test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

My problems with TRIBBLE

191012141517

Comments

  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 35,877 Arc User
    Patrick, those arrows are an artefact of using quotes on mobile devices. For some reason, mobile uses a different format to the desktop one.

    But please, continue to condescend to those who disagree with you.
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,949 Arc User
    edited August 2018
    > @patrickngo said:
    > secondly, did you know the USAF has had ground combat in infantry roles since 1960? that they have a special forces sub-branch, and have had it since the Kennedy administration? hmm? or that it's been against the law to portray accurate, current-service uniforms in media for a long time? they only have to get 'close', but one of the reasons shows bring in advisors is to avoid running afoul of federal laws regarding the wear of the uniform. (hence why Stargate command's uniforms were solid olive drab when that went out of use in the eighties, then went to chocolate chip desert camo instead of three color.)

    Yeah, actually I have looked into that, Patrick. The various Stargate series were BETTER about accuracy because they DID have Air Force advisors (among other things, they would always complain once every few months that Amanda Tapping needed to get a haircut to keep Carter's hair within regulation). A lot of the extras were even active duty Air Force personnel.

    But they still made mistakes — one of the funnier ones, there's an extra in the pilot who is somehow wearing NCO AND officer rank insignia at the same time, and one of SGU's characters is a master sergeant at age 20 — and there are definitely allowances for story necessity. For example, according to the research I've done, Air Force special ops troops are more organized around supporting air combat operations, not the stereotypical commando stuff that SG-1 usually does (not to mention Jack's backstory including an exfil of a mole from East Germany). Realistically the SGC would be much more of an interservice operation with many more Marine and Army personnel going offworld.

    As far as Star Trek, their most prominent "expert advisor", helping write Chakotay's
    purported Native American cultural background on Voyager, was a fraudster.

    (By the way: the thing about filmmakers not being allowed to portray current, period-accurate uniforms? Isn't true. https://www.stripes.com/why-can-t-hollywood-get-military-uniforms-right-1.159651 )
    "Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
    — Sabaton, "Great War"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    I've met Army people who wore Marine Corps patches, it's NOT unheard of, also the guy in question was chosen for the job because he had that sort of combat expertise.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 9,387 Arc User
    Usually when you see someone in one service wearing another service's patch, it indicates prior service in that branch. (At HQ SAC/XOXP in the '80s, we had a Naval Senior Master Chief who also wore a couple of USAF ribbons because of prior service in the Air Force, and one sergeant who wore a missile crew badge because he had been an officer and missileer once, until having to leave courtesy of "up or out". He enlisted after that, because there's no requirement for enlisted personnel to be promoted according to a schedule.)

    Incidentally, it's not "illegal" to have an accurate uniform on-screen. It's just that most actors and costumers can't be bothered to learn all the piddly little details that we absorbed into our blood in Basic, and don't really understand why military personnel worry so very much about such "trivialities" as the exact order of ribbons or the precise angle one's hat sits at (or, for that matter, where exactly a salute goes depending on whether you're wearing a cover, glasses, or neither).
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    edited August 2018
    starswordc wrote: »
    Starfleet fulfills all the primary functions of a military service plus a few extras,

    Wrong way around. Starfleet fulfils the role of those extras and as a bonus is the only armed response the Federation has.
    starswordc wrote: »
    is organized in a military-style structure,

    Oh, so you did read the word 'paramilitary' then?
    starswordc wrote: »
    and is equipped as a matter of course with armament and legal authorization sufficient to glass an inhabited planet.

    So was any civilian ship going into hostile territory on Earth. And the ones that weren't hired those that were. You don't study ice caps without taking anti-polar bear weapons. You don't study space phenomena that can rewrite reality and not pack a metric craptonne of torpedoes.
    starswordc wrote: »
    That's quite apart from the context you conveniently removed from your quotation,

    I didn't need the context, I needed the quotation to address the point raised above. If it was your point or no it dosn't matter, it was a useful illustration of several of the above posters.
    starswordc wrote: »
    which is that I was disputing @talonxv's assertion of what laws Burnham supposedly broke by trying to save her own life at the expense of giving the ship's computer a word I can't say on this forum. The point was, if you're going to cite real-life laws to argue Star Trek (which is indeed a somewhat dubious proposition), at least cite the right real life laws. :p

    And that's why I didn't bother with the context, because you were already doing that. I was just furthering @angrytarg 's point. Which you've pointed out is yours (more or less).
    azrael605 wrote: »
    Basics part 1 & 2 are among Voyager's best episodes and many fans wished Suter (& Seska) had not been killed off.

    I'm no VGR fan because I find it a lazy man's TNG when the setting and premise would force a DS9 style show (which I love). It was side characters like Suter and Seska that managed to elevate some tedium. When the show finally returned to personal villains we got the gods damn Borg Queen.
    azrael605 wrote: »
    One last thing, the franchise owners cannot "hijack" the name of their franchise, what they say goes, thats not only how it works for Trek its how it works for all TV and film franchises.

    Yeah, but in patrickngo's world (I guess that's who you're talking to) the franchise is his now. It's the same toxic ownership that Star Wars fanbois seem to have doubled down on. If they have a nostalgic attachment to something it is immutable and holy and any attempt by the people who actually own that piece of entertainment to add or subtract to their own property is treated as a direct assault on all personal copies and memories held by the fanbois.


    How does the quote function work exactly? When I'm quoting somebody who posted from their mobile it's > and @handles but when I'm quoting other posters I get either nice neat quotes I can split and move and sometime jumbled messes of code where punctuation marks are replaced by an assortment of symbols.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    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!
  • talonxvtalonxv Member Posts: 4,245 Arc User
    Well time to throw more gasoline on the fire and especially @starsword who apparently has no goddamn clue.

    For starters. Yes what Burnham did leaving the brig was ILLEGAL. She was ordered to remain there. And as it was stated she was not:
    1. Told to move and relocate.
    2. Escorted to move
    3. Abandon ship was declared

    Meaning her behind DISOBEYED A DIRECT ORDER TO REMAIN IN THE BRIG. The ship yes has suffered damage, but at the time was still under power, under command meaning the order for her to remain in the brig was STILL EN FORCE.

    And the claim that she had a right to her own life and could disregard the orders is high levels of lunacy. Irregardless of whether Starfleet is a military or not, it has been proven, even in TNG no less a superior officer can literally order you TO YOUR DEATH and you can't say no.

    The proof? I point you to the TNG episode when Deanna Troi goes up for the rank of commander. And in the end to pass(yes I know it's a simulation, but even if it was real, she still would have to do it) had to order Geordi La Forge TO HIS DEATH. As a direct order.

    In starswordc's version about Burnham being able to try and save her own life irregardless of her standing orders, Geordi could of looked right at Troi, told her to go TRIBBLE herself and apparently Troi can't do anything to make him.

    Which is flatly ASININE and totally against good order and discipline aboard ship whether Starfleet is a military or not. When a senior officer gives an order and it is lawful, it's OBEYED. Up to and including a crewman being ordered to their death.

    So no. Under the circumstances, Burnham had absolutely ZERO F******G RIGHT TO BREAK OUT OFTHE BRIG. End of the story.

    Anything else just shows me from my PoV, none of you have a real damn clue how to efficiently run a ship and keep good order and discipline which a ship can literally live and die by.

    One final point. Since Burnham was able to escape, it's a serious security risk and lack of Judgement on Captain Georgiou's part.

    And that's pretty much my final thoughts on that front.

    Burnham was wrong and continued to BE WRONG.
    afMSv4g.jpg
    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
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 9,387 Arc User
    Talon, there is a MAJOR difference between ordering someone to perform a duty that will save the ship, but cost them their life in the process (a potential part of every military members' duties, and we all know it when we enlist) and forcing someone to remain in a situation when a change of circumstances will result in that killing them.

    In a modern Naval craft, if someone's assigned to the forward torpedo room of a submarine but it's been hit with a depth charge and the torpedo room is taking on water, every single crewman in that room is justified in leaving his post, getting out of the room, and sealing it behind them. There would be no Article 92 charges for this. And if someone in that situation were locked in the brig, but the craft is sinking, the guard is dead or missing, and the keys can be reached, the prisoner would not be charged under Article 92, and would only receive an Article 95 charge if upon reaching safety he or she attempted to continue fleeing. While I have yet to see the episode in question, the discussion here would lead me to believe that Burnham, upon reaching safety, turned herself over to surviving Starfleet personnel, thus indicating that this is not an escape attempt - and as I said earlier, there can be no "dereliction of duty" when one has been relieved of duty pursuant to arrest.

    If you can't see a difference there, then I pray that should you enter a military unit you are never placed in command of anything more significant that a mop, because you would appear to be willing to spend lives for nothing. The point of Troi's situation was to see if she would be capable of ordering someone into danger to save lives, not just because a lethal hazard existed - a good captain will try very hard to avoid such situations, but sometimes they're inevitable.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 35,877 Arc User
    talonxv wrote: »
    Well time to throw more gasoline on the fire and especially @starsword who apparently has no goddamn clue.

    Who was backed up by @jonsills who actually served (I don't know about @starswordc) and thus is actually likely to have read the UCMJ. Heck, both actually referred you to the articles which actually relate to Burnham's situation.

    And, as for the life argument, Burnham wasn't ordered to stay in the brig and die. She was being detained. That means she's governed by international law on the treatment of (military) prisoners. What you are suggesting would be the equivalent of prosecuting a prisoner of breaking out of his/her cell because it was on fire.

    I'm not even going to touch that ridiculous analogy you made, because Jonsills has already explained why it's bogus.
  • talonxvtalonxv Member Posts: 4,245 Arc User
    > @jonsills said:
    > Talon, there is a MAJOR difference between ordering someone to perform a duty that will save the ship, but cost them their life in the process (a potential part of every military members' duties, and we all know it when we enlist) and forcing someone to remain in a situation when a change of circumstances will result in that killing them.
    >
    > In a modern Naval craft, if someone's assigned to the forward torpedo room of a submarine but it's been hit with a depth charge and the torpedo room is taking on water, every single crewman in that room is justified in leaving his post, getting out of the room, and sealing it behind them. There would be no Article 92 charges for this. And if someone in that situation were locked in the brig, but the craft is sinking, the guard is dead or missing, and the keys can be reached, the prisoner would not be charged under Article 92, and would only receive an Article 95 charge if upon reaching safety he or she attempted to continue fleeing. While I have yet to see the episode in question, the discussion here would lead me to believe that Burnham, upon reaching safety, turned herself over to surviving Starfleet personnel, thus indicating that this is not an escape attempt - and as I said earlier, there can be no "dereliction of duty" when one has been relieved of duty pursuant to arrest.
    >
    > If you can't see a difference there, then I pray that should you enter a military unit you are never placed in command of anything more significant that a mop, because you would appear to be willing to spend lives for nothing. The point of Troi's situation was to see if she would be capable of ordering someone into danger to save lives, not just because a lethal hazard existed - a good captain will try very hard to avoid such situations, but sometimes they're inevitable.

    And I acknowledge all of that. Except in the episode in question, yes areas around her have sustained battle damage, but not enough to constitute her leaving the brig at that time. Further more, I still contest she should have absolutely ZERO access to any computer.

    Now if you had bothered to read I did specify there are times she could of left like I will state again:
    1. Ordered to move
    2. Escorted under guard
    3. Abandon ship
    But we could add other situations like explosive decompression, but since she didn't have a suit it would be a bigger threat to let her out.

    The point of fact is at the time she tricked the computer, none of the situations you elude to were even in play.

    Yes the ship had taken battle damage, but at the time she was secure, had air, had heat and was not undet any serious duress of being killed more so than anyone else aboard ship.

    Meaning she had ZERO right to leave. Nor as I recall once escaping did she turn herself over to proper authorities.

    Yes I have been in a unit where I have been in charge of a team of marines. I know the damn difference. Burnham at that time had ZERO call to leave the brig.
    afMSv4g.jpg
    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
  • talonxvtalonxv Member Posts: 4,245 Arc User
    > @ryan218 said:
    > talonxv wrote: »
    >
    > Well time to throw more gasoline on the fire and especially @starsword who apparently has no goddamn clue.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Who was backed up by @jonsills who actually served (I don't know about @starswordc) and thus is actually likely to have read the UCMJ. Heck, both actually referred you to the articles which actually relate to Burnham's situation.
    >
    > And, as for the life argument, Burnham wasn't ordered to stay in the brig and die. She was being detained. That means she's governed by international law on the treatment of (military) prisoners. What you are suggesting would be the equivalent of prosecuting a prisoner of breaking out of his/her cell because it was on fire.
    >
    > I'm not even going to touch that ridiculous analogy you made, because Jonsills has already explained why it's bogus.
    Except the fact of her area taking damage, there was ZERO major threat at that time to her life rendering that point moot. Which I have said.

    Good Christ the mental gymnastics here.
    afMSv4g.jpg
    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
  • talonxvtalonxv Member Posts: 4,245 Arc User
    But to all who disagree answer me this with Burnham leaving. What sort of immediate threat was Burnham under?

    Loss of pressure
    Plasma leak
    Loss of heat and possibly freezing to death
    Being choked to death by gas in her cell?

    Infact was there ANYTHING besides battle damage that wasn't already contained?

    The answer is NO. There isn't. Infact right before she tricks the computer, she's sitting on hwr her butt twiddling her thumbs!(well not literally, but close enough).

    Point is, at that time she was not under any pressing threat that would need for her to be let out. NONE.

    Because if there was one, don't you think the computer she tricked would of noticed this and let her out anyways BEFORE she needed to trick the damn thing?

    Come on guys. USE LOGIC here.
    afMSv4g.jpg
    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
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    ryan218 wrote: »
    talonxv wrote: »
    Well time to throw more gasoline on the fire and especially @starsword who apparently has no goddamn clue.

    Who was backed up by @jonsills who actually served (I don't know about @starswordc) and thus is actually likely to have read the UCMJ. Heck, both actually referred you to the articles which actually relate to Burnham's situation.

    And, as for the life argument, Burnham wasn't ordered to stay in the brig and die. She was being detained. That means she's governed by international law on the treatment of (military) prisoners. What you are suggesting would be the equivalent of prosecuting a prisoner of breaking out of his/her cell because it was on fire.

    I'm not even going to touch that ridiculous analogy you made, because Jonsills has already explained why it's bogus.
    The actual UCMJ contains a set of directives that military personnel are required by law to keep in mind when obeying orders. Military leaders are required by law to follow these principles when giving their subordinates orders. These include, but are not limited to: You can't order your soldiers to commit crimes(includes civil law and Geneva conventions). You are not to give your soldiers orders that would "endanger life, limb, or eyesight" unless it's an operational necessity(which is defined by whether someone else is in danger).

    Thus if you order a soldier to man a post(such as the previously mentioned confined to the brig), that order carries with it(by law) the unstated provision that the order is only valid as long as it is safe and legal to execute. You got ordered to stay in a room that's about to be hard vacuum? You are required by law to LEAVE if you can. why? BY LAW, your life is more important than your orders. AND your commanding officer would need a heck of a justification to try to stop you.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 10,516 Arc User
    Also, no immediate danger? THE ROOM WAS GONE and I am pretty sure the computer said power was failimg and she'd have died in a calculable amount of time. Sheesh.

    Despite some of you acting like Trek is written for servicepeople that get wet knickers when proper procedure is displayed. I admit I'm into some weird stuff, but that's not it. So maybe this is why it's not bothering me that the sci-fi show doesn't reflect military protocols from unrelated organizations hundreds of years in the past but rather paints a picture of a fictional situation ;)
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ 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
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,485 Arc User
    patrickngo wrote: »
    talonxv wrote: »
    But to all who disagree answer me this with Burnham leaving. What sort of immediate threat was Burnham under?

    Loss of pressure
    Plasma leak
    Loss of heat and possibly freezing to death
    Being choked to death by gas in her cell?

    Infact was there ANYTHING besides battle damage that wasn't already contained?

    The answer is NO. There isn't. Infact right before she tricks the computer, she's sitting on hwr her butt twiddling her thumbs!(well not literally, but close enough).

    Point is, at that time she was not under any pressing threat that would need for her to be let out. NONE.

    Because if there was one, don't you think the computer she tricked would of noticed this and let her out anyways BEFORE she needed to trick the damn thing?

    Come on guys. USE LOGIC here.

    the problem is, you're analyzing the situation more than the writers who created it. When you try applying logic (esp. in-setting logic) to deal with inconsistencies, (or to point them out) Artan42 accuses you of gaslighting or claiming personal ownership of the franchise.

    Teh problem the defenders of the plot are not understanding, is that the level of inconsistency would not apply if she was, in fact, in personal danger (she wasn't. Had the deck actually lost pressure, she would have been exposed to hard vacuum on the wrong side of a sealed door once she left her cell. Likewise for the plasma leak, and for loss of heating/environmental control, and she wasn't coughing or experiencing symptoms of gas exposure or lack of breathable air.)

    point being, the environment was demonstrably-on-screen not sufficiently hazardous to trigger a release, her situation was, likewise, not dire enough for a humanitarian release.

    Therefore, fire the security programmer, because he or she dun f*cked up and left a convenient-to-the-plot back-door in the programming.

    I have never understood why they would rely only on forcefields. Power goes down and everyone is doomed. Low tech solutions are usually the best since there are less things that can go wrong.
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 10,516 Arc User
    I had to rewatch the scene and I really don't want to do that, but from what I remember Michael had to void-dive to the other side. That means the door could not be opened but the forcefields were failing. Sitting in that cell was certain death, risking the void dive was slightly less certain death. My memory is not that fresh but I am very certain they established that she could not just sit there.
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ 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
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,949 Arc User
    > @ryan218 said:
    > Who was backed up by @jonsills who actually served (I don't know about @starswordc) and thus is actually likely to have read the UCMJ. Heck, both actually referred you to the articles which actually relate to Burnham's situation.

    Didn't serve myself (I tried to enlist but was declined because I'm on the autism spectrum), but I am part of a Navy family going back several generations and I can do research perfectly well. (If all else fails, my father was a surface warfare officer for five years and an engineering duty officer for fifteen, '79-'99.)

    > @starkaos said:
    > I have never understood why they would rely only on forcefields. Power goes down and everyone is doomed. Low tech solutions are usually the best since there are less things that can go wrong.

    I could see force fields being a stopgap until a physical patch could be put in, but Star Trek overuses them significantly.

    > @angrytarg said:
    > I had to rewatch the scene and I really don't want to do that, but from what I remember Michael had to void-dive to the other side. That means the door could not be opened but the forcefields were failing. Sitting in that cell was certain death, risking the void dive was slightly less certain death. My memory is not that fresh but I am very certain they established that she could not just sit there.

    This is exactly the scene as broadcast, Targ. The brig had been reduced to a chunk of wall and a floor. Pressure is being held by emergency force fields around Burnham; however, these are stated by the ship's computer to be IMMINENTLY failing. There is a pressure sealed DOOR about a dozen meters away, close enough for a physically fit person to void-jump to. Burnham is a Starfleet officer: we know at least as far back as VOY: "Learning Curve", as well as from a later episode of DSC, that extensive PT is part of the job. Plus, Burnham was raised on Vulcan, which has 1.5 Earth's gravity, and therefore is stronger than the average human female to begin with (probably not as strong as an actual Vulcan, though). We also know from the very next episode that she is a martial artist. She is physically fit.

    So: Chance of survival if she stays in the cell, 0%. Chance of survival if she breaks out? Poor—she's still passing through hard vacuum unprotected—but non-zero.
    "Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
    — Sabaton, "Great War"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,913 Arc User
    It would probably help if some of the people dismissing the scene had actually seen it and also remembered it.
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 35,877 Arc User
    Talon, a sub's torpedo room wouldn't be sealed as soon as it sprung a leak. The crew would give the torpedo room a chance to evacuate, and seal the door as soon as the water level got high enough to threaten the next compartment, which might not be as soon as the next compartment starts flooding. Why? Because low-level flooding can be pumped out with a bilge pump. The danger comes when the water reaches the point where the pressure doesn't allow the door the be sealed anymore, which depending on the severity of the leak, could take anywhere from a few seconds to several minutes. It only takes a matter of seconds to evacuate a submarine's torpedo room (or any compartment on a sub). So no, a crew would not immediately seal the torpedo crew in to drown to protect the boat, because it's not necessary. Except in the worst situation, there is usually time to allow an evacuation of the affected compartments before they have to be sealed (obviously this becomes harder the more compartments are flooded, which is why all naval vessels operate a system of 'all doors shut' during combat except to allow DC teams to move about the ship, in which case they shut every door behind them; at least, in the RN).
  • captainwellscaptainwells Member Posts: 674 Arc User
    edited August 2018
    Discovery was what it was, a pretty shiny thing taking full advantage of what special effects can do .... right now ...... and sadly the show could have utilized every trick of the trade that they deployed and still managed to be something that MIGHT have occurred a decade before the original series. But Discovery veered too far off the beaten path for that conceit to be taken seriously in some quite ridiculous ways.

    However showrunners with insufficient experience were entrusted with something like this and allowed to just do as they pleased. The network opted to see what stuck and what didn't with the fanbase, but frankly a great many were enthralled by the pretty & shiny and simply loved it. Others just could not fathom how scotchtaping the name Star Trek over whatever they wanted could fly with some?

    So yeah, Discovery was what it was. CBS is now past in for a penny, and are now in for a pound. I do understand the excitement of those at Cryptic being allowed to incorporate live elements of this current series into the ongoing nature of Star Trek Online.

    Spock had an adopted human half-sister never previously mentioned, but that foul ball was shouted down with cries of "Sybok." Great, so they admitted to being repetitive? Another possibility easily available to CBS was to declare this series as a part of the Kelvin Timeline that Nero rebooted, but nope they countered. This is in the same universe as old James T. Kirk and his lengthy list of deceased redshirts? Kelvin could have allowed for a spore drive and an unknown such as Micheal Burnham, but again ..... it was what it was.

    I'm trying to adapt, but I'm probably going to need a Borg intervention anyway?
  • reyan01reyan01 Member Posts: 14,740 Arc User
    edited August 2018
    starswordc wrote: »

    This is exactly the scene as broadcast, Targ. The brig had been reduced to a chunk of wall and a floor. Pressure is being held by emergency force fields around Burnham; however, these are stated by the ship's computer to be IMMINENTLY failing. There is a pressure sealed DOOR about a dozen meters away, close enough for a physically fit person to void-jump to. Burnham is a Starfleet officer: we know at least as far back as VOY: "Learning Curve", as well as from a later episode of DSC, that extensive PT is part of the job. Plus, Burnham was raised on Vulcan, which has 1.5 Earth's gravity, and therefore is stronger than the average human female to begin with (probably not as strong as an actual Vulcan, though). We also know from the very next episode that she is a martial artist. She is physically fit.

    So: Chance of survival if she stays in the cell, 0%. Chance of survival if she breaks out? Poor—she's still passing through hard vacuum unprotected—but non-zero.

    Yep - the Brig went from looking like this:
    burnham-in-brigg-1024x640.jpg
    To looking like this:
    dsc-sdcc2017-trailer-00050.jpg


    Post edited by starswordc on


  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 35,877 Arc User
    patrickngo wrote: »
    starswordc wrote: »
    > @ryan218 said:
    > Who was backed up by @jonsills who actually served (I don't know about @starswordc) and thus is actually likely to have read the UCMJ. Heck, both actually referred you to the articles which actually relate to Burnham's situation.

    Didn't serve myself (I tried to enlist but was declined because I'm on the autism spectrum), but I am part of a Navy family going back several generations and I can do research perfectly well. (If all else fails, my father was a surface warfare officer for five years and an engineering duty officer for fifteen, '79-'99.)

    > @starkaos said:
    > I have never understood why they would rely only on forcefields. Power goes down and everyone is doomed. Low tech solutions are usually the best since there are less things that can go wrong.

    I could see force fields being a stopgap until a physical patch could be put in, but Star Trek overuses them significantly.

    > @angrytarg said:
    > I had to rewatch the scene and I really don't want to do that, but from what I remember Michael had to void-dive to the other side. That means the door could not be opened but the forcefields were failing. Sitting in that cell was certain death, risking the void dive was slightly less certain death. My memory is not that fresh but I am very certain they established that she could not just sit there.

    This is exactly the scene as broadcast, Targ. The brig had been reduced to a chunk of wall and a floor. Pressure is being held by emergency force fields around Burnham; however, these are stated by the ship's computer to be IMMINENTLY failing. There is a pressure sealed DOOR about a dozen meters away, close enough for a physically fit person to void-jump to. Burnham is a Starfleet officer: we know at least as far back as VOY: "Learning Curve", as well as from a later episode of DSC, that extensive PT is part of the job. Plus, Burnham was raised on Vulcan, which has 1.5 Earth's gravity, and therefore is stronger than the average human female to begin with (probably not as strong as an actual Vulcan, though). We also know from the very next episode that she is a martial artist. She is physically fit.

    So: Chance of survival if she stays in the cell, 0%. Chance of survival if she breaks out? Poor—she's still passing through hard vacuum unprotected—but non-zero.

    chance that she endangers teh rest of the ship (or portions) opening that door? (unless they've conveniently placed additional airlocks:pretty good)

    If you'd bothered to watch the scene you're analysing, you'd remember that the computer put up an additional forcefield to make sure when she opened the door pressure wasn't lost.
Sign In or Register to comment.