Picards mistakes

Post by **Mikey** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 3:46 am

Meh. Could have been, admittedly clumsily, explained away in-universe by saying that the saucer was underpowered to transport the men from the surface amidst the interference, and was too slow to make a difference to the Romulan on board.

Post by **Teaos** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:09 am

Over all it seems Picard has made the least. Although you could arhue he has the most blood on his hands.

Post by **Mikey** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 2:21 pm

I think that's the lot of the captain of the flagship, mistakes or no.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 2:37 pm

Indeed, its dificult for someone in his profesion to avoid.

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:16 pm

Archer went two seasons without killing any of his crew members. Now that is skill.

Thorin · Post by **Thorin** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:32 pm

Monroe wrote:Archer went two seasons without killing any of his crew members. Now that is skill.

Probably because his ship was so slow he could never get to a hazardous situation quick enough.

Granitehewer · Post by **Granitehewer** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:33 pm

haha funny
yet it found that crafty corridor to quo'nos.........grr hated that

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:41 pm

Monroe wrote:Archer went two seasons without killing any of his crew members. Now that is skill.

Yeah but he managed to strand another ship in deep space after stealing it's parts to fix his ship in a starting display of craptastical ethics. That partially makes up for it.

Post by **Mikey** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:49 am

Plus, Archer has the absolute least amount of Kirkness.

RK_Striker_JK_5 · Post by **RK_Striker_JK_5** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:02 am

Thorin wrote:Harriman > Janeway

Just Harriman was a bit poor on his first command (I'd assume?) stood next to someone like Kirk.

*Shrugs* I guess so. he just seemed so milquetoast to me!

Maybe if it was Tuesday, he'd have done better?

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:59 am

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Monroe wrote:Archer went two seasons without killing any of his crew members. Now that is skill.
Yeah but he managed to strand another ship in deep space after stealing it's parts to fix his ship in a starting display of craptastical ethics. That partially makes up for it.

I would have done it

But that's for the thread I just started

Weyoun the Dancing Borg · Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:49 pm

I think the main problem with the Prime Directive is that it's never actually been shown in it's true, full, written form.

We've been given general snippets:

It is forbidden to interfere with the natural development of a species by means of artificially advancing them with technology or culture. This seems to apply more to pre-warp civilisations.

That seems to be the basis of the Prime Directive.

Obviously First Contacts are allowed, and of course this will affect the natural development of their society. We are not given the specific guidelines, but from what we saw in TNG's "First Contact" (episode, not feature film), this is generally done at a high level of government or influential level - in the end of this episode we learn that the populace of the planet were not ready for First Contact, and the vast majority of the population were unaware of it.

It does allow of the extinction of a species, if they have not directly asked for help (TNG's "Pen Pals"). This begs the question that surely, if a race is doomed to extinction without external interference - by way of natural, cultural or biological phenomenon - what harm can come to them? That seems to be unanswered in the series.

Kirk, was able to supply weapons to one side of a pre-warp civilisation's war when the other side had been given weapons by another entity (IIRC another Starfleet officer). This made the balance "ok". Allegedly, but I think we're treading on thin ice here.

The Ocompa, on the other hand, were aware of other life forms. They were going to be destroyed by the Kazon, and yet Tuvok said it would be a violation of the Prime Directive to assist them.

In Insurrection, it was apparently not a violation of the Prime Directive to assist the Sona in moving the population of the Baku, as the Council itself (not the President - the Council, I assume as seen in Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home) had given orders for this to be so. The excuse was "we're only moving 600 people" - and yet moving less than this, in an almost identical way (Beaming them up, putting them in a holodeck, then beaming them down) was against the very essence of the Prime Directive in TNG's "Homeward". So it's "ok when it's suits us" or rather "do as I say, not do as I do".

I think the main problem with the Prime Directive is its lack of coherence or determinability. In one episode it's ok to do X when in another it violates the law. I hate to say this, but I'd chalk it up to inadequate research on the writers' part.[/list]

Post by **Mikey** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:52 pm

Lack of cintinuity? In 'Trek? Surely you jest!

Seriously, I believe Weyoun has hit the nail on the head. The Prime Directive has been shown as plot device, malleable to the situation at hand, rather than as an actual, well, directive.

Post by **Teaos** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:37 am

If the prime directive is like any other law we have it is very long with many loop holes and admendments.

Post by **Mikey** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:53 am

Teaos wrote:If the prime directive is like any other law we have it is very long with many loop holes and admendments.

And probably more than even we realize, if Federation M.O. stays true.