No one calls it by class to others but by the ship's name.
What does a God, need with a starship?
If you want a concept name (or rather, positive adjective name) that fits for a warship then why not Incomparable, Indomitable, Inviolable and so on?
That'd fit with what canon Starfleet does, I feel. In this case it'd be Excalibur but the 'pool' would be any sort of mythical object, such as Aegis or a drinking vessel of some sort (iirc we have enough examples of mystical objects in general for Federation members we could use a few non-earth names).
I think you and I have very different definitions of goofy, then, because if I heard someone naming their warships various synonyms for "urgent need" and "unfortunate violation of principles" when their espoused principles were "Peaceful exploration and You Do You" I might be a little bit concerned. Context does rather matter.
I mean, I get it. But, to me at least, Constitution is something I kinda want to save for our next beeeg Explorer, I'd like to save Defiant for the equivalent of a zippy frigate that hits like a battlecruiser, and Excalibur sounds a little... pretentious?
It does have a bit of precedence, though, with HMS Excalibur of the Explorer-class of submarines.
] Protractor
You assume that double book accounting isn't banned because it makes it harder to embezzle, or pull a great many fiscal shenanigans in general.
We get hung up on it explicitly because of that tendency, which tends to make a surface level look at the Federation look uncomfortably humanocentric, especially in combination with the TV Show Budget meaning there are fewer (visibly) non-human Starfleet people than there really should be on screen. Our attempts to push away from that tendency are very much attempts to more accurately describe the Federation as more than "Earth with extra bits for flavor" here.
ganna be real, the only one of these i find plesent in any way is expediency and even then i would want that for something like a hyper fast scout/messenger ship, not this.
