test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Discovery 2x12: Through the Valley of Shadows (spoilers)

13»

Comments

  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    redvenge wrote: »
    In the latest epsiode, she drops any pretense of the chain of command to just tell Pike what to do. She tells the captain of the ship "belay that". Just, wow. Micheal Burnham has become "self aware". She knows the universe is centered around her and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
    You mean the way Decker told Kirk to "belay" his order to phaser the meteor caught in their wormhole in TMP?

    When a junior officer has information that shows the immediate course of action will prove disastrous, said officer is justified in ordering a halt to the action, then explaining why - which is what happened in both instances. The chain of command is not an agreement to die because the Captain lacks a vital piece of data.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    redvenge wrote: »
    In the latest epsiode, she drops any pretense of the chain of command to just tell Pike what to do. She tells the captain of the ship "belay that". Just, wow. Micheal Burnham has become "self aware". She knows the universe is centered around her and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
    You mean the way Decker told Kirk to "belay" his order to phaser the meteor caught in their wormhole in TMP?

    When a junior officer has information that shows the immediate course of action will prove disastrous, said officer is justified in ordering a halt to the action, then explaining why - which is what happened in both instances. The chain of command is not an agreement to die because the Captain lacks a vital piece of data.
    Yeah if the captain disagrees, then he will over rule her objection. But not until after finding out why.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    redvenge wrote: »
    In the latest epsiode, she drops any pretense of the chain of command to just tell Pike what to do. She tells the captain of the ship "belay that". Just, wow. Micheal Burnham has become "self aware". She knows the universe is centered around her and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
    You mean the way Decker told Kirk to "belay" his order to phaser the meteor caught in their wormhole in TMP?

    When a junior officer has information that shows the immediate course of action will prove disastrous, said officer is justified in ordering a halt to the action, then explaining why - which is what happened in both instances. The chain of command is not an agreement to die because the Captain lacks a vital piece of data.

    I thought the chain of command is what is used to beat you if you don't follow orders?
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    redvenge wrote: »
    In the latest epsiode, she drops any pretense of the chain of command to just tell Pike what to do. She tells the captain of the ship "belay that". Just, wow. Micheal Burnham has become "self aware". She knows the universe is centered around her and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
    You mean the way Decker told Kirk to "belay" his order to phaser the meteor caught in their wormhole in TMP?

    When a junior officer has information that shows the immediate course of action will prove disastrous, said officer is justified in ordering a halt to the action, then explaining why - which is what happened in both instances. The chain of command is not an agreement to die because the Captain lacks a vital piece of data.

    I thought the chain of command is what is used to beat you if you don't follow orders?
    That's the chain of commanding. Understandable mixup, especially in a universe where the dominant language is a mashup of English and (IIRC) Mandarin.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • redvengeredvenge Member Posts: 1,425 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    You mean the way Decker told Kirk to "belay" his order to phaser the meteor caught in their wormhole in TMP?

    When a junior officer has information that shows the immediate course of action will prove disastrous, said officer is justified in ordering a halt to the action, then explaining why - which is what happened in both instances. The chain of command is not an agreement to die because the Captain lacks a vital piece of data.
    Nice "whattaboutism" there. Decker should have been reprimanded as well. That entire scene was to highlight the awkward situation of having what amounted to multiple "captains" in command during a crisis. Unless Burnham is also acting in the capacity of "captain", then the two scenes are not comparable in that way.

    The chain of command exists for a reason. If you have information the CO does not have when he/she/it makes a decision, you do not countermand that order. You say "Sir, that course of action will lead to our destruction" or something similar, which is what we see in every other episode of Trek. We need to stop finding excuses for Burnham's disrespectful attitude and extreme arrogance. Her character is in no way justified to act the way she does, which is why she comes across as arrogant.
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User
    redvenge wrote: »
    jonsills wrote: »
    You mean the way Decker told Kirk to "belay" his order to phaser the meteor caught in their wormhole in TMP?

    When a junior officer has information that shows the immediate course of action will prove disastrous, said officer is justified in ordering a halt to the action, then explaining why - which is what happened in both instances. The chain of command is not an agreement to die because the Captain lacks a vital piece of data.
    Nice "whattaboutism" there. Decker should have been reprimanded as well. That entire scene was to highlight the awkward situation of having what amounted to multiple "captains" in command during a crisis. Unless Burnham is also acting in the capacity of "captain", then the two scenes are not comparable in that way.

    The chain of command exists for a reason. If you have information the CO does not have when he/she/it makes a decision, you do not countermand that order. You say "Sir, that course of action will lead to our destruction" or something similar, which is what we see in every other episode of Trek. We need to stop finding excuses for Burnham's disrespectful attitude and extreme arrogance. Her character is in no way justified to act the way she does, which is why she comes across as arrogant.
    That sounds like making a needless specific difference.

    If there is an allowance for someone to interject additional information, and that interjection potentially delaying th execution of an order, then that is already countermanding or belaying that order. Unless the Captain said: "Execute my order, but wait until a junior officer voices information that could cause me to belay that order." If the Captain says: "Fire Phasers", then your order is normally to fire your phasers now, not waiting and listening to chatter that might or might not sway the Captain to counter that order.

    In the end, military officers are people, they interact with each other like people, and that will also sometimes mean they disagree on things. Unlike in civil settings at some point someone has to make the final decision and no one has to like it, but that doesn't mean discussions over orders never happen or are automatically insubordination or mutinous behaviour.
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    redvenge wrote: »
    jonsills wrote: »
    You mean the way Decker told Kirk to "belay" his order to phaser the meteor caught in their wormhole in TMP?

    When a junior officer has information that shows the immediate course of action will prove disastrous, said officer is justified in ordering a halt to the action, then explaining why - which is what happened in both instances. The chain of command is not an agreement to die because the Captain lacks a vital piece of data.

    The chain of command exists for a reason. If you have information the CO does not have when he/she/it makes a decision, you do not countermand that order. You say "Sir, that course of action will lead to our destruction" or something similar, which is what we see in every other episode of Trek. We need to stop finding excuses for Burnham's disrespectful attitude and extreme arrogance. Her character is in no way justified to act the way she does, which is why she comes across as arrogant.
    You're wrong. You countermand that order immediately, if your additional information indicates that the current course of action will result in the imminent destruction of the ship. Niceties are for when there's time for them - in this instance, as in the instance of Decker and the wormhole, there was not. By the time the captain heard and acknowledged the words of the subordinate officer, it would be too late.

    If you're in a car, and the driver is speeding toward the edge of a cliff, do you attempt to seize the wheel (or jump out), or do you politely say, "Excuse me, but I think your current course of action might be a little too dangerous"?
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • redvengeredvenge Member Posts: 1,425 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    Why? He was correct. Not only did he save everyone on the ship, he saved the entire mission and by extension, everyone on Earth.
    That sounds like making a needless specific difference.
    jonsills wrote: »
    You're wrong. You countermand that order immediately, if your additional information indicates that the current course of action will result in the imminent destruction of the ship.
    Wrong. In all three cases.

    The chain of command MUST be maintained. ALWAYS. When multiple individuals attempt to "take command", things go VERY, VERY BAD. This is not "semantics". This is how any military or quasi-military organization functions, or it falls apart.

    If you have information, you give it to the CO immediately and directly. You never countermand a senior officer. You create confusion and break discipline.

    "Sir, if you do that, the ship is doomed." At that point, the CO will say "belay/hold that order", then say "explain". YOU NEVER countermand an order. EVER. There can only every be ONE captain. That is the ENTIRE PURPOSE of a chain of command.
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,165 Arc User
    edited April 2019
    Here is the part I don't understand: Let's say you are a bridge officer at your terminal. The Captain gives an order, let's just say, to fire a phaser. Then Burnham shouts "belay that order!". Well, the Captain's authority supersedes hers, so until the Captain tells you otherwise you should still be carrying out his order, right? Her shouting shouldn't change anything the crew is doing if they are carrying out an order from the Captain.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • saurializardsaurializard Member Posts: 4,385 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    redvenge wrote: »
    Wrong. In all three cases.

    Well, no, it isn't wrong. Decker really was correct and really did save everyone on the ship and really did by extension prevent Earth from being destroyed. Watch the film.
    Except that's not where the issue is.
    It's not the fact he opposed Kirk and was right that is the problem.

    It's the fact he did so without quickly informing Kirk of what was the issue. Had it gone:
    "-No, stop, Admiral, you'll kill us!
    -Why?
    -Because phasers work differently now, and I know how, no time to explain, but we can use the torpedoes safely!
    -OK... do it! Then, you better have a solid explanation."

    , there would be no problem.


    #TASforSTO
    Iconian_Trio_sign.jpg?raw=1
  • redvengeredvenge Member Posts: 1,425 Arc User
    [
    Here is the part I don't understand: Let's say you are a bridge officer at your terminal. The Captain gives an order, let's just say, to fire a phaser. Then Burnham shouts "belay that order!". Well, the Captain's authority supersedes hers, so until the Captain tells you otherwise you should still be carrying out his order, right? Her shouting shouldn't change anything the crew is doing if they are carrying out an order from the Captain.
    This is where the breakdown in discipline occurs. If someone shouts "hold/belay that order", the trained response is to stop until you receive clarification. You compromise response times and it leads to a situation where the trained response is to second guess the captain's orders. This is why countermanding a senior officer is really, really BAD.
    valoreah wrote: »
    1. Waste so much time explaining yourself and technical reasons why you are objecting to your Captain that the ship is destroyed and everyone killed.
    2. Act quickly and save everyone's lives and the ship, then take your reprimand.


    Pick one.
    The answer is option one.

    Every. Single. Time.

    If the captain says "Helm, hard to port!" and Ensign Ricky shouts "Belay that! Hard to starboard!", your helmsman has now received conflicting orders compromising the ship's performance. He/she/it now hesitates and does neither option. The ship does not correct course and explodes. Just like your option one.

    You do not countermand an order. Everything breaks if you do. If instead, Ensign Ricky said "Sensors are picking up heavy debris to port; collision immanent", the captain could say "Helm, belay that! Hard to starboard!", then there would be no confusion. The vessel would turn to starboard and all would be well.

    The problem with having a "free pass" to countermand an order means your crew will constantly second guess your commands. This is proven, historical fact. It damages response times, especially in critical situations where everyone has their own idea of "how things should be done".
  • saurializardsaurializard Member Posts: 4,385 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    Except that's not where the issue is.
    It's not the fact he opposed Kirk and was right that is the problem.

    It's the fact he did so without quickly informing Kirk of what was the issue. Had it gone:
    "-No, stop, Admiral, you'll kill us!
    -Why?
    -Because phasers work differently now, and I know how, no time to explain, but we can use the torpedoes safely!
    -OK... do it! Then, you better have a solid explanation."

    , there would be no problem.

    1. Waste so much time explaining yourself and technical reasons why you are objecting to your Captain that the ship is destroyed and everyone killed.
    2. Act quickly and save everyone's lives and the ship, then take your reprimand.


    Pick one.
    3. Explain to Admiral "I wanna be the Captain" Kirk how things work on your starship BEFOREHAND like any sane person. Heck, he even tells him it's a totally new Enterprise and he doesn't know anything about it. You'd think "oh by the way, the phasers are connected to the warp core through some new technobabble, so if something goes wrong with one, don't try to use the other. Just telling, since it's very likely we'll have to defend ourselves while using various attack patterns" would be quite a useful trivia to share.
    #TASforSTO
    Iconian_Trio_sign.jpg?raw=1
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,165 Arc User
    redvenge wrote: »
    This is where the breakdown in discipline occurs. If someone shouts "hold/belay that order", the trained response is to stop until you receive clarification. You compromise response times and it leads to a situation where the trained response is to second guess the captain's orders. This is why countermanding a senior officer is really, really BAD.

    I don't understand: why would someone stop following a Captain's order at the word of an inferior officer? Until the Captain himself told you to stop, his order should supersede anything Burnham says.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • redvengeredvenge Member Posts: 1,425 Arc User
    I don't understand: why would someone stop following a Captain's order at the word of an inferior officer? Until the Captain himself told you to stop, his order should supersede anything Burnham says.
    For the reason you and others have stated; someone has called the captain's orders into question.

    IF you have set a precedent where anyone can supersede the captain's order "because of a situation the captain is unaware of", then everyone will second guess the captain. That means anytime someone yells "stop", everyone on the bridge is going to hesitate, because the captain is only in command "sometimes".

    IF you have a situation where only the captain has the final say, then you are correct. No one is going to listen to Ensign Ricky, even if Ensign Ricky is correct and the ship is heading to certain doom. Ensign Ricky needs to quickly and efficiently inform the captain of his error, so the captain can give the correction to prevent certain death.

    You cannot have a situation where everyone second guesses the captain. It's dangerous. Space is one of the most lethal environments known to mankind. Even though Star Trek has advanced equipment to make space travel safer, far too often, we see just how fragile Trek tech is. At the end of the day, the chain of command and solid training that is what you rely on to keep the ship safe.
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    redvenge wrote: »
    Wrong. In all three cases.

    Well, no, it isn't wrong. Decker really was correct and really did save everyone on the ship and really did by extension prevent Earth from being destroyed. Watch the film.
    Except that's not where the issue is.
    It's not the fact he opposed Kirk and was right that is the problem.

    It's the fact he did so without quickly informing Kirk of what was the issue. Had it gone:
    "-No, stop, Admiral, you'll kill us!
    -Why?
    -Because phasers work differently now, and I know how, no time to explain, but we can use the torpedoes safely!
    -OK... do it! Then, you better have a solid explanation."

    , there would be no problem.


    "No, stop, Admiral, you'll kill us!"

    "What? Why?"

    "Becau--" <crunch!!> (cue explosions)

    It's not a matter of "just anyone taking command", it's a matter of preventing imminent loss of life and/or the ship. If you're aboard a submarine and you see a superior officer taking a sledgehammer to the exterior bulkhead, you don't go find another, even more superior officer to restrain him, nor do you ask him politely what he's up to - you stop him. And when you have certain knowledge, but knowledge that will take more than three seconds to impart, that the course of action just ordered will lead directly to the loss of your ship and all aboard her, you interrupt.

    And if it turns out that you interrupted for a stupid reason, or none at all? That's what courts-martial are for. That's why you don't have people countermanding the captain on a whim, because their next stop is the brig.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,556 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    And if it turns out that you interrupted for a stupid reason, or none at all? That's what courts-martial are for. That's why you don't have people countermanding the captain on a whim, because their next stop is the brig.

    Or a Commendation depending on if it was the right course of action.
  • saurializardsaurializard Member Posts: 4,385 Arc User
    edited April 2019
    jonsills wrote: »
    valoreah wrote: »
    redvenge wrote: »
    Wrong. In all three cases.

    Well, no, it isn't wrong. Decker really was correct and really did save everyone on the ship and really did by extension prevent Earth from being destroyed. Watch the film.
    Except that's not where the issue is.
    It's not the fact he opposed Kirk and was right that is the problem.

    It's the fact he did so without quickly informing Kirk of what was the issue. Had it gone:
    "-No, stop, Admiral, you'll kill us!
    -Why?
    -Because phasers work differently now, and I know how, no time to explain, but we can use the torpedoes safely!
    -OK... do it! Then, you better have a solid explanation."

    , there would be no problem.


    "No, stop, Admiral, you'll kill us!"

    "What? Why?"

    "Becau--" <crunch!!> (cue explosions)

    It's not a matter of "just anyone taking command", it's a matter of preventing imminent loss of life and/or the ship. If you're aboard a submarine and you see a superior officer taking a sledgehammer to the exterior bulkhead, you don't go find another, even more superior officer to restrain him, nor do you ask him politely what he's up to - you stop him. And when you have certain knowledge, but knowledge that will take more than three seconds to impart, that the course of action just ordered will lead directly to the loss of your ship and all aboard her, you interrupt.

    And if it turns out that you interrupted for a stupid reason, or none at all? That's what courts-martial are for. That's why you don't have people countermanding the captain on a whim, because their next stop is the brig.
    Yes, because Decker waiting for them to look at him after he said "Noooooooooooooo!", rushing to Chekov's station, tripping, continuing, holding to the console, just to tell him "arm photon torpedoes" and "fire photon torpedoes" in his face for... reasons especially since Chekov heard him from his station just before, wasn't another colossal waste of time.

    The whole thing is ridiculous, anyway. As I mentioned, when you hand over the retrofitted version of a ship to its former captain because you have no choice and you tell him it's a totally different ship, you FREAKING explain to him before the mission starts what the major changes are! Especially for such a highly risky and vital mission where an omission of any kind might result in death.

    Imagine if a mechanic fully repairs and retrofits a friend's car from an old diesel with a stick to a new electric automatic monster and forgets like an idiot to tell him the stick still has its retro look, but is actually an automatic transmission, and if he presses the former "starter" button, the battery is disconnected.
    Post edited by saurializard on
    #TASforSTO
    Iconian_Trio_sign.jpg?raw=1
Sign In or Register to comment.