She wants to increase Development support before the 2318 elections in the Original 4. e: It's blindingly obvious IMO.
To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest)
- Thread starter OneirosTheWriter
- Start date
- Sci-Fi
-
- Tags
- star trek exploration fully automated luxury gay space communism top level canon (canon) #hashtagcontent all-encompassing space amoeba cardassian boy bands cardassian magical girls darkest bureaucracy debate makes the qm cackle like palpatine hoh is an empire quest it has to be foreign infiltrators more ships ship happens singers delenda est starfleet this is not an empire quest ur waifu is collective?
She wants to increase Development support before the 2318 elections in the Original 4. e: It's blindingly obvious IMO.
- Location
- Terror Australis
[X][PEACE] Upset the apple cart
[X][CARGO] Agree
The peacekeeper proposal seems to have far too much opposition to make it through the Council and is doing something we don't seem to need.
While the cargo builds are expensive they are something we need anyway so we should probably get them, even if it isn't truely vital.
I just wish N'gir was burning solely her own political capital on this blatant vote grab, but thats politics.
[X][CARGO] Agree
The peacekeeper proposal seems to have far too much opposition to make it through the Council and is doing something we don't seem to need.
While the cargo builds are expensive they are something we need anyway so we should probably get them, even if it isn't truely vital.
I just wish N'gir was burning solely her own political capital on this blatant vote grab, but thats politics.
Last edited:
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
An automatic system that indiscriminately or automatically zaps anyone it can't identify as belonging aboard would be counterproductive except under very specific circumstances. It's not the worst idea, but it's not a case of "you must be a moron to not have this already." The type of boarder (including mind control alien intruders and so on) against whom this is a very useful system isn't that common.
Phasers are spectacularly good weapons for purposes of balancing lethality versus not-too-lethal-ity, better than literally any physically plausible hand weapon could ever be. Every armed organization that has ever had to worry about having excessive force one day and not enough force the next would love phasers.
[In a few minutes I'll read and reply to the vote post]
pheonix89
Wants to be Seven Of Nine
- Location
- North American Plaguelands
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Pretty much.The best way to repel boarders is to have a team of Yan-Roshuntsmen/huntressesrangers aboard your ship.
From what we've seen I wouldn't expect Jem'hadar to put up much of a fight vs Yan'ros.
Probably not Borg either, because Yan'ros are spamming anti-tank level attacks and drones are almost certain not to have the power output for adaptation to matter when someone's using AT guns on them. 8742? Maybe.
It's not that I'd be opposed to having peacekeepers under our control. Like, if they just appeared by magic rather than a Council bill. But that I don't see the necessity in breaking the tradition of using member world resources for this.
Godwinson
"Well, I've got nothing."
[X][PEACE] Upset the apple cart
[X][CARGO] Avoid
The cargo reform would be acceptable, but I'm voting to avoid it for political reasons -- I don't want to have N'Gir be firmly ensconced as the Federation President when she orchestrates a large electoral gain for her party. I don't mind if Development wins, I simply don't want the win to be attributed to the President.
[X][CARGO] Avoid
The cargo reform would be acceptable, but I'm voting to avoid it for political reasons -- I don't want to have N'Gir be firmly ensconced as the Federation President when she orchestrates a large electoral gain for her party. I don't mind if Development wins, I simply don't want the win to be attributed to the President.
pheonix89
Wants to be Seven Of Nine
- Location
- North American Plaguelands
- Pronouns
- She/Her
I am adamantly against the peacekeeper thing because of what parties it coming from, because of WHO it is coming from, because she wants us to redirect fleet construction assets to cover it, and because there's probably a reason we don't have MACOs any more and I want to know that first. Also because Starfleet should NOT be conducting any operations that require serious ground forces without plenty of member buy-in.
I am OK with the concept of the cargo push, but on second thought the sheer scale is ... less OK. Also because I really don't want to give HER a Starfleet with less checks on large-scale operations. And because given her total lack of military know-how I don't really like her dictating policy details.
Changing vote on freight issue.
I am OK with the concept of the cargo push, but on second thought the sheer scale is ... less OK. Also because I really don't want to give HER a Starfleet with less checks on large-scale operations. And because given her total lack of military know-how I don't really like her dictating policy details.
Changing vote on freight issue.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
I, too, am curious what happened with or to the MACOs...
I'm opposed to the "mass of peacekeepers" plan because establishing such a force basically commits us to a pattern of the kind of troubles we've had before. Starfleet getting directly involved in conflicts like this is almost inevitably going to be a bad idea, especially because of the sheer number of ground troops required to meaningfully 'keep the peace' on something the size of a planet. If we go through with the plan, we're going to be expected to put those boots on the ground in future crises, and semi-permanently keep ships in orbit to support them.
In other words, every damn time a crisis blows up on a Federation planet, Starfleet will be committing troops to something like one of the planetary campaigns against the Syndicate. And member worlds will be able to call in Starfleet troops to 'restore order' rather than sorting out their own problems among themselves.
The "transport-neutral" plan is somewhat appealing in that it's something we want for ourselves, but it hands N'Gir a huge political advantage and burns up a large amount of our support. Because it's not actually a bad idea in itself I'm reluctant to vote against it without more thought, though.
[X][PEACE] Upset the apple cart
...
I'm opposed to the "mass of peacekeepers" plan because establishing such a force basically commits us to a pattern of the kind of troubles we've had before. Starfleet getting directly involved in conflicts like this is almost inevitably going to be a bad idea, especially because of the sheer number of ground troops required to meaningfully 'keep the peace' on something the size of a planet. If we go through with the plan, we're going to be expected to put those boots on the ground in future crises, and semi-permanently keep ships in orbit to support them.
In other words, every damn time a crisis blows up on a Federation planet, Starfleet will be committing troops to something like one of the planetary campaigns against the Syndicate. And member worlds will be able to call in Starfleet troops to 'restore order' rather than sorting out their own problems among themselves.
The "transport-neutral" plan is somewhat appealing in that it's something we want for ourselves, but it hands N'Gir a huge political advantage and burns up a large amount of our support. Because it's not actually a bad idea in itself I'm reluctant to vote against it without more thought, though.
[X][PEACE] Upset the apple cart
...
I don't think that was a deliberate leash, among other things because it's slow and uncertain, and because Starfleet does have the legal authority to requisition transport when it needs it.
Hurting the Expansionists, the most historically pro-Starfleet party, is not something we should do lightly. I'm seriously considering voting Avoid on this issue.
Thing is, the cargo issue hasn't actually hurt Starfleet's operations to date. It COULD become a problem but so far it's been a thing people complain about, not a thing that actually directly causes problems in itself. I really wouldn't mind doing this if it weren't for the political aspect- if it weren't an obvious political maneuver that weakens a party that has historically supported us. The fact that it does... makes me wary.
Last edited:
- Location
- somewhere
@OneirosTheWriter would you allow this?
[ ][CARGO] Instead pledge to set aside enough Starfleet berths for auxiliary production to achieve the 2322 goal.
[ ][CARGO] Instead pledge to set aside enough Starfleet berths for auxiliary production to achieve the 2322 goal.
UbeOne
Daydreaming CPU
- Location
- Philippines
- Pronouns
- She/Her
I've changed my mind, and opted to avoid the cargo proposal rather than agree with it.
Random Member
Gardener of Human Happiness
- Location
- Behind You
[X][PEACE] Upset the apple cart
[ ][CARGO] Agree
[X][CARGO] Avoid
The peacekeeping force is a big no from me, people have already listed the problems with it and I agree with them, no need for me to repeat it. On the cargo ships, I'm unsure. It would be nice not to have to ask members to lend us their cargo ships, but I'm not sure Starfleet being self-sufficient is something alot of people other than Development want. And frankly, the fact that it hurts the Expansionists, the party that has probably the most Starfleet votes, doesn't sit well with me. Oh, and it costs 150 pp. So currently leaning towards no on this one as well.
Last edited:
- Location
- somewhere
150pp is ludicrously expensive. We could get 5 UP expansions for that, with 10 berths, and setting aside about half of them for Starfleet Logistic Command should be enough to resolve the logistic hole, while giving us the flexibility to use them for something else when the situation calls for it.
Alastor Mobius Toth
***** ***
- Location
- Neon Ghetto
[X][PEACE] Upset the apple cart
This, I am leery of. "Peacekeeping" sounds like a fine idea in theory, but in practice Starfleet isn't, and shouldn't be, a peacekeeping force. Maintaining order and peace on worlds should be the job of member-states. There is a whole bunch of things that can go wrong here, not the least of which is Starfleet getting used as a jackboot to be applied to someone's neck.
To be clear, I am not opposed to Starfleet participating in peacekeeping missions. But I am opposed to Starfleet essentially supplanting civilian administration and member-world efforts on jurisdiction that should be firmly in their grasp. There's a bunch of other arguments I feel like I should make along with that, but my brain is a bit scattershot at the moment.
[X][CARGO] Agree
On one hand, for the sake of principles, I feel like I should say this definitely removes one of the chains around Starfleet's neck, and it makes one wonder. On the other hand however, the base idea is sound - that Starfleet should have at least enough shipping to supply itself, which is the sort of thing you'd think it should be willing and able to do in the first place. It will free up the member shipping to do its own things (and maybe allow member worlds to be more effective at disaster response/that sort of things). I also feel like it is politically less upsetting. And if we're going to fight the Peackeeper corps initiative, we should look to give N'Gir at least some concessions.
That said, it is also one thing I'd be willing to change my mind on, unlike the first option.
This, I am leery of. "Peacekeeping" sounds like a fine idea in theory, but in practice Starfleet isn't, and shouldn't be, a peacekeeping force. Maintaining order and peace on worlds should be the job of member-states. There is a whole bunch of things that can go wrong here, not the least of which is Starfleet getting used as a jackboot to be applied to someone's neck.
To be clear, I am not opposed to Starfleet participating in peacekeeping missions. But I am opposed to Starfleet essentially supplanting civilian administration and member-world efforts on jurisdiction that should be firmly in their grasp. There's a bunch of other arguments I feel like I should make along with that, but my brain is a bit scattershot at the moment.
[X][CARGO] Agree
On one hand, for the sake of principles, I feel like I should say this definitely removes one of the chains around Starfleet's neck, and it makes one wonder. On the other hand however, the base idea is sound - that Starfleet should have at least enough shipping to supply itself, which is the sort of thing you'd think it should be willing and able to do in the first place. It will free up the member shipping to do its own things (and maybe allow member worlds to be more effective at disaster response/that sort of things). I also feel like it is politically less upsetting. And if we're going to fight the Peackeeper corps initiative, we should look to give N'Gir at least some concessions.
That said, it is also one thing I'd be willing to change my mind on, unlike the first option.
Last edited:
150pp might also include the budget for enough ships and the logistics crew to put on them. And 5 extra berths won't be nearly enough, we'd need to dedicate the full 10.
Chaos Blade
Procrastinating Writer
- Location
- Buenos Aires, Argentina
[X][CARGO] avoid
[X][PEACE] Go along with the deal
Personally, I like the peacekeeping option, it would give us a core of veterans we can rely at a moment's notice and we can augment with member forces as needed (there is nothing in the proposal that would detract us from calling in member world forces) and would give us some control on ground forces, not to mention options for developing tactics and the like rathe than being wholly dependent on member worlds and their own doctrines (which could be worrisome eventually, specially if some memeber's doctrines and equipment end up being incompatible with one another, plus if we end up with a general war with the cardies...)
The Cargo option is intriguing but I feel going for both would let our catty president concentrate too much power and we can wing it or implement it at a latter date with other faction... it is not life and death, either..
[X][PEACE] Go along with the deal
Personally, I like the peacekeeping option, it would give us a core of veterans we can rely at a moment's notice and we can augment with member forces as needed (there is nothing in the proposal that would detract us from calling in member world forces) and would give us some control on ground forces, not to mention options for developing tactics and the like rathe than being wholly dependent on member worlds and their own doctrines (which could be worrisome eventually, specially if some memeber's doctrines and equipment end up being incompatible with one another, plus if we end up with a general war with the cardies...)
The Cargo option is intriguing but I feel going for both would let our catty president concentrate too much power and we can wing it or implement it at a latter date with other faction... it is not life and death, either..
[X][PEACE] Upset the apple cart
[X][CARGO] Avoid
Peacekeeping because quite frankly, Starfleet's inability to wage a ground war is a useful check on Starfleet. Without that Starfleet can easily become more of an independent military, both of which are bad things in the UFP to have happen.
Avoiding cargo because of multiple reasons; it hits our own organisation's political leanings, it's far more expensive than building berths would be and waiting, it's only a single time effort so eventually we'll need another infusion, and all told it would only be needed if we actually went for building the peacecorps. Because there's no way that the peacecorps would not come with its own costs in logistics, manpower, materials and construction time.
[X][CARGO] Avoid
Peacekeeping because quite frankly, Starfleet's inability to wage a ground war is a useful check on Starfleet. Without that Starfleet can easily become more of an independent military, both of which are bad things in the UFP to have happen.
Avoiding cargo because of multiple reasons; it hits our own organisation's political leanings, it's far more expensive than building berths would be and waiting, it's only a single time effort so eventually we'll need another infusion, and all told it would only be needed if we actually went for building the peacecorps. Because there's no way that the peacecorps would not come with its own costs in logistics, manpower, materials and construction time.
lbmaian
a thirsty squirrel
- Location
- USA
@OneirosTheWriter, can you post an updated logistics loop capacity summary (like the one you did in 2314)? I want some extra confirmation on how deep in the hole we are, and how fast that hole is growing/shrinking, beyond our own calculations.
That requirement for Starfleet to be transport-neutral is a noble goal, but:
a) It's overkill, possibly even during wartime. (Largest danger is if the enemy starts targeting our transport capacity and our Forward Defense isn't stopping them adequately.)
b) The way it's being forced on us is so hamfisted, basically shifting all the blame (pp) to Starfleet for having to haggle for member fleet berth space.
c) The political motivations on the upcoming elections are so damn transparent.
edit: d) As Nix says, if we really had to be transport-neutral, it would be far better if we could expand our own berths and build the cargo ships and freighters ourselves.
Ugh
Development faction just have different priorities for Starfleet's attention, like building space infrastructure (discounts to berths, starbases, etc.), and reducing our dependency on member fleet auxiliaries (technically prudent for war, but overkill). Not bad, just somewhat conflicts with our more expansionist/hawkish priorities.
That requirement for Starfleet to be transport-neutral is a noble goal, but:
a) It's overkill, possibly even during wartime. (Largest danger is if the enemy starts targeting our transport capacity and our Forward Defense isn't stopping them adequately.)
b) The way it's being forced on us is so hamfisted, basically shifting all the blame (pp) to Starfleet for having to haggle for member fleet berth space.
c) The political motivations on the upcoming elections are so damn transparent.
edit: d) As Nix says, if we really had to be transport-neutral, it would be far better if we could expand our own berths and build the cargo ships and freighters ourselves.
Ugh
No, it's N'Gir that least favors Starfleet.
Development faction just have different priorities for Starfleet's attention, like building space infrastructure (discounts to berths, starbases, etc.), and reducing our dependency on member fleet auxiliaries (technically prudent for war, but overkill). Not bad, just somewhat conflicts with our more expansionist/hawkish priorities.
Last edited: