Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
The majority of science ship powers in STO are flat out horrifying and inhumane. The "unpredictable nature" of subspace weapons sort of pales in comparison to being melted alive. Starfleet was dissatisfied with the efficiency of it's murder-ships and installed secondary deflectors on them; one of them actually adds exotic radiation to powers that were arguably more humane.
Not sure what you are trying to accomplish here. Science vessels in STO are far worse than any on screen cannon you can find.
The OP certainly entertains, if nothing else. Though the wallotexts have started getting very boring.
Well to be fair, the OP turned the thread around, changed the title and is now talking about banned weapons. Which is fun, since I currently equip banned weapons and archaic 23rd century weapons. On a cruiser.
Pretty sure photon torpedoes can cause spacetime ruptures if you use enough of them (See Yesterday's Enterprise) so I don't think tricobalt's necessarily at fault, here.
Interesting discussion generated out of this topic, though. Heck, I generate energy-draining rifts, jump around local space through hurling myself through a wormhole generated by a micro-singularity, and create anti-time rifts to get my starship-killing done faster in game.
Space-time's pretty heavily abused in STO.
Fate - protects fools, small children, and ships named Enterprise Will Riker
Member Access Denied Armada!
My forum single-issue of rage: Make the Proton Experimental Weapon go for subsystem targetting!
The OP certainly entertains, if nothing else. Though the wallotexts have started getting very boring.
Well to be fair, the OP turned the thread around, changed the title and is now talking about banned weapons. Which is fun, since I currently equip banned weapons and archaic 23rd century weapons. On a cruiser.
The OP certainly entertains, if nothing else. Though the wallotexts have started getting very boring.
It's actually quite ironic that Olivia's troll threads often produce some interesting discussion - often discussion that has little or nothing to do with her conspiracy theories
Yeah. I am horrified and delighted all at once! I think I need to execute a Doff for incompetence somewhere ... but I can't figure out who is responsible.
The OP certainly entertains, if nothing else. Though the wallotexts have started getting very boring.
Well to be fair, the OP turned the thread around, changed the title and is now talking about banned weapons. Which is fun, since I currently equip banned weapons and archaic 23rd century weapons. On a cruiser.
Me too on my Fleet Eclipse, bio molecular photons and soon phasers with a planet killing mining drill.
"The meaning of victory is not to merely defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to completely eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavours, to crush utterly his achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory."
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
It's not "subspace weapons", it's space magic. There is no law against space magic, is there? Otherwise Q would be behind bars!
STO gets it six impossible things out of the way before breakfast, yes. Though to be fair, the Federation is hitting that 'ancient gateway network rediscovered by new space-faring civilization' level of power since they started putting in the transwarp network, so we're at like, squaring Clarke's Third Law. (Previous technology indistinguishable from magic is pretty commonplace. Oh, someone under a rock - let's dematerialize them out and reassemble them over here)
Fate - protects fools, small children, and ships named Enterprise Will Riker
Member Access Denied Armada!
My forum single-issue of rage: Make the Proton Experimental Weapon go for subsystem targetting!
As a MA contributor I find his attitude toward MA to be obnoxiously condescending. Especially given the.... strange rules he uses for deciding what is canon.
Also "proper attribution" requires no more than specifying which episode, movie, etc... that the information came from.
The remark of you being a MA contributor is superflous. For example, I am as well. This is because MA is a open wiki which doesn't even require registration to contribute to it. And that's the problem, a lot of the material on MA is not properly cited, making it baseless. This has nothing to do with canon or Memory Alpha or someone being biased, this is a basic issue about working with sources. You wouldn't use claims without proper citation in scientific works. And yes, proper attribution requires exactly that. Things written on MA that do not fulfill that basic requirement have no business being on MA and cannot be included in a canon discussion. You can still include them as opinionated pieces and discuss them, though.
Not sure where you're going with this... Are you saying the current MA citation policy is inadequate?
Not sure where you're going with this... Are you saying the current MA citation policy is inadequate?
I have no idea how you reach those levels of misunderstanding things people write.
I am saying that a common criticism about MA is uncited passages and articles of which there are plenty, no more no less. You disregard that criticism by saying it's officially approved which however doesn't do anything to deal with the issue which doesn't apply to every article but only those, well, it applies to.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Scratch the "close" match, it is a perfect match! The wording may be slightly different between "built for combat performance" and "designed for combat" but the meaning is exactly the same.
Yeah, no. 'Designed for combat' makes it a warship; 'built for combat performance,' however, is ambiguous. An explorer vessel, for instance, can be designed for exploration/science, but still be built for combat performance. And that's what Voyager was: designed for exploration, but definitely built to hold its own in combat situations.
The OP would also do well to keep in mind that (with the exception of the Defiant, maybe) ALL Federation ships are basically exploration ships, as 'to seek out new life and civilizations' is simply at the core of the Federation: they're not a military outfit, but a civilian one. Picard's Galaxy class ship, with families and children onboard even, is a good example: it's still meant for exploration, but, at the same time, was seen as the Federation's flagship (also in a military sense). Such a ship would not exist in the Klingon Empire: their warships are just that, warships.
Yeah, no. 'Designed for combat' makes it a warship; 'built for combat performance,' however, is ambiguous. An explorer vessel, for instance, can be designed for exploration/science, but still be built for combat performance. And that's what Voyager was: designed for exploration, but definitely built to hold its own in combat situations.
The OP would also do well to keep in mind that (with the exception of the Defiant, maybe) ALL Federation ships are basically exploration ships, as 'to seek out new life and civilizations' is simply at the core of the Federation: they're not a military outfit, but a civilian one. Picard's Galaxy class ship, with families and children onboard even, is a good example: it's still meant for exploration, but, at the same time, was seen as the Federation's flagship (also in a military sense). Such a ship would not exist in the Klingon Empire: their warships are just that, warships.
That's the problem with people not even comprehending the catchphrase of the show they are watching.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
It would be nice if you had displayed this level of vigilance during the abuse and libel I recently experienced from coldnapalm, but I guess that was towards me, so it doesn't matter if anyone else treats me like ****, because you don't like me...
Now you're just embarrassing yourself. Just move on.
It would be nice if you had displayed this level of vigilance during the abuse and libel I recently experienced from coldnapalm, but I guess that was towards me, so it doesn't matter if anyone else treats me like ****, because you don't like me...
Now you're just embarrassing yourself. Just move on.
It would be nice if you had displayed this level of vigilance during the abuse and libel I recently experienced from coldnapalm, but I guess that was towards me, so it doesn't matter if anyone else treats me like ****, because you don't like me...
Now you're just embarrassing yourself. Just move on.
It would be nice if you had displayed this level of vigilance during the abuse and libel I recently experienced from coldnapalm, but I guess that was towards me, so it doesn't matter if anyone else treats me like ****, because you don't like me...
Now you're just embarrassing yourself. Just move on.
I did... Please allow me to do so
Good come-back! LOL
AI have my moments... A broken clock's right twice a day
Yeah, no. 'Designed for combat' makes it a warship; 'built for combat performance,' however, is ambiguous. An explorer vessel, for instance, can be designed for exploration/science, but still be built for combat performance. And that's what Voyager was: designed for exploration, but definitely built to hold its own in combat situations.
No. There's no evidence to support that the Voyager was built as an exception.
If they paint the words "Science Cruiser" on the side [. . .] It is a freakin science cruiser! It doesn't matter what it is actually doing! If the paperwork says these are for 'peacekeeping' [. . .] then they are for peacekeeping!
Roddenberry, and the Writers Guide say "Starfleet is not a military organisation. It is a scientific research and diplomatic body."
Roddenberry and the Writers' Guide cannot redefine the language. The terms JAG corps and court-martial are military-specific terms by definition. Unless they're redefined with a formal dictionary entry for reference, no fictional work can change them. And no one can guarantee this specific change in the future. Therefore, Starfleet is a military organization by definition.
If Star Trek did not want Starfleet to be a military organization, then it should not have portrayed it as one. Yet, they admit it in canonical dialogue (e.g. Kirk, McCoy, David Marcus, Sisko, Q), give it heavily-armed warships that fight its wars, and use military-specific terms by definition. Claiming that it is not a military makes it look like a deliberate deception to fool the audience; like brainwashing propaganda. In fact, there's enough evidence that it is propaganda in articles like MA: Depicting Klingons.
If, conceptually, Klingons were meant to represent "space communists" against "US democracy" (LOL!), what does that make Starfleet if not a representation of the US military in space? Even Nicholas Meyer (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan) mentioned that Roddenberry thought Starfleet was "something akin to the Coast Guard", which struck him as "manifestly absurd" compared to what was shown in TOS. Yet, even USCG is formally a military organization. Therefore, Star Trek is deception and propaganda.
SEVEN: The Captain ordered Commander Tuvok to destroy the array. He fired two tricobalt devices. Are those weapons normally carried on Federation Starships? CHAKOTAY: No. SEVEN: Yet they were part of Voyager's arsenal. Why? CHAKOTAY: I can't explain that.
Yeah, no. 'Designed for combat' makes it a warship; 'built for combat performance,' however, is ambiguous. An explorer vessel, for instance, can be designed for exploration/science, but still be built for combat performance. And that's what Voyager was: designed for exploration, but definitely built to hold its own in combat situations.
No. There's no evidence to support that the Voyager was built as an exception.
If they paint the words "Science Cruiser" on the side [. . .] It is a freakin science cruiser! It doesn't matter what it is actually doing! If the paperwork says these are for 'peacekeeping' [. . .] then they are for peacekeeping!
Roddenberry, and the Writers Guide say "Starfleet is not a military organisation. It is a scientific research and diplomatic body."
Roddenberry and the Writers' Guide cannot redefine the language. The terms JAG corps and court-martial are military-specific terms by definition. Unless they're redefined with a formal dictionary entry for reference, no fictional work can change them. And no one can guarantee this specific change in the future. Therefore, Starfleet is a military organization by definition.
If Star Trek did not want Starfleet to be a military organization, then it should not have portrayed it as one. Yet, they admit it in canonical dialogue (e.g. Kirk, McCoy, David Marcus, Sisko, Q), give it heavily-armed warships that fight its wars, and use military-specific terms by definition. Claiming that it is not a military makes it look like a deliberate deception to fool the audience; like brainwashing propaganda. In fact, there's enough evidence that it is propaganda in articles like MA: Depicting Klingons.
If, conceptually, Klingons were meant to represent "space communists" against "US democracy" (LOL!), what does that make Starfleet if not a representation of the US military in space? Even Nicholas Meyer (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan) mentioned that Roddenberry thought Starfleet was "something akin to the Coast Guard", which struck him as "manifestly absurd" compared to what was shown in TOS. Yet, even USCG is formally a military organization. Therefore, Star Trek is deception and propaganda.
SEVEN: The Captain ordered Commander Tuvok to destroy the array. He fired two tricobalt devices. Are those weapons normally carried on Federation Starships? CHAKOTAY: No. SEVEN: Yet they were part of Voyager's arsenal. Why? CHAKOTAY: I can't explain that.
To this day, they still cannot explain it!
I wouldn't go so far as to call Star Trek propoganda, but I would say that there are characters within the narrative who could be considered as denialists/self-deceivers who actually believe that Starfleet isn't a millitary, and who claim that it isn't, to try and claim a moral high-ground... This would explain the conflicts in canon exposition.
Chakotay, for example, made a big deal out of calling himself an anthropologist, when he had also been (although never directly named on-screen) Ro Laren's ATT instructor... Sure, he was an anthropologist in so much as anthropology was an interest he had, but his actual career, was as an instructor of advanced tactical tactics, so a decidedly 'military' occupation...
I can see why Gene made the comparison to the USCG -- I think that example is closer than say to the USN, and much of the stuff in Star Trek (ie communicators) was done so the audiences could relate to it... The analogy of Klingons to Russia is more one of 'adversaries' and the type of conflict they are engaged in, rather than a directly literal comparison to Communism (which, the Federation is actually a closer sociological example of, than the Klingon Empire ever has been)
Starfleet unquestionably uses military structures, organisational models and disciplinary structures, I think it's only the most self-deluding who would try and argue otherwise... IMHO, Starfleet is a military(of sorts) just not the kind of military which we currently see, or are familiar with... A replicator is a radically different method of preparing a pot-roast than cooking it in an oven, and the replicator works in a significantly different way than the oven, but what comes out of either, is still identifiable as pot-roast... Now, whether pot-roast is considered 'food', depends if you ask a vegan, or a meat-eater...
Yay, we're getting there again.
Stay tuned, folks, Olivia's next post in this thread will have national-socialist imagery so she can prove her insane troll logic point like in previous threads.
Or don't stay tuned and let her pointless and silly rhetoric die away until she decides to troll another site to get more attention to exist.
Yay, we're getting there again.
Stay tuned, folks, Olivia's next post in this thread will have national-socialist imagery so she can prove her insane troll logic point like in previous threads.
Or don't stay tuned and let her pointless and silly rhetoric die away until she decides to troll another site to get more attention to exist.
On a technically political level, the Federation is an idealized example of the tenets of national socialism (and communism) displayed in their most positive and beneficial extents... That doesn't mean, however, that the Feds are Na5is... The Feds are no more Na5is, than vegetarians are Vegans...
Yeah, no. 'Designed for combat' makes it a warship; 'built for combat performance,' however, is ambiguous. An explorer vessel, for instance, can be designed for exploration/science, but still be built for combat performance. And that's what Voyager was: designed for exploration, but definitely built to hold its own in combat situations.
No. There's no evidence to support that the Voyager was built as an exception.
If they paint the words "Science Cruiser" on the side [. . .] It is a freakin science cruiser! It doesn't matter what it is actually doing! If the paperwork says these are for 'peacekeeping' [. . .] then they are for peacekeeping!
Roddenberry, and the Writers Guide say "Starfleet is not a military organisation. It is a scientific research and diplomatic body."
Roddenberry and the Writers' Guide cannot redefine the language.
Of course they can. They invent new words, they defined warp as a method of interstellar faster than light travel, and not just bending something.
If Star Trek did not want Starfleet to be a military organization, then it should not have portrayed it as one. Yet, they admit it in canonical dialogue (e.g. Kirk, McCoy, David Marcus, Sisko, Q), give it heavily-armed warships that fight its wars, and use military-specific terms by definition. Claiming that it is not a military makes it look like a deliberate deception to fool the audience; like brainwashing propaganda. In fact, there's enough evidence that it is propaganda in articles like MA: Depicting Klingons.
If, conceptually, Klingons were meant to represent "space communists" against "US democracy" (LOL!), what does that make Starfleet if not a representation of the US military in space? Even Nicholas Meyer (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan) mentioned that Roddenberry thought Starfleet was "something akin to the Coast Guard", which struck him as "manifestly absurd" compared to what was shown in TOS. Yet, even USCG is formally a military organization. Therefore, Star Trek is deception and propaganda.
Propaganda for what? That the future doesn't have to suck, that humans can be better than savages and don't have to kill everything foreign (including each other)? That they can decide not to displace and murder less advanced societies they encounter, and that humans (and humans and aliens) can work together for peace and betterment of everyone's life? That even a former arch enemy can be turned into an ally and friend?
Maybe. Could be worse. They could be suggesting that there are people that are just representing a force of evil and must be fought and murdered at all cost, or that you can dismember people in a barfight.
Your point is no point. Starfleet doesn't call itself a military because it does not follow the stuff we associate with war. The Star Trek history has a violent 3rd World War in the human history that almost extinguished humans. For them, a military means a force that is send to kill and murder and destroy things, and they probably liked it. The 21st century seems to hold a lot of really bad things in store for humanity in Star Trek.
Starfleet is not there to kill and murder and destroy. It's there to explore first, and to protect second. When it has to kill, murder and destroy to protect the Federation, Starfleet officers don't generally feel like they are doing their real job - they have failed their real job.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Comments
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
Not sure what you are trying to accomplish here. Science vessels in STO are far worse than any on screen cannon you can find.
The OP certainly entertains, if nothing else. Though the wallotexts have started getting very boring.
Well to be fair, the OP turned the thread around, changed the title and is now talking about banned weapons. Which is fun, since I currently equip banned weapons and archaic 23rd century weapons. On a cruiser.
Pretty sure photon torpedoes can cause spacetime ruptures if you use enough of them (See Yesterday's Enterprise) so I don't think tricobalt's necessarily at fault, here.
Interesting discussion generated out of this topic, though. Heck, I generate energy-draining rifts, jump around local space through hurling myself through a wormhole generated by a micro-singularity, and create anti-time rifts to get my starship-killing done faster in game.
Space-time's pretty heavily abused in STO.
Member Access Denied Armada!
My forum single-issue of rage: Make the Proton Experimental Weapon go for subsystem targetting!
Welcome to the club!
Qapla'!
Yeah. I am horrified and delighted all at once! I think I need to execute a Doff for incompetence somewhere ... but I can't figure out who is responsible.
Qapla'!
Me too on my Fleet Eclipse, bio molecular photons and soon phasers with a planet killing mining drill.
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
STO gets it six impossible things out of the way before breakfast, yes.
Member Access Denied Armada!
My forum single-issue of rage: Make the Proton Experimental Weapon go for subsystem targetting!
My character Tsin'xing
I think it has.
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Pathfinder_Long_Range_Science_Vessel
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
I have no idea how you reach those levels of misunderstanding things people write.
I am saying that a common criticism about MA is uncited passages and articles of which there are plenty, no more no less. You disregard that criticism by saying it's officially approved which however doesn't do anything to deal with the issue which doesn't apply to every article but only those, well, it applies to.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Yeah, no. 'Designed for combat' makes it a warship; 'built for combat performance,' however, is ambiguous. An explorer vessel, for instance, can be designed for exploration/science, but still be built for combat performance. And that's what Voyager was: designed for exploration, but definitely built to hold its own in combat situations.
The OP would also do well to keep in mind that (with the exception of the Defiant, maybe) ALL Federation ships are basically exploration ships, as 'to seek out new life and civilizations' is simply at the core of the Federation: they're not a military outfit, but a civilian one. Picard's Galaxy class ship, with families and children onboard even, is a good example: it's still meant for exploration, but, at the same time, was seen as the Federation's flagship (also in a military sense). Such a ship would not exist in the Klingon Empire: their warships are just that, warships.
That's the problem with people not even comprehending the catchphrase of the show they are watching.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Sincere apologies to any who I offended
Now you're just embarrassing yourself. Just move on.
Good come-back!
OK IM ENDING THIS DEBATE ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!
Voyager was a Potatoe ...moving on
Chakotay, for example, made a big deal out of calling himself an anthropologist, when he had also been (although never directly named on-screen) Ro Laren's ATT instructor... Sure, he was an anthropologist in so much as anthropology was an interest he had, but his actual career, was as an instructor of advanced tactical tactics, so a decidedly 'military' occupation...
I can see why Gene made the comparison to the USCG -- I think that example is closer than say to the USN, and much of the stuff in Star Trek (ie communicators) was done so the audiences could relate to it... The analogy of Klingons to Russia is more one of 'adversaries' and the type of conflict they are engaged in, rather than a directly literal comparison to Communism (which, the Federation is actually a closer sociological example of, than the Klingon Empire ever has been)
Starfleet unquestionably uses military structures, organisational models and disciplinary structures, I think it's only the most self-deluding who would try and argue otherwise... IMHO, Starfleet is a military(of sorts) just not the kind of military which we currently see, or are familiar with... A replicator is a radically different method of preparing a pot-roast than cooking it in an oven, and the replicator works in a significantly different way than the oven, but what comes out of either, is still identifiable as pot-roast... Now, whether pot-roast is considered 'food', depends if you ask a vegan, or a meat-eater...
Stay tuned, folks, Olivia's next post in this thread will have national-socialist imagery so she can prove her insane troll logic point like in previous threads.
Or don't stay tuned and let her pointless and silly rhetoric die away until she decides to troll another site to get more attention to exist.
Propaganda for what? That the future doesn't have to suck, that humans can be better than savages and don't have to kill everything foreign (including each other)? That they can decide not to displace and murder less advanced societies they encounter, and that humans (and humans and aliens) can work together for peace and betterment of everyone's life? That even a former arch enemy can be turned into an ally and friend?
Maybe. Could be worse. They could be suggesting that there are people that are just representing a force of evil and must be fought and murdered at all cost, or that you can dismember people in a barfight.
Your point is no point. Starfleet doesn't call itself a military because it does not follow the stuff we associate with war. The Star Trek history has a violent 3rd World War in the human history that almost extinguished humans. For them, a military means a force that is send to kill and murder and destroy things, and they probably liked it. The 21st century seems to hold a lot of really bad things in store for humanity in Star Trek.
Starfleet is not there to kill and murder and destroy. It's there to explore first, and to protect second. When it has to kill, murder and destroy to protect the Federation, Starfleet officers don't generally feel like they are doing their real job - they have failed their real job.