My point was that, in universe and given equal arrival time, there is no remaining relevant difference between escorting one of their ships to their destination and arriving at that destination from elsewhere because direction of arrival is irrelevant. This is an exhaustive list of possible replies to that point:
- Assumption of equal arrival time is unwarranted.
- Direction does matter.
- There is some other relevant in-universe difference.
- There is some relevant out of universe difference (this concedes the narrative argument and moves to mechanics).
Anything else is irrelevant to the point. Either you were making irrelevant statements or your argument falls under one of these points. Period.
I don't really understand why it's a relevant point at all, and you haven't made the reasons clear. I originally made no statements about arrival time or direction. You'll have to demonstrate why your example is relevant before I'll be willing to address it more directly, and you haven't done that, you've just claimed it's related to what I'm saying without demonstrating any connection.
This is what I already said about timing the first time you brought it up:
If we intercept diplomatic delegations and monitor them, we are automatically poised to intervene, to counter what is said if it is not completely truthful, and to prevent them from turning vicious or intervene if they did. I mean, we know that they can turn violent based on the ship the Courageous had to destroy.
If we only catch the action after the fact or during, then the consequences are restricted to damage control, which is what we've seen in the Rigel sector up until now. We could, by declaring a border zone and ranging patrols out farther, preemptively intervene and reduce the effect of their diplomatic action from the start. No footholds gained, rather than small footholds being stamped out.
But from my reading, it was mostly ignored in your response, and you continued to present an apparent distinction between arriving "from the same direction" and "arriving at the same time" (your
exact words in the original), when I had already:
1. Pointed out that the timing wouldn't be the same in the least, and pointed out the
existing examples.
2. Pointed out that our actions were not limited to merely escorting them. Which I then elaborated on in further posts.
I'll send you a PM about the issues with argumentative style when I get a chance tomorrow, which I don't feel needs to further clutter the thread.
I can't even begin to reply to this because while you are making a bunch of explicit assertions you are still not making the core of your argument explicit. It sounds explicit, but a straightforward reading of this directly contradicts several things you stated before. I could guess how to resolve those contradictions but I am not at all confident which way to guess. You might think it's obvious but it's definitely not.
Here are two examples of explicit arguments that might or might not be similar to what you are trying to say:
- A HBZ would, as a mechanical effect, change the rage of possible event outcomes in a favorable way. The precedent for this are possible effects of various CBZ commanders in 2306. This does not require explicit in-universe justification.
- A HBZ would have the in-universe effect of allowing our commanders to intercept and monitor Horizon subversive diplomatic efforts, which they are currently not allowed to due to unfavorable rules of engagement, and exert a degree of control over where those efforts occur by means of doing X, where X is either threatening to shoot at them or some other concrete action.
Border control is far more than threatening to shoot. In fact, the Federation Diplomatic Service has some jurisdiction over foreign diplomacy, and so does a Starfleet captain. Moreover, Starfleet does act as the Federation's border authority and we don't just let foreign nationals cross at will. Several episodes of Trek have talked about specific border rules. If they want to play by our rules, then we can stonewall them into playing by
our rules.
"Yes, we're just calling over the Rigellian FDS Liason and their team of Tellarite trade negotiators. Oh, you didn't know that when the Rigellians signed the articles of confederation they authorized the Federation Diplomatic Service to act in their stead in negotiations with a foreign government? Of
course you can proceed to your destination... agreed upon once the Liason arrives."
"I'm sorry, but I've just been in contact with the Koliate Tower, and have been instructed that their negotiating team will be meeting you on Winter Colony instead of Okatha. Oh, be sure to bring warm weather gear, it's rather inhospitable."
"Oh, if you're travelling to Weleck we need to perform a health and safety inspection. Restrictions on the traffic of potentially dangerous bioforms. I'm sure there will be no issues, but you understand the importance of rules like this."
(naturally these are mere examples, and the broad point is that we have far more options than escort vs shoot)
And they don't have a choice but to play by our rules, because their entire strategy is based around playing by our rules. If they violate that, then it's clear that they're in the wrong.
It's not like we can't operate a BZ like this either. Our captains have been doing this since forever. The post-Khitomer crop of Starfleet captains have more experience in playing inter-species negotiator than any crop of captains since Starfleet was founded. It would be different if this was the 2260s and Starfleet was an organization based around growling menacingly over the Klingon/Romulan borders, but this is exactly the same kind of stall-investigate-mediate/dictate that our captains have been doing in every captain's log since the Biophage.
I think you and I do have a semantic distinction over what we call narrative vs mechanics, but I hate semantic distinctions, so if you want to call the overall story written about a set of independently rolled events "mechanics", you can and I now understand what you mean, but I won't use that terminology.
I don't see a reason to drill down the argument about the overall narrative, because it doesn't drill down. It is a broad argument that by establishing a border zone, we are exerting a favorable degree of influence on the progression of the story of our contact with the Horizon. I don't see the exact individual event rewards (definitely mechanical) or even individual event outcomes (mostly narrative, but success/failure is mechanical) as significantly relevant to that, because the overall story supersedes them and guides them. We could have a dozen event successes in the Rigel sector without a HBZ and the story could still lean towards "here comes the Horizon, aren't they sneaky and subversive", while a dozen event success in a HBZ may have an entirely different overall plot.