So basically, you're arguing that we have created the 'single tour norm,' or that it popped into existence since 2290...
No, but that this norm clearly existed in the late 2280s, the 2290s and the first half of our term. Maybe it has always been the case, I don't see any evidence of the original Enterprise being assigned to 5 year missions before or after Kirks, and that one clearly wasn't extended.
But at the same time, permitting ka'Sharren and Straak to hold their command chairs for another term, that norm will evaporate.
Norms do tend to evaporate when the ones expected to enforce them stop doing so, or are stopped from doing so by higher ups.
Your new attempt to argue that five year tours are the norm is based largely on your inferences about the 2290s. We can't assume ANYTHING about how Starfleet operated in the 2290s represents a long term institutional norm, because that represented the chaotic period of the end of the Klingon conflicts, the retirement of the Constitution-As, and the Rogers admiralty.
We know that there was such a thing as the Explorers Corps with multiple ships in it in the late 2280s and 90s (from references to Sulu and Uhura having been in it), we don't know that about the period before that. I also don't really see why it would matter how old the norm is, the relevant question is whether it did exist at the beginning of our term. Even assuming Rogers established it doesn't change the question whether it is advantageous to have or not. A stopped clock and all that.
Moreover, if five year tours really are the norm, and you're not simply mistaken... It is reasonable to expect that they will remain so, and that one or two isolated exceptions to the rule will do no more harm than the numerous exceptions made in the past.
Not if we accede to every request to violate it, spend 20pp to overrule the people trying to maintain it and remove the person central to that effort from office entirely, as several people have clamored for.
If we go back farther (far enough into the past that we can tell what normal even means, then about the only canon evidence comes from Enterprise. The two Constitution-class Enterprises had, as far as we can tell, five captains in fifty years: April, Pike, Kirk (repeatedly), and Decker and Spock (also relatively briefly).
Fifty divided by five is ten. Granted that one of the five captains is Kirk, but April and Pike averaged ten years each too, before Kirk even showed up and threw a monkey wrench in the works.
In which case it is the 'five year norm' that you are promoting which is the aberration, and one which is clearly not necessary to the good and proper functioning of Starfleet.
But if my assessment is wrong, and 'five year norm' applies for all ships except the 23rd century Enterprise which was mysteriously immune even before Kirk took over... all that means is that the norm is going to be more resilient than you give it credit for. In which case this is no longer a high-stakes decision.
Given how influential Kirks 5YM was it seems plausible that 5YM weren't even a thing before that. After that 5YM the Enterprise was used as prototype for Constitution refits, as school ship and for emergencies, no indication of extended 5YM there either. The Enterprise-A wasn't in service long enough for repeat 5YMs. No evidence April did anything exploration like either. At best you can say that Pike commanded the Enterprise for 11 years in something roughly similar to Explorer Corps duty at a time plausibly before 5YMs and EC were even conceived, and Kirk did two entirely separate 5YMs 20 years apart on different ships, with a demotion back down to captain in between that didn't particularly set precedent for anything because it could have been treated as resetting TIR.
You are cherrypicking. Since 2300, Starfleet has had to consider whether to continue or to drop an Explorer Corps captain not in three cases, but in seven:
Enterprise, Courageous, and Sarek in 2305, Enterprise, Courageous, and Sarek in 2310, plus Miracht in 2310.
This is is blatantly false, we only had to consider the question in two cases, Enterprise 2311 and Sarek 2311. None of the other cases involved a vote. Listing the Courgeous in 2311 makes me question whether you are even trying to argue in good faith. But that doesn't particularly matter. Cases where we had some indication from the Captain whether they'd like to continue: Enterprise 2306, 2311, Sarek 2311, Miracht 2311.
You mean the 'strong norm' that would magically disappear as soon as Personnel allows two of five explorers to be captained by the same person who had them last tour, rather than allowing it for one of three?
Make up your mind. Either the 'five year norm' is a resilient Starfleet tradition, or it isn't. If it is, one or two exceptions won't cause it to suddenly disintegrate into nothingness. If it isn't, then Starfleet can do without it and there's no reason to be alarmed.
I never once claimed it was either resilient or a long held tradition. I claimed that it's a strong (but fragile) norm that has held in the recent past. Externally enforced norms tend to evaporate when the enforcer changes their mind and signals it as such.
Presumably, T'Lorel and Eaton had the same amount of "opportunity to indicate" desire to avoid promotion that ka'Sharren did. They didn't. She did. Thuir didn't either.
... why do you continue to pretend the central point of my argument on norms doesn't even exist?
Michel Thuir is not putting his hand up for another for another run around.
This is feedback from Thuir and whether he'd prefer to continue. Nothing like that exists from either T'Lorel or Eaton. If you can produce a quote clearly indicating that they were thinking about whether to put in another bid I will instantly concede the argument on norms. If you like instead try to argue why this doesn't matter, but that will probably lead to agreeing to disagree in short order. Continuing to address my other points based on this as though they were just arbitrarily made up and ignoring the actual argument is very much not acceptable. I don't see how I could consider continuing to do that as anything other than arguing in bad faith.
There is no evidence that the Explorer Corps captain's list is anything other than "these are the 5-10 most promising or favored officers, with the rank of captain, presently serving in Starfleet."
The events between Eaton and McAdams show that the panel of captains is something that exists in universe, that the captains themselves are informed ahead of time whether they are going to be on the panel (which makes little sense if they couldn't also decline) and that they have enough influence beforehand that trying to get onto the panel makes sense as a goal. Other posts indicate that people sometimes defer promotions to stay eligible even before being chosen (which desirable candidates who are also interested in advancing their career would be much less likely to do if they expect long waiting times).
If captains are not recruited from the list, then experience shows that within a reasonably short amount of time, they typically receive promotions to other positions and 'graduate' off the list.
And those cases mean either losing out on EC experience for the more ambitious people, or people who delayed a promotion eventually giving up, so wait times cause delays even in the careers of skilled candidates who are never selected in the first place. Both of these are pretty undesirable.
You have been arbitrarily inflating the small consequences of letting two out of eight (or three out of sixteen) five-year mission captaincies be "re-elections" into huge, disproportionately large consequences.
This (and Straak putting in a bid) is what I was referring to with "narrative consequences ka'Sharrens first extension already had":
Michel Thuir is not putting his hand up for another for another run around.
Do you deny that zh'Dohlen inquiring about this is a narrative consequence?
Your entire chain of argument here is an almost textbook example of a slippery slope fallacy in action.
Ignoring my actual arguments aside I never once claimed that losing the existing norm would be exceptionally difficult to reverse (all it would take would be not granting any more extensions for two to three decades), or that bad consequences would only follow at the bottom of any slope. Career delays for competent people are bad, competent people we want to advance not getting EC experience they would like is bad, any measure of extensions is going to cause some combination of career delay and losing out, consistently making choices in the way many people want to choose in this vote would lead to a lot of career delays and losing out. The entire argument on norms was just a side point to demonstrate that we can expect a lot of people to ask in the future so it doesn't make sense to treat people who are already asking as an exception. This isn't any closer to making a slippy slope argument than arguing that playing the lottery is irrational and calculating how much money you would be expected to lose over 10 years if you bought a ticket every week like you did for the last two weeks (because there were "special prizes" that aren't particularly special at all) would be. "If you start going after special prizes you won't be able to stop"/"if we vote for extensions now we will always vote for extensions" would be a slippy slope, but I'm not claiming that at all.
I could with much more justification counter that your entire chain of argument is an example of a straw man fallacy in action, but I'm giving you the benefit of doubt and assume you were merely tired. I do not think an apology is entirely uncalled for, though.
