captaining, and you are desperate to crew new hulls, and b) you don't reward criminals for being successful criminals. Even if they save the world, they at best get a commutation of sentence.
You may choose to set the bar low because of other failures in the franchise, but I don't. Your argument is on the level of, "That guy committed bank robbery and got away with it, therefore bank robbery is okay." To which I reply, "No, that other situation was just as messed up as this one. I disagree with that one too."
We have a picture of what might be Michelle Yeoh's Section 31 ship which could feature both in TRIBBLE season 2 and in a future Section 31 series.