So I've been working this out and have the next phase of Olivia's crusade all mapped out.
Cryptic are bad at what they do and are lying to the players because, after watching enough TNG and TOS episodes I've determined that the Bridge Crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise all meet the requirements to be charter members of The Avengers, or as PWE calls them, Los Vengadores!
Let's demonstrate my case.
POINT 1: Every single member of Kirk and Picard's crew embody the Avengers Charter, as signed by Thor, Iron Man, Ant Man and Uhura:
POINT 2: The Enterprise itself has been through almost as many upgrades and variations as Iron Man's armor
POINT 3: The Enterprise has shuttles. The Avengers have Quinjets.
And finally POINT 4: The Avengers and the bridge crew of The USS Enterprise follow the same prime directive.
So if it's not stupidly obvious by now, Cryptic has failed us all by not making STO representative of the TRUE Star Trek, Los Vengadores!
We need to take a stand here, and foment organized resistance to Cryptic until they do the right thing. Amirite?
@azrael605 it isn't so much that artan's arguments are somehow biased but more that you (and others) literally don't understand what artan is saying. For example, memory alpha is supposed to be a collection of canon information. A lot of articles however lack proper citations, making information provided baseless. It is completely irrelevant wether anyone official approves of MA, the criticism is still valid and in no way biased. It's a basic concept which often isn't understood and arguments made against a point, in this case artan's, completely ignore what it's about in the first place and simply 'shout' something irrelevant and call it a day. It's not possible to have a discussion this way...
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I think you're confusing Memory Beta with Memory Alpha. Both are great sources of Trek info, but Beta is focused on the apocrypha. Alpha's well vetted.
I might be wrong about this and correct me if I am.
(And sorry if someone has already said this, but I am not about to read all those pages and posts.)
But if I recall, science ship is not a real navy ship classification... its more of a current service role for the ship.
Any ship can carry extra lab equipment and sensory things and be marked as science/research ship, but still doesn't change if its a cruiser, destroyer, corvette class, or even cargo ship.
Think even the Escort class is a bit wrong, as its just a term used for ships that escort big ships like carriers, to defend them. And that most ships in the escort role are destroyers, corvettes, and frigates.
Then again, I could be wrong *shrugs*
Anyway, non of this still doesn't change the fact that these are the terms used to better explain thier roles ingame.
To better explain what each ship is capable of.
When you see a ship ingame marked as science, you know its gonna have better sensory powers, aswell as have bridge officer slots and more console slots focused on Science caperbility than other things.
"Please, Captain, not in front of the Klingons." Spock to Kirk, as Kirk is about to hug him.
Star Trek V: "The Final Frontier"
Ah, canon arguments. Starfleet a military arguments? THis is why we have these threads, to continue them.
Starfleet does cover military operations. And its the Federation entity that they'll use in a war to defend against attacks and to launch attacks.
What is the difference between a military and Starfleet, so?
Philosophical. Defense is something that Starfleet does because, well, it happens to be there, they have the big ships and they are well-armed and all that. But the reason Starfleet exists is because the Federation needed a fleet of ships to explore the galaxy, to find new lifeforms, to discover new things, and come home to tell us about them. It turns out that what is needed for that is definitely a lot of starships. And the stuff out there can be very strange, and it can be very dangerous. You better be prepared for that, because you can't expect any help, but you can expect danger. It doesn't even have to be a hostile alien race. It can be a strange phenomen that you'll need shields for to survive.
A real world military today might do exploration and science stuff. But that's not why we originally installed these militaries. We did so they protect us, and if need be, conquer something.
And that might be why Starfleet Officers are so insistent on claiming that Starfleet is not military. Their first goal is not war. Their first goal is exploration.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
I might be wrong about this and correct me if I am.
(And sorry if someone has already said this, but I am not about to read all those pages and posts.)
But if I recall, science ship is not a real navy ship classification... its more of a current service role for the ship.
Any ship can carry extra lab equipment and sensory things and be marked as science/research ship, but still doesn't change if its a cruiser, destroyer, corvette class, or even cargo ship.
There IS a real-world term for that, but..... it applies to strictly civilian vessels that can't fight.
According to the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual, the Saber-class was also classified as a light cruiser, as was the Intrepid-class. During the Dominion War a variant type of light cruiser was built from an Intrepid-class primary hull.
A light cruiser is a type of small- or medium-sized warship. The term is a shortening of the phrase "light armored cruiser", describing a small ship that carried armor in the same way as an armored cruiser: a protective belt and deck.
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual is a reference book that contains technical information about the milieu of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Written from an entirely in-universe point of view. . . .
A reference book plus canon make the Intrepid-class a warship.
Oh look it's:
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
So I've been working this out and have the next phase of Olivia's crusade all mapped out.
Cryptic are bad at what they do and are lying to the players because, after watching enough TNG and TOS episodes I've determined that the Bridge Crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise all meet the requirements to be charter members of The Avengers, or as PWE calls them, Los Vengadores!
Let's demonstrate my case.
POINT 1: Every single member of Kirk and Picard's crew embody the Avengers Charter, as signed by Thor, Iron Man, Ant Man and Uhura:
POINT 2: The Enterprise itself has been through almost as many upgrades and variations as Iron Man's armor
POINT 3: The Enterprise has shuttles. The Avengers have Quinjets.
And finally POINT 4: The Avengers and the bridge crew of The USS Enterprise follow the same prime directive.
So if it's not stupidly obvious by now, Cryptic has failed us all by not making STO representative of the TRUE Star Trek, Los Vengadores!
We need to take a stand here, and foment organized resistance to Cryptic until they do the right thing. Amirite?
I raise my mug of bloodwine to toast your skills as a true warrior in forum combat!
I understand completely what artan's point is. You & he seem not to understand my point which is that canon is less important than the franchise owners & filmmakers & always will be. "Canon" after all is rampantly self contradicting & always has been, & there is no good reason to hold it as some kind of gospel.
I think this hits to the root of what I rambled on about in my own posts. You can't tell the franchise owners they are wrong, and make it stick for ****! Canon is whatever it needs to be when they accept a story. They can change the rules at will.
If they paint the words "Science Cruiser" on the side of this ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbwHbn5cG3w
It is a freakin science cruiser! It doesn't matter what it is actually doing!
Roddenberry, and the Writers Guide say "Starfleet is not a military organisation. It is a scientific research and diplomatic body." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp-cecoVTy8
Of course Gene. Whatever you say. It is a beautiful baby, and you must be very very proud!
The owners tells us what is what, and we can like it or eat worms.
Qapla'!
More to the point. The Intrepid is a ship. You can put any label on it as to type, but a solid case can be made for the 'canon' descriptions not being consistent with contemporary English. The language in the UFP has obviously changed over time, from what we are used to with regards to 'ships' and 'missions'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change
Even if we take the claim that the Intrepid is a 'warship' seriously, that isn't decisive. We have to consider that, in what appears to be a continuously hostile galaxy, it would be impossible not to design for war, if you wanted to live long enough to do science at all.
Additionally, Starfleet tends to give multi-functionality to ships on purpose. We are used to having ships with more defined purposes. Even still these can cross into other rolls as the mission demands.
Anyway, insisting that the term 'light cruiser' shackles the ship to some sort of limited roll is an overreach even in this century. Besides, it's Gene's baby, and he named it already.
@kodachikuno Jim Lovell commander Apollo 13, US Navy pilot. Infact there were 52 NASA personnel who went through the US Naval academy.
And there were USMC pilots for NASA as well.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
They could always make a 'Warship Voyager" from the episode "living witness". Have the standard long range science vessel, and have the tactical variant so players can choose. If they release the "warship voyager" varaint. It will be on my list to get in a heart beat!
They could always make a 'Warship Voyager" from the episode "living witness". Have the standard long range science vessel, and have the tactical variant so players can choose. If they release the "warship voyager" varaint. It will be on my list to get in a heart beat!
I understand completely what artan's point is. You & he seem not to understand my point which is that canon is less important than the franchise owners & filmmakers & always will be. "Canon" after all is rampantly self contradicting & always has been, & there is no good reason to hold it as some kind of gospel.
I think this hits to the root of what I rambled on about in my own posts. You can't tell the franchise owners they are wrong, and make it stick for ****! Canon is whatever it needs to be when they accept a story. They can change the rules at will.
Another point is "Who defines what is canon?" Obv the franchise owners.... if they feel like doing so. Fan rules about canon are about as binding as chains made of toilet paper.
I understand completely what artan's point is. You & he seem not to understand my point which is that canon is less important than the franchise owners & filmmakers & always will be. "Canon" after all is rampantly self contradicting & always has been, & there is no good reason to hold it as some kind of gospel.
I think this hits to the root of what I rambled on about in my own posts. You can't tell the franchise owners they are wrong, and make it stick for ****! Canon is whatever it needs to be when they accept a story. They can change the rules at will.
Another point is "Who defines what is canon?" Obv the franchise owners.... if they feel like doing so. Fan rules about canon are about as binding as chains made of toilet paper.
All that matters is intent. The weapons on Voyager could destroy cities, destroy ships that intend to kill Voyager's crew or make them into slaves, destroy asteroids that will cause a cataclysmic event if it hits a planet, or carve irrigation ditches to deliver necessary water to a dehydrated city. The same thing with nuclear bombs. They can be used to destroy cities, create man-made lakes, or used as an interesting interstellar propulsion system.
If Voyager has gone to war with some species like Species 8472 or the Borg Collective, then it is a warship. In all other cases, it is just a ship trying to get back home. The problem is that too often our ships in STO are warships.
All that matters is intent. The weapons on Voyager could destroy cities, destroy ships that intend to kill Voyager's crew or make them into slaves, destroy asteroids that will cause a cataclysmic event if it hits a planet, or carve irrigation ditches to deliver necessary water to a dehydrated city. The same thing with nuclear bombs. They can be used to destroy cities, create man-made lakes, or used as an interesting interstellar propulsion system.
If Voyager has gone to war with some species like Species 8472 or the Borg Collective, then it is a warship. In all other cases, it is just a ship trying to get back home. The problem is that too often our ships in STO are warships.
I think that the "Writers and Directors guide" decides what 'should be' canon. It explains what they want canon to look like. That makes it a perfectly reasonable source for saying that Starfleet isn't officially military, wasn't meant to be military, and that the producers will not buy stories written in a way that takes to much away from that vision. In that spirit, the Dominion War should never have made it onto the screen. The producers failed.
Even during TOS a lot of Roddenberry's ideas were muted, so the main problem with any guids is how little the various writers, producers, and directors agree with each other. What's shown onscreen is often massively contradictory, but far less so than if you also take behind the scenes stuff into account.
As far as canon from on screen, there is no other military available to the Federation. The actions they routinely take make them a military as far as modern English is concerned, and being able to issue a genocidal order from a Captains chair pretty much makes any other contrary statement, by any other character, an accepted self delusion.
You do not need to be a military to start or participate in conflicts. That is what the concept of a militia is for. The ability of a captain to start a war or commit genocide is just an extension of old naval laws that applies to civilians as well. Just look at the power of the British East India Company, especially their naval power.
I'll allow another possible explanation for what appears to be well intentioned hypocrisy. There would have to be a literal change in the actual meaning of the spoken language, so that 'military' is defined differently. There is precedent for such changes in meaning in real life, so I could accept that argument.
They don't need to. The term militia already covers it. In a time of war a militia can be folded into the military. Only a slight rewording is needed to state that it becomes the de facto military rather than joins it.
I guess another acceptable reason to pretend that they aren't in every way a military arm, is that when they claim to be a non-military organization, this is a form of 'self talk'. A psychological prop to keep them from using military force to freely. The same sort of 'self talk' might be used in modern 'peacekeeping' operations, where we deploy military units to go and 'not' do military things. It doesn't change what they are, only how they are used.
It dosn't really work with Kirk though, he still sees himself as a soldier no matter the circumstances. Even Picard was willing to undertake a large number of what would be seen as military engagements in his time often as a first resort.
I take the position that they are not supposed to be military. The words they use to describe themselves are an ideal, not a reality. The intention of the creators of the franchise are to be taken seriously when they say 'Starfleet is not a military organization', however that intention fails in execution. No amount of spoken canon, can defend against the more violently destructive on screen 'cannon' displayed on a regular basis. No amount of spoken canon can negate the fact that Starfleet is organized and trained to make military deployments, with military grade gear capable of killing whole worlds.
All you can do (imho) is accept that like many great and visionary ideas, the reality does not live up to the dream. This whole thread is a no-win scenario, and we can't change the conditions of this test.
It's more a case of, 'they're the only ones who can'. The existence of the Federation will naturally drew conflict, and without a military they call on Starfleet. An organisation with ships packed with massive guns and experience of the harsh edge of deep space.
I keep bringing up the American Police, they're armed and equipped in a way that would make the militaries of smaller nations back down and yet they are not the military. If the US had no military then it's police would still be able to perform national defence adequately. Not invasions obviously, or anything an Air Force could do.
But again, as with the British East India Company, one does not have to be a military to engage in military acts.
I think you are scoring points artan42, and I actually would consider myself to be on your side. I can't ignore what doesn't work about the non-military argument though. I don't know what else to say. I guess it depends on what your definition of 'is' is.
Good posting with you.
Qapl'!
Oh come on Star Trek flip flops what is canon almost episode to episode, or must I bring up that god awful episode from TNG about warp drive destroying the fabric of space and ships being limited in warp speed unless in an emergency which gets completely tossed about 2 episodes later?
I said it best once upon a time. Starfleet is the US Navy absorbing the NASA role. Plain and simple.
Far more like the other way around. It's NASA that will act as the Navy if it's needed.
Artan you have a blatant & obvious bias. You come up with olivia worthy convolutions to make canon fit what you want it to, such as your ridiculous argument on the subject of the rank of Commodore, & refuse to accept the word of the people who made all of the decisions. Then in this thread you go off about Memory Alpha, which has recieved official recognition from the franchise owners & the filmmakers involved in Trek & which has now been directly involved in creating canon. If you can't see your own bias there then I pity you.
If those people don't put their decisions in an episode or film then it's not canon. I know you really have a lot of difficulty understanding the concept but it's not that hard.
Memory Alpha is a bunch of fans writing articles cataloging the world of Star Trek sometimes based on canon, sometimes on suplementy material. The fact that a few of them contributed to concepts found in the film does not automatically make everything they say canon on any other subject. That's an appeal to authority.
If you can't understand that very simple concept then I pity you.
@azrael605 it isn't so much that artan's arguments are somehow biased but more that you (and others) literally don't understand what artan is saying. For example, memory alpha is supposed to be a collection of canon information. A lot of articles however lack proper citations, making information provided baseless. It is completely irrelevant wether anyone official approves of MA, the criticism is still valid and in no way biased. It's a basic concept which often isn't understood and arguments made against a point, in this case artan's, completely ignore what it's about in the first place and simply 'shout' something irrelevant and call it a day. It's not possible to have a discussion this way...
That's pretty much it. If it lacks sources then it's an opinion piece and therefore automatically excluded from the discussion.
I understand completely what artan's point is. You & he seem not to understand my point which is that canon is less important than the franchise owners & filmmakers & always will be. "Canon" after all is rampantly self contradicting & always has been, & there is no good reason to hold it as some kind of gospel.
Canon provides a common base ground for discussion and the ability to say 'what happened' that's the reason the concept exists in the first place. Whether it's contradictory or not or to what degree is meaningless. It is the ground work specifically laid out by the IP owners for the consumers.
It's like two priest having a debate about the differences between the Gospel of Mark and of John when you throw in the Gospel of Thomas and expect your information to be given the same weight as the canon texts. You're welcome to try it but it still has no bearing on analysis of canon material whether you happen to like it more or not.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
@azrael605 it isn't so much that artan's arguments are somehow biased but more that you (and others) literally don't understand what artan is saying. For example, memory alpha is supposed to be a collection of canon information. A lot of articles however lack proper citations, making information provided baseless. It is completely irrelevant wether anyone official approves of MA, the criticism is still valid and in no way biased. It's a basic concept which often isn't understood and arguments made against a point, in this case artan's, completely ignore what it's about in the first place and simply 'shout' something irrelevant and call it a day. It's not possible to have a discussion this way...
As a MA contributor I find his attitude toward MA to be obnoxiously condescending. Especially given the.... strange rules he uses for deciding what is canon.
Also "proper attribution" requires no more than specifying which episode, movie, etc... that the information came from.
As a MA contributor I find his attitude toward MA to be obnoxiously condescending. Especially given the.... strange rules he uses for deciding what is canon.
You're welcome to. It still don't change how unreliable unsourced material is. Regardless of MA's... strange definition of canon that runs counter to CBS.
Also "proper attribution" requires no more than specifying which episode, movie, etc... that the information came from.
And? My complaint is when that dosn't happen. Do you bother reading opposing points of view at all?
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
I think that the "Writers and Directors guide" decides what 'should be' canon. It explains what they want canon to look like. That makes it a perfectly reasonable source for saying that Starfleet isn't officially military, wasn't meant to be military, and that the producers will not buy stories written in a way that takes to much away from that vision. In that spirit, the Dominion War should never have made it onto the screen. The producers failed.
Even during TOS a lot of Roddenberry's ideas were muted, so the main problem with any guids is how little the various writers, producers, and directors agree with each other. What's shown onscreen is often massively contradictory, but far less so than if you also take behind the scenes stuff into account.
As far as canon from on screen, there is no other military available to the Federation. The actions they routinely take make them a military as far as modern English is concerned, and being able to issue a genocidal order from a Captains chair pretty much makes any other contrary statement, by any other character, an accepted self delusion.
You do not need to be a military to start or participate in conflicts. That is what the concept of a militia is for. The ability of a captain to start a war or commit genocide is just an extension of old naval laws that applies to civilians as well. Just look at the power of the British East India Company, especially their naval power.
I'll allow another possible explanation for what appears to be well intentioned hypocrisy. There would have to be a literal change in the actual meaning of the spoken language, so that 'military' is defined differently. There is precedent for such changes in meaning in real life, so I could accept that argument.
They don't need to. The term militia already covers it. In a time of war a militia can be folded into the military. Only a slight rewording is needed to state that it becomes the de facto military rather than joins it.
I guess another acceptable reason to pretend that they aren't in every way a military arm, is that when they claim to be a non-military organization, this is a form of 'self talk'. A psychological prop to keep them from using military force to freely. The same sort of 'self talk' might be used in modern 'peacekeeping' operations, where we deploy military units to go and 'not' do military things. It doesn't change what they are, only how they are used.
It dosn't really work with Kirk though, he still sees himself as a soldier no matter the circumstances. Even Picard was willing to undertake a large number of what would be seen as military engagements in his time often as a first resort.
I take the position that they are not supposed to be military. The words they use to describe themselves are an ideal, not a reality. The intention of the creators of the franchise are to be taken seriously when they say 'Starfleet is not a military organization', however that intention fails in execution. No amount of spoken canon, can defend against the more violently destructive on screen 'cannon' displayed on a regular basis. No amount of spoken canon can negate the fact that Starfleet is organized and trained to make military deployments, with military grade gear capable of killing whole worlds.
All you can do (imho) is accept that like many great and visionary ideas, the reality does not live up to the dream. This whole thread is a no-win scenario, and we can't change the conditions of this test.
It's more a case of, 'they're the only ones who can'. The existence of the Federation will naturally drew conflict, and without a military they call on Starfleet. An organisation with ships packed with massive guns and experience of the harsh edge of deep space.
I keep bringing up the American Police, they're armed and equipped in a way that would make the militaries of smaller nations back down and yet they are not the military. If the US had no military then it's police would still be able to perform national defence adequately. Not invasions obviously, or anything an Air Force could do.
But again, as with the British East India Company, one does not have to be a military to engage in military acts.
I think you are scoring points artan42, and I actually would consider myself to be on your side. I can't ignore what doesn't work about the non-military argument though. I don't know what else to say. I guess it depends on what your definition of 'is' is.
Good posting with you.
Qapl'!
Oh come on Star Trek flip flops what is canon almost episode to episode, or must I bring up that god awful episode from TNG about warp drive destroying the fabric of space and ships being limited in warp speed unless in an emergency which gets completely tossed about 2 episodes later?
I said it best once upon a time. Starfleet is the US Navy absorbing the NASA role. Plain and simple.
Far more like the other way around. It's NASA that will act as the Navy if it's needed.
Artan you have a blatant & obvious bias. You come up with olivia worthy convolutions to make canon fit what you want it to, such as your ridiculous argument on the subject of the rank of Commodore, & refuse to accept the word of the people who made all of the decisions. Then in this thread you go off about Memory Alpha, which has recieved official recognition from the franchise owners & the filmmakers involved in Trek & which has now been directly involved in creating canon. If you can't see your own bias there then I pity you.
If those people don't put their decisions in an episode or film then it's not canon. I know you really have a lot of difficulty understanding the concept but it's not that hard.
Memory Alpha is a bunch of fans writing articles cataloging the world of Star Trek sometimes based on canon, sometimes on suplementy material. The fact that a few of them contributed to concepts found in the film does not automatically make everything they say canon on any other subject. That's an appeal to authority.
If you can't understand that very simple concept then I pity you.
@azrael605 it isn't so much that artan's arguments are somehow biased but more that you (and others) literally don't understand what artan is saying. For example, memory alpha is supposed to be a collection of canon information. A lot of articles however lack proper citations, making information provided baseless. It is completely irrelevant wether anyone official approves of MA, the criticism is still valid and in no way biased. It's a basic concept which often isn't understood and arguments made against a point, in this case artan's, completely ignore what it's about in the first place and simply 'shout' something irrelevant and call it a day. It's not possible to have a discussion this way...
That's pretty much it. If it lacks sources then it's an opinion piece and therefore automatically excluded from the discussion.
I understand completely what artan's point is. You & he seem not to understand my point which is that canon is less important than the franchise owners & filmmakers & always will be. "Canon" after all is rampantly self contradicting & always has been, & there is no good reason to hold it as some kind of gospel.
Canon provides a common base ground for discussion and the ability to say 'what happened' that's the reason the concept exists in the first place. Whether it's contradictory or not or to what degree is meaningless. It is the ground work specifically laid out by the IP owners for the consumers.
It's like two priest having a debate about the differences between the Gospel of Mark and of John when you throw in the Gospel of Thomas and expect your information to be given the same weight as the canon texts. You're welcome to try it but it still has no bearing on analysis of canon material whether you happen to like it more or not.
Last time I checked NASA doesn't have Court Marshals, or general orders. And last time I checked the US Navy had all of the above.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
As a MA contributor I find his attitude toward MA to be obnoxiously condescending. Especially given the.... strange rules he uses for deciding what is canon.
You're welcome to. It still don't change how unreliable unsourced material is. Regardless of MA's... strange definition of canon that runs counter to CBS.
You mean the one they erased? Don't bother giving me that old line about how what has been made can never be unmade. CBS never said the canon policy was eternal. They did however erase it from the website. And no it is NOT in the slightest believable that it was an accident. Given that they have had YEARS to correct it if it was.
Also "proper attribution" requires no more than specifying which episode, movie, etc... that the information came from.
And? My complaint is when that dosn't happen. Do you bother reading opposing points of view at all?
What infuriates me like no other in regards to this "issue" is people like you who with one breath criticize MA for being poorly sourced and with the next breath (essentially) say you didn't really mean it.
Memory Alpha is a bit more than a wiki and is being used by Star Trek script writers as a reference guide, much like the Star Trek Encyclopedia has been in the past (which is also being revised and released in 2016).
This is a bit more believable than your average wiki, and it curated by serious people who take the information seriously. And is why the OP quoted Memory Alpha in the first place. The OP just ignored the very first sentences of the same page she quoted.
It's absolutely identical to every other wiki. It's littered with unsourced statements and speculation presented as fact, it has groups of editors resistant to attempts to change articles from their version, favoured licensed publications given credence over canon or presented as canon.
It's canon policy even differs from the official CBS version for do discernable reason.
Unless a sentence has a little blue number in square brackets at the end pointing to the episode or film the information comes from, it is to be taken for what it most likely is, an opinion piece.
THAT^ was your stated position on the subject. Which amounts to a unilateral declaration that the entirety of Memory-Alpha is TRIBBLE. "My complaint is when that doesn't happen".... yeah whatever, but you also claim that poor attribution is the norm.
Fact is your personal definition of canon is WRONG. That is a big reason you dislike MA's approach.
Comments
Cryptic are bad at what they do and are lying to the players because, after watching enough TNG and TOS episodes I've determined that the Bridge Crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise all meet the requirements to be charter members of The Avengers, or as PWE calls them, Los Vengadores!
Let's demonstrate my case.
POINT 1: Every single member of Kirk and Picard's crew embody the Avengers Charter, as signed by Thor, Iron Man, Ant Man and Uhura:
POINT 2: The Enterprise itself has been through almost as many upgrades and variations as Iron Man's armor
POINT 3: The Enterprise has shuttles. The Avengers have Quinjets.
And finally POINT 4: The Avengers and the bridge crew of The USS Enterprise follow the same prime directive.
So if it's not stupidly obvious by now, Cryptic has failed us all by not making STO representative of the TRUE Star Trek, Los Vengadores!
We need to take a stand here, and foment organized resistance to Cryptic until they do the right thing. Amirite?
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Let us celebrate this glorious day with an image from the captain of the long-range explorer Voyager!
(And sorry if someone has already said this, but I am not about to read all those pages and posts.)
But if I recall, science ship is not a real navy ship classification... its more of a current service role for the ship.
Any ship can carry extra lab equipment and sensory things and be marked as science/research ship, but still doesn't change if its a cruiser, destroyer, corvette class, or even cargo ship.
Think even the Escort class is a bit wrong, as its just a term used for ships that escort big ships like carriers, to defend them. And that most ships in the escort role are destroyers, corvettes, and frigates.
Then again, I could be wrong *shrugs*
Anyway, non of this still doesn't change the fact that these are the terms used to better explain thier roles ingame.
To better explain what each ship is capable of.
When you see a ship ingame marked as science, you know its gonna have better sensory powers, aswell as have bridge officer slots and more console slots focused on Science caperbility than other things.
Spock to Kirk, as Kirk is about to hug him.
Star Trek V: "The Final Frontier"
Starfleet does cover military operations. And its the Federation entity that they'll use in a war to defend against attacks and to launch attacks.
What is the difference between a military and Starfleet, so?
Philosophical. Defense is something that Starfleet does because, well, it happens to be there, they have the big ships and they are well-armed and all that. But the reason Starfleet exists is because the Federation needed a fleet of ships to explore the galaxy, to find new lifeforms, to discover new things, and come home to tell us about them. It turns out that what is needed for that is definitely a lot of starships. And the stuff out there can be very strange, and it can be very dangerous. You better be prepared for that, because you can't expect any help, but you can expect danger. It doesn't even have to be a hostile alien race. It can be a strange phenomen that you'll need shields for to survive.
A real world military today might do exploration and science stuff. But that's not why we originally installed these militaries. We did so they protect us, and if need be, conquer something.
And that might be why Starfleet Officers are so insistent on claiming that Starfleet is not military. Their first goal is not war. Their first goal is exploration.
My character Tsin'xing
Considering the US Air Force basically owns and operates NASA, they might disagree with that....
Not one single picture of Tony Stark in his light cruiser class Mark IV Iron Man armor proves you are wrong on this, Los Vengedore!
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
I raise my mug of bloodwine to toast your skills as a true warrior in forum combat!
Qapla'!
I think this hits to the root of what I rambled on about in my own posts. You can't tell the franchise owners they are wrong, and make it stick for ****! Canon is whatever it needs to be when they accept a story. They can change the rules at will.
If they paint the words "Science Cruiser" on the side of this ...
It is a freakin science cruiser! It doesn't matter what it is actually doing!
If the paperwork says these are for 'peacekeeping' ...
then they are for peacekeeping!
Roddenberry, and the Writers Guide say "Starfleet is not a military organisation. It is a scientific research and diplomatic body."
Of course Gene. Whatever you say. It is a beautiful baby, and you must be very very proud!
The owners tells us what is what, and we can like it or eat worms.
Qapla'!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change
Even if we take the claim that the Intrepid is a 'warship' seriously, that isn't decisive. We have to consider that, in what appears to be a continuously hostile galaxy, it would be impossible not to design for war, if you wanted to live long enough to do science at all.
Additionally, Starfleet tends to give multi-functionality to ships on purpose. We are used to having ships with more defined purposes. Even still these can cross into other rolls as the mission demands.
https://www.usna.edu/Oceanography/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a23232/navy-hurricane-relief-task-force/
https://www.navy.com/about/mission/humanitarian.html#who
See I can do it too.
Anyway, insisting that the term 'light cruiser' shackles the ship to some sort of limited roll is an overreach even in this century. Besides, it's Gene's baby, and he named it already.
Qapla'!
And there were USMC pilots for NASA as well.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
Me too!
Qapla'!
My character Tsin'xing
Wet toilet paper ...
Qapla'!
If Voyager has gone to war with some species like Species 8472 or the Borg Collective, then it is a warship. In all other cases, it is just a ship trying to get back home. The problem is that too often our ships in STO are warships.
Nice!
I really like the way you put that.
Qapla'!
lots more air force personnel tho
would be the only variant of that ship on my 'to buy' list!
Even during TOS a lot of Roddenberry's ideas were muted, so the main problem with any guids is how little the various writers, producers, and directors agree with each other. What's shown onscreen is often massively contradictory, but far less so than if you also take behind the scenes stuff into account.
You do not need to be a military to start or participate in conflicts. That is what the concept of a militia is for. The ability of a captain to start a war or commit genocide is just an extension of old naval laws that applies to civilians as well. Just look at the power of the British East India Company, especially their naval power.
They don't need to. The term militia already covers it. In a time of war a militia can be folded into the military. Only a slight rewording is needed to state that it becomes the de facto military rather than joins it.
It dosn't really work with Kirk though, he still sees himself as a soldier no matter the circumstances. Even Picard was willing to undertake a large number of what would be seen as military engagements in his time often as a first resort.
It's more a case of, 'they're the only ones who can'. The existence of the Federation will naturally drew conflict, and without a military they call on Starfleet. An organisation with ships packed with massive guns and experience of the harsh edge of deep space.
I keep bringing up the American Police, they're armed and equipped in a way that would make the militaries of smaller nations back down and yet they are not the military. If the US had no military then it's police would still be able to perform national defence adequately. Not invasions obviously, or anything an Air Force could do.
But again, as with the British East India Company, one does not have to be a military to engage in military acts.
True.
Far more like the other way around. It's NASA that will act as the Navy if it's needed.
If those people don't put their decisions in an episode or film then it's not canon. I know you really have a lot of difficulty understanding the concept but it's not that hard.
Memory Alpha is a bunch of fans writing articles cataloging the world of Star Trek sometimes based on canon, sometimes on suplementy material. The fact that a few of them contributed to concepts found in the film does not automatically make everything they say canon on any other subject. That's an appeal to authority.
If you can't understand that very simple concept then I pity you.
That's pretty much it. If it lacks sources then it's an opinion piece and therefore automatically excluded from the discussion.
Canon provides a common base ground for discussion and the ability to say 'what happened' that's the reason the concept exists in the first place. Whether it's contradictory or not or to what degree is meaningless. It is the ground work specifically laid out by the IP owners for the consumers.
It's like two priest having a debate about the differences between the Gospel of Mark and of John when you throw in the Gospel of Thomas and expect your information to be given the same weight as the canon texts. You're welcome to try it but it still has no bearing on analysis of canon material whether you happen to like it more or not.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Also "proper attribution" requires no more than specifying which episode, movie, etc... that the information came from.
My character Tsin'xing
And? My complaint is when that dosn't happen. Do you bother reading opposing points of view at all?
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Last time I checked NASA doesn't have Court Marshals, or general orders. And last time I checked the US Navy had all of the above.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
By the way. Anyone remember the episode of DS9, 'By The Pale Moonlight'?
Any ideas how we get drawn into these unwinnable discussions? I think a certain lady has read "The Art of War" a few times.
Qapla'!
Fact is your personal definition of canon is WRONG. That is a big reason you dislike MA's approach.
My character Tsin'xing