Remove ads

To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest)

Linked contents
To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) Starfleet Ship Design Bureau, Refit ("To Boldly Go...")
Reader mode
...fuck it, I'm convinced.

[x][RA] Rear Admiral Nyota Uhura
[x][FLT] Commodore Victoria Eaton
[x][GND] Commodore T'Lorel

Also at this point we pretty much have to pick Sulu for next PC, since apparently he already runs the place o.o
 
[X][RA] Rear Admiral Shey ch'Tharvasse
[x][FLT] Commodore Michel Thuir
[x][GND] Commodore T'Lorel

I like Thuir-T'Lorel combo, but while Uhura is BAMF I want someone law abiding riding herd.
 
I don't think the argument that we should mix high and low rule abiding people makes much sense. I don't see how more rule abiding subordinates can compensate for political messes their superior causes. If some unconventional approach leads to problems we need someone adaptable to compensate for them, not someone who sticks to procedures that don't work in the current situation because the superior broke the assumptions those procedures were based on. I also think the best way to compensate for low rule abiding is with high political skill, to manage to CYA with technicalities and avoid causing any political messes.
Lastly we know several of these people much better than what this very limited assessment suggests. Michel Thuir does unconventional things, but he isn't a risk taker. When he does something unusual it's because applying the usual procedure would be stupid, usually an unecessary risk. He's exactly the sort of person we want to excecute an unconventional strategy and adapt it as appropriate, without adding risks on top of risks. I don't think Eaton is a sticker for the rules like the listing suggests either and think she could also work reaonably well with Uhura, but I see Thuir doing better in these circunstances.

[X][RA] Rear Admiral Nyota Uhura
[X][FLT] Commodore Michel Thuir
[X][GND] Commodore T'Lorel
 
Last edited:
Grabbed an unexpected ten minutes...

[X][RA] Rear Admiral Nyota Uhura
[X][FLT] Commodore Victoria Eaton
[X][GND] Commodore T'Lorel

All choices with high Nerve.

Uhura's willingness to ignore the rules when it's important may come in handy (set a pirate to catch a pirate, and she HAS committed piracy). But we do need to not have a whole organization of loose cannons. My basic reply to Nix is that Uhura knows how to play the game, she's got a lot of experience by this point in her career.

Someone like Nash has low rule-abiding because they're used to breaking the rules all the time. Someone like Uhura has low rule-abiding because they're used to saving up their maverick-ism for special occasions, then breaking it out all at once when it's needed.

Eaton and Thuir are both strong candidates, but Eaton appears to be the superior choice if we look at statlines. Thuir is new to his rank, and maybe not the best choice as a consquence. Maybe his stats would improve given a bit more time.

Low diplomacy (Ainsworth) is a no-no in someone who's going to be literally on the ground with the Orions all the time. The combination of low Rule-Abiding and low Politics skill is almost certainly going to backfire badly with Nash. And while I still have some reservations about T'Lorel after Grey October, I'm going to stipulate for the sake of this discussion that I shouldn't.
 
Last edited:
Nix said:
I don't think the argument that we should mix high and low rule abiding people makes much sense. I don't see how more rule abiding subordinates can compensate for political messes their superior causes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You're assuming political messes higher up the chain at Starfleet, I'm looking at discouraging any sort of wild actions that will lose us support within the Union itself. In any case, smoothing political feathers is what Uhura is best at, and the other Commanders I picked - Eaton and T'Lorel - have good politics and diplomacy as well.

What I'm looking at is preventing any chance this could go off the rails. Having a strong counter to the low rules abiding of Uhura while reinforcing everything else helps ensure that. Thuir's a good alternate to Eaton in that regard, however.
 
Last edited:
It kinda pisses me off that Nash is stuck doing shore assignments, because she'd be a great replacement for T'Lorel as CBZ sector commander. As it stands, she'll probably get some assignment that doesn't suit her. *sigh*

Iron Wolf convinced me, so:

[X][RA] Rear Admiral Nyota Uhura
[X][FLT] Commodore Victoria Eaton
[X][GND] Commodore T'Lorel

BTW, we'll lose Eaton's +1 to sensor research if she's voted in, but I think she's been stuck at her current assignment for long enough, and this is a great opportunity for her.
 
Iron Wolf said:
You're assuming political messes higher up the chain at Starfleet, I'm looking at discouraging any sort of wild actions that will lose us support within the Union itself. In any case, smoothing political feathers Uhura is the best at that, and the other Commanders I picked - Eaton and T'Lorel - have good politics and diplomacy as well.

What I'm looking at is preventing any chance this could go off the rails. Having a strong counter to the low rules abiding of Uhura while reinforcing everything else helps ensure that. Thuir's a good alternate to Eaton in that regard, however.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That makes even less sense. I don't see any plausible scenario where high and low rule abiding compensate for each other in a useful way. Once things are off the rails we need people able to deal with that, not people good at avoiding getting off the rails themselves. Give a concrete example if you disagree. What I can see happening is unnecessary conflict, misunderstandings and working at cross purposes in our own command hierarchy (at least if the people involved were less competent than they are, I see Uhura and Eaton in particular being able to work well together, just not as well as Uhura and Thuir). As a general principle avoiding mixing high and low rule abidance people and instead tempering extremes with moderates would make much more sense.
 
Last edited:
Nix said:
I don't see any plausible scenario where high and low rule abiding compensate for each other in a useful way. Once things are off the rails we need people able to deal with that, not people good at avoiding getting off the rails themselves. Give a concrete example if you disagree.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Jack O'Neill (two L's) and Samantha Carter :V
 
Nix said:
That makes even less sense. I don't see any plausible scenario where high and low rule abiding compensate for each other in a useful way.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I guess you need to imagine new scenarios.

There are a lot of independence among these three commands. Uhura's low rules-abiding might lead her to do something like... I don't know, make a deal with a rival criminal organization to help take down the Syndicate. That ticks off the politicians.

Meanwhile, Thuir might decide to go after some Syndicate ships while they are docked exchanging goods with Yrillian "trade vessels" (you can't prove they're pirates) because it's safer to catch them with their pants down, while Eaton might refuse on the grounds that it could hinder our diplomatic outreach to the Yrillians and she has no ROE for Yrillian ships.

Uhura's rule-breaking and Thuir's rule breaking have nothing to do with each other, but it's about cumulative effect. Now instead of annoying the politicians twice, we've only annoyed them once. That's the "compensation".
 
Last edited:
[x][RA] Rear Admiral Shey ch'Tharvasse
This is, ultimately, a Hearts and Minds campaign. Diplomacy and political ability are extremely important.

[x][FLT] Commodore Victoria Eaton
IF fleet action is necessary, make it hard and fast - and by the book.

[x][GND] Commodore T'Lorel
Similarly, being able to hold the line and do so while being unnervingly, unfailingly polite is important.
 
lbmaian said:
Jack O'Neill (two L's) and Samantha Carter :V
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Carter is definitely not more rule abiding than Thuir.
Briefvoice said:
I guess you need to imagine new scenarios.

There are a lot of independence among these three commands. Uhura's low rules-abiding might lead her to do something like... I don't know, make a deal with a rival criminal organization to help take down the Syndicate. That ticks off the politicians.

Meanwhile, Thuir might decide to go after some Syndicate ships while they are docked exchanging goods with Yrillian "trade vessels" (you can't prove they're pirates) because it's safer to catch them with their pants down, while Eaton might refuse on the grounds that it could hinder our diplomatic outreach to the Yrillians and she has no ROE for Yrillian ships.

Uhura's rule-breaking and Thuir's rule breaking have nothing to do with each other, but it's about cumulative effect. Now instead of annoying the politicians twice, we've only annoyed them once. That's the "compensation".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
... I suppose you didn't study all that much statistics? Taking two independent risks decreases the variance of the expected outcome rather than increasing it. So if there is any compensation going on at all Thiur taking an independent risk reduces the relative gravity of the risk Uhura is taking. As for annoying politicians/bureaucrats, I see that as more of an issue for low politics characters. I very much doubt Thuir is going to take any actions that are particularly likely to come with a political cost.
 
Last edited:
Nix said:
Carter is definitely not more rule abiding than Thuir.

... I suppose you didn't study all that much statistics? Taking two independent risks decreases the variance of the expected outcome rather than increasing it. So if there is any compensation going on at all Thiur taking an independent risk reduces the relative gravity of the risk Uhura is taking.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Eh surely that like saying the risks I take by juggling chainsaws is reduced by my friend playing the finger game with his butterfly knife whilst watching me.
 
Ato said:
Eh surely that like saying the risks I take by juggling chainsaws is reduced by my friend playing the finger game with his butterfly knife whilst watching me.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If you pool independent actions with negative expected value obviously the aggregate will have an even more negative expected value, but the variance of that expected value is reduced. If someone offered each of you $ 100,000 for pulling off one of those stunts successfully you would reduce the risk of not being able to pay the hospital bill by both taking the risk and pooling.

Presumably our officers will only take actions with positive expected value.
 
Last edited:
lbmaian said:
It's been a long time since I watched any Stargate, but I could've swore early Captain Carter was a stickler for rules. But I may be confusing her with someone else. Ah, better example: Teal'c ;)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Early season Carter is a stickler for rules. But then prolonged exposure to O'Neill causes her to go mad with science. And Teal'c is more a pragmatist and pessimist than rule-abiding. Honestly SG-1 is entirely made up of loose cannons, which is why they get so much done and why General Hammond would be tearing his hair out if he had any.
 
Nix said:
That makes even less sense. I don't see any plausible scenario where high and low rule abiding compensate for each other. Give a concrete example if you disagree. What I can see happening is unnecessary conflict, misunderstandings and working at cross purposes in our own command hierarchy (at least if the people involved were less competent than they are, I see Uhura and Eaton in particular being able to work well together, just not as well as Uhura and Thuir). As a general principle avoiding mixing high and low rule abidance people and instead tempering extremes with moderates would make much more sense.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm thinking of scenarios -- and this is a bit extreme, but bear with me -- like the My Lai massacre, where if just one person in the chain of bad decisions had said no it wouldn't have happened. That is what I'm driving at here. Having a subordinate with a strong moral compass is probably more important than having a leader with a strong moral compass and more relaxed subordinates.

Other examples could be drawn from the Somalia Affair (warning: some graphic content in there), which has a quote that sums up what I'm taking about:
Also mitigating, to a certain extent, is the fact that these individuals must be viewed as products of a system that placed great store in the "can do" attitude. The reflex to say "yes sir" rather than to question the appropriateness of a command or policy obviously runs against the grain of free and open discussion, but it is ingrained in military discipline and culture. However, leaders properly exercising command responsibility must recognise and assert not only their right, but their duty, to advise against improper actions, for failing to do so means that professionalism is lost.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Now I don't know if Uhura would make the call to say, change the definition of Syndicate personnel from criminals to saboteurs in order to be able to use lethal force (as the CAR did in Somalia), but needless to say I'd be very comfortable with having Eaton there as a strong proponent of doing things 'right'.

But like I said Thiur's a good alternate as I see him narratively as not being prone to going completely fucking nuts. Also, they're in the fleet, which means less direct interfacing with the populace at large.
 
lbmaian said:
It kinda pisses me off that Nash is stuck doing shore assignments, because she'd be a great replacement for T'Lorel as CBZ sector commander. As it stands, she'll probably get some assignment that doesn't suit her. *sigh*

Iron Wolf convinced me, so:

[X][RA] Rear Admiral Nyota Uhura
[X][FLT] Commodore Victoria Eaton
[X][GND] Commodore T'Lorel

BTW, we'll lose Eaton's +1 to sensor research if she's voted in, but I think she's been stuck at her current assignment for long enough, and this is a great opportunity for her.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We could always promote her to heading the Explorer corps, seeing as she is one of the few individuals within Starfleet who has taken multiple tours of duty leading those missions. That honestly would be the best use of her experience and skills, as well as being a position I doubt anyone would be able to complain about.

On a completely different note, does anyone know the flags for the worlds either part of the Federation or affiliated with it? Right now I have an idea of a circle of flagpoles, some without any flags and those with flags flying the flags of the member worlds of the Federation, and in the center of the circle is the flag of the United Federation of Planets.
 
Last edited:
lbmaian said:
It's been a long time since I watched any Stargate, but I could've swore early Captain Carter was a stickler for rules. But I may be confusing her with someone else. Ah, better example: Teal'c ;)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You mean the person who betrayed their lord in the first episode? I don't think there were any real stickers for rules on that team. But that isn't even the point anyway. The question is whether there are any high and low rule abidance people that work well together because of that, not in spite of that. If we want to stick to fictional examples Mulder and Scully work well together after some initial difficulties, but that's not specifically because they are high and low rule abidance (and you could probably argue for Scully being moderate as well).
 
Last edited:
[X][RA] Rear Admiral Nyota Uhura
[X][FLT] Commodore Victoria Eaton
[X][GND] Commodore T'Lorel

I suspect Nash is going to be happier with a fleet assignment than with a ground assignment.
 
Iron Wolf said:
I'm thinking of scenarios -- and this is a bit extreme, but bear with me -- like the My Lai massacre, where if just one person in the chain of bad decisions had said no it wouldn't have happened. That is what I'm driving at here. Having a subordinate with a strong moral compass is probably more important than having a leader with a strong moral compass and more relaxed subordinates.

Other examples could be drawn from the Somalia Affair (warning: some graphic content in there), which has a quote that sums up what I'm taking about:


Now I don't know if Uhura would make the call to say, change the definition of Syndicate personnel from criminals to saboteurs in order to be able to use lethal force (as the CAR did in Somalia), but needless to say I'd be very comfortable with having Eaton there as a strong proponent of doing things 'right'.

But like I said Thiur's a good alternate as I see him narratively as not being prone to going completely fucking nuts. Also, they're in the fleet, which means less direct interfacing with the populace at large.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Why are you suddenly talking about moral compasses? That wasn't the question at all. Low rule abidance people with a strong moral compass will reject unethical orders, whether they are aware of regulations allowing for that or not. High rule abidance people might execute unethical orders if they don't know any better, whether they have a strong moral compass or not. Low/moderate rule abidance people might follow along with unethical orders despite knowing better if they also have loose morals and see a personal advantage. Overall I don't think low/moderate rule abidance people would be more likely to follow along.
 
ThoughtMaster said:
We could always promote her to heading the Explorer corps, seeing as she is one of the few individuals within Starfleet who has taken multiple tours of duty leading those missions. That honestly would be the best use of her experience and skills, as well as being a position I doubt anyone would be able to complain about.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

She's a commodore not an admiral, so she won't be leading any full division.

Nix said:
You mean the person who betrayed their lord in the first episode? I don't think there were any real stickers for rules on that team. But that isn't even the point anyway. The question is whether there are any high and low rule abidance people that work well together because of that, not in spite of that. If we want to stick to fictional examples Mulder and Scully work well together after some initial difficulties, but that's not specifically because they are high and low rule abidance (and you could probably argue for Scully being moderate as well).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Blah, I was confusing loyalty and principled for law-abiding. Anyway, should be pretty obvious I was kidding around. I'm not invested in this law abidance debate - I personally am ambivalent about that. I care more about having high nerve (and I'm not convinced that would be a bad thing) and Eaton getting stuck in one place too long.
 
[x][RA] Rear Admiral Nyota Uhura
[x][FLT] Commodore Michel Thuir
[x][GND] Commodore T'Lorel

You know, that would mean we could post Nash in the CBZ. The Cardassian reaction should be interesting.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top