Eh, it's a good quality piece of television, but I never thought it was good for Star Trek. Sisko basically gets duped by Garak until he's in over his head, and then is too much of a coward to put the brakes on the thing before somebody gets killed. When somebody finally DOES get killed, he's still too much of a coward to tell anyone about it.
I wouldn't say he was a coward. His fears were justified. If he came forward it wouldn't only ruin any chance of an alliance with the Romulans, but could have pushed the Romulans to allying with the Dominion. I know I wouldn't have confessed if it could have meant the death of billions.
Not to mention the fact it goes contrary to the series itself constantly decrying "ends justify the means" by bringing up Section 31 and the Maquis all the time and making them the villains.
It depends on the means...
Sisko had someone kill a few people... Section 31 was trying to commit genocide. I think those are pretty far apart on the gray scale.
Would've been a good B5 episode instead.
Eh. I donno. Maybe if it was Garibaldi or one of the ambassadors, but both Sinclair and Sheridan were too idealistic. Heck.. Sheridan's "big sacrifice" was one White Star to bait the Shadows.
"The Planet of Uhuru's wasn't properly backstoried."
"Starfleet regulation 104.2 does not support what those Pakleds were doing."
"Hobbits don't belong in the alpha quadrant."
"Giedi Prime? Really?"
"I'm still in shock from the fifth Harry Potter reference."
/spoof
The first and the last might be actually relevant, the rest will go in your rating that won't affect whether the mission is "flagged" for a vioalation of the Terms of Use.
I wouldn't say he was a coward. His fears were justified. If he came forward it wouldn't only ruin any chance of an alliance with the Romulans, but could have pushed the Romulans to allying with the Dominion. I know I wouldn't have confessed if it could have meant the death of billions.
He was a coward for letting it get that far and then justifying his unwillingness to come forward behind the consequences. If somehow the hyper-paranoid Romulans had discovered Garak's rouse, then those consequences would've happened anyway, only without anyone in Starfleet being prepared or able to defend it.
He could have just as easily told the Section 31 guys at least, so that they could tie up any loose ends in that event.
It depends on the means...
Sisko had someone kill a few people... Section 31 was trying to commit genocide. I think those are pretty far apart on the gray scale.
That is only one example. The Section 31 episodes were pretty much always somebody playing the "ends justify the means" card and someone like Bashir bemoaning how that's unethical or what have you.
Eh. I donno. Maybe if it was Garibaldi or one of the ambassadors, but both Sinclair and Sheridan were too idealistic. Heck.. Sheridan's "big sacrifice" was one White Star to bait the Shadows.
I just mean the tone of that franchise was better suited for it.
I suspect it will take several weeks to months for people to craft quality missions. Time that will be wasted if their missions can be thrown on the dung-heap by a few selfish ****s. And then it will most likely take several more weeks for Cryptic's team to get around to checking it and putting it back on to the public list. At this point it is still not 'approved' and so can fall victim to the very same treatment.
Hell, I can see entire fleets flagging content of someone they don't like simply to give them grief and then they get a slap on the wrist from Cryptic and say, "No sir, I promise not to do it again!" Until a few months later when they do.
UGC Review doesn't have to work like that. In fact, I suspect it won't based on my interpretation of statements made by Cryptic.
What should happen is that a Flagged mission is automatically Unpublished. This forces the Author to look at why the mission was Flagged before they can Re-Publish. At that point, the Author can appeal to Cryptic if it looks like the Flagging was malicious. There is nothing stopping the Author from Re-Publishing. When the mission is Re-Published, it should be evident to Reviewers that this mission was previously Flagged and why so that they can determine if the mission was corrected or not. If it gets Flagged again, the author should be able to petition for Cryptic Review. Cryptic should be able to mark missions as Unflaggable so that once Cryptic has reviewed the mission themselves no player will be able to Reflag it for malicious purposes.
Could this still be abused? Yes. But said abuse depends on the malicious Disapprovers being alert and actively working to scuttle a particular mission. You could build in some defense against this, though.
Not only should a mission need X number of Approvers before it goes public, but it should also require X number of Flags before it gets Unpublished. That would prevent random jerks from unpublishing missions; it would take packs of jerks working in coordination to abuse the system.
I hasten to point out that this can be abused in the other direction as well. If I, as an Author, can get X number of Reviewers to approve my content then it's going public, at least until it gets Flagged out there. I'd rather have a Review system of some kind than not... and frankly I see that as the only way CBS can get behind UGC. Without review, their IP is subject to even worse abuse.
The first and the last might be actually relevant, the rest will go in your rating that won't affect whether the mission is "flagged" for a vioalation of the Terms of Use.
Seriously though, you know what would make everyone happy in a rating system? This:
CREATIVITY:★★★★
CANON:★★
OVERALL: ★★★
Have users be able to search rating fields like "canon" to weed out the more "avant garde" episodes. Huh? Wha'd'yall think?
I wouldn't call it my favorite.. but it's definitely high on the list. Brooks' performance was top notch, and convincing despite the mannerisms he tends to have when he gets emotional. I also really like how they started to us Garek in the final seasons; they really added depth to the character without making him feel like a gimmick.
If I had to pick my favorite episode... probably Scorpion1/2, as viewed at its time of release. If you watch it now, knowing all we know of the Borg and 8572, it's not the same as if you were to experience it then.
I just watched Scorpion a few days ago. It was still exciting (HOLY **** THE UDINE!) but for me it didn't have the same emotional impact.
So the next question is, what qualifies as inappropriate content? The second episode of Enterprise had an alien ship full of bodies on hooks. Would that get flagged as inappropriate? TWoK had something similar on Regula 1. Would TWoK get flagged?
So the next question is, what qualifies as inappropriate content? The second episode of Enterprise had an alien ship full of bodies on hooks. Would that get flagged as inappropriate? TWoK had something similar on Regula 1. Would TWoK get flagged?
Inappropriate content will be spelled out in the forthcoming material when Foundry hits beta I suppose. Dstahl has already said this in the sticky above.
There will be a Foundry Terms of Use Doc that outlines rules that must be adhered to when making content. This will include CBS guidelines for what can and can't be used, as well as specific things that are deemed not-allowable and cause for Flagging.
Little point in debating it until we see what Cryptic / CBS lays out for us.
Inappropriate content will be spelled out in the forthcoming material when Foundry hits beta I suppose. Dstahl has already said this in the sticky above.
True, but it'll come down to terms that are defined by individuals. For instance, if it says you're not permitted to use swear words, well... unless they list every word that's not allowed, it's going to be left over to what individuals believe to be swear words. Even television networks can't seem to decide on a definitive list.
Then there will likely be restrictions against, say.. racism. Which, when you think about it, is kind of dumb for Star Trek, given we've seen racism against alien races quite often. So where do individuals draw the line there? There's the conceptual difference between recognizing the difference between races and insulting a race based on differences.
A document simply can't list every single example of what's allowed and what's not. And if it tried, reviewers would lose interest in trying to remember it all.
True, but it'll come down to terms that are defined by individuals. For instance, if it says you're not permitted to use swear words, well... unless they list every word that's not allowed, it's going to be left over to what individuals believe to be swear words. Even television networks can't seem to decide on a definitive list.
Then there will likely be restrictions against, say.. racism. Which, when you think about it, is kind of dumb for Star Trek, given we've seen racism against alien races quite often. So where do individuals draw the line there? There's the conceptual difference between recognizing the difference between races and insulting a race based on differences.
A document simply can't list every single example of what's allowed and what's not. And if it tried, reviewers would lose interest in trying to remember it all.
Generally - you can't be racist towards Klingons or Vulcans by law. Klingons and Vulcans do not exist, they are fictional species. Just like you can't file a complaint that a fictional person was insulted or something like that. Of course, STO might handle this differently, or people might not "get" it.
I figure it's similar to Politics. You can't talk about Republicans or the Green Party, but there is no problem in talking about House Martok and House Duras fight for power and how Martok's house for a peace treaty with the Federation is treachery and they should all be dishonored. Or how the goal of the Vulcan Unionist party to reunite with their Romulan brothers and sisters is logical, while the Vulcan Mind parties leader emotional outburst* during the last Romulan-Vulcan conference was inexcusable.
I thought it has already been staed that these missions will be marked on pre agreed "rules" and that personal opinions whould pretty much be irrelvent as the game has to meet the prerequisistes ion order to "make it" and thats it. I thought...
I'd be more worried about submitted missions not being tested at all, and thus not being passed for public playing and reward-earning, even if it's just by you and your friends.
Comments
I wouldn't say he was a coward. His fears were justified. If he came forward it wouldn't only ruin any chance of an alliance with the Romulans, but could have pushed the Romulans to allying with the Dominion. I know I wouldn't have confessed if it could have meant the death of billions.
It depends on the means...
Sisko had someone kill a few people... Section 31 was trying to commit genocide. I think those are pretty far apart on the gray scale.
Eh. I donno. Maybe if it was Garibaldi or one of the ambassadors, but both Sinclair and Sheridan were too idealistic. Heck.. Sheridan's "big sacrifice" was one White Star to bait the Shadows.
He was a coward for letting it get that far and then justifying his unwillingness to come forward behind the consequences. If somehow the hyper-paranoid Romulans had discovered Garak's rouse, then those consequences would've happened anyway, only without anyone in Starfleet being prepared or able to defend it.
He could have just as easily told the Section 31 guys at least, so that they could tie up any loose ends in that event.
That is only one example. The Section 31 episodes were pretty much always somebody playing the "ends justify the means" card and someone like Bashir bemoaning how that's unethical or what have you.
I just mean the tone of that franchise was better suited for it.
UGC Review doesn't have to work like that. In fact, I suspect it won't based on my interpretation of statements made by Cryptic.
What should happen is that a Flagged mission is automatically Unpublished. This forces the Author to look at why the mission was Flagged before they can Re-Publish. At that point, the Author can appeal to Cryptic if it looks like the Flagging was malicious. There is nothing stopping the Author from Re-Publishing. When the mission is Re-Published, it should be evident to Reviewers that this mission was previously Flagged and why so that they can determine if the mission was corrected or not. If it gets Flagged again, the author should be able to petition for Cryptic Review. Cryptic should be able to mark missions as Unflaggable so that once Cryptic has reviewed the mission themselves no player will be able to Reflag it for malicious purposes.
Could this still be abused? Yes. But said abuse depends on the malicious Disapprovers being alert and actively working to scuttle a particular mission. You could build in some defense against this, though.
Not only should a mission need X number of Approvers before it goes public, but it should also require X number of Flags before it gets Unpublished. That would prevent random jerks from unpublishing missions; it would take packs of jerks working in coordination to abuse the system.
I hasten to point out that this can be abused in the other direction as well. If I, as an Author, can get X number of Reviewers to approve my content then it's going public, at least until it gets Flagged out there. I'd rather have a Review system of some kind than not... and frankly I see that as the only way CBS can get behind UGC. Without review, their IP is subject to even worse abuse.
Seriously though, you know what would make everyone happy in a rating system? This:
CREATIVITY:★★★★
CANON:★★
OVERALL: ★★★
Have users be able to search rating fields like "canon" to weed out the more "avant garde" episodes. Huh? Wha'd'yall think?
I just watched Scorpion a few days ago. It was still exciting (HOLY **** THE UDINE!) but for me it didn't have the same emotional impact.
On my TV this moment: "Year of Hell, Part 1"
Inappropriate content will be spelled out in the forthcoming material when Foundry hits beta I suppose. Dstahl has already said this in the sticky above.
Little point in debating it until we see what Cryptic / CBS lays out for us.
True, but it'll come down to terms that are defined by individuals. For instance, if it says you're not permitted to use swear words, well... unless they list every word that's not allowed, it's going to be left over to what individuals believe to be swear words. Even television networks can't seem to decide on a definitive list.
Then there will likely be restrictions against, say.. racism. Which, when you think about it, is kind of dumb for Star Trek, given we've seen racism against alien races quite often. So where do individuals draw the line there? There's the conceptual difference between recognizing the difference between races and insulting a race based on differences.
A document simply can't list every single example of what's allowed and what's not. And if it tried, reviewers would lose interest in trying to remember it all.
I figure it's similar to Politics. You can't talk about Republicans or the Green Party, but there is no problem in talking about House Martok and House Duras fight for power and how Martok's house for a peace treaty with the Federation is treachery and they should all be dishonored. Or how the goal of the Vulcan Unionist party to reunite with their Romulan brothers and sisters is logical, while the Vulcan Mind parties leader emotional outburst* during the last Romulan-Vulcan conference was inexcusable.
*) he rolled his eyes.
Infinite Improbability Drive There's your problem
I don't know why Scotty decided to put the Warp drive and the Infinite Improbability drive right next to each other...