Trek Tech FAQ

[Cid Highwind]

Posted by Christopher:
Okay, I don't understand this board's software. What's the point of pinning a thread if it doesn't stay on top?

As far as I understand, it was in fact the first thread on the list all the time, just invisible because the standard option of this board is to exclude all threads that haven't been active in the last week...

...Sounds stupid, doesn't it?

Depends on how you have your preferences set, I guess.

[Cid Highwind]

Posted by AlexR:
Just FYI, I'm probably going to skip any short-and-sweet FAQ answers about stardates, since it seems like there are almost as many theories about stardates as there are Trekkers. That one's best left to ongoing discussion.

I don't know if this is what you already have in mind, but I would suggest two threads for this FAQ - one for the discussion about its possible content (this one), and another one, closed&sticky, where only you can add new content.

[Christopher]

Posted by Cid Highwind:
I don't know if this is what you already have in mind, but I would suggest two threads for this FAQ - one for the discussion about its possible content (this one), and another one, closed&sticky, where only you can add new content.

I agree. The FAQ wouldn't be as useful if it were cluttered up with discussion about what should be in the FAQ.

[JNG]

Posted by AlexR:

I'm not sure there's a quick-and-easy answer to the question of "Roddenberry's Rules" that won't be a debate in and of itself, though. "They were a fairly groundless attempt to discredit FJ after Roddenberry had a falling-out with him" is accurate, but is likely to start more arguments than it ends, eh?

But... That does give me an idea...

<Dashes off to make some edits>

Best,
Alex

GR was outlining early ideas about why the engines were the way they were to Matt Jefferies even as the original Enterprise was being finalized. They weren't made up for Franz Joseph Schnaubelt or anyone else in particular-just a burst of creativity.

I wish this conspiracy theory would die.

[AlexR]

Posted by JNG:
GR was outlining early ideas about why the engines were the way they were to Matt Jefferies even as the original Enterprise was being finalized. They weren't made up for Franz Joseph Schnaubelt or anyone else in particular-just a burst of creativity.

I wish this conspiracy theory would die.

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

[JNG]

Posted by AlexR:

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.

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.

[Data Holmes]

Posted by JNG:

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.

[JNG]

Posted by hutt359:

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."

[AlexR]

FAQ's been edited a bit, based on another suggestion.

Best,
Alex

[Darkwing]

Posted by JNG:

GR was outlining early ideas about why the engines were the way they were to Matt Jefferies even as the original Enterprise was being finalized. They weren't made up for Franz Joseph Schnaubelt or anyone else in particular-just a burst of creativity.

I wish this conspiracy theory would die.

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...

[JNG]

Posted by Darkwing:
It's not a "conspiracy theory", it's a sober account of the reason the rule came to be.

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.

[Darkwing]

Posted by JNG:
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.

[AlexR]

Posted by Darkwing:
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.

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.

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.

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

[All Seeing Eye]

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.