Which Captain was most lenient on their underlings?

[Mark_Nguyen]

We often talk about all the horrible things that the Captain of a given series gets away with, from time travel stuff to Prime Directive stuff to effective murder to effective mass murder. However, I got thinking about which Captain has let their subordinates get away with punishable offenses scott-free? At worst, plenty of people have gotten a "If I EVER catch you doing that again, you're gonna GET it next time. DISMISSED!" sort of speech, the offending party walks out, and that's the last we hear of it.

Which Captain in Trek has been the most guilty?

I'm mostly asking about the five main series Captains, but anyone will do. At which point, Rudy Ransom of the Equinox letting his crew get away with genocide, and approving of their varied plans to detroy Voyager, probably takes the cake. Your mileage?

Mark

[at Quark's]

An interesting question, although I don't have an answer straightaway

But let's see.

Unfortunately, not that many specifics come to mind, so I'll have to depend on the general picture.

Janeway -- I think she does give herself a lot of leeway with regards to moral decisions, but she doesn't seem to tolerate too much from her subordinates.

Picard -- also disqualifies as he is generally very uptight-- although he also can be a very human, forgiving captain.

So that leaves Kirk, Archer, and Sisko.

Kirk -- Overall, I'm getting the impression that he wasn't a captain to cross if you were a lowly ensign. If you were a high-ranking officer and a friend (like Spock or McCoy), he might tolerate obstrusive behaviour, but still only if the situation allowed for it. (of course, it also happened when the situation did'nt allow for it, but then again, this was often the meat of the episode).

Archer might be a bit different from the rest, as he lived in a time where there even wasn't a real 'code of conduct' -- they were still trying to figure everything out. I get the impression though, that most of his crew were loyal to him on a personal basis, not really a set of rules, and that they were judged by Archer accordingly -- more on the merits of personal loyalty and integrity than 'rules'. That taken into account, I think he would be somewhere in the 'middle range'.

Sisko -- I think he would come out on top. Even though versed in Starfleet Protocol, he had the most diverse crew -- one Bajoran ex-terrorist, one changeling from the gamma quadrant, one trill that was 300 years old and once his mentor, one klingon, etc, he himself being the Emissary and juggling often conflicting responsibilities. Even though we do see hem dress down his officers, I have the feeling he 'allowed' most. Because he was in a multicultural environment with his starfleet crew.

There's no telling though, how strict he would have been on a regular starship.

[JirinPanthosa]

All the captains let their underlings get away with murder but Sisko has to come out ahead by a landslide.

He didn't just forgive people for breaking the rules, he gave a speech to them about how they MUST NOT break the rules then quietly helped them along.

Picard, yeah, he reinstated Worf into Starfleet after resigning from Starfleet to serve in a foreign army. But all of this tolerance was after the fact. Janeway might be the only captain to ever really punish a crewmember for breaking orders. Archer was in pragmatist mode so he couldn't really punish anyone especially in season 3.

[Dover]

Sisko. Kira is out of control in the first few episodes.

If your first officer is seriously contemplating betraying Starfleet to join an anti-Federation terrorist group, and you kinda know about it, and continue to leave her in command of all your personnel and equipment, you might be a lenient captain.

[DS9forever]

Dover wrote:

---

Sisko. Kira is out of control in the first few episodes.

If your first officer is seriously contemplating betraying Starfleet to join an anti-Federation terrorist group, and you kinda know about it, and continue to leave her in command of all your personnel and equipment, you might be a lenient captain.

^ I don't see it as that at all. Sisko even says to Kira in "Past Prologue" "Go over my head again and I'll have yours on a platter".

[indolover]

Mark_Nguyen wrote:

---

We often talk about all the horrible things that the Captain of a given series gets away with, from time travel stuff to Prime Directive stuff to effective murder to effective mass murder. However, I got thinking about which Captain has let their subordinates get away with punishable offenses scott-free? At worst, plenty of people have gotten a "If I EVER catch you doing that again, you're gonna GET it next time. DISMISSED!" sort of speech, the offending party walks out, and that's the last we hear of it.

Which Captain in Trek has been the most guilty?

I'm mostly asking about the five main series Captains, but anyone will do. At which point, Rudy Ransom of the Equinox letting his crew get away with genocide, and approving of their varied plans to detroy Voyager, probably takes the cake. Your mileage?

Mark

He orchestrated it, so it's not a matter of him being ignoring the elephant in the room.

I think most of the Captains were fair in their discipline, but I don't think Worf should have been reprimanded by Picard for killing Duras. Yes, he was in Starfleet, but he was also head (at that time) of a Klingon House, so he was acting fully within Klingon law.

[ZapBrannigan]

I don't see Sisko as a ship captain for most of DS9. He's more like a manager.

Archer runs the loosest ship. He was the latest captain and therefore the one who was most a product of the west coast therapy culture, in which hurting someone's feelings is the gravest of transgressions.

I still liked ENTERPRISE, of course. He just wasn't old-school enough for me, which is ironic because his story was set in the earliest ST era.

[Dover]

DS9forever wrote:

---

^ I don't see it as that at all. Sisko even says to Kira in "Past Prologue" "Go over my head again and I'll have yours on a platter".

Yes, he dealt with her insubordination, which is a separate problem. What concerns me more is the problem of her lack of loyalty to both her own government and to Starfleet, combined with experience that makes her capable of actually doing something about it.

He tries to talk to her about it, but he doesn't change her mind. Odo is the one who eventually gives her a push toward making the right decision.

[Paper Moon]

Dover wrote:

---

Yes, he dealt with her insubordination, which is a separate problem. What concerns me more is the problem of her lack of loyalty to both her own government and to Starfleet, combined with experience that makes her capable of actually doing something about it.

He tries to talk to her about it, but he doesn't change her mind. Odo is the one who eventually gives her a push toward making the right decision.

Sisko was in an interesting position, though. Starfleet was there at the request of the Bajoran Provisional Government, for which Kira was an official representative. Yeah, it was risky in terms of lives and property for Starfleet and Sisko to keep her in place, but it would've been very risky for the mission overall to take such a hard-line, paternalistic approach as to remove her. I think Sisko was looking at the long game, and saw three scenarios:

1) he does nothing, Kira chooses loyalty, and their relationship is strengthened (or at least, not damaged).
2) he removes Kira from command, Kira chooses Tahna (possibly in retaliation for Sisko's acts), and his mission at Bajor is jeopardized as a result
3) he does nothing, Kira chooses Tahna and his mission at Bajor is jeopardized as a result.

It seems to me that Sisko was generally very mindful of problems that he couldn't solve through his own authority, and knew that this was one of them.

[Dover]

Paper Moon wrote:

---

Sisko was in an interesting position, though. Starfleet was there at the request of the Bajoran Provisional Government, for which Kira was an official representative. Yeah, it was risky in terms of lives and property for Starfleet and Sisko to keep her in place, but it would've been very risky for the mission overall to take such a hard-line, paternalistic approach as to remove her. I think Sisko was looking at the long game, and saw three scenarios:

1) he does nothing, Kira chooses loyalty, and their relationship is strengthened (or at least, not damaged).
2) he removes Kira from command, Kira chooses Tahna (possibly in retaliation for Sisko's acts), and his mission at Bajor is jeopardized as a result
3) he does nothing, Kira chooses Tahna and his mission at Bajor is jeopardized as a result.

It seems to me that Sisko was generally very mindful of problems that he couldn't solve through his own authority, and knew that this was one of them.

This is a good point. Say there's a 50/50 chance she betrays the Federation. If he has her removed from her post, it's now basically a 100% chance (because she knows she's not really welcome anywhere else under the provisional government either), and off she goes with whatever intelligence she's gathered from being the first officer under Starfleet command.

I still think it was a risky decision to let it play out and run the risk of her taking off with however many weapons, classified files, and runabouts she could get her hands on, but it's probably a positive character trait for him in that he has good instincts for managing his people under difficult circumstances.

[at Quark's]

Paper Moon wrote:

---

It seems to me that Sisko was generally very mindful of problems that he couldn't solve through his own authority, and knew that this was one of them.

Suffice it to say, that ep would have played out very differently, had it been Janeway instead of Sisko

edit: that's one fight I would have loved to see, Kira vs. Janeway, à la eddington vs. Sisko

[Lt. Cheka Wey]

Probably Ransome.

[Dream]

For some reason Janeway was pissed at Harry for sleeping with an alien. Since when was THAT ever a crime?

[Lt. Cheka Wey]

It is unnatural for Harry. It' perfectly reasonable to assume that something went wrong.

[Use of Time]

For some reason I find Archer to be one of the most realistic military commanders of the whole bunch. Picard was more of the distanct professional but he did take the time to mentor his JO's. Kirk seemed kind of snippy to those outside of his senior staff. (If I was told to "snap to it mister" it would probably piss me off.) Sisko was a lot more patient but he had some high quality ass-chewing sessions with his crew.

I think Archer is the perfect middle ground amongst all of them.