RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,163
Posts: 5,402,786
Members: 24,751
Currently online: 469
Newest member: kaklina

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Time’s Orphan
By: Michelle on Aug 30

September-October Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Lee Passes
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 4 2010, 03:20 PM   #1
Penta
Commander
 
An ill-defined itch

Get your minds out of the gutter, people!

Nonono, I have the urge to do another of my worldbuilding threads...But I have a tiny problem.

No idea what to do for a topic.

So I figured I'd crowdsource. See what ideas you, my readers, can come up with. If I see a good idea, I'll grab it and start a new thread.
Penta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 4 2010, 07:15 PM   #2
Gaith
Rear Admiral
 
Gaith's Avatar
 
Location: Washington, DC
Re: An ill-defined itch

How about... the best couples that weren't? Two words: Geordi and Seven. She's like Data with lady parts! How would he not love that?
Gaith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2010, 02:22 AM   #3
Myasishchev
Rear Admiral
 
Myasishchev's Avatar
 
Location: America after the rain
Re: An ill-defined itch

"What kind of biological basis would produce a non-dysfunctional sexual politic?" I came up with one for Deltans, since that's their whole deal, but that's pretty outre and also probably of limited interest.

How about "Was the Federation and Starfleet integrated from the beginning, or was it a slow process that culminated sometime after Journey to Babel?" There's a lot of evidence suggesting that the UESPA was the real highest authority for the Enterprise crew, and that the Federation was much more of confederation or even a mere community in TOS. Also, the 100% lack of aliens on the Enterprise--and don't cite Spock, he's a United Earth citizen unless Amanda renounced her citizenship.
__________________

Myasishchev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2010, 04:23 AM   #4
Penta
Commander
 
Re: An ill-defined itch

Not saying I'm gonna use this, but it just struck me, so sending it out for commentary.

With holodecks, do you still need or even want actual cadavers in medical school for the gross anatomy class?
Penta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2010, 04:51 AM   #5
Myasishchev
Rear Admiral
 
Myasishchev's Avatar
 
Location: America after the rain
Re: An ill-defined itch

Probably. The holodeck presumably not sufficiently hi-fi to do cells and intracellular parts.

Wait, does "gross" mean "yucky" or does "gross" mean "obvious" here? Because it'd probably be easier to use a simulacrum for that.
__________________

Myasishchev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2010, 05:51 AM   #6
Penta
Commander
 
Re: An ill-defined itch

No, gross anatomy as in this.
Penta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2010, 06:26 AM   #7
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: An ill-defined itch

Penta wrote: View Post
I have the urge to do another of my worldbuilding threads
How about one on the Prime Directive, It fairly obvious that it hasn't existed since the beginning of the Federation. First half of TOS might have had no PD at all. It also seems to have changed over time, either through politics or maybe simple practicalities.


Myasishchev wrote: View Post
With holodecks, do you still need or even want actual cadavers in medical school for the gross anatomy class?
Probably. The holodeck presumably not sufficiently hi-fi to do cells and intracellular parts.
If a student was working on a simulated cadaver they would know it. Medical schools might wish for their student to get their hands "wet" inside a actual body. This way when the brand new doctor has to save their first life, they won't flinch in the face of reality.
T'Girl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2010, 01:51 PM   #8
neozeks
Captain
 
neozeks's Avatar
 
Re: An ill-defined itch

How about 'how does the process of joining the Federation go?' Or even more precise 'how does the new member's military get absorbed/integrated into Starfleet?'
__________________
What if it's a smart fungus?
neozeks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2010, 04:22 PM   #9
Penta
Commander
 
Re: An ill-defined itch

T'Girl wrote: View Post
How about one on the Prime Directive, It fairly obvious that it hasn't existed since the beginning of the Federation. First half of TOS might have had no PD at all. It also seems to have changed over time, either through politics or maybe simple practicalities.
neozeks wrote: View Post
How about 'how does the process of joining the Federation go?' Or even more precise 'how does the new member's military get absorbed/integrated into Starfleet?'
I love both of these ideas, but have no bloody clue where to begin with either!

---
That said, something unrelated to the above but relevant to the general thing.

General rules of thumb for Penta's worldbuilding threads:

1. I tend to set myself just ahead of the canon timeline - which, in the case of post-NEM, has generally meant about 2383-2385, a perspective I plan on sticking with because we saw so damn little of 2387. The reason for this is because I am the first to admit my grasp of canon can sometimes be shaky. It's best for TNG through ENT, but is very weak, practically non-existent, for TOS (I just haven't gotten myself to look past the 60s production values amd really watch TOS); Also, it enables me to 'shape to taste': a great example of this came in my Starfleet Academy thread.

We know damn little by canon about SFA. How you design SFA, though, impacts (and is impacted by) directly on how you think about Starfleet. My view of Starfleet has always been, as befits the RPG/gaming perspective from which I tend to deal with Trek, more militarized than canon might suggest at first glance, which influenced a lot of how I designed the academy. I see Starfleet as an organization that has struggled and waffled over how to define itself, always at tension between its military and scientific heritages, until the Cardassian and Dominion Wars forced it to firmly see itself as, first and foremost, the Federation military. Someone who thinks of Starfleet as more of a scientific organization even after the Dominion War would design Starfleet Academy, and hence Starfleet, rather differently.

2. Before I embark on any worldbuilding thread, I lay out my "modelling assumptions" explicitly. Arguing on these is...not really advised; I'm not a mod, so I can't and won't say you can't argue them, but I will ask that you respect the "ground rules" and accept the modelling assumptions as posited, unless I'm firmly missing something. I know they're arguable points, but that's why I call them modelling assumptions: They're things I feel have to be defined in order for me to go from the amorphous, inconsistent blob that is Trek canon to the concrete detail that these threads are best at and that is the real value of these threads. Hence, arguing with the modelling assumptions in a thread tends to just make me grouchy and irritable. I am not infallible, I do not even begin to claim infallibility or inerrancy, and I welcome competing ideas. If you're convincing enough, you can overcome my natural stubbornness and change my mind or at least force me to explain myself; T'Girl and Neozeks, most notably among others, have done so in the past (sometimes exceptionally well). That said, I ask respectfully that full-fledged competing worldbuilding happen on other threads, to make things easier for the reader.

3. My threads do not intentionally build on one another, but they do tend to refer to and inform one another. I'll use concepts generated in my thread postulating a Starfleet Command structure to inform my thinking on Federation government, as well as my thread on Starfleet Academy, and my thread on colonization, and so forth. If you need links to previous threads, PM me if you can't find them through other means (though you should be able to). If someone is willing to help someone with zero web design skills (or if the mods would be willing to allow me a thread for the purpose that I could quote in my sig), I would one day love to get links to all the threads in one place.

4. While I set my perspective 'beyond the canon', I try to write worldbuilding that could be applicable to any era of Trek in the prime universe. That, plus the greater traffic, is why I post these threads to GTD, not to a series-specific forum or Trek tech or somewhere.

5. My pieces are not in-character documents, as a rule. They generally are out-of-character; I will, however, make extensive use of bracketed ([]'s) "margin notes" to explain things, add detail or additional stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere, or explain how known something is "in-universe", IMHO.
Penta is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.