test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

What do you want to see from Star Trek: Section 31?

13

Comments

  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,963 Arc User
    edited February 2020
    flash525 wrote: »
    Honestly, I'd rather they just didn't, and instead got Anson back and (re)launched a TOS show that is quite happy to deviate from the established timeline. It was mentioned on several occasions in S2 Discovery that the future isn't set in stone, and I'd be quite happy for them to deviate and start their own little timeline. There have already been an ample number of temporal paradoxes in Trek, what's one more?
    Hell, just give us a Captain Pike series period. Just an episodic classic-style Trek fronted by Anson Mount would be awesome.
    flash525 wrote: »
    I HATE and DESPISE Section 31....to me, it stands against everything in Trek, and Gene's vision.
    Presumably you don't think much of DS9 either? The latter half of that show didn't exactly measure up to Gene's vision either.

    No it didn't, but that isn't the problem.

    The problem is that 3rd generation Trek seems to think Section 31 are the good guys.

    This is Star Trek, not 24, and our heroes are Starfleet officers, not Jack f**king Bauer, and that means upholding certain standards of moral and ethical behavior. The argument that "Cardies have the Obsidian Order, Rommies have the Tal'Shiar" misses the point that both of those nations are totalitarian dictatorships. An enlightened democratic socialist democracy needs spies, yes, but it needs those spies to be accountable.

    Accountability isn't an obstacle to "doing what's necessary"; rather it's the only thing that keeps your super-secret uberspies from deciding that "what's necessary" is for them to start doing work-for-hire to improve their budget, start targeting "defeatists" and "traitors" (i.e. antiwar activists or people who criticize their preferred politicians), and escalate to overthrowing the government.

    Democratic governance cannot exist unless people can be held accountable.
    "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"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • siotaylorsiotaylor Member Posts: 296 Arc User
    It does rather depend on how you define "between". Most of us, me included, would usually thing between S2 and S3 to mean between the /end/ of S2 and the /beginning/ of S3. However, it would also technically be correct for it to mean "during seasons 2 and 3".
    I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,659 Arc User
    starswordc wrote: »
    flash525 wrote: »
    Honestly, I'd rather they just didn't, and instead got Anson back and (re)launched a TOS show that is quite happy to deviate from the established timeline. It was mentioned on several occasions in S2 Discovery that the future isn't set in stone, and I'd be quite happy for them to deviate and start their own little timeline. There have already been an ample number of temporal paradoxes in Trek, what's one more?
    Hell, just give us a Captain Pike series period. Just an episodic classic-style Trek fronted by Anson Mount would be awesome.
    flash525 wrote: »
    I HATE and DESPISE Section 31....to me, it stands against everything in Trek, and Gene's vision.
    Presumably you don't think much of DS9 either? The latter half of that show didn't exactly measure up to Gene's vision either.

    No it didn't, but that isn't the problem.

    The problem is that 3rd generation Trek seems to think Section 31 are the good guys.

    This is Star Trek, not 24, and our heroes are Starfleet officers, not Jack f**king Bauer, and that means upholding certain standards of moral and ethical behavior. The argument that "Cardies have the Obsidian Order, Rommies have the Tal'Shiar" misses the point that both of those nations are totalitarian dictatorships. An enlightened democratic socialist democracy needs spies, yes, but it needs those spies to be accountable.

    Accountability isn't an obstacle to "doing what's necessary"; rather it's the only thing that keeps your super-secret uberspies from deciding that "what's necessary" is for them to start doing work-for-hire to improve their budget, start targeting "defeatists" and "traitors" (i.e. antiwar activists or people who criticize their preferred politicians), and escalate to overthrowing the government.

    Democratic governance cannot exist unless people can be held accountable.

    1g9uUE1.jpg
    Someone gets it!

    As someone who HATED 24 and finding the character of Bauer a horrible person, I don't wanna see Trek become another 24, and having covert agents doing anything, without accountability, and breaking their own laws and morals in order to 'get the job done'. Section 31 makes me very, very sick to my stomach.....they even look like SS officers, or those unacknowledged black ops folks.

    This clip pretty much covers some of this as well
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PXdwqlJ19U

    To me, might does NOT make right. Just because you got the pretty red button, does not mean you outta press it.

    Let Gandolf show the way.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntNkRXjSAcI

    Section 31 needs to rounded up and placed on trial for war crimes, attempted genocides, blackmail, and who knows how many folks 'disappeared' or 'had an accident' at their hands.
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • evilmark444evilmark444 Member Posts: 6,950 Arc User
    lordgyor wrote: »
    Does anyone have anything actually constrictive to add?

    I'm not a snake, so constricting isn't something I'm really good at B)
    Lifetime Subscriber since Beta
    eaY7Xxu.png
  • captainbrian11captainbrian11 Member Posts: 733 Arc User
    As I've said before, I don't mind Section 31's existance. but what I do think is a bad idea is shining the light on it in detail that a series would require. it works best as a shadowy orginization where we know little about it. sometimes in drama less is more
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,963 Arc User
    edited February 2020
    starswordc wrote: »
    flash525 wrote: »
    Honestly, I'd rather they just didn't, and instead got Anson back and (re)launched a TOS show that is quite happy to deviate from the established timeline. It was mentioned on several occasions in S2 Discovery that the future isn't set in stone, and I'd be quite happy for them to deviate and start their own little timeline. There have already been an ample number of temporal paradoxes in Trek, what's one more?
    Hell, just give us a Captain Pike series period. Just an episodic classic-style Trek fronted by Anson Mount would be awesome.
    flash525 wrote: »
    I HATE and DESPISE Section 31....to me, it stands against everything in Trek, and Gene's vision.
    Presumably you don't think much of DS9 either? The latter half of that show didn't exactly measure up to Gene's vision either.

    No it didn't, but that isn't the problem.

    The problem is that 3rd generation Trek seems to think Section 31 are the good guys.

    This is Star Trek, not 24, and our heroes are Starfleet officers, not Jack f**king Bauer, and that means upholding certain standards of moral and ethical behavior. The argument that "Cardies have the Obsidian Order, Rommies have the Tal'Shiar" misses the point that both of those nations are totalitarian dictatorships. An enlightened democratic socialist democracy needs spies, yes, but it needs those spies to be accountable.

    Accountability isn't an obstacle to "doing what's necessary"; rather it's the only thing that keeps your super-secret uberspies from deciding that "what's necessary" is for them to start doing work-for-hire to improve their budget, start targeting "defeatists" and "traitors" (i.e. antiwar activists or people who criticize their preferred politicians), and escalate to overthrowing the government.

    Democratic governance cannot exist unless people can be held accountable.

    1g9uUE1.jpg
    Someone gets it!

    As someone who HATED 24 and finding the character of Bauer a horrible person, I don't wanna see Trek become another 24, and having covert agents doing anything, without accountability, and breaking their own laws and morals in order to 'get the job done'. Section 31 makes me very, very sick to my stomach.....they even look like SS officers, or those unacknowledged black ops folks.

    This clip pretty much covers some of this as well
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PXdwqlJ19U

    To me, might does NOT make right. Just because you got the pretty red button, does not mean you outta press it.
    Protip, your point would work better if you picked an example that wasn't literally hard-coded to be Always Chaotic Evil. I gotta side with Ten on this one.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QiR684csQA

    Don't misunderstand, I do agree with the intent of Article XIV, Section 31 (i.e. the piece of United Earth law that Section 31 the organization named itself after) that there can come a point where you might have to compromise your values for survival (call it the Godzilla Threshold, as long as I'm linking TV Tropes pages). Since you brought up the Doctor, most of the other iterations would've pressed the Big Red Button there, for good reason.

    The problem is coming back from that. How do you send the Devil back to Hell once you've let him out? Case in point: Abraham Lincoln. Early in the Civil War, there was a danger that several border states might secede as well. Maryland was a particular problem: if it broke away, Washington D.C. would be isolated in enemy territory. So, with the (eventual) consent of Congress, President Lincoln invoked the closest thing the Constitution has to "emergency powers", Article I, Section 9, Clause 2. This let him detain a number of secessionist legislators in border states without charge indefinitely, something that is normally illegal.

    The problem only surfaced later. Once the immediate emergency had faded, particularly post-1863 when the rebellion was clearly running out of steam, Lincoln tried to end martial law and the suspension of habeas corpus, only to find that his own party was reluctant because it gave them power over their political opponents: in Missouri in particular the Democratic Party all but disappeared between 1861 and the 1864 election cycle. Lincoln was ultimately forced to fire the Army commander in the state to get it to stop.

    Civil rights and fundamental morality are much easier to take or give away than they are to get back.

    Which brings us around to an actual Star Trek quote.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjJN08uqt70
    "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"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • anodynesanodynes Member Posts: 1,999 Arc User
    edited February 2020
    starkaos wrote: »
    lordgyor wrote: »
    All humaniods species in Star Trek are related, its still Cannibalism, especially on a moral level.

    But that is only known after Picard made his monumental discovery not the 23rd Century. Also, it is not cannibalism since we do not call it cannibalism when an eagle eats a small bird. Aliens have different morals and beliefs than 21st Century civilized humans so we might just be a snack that they can converse with.

    Even then, they're all related because they're all from a common root species, including a freaking lichen, which would mean that basically eating any organic creature, including plants, makes you a cannibal.
    This is an MMO, not a Star Trek episode simulator. That would make for a terrible game.
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,963 Arc User
    anodynes wrote: »
    starkaos wrote: »
    lordgyor wrote: »
    All humaniods species in Star Trek are related, its still Cannibalism, especially on a moral level.

    But that is only known after Picard made his monumental discovery not the 23rd Century. Also, it is not cannibalism since we do not call it cannibalism when an eagle eats a small bird. Aliens have different morals and beliefs than 21st Century civilized humans so we might just be a snack that they can converse with.

    Even then, they're all related because they're all from a common root species, including a freaking lichen, which would mean that basically eating any organic creature, including plants, makes you a cannibal.

    Semantics. There aren't any other technological sapient species on Earth (YMMV on sapient WRT whales and great apes), so we don't have a specific word for "person who eats non-human sapient beings". "Cannibal" is usable.
    "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"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 37,276 Arc User
    no, it isn't, because the definition of cannibal is literally 'a person who eats the flesh of other human beings' per oxford

    in ANY situation that doesn't involve human flesh being eaten, the word is being misused and i WILL call out anyone who does so until it stops​​
    Like special weapons from other Star Trek games? Wondering if they can be replicated in STO even a little bit? Check this out: https://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1262277/a-mostly-comprehensive-guide-to-star-trek-videogame-special-weapons-and-their-sto-equivalents

    #LegalizeAwoo

    A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
    An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
    A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
    A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"


    "It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
    "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
    Passion and Serenity are one.
    I gain power by understanding both.
    In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
    I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
    The Force is united within me.
  • wingedhussar#7584 wingedhussar Member Posts: 436 Community Moderator
    no, it isn't, because the definition of cannibal is literally 'a person who eats the flesh of other human beings' per oxford

    in ANY situation that doesn't involve human flesh being eaten, the word is being misused and i WILL call out anyone who does so until it stops​​

    No, you won't. You made your point: you don't think the word should be used that way. Drop it.
    latest?cb=20171202101458

    ...THEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED!
    Volunteer community moderator for the Star Trek Online forums. Not a Cryptic Studios or Perfect World employee.
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,659 Arc User
    starswordc wrote: »
    starswordc wrote: »
    flash525 wrote: »
    Honestly, I'd rather they just didn't, and instead got Anson back and (re)launched a TOS show that is quite happy to deviate from the established timeline. It was mentioned on several occasions in S2 Discovery that the future isn't set in stone, and I'd be quite happy for them to deviate and start their own little timeline. There have already been an ample number of temporal paradoxes in Trek, what's one more?
    Hell, just give us a Captain Pike series period. Just an episodic classic-style Trek fronted by Anson Mount would be awesome.
    flash525 wrote: »
    I HATE and DESPISE Section 31....to me, it stands against everything in Trek, and Gene's vision.
    Presumably you don't think much of DS9 either? The latter half of that show didn't exactly measure up to Gene's vision either.

    No it didn't, but that isn't the problem.

    The problem is that 3rd generation Trek seems to think Section 31 are the good guys.

    This is Star Trek, not 24, and our heroes are Starfleet officers, not Jack f**king Bauer, and that means upholding certain standards of moral and ethical behavior. The argument that "Cardies have the Obsidian Order, Rommies have the Tal'Shiar" misses the point that both of those nations are totalitarian dictatorships. An enlightened democratic socialist democracy needs spies, yes, but it needs those spies to be accountable.

    Accountability isn't an obstacle to "doing what's necessary"; rather it's the only thing that keeps your super-secret uberspies from deciding that "what's necessary" is for them to start doing work-for-hire to improve their budget, start targeting "defeatists" and "traitors" (i.e. antiwar activists or people who criticize their preferred politicians), and escalate to overthrowing the government.

    Democratic governance cannot exist unless people can be held accountable.

    1g9uUE1.jpg
    Someone gets it!

    As someone who HATED 24 and finding the character of Bauer a horrible person, I don't wanna see Trek become another 24, and having covert agents doing anything, without accountability, and breaking their own laws and morals in order to 'get the job done'. Section 31 makes me very, very sick to my stomach.....they even look like SS officers, or those unacknowledged black ops folks.

    This clip pretty much covers some of this as well
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PXdwqlJ19U

    To me, might does NOT make right. Just because you got the pretty red button, does not mean you outta press it.
    Protip, your point would work better if you picked an example that wasn't literally hard-coded to be Always Chaotic Evil. I gotta side with Ten on this one.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QiR684csQA

    Don't misunderstand, I do agree with the intent of Article XIV, Section 31 (i.e. the piece of United Earth law that Section 31 the organization named itself after) that there can come a point where you might have to compromise your values for survival (call it the Godzilla Threshold, as long as I'm linking TV Tropes pages). Since you brought up the Doctor, most of the other iterations would've pressed the Big Red Button there, for good reason.

    The problem is coming back from that. How do you send the Devil back to Hell once you've let him out? Case in point: Abraham Lincoln. Early in the Civil War, there was a danger that several border states might secede as well. Maryland was a particular problem: if it broke away, Washington D.C. would be isolated in enemy territory. So, with the (eventual) consent of Congress, President Lincoln invoked the closest thing the Constitution has to "emergency powers", Article I, Section 9, Clause 2. This let him detain a number of secessionist legislators in border states without charge indefinitely, something that is normally illegal.

    The problem only surfaced later. Once the immediate emergency had faded, particularly post-1863 when the rebellion was clearly running out of steam, Lincoln tried to end martial law and the suspension of habeas corpus, only to find that his own party was reluctant because it gave them power over their political opponents: in Missouri in particular the Democratic Party all but disappeared between 1861 and the 1864 election cycle. Lincoln was ultimately forced to fire the Army commander in the state to get it to stop.

    Civil rights and fundamental morality are much easier to take or give away than they are to get back.

    Which brings us around to an actual Star Trek quote.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjJN08uqt70

    IF you gotta TRIBBLE all over your values to win....to me, it is NOT a win.

    Obama's NDAA is a prime example, since you mentioned "emergency powers", which I view as Gestapo policy.....the Constitution is NOT to be compromised, or stepped on. Once you allow a lil of your rights to be taken away, for 'protection', those in power will want MORE rights from you. And this is an old story....and to think us, here in the states, think we are somehow immune, because "IT'S AMERICA!", that shows me those folks are pretty historically ignorant.

    And I remember Jesse Ventura once said, when asked on an interview about picking the lesser of 2 evils , he said "picking the lesser of 2 evils is STILL choosing EVIL."

    And I remember from "Pattern of Force"

    "If we adopt the ways of the TRIBBLE, we're as bad as the TRIBBLE."

    - Isak, after learning of Uletta's death


    Once you walk that path of stepping over your values, you are in danger of becoming the opposite of what you stand for. I see it happen all the time....be it government or the average slob.
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    starswordc wrote: »
    Democratic governance cannot exist unless people can be held accountable.
    Yeah, but there's a very big difference between accountability and public knowledge though. Spies don't do public knowledge. Intel communities can't get anything done that way.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,556 Arc User
    no, it isn't, because the definition of cannibal is literally 'a person who eats the flesh of other human beings' per oxford

    in ANY situation that doesn't involve human flesh being eaten, the word is being misused and i WILL call out anyone who does so until it stops​​

    Actually the definition of a cannibal is "an animal that eats other animals of the same kind." Your definition is redundant since humans are animals as well. It doesn't matter if it is human flesh being eaten by other humans or female praying mantises eating their spouse, both are instances of cannibalism. However, cannibalism would not apply to sapient aliens eating humans or humans eating sapient aliens.
  • drysonbennington#2140 drysonbennington Member Posts: 68 Arc User
    edited February 2020
    A deep space carrier that goes to the edge of the very galaxy and then takes one more step outside of the kiddie pool.

    Something sorta like this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLpzVbMF9wg
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    A deep space carrier that goes to the edge of the very galaxy and then takes one more step outside of the kiddie pool.

    Something sorta like this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLpzVbMF9wg
    You should watch the second TOS pilot, "Where No Man Has Gone Before". Didn't work out real well for them.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,963 Arc User
    edited February 2020
    starswordc wrote: »
    starswordc wrote: »
    flash525 wrote: »
    Honestly, I'd rather they just didn't, and instead got Anson back and (re)launched a TOS show that is quite happy to deviate from the established timeline. It was mentioned on several occasions in S2 Discovery that the future isn't set in stone, and I'd be quite happy for them to deviate and start their own little timeline. There have already been an ample number of temporal paradoxes in Trek, what's one more?
    Hell, just give us a Captain Pike series period. Just an episodic classic-style Trek fronted by Anson Mount would be awesome.
    flash525 wrote: »
    I HATE and DESPISE Section 31....to me, it stands against everything in Trek, and Gene's vision.
    Presumably you don't think much of DS9 either? The latter half of that show didn't exactly measure up to Gene's vision either.

    No it didn't, but that isn't the problem.

    The problem is that 3rd generation Trek seems to think Section 31 are the good guys.

    This is Star Trek, not 24, and our heroes are Starfleet officers, not Jack f**king Bauer, and that means upholding certain standards of moral and ethical behavior. The argument that "Cardies have the Obsidian Order, Rommies have the Tal'Shiar" misses the point that both of those nations are totalitarian dictatorships. An enlightened democratic socialist democracy needs spies, yes, but it needs those spies to be accountable.

    Accountability isn't an obstacle to "doing what's necessary"; rather it's the only thing that keeps your super-secret uberspies from deciding that "what's necessary" is for them to start doing work-for-hire to improve their budget, start targeting "defeatists" and "traitors" (i.e. antiwar activists or people who criticize their preferred politicians), and escalate to overthrowing the government.

    Democratic governance cannot exist unless people can be held accountable.

    1g9uUE1.jpg
    Someone gets it!

    As someone who HATED 24 and finding the character of Bauer a horrible person, I don't wanna see Trek become another 24, and having covert agents doing anything, without accountability, and breaking their own laws and morals in order to 'get the job done'. Section 31 makes me very, very sick to my stomach.....they even look like SS officers, or those unacknowledged black ops folks.

    This clip pretty much covers some of this as well
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PXdwqlJ19U

    To me, might does NOT make right. Just because you got the pretty red button, does not mean you outta press it.
    Protip, your point would work better if you picked an example that wasn't literally hard-coded to be Always Chaotic Evil. I gotta side with Ten on this one.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QiR684csQA

    Don't misunderstand, I do agree with the intent of Article XIV, Section 31 (i.e. the piece of United Earth law that Section 31 the organization named itself after) that there can come a point where you might have to compromise your values for survival (call it the Godzilla Threshold, as long as I'm linking TV Tropes pages). Since you brought up the Doctor, most of the other iterations would've pressed the Big Red Button there, for good reason.

    The problem is coming back from that. How do you send the Devil back to Hell once you've let him out? Case in point: Abraham Lincoln. Early in the Civil War, there was a danger that several border states might secede as well. Maryland was a particular problem: if it broke away, Washington D.C. would be isolated in enemy territory. So, with the (eventual) consent of Congress, President Lincoln invoked the closest thing the Constitution has to "emergency powers", Article I, Section 9, Clause 2. This let him detain a number of secessionist legislators in border states without charge indefinitely, something that is normally illegal.

    The problem only surfaced later. Once the immediate emergency had faded, particularly post-1863 when the rebellion was clearly running out of steam, Lincoln tried to end martial law and the suspension of habeas corpus, only to find that his own party was reluctant because it gave them power over their political opponents: in Missouri in particular the Democratic Party all but disappeared between 1861 and the 1864 election cycle. Lincoln was ultimately forced to fire the Army commander in the state to get it to stop.

    Civil rights and fundamental morality are much easier to take or give away than they are to get back.

    Which brings us around to an actual Star Trek quote.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjJN08uqt70

    IF you gotta TRIBBLE all over your values to win....to me, it is NOT a win.

    Obama's NDAA is a prime example, since you mentioned "emergency powers", which I view as Gestapo policy.....the Constitution is NOT to be compromised, or stepped on. Once you allow a lil of your rights to be taken away, for 'protection', those in power will want MORE rights from you. And this is an old story....and to think us, here in the states, think we are somehow immune, because "IT'S AMERICA!", that shows me those folks are pretty historically ignorant.

    And I remember Jesse Ventura once said, when asked on an interview about picking the lesser of 2 evils , he said "picking the lesser of 2 evils is STILL choosing EVIL."

    And I remember from "Pattern of Force"

    "If we adopt the ways of the TRIBBLE, we're as bad as the TRIBBLE."

    - Isak, after learning of Uletta's death


    Once you walk that path of stepping over your values, you are in danger of becoming the opposite of what you stand for. I see it happen all the time....be it government or the average slob.

    I agree. 99.9999999999999% of the time, it's a horrible idea: you'd better be facing Armageddon before you even think about it.

    ETA: Actually, let me rephrase that. It's a horrible idea 100% of the time, there's just this 0.0000000000001% of the time where all the alternatives are even worse.
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    How about if my value is everyone is stupid and I wish they would all just die already? Than can I push the shiny red button and be justified because it follows my values? You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a value is something GOOD. You can have values that are down right EVIL...like say the values of a certain party in Germany in say around late 1930s to early 1940s. Or say the values held by Stalin. As the saying goes...everyone is a hero in their own story.
    Which would be relevant if we were talking about the value systems of the NSDAP or Stalinists. We're not: we're talking about the value system of the United Federation of Planets.
    "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"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,963 Arc User
    edited February 2020
    By the way, since we're talking about accountability, here's another reason Section 31 clearly isn't as official as its advocates like to claim.
    latest?cb=20100123110353&path-prefix=en

    In "Extreme Measures", Julian Bashir and Miles O'Brien entrap, kidnap, and attempt to torture a Section 31 operative in hopes of getting the cure for the anti-changeling bioweapon from him. He commits suicide in custody.

    Bashir and O'Brien never see any consequences whatsoever from this.

    But wait! you say. Section 31 is super-secret! But even a super-secret legal intelligence agency has ways of getting revenge. Legally, Bashir and O'Brien are guilty of at least kidnapping, and possibly felony murder depending on the mood of the judge. Wouldn't be too hard for a legal intelligence agency to get them court-martialed. Hell, Bashir's already on JAG's s**tlist for being a genetic augment.

    And yet no court-martial is in the offing.
    "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"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,556 Arc User
    starswordc wrote: »
    By the way, since we're talking about accountability, here's another reason Section 31 clearly isn't as official as its advocates like to claim.
    latest?cb=20100123110353&path-prefix=en

    In "Extreme Measures", Julian Bashir and Miles O'Brien entrap, kidnap, and attempt to torture a Section 31 operative in hopes of getting the cure for the anti-changeling bioweapon from him. He commits suicide in custody.

    Bashir and O'Brien never see any consequences whatsoever from this.

    But wait! you say. Section 31 is super-secret! But even a super-secret legal intelligence agency has ways of getting revenge. Legally, Bashir and O'Brien are guilty of at least kidnapping, and possibly felony murder depending on the mood of the judge. Wouldn't be too hard for a legal intelligence agency to get them court-martialed. Hell, Bashir's already on JAG's s**tlist for being a genetic augment.

    And yet no court-martial is in the offing.

    That is the problem with people that officially don't exist. A judge can't charge someone for kidnapping a person that doesn't exist.
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,659 Arc User
    starkaos wrote: »
    starswordc wrote: »
    By the way, since we're talking about accountability, here's another reason Section 31 clearly isn't as official as its advocates like to claim.
    latest?cb=20100123110353&path-prefix=en

    In "Extreme Measures", Julian Bashir and Miles O'Brien entrap, kidnap, and attempt to torture a Section 31 operative in hopes of getting the cure for the anti-changeling bioweapon from him. He commits suicide in custody.

    Bashir and O'Brien never see any consequences whatsoever from this.

    But wait! you say. Section 31 is super-secret! But even a super-secret legal intelligence agency has ways of getting revenge. Legally, Bashir and O'Brien are guilty of at least kidnapping, and possibly felony murder depending on the mood of the judge. Wouldn't be too hard for a legal intelligence agency to get them court-martialed. Hell, Bashir's already on JAG's s**tlist for being a genetic augment.

    And yet no court-martial is in the offing.

    That is the problem with people that officially don't exist. A judge can't charge someone for kidnapping a person that doesn't exist.

    And S31 is the type of organization where they probably view their people as disposable.
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,659 Arc User
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    starswordc wrote: »
    starswordc wrote: »
    flash525 wrote: »
    Honestly, I'd rather they just didn't, and instead got Anson back and (re)launched a TOS show that is quite happy to deviate from the established timeline. It was mentioned on several occasions in S2 Discovery that the future isn't set in stone, and I'd be quite happy for them to deviate and start their own little timeline. There have already been an ample number of temporal paradoxes in Trek, what's one more?
    Hell, just give us a Captain Pike series period. Just an episodic classic-style Trek fronted by Anson Mount would be awesome.
    flash525 wrote: »
    I HATE and DESPISE Section 31....to me, it stands against everything in Trek, and Gene's vision.
    Presumably you don't think much of DS9 either? The latter half of that show didn't exactly measure up to Gene's vision either.

    No it didn't, but that isn't the problem.

    The problem is that 3rd generation Trek seems to think Section 31 are the good guys.

    This is Star Trek, not 24, and our heroes are Starfleet officers, not Jack f**king Bauer, and that means upholding certain standards of moral and ethical behavior. The argument that "Cardies have the Obsidian Order, Rommies have the Tal'Shiar" misses the point that both of those nations are totalitarian dictatorships. An enlightened democratic socialist democracy needs spies, yes, but it needs those spies to be accountable.

    Accountability isn't an obstacle to "doing what's necessary"; rather it's the only thing that keeps your super-secret uberspies from deciding that "what's necessary" is for them to start doing work-for-hire to improve their budget, start targeting "defeatists" and "traitors" (i.e. antiwar activists or people who criticize their preferred politicians), and escalate to overthrowing the government.

    Democratic governance cannot exist unless people can be held accountable.

    1g9uUE1.jpg
    Someone gets it!

    As someone who HATED 24 and finding the character of Bauer a horrible person, I don't wanna see Trek become another 24, and having covert agents doing anything, without accountability, and breaking their own laws and morals in order to 'get the job done'. Section 31 makes me very, very sick to my stomach.....they even look like SS officers, or those unacknowledged black ops folks.

    This clip pretty much covers some of this as well
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PXdwqlJ19U

    To me, might does NOT make right. Just because you got the pretty red button, does not mean you outta press it.
    Protip, your point would work better if you picked an example that wasn't literally hard-coded to be Always Chaotic Evil. I gotta side with Ten on this one.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QiR684csQA

    Don't misunderstand, I do agree with the intent of Article XIV, Section 31 (i.e. the piece of United Earth law that Section 31 the organization named itself after) that there can come a point where you might have to compromise your values for survival (call it the Godzilla Threshold, as long as I'm linking TV Tropes pages). Since you brought up the Doctor, most of the other iterations would've pressed the Big Red Button there, for good reason.

    The problem is coming back from that. How do you send the Devil back to Hell once you've let him out? Case in point: Abraham Lincoln. Early in the Civil War, there was a danger that several border states might secede as well. Maryland was a particular problem: if it broke away, Washington D.C. would be isolated in enemy territory. So, with the (eventual) consent of Congress, President Lincoln invoked the closest thing the Constitution has to "emergency powers", Article I, Section 9, Clause 2. This let him detain a number of secessionist legislators in border states without charge indefinitely, something that is normally illegal.

    The problem only surfaced later. Once the immediate emergency had faded, particularly post-1863 when the rebellion was clearly running out of steam, Lincoln tried to end martial law and the suspension of habeas corpus, only to find that his own party was reluctant because it gave them power over their political opponents: in Missouri in particular the Democratic Party all but disappeared between 1861 and the 1864 election cycle. Lincoln was ultimately forced to fire the Army commander in the state to get it to stop.

    Civil rights and fundamental morality are much easier to take or give away than they are to get back.

    Which brings us around to an actual Star Trek quote.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjJN08uqt70

    IF you gotta TRIBBLE all over your values to win....to me, it is NOT a win.

    Obama's NDAA is a prime example, since you mentioned "emergency powers", which I view as Gestapo policy.....the Constitution is NOT to be compromised, or stepped on. Once you allow a lil of your rights to be taken away, for 'protection', those in power will want MORE rights from you. And this is an old story....and to think us, here in the states, think we are somehow immune, because "IT'S AMERICA!", that shows me those folks are pretty historically ignorant.

    And I remember Jesse Ventura once said, when asked on an interview about picking the lesser of 2 evils , he said "picking the lesser of 2 evils is STILL choosing EVIL."

    And I remember from "Pattern of Force"

    "If we adopt the ways of the TRIBBLE, we're as bad as the TRIBBLE."

    - Isak, after learning of Uletta's death


    Once you walk that path of stepping over your values, you are in danger of becoming the opposite of what you stand for. I see it happen all the time....be it government or the average slob.

    How about if my value is everyone is stupid and I wish they would all just die already?

    Kissinger thinks that.
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User
    starswordc wrote: »
    starswordc wrote: »
    flash525 wrote: »
    Honestly, I'd rather they just didn't, and instead got Anson back and (re)launched a TOS show that is quite happy to deviate from the established timeline. It was mentioned on several occasions in S2 Discovery that the future isn't set in stone, and I'd be quite happy for them to deviate and start their own little timeline. There have already been an ample number of temporal paradoxes in Trek, what's one more?
    Hell, just give us a Captain Pike series period. Just an episodic classic-style Trek fronted by Anson Mount would be awesome.
    flash525 wrote: »
    I HATE and DESPISE Section 31....to me, it stands against everything in Trek, and Gene's vision.
    Presumably you don't think much of DS9 either? The latter half of that show didn't exactly measure up to Gene's vision either.

    No it didn't, but that isn't the problem.

    The problem is that 3rd generation Trek seems to think Section 31 are the good guys.

    This is Star Trek, not 24, and our heroes are Starfleet officers, not Jack f**king Bauer, and that means upholding certain standards of moral and ethical behavior. The argument that "Cardies have the Obsidian Order, Rommies have the Tal'Shiar" misses the point that both of those nations are totalitarian dictatorships. An enlightened democratic socialist democracy needs spies, yes, but it needs those spies to be accountable.

    Accountability isn't an obstacle to "doing what's necessary"; rather it's the only thing that keeps your super-secret uberspies from deciding that "what's necessary" is for them to start doing work-for-hire to improve their budget, start targeting "defeatists" and "traitors" (i.e. antiwar activists or people who criticize their preferred politicians), and escalate to overthrowing the government.

    Democratic governance cannot exist unless people can be held accountable.

    1g9uUE1.jpg
    Someone gets it!

    As someone who HATED 24 and finding the character of Bauer a horrible person, I don't wanna see Trek become another 24, and having covert agents doing anything, without accountability, and breaking their own laws and morals in order to 'get the job done'. Section 31 makes me very, very sick to my stomach.....they even look like SS officers, or those unacknowledged black ops folks.

    This clip pretty much covers some of this as well
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PXdwqlJ19U

    To me, might does NOT make right. Just because you got the pretty red button, does not mean you outta press it.
    Protip, your point would work better if you picked an example that wasn't literally hard-coded to be Always Chaotic Evil. I gotta side with Ten on this one.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QiR684csQA

    Don't misunderstand, I do agree with the intent of Article XIV, Section 31 (i.e. the piece of United Earth law that Section 31 the organization named itself after) that there can come a point where you might have to compromise your values for survival (call it the Godzilla Threshold, as long as I'm linking TV Tropes pages). Since you brought up the Doctor, most of the other iterations would've pressed the Big Red Button there, for good reason.

    The problem is coming back from that. How do you send the Devil back to Hell once you've let him out? Case in point: Abraham Lincoln. Early in the Civil War, there was a danger that several border states might secede as well. Maryland was a particular problem: if it broke away, Washington D.C. would be isolated in enemy territory. So, with the (eventual) consent of Congress, President Lincoln invoked the closest thing the Constitution has to "emergency powers", Article I, Section 9, Clause 2. This let him detain a number of secessionist legislators in border states without charge indefinitely, something that is normally illegal.

    The problem only surfaced later. Once the immediate emergency had faded, particularly post-1863 when the rebellion was clearly running out of steam, Lincoln tried to end martial law and the suspension of habeas corpus, only to find that his own party was reluctant because it gave them power over their political opponents: in Missouri in particular the Democratic Party all but disappeared between 1861 and the 1864 election cycle. Lincoln was ultimately forced to fire the Army commander in the state to get it to stop.

    Civil rights and fundamental morality are much easier to take or give away than they are to get back.

    Which brings us around to an actual Star Trek quote.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjJN08uqt70

    And this is exactly what I would hope a Section 31 TV show to discuss. To show that path is perilous and best not pursued. I have no problem with there still being people in the Federation or Starfleet that think Section 31 is a necessity - but the overall tenor of a Star Trek show should be that it's far too easy to go too far and getting the genie back in the bottle is almost impossible. (This impossibility can also be the reason why Section 31 persists - once people have tasted the power that comes with it, it's hard to wean them off.)

    I really don't know if the writers will be able to pull this off, but I hope so.
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • crypticarmsmancrypticarmsman Member Posts: 4,102 Arc User
    I like Anything with Michelle yeoh in it. So, yeah, I want to see her. ;)

    I also hope they do put it in their 23rd century era. Like some others here, I do wish they'd tried to be a bit more respectful of the original TOS era (been watching Trek first run since 1969) - but I DO get they need to update and do a production that's current fir 2017-2020 and not 1966-1969 (IE - I realize that particular ship has sailed WRT this Production team. Their 23rd century is a mix of some original TOS elements here and there supplemented with a very JJ-Trek design aesthetic; and I can live with that - YMMV).

    I LOVED what they did with the Donnie 1701 Bridge; and the redress of the Discovery sets with the TOS corridor color scheme works well enough. And while I can live with their version of the 1701 exterior, my one real complaint about it were the swept back and split nacelle pylons. If they gone with the original Eaves 'straight up and split' look (which is now how I have my STO Donnie); I could have better klived with that. Given that they kept the 1701-D design 100% intact for STP (and IMO the 1701-D is the second UGLIEST looking Star Trek ship design in the Trek franchise...#1 is that 'flying bathtub' they call the Excelsior Class...); I DON'T get their disdain for the original/sleek 1701 Starship/Constitution Class from TOS. If anything TOS-R showed that yes, the design does still work and looks fine in HD (some of the best shots are from TOS-R "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" as it comes up through the clouds and "The Doomsday Machine".

    So, yeah, I hope they set the Section 31 series back in their 23rd century, and we get to see Michelle Yeoh at her semi-villainous best. :)

    [I also hope one of the two in work, but publicly unnamed 'live action' Trek projects IS a "Captain Pike" series of some sort with Anson Mount, Ethan Peck, and Rebecca Romijn.]
    Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012
    TOS_Connie_Sig_final9550Pop.jpg
    PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
  • anodynesanodynes Member Posts: 1,999 Arc User
    starswordc wrote: »
    anodynes wrote: »
    starkaos wrote: »
    lordgyor wrote: »
    All humaniods species in Star Trek are related, its still Cannibalism, especially on a moral level.

    But that is only known after Picard made his monumental discovery not the 23rd Century. Also, it is not cannibalism since we do not call it cannibalism when an eagle eats a small bird. Aliens have different morals and beliefs than 21st Century civilized humans so we might just be a snack that they can converse with.

    Even then, they're all related because they're all from a common root species, including a freaking lichen, which would mean that basically eating any organic creature, including plants, makes you a cannibal.

    Semantics. There aren't any other technological sapient species on Earth (YMMV on sapient WRT whales and great apes), so we don't have a specific word for "person who eats non-human sapient beings". "Cannibal" is usable.

    No, you don't just get to say that someone is playing semantic games with a word when the word is being used outside of its actual definition. Eating another sapient species is morally bankrupt, but it isn't cannibalism. As you said, we haven't lived with another (provably) sapient species on Earth in the last 40,000 years or so, but we can't just bend an existing word into a pretzel to apply moral outrage to something beyond our ability to experience. Words have meanings. New situations generally call for new words. Calling it what it actually is would serve well enough to evoke the revulsion required. Not everything needs a single word to describe it, after all, that's why we have adjectives, phrases and sentences.
    This is an MMO, not a Star Trek episode simulator. That would make for a terrible game.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    starswordc wrote: »
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    How about if my value is everyone is stupid and I wish they would all just die already? Than can I push the shiny red button and be justified because it follows my values? You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a value is something GOOD. You can have values that are down right EVIL...like say the values of a certain party in Germany in say around late 1930s to early 1940s. Or say the values held by Stalin. As the saying goes...everyone is a hero in their own story.
    Which would be relevant if we were talking about the value systems of the NSDAP or Stalinists. We're not: we're talking about the value system of the United Federation of Planets.
    Are you sure that the value system for the UFoP is not evil? Are you sure YOUR values are not evil? The point is that EVERYONE thinks their view is right and that the values they hold are good. I mean unless you are somehow a self actualized psychopath who's view is that people's only purpose to exist is for you to use them and your values are that everyone is there for your whim and you realize that these views and values are utterly wrong and evil because they are a self actualized person...and those things are easy to see as bad. But what happens when things get more grey...or more obfuscated? And you are not self actualized? It is easy to commit atrocities when you believe you are 100% right.
    It's arguable that the Feds have committed atrocities in the name of "noninterference". It's a recurring thing. "We know something bad is going to happen, to someone else, so it's not our problem." It's been a thing since TOS....
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,659 Arc User
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    starswordc wrote: »
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    How about if my value is everyone is stupid and I wish they would all just die already? Than can I push the shiny red button and be justified because it follows my values? You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a value is something GOOD. You can have values that are down right EVIL...like say the values of a certain party in Germany in say around late 1930s to early 1940s. Or say the values held by Stalin. As the saying goes...everyone is a hero in their own story.
    Which would be relevant if we were talking about the value systems of the NSDAP or Stalinists. We're not: we're talking about the value system of the United Federation of Planets.
    Are you sure that the value system for the UFoP is not evil? Are you sure YOUR values are not evil? The point is that EVERYONE thinks their view is right and that the values they hold are good. I mean unless you are somehow a self actualized psychopath who's view is that people's only purpose to exist is for you to use them and your values are that everyone is there for your whim and you realize that these views and values are utterly wrong and evil because they are a self actualized person...and those things are easy to see as bad. But what happens when things get more grey...or more obfuscated? And you are not self actualized? It is easy to commit atrocities when you believe you are 100% right.
    It's arguable that the Feds have committed atrocities in the name of "noninterference". It's a recurring thing. "We know something bad is going to happen, to someone else, so it's not our problem." It's been a thing since TOS....

    Well, TOS did intervene at times, and was more liberal...they made relations with folks who did not even have space travel...or even the wheel. Tng started getting rather anal about it, such episodes as Homeword and Penpals and First Contact.

    But, the PD episodes always steamed my clams, as it were, and refer to this article, showing how bad it actually is.
    https://www.skepticink.com/incredulous/2012/11/04/the-prime-directive-star-treks-doctrine-of-moral-laziness/
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,963 Arc User
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    starswordc wrote: »
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    How about if my value is everyone is stupid and I wish they would all just die already? Than can I push the shiny red button and be justified because it follows my values? You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a value is something GOOD. You can have values that are down right EVIL...like say the values of a certain party in Germany in say around late 1930s to early 1940s. Or say the values held by Stalin. As the saying goes...everyone is a hero in their own story.
    Which would be relevant if we were talking about the value systems of the NSDAP or Stalinists. We're not: we're talking about the value system of the United Federation of Planets.
    Are you sure that the value system for the UFoP is not evil? Are you sure YOUR values are not evil? The point is that EVERYONE thinks their view is right and that the values they hold are good. I mean unless you are somehow a self actualized psychopath who's view is that people's only purpose to exist is for you to use them and your values are that everyone is there for your whim and you realize that these views and values are utterly wrong and evil because they are a self actualized person...and those things are easy to see as bad. But what happens when things get more grey...or more obfuscated? And you are not self actualized? It is easy to commit atrocities when you believe you are 100% right.
    It's arguable that the Feds have committed atrocities in the name of "noninterference". It's a recurring thing. "We know something bad is going to happen, to someone else, so it's not our problem." It's been a thing since TOS....

    Well, TOS did intervene at times, and was more liberal...they made relations with folks who did not even have space travel...or even the wheel. Tng started getting rather anal about it, such episodes as Homeword and Penpals and First Contact.

    But, the PD episodes always steamed my clams, as it were, and refer to this article, showing how bad it actually is.
    https://www.skepticink.com/incredulous/2012/11/04/the-prime-directive-star-treks-doctrine-of-moral-laziness/

    The problem is essentially that 2nd generation Trek stopped actually thinking about the Prime Directive. It's supposed to be a caution against imperialism, not an Obstructive Code of Conduct. In "For the World Is Hollow", Spock openly said it was logical to break the Prime Directive if the alternative was letting an intelligent species go extinct, but TNG and VGR started treating it like it was better to adhere to the rule regardless of the actual situation, even (especially in VGR) when it doesn't make any practical sense to mention the rule in the first place.

    "Time and Again" is a particular example of the latter. Janeway and Paris get sent back in time about 24 hours before a catastrophic industrial accident on the Planet of the Week, and Paris wants to warn them about it. Janeway goes, "Nuh-uh, Prime Directive", and when he objects that breaking it has gotta be better than letting them go extinct, she pulls rank. She could instead have pointed out the logistical issue, i.e. how exactly are the two of them supposed to get an entire planetary civilization to abandon its main power generation technology in 24 hours? They'd be more likely to just get locked up for disturbing the peace and forgotten about.

    Contrast that with your best buddy Benjamin Sisko, of all people, who invoked the Prime Directive (in spirit, albeit not in name) when a Bajoran politician asked him for a political endorsement, which is exactly what you're supposed to do.
    "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"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Sign In or Register to comment.