Why didn't Picard know Sito Jaxa ['Lower Decks'] was on his ship?

[Tosk]

Her mission was classified, but that doesn't mean she can just disappear and no one will ask questions. Picard didn't say what happened, only that she was "lost in the line of duty".

Picard has two options; to inform the crew that Sito was KIA, or lie and tell them that "Sito was reassigned, and will never contact any of her friends ever again so don't look for her or ask about her."

[Unicron]

True, but the second answer in some respects seems more plausible. People can naturally ask questions, as Lavelle brings up while she's preparing for the mission, but that doesn't mean necessarily that he would receive answers as a junior officer.

To me, the real problem isn't the question of Sito being brave or lacking responsibility, by any means; the problem is that the way her implied death is described, there's no way of knowing if she died bravely trying to complete the mission, or if she just had bad luck and got killed trying to do the escape part. It's the same issue I have with Tasha's death in "Skin of Evil." Armus kills her just because he can, in a manner befitting a nameless redshirt, and the fact that she's a major character doesn't give her death any more meaning. It's purely arbitrary because the script requires it to be.

[J. Allen]

Unwrapped wrote:

---

True, but the second answer in some respects seems more plausible. People can naturally ask questions, as Lavelle brings up while she's preparing for the mission, but that doesn't mean necessarily that he would receive answers as a junior officer.

To me, the real problem isn't the question of Sito being brave or lacking responsibility, by any means; the problem is that the way her implied death is described, there's no way of knowing if she died bravely trying to complete the mission, or if she just had bad luck and got killed trying to do the escape part. It's the same issue I have with Tasha's death in "Skin of Evil." Armus kills her just because he can, in a manner befitting a nameless redshirt, and the fact that she's a major character doesn't give her death any more meaning. It's purely arbitrary because the script requires it to be.

I think that's one of the reasons why the episode works. People die in the line of duty every day, and it can be in the most unheroic way. So many heroes die to silence, instead of fanfare, and this show expresses that point.

[M'rk, son of Mogh]

Unwrapped wrote:

---

True, but the second answer in some respects seems more plausible. People can naturally ask questions, as Lavelle brings up while she's preparing for the mission, but that doesn't mean necessarily that he would receive answers as a junior officer.

To me, the real problem isn't the question of Sito being brave or lacking responsibility, by any means; the problem is that the way her implied death is described, there's no way of knowing if she died bravely trying to complete the mission, or if she just had bad luck and got killed trying to do the escape part. It's the same issue I have with Tasha's death in "Skin of Evil." Armus kills her just because he can, in a manner befitting a nameless redshirt, and the fact that she's a major character doesn't give her death any more meaning. It's purely arbitrary because the script requires it to be.

That's EXACTLY what Roddenberry wanted for Tasha. Main character or redshirt, he wanted a pointless, meaningless death to show that not all death is dramatic and heroic, even from the heroes we watch every week.

Guinan even describes it that way later on, echoing his thoughts.

It was intentional, you're not supposed to read any more into it.

[RandyS]

Tiberius wrote:

---

I can!

Get a life!

[DostoyevskyClone]

trekker670 wrote:

---

I believe Riker (and Troi, for whatever reason) often oversaw the actual crew as seen by the crew evaluations and such that are seen throughout the series, which Picard isn't involved in. I would imagine this is relatively consistent with how it would operate in the real world as well.

Glad my meaningless question thread managed to generate some meaningful discussion. I may post a separate thread about this because I now have several questions about who selected which crew members for assignment and promotion.

My failing memory actually did recall that Riker oversaw crew evaluations. My assumption was that he is responsible for transfers and promotions, but it's got me thinking: who selected the original, starting crew for the Enterprise? For example, did Picard select the senior staff and only other key positions?

Follow-up question: if Riker was responsible for most transfers, assignments, and promotions, I take it Picard still had to approve each one of these?

[Tosk]

DostoyevskyClone wrote:

---

did Picard select the senior staff and only other key positions?

Some of them at least. We know for certain he chose Geordi, as mentioned in The Next Phase.

[Tiberius]

RandyS wrote:

---

Get a life!

No! Life is scary!

[RandyS]

Tiberius wrote:

---

No! Life is scary!

Not scary. just over-rated.

[MikeH92467]

DostoyevskyClone wrote:

---

Glad my meaningless question thread managed to generate some meaningful discussion. I may post a separate thread about this because I now have several questions about who selected which crew members for assignment and promotion.

My failing memory actually did recall that Riker oversaw crew evaluations. My assumption was that he is responsible for transfers and promotions, but it's got me thinking: who selected the original, starting crew for the Enterprise? For example, did Picard select the senior staff and only other key positions?

Follow-up question: if Riker was responsible for most transfers, assignments, and promotions, I take it Picard still had to approve each one of these?

I think Riker's role is one of the strengths of TNG versus TOS. In TOS, it's barely hinted what Spock's responsibilities as 1st officer are. It's clear in TNG that Riker has day to day responsibility for running the ship. (Picard does make it clear that he hand picked his senior staff, including is Executive Officer) In Richard Henry Dana's classic of a sailor's life in the 1830s "Two Years Before the Mast" he has this vivid description of a first mate's place (this is a civilian sailing ship, but I think it applies well enough here) [i]The prime minister, the official organ, and the active and superintending officer, is the chief mate. He is first lieutenant, boatswain, sailing-master, and quarter-master. The captain tells him what he wishes to have done, and leaves to him the care of overseeing, of allotting the work, and also the responsibility of its being well done. The mate (as he is always called, par excellence) also keeps the log-book, for which he is responsible to the owners and insurers, and has the charge of the stowage, safe keeping, and delivery of the cargo."

[tighr]

MikeH92467 wrote:

---

I think Riker's role is one of the strengths of TNG versus TOS. In TOS, it's barely hinted what Spock's responsibilities as 1st officer are. It's clear in TNG that Riker has day to day responsibility for running the ship.

Another difference between the two shows is the size of the ship. The Enterprise-D was much larger and had more officers than the TOS Enterprise. Riker is effectively the staff captain on a ship that large.

[Finn]

^Though Chakotay had the same responsibilities on Voyager, with far less crew members than Kirk did...

[Lance]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

(Though one wonders how she graduated and got a commission on the Enterprise before Wesley did.

[Finn]

^easily amused, huh?

[Lance]

I like the inference of Picard sitting in his Ready Room, sipping on a cuppa Earl Grey (Hot) and looking at a PADD with all the names of recent graduates applying for a posting to the Enterprise. I can just see his eyes stopping at the sight of the name "Crusher, Wesley" and pondering for one brief moment whether he actually wants him back on the ship or not.