DS9 = WORST Star Trek Series EVER

[fireproof78]

Sound like a hypocrite, or be a hypocrite? I guess the difference is whether or not one acts on an ethical conflict. Sisko did act. In both situations, he questions his own decisions, but in the end, he makes a decision and rolls with it. Bashir is wishy-washy about EVERYTHING, he's literally too smart for his own good which is why he's stuck in the lab, making easy ethical choices.

Partially, because Bashier is a walking hypocrite, due to his genetic engineering. He is illegal engineering serving in one of the Federation's largest organization.

As for Sisko, I think "In the Pale Moonlight" is one of the best episodes not because of Sisko's decision, but the fact that it is willing to expose the ethical challenges that Starfleet officers go through, and that there is not always a clear cut answer. Even the end leaves the doubt that Sisko is unconvinced his choice was the right one.

I like that it leaves it to the audience member to decide how they feel. Its a good episode precisely because there is not a pat answer.

YMMV

I don't think so. The end shows Sisko saying that he can live with his decision and ordering the computer to erase the personal log. That doesn't seem ambivalent to me.

Well, as I said, it will vary from person to person. Sisko is not comfortable with the choice he had to make. Just because he can "live with it" doesn't make it the right choice.

As much as I like Sisko, I think he made a number of wrong decisions, including this one. I don't think the episode is saying Sisko is right. The whole of the episode is Sisko's conflict, and one that never seems fully resolved.

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

Partially, because Bashier is a walking hypocrite, due to his genetic engineering. He is illegal engineering serving in one of the Federation's largest organization.

As for Sisko, I think "In the Pale Moonlight" is one of the best episodes not because of Sisko's decision, but the fact that it is willing to expose the ethical challenges that Starfleet officers go through, and that there is not always a clear cut answer. Even the end leaves the doubt that Sisko is unconvinced his choice was the right one.

I like that it leaves it to the audience member to decide how they feel. Its a good episode precisely because there is not a pat answer.

YMMV

I don't think so. The end shows Sisko saying that he can live with his decision and ordering the computer to erase the personal log. That doesn't seem ambivalent to me.

Well, as I said, it will vary from person to person. Sisko is not comfortable with the choice he had to make. Just because he can "live with it" doesn't make it the right choice.

As much as I like Sisko, I think he made a number of wrong decisions, including this one. I don't think the episode is saying Sisko is right. The whole of the episode is Sisko's conflict, and one that never seems fully resolved.

I think the mistake was to punch Garak's face at the end when he should really have punched his own face, not to have seen this coming, for one thing.

 

[JD5000]

Don't forget that Bashir causes Sloan to kill himself in the end.

Which makes Bashir's choice and lack of emotional response to the consequences of his choice even more bizarre. "First do no harm" - that is an oath he lives by, using it justify his other questionable choices, but in this case he is directly responsible for another human being's death while acting in a professional capacity.

Sisko doesn't have that same ethical boundary attached to his professional decisions, such as his choices in "For the Uniform" or "In the Pale Moonlight".

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

Don't forget that Bashir causes Sloan to kill himself in the end.

Which makes Bashir's choice and lack of emotional response to the consequences of his choice even more bizarre. "First do no harm" - that is an oath he lives by, using it justify his other questionable choices, but in this case he is directly responsible for another human being's death while acting in a professional capacity.

Sisko doesn't have that same ethical boundary attached to his professional decisions, such as his choices in "For the Uniform" or "In the Pale Moonlight".

I still can't forgive him (Sisko) for endangering those children.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't think anyone is asking for forgiveness. Even Sisko doesn't seem to be doing so in "In the Pale Moonlight." I think it just reflects the difficulty that he has in making his decision, and letting "history" be the judge.

Just because the main character does something, doesn't mean we have to agree with them.

 

[JD5000]

Yah, it's just a discussion, I'm not trying to change your mind.

Even Sisko's crew looks at him a little funny for the decision he makes in "For the Uniform", I don't think it was the intention of the writers to make it a sympathetic decision.

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

I don't think anyone is asking for forgiveness. Even Sisko doesn't seem to be doing so in "In the Pale Moonlight." I think it just reflects the difficulty that he has in making his decision, and letting "history" be the judge.

Just because the main character does something, doesn't mean we have to agree with them.

That goes beyond simple disagreement.

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

Yah, it's just a discussion, I'm not trying to change your mind.

Even Sisko's crew looks at him a little funny for the decision he makes in "For the Uniform", I don't think it was the intention of the writers to make it a sympathetic decision.

Yeah, when even worf finds an order to launch torpedoes objectionable you have to seriously reconsider it.

What Sisko did then is actionable, that he got away with it unscathed means that there is something seriously wrong with the federation or the writer who concocted this story.

 

[JD5000]

It is within the realm of possibility that there was some sort of investigation into Sisko's actions and they were deemed reasonable so no action was taken. Since no one actually got hurt, it's possible there even was action taken against him, just that the consequences weren't serious enough to cost him his job. Such as a black mark on his record or something. Either way, the writers decided not to address the repercussions of his actions on screen for what ever reason.

This is purely hypothetical though.

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

It is within the realm of possibility that there was some sort of investigation into Sisko's actions and they were deemed reasonable so no action was taken. Since no one actually got hurt, it's possible there even was action taken against him, just that the consequences weren't serious enough to cost him his job. Such as a black mark on his record or something. Either way, the writers decided not to address the repercussions of his actions on screen for what ever reason.

This is purely hypothetical though.

Well, off camera, anything is possible. But even if there was an inquiry, it is manifest to me that at the very least he got away scot free.

 

[JD5000]

There are tons of examples of situations that the characters get into that don't appear to have repercussions, personal, legal or otherwise. It's that whole 'reset button' thing people talk about. I generally ignore that, because the writers only have so much time to tell so many stories, and every detail isn't going to be addressed.

What I do, in my head (and sometimes on here), is just go with what I assume would logically follow. In this case, narrative logic would indicate that an organization like Starfleet wouldn't let an action like this slide without some sort of investigation. So again, in my head, I just go with the assumption that it was addressed and dealt with. The fact that we don't see any repercussions onscreen suggests to me that Sisko was cleared, at least enough that he retained his command and rank.

I don't present this as a definitive explanation for whether anything happened as a result of his actions, just how I personally fill in the gaps in this situations.

Like, just because we don't see people going to the bathroom on the show, that doesn't mean they don't poop. Sometimes you have to plug the holes yourself, although that's not the most pleasant example and possibly some unfortunate wording.

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

I just wanted to make it clear to everyone that in my opninion, what Sisko did in that episode wasn't simply reckless or immoral, it was criminal. He didn't simply cross the line here, he leapt over it.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't think anyone is asking for forgiveness. Even Sisko doesn't seem to be doing so in "In the Pale Moonlight." I think it just reflects the difficulty that he has in making his decision, and letting "history" be the judge.

Just because the main character does something, doesn't mean we have to agree with them.

That goes beyond simple disagreement.

Absolutely. And, I am not saying that what Sisko did was right or legal. I'm just saying that I don't accept that whatever the main characters do in a film is right/legal/moral, etc.

I hold a similar position regarding Kirk and Spock in the Abrams films.

In my opinion, what SF doesn't always have the good guys doing good. Sometimes it is an examination of the consequences of events in a world. I wish we could see more of what would happen to Sisko when his role in the death of the Senator came to light. Likewise, "For the Uniform" strikes me another poor decision making process.

Nowhere I am having to agree with Sisko just because he is the Sisko.

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

I don't think anyone is asking for forgiveness. Even Sisko doesn't seem to be doing so in "In the Pale Moonlight." I think it just reflects the difficulty that he has in making his decision, and letting "history" be the judge.

Just because the main character does something, doesn't mean we have to agree with them.

That goes beyond simple disagreement.

Absolutely. And, I am not saying that what Sisko did was right or legal. I'm just saying that I don't accept that whatever the main characters do in a film is right/legal/moral, etc.

I hold a similar position regarding Kirk and Spock in the Abrams films.

In my opinion, what SF doesn't always have the good guys doing good. Sometimes it is an examination of the consequences of events in a world. I wish we could see more of what would happen to Sisko when his role in the death of the Senator came to light. Likewise, "For the Uniform" strikes me another poor decision making process.

Nowhere I am having to agree with Sisko just because he is the Sisko.

Concerning the Senator, I wouldn't be too worried though, as even if the few people in the federation with ranks high enough to know about it, did get wind of that circumstance, they would rapidly realize that whatever they do about it, runs the risk of creating a casus belli with the Romulans (IE a diplomatic incident so serious that it could start a war) and they would choose to keep quiet about it.

 

[fireproof78]

That goes beyond simple disagreement.

Absolutely. And, I am not saying that what Sisko did was right or legal. I'm just saying that I don't accept that whatever the main characters do in a film is right/legal/moral, etc.

I hold a similar position regarding Kirk and Spock in the Abrams films.

In my opinion, what SF doesn't always have the good guys doing good. Sometimes it is an examination of the consequences of events in a world. I wish we could see more of what would happen to Sisko when his role in the death of the Senator came to light. Likewise, "For the Uniform" strikes me another poor decision making process.

Nowhere I am having to agree with Sisko just because he is the Sisko.

Concerning the Senator, I wouldn't be too worried though, as even if the few people in the federation with ranks high enough to know about it, did get wind of that circumstance, they would rapidly realize that whatever they do about it, runs the risk of creating a casus belli with the Romulans (IE a diplomatic incident so serious that it could start a war) and they would choose to keep quiet about it.

Certainly there would not be any public dressing down, but that doesn't mean they can't deal with Sisko privately, or something that impacts his career.

Though, with Section 31 undoubtedly aware of the means, the information may never come to light to anyone, unless Sisko brings it forward. No one would believe Garak, and all the loose ends are tied up.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Continuing to watch and post about a show one hates seems to me an odd use of one's time.

As you no doubt have seen here, it`s a common thing.

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

Absolutely. And, I am not saying that what Sisko did was right or legal. I'm just saying that I don't accept that whatever the main characters do in a film is right/legal/moral, etc.

I hold a similar position regarding Kirk and Spock in the Abrams films.

In my opinion, what SF doesn't always have the good guys doing good. Sometimes it is an examination of the consequences of events in a world. I wish we could see more of what would happen to Sisko when his role in the death of the Senator came to light. Likewise, "For the Uniform" strikes me another poor decision making process.

Nowhere I am having to agree with Sisko just because he is the Sisko.

Concerning the Senator, I wouldn't be too worried though, as even if the few people in the federation with ranks high enough to know about it, did get wind of that circumstance, they would rapidly realize that whatever they do about it, runs the risk of creating a casus belli with the Romulans (IE a diplomatic incident so serious that it could start a war) and they would choose to keep quiet about it.

Certainly there would not be any public dressing down, but that doesn't mean they can't deal with Sisko privately, or something that impacts his career.

Though, with Section 31 undoubtedly aware of the means, the information may never come to light to anyone, unless Sisko brings it forward. No one would believe Garak, and all the loose ends are tied up.

I don't think Garak will ever say anything. That's not his style.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't think Garak will ever say anything. That's not his style.

Nope, he would not. My point being, it probably was a clean op by Garak's standards. So, that means there is little for Sisko to use against him.

Regardless, the responsibility lands on Sisko squarely, and he will have to live with it. From my perspective, regardless of what Sisko says at the end, I don't believe he can live with it.

 

[JD5000]

I do kinda wonder if Sisko could 'live with it' if he hadn't gotten away with it. I find I can live with most of my mistakes and faults, it's the ones I get caught making or called out on that I have trouble with.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Regardless, the responsibility lands on Sisko squarely, and he will have to live with it. From my perspective, regardless of what Sisko says at the end, I don't believe he can live with it.

Going through the whole process of recounting events and then deleting them would suggest that he will accept the results, but he will remain troubled by the process by which those results were achieved. Living with it is more like keeping a stiff upper lip than being proud about what one has done. Indeed, it does seem as if Sisko takes no credit for bringing the Romulans into the war and makes no effort to reveal his negotiations with Vreenak. The episode does not justify Realpolitik or raison d'état: it shows were the practicalities of international affairs are often at odds with personal ethics. Even if necessity trumps ethics in the affairs of the state, one's ethical compass is nonetheless damaged.