Continuing Section 31 Discussion

marcusdkane

Let's continue it over here so as not to derail tilarta's thread further...

artan42

marcusdkane wrote: »

jonsills wrote: »

See, I have to headcanon it like this because the very concept of S31 is so powerfully at odds with everything we were told about the Trekverse starting in TOS and continuing through TNG. I can find no way to reconcile a semiofficial Starfleet black ops group dating back to the founding of the Federation, or even further, with the events of such episodes as "The Trouble With Tribbles" or "Patterns of Force". If there were such a group, why weren't they dispatched to deal with those situations, rather than Kirk and his team of semicivilians and idealists? Why would Khan's group on Ceti Alpha V be left to their own devices for fifteen years, rather than being either recruited or eliminated by S31? For that matter, where was this mysterious, seemingly all-powerful organization when Admiral Cartwright was conspiring with Klingons to threaten the Federation with war unending in ST6? It just doesn't work for me.

I see what you mean... A deactivated then reactivated organization would account for those historical disappearances... Of course, another explanation would be that just because we didn't see them, it doesn't mean they weren't there, but you're right, by having Section 31 in ENT, we need to know why they then disappeared until DS-9...

Because that's what Starfleet Intelligence is for. Section 31 has only appeared to undertake massive change. Wipe out the Klingons in ID, wipe out the Founders in DS9 and then destabilise the RSE in IASL. The only plot S31 needed to be in to keep their appearance retroactive was TUC, and even then only to wipe out the Klingons, not to play West's and Chang's silly war game.
I can't remember what Harris was doing in ENT (mucking about with Augments and Klingons for something) but I don't think we've heard of a Earth Intelligence unit.
I just assume nobody in Command triggers Article 14, Section 31 unless there's a full scale war of annihilation or the possibility of one.​​

marcusdkane

artan42 wrote: »

marcusdkane wrote: »

jonsills wrote: »

See, I have to headcanon it like this because the very concept of S31 is so powerfully at odds with everything we were told about the Trekverse starting in TOS and continuing through TNG. I can find no way to reconcile a semiofficial Starfleet black ops group dating back to the founding of the Federation, or even further, with the events of such episodes as "The Trouble With Tribbles" or "Patterns of Force". If there were such a group, why weren't they dispatched to deal with those situations, rather than Kirk and his team of semicivilians and idealists? Why would Khan's group on Ceti Alpha V be left to their own devices for fifteen years, rather than being either recruited or eliminated by S31? For that matter, where was this mysterious, seemingly all-powerful organization when Admiral Cartwright was conspiring with Klingons to threaten the Federation with war unending in ST6? It just doesn't work for me.

I see what you mean... A deactivated then reactivated organization would account for those historical disappearances... Of course, another explanation would be that just because we didn't see them, it doesn't mean they weren't there, but you're right, by having Section 31 in ENT, we need to know why they then disappeared until DS-9...

Because that's what Starfleet Intelligence is for. Section 31 has only appeared to undertake massive change. Wipe out the Klingons in ID, wipe out the Founders in DS9 and then destabilise the RSE in IASL. The only plot S31 needed to be in to keep their appearance retroactive was TUC, and even then only to wipe out the Klingons, not to play West's and Chang's silly war game.
I can't remember what Harris was doing in ENT (mucking about with Augments and Klingons for something) but I don't think we've heard of a Earth Intelligence unit.
I just assume nobody in Command triggers Article 14, Section 31 unless there's a full scale war of annihilation or the possibility of one.​​

That makes sense, that they only appear in, I guess what one could call times of 'dire emergency'... Perhaps they are an 'in case of emergency break glass' type of agency, leaving everything else to Starfleet Intelligence...

dalolorn

(Tried to post this last morning but couldn't for some reason.)

azrael605 wrote: »

@jonsills

Ever since DS9 introduced Section 31 I have believed that Admiral Cartwright, Col. West, & Lt. Valeris were members. That belief became stronger when Enterprise confirmed S31 would work with agents of foreign powers.

That does seem likely, yes. The radical 'conquering the Klingons will render them harmless' thinking is in line with their actions against the Dominion, and not all that far off from their attempt to alter the Romulan Senate in their favor.

thelunarboy

I've heard some theorise that the 31 comes from 31st Century, and that Daniels has something to do with them, infiltrating the past to ensure that his timeline unfolds the way it has. One thing that intrigues me about that, which oddly ties in with STO, is that during the Xindi crisis, Daniels urges Archer to let Reed risk sacrificing himself on the Xindi superweapon.

Now, given that we later discover Reed's own involvement in Section 31, you could argue that the reason Daniels was putting him forward was so that he could recruit him as a temporal operative in the event of his "death". Choosing Reed would make sense if this were the case, because he has already been courted and groomed into Section 31's numbers and if his old life were over, then he would probably see serving Starfleet as a temporal agent as an acceptable career choice (remember he doesn't have the crisis of conscience until he is required to betray those he is closest to).

I don't subscribe to the theory by the way, I just thought that if it *were* the case, then STO content arguably enhances the existing canon.

marcusdkane

thelunarboy wrote: »

I've heard some theorise that the 31 comes from 31st Century, and that Daniels has something to do with them, infiltrating the past to ensure that his timeline unfolds the way it has. One thing that intrigues me about that, which oddly ties in with STO, is that during the Xindi crisis, Daniels urges Archer to let Reed risk sacrificing himself on the Xindi superweapon.

Now, given that we later discover Reed's own involvement in Section 31, you could argue that the reason Daniels was putting him forward was so that he could recruit him as a temporal operative in the event of his "death". Choosing Reed would make sense if this were the case, because he has already been courted and groomed into Section 31's numbers and if his old life were over, then he would probably see serving Starfleet as a temporal agent as an acceptable career choice (remember he doesn't have the crisis of conscience until he is required to betray those he is closest to).

I don't subscribe to the theory by the way, I just thought that if it *were* the case, then STO content arguably enhances the existing canon.

That's a very interesting theory, I rather like it

thelunarboy

marcusdkane wrote: »

thelunarboy wrote: »

I've heard some theorise that the 31 comes from 31st Century, and that Daniels has something to do with them, infiltrating the past to ensure that his timeline unfolds the way it has. One thing that intrigues me about that, which oddly ties in with STO, is that during the Xindi crisis, Daniels urges Archer to let Reed risk sacrificing himself on the Xindi superweapon.

Now, given that we later discover Reed's own involvement in Section 31, you could argue that the reason Daniels was putting him forward was so that he could recruit him as a temporal operative in the event of his "death". Choosing Reed would make sense if this were the case, because he has already been courted and groomed into Section 31's numbers and if his old life were over, then he would probably see serving Starfleet as a temporal agent as an acceptable career choice (remember he doesn't have the crisis of conscience until he is required to betray those he is closest to).

I don't subscribe to the theory by the way, I just thought that if it *were* the case, then STO content arguably enhances the existing canon.

That's a very interesting theory, I rather like it

Except the origin of the name in canon comes from the Starfleet charter legislation, which kind of makes it fall apart.

marcusdkane

thelunarboy wrote: »

marcusdkane wrote: »

thelunarboy wrote: »

I've heard some theorise that the 31 comes from 31st Century, and that Daniels has something to do with them, infiltrating the past to ensure that his timeline unfolds the way it has. One thing that intrigues me about that, which oddly ties in with STO, is that during the Xindi crisis, Daniels urges Archer to let Reed risk sacrificing himself on the Xindi superweapon.

Now, given that we later discover Reed's own involvement in Section 31, you could argue that the reason Daniels was putting him forward was so that he could recruit him as a temporal operative in the event of his "death". Choosing Reed would make sense if this were the case, because he has already been courted and groomed into Section 31's numbers and if his old life were over, then he would probably see serving Starfleet as a temporal agent as an acceptable career choice (remember he doesn't have the crisis of conscience until he is required to betray those he is closest to).

I don't subscribe to the theory by the way, I just thought that if it *were* the case, then STO content arguably enhances the existing canon.

That's a very interesting theory, I rather like it

Except the origin of the name in canon comes from the Starfleet charter legislation, which kind of makes it fall apart.

Not at all, especially if someone from the 31st Century travelled back to assume a place/position which would allow them to be on the committee who ratified the Starfleet charter...

artan42

Reed's behind it. He is Danials from the future future, going back into his own past so future past him can be recruited into working for Section 31 by past future him.
Why did we split this off from the Doctor Who thread again .​​

marcusdkane

artan42 wrote: »

Reed's behind it. He is Danials from the future future, going back into his own past so future past him can be recruited into working for Section 31 by past future him.
Why did we split this off from the Doctor Who thread again .​​

Because tilarta felt that the topic was off-topic to the Doctor Who thread...

artan42

marcusdkane wrote: »

artan42 wrote: »

Reed's behind it. He is Danials from the future future, going back into his own past so future past him can be recruited into working for Section 31 by past future him.
Why did we split this off from the Doctor Who thread again .

Because tilarta felt that the topic was off-topic to the Doctor Who thread...

I know that. It was a reference to my little temporal twister...​​

jonsills

One problem is that everything we think we know about S31 has been relayed to us by Unreliable Narrators. It may be true; it may be partially true; it may be lies from start to finish; it may even be what the person speaking to us believes to be true, while in fact being false in every particular. That's one thing about groups like this - there's no way to know, outside of a character we can trust independently providing the information, whether or not it's supposed to be accurate within the context of the story.​​

marcusdkane

artan42 wrote: »

marcusdkane wrote: »

artan42 wrote: »

Reed's behind it. He is Danials from the future future, going back into his own past so future past him can be recruited into working for Section 31 by past future him.
Why did we split this off from the Doctor Who thread again .

Because tilarta felt that the topic was off-topic to the Doctor Who thread...

I know that. It was a reference to my little temporal twister...​​

Sorry, I didn't see the two notions as connected...

marcusdkane

jonsills wrote: »

One problem is that everything we think we know about S31 has been relayed to us by Unreliable Narrators. It may be true; it may be partially true; it may be lies from start to finish; it may even be what the person speaking to us believes to be true, while in fact being false in every particular. That's one thing about groups like this - there's no way to know, outside of a character we can trust independently providing the information, whether or not it's supposed to be accurate within the context of the story.​​

Absolutely so...I think the problem, is a combination of how Section 31 was used by the DS-9/ENT narratives, and the way it was then usurped and exagerated by the novel writers for their own purposes, for example, Lieutenant Hawk and Admiral Dougherty... Some unimaginative writer comes along, and says they were in Section 31, for no other reason, than their pre-existing plots didn't specifically say that they weren't, and that as a writer for what will be a licensed novel, they get the luxury of using their headcanon to craft a plot, and it then gets taken seriously by (some)fans...

thelunarboy

jonsills wrote: »

One problem is that everything we think we know about S31 has been relayed to us by Unreliable Narrators. It may be true; it may be partially true; it may be lies from start to finish; it may even be what the person speaking to us believes to be true, while in fact being false in every particular. That's one thing about groups like this - there's no way to know, outside of a character we can trust independently providing the information, whether or not it's supposed to be accurate within the context of the story.​​

I propose a Star Trek Online Council of Nicea to resolve these issues.

markhawkman

marcusdkane wrote: »

jonsills wrote: »

One problem is that everything we think we know about S31 has been relayed to us by Unreliable Narrators. It may be true; it may be partially true; it may be lies from start to finish; it may even be what the person speaking to us believes to be true, while in fact being false in every particular. That's one thing about groups like this - there's no way to know, outside of a character we can trust independently providing the information, whether or not it's supposed to be accurate within the context of the story.​​

Absolutely so...I think the problem, is a combination of how Section 31 was used by the DS-9/ENT narratives, and the way it was then usurped and exagerated by the novel writers for their own purposes, for example, Lieutenant Hawk and Admiral Dougherty... Some unimaginative writer comes along, and says they were in Section 31, for no other reason, than their pre-existing plots didn't specifically say that they weren't, and that as a writer for what will be a licensed novel, they get the luxury of using their headcanon to craft a plot, and it then gets taken seriously by (some)fans...

That's what writers are supposed to do. Calling it "unimaginative" really misses the point of why writers play connect the dots. People like that sort of thing.

marcusdkane

thelunarboy wrote: »

jonsills wrote: »

One problem is that everything we think we know about S31 has been relayed to us by Unreliable Narrators. It may be true; it may be partially true; it may be lies from start to finish; it may even be what the person speaking to us believes to be true, while in fact being false in every particular. That's one thing about groups like this - there's no way to know, outside of a character we can trust independently providing the information, whether or not it's supposed to be accurate within the context of the story.​​

I propose a Star Trek Online Council of Nicea to resolve these issues.

marcusdkane

markhawkman wrote: »

marcusdkane wrote: »

jonsills wrote: »

One problem is that everything we think we know about S31 has been relayed to us by Unreliable Narrators. It may be true; it may be partially true; it may be lies from start to finish; it may even be what the person speaking to us believes to be true, while in fact being false in every particular. That's one thing about groups like this - there's no way to know, outside of a character we can trust independently providing the information, whether or not it's supposed to be accurate within the context of the story.​​

Absolutely so...I think the problem, is a combination of how Section 31 was used by the DS-9/ENT narratives, and the way it was then usurped and exagerated by the novel writers for their own purposes, for example, Lieutenant Hawk and Admiral Dougherty... Some unimaginative writer comes along, and says they were in Section 31, for no other reason, than their pre-existing plots didn't specifically say that they weren't, and that as a writer for what will be a licensed novel, they get the luxury of using their headcanon to craft a plot, and it then gets taken seriously by (some)fans...

That's what writers are supposed to do. Calling it "unimaginative" really misses the point of why writers play connect the dots. People like that sort of thing.

You're missing my point: It's not that they are connecting the dots, but because they're doing so from their own headcanon, not from a plot-sancton/directive handed to Pocket Books from CBS/Paramount...

As for people liking that sort of thing... I found the Trek books becoming increasingly cliched, so I stopped buying them. When someone like Peter David (an author whos work I always enjoyed, who I have personally met, and who encouraged me in my own writing career, with the advice Stephen King gave to him) features a character (Vulcan counsellor) pointing out the egotism and Cult of Personality around Picard's decisions and the willingness of the crew to obey them, and then has that character shot down, it shows the flaw of the narrative itself; ie Our Heros can't ever lose/be proven wrong. From what I have seen online when these books are discussed, they are now simply a case of plot re-hashes with a new SueCrew, trying to cram in references to canon, so they lost my interest... Of course, YMMV

markhawkman

"sanction"? what sanction do the writers need beyond being told they're allowed to write the book? Seriously.... do you really think the network execs actually CARE who was responsible for the destruction of Hobus? The majority of the books get written because a writer has an idea for a story and that idea gets accepted. Only on special occasions do the execs have a reason to dictate what the story will be. The novels were never meant to be a cohesive whole. Rather a series of parallels... So if PAD wants to make a Vulcan take over as captain of the Enterprise-D, no one else needs to pay attention to that.

marcusdkane

markhawkman wrote: »

"sanction"? what sanction do the writers need beyond being told they're allowed to write the book? Seriously.... do you really think the network execs actually CARE who was responsible for the destruction of Hobus? The majority of the books get written because a writer has an idea for a story and that idea gets accepted. Only on special occasions do the execs have a reason to dictate what the story will be. The novels were never meant to be a cohesive whole. Rather a series of parallels... So if PAD wants to make a Vulcan take over as captain of the Enterprise-D, no one else needs to pay attention to that.

They care, in so much as the writers have very specific guidelines which they're meant to adhere to. Such as not making any permanent changes in the Verse. For example, a writer couldn't say that Picard is Wesley's biological father, without the plot ending with it being a lie/hallucination/ruse etc, or Data being made Human and staying that way beyond the end of the novel. The DS-9 and Voyager relaunch novels, for instance, I would suspect were given some similar kind of guidelines.

I absolutely agree, they were never meant to be taken as part of the series' canon, but they still had guidelines to work to, rather than carte blanche, but much of it, was just lazy; A character hasn't been fully explored or might have done something the narrative deemed contrary to The Hero's view, well, they must've been a member of Section 31... Kirk must have been against Section 31, so we wind up with Vaughn's SuperSecretClub, the Kirk Cabal... Picard had a buddy at the Academy... Let's say they were in Section 31 too, because Picard can't be...

If an author is genuinely joining the dots, or been asked to write a particular story, then fair enough. If they're simply 'putting the peg in the hole because it fits', as mentioned, that's not my cup of tea. YMMV

ryan218

IMO, there is a very important difference between connecting the dots, and taking a permanent marker and dabbing in a new dot just to connect an original dot to it.

In the puzzle world, that's called 'cheating'.

markhawkman

Yeah that's like comparing apples to Ocoee fruit though....

marcusdkane

ryan218 wrote: »

IMO, there is a very important difference between connecting the dots, and taking a permanent marker and dabbing in a new dot just to connect an original dot to it.

In the puzzle world, that's called 'cheating'.

Exactly