Problem is, if GR was that intent on those rules at that point, it stretches credibility to believe he'd have signed off on 3 different ship designs that all violated them to one degree or other. Either way, I think it's still safe to assume that these rules never gained that much importance in the grand scheme of things Treknological. Best, Alex
Though I still like 'em to tame the excesses of some more...enthusiastic Junior Ship Designer Kidz, on your point there can be no doubt.
I agree that there needs to be a set of "fandom ship design rules" but the rules that GR set down are rather impratcial.
I suppose they might seem that way, f only because nearly every significant variation on what was allowed has been done by now. But, of course, if they were "rules" they wouldn't be "fandom."
First I ever heard that. Everything I ever heard supports GR making the rule after the TM. It's not a "conspiracy theory", it's a sober account of the reason the rule came to be. Not that I ever saw any reason to respect such a rule...
If it were true, it'd be a sober account. If it were some unprovable surmise made up after the fact by total outsiders who disliked the outcome and/or people who had a personal involvement and corresponding agenda, then "conspiracy theory" seems rather an accurate term to me. I'd at least suggest that a Trek Tech FAQ not come down on one side or the other, and that long, bitter discussion of the business not be directly encouraged save for those who have new information, should any ever come to light.
OK, my point is that I read it somewhere ages ago, and it sounded to me like a straightforward recounting. I could see why he'd have made the rule, even though I didn't agree with it, and the writer didn't seem to have an axe to grind. So as far as i knew it was just a simple fact. Your post is the first time I ever heard anything contrary, and I was suprised to hear your claim. I wouldn't mind hearing the background on it, but as far as a Trek tech fAQ, I'd say the best way to handle it would be to mention that GR said it, but that it's no longer observed on-screen, and that each designer should decide for themselves whether to use it. I seriously doubt that the kind of people who make the "uber-kewl super-ultra-battleship Solar Devastator NCC-666" would be deterred by that rule anyway.
Honestly, I think that the way the FAQ covers it is where I'm going to leave it. The basic answer to the question is that ships don't have to have even numbers of nacelles, and that's that. They tend to be the ones who don't want to think that the Trek world has any rules that might "constrain their creativity". Best, Alex
Dunno if its been said cos ive not got time to read through the thread. How about typing out an FAQ and next it put links to all previous discussions on that question. Its long and tedious task but in the end it helps.
In a way, I think this might represent a fundamental alteration of the manner in which the BBS functions. It could create neverending threads on the same old topics instead of new, shorter ones every now and then. I might prefer the latter; the rate at which new posters join up isn't all that great, so it might be easier to just point them at a recent thread when they bring something up. However, if you volunteered to prepare this yourself, I'd sure be impressed
There is an article on EAS where you may have read that at. The article is " Starship Design Guidelines" and as I said, it's on the EAS (Ex Astris Scientia) site. What you are referring to is under "Roddenberry's Design Rules". The author of the article also gives a link to where he got his information. I'm not sure if it's 'official', but I think it's as official as anyone will probably get. At least it gives good detail on the subject.
I have always regarded star trek history listed in star trek role playing books to be true, not the role playing games published recently.
Ok I have a question. Why do threads here in the Trek Tech area die after 2 days or something? Do people lose interest that quickly? It seems like on majority of the threads here, people post the first day and then once it drops below the area highlighted in blue ("new posts" it gets ignored...And the only way to fix this is to bump the thread. The thing I like most about the Trek Tech forum is hearing people's theories and sharing what they know. Thats the whole point of this forum, right? Why is it that there is always AT LEAST 4 or 5 people viewing a thread at one time, yet no one posts? Why read the thread if you don't care to share your opinion? I can understand a thread not being seen if it was on page 2 or 3, but threads i'm talking about are right up at the top. I can also understand if someone is asking for an answer and people may not know the answer...but a lot of threads here are opinion or idea threads about neat subjects. I'd think real trekkies would LOVE to share their ideas about just about anything. I do, anyway. I admit I don't post at every thread I read, but I try to share my opinion or idea whenever I have one. I also don't just read the posts up at the top highlighted in blue when other people post. My point is I don't understand why so many threads get so many views yet so little posts. Edit: Note there are 5 threads in plane view that have been last responded to by me...most of which a day or two ago