Well, I'm not really involved in any of that, so I can't give you anything specific really. But yes, Delta Rising was Delta Quadrant/Voyager heavy, and thus we specifically targeted Voyager actors.
I'd say we'd love to have any series regular come do voices for us, and would craft a mission around their character as necessary. We would obviously also love to have some of the smaller parts come do voices too, like Kim Rhodes did recently with Lyndsey Ballard. However, those characters would probably be more likely to be worked into the story, rather than having story crafted specifically around them.
Essentially yes. Except that we often don't have the luxury of knowing whether or not we're going to get someone that far in advance. Again, I'm not involved in this process really, but my understanding is that all of the paperwork and contracts go back and forth a ton, and take quite a while to iron out. As such, we have often started working on a mission (including much of DR), without really knowing if we would get a specific actor or not.
In general, these missions are written with many contingency plans in place. If we get actor A, we'll do X. If we can get actor B, we'll do Y. If we can get A and B, we'll do Z. But we can usually block things out to a playable state at least, without knowing.
With Mindscape for instance, we knew we had Tim Russ from the start. He was pivotal for that whole mission. But we didn't know if we would actually get Jeri Ryan, and that contract took a long time to settle. So the whole section where you meet Seven was kind of up in the air. We built that later, and worked on other sections of the mission first. I don't remember exactly, but I think the contingency would have been that it was some random crew member instead of Seven, and we just would have gotten rid of the borg bits from that map. JHeinig would probably remember more about that than I do.
Very cool, thanks for that.
Yeah I was not expecting to see any new VO actors and then Ballard made an appearance, was a pleasant surprise. And a good pairing for the Harry Kim work actualy. They had a good chemistry on the show.
No the bad economy and Americans focusing on eating more nutritiously is what was ultimately responsible for Hostess becoming less and less profitable.
You are also correct that it wasn't unions plural that were responsible. It was only one union that that was the problem. The other unions involved felt keeping their members employed for as long as possible was more important than getting everyone laid off.
Sorry, but it just didn't happen that way. The union had nothing to do with the demise of Hostess. You really should educate yourself before spreading falsehoods.
The baker's union was given an ultimatum to return to work or the company would close. They refused to go back to work, and the company closed. Nothing false in anything I posted.
actually, every sentence in your post is false. The bakers offered to go back to work with their previous pay and Hostess still decided to file for bankruptcy. It's in every article on the issue because that's how it happened. The only place I could find to even remotely find your claim that Americans wanted to become more healthy was Wikipedia which is a horrible place to do research.
There's plenty of examples of Unions gone wrong but you picked a really bad example.
I'm not really good with the union and stuff like that in the US, but wasn't that created to help actors and whatnot ? Because it seems this guy lost a job thanks to it.
Gaius wasn't my favorite character, but he was fine. It's sad to see him go that way. An heroic death perhaps ? Not as the traitor that needs to be put down.
But then, it could be worse, at least he's not getting killed by some evil tar on a remote planet, right Sela ?
The baker's union was given an ultimatum to return to work or the company would close. They refused to go back to work, and the company closed. Nothing false in anything I posted.
Here are a few good links to get you started at understanding exactly what caused the demise of Hostess (hint, it wasn't the unions):
And it's funny how you guys are frothing at the mouth over my focusing on one small part of the strike when you are doing the same thing by refusing to acknowledge that the lousy economy was ultimately behind the companies failure and focusing on my comment about eating healthier.
Pot meet Kettle. :P
You've given no evidence to support any of your claims besides your "theories" and refuse to even read any evidence shown to you. I've never understood how someone could be so stubborn, but whatever, you're the only person going on about how unions took away your twinkies.
Folks overseas can be forgiven for not understanding American politics, business, and unions. UK to a lesser degree but nearly all European countries provide laborers protection through political party so unions are not so critical.
In the US we do not have that. The Democratic party lost labor in the 1960s thanks to the Republican Southern Strategy of using bigotry to override economic interests - we can quite literally begin marking the high point of the middle class to this time. We see the same obfuscation today with Fox News, who is literally and continually stirring up the same demographic as from over forty years ago. In the 1980s the Democratic party basically became Republican Lite. NAFTA and globalization did the rest.
In case no one outside our borders noticed, universal healthcare is a new thing for us and very possibly will be stripped. Actively serving US soldiers having their property confiscated in blatant defiance of the law. Entire neighborhoods are stripped out from under rightful owners to make money for other individuals. Entire counties can't drink their water for months on end and less than a year later the state government does away with even once a decade inspection. Vocational instruction has been dead for a generation.
If there was ever a time for unions to step back in is now. BTW unions are valuable more because they protect worker health and make sure they have at least something approximating a safety net.
Preserving wages and tenure get headlines but truth is that hasn't been at issue since the mid-1990s.
Finally for folks overseas: "Right to Work" is an Orwellian phrase. Right to work means you have no power to negotiate unless if you have rare skills, you can be fired at literally any time with no reason and no compensation. Right to work has zero benefit to the worker except in situations where they get the benefits of union protection without paying for it. And that is the purpose of R2W - starve the unions of income until they go away.
From all the complaints we hear on STO who never pay a dime and expect all the same benefits, well we can understand why starving out a union makes perfect sense to folks who don't plan farther ahead than the next six pack.
Yikes...sounds like a protection racket to me. I am sorry for you and for the out-of-work actors that this extortion has occurred.
Still don't know how this is legal. "Join us/pay us, or you cant work." Is basically what it comes down to. Exclusivity policy/behavior has never been particularly good for engendering diversity (the very words being polar opposites of themselves for starters).
Folks overseas can be forgiven for not understanding American politics, business, and unions. UK to a lesser degree but nearly all European countries provide laborers protection through political party so unions are not so critical.
In the US we do not have that. The Democratic party lost labor in the 1960s thanks to the Republican Southern Strategy of using bigotry to override economic interests - we can quite literally begin marking the high point of the middle class to this time. We see the same obfuscation today with Fox News, who is literally and continually stirring up the same demographic as from over forty years ago. In the 1980s the Democratic party basically became Republican Lite. NAFTA and globalization did the rest.
In case no one outside our borders noticed, universal healthcare is a new thing for us and very possibly will be stripped. Actively serving US soldiers having their property confiscated in blatant defiance of the law. Entire neighborhoods are stripped out from under rightful owners to make money for other individuals. Entire counties can't drink their water for months on end and less than a year later the state government does away with even once a decade inspection. Vocational instruction has been dead for a generation.
If there was ever a time for unions to step back in is now. BTW unions are valuable more because they protect worker health and make sure they have at least something approximating a safety net.
Preserving wages and tenure get headlines but truth is that hasn't been at issue since the mid-1990s.
Finally for folks overseas: "Right to Work" is an Orwellian phrase. Right to work means you have no power to negotiate unless if you have rare skills, you can be fired at literally any time with no reason and no compensation. Right to work has zero benefit to the worker exception in situations where they get the benefits of union protection without paying for it.
From all the complaints we hear on SO who never pay a dime and expect all the same benefits, well we can understand why starving out a union makes perfect sense to folks who don't plan farther ahead than the next six pack.
Thanks for generalizing us republicans as all poor hating backwards bigots who will only be saved if we open our eyes and embrace the far left and join the european «Utopia». As if i dont hear enough of this bull irl. How about we keep this TRIBBLE off general.
Agreed about the generalization of conservatives--uncalled-for.
I'd also add that right to work has another side that is missed by a lot of Americans because the concept of an employment contract, if you are non-union, is unheard of compared to how it is in many places in Europe.
They employ me at will...I employ *myself* at will.
That side is, if I line up another job, I can walk at any time and my prior boss has no right to do to my pay or any other expected items to be given to voluntarily resigning employees, even if I give shorter than the customary two weeks' notice, or none at all. An employer has to remember that if they treat you badly, you can create an instant staffing emergency and skill gap for them by leaving much too quickly for them to hire and train a new person and they WILL be hurting from that loss. I did that in my last job, giving only two weeks' notice after also managing to give my boss NO prior indication that I was interviewing, and it fell on them like a bomb. That is something not always considered by those living in countries with required (and often very long) quit notice requirements.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Thanks for generalizing us republicans as all poor hating backwards bigots who will only be saved if we open our eyes and embrace the far left and join the european «Utopia». As if i dont hear enough of this bull irl. How about we keep this TRIBBLE off general.
I had a chat once with an American chap over here in the UK (he was a republican) when I found out that America (the richest country in the world at the time - don't know if China has overtaken) did not have a free national health care system, I was quite confused (considering how wealthy the USA is).
When I asked him if he thought America should have a 'NHS' he said no "Why should I pay/care if someone is sick?, if they cant afford health insurance it is not my problem".
I thought about that for a while, and then asked him if poor communities should still have access to police and fire department cover - to which he replied "Yes, of course".
I said "But you are paying for the police and fire department to cover a poor area, both departments probably cost a huge amount of money - that you as a tax payer are paying for."
He said that I am right, and that the fire and police department should be withdrawn from communities that don't pay enough taxes to cover them (and thanked me for bringing the point up...)
To be honest I still don't understand why people have so much problem with an national health care system in the US - the Military funding would dwarf it probably 1000 fold.
When you hear the words:
"one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." do you think:
"Yes one nation under god, but god will understand if I don't want to help out the sick people, its their own problem if they cant afford health insurance?"
Just a side note; this is not an attack on America or Americans, its just some random thought's I had out of genuine bemusement that such a rich and powerful country does not/will not provide a basic free health care system for its citizens.
That is where the cognitive dissonance slips in: "I don't want to pay for someone else's gored ox. Mine gored ox, pay for immediately."
Note that I never said "conservatives", I only referenced political parties. And the butthurt kicks in immediately. I'm not here to expiate your guilt.
I'm a conservative. I believe people are too selfish and self-absorbed to be trusted to make decisions that make their world better, just their personal nest. As a conservative I believe law exists to make sure selfish human interest doesn't collapse my culture. As a conservative I think law exists to make the culture and economy stronger and more united so that a few opportunists can't destroy us the little people.
The radicals, the reactionaries, are those who think they can "keep it all" and not pay for the comfortable culture they live in. They are not conservatives, they are opportunists.
Unions may not be needed outside the US. But outside the US they are not re-learning the lessons of the 1890s all over again.
just goes to show how those great and powerful unions that so many love, can actually put people out of work.
Meh, Unions are good and bad probably. I live in a Right to work state, so my options are limited in that neighborhood.
That being said, I think even understanding that Unions have flaws today, many of the basic privileges that we have in the work place would not exist today if it weren't for Unions pushing businesses to treat their workers better. It's nice to say that the free market will take care of things, but given that if businesses are job creators than the reverse must be true when applied to workers that without labor, there would be less opportunity for wealth as well, then the reality is that labor movements are a function of the market. To see it otherwise would be to assume the free market operates on a purely lopsided bias towards the wealthy.
Why do you think in Europe we have no Unions? In Germany we have and they are different then yours ... yours sound more like criminal companys from what i read in this threat ...
But you are right we or better i have no idea about your politics i dont even understand how you can call yourself democratic
Sorry, but it just didn't happen that way. The union had nothing to do with the demise of Hostess. You really should educate yourself before spreading falsehoods.
Ummm the Bakers Union killed Hostess... that is a fact. The other unions pointed the finger and blame on them. You could say that the management and america's eating habits were to blame for driving the company into the ground... but at the end of the day... all the unions had to agree to new terms or the company would shut it's doors. All but 1 union agreed... the bakers union. You can see clips of them (members of the bakers union) on tv news saying they would rather take unemployment than the new terms.
Ummm the Bakers Union killed Hostess... that is a fact. The other unions pointed the finger and blame on them. You could say that the management and america's eating habits were to blame for driving the company into the ground... but at the end of the day... all the unions had to agree to new terms or the company would shut it's doors. All but 1 union agreed... the bakers union. You can see clips of them (members of the bakers union) on tv news saying they would rather take unemployment than the new terms.
Ummm the Bakers Union killed Hostess... that is a fact. The other unions pointed the finger and blame on them. You could say that the management and america's eating habits were to blame for driving the company into the ground... but at the end of the day... all the unions had to agree to new terms or the company would shut it's doors. All but 1 union agreed... the bakers union. You can see clips of them (members of the bakers union) on tv news saying they would rather take unemployment than the new terms.
Please see the links I posted above. Poor management, opportunistic capital firms, and an economic depression is what killed Hostess. Everyone likes the blame the Baker's union because their strike came just prior to the bankruptcy. But Hostess was in shambles for a good decade prior to that strike. In fact, if you read the history you'll see that on multiple occasions the unions gave into management's demands to reduce compensation many times over the years to keep everyone employed, but finally put their foot down and said enough was enough.
So the company went bankrupt and was bought out by affiliates of the capital firms that previously ran it into the ground, thinking they could get rid of the unions once and for all. Surprise! Workers at a number of the new plants have once again joined the Baker's union.
Comments
Very cool, thanks for that.
Yeah I was not expecting to see any new VO actors and then Ballard made an appearance, was a pleasant surprise. And a good pairing for the Harry Kim work actualy. They had a good chemistry on the show.
Sorry, but it just didn't happen that way. The union had nothing to do with the demise of Hostess. You really should educate yourself before spreading falsehoods.
actually, every sentence in your post is false. The bakers offered to go back to work with their previous pay and Hostess still decided to file for bankruptcy. It's in every article on the issue because that's how it happened. The only place I could find to even remotely find your claim that Americans wanted to become more healthy was Wikipedia which is a horrible place to do research.
There's plenty of examples of Unions gone wrong but you picked a really bad example.
Gaius wasn't my favorite character, but he was fine. It's sad to see him go that way. An heroic death perhaps ? Not as the traitor that needs to be put down.
But then, it could be worse, at least he's not getting killed by some evil tar on a remote planet, right Sela ?
Used borg implant ? I sure don't want them, so yeah, whatever.
Here are a few good links to get you started at understanding exactly what caused the demise of Hostess (hint, it wasn't the unions):
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/whos-to-blame-for-the-hostess-bankruptcy-wall-street-unions-or-carbs/265357/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-macaray/labor-union-hostess-twinkies_b_2161368.html?
https://fortune.com/2012/07/26/hostess-is-bankrupt-again/
Oh, and I thought you might find this interesting -- the unions are back, baby!: http://www.bakingbusiness.com/articles/news_home/Business/2014/07/Workers_vote_to_unionize_at_th.aspx?ID=%7BE536AED9-664E-406E-B9BF-35BD1EA9F777%7D&cck=1
You've given no evidence to support any of your claims besides your "theories" and refuse to even read any evidence shown to you. I've never understood how someone could be so stubborn, but whatever, you're the only person going on about how unions took away your twinkies.
In the US we do not have that. The Democratic party lost labor in the 1960s thanks to the Republican Southern Strategy of using bigotry to override economic interests - we can quite literally begin marking the high point of the middle class to this time. We see the same obfuscation today with Fox News, who is literally and continually stirring up the same demographic as from over forty years ago. In the 1980s the Democratic party basically became Republican Lite. NAFTA and globalization did the rest.
In case no one outside our borders noticed, universal healthcare is a new thing for us and very possibly will be stripped. Actively serving US soldiers having their property confiscated in blatant defiance of the law. Entire neighborhoods are stripped out from under rightful owners to make money for other individuals. Entire counties can't drink their water for months on end and less than a year later the state government does away with even once a decade inspection. Vocational instruction has been dead for a generation.
If there was ever a time for unions to step back in is now. BTW unions are valuable more because they protect worker health and make sure they have at least something approximating a safety net.
Preserving wages and tenure get headlines but truth is that hasn't been at issue since the mid-1990s.
Finally for folks overseas: "Right to Work" is an Orwellian phrase. Right to work means you have no power to negotiate unless if you have rare skills, you can be fired at literally any time with no reason and no compensation. Right to work has zero benefit to the worker except in situations where they get the benefits of union protection without paying for it. And that is the purpose of R2W - starve the unions of income until they go away.
From all the complaints we hear on STO who never pay a dime and expect all the same benefits, well we can understand why starving out a union makes perfect sense to folks who don't plan farther ahead than the next six pack.
Actual join date: Open beta, 2009ish.
Still don't know how this is legal. "Join us/pay us, or you cant work." Is basically what it comes down to. Exclusivity policy/behavior has never been particularly good for engendering diversity (the very words being polar opposites of themselves for starters).
Thanks for generalizing us republicans as all poor hating backwards bigots who will only be saved if we open our eyes and embrace the far left and join the european «Utopia». As if i dont hear enough of this bull irl. How about we keep this TRIBBLE off general.
I'd also add that right to work has another side that is missed by a lot of Americans because the concept of an employment contract, if you are non-union, is unheard of compared to how it is in many places in Europe.
They employ me at will...I employ *myself* at will.
That side is, if I line up another job, I can walk at any time and my prior boss has no right to do to my pay or any other expected items to be given to voluntarily resigning employees, even if I give shorter than the customary two weeks' notice, or none at all. An employer has to remember that if they treat you badly, you can create an instant staffing emergency and skill gap for them by leaving much too quickly for them to hire and train a new person and they WILL be hurting from that loss. I did that in my last job, giving only two weeks' notice after also managing to give my boss NO prior indication that I was interviewing, and it fell on them like a bomb. That is something not always considered by those living in countries with required (and often very long) quit notice requirements.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
I had a chat once with an American chap over here in the UK (he was a republican) when I found out that America (the richest country in the world at the time - don't know if China has overtaken) did not have a free national health care system, I was quite confused (considering how wealthy the USA is).
When I asked him if he thought America should have a 'NHS' he said no "Why should I pay/care if someone is sick?, if they cant afford health insurance it is not my problem".
I thought about that for a while, and then asked him if poor communities should still have access to police and fire department cover - to which he replied "Yes, of course".
I said "But you are paying for the police and fire department to cover a poor area, both departments probably cost a huge amount of money - that you as a tax payer are paying for."
He said that I am right, and that the fire and police department should be withdrawn from communities that don't pay enough taxes to cover them (and thanked me for bringing the point up...)
To be honest I still don't understand why people have so much problem with an national health care system in the US - the Military funding would dwarf it probably 1000 fold.
When you hear the words:
"one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." do you think:
"Yes one nation under god, but god will understand if I don't want to help out the sick people, its their own problem if they cant afford health insurance?"
Just a side note; this is not an attack on America or Americans, its just some random thought's I had out of genuine bemusement that such a rich and powerful country does not/will not provide a basic free health care system for its citizens.
Note that I never said "conservatives", I only referenced political parties. And the butthurt kicks in immediately. I'm not here to expiate your guilt.
I'm a conservative. I believe people are too selfish and self-absorbed to be trusted to make decisions that make their world better, just their personal nest. As a conservative I believe law exists to make sure selfish human interest doesn't collapse my culture. As a conservative I think law exists to make the culture and economy stronger and more united so that a few opportunists can't destroy us the little people.
The radicals, the reactionaries, are those who think they can "keep it all" and not pay for the comfortable culture they live in. They are not conservatives, they are opportunists.
Unions may not be needed outside the US. But outside the US they are not re-learning the lessons of the 1890s all over again.
Meh, Unions are good and bad probably. I live in a Right to work state, so my options are limited in that neighborhood.
That being said, I think even understanding that Unions have flaws today, many of the basic privileges that we have in the work place would not exist today if it weren't for Unions pushing businesses to treat their workers better. It's nice to say that the free market will take care of things, but given that if businesses are job creators than the reverse must be true when applied to workers that without labor, there would be less opportunity for wealth as well, then the reality is that labor movements are a function of the market. To see it otherwise would be to assume the free market operates on a purely lopsided bias towards the wealthy.
But you are right we or better i have no idea about your politics i dont even understand how you can call yourself democratic
I admit I didn't like Gaius as a character, but shame to see a VA go.
Actual join date: Open beta, 2009ish.
Well that's nice for you isn't it?
Ummm the Bakers Union killed Hostess... that is a fact. The other unions pointed the finger and blame on them. You could say that the management and america's eating habits were to blame for driving the company into the ground... but at the end of the day... all the unions had to agree to new terms or the company would shut it's doors. All but 1 union agreed... the bakers union. You can see clips of them (members of the bakers union) on tv news saying they would rather take unemployment than the new terms.
Hostess died off because hostess sucks.
Please see the links I posted above. Poor management, opportunistic capital firms, and an economic depression is what killed Hostess. Everyone likes the blame the Baker's union because their strike came just prior to the bankruptcy. But Hostess was in shambles for a good decade prior to that strike. In fact, if you read the history you'll see that on multiple occasions the unions gave into management's demands to reduce compensation many times over the years to keep everyone employed, but finally put their foot down and said enough was enough.
So the company went bankrupt and was bought out by affiliates of the capital firms that previously ran it into the ground, thinking they could get rid of the unions once and for all. Surprise! Workers at a number of the new plants have once again joined the Baker's union.
and back... back... on topic again...
Gaius the character may not go... they've created their out to bring him back with a different voice.
sorry to hear the original VA is leaving, good luck in your endeavors man!