I'll admit, one reason I put the stuff I'm happier with on ff.net is you can see traffic to your stories.
Without going into too much detail, ff.net had been discussed, but again, I am not aware of any 'work in the pipes' (of course, there may well be, and I might simply not have been informed, but as you mentioned, the lack of activity, I believe, is the biggest indicator...)
I shouldn't have brought this up. I wound up tracking Erased down, only to find that the forum change deleted a substantial portion of it... I liked that one.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
I am working on some solo pieces but I am not exactly a fast writer.
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.
Bloody hellfire. I think the morality of Janeway in Scorpion was less of a bicker fast than this.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Personally, I was quite enjoying the Masterverse tales, I'm just averse to commenting on a story in progress. I can never be sure whether something is a plot hole, or a setup for what comes next, and sometimes someone is acting out of character because either they're not who you think they are (ST does contain at least three explicitly shapeshifting species) or they're literally not in control of their own actions (poor Grady...).
Personally, I was quite enjoying the Masterverse tales, I'm just averse to commenting on a story in progress. I can never be sure whether something is a plot hole, or a setup for what comes next, and sometimes someone is acting out of character because either they're not who you think they are (ST does contain at least three explicitly shapeshifting species) or they're literally not in control of their own actions (poor Grady...).
I won't comment much more than this, since there'll hopefully be a separate thread soon enough, but fairly soon you'll get to see that sometimes surviving the Undine still leaves scars even if it leaves you functional.
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.
Personally, I was quite enjoying the Masterverse tales, I'm just averse to commenting on a story in progress. I can never be sure whether something is a plot hole, or a setup for what comes next, and sometimes someone is acting out of character because either they're not who you think they are (ST does contain at least three explicitly shapeshifting species) or they're literally not in control of their own actions (poor Grady...).
I won't comment much more than this, since there'll hopefully be a separate thread soon enough, but fairly soon you'll get to see that sometimes surviving the Undine still leaves scars even if it leaves you functional.
Yeah I don't really understand why people started talking about fan-fic projects in this thread...
Guys, the position of "the new worffan" is not one that needs filling.
At least he was (mostly) entertaining, as were his stories.
Speaking of which, I wonder what's happened to the Masterverse... it seems the literary content of these forums has degraded to Shevet's occasional post or the ULCs.
What he said (or rather, quoted), and I suspect it may also have been helped by everyone being tired of watching the two of you arguing with no apparent end in sight.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
What he said (or rather, quoted), and I suspect it may also have been helped by everyone being tired of watching the two of you arguing with no apparent end in sight.
but it's utterly off-topic and why not give it a thread not weighed down by a previous conversation?
Thanks everyone. I had no idea my thread would start such a lively debate, but I have thoroughly enjoyed following it (except maybe the argument on the last couple pages )
Anyway, when talking about "Pen Pals", I am glad Picard decided to help, but I don't agree it should have taken the little girl's cries for help to finally make him act. I don't remember every line of the meeting the senior staff had, but according to Memory Alpha La Forge and Pulaski were against simply sitting by and watching a species die out. IMHO I'd have to agree with them. Oh sure, I get that you don't want to mess with pre-warp species' natural development, but if the planet is being destroyed and they will all die? Life is more important. Better saved lives influenced by the Federation (and therefore able to perhaps contribute to the galaxy in some way) than no life at all...
Don't let them promote you. Don't let them transfer you. Don't let them do anything that takes you off the bridge of that ship, because while you're there... you can make a difference.
-Captain James T. Kirk
dang it, how did I miss this thread? I would had loved to partake in it.
The point of that episode was the struggles the Federation and its founding races had in establishing the Prime Directive.
It's not a clear-cut law as you see from time to time. Were the crew of the Enterprise right in withholding the cure? Let's argue from the other side. Who are we to play God? Who are we to decide which race shall have dominance over their planet? Sometimes the best solution when faced with such an issue, is to do nothing.
Thanks everyone. I had no idea my thread would start such a lively debate, but I have thoroughly enjoyed following it (except maybe the argument on the last couple pages )
Anyway, when talking about "Pen Pals", I am glad Picard decided to help, but I don't agree it should have taken the little girl's cries for help to finally make him act. I don't remember every line of the meeting the senior staff had, but according to Memory Alpha La Forge and Pulaski were against simply sitting by and watching a species die out. IMHO I'd have to agree with them. Oh sure, I get that you don't want to mess with pre-warp species' natural development, but if the planet is being destroyed and they will all die? Life is more important. Better saved lives influenced by the Federation (and therefore able to perhaps contribute to the galaxy in some way) than no life at all...
Yeah, that particular application is the least reasonable. Sure, it makes sense to let cultures do their own thing. But... if you can prevent them from dying while letting them do their own thing? why not save them? Sure there was that case in TNG where the Feds DIDN'T actually have the ability to save the entire race, and saving even part of the race was problematic.... but.... a case where you could save a race without them ever knowing?
Thanks everyone. I had no idea my thread would start such a lively debate, but I have thoroughly enjoyed following it (except maybe the argument on the last couple pages )
Anyway, when talking about "Pen Pals", I am glad Picard decided to help, but I don't agree it should have taken the little girl's cries for help to finally make him act. I don't remember every line of the meeting the senior staff had, but according to Memory Alpha La Forge and Pulaski were against simply sitting by and watching a species die out. IMHO I'd have to agree with them. Oh sure, I get that you don't want to mess with pre-warp species' natural development, but if the planet is being destroyed and they will all die? Life is more important. Better saved lives influenced by the Federation (and therefore able to perhaps contribute to the galaxy in some way) than no life at all...
Yeah, that particular application is the least reasonable. Sure, it makes sense to let cultures do their own thing. But... if you can prevent them from dying while letting them do their own thing? why not save them? Sure there was that case in TNG where the Feds DIDN'T actually have the ability to save the entire race, and saving even part of the race was problematic.... but.... a case where you could save a race without them ever knowing?
This is a very good point. If they don't know, there's no cultural contamination, and I support acting on the basis it's the right thing to do.
Don't let them promote you. Don't let them transfer you. Don't let them do anything that takes you off the bridge of that ship, because while you're there... you can make a difference.
-Captain James T. Kirk
Thanks everyone. I had no idea my thread would start such a lively debate, but I have thoroughly enjoyed following it (except maybe the argument on the last couple pages )
Anyway, when talking about "Pen Pals", I am glad Picard decided to help, but I don't agree it should have taken the little girl's cries for help to finally make him act. I don't remember every line of the meeting the senior staff had, but according to Memory Alpha La Forge and Pulaski were against simply sitting by and watching a species die out. IMHO I'd have to agree with them. Oh sure, I get that you don't want to mess with pre-warp species' natural development, but if the planet is being destroyed and they will all die? Life is more important. Better saved lives influenced by the Federation (and therefore able to perhaps contribute to the galaxy in some way) than no life at all...
I forget which episode it was in, it might have been Pen Pals, but at one point, Picard makes a speech about exactly why Starfleet has the Prime Directive, and why it has to be followed (I believe that it ruled out 'personal feelings' may have even been one of the points he made)
In the hypothetical, it's nice to be nice and extend help to everyone (as mentioned upthread, I consider it reasonable conjecture that Starfleet does have regulations to give assistance to those in need (under certain circumstances) ) but circumstances might not always allow that help to be given, and I can see why the PD exists. Every time it is violated, it makes it harder to justify the instances where it gets upheld, and vice-versa. Without getting back into the argument, my issue with Picard and his handling of PD matters, is (due to multiple writers and Plot Requirements) that his behaviour is massively conflicted, and it seems that he only obeyed (or violated) the PD depending on how he felt in each specific situation, rather than actually upholding the principle he had argued, that the PD was a regulation to precisely prevent that kind of emotional bias, ie in Insurrection, he wanted to help Anij, but when it came to the colonists in the DMZ or Nikolai Rozhenko, or assisting Gowron in the Klingon civil war, he was quite happy to behave as per the other side of the coin and either not get directly involved, or reluctantly participate, under the guise of 'playing by the rules'...
Thanks everyone. I had no idea my thread would start such a lively debate, but I have thoroughly enjoyed following it (except maybe the argument on the last couple pages )
Anyway, when talking about "Pen Pals", I am glad Picard decided to help, but I don't agree it should have taken the little girl's cries for help to finally make him act. I don't remember every line of the meeting the senior staff had, but according to Memory Alpha La Forge and Pulaski were against simply sitting by and watching a species die out. IMHO I'd have to agree with them. Oh sure, I get that you don't want to mess with pre-warp species' natural development, but if the planet is being destroyed and they will all die? Life is more important. Better saved lives influenced by the Federation (and therefore able to perhaps contribute to the galaxy in some way) than no life at all...
I forget which episode it was in, it might have been Pen Pals, but at one point, Picard makes a speech about exactly why Starfleet has the Prime Directive, and why it has to be followed (I believe that it ruled out 'personal feelings' may have even been one of the points he made)
In the hypothetical, it's nice to be nice and extend help to everyone (as mentioned upthread, I consider it reasonable conjecture that Starfleet does have regulations to give assistance to those in need (under certain circumstances) ) but circumstances might not always allow that help to be given, and I can see why the PD exists. Every time it is violated, it makes it harder to justify the instances where it gets upheld, and vice-versa. Without getting back into the argument, my issue with Picard and his handling of PD matters, is (due to multiple writers and Plot Requirements) that his behaviour is massively conflicted, and it seems that he only obeyed (or violated) the PD depending on how he felt in each specific situation, rather than actually upholding the principle he had argued, that the PD was a regulation to precisely prevent that kind of emotional bias, ie in Insurrection, he wanted to help Anij, but when it came to the colonists in the DMZ or Nikolai Rozhenko, or assisting Gowron in the Klingon civil war, he was quite happy to behave as per the other side of the coin and either not get directly involved, or reluctantly participate, under the guise of 'playing by the rules'...
I believe that was the speech he gave to Crusher in 'Symbiosis'.
Thanks everyone. I had no idea my thread would start such a lively debate, but I have thoroughly enjoyed following it (except maybe the argument on the last couple pages )
Anyway, when talking about "Pen Pals", I am glad Picard decided to help, but I don't agree it should have taken the little girl's cries for help to finally make him act. I don't remember every line of the meeting the senior staff had, but according to Memory Alpha La Forge and Pulaski were against simply sitting by and watching a species die out. IMHO I'd have to agree with them. Oh sure, I get that you don't want to mess with pre-warp species' natural development, but if the planet is being destroyed and they will all die? Life is more important. Better saved lives influenced by the Federation (and therefore able to perhaps contribute to the galaxy in some way) than no life at all...
I forget which episode it was in, it might have been Pen Pals, but at one point, Picard makes a speech about exactly why Starfleet has the Prime Directive, and why it has to be followed (I believe that it ruled out 'personal feelings' may have even been one of the points he made)
In the hypothetical, it's nice to be nice and extend help to everyone (as mentioned upthread, I consider it reasonable conjecture that Starfleet does have regulations to give assistance to those in need (under certain circumstances) ) but circumstances might not always allow that help to be given, and I can see why the PD exists. Every time it is violated, it makes it harder to justify the instances where it gets upheld, and vice-versa. Without getting back into the argument, my issue with Picard and his handling of PD matters, is (due to multiple writers and Plot Requirements) that his behaviour is massively conflicted, and it seems that he only obeyed (or violated) the PD depending on how he felt in each specific situation, rather than actually upholding the principle he had argued, that the PD was a regulation to precisely prevent that kind of emotional bias, ie in Insurrection, he wanted to help Anij, but when it came to the colonists in the DMZ or Nikolai Rozhenko, or assisting Gowron in the Klingon civil war, he was quite happy to behave as per the other side of the coin and either not get directly involved, or reluctantly participate, under the guise of 'playing by the rules'...
I believe that was the speech he gave to Crusher in 'Symbiosis'.
I had a feeling it was Dr Crusher, in the turbolift, if I recall? For some reason I also thought it might have been Troi, which was why I wasn't sure if it was Pen Pals or not... Thanks for the clarification
Thanks everyone. I had no idea my thread would start such a lively debate, but I have thoroughly enjoyed following it (except maybe the argument on the last couple pages )
Anyway, when talking about "Pen Pals", I am glad Picard decided to help, but I don't agree it should have taken the little girl's cries for help to finally make him act. I don't remember every line of the meeting the senior staff had, but according to Memory Alpha La Forge and Pulaski were against simply sitting by and watching a species die out. IMHO I'd have to agree with them. Oh sure, I get that you don't want to mess with pre-warp species' natural development, but if the planet is being destroyed and they will all die? Life is more important. Better saved lives influenced by the Federation (and therefore able to perhaps contribute to the galaxy in some way) than no life at all...
I forget which episode it was in, it might have been Pen Pals, but at one point, Picard makes a speech about exactly why Starfleet has the Prime Directive, and why it has to be followed (I believe that it ruled out 'personal feelings' may have even been one of the points he made)
In the hypothetical, it's nice to be nice and extend help to everyone (as mentioned upthread, I consider it reasonable conjecture that Starfleet does have regulations to give assistance to those in need (under certain circumstances) ) but circumstances might not always allow that help to be given, and I can see why the PD exists. Every time it is violated, it makes it harder to justify the instances where it gets upheld, and vice-versa. Without getting back into the argument, my issue with Picard and his handling of PD matters, is (due to multiple writers and Plot Requirements) that his behaviour is massively conflicted, and it seems that he only obeyed (or violated) the PD depending on how he felt in each specific situation, rather than actually upholding the principle he had argued, that the PD was a regulation to precisely prevent that kind of emotional bias, ie in Insurrection, he wanted to help Anij, but when it came to the colonists in the DMZ or Nikolai Rozhenko, or assisting Gowron in the Klingon civil war, he was quite happy to behave as per the other side of the coin and either not get
directly involved, or reluctantly participate, under the guise of 'playing by the rules'...
Is an ethical and moral problem a sign of emotional bias?
If you think that resettling a bunch of people just because it might be convenient to the Federation (but most likely not for the people to be resettlet, and quite possibly harmful) is wrong, I don't think that's "emotional". I think it's just having moral and ethical standards. And the Prime Directive exists for ethical reasons, not out of emotional or convenience or whatever.
Resettlin Anji and her people was unethical and seemed to violate the spirit of the Prime Directive. It could be argued that the orders to help resettle them were even unlawful.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Thanks everyone. I had no idea my thread would start such a lively debate, but I have thoroughly enjoyed following it (except maybe the argument on the last couple pages )
Anyway, when talking about "Pen Pals", I am glad Picard decided to help, but I don't agree it should have taken the little girl's cries for help to finally make him act. I don't remember every line of the meeting the senior staff had, but according to Memory Alpha La Forge and Pulaski were against simply sitting by and watching a species die out. IMHO I'd have to agree with them. Oh sure, I get that you don't want to mess with pre-warp species' natural development, but if the planet is being destroyed and they will all die? Life is more important. Better saved lives influenced by the Federation (and therefore able to perhaps contribute to the galaxy in some way) than no life at all...
I forget which episode it was in, it might have been Pen Pals, but at one point, Picard makes a speech about exactly why Starfleet has the Prime Directive, and why it has to be followed (I believe that it ruled out 'personal feelings' may have even been one of the points he made)
In the hypothetical, it's nice to be nice and extend help to everyone (as mentioned upthread, I consider it reasonable conjecture that Starfleet does have regulations to give assistance to those in need (under certain circumstances) ) but circumstances might not always allow that help to be given, and I can see why the PD exists. Every time it is violated, it makes it harder to justify the instances where it gets upheld, and vice-versa. Without getting back into the argument, my issue with Picard and his handling of PD matters, is (due to multiple writers and Plot Requirements) that his behaviour is massively conflicted, and it seems that he only obeyed (or violated) the PD depending on how he felt in each specific situation, rather than actually upholding the principle he had argued, that the PD was a regulation to precisely prevent that kind of emotional bias, ie in Insurrection, he wanted to help Anij, but when it came to the colonists in the DMZ or Nikolai Rozhenko, or assisting Gowron in the Klingon civil war, he was quite happy to behave as per the other side of the coin and either not get directly involved, or reluctantly participate, under the guise of 'playing by the rules'...
Is an ethical and moral problem a sign of emotional bias?
If you think that resettling a bunch of people just because it might be convenient to the Federation (but most likely not for the people to be resettlet, and quite possibly harmful) is wrong, I don't think that's "emotional". I think it's just having moral and ethical standards. And the Prime Directive exists for ethical reasons, not out of emotional or convenience or whatever.
Resettlin Anji and her people was unethical and seemed to violate the spirit of the Prime Directive. It could be argued that the orders to help resettle them were even unlawful.
I agree. There's a reason that Janeway described the Prime Directive as a BOOK. It must be applied on a case-by-case basis, and only after evaluating the situation carefully.
Is an ethical and moral problem a sign of emotional bias?
If you think that resettling a bunch of people just because it might be convenient to the Federation (but most likely not for the people to be resettlet, and quite possibly harmful) is wrong, I don't think that's "emotional". I think it's just having moral and ethical standards. And the Prime Directive exists for ethical reasons, not out of emotional or convenience or whatever.
Resettlin Anji and her people was unethical and seemed to violate the spirit of the Prime Directive. It could be argued that the orders to help resettle them were even unlawful.
I think the thing to consider there, which I either mentioned upthread or in another debate, is that ethics and morals vary. A Cardassian, or a Romulan, for example, would willingly do things which a Human would find morally appalling, or which a Klingon may consider 'dishonorable', so in that regard, I think ethics and morality are a very relative issue... And again, the Federation was quite happy to resettle its own colonists in the DMZ to appease the Cardassians -- forcibly removing people from their homes -- and with significantly different stakes than the supposed outcome of the Federation/Son'a mission... Personally, I think the benefits (assuming it to be a legitimate mission and with the medical advances distributed as Admiral Dougherty believed they would be) to the Federation far outweighs the impact to the Ba'ku. Equally, leaving the colonists in the DMZ might have done nothing more severe than TRIBBLE off some Cardassian politicians (and that only becomes an issue if they were to then extend 'Cardassian Hospitality' to the colonists as they did that fella Cal Hudson knew...) I just don't think it's as clear cut an issue as it might initially seem... I think the PD exists for a good reason, and there will always be pros and cons for violating or upholding it...
But the Federation learned that their actions at the DMZ caused a portion of their population to rebel.
Which raises an interesting question: Was the treaty the right thing for the Federation to do? Clearly the politicians thought so. But the Cardassian and Federation citizens living along the border disagreed. Which side was right? That's a hard question because there are so many variables. The purpose of the treaty seems to have been a way of making the border an easy to define line. Prior to the treaty, Fed and Card territories formed what probably looked like blue and brown paint splattered on a wall. But is redrawing the border the best solution? Hard to say. You could setup a DMZ-style arrangement where it's essentially shared space, but only in deep space. But that is not what they chose to do.
But the Federation learned that their actions at the DMZ caused a portion of their population to rebel.
Which raises an interesting question: Was the treaty the right thing for the Federation to do? Clearly the politicians thought so. But the Cardassian and Federation citizens living along the border disagreed. Which side was right? That's a hard question because there are so many variables. The purpose of the treaty seems to have been a way of making the border an easy to define line. Prior to the treaty, Fed and Card territories formed what probably looked like blue and brown paint splattered on a wall. But is redrawing the border the best solution? Hard to say. You could setup a DMZ-style arrangement where it's essentially shared space, but only in deep space. But that is not what they chose to do.
It wasn't necessary. If the Federation had the balls, they could had asked the Klingons for help and overwhelmed the Cardassians, forcing them to their knees and then be in a far better term to dictate peace terms.
And thus proved themselves no better than their opponents, and possibly worse. The whole point of us the audience siding with the Federation is supposed to be that they're ethically better than their foes, else why should we care who's administering that entire sector if the basic point is to subjugate troublesome populations?
Well, if the Cardassians started it, the best way to beat your opponent is to bring them to their knees after they suckerpunched you. Then you show them how wrong they were to suckerpunch you. You then have two choices. You could conquer them or beat them until they scream for peace and leave the borders as they were at the point where the enemy screamed for peace. Then you walk away.
Thanks everyone. I had no idea my thread would start such a lively debate, but I have thoroughly enjoyed following it (except maybe the argument on the last couple pages )
Anyway, when talking about "Pen Pals", I am glad Picard decided to help, but I don't agree it should have taken the little girl's cries for help to finally make him act. I don't remember every line of the meeting the senior staff had, but according to Memory Alpha La Forge and Pulaski were against simply sitting by and watching a species die out. IMHO I'd have to agree with them. Oh sure, I get that you don't want to mess with pre-warp species' natural development, but if the planet is being destroyed and they will all die? Life is more important. Better saved lives influenced by the Federation (and therefore able to perhaps contribute to the galaxy in some way) than no life at all...
That's because it a lot harder to reconcile turning a blind eye, in the name of some obscure philosophy of the "greater good" by letting "nature take it's course", when the subject in question has a real voice and a face, and isn't just some abstract statistic on a LCARS display. Doubly so if you have the capability to do some something and it have a positive outcome.
But the Federation learned that their actions at the DMZ caused a portion of their population to rebel.
Which raises an interesting question: Was the treaty the right thing for the Federation to do? Clearly the politicians thought so. But the Cardassian and Federation citizens living along the border disagreed. Which side was right? That's a hard question because there are so many variables. The purpose of the treaty seems to have been a way of making the border an easy to define line. Prior to the treaty, Fed and Card territories formed what probably looked like blue and brown paint splattered on a wall. But is redrawing the border the best solution? Hard to say. You could setup a DMZ-style arrangement where it's essentially shared space, but only in deep space. But that is not what they chose to do.
While it was at least somewhat to the benefit of the Cardassians on the Fed side--they gained freedom, though at the likely price of isolation from friends and family not on that particular colony, there was nothing acceptable IMO about the Feds selling their citizens down the river for purposes of appeasement. Not only is appeasement cowardly and the wrong thing to do with the Cardassians because the Cardassians rightly recognize that it is weakness of political will, the Feds HAD to know what they were condemning their people to be, that it could have even gone as far as enslavement had the Cardassians been of a mind to do so. I am a fan of the Cardassians but I would be a fool not to admit they could have gone that route depending on their politicians in power.
Well, if the Cardassians started it, the best way to beat your opponent is to bring them to their knees after they suckerpunched you. Then you show them how wrong they were to suckerpunch you. You then have two choices. You could conquer them or beat them until they scream for peace and leave the borders as they were at the point where the enemy screamed for peace. Then you walk away.
My Cardassian character would tell you that this would indeed have been the right way to deal with his people, and what had to be done--rightly--at the end of the Dominion War. Conceding to the Union regime only told them that such behavior would reward them where head-to-head battles might not necessarily, since the Federation's nerve for war was much less than that of the Union. Only once they were so solidly beaten that they could not start a war with anyone else, or torture their own people (who were often victims of the very same regime that committed atrocities against aliens and IMO just as much in need of protection as aliens that the Union threatened), was the threat sufficiently curbed.
Now granted, the Cardassians DID manage a rebellion once before that point, but unfortunately as we saw, forces backing the old regime were too strong (hence what Dukat did). After the Dominion War? Good luck ever endangering the quadrant OR carrying out atrocities en masse against their own.
(Note: I should point out that by Cardassian political standards, this particular character of mine is considered far left in his politics, though by Federation standards he would likely be considered...not extremist, but certainly very conservative.)
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.
Comments
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
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.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I won't comment much more than this, since there'll hopefully be a separate thread soon enough, but fairly soon you'll get to see that sometimes surviving the Undine still leaves scars even if it leaves you functional.
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.
My character Tsin'xing
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
My character Tsin'xing
I save my overcomplicated windbaggery for places where I need it, like anything related to mod development.
Edit: Apparently I don't know the meaning of the word 'windbaggery' as well as I thought I did. I need to find a better word...
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Anyway, when talking about "Pen Pals", I am glad Picard decided to help, but I don't agree it should have taken the little girl's cries for help to finally make him act. I don't remember every line of the meeting the senior staff had, but according to Memory Alpha La Forge and Pulaski were against simply sitting by and watching a species die out. IMHO I'd have to agree with them. Oh sure, I get that you don't want to mess with pre-warp species' natural development, but if the planet is being destroyed and they will all die? Life is more important. Better saved lives influenced by the Federation (and therefore able to perhaps contribute to the galaxy in some way) than no life at all...
Don't let them promote you. Don't let them transfer you. Don't let them do anything that takes you off the bridge of that ship, because while you're there... you can make a difference.
-Captain James T. Kirk
The point of that episode was the struggles the Federation and its founding races had in establishing the Prime Directive.
It's not a clear-cut law as you see from time to time. Were the crew of the Enterprise right in withholding the cure? Let's argue from the other side. Who are we to play God? Who are we to decide which race shall have dominance over their planet? Sometimes the best solution when faced with such an issue, is to do nothing.
My character Tsin'xing
This is a very good point. If they don't know, there's no cultural contamination, and I support acting on the basis it's the right thing to do.
Don't let them promote you. Don't let them transfer you. Don't let them do anything that takes you off the bridge of that ship, because while you're there... you can make a difference.
-Captain James T. Kirk
In the hypothetical, it's nice to be nice and extend help to everyone (as mentioned upthread, I consider it reasonable conjecture that Starfleet does have regulations to give assistance to those in need (under certain circumstances) ) but circumstances might not always allow that help to be given, and I can see why the PD exists. Every time it is violated, it makes it harder to justify the instances where it gets upheld, and vice-versa. Without getting back into the argument, my issue with Picard and his handling of PD matters, is (due to multiple writers and Plot Requirements) that his behaviour is massively conflicted, and it seems that he only obeyed (or violated) the PD depending on how he felt in each specific situation, rather than actually upholding the principle he had argued, that the PD was a regulation to precisely prevent that kind of emotional bias, ie in Insurrection, he wanted to help Anij, but when it came to the colonists in the DMZ or Nikolai Rozhenko, or assisting Gowron in the Klingon civil war, he was quite happy to behave as per the other side of the coin and either not get directly involved, or reluctantly participate, under the guise of 'playing by the rules'...
I believe that was the speech he gave to Crusher in 'Symbiosis'.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Is an ethical and moral problem a sign of emotional bias?
If you think that resettling a bunch of people just because it might be convenient to the Federation (but most likely not for the people to be resettlet, and quite possibly harmful) is wrong, I don't think that's "emotional". I think it's just having moral and ethical standards. And the Prime Directive exists for ethical reasons, not out of emotional or convenience or whatever.
Resettlin Anji and her people was unethical and seemed to violate the spirit of the Prime Directive. It could be argued that the orders to help resettle them were even unlawful.
My character Tsin'xing
My character Tsin'xing
My character Tsin'xing
That's because it a lot harder to reconcile turning a blind eye, in the name of some obscure philosophy of the "greater good" by letting "nature take it's course", when the subject in question has a real voice and a face, and isn't just some abstract statistic on a LCARS display. Doubly so if you have the capability to do some something and it have a positive outcome.
While it was at least somewhat to the benefit of the Cardassians on the Fed side--they gained freedom, though at the likely price of isolation from friends and family not on that particular colony, there was nothing acceptable IMO about the Feds selling their citizens down the river for purposes of appeasement. Not only is appeasement cowardly and the wrong thing to do with the Cardassians because the Cardassians rightly recognize that it is weakness of political will, the Feds HAD to know what they were condemning their people to be, that it could have even gone as far as enslavement had the Cardassians been of a mind to do so. I am a fan of the Cardassians but I would be a fool not to admit they could have gone that route depending on their politicians in power.
My Cardassian character would tell you that this would indeed have been the right way to deal with his people, and what had to be done--rightly--at the end of the Dominion War. Conceding to the Union regime only told them that such behavior would reward them where head-to-head battles might not necessarily, since the Federation's nerve for war was much less than that of the Union. Only once they were so solidly beaten that they could not start a war with anyone else, or torture their own people (who were often victims of the very same regime that committed atrocities against aliens and IMO just as much in need of protection as aliens that the Union threatened), was the threat sufficiently curbed.
Now granted, the Cardassians DID manage a rebellion once before that point, but unfortunately as we saw, forces backing the old regime were too strong (hence what Dukat did). After the Dominion War? Good luck ever endangering the quadrant OR carrying out atrocities en masse against their own.
(Note: I should point out that by Cardassian political standards, this particular character of mine is considered far left in his politics, though by Federation standards he would likely be considered...not extremist, but certainly very conservative.)
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.