Much closer to having 90 percent of your staff being lunch ladies and janitors in a time when technology has freed people from basic tasks.Kind of like someone refusing to work in a school because they can't immediately be a principal, You know, because being a teacher isn't good enough.
Alternative rank system.
- Thread starter Autistoid
- Start date
I think the fundamental point of this thread and gene's vision is there is some sort of middle ground.
The two tier system of com's and non-com's originated to back in time when average folks barely knew to read.
In a utopian federation where all people have time and access to educated it's hard justify how there is such a sharp distinction between officer and non com.
There would seem to be some need or atleast potential for an alternative system exist.
If I created a system it'd be like this.
First year Cadets are privates, 2nd year Corporals, 3rd Seargeants, and 4th petty officers.
When one graduates they can either choose to take on the rank of ensign or Chief petty officer.
Kind of like someone refusing to work in a school because they can't immediately be a principal, You know, because being a teacher isn't good enough.
Well if you listen to politicians and some special interest groups and some segments of society teachers are a all lazy, incompetent and a bunch of "Union thugs" and are right down there with pimps and drug dealers.
And people wonder why American society seems to be getting worse and worse.
Military organizations abhor a leadership vacuum. If there are two enlisted working together without supervision, one has to be in charge. Somewhere, sometime, there will be a group of enlisted personnel in a situation where someone has to make important decisions, and they can't look at each other and say "Where's the officer to tell us what to do?" There really isn't a "lower grades never command" option, because the worst scenario can happen and has to be provided for.
Which relates back to the above comment. If one has a higher level of responsibility, it is useful to have a visible indication of that position, so others know who is the "go to" when needed. It is also human nature to wish to be recognized for ones accomplishments. In a uniformed "community," where some levels have rank insignia and others don't, it seems odd indeed that a 20-year chief petty officer would be required to wear a uniform indistinguishable from that of a fresh-caught recruit. More to the point: Why not differentiate enlisted grades? What would be the downside to allowing some extra badges on a uniform?
The TV series definitely had some sort of breakdown with representing the enlisted grades. ST2-5 had them but went to a rather ridiculous opposite extreme of visual differentiation. TMP had probably the most solid approach.
No need to go that far. In the November '64 script revision, the one that changed April to Pike, the character was specifically identified as "Bridge Chief Petty Officer Garison."
^^...So Starfleet only has Privates or Sergeants if somebody fails to graduate? What's the point of that? 
The whole point of a rank system, OTOH, is to allow some people to boss over others. If everybody is an academic astronaut, there might be no need for umpteen organization levels, and the hierarchy could be a townhouse rather than a pyramid.
At the very least, the lowest possible rank shouldn't say "chief" or "boss" or "leader" when it factually isn't.
Militaries may love hierarchies, but they also love bulk - a bunch of enlisted people can and will exist as an indistinct mass with a separate, appointed leader. And there's no real difference between making that leader a "noncom" or a "com". A platoon of thirty does not consist of thirty different hierarchical levels, and every starship we have seen so far has had enough lieutenants to command a shipful those without any quantitative need for lower-level management. By all means change the title from "lieutenant" to "sergeant" if need be, but the function does not change, not in this context.
O'Brien may be a more experienced mender of transporters than some kid who joined yesterday, but if O'Brien does not have special command training, he doesn't deserve to be distinguished from the raw recruit and isn't qualified to tell him what to do. Bossing around would just detract from the work he is to perform with his superior skill. And the boss, needed for obvious reasons, can be the boss of thousands if need be - but may just as well be the boss of thirty and still allow Starfleet to have a grand total of six hierarchy levels. Plus something to bribe old codgers with so that they agree to do that flag officer thing.
Timo Saloniemi
The whole point of a rank system, OTOH, is to allow some people to boss over others. If everybody is an academic astronaut, there might be no need for umpteen organization levels, and the hierarchy could be a townhouse rather than a pyramid.
At the very least, the lowest possible rank shouldn't say "chief" or "boss" or "leader" when it factually isn't.
^Why not? If we try and arrange for one of them to be the boss, then this is of no help whatsoever, as somewhere, sometime, the group will be in a situation where this boss person is again missing.
Militaries may love hierarchies, but they also love bulk - a bunch of enlisted people can and will exist as an indistinct mass with a separate, appointed leader. And there's no real difference between making that leader a "noncom" or a "com". A platoon of thirty does not consist of thirty different hierarchical levels, and every starship we have seen so far has had enough lieutenants to command a shipful those without any quantitative need for lower-level management. By all means change the title from "lieutenant" to "sergeant" if need be, but the function does not change, not in this context.
Exactly because there is no functional differentiation?
O'Brien may be a more experienced mender of transporters than some kid who joined yesterday, but if O'Brien does not have special command training, he doesn't deserve to be distinguished from the raw recruit and isn't qualified to tell him what to do. Bossing around would just detract from the work he is to perform with his superior skill. And the boss, needed for obvious reasons, can be the boss of thousands if need be - but may just as well be the boss of thirty and still allow Starfleet to have a grand total of six hierarchy levels. Plus something to bribe old codgers with so that they agree to do that flag officer thing.
Timo Saloniemi
Don't forget rapists of minor children, and of course some teachers are these things.
If it ain't broken, don't fix it. If the "improvements" aren't actual improvements over what came before, get rid of the improvements.
Last edited:
Exactly, so the next person in line has to take charge. That is why succession through a chain of command is a real factor and not some arbitrary manifestation of "hierarchy."
That's just not how it works. The is no "indistinct mass." A platoon technically has as many levels as there are personnel. Even if only two privates are left, one will be senior. On a more practical level, there is still the platoon sergeant, squad leaders, assistant squad leaders, fire team leaders and so on. It's not just one leader and "everybody else." The structures, such they are, evolved for practical reasons based on real experience, not simply because someone loves hierarchy.
That makes little sense. First of all, the idea that the experienced veteran and the raw recruit would be employed interchangeably by the organization is just not credible. Second, if the raw recruit is working on the systems, equipment etc. on which the chief is an expert, it would be absurd and potentially dangerous for the chief to not be able to tell the recruit "what to do." Third, even if there is no "special command training," which we can't rule out, qualities of leadership could (and most likely would) be a major factor for which personnel are advanced to higher grades.
Don't forget rapists of minor children, and of course some teachers are these things.
If it ain't broken, don't fix it. If the "improvements" aren't actual improvements over what came before, get rid of the improvements.
Show me a profession that hasn't had rapists of minor children in it or people who've committed other hideous acts.
The only difference is when someone like a lawyer is busted for having sex with a minor we don't hear about it on the national news.
I was actually making a joke about the other connotations the phrase "Rear Admiral" brings up. There was a Simpsons that made a joke about it.
Bart: Milhouse...Milhouse, wake up, quick! Look out the window.
Milhouse: No way, Bart. If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded rear admiral!
And you're right about new officers listening to chief. If an ensign or lieutenant acts like hot shit and bosses chiefs around, even though they are superior in rank, they're going to find the going awfully rough.
The unspoken rule is that an officer needs to have the rank of at least commander before they can start ordering the chiefs around with any kind of respected authority.
Chief of the boat perhaps? If there are enlisted/non-coms in Starfleet there would be a "first sergeant" somewhere aboard.
But even a small a space vessel as the old space shuttle had a command structure, with a mission commander, then the pilot, and then various specialists.
That's because lawyers are not routinely placed in charge of groups of minor children in a position of authority.
Nor are they (iirc) unionized, and if they don't perform they're fired.
I agree with most of what you said.
The military ranking system is set up the way it is to establish leadership. Seniority and experience mean as much as rank do, in some instances.
The concept of "special command training" is not only a part of NCO training, but it is expected of them to be in charge of other enlisted personnel.
As was pointed out, the military is not a mindless mass that all falls in line. It is a structured unit, designed for a specific function. As you said, chain of command is a very real structure, designed to establish leaders within the unit. A break in the chain is detrimental to the unit's mission.
Chief of the boat perhaps? If there are enlisted/non-coms in Starfleet there would be a "first sergeant" somewhere aboard.
But even a small a space vessel as the old space shuttle had a command structure, with a mission commander, then the pilot, and then various specialists.
That's because lawyers are not routinely placed in charge of groups of minor children in a position of authority.
Nor are they (iirc) unionized, and if they don't perform they're fired.
So it's more ok for a lawyer to rape a minor because their job description doesn't include being in charge of minors?
So is it more ok for a lawyer to murder someone than say, a US Marine infantry man, because the lawyer's job doesn't put them in contact with high powered weaponry on a regular basis, whereas the Marine has extensive experience with these weapons and should know better than to abuse that responsibility to murder someone?
Boy I'd like to the justice system run that way.
Judge to lawyer: You raped a minor, but your job doesn't involve working with them, so you may not have fully understood the ramifications of your actions. 6 months probation.
Judge to teacher: You raped a minor AND you work with them so YOU should know better. The lawyer didn't have the knowledge that raping minors is a crime that you possess because of your job. 25 years hard time.
T'Girl, enterprisecvn65, stay on topic or open a thread in Misc or TNZ, please.Chief of the boat perhaps? If there are enlisted/non-coms in Starfleet there would be a "first sergeant" somewhere aboard.
But even a small a space vessel as the old space shuttle had a command structure, with a mission commander, then the pilot, and then various specialists.
That's because lawyers are not routinely placed in charge of groups of minor children in a position of authority.
Nor are they (iirc) unionized, and if they don't perform they're fired.
So it's more ok for a lawyer to rape a minor because their job description doesn't include being in charge of minors?
So is it more ok for a lawyer to murder someone than say, a US Marine infantry man, because the lawyer's job doesn't put them in contact with high powered weaponry on a regular basis, whereas the Marine has extensive experience with these weapons and should know better than to abuse that responsibility to murder someone?
Boy I'd like to the justice system run that way.
Judge to lawyer: You raped a minor, but your job doesn't involve working with them, so you may not have fully understood the ramifications of your actions. 6 months probation.
Judge to teacher: You raped a minor AND you work with them so YOU should know better. The lawyer didn't have the knowledge that raping minors is a crime that you possess because of your job. 25 years hard time.
Will do. Apologies for the indiscretion.
But they are both privates. There's no need for inventing two ranks of private there. Technically, the two have to intimately know the details of each other's service years in order to make the right decision about which should lead, as there is no decoration on their uniforms to establish that. In practice, they do not know that, and rely on somebody with more brass to tell them what to do. Why make that "sergeant" when "lieutenant" will do just as well?
That's where Starfleet "indistinct masses" might differ a bit, if everybody is multitalented and flexibly employed. But that shouldn't affect things much, as said flexibility would in turn require the discarding of rigid microcommand structures, balancing the problem of nobody having microspeciality badges on their sleeves.
That depends on what "employed" means. Using the better electrician to make decisions over wiring is sensible, but arguing on that basis that the better electrician can do the requests to the quartermaster is counterproductive - there's likely to be a better logistician in the team. That's why meritocracies don't make for good hierarchies, unless one talks exclusively about hierarchy-running merits.
Exactly. Which is why O'Brien shouldn't be allowed higher grades unless he can demonstrate qualities of leadership. Being good at repairing stuff isn't grounds for promotion, although obviously it needs to be grounds for motivational rewarding. Yet promotion=reward is even worse than the Peter Principle, quickly putting fish not just out of water but high in the stratosphere. And then we get fish rains of Charles Fort scope.
Luckily, we see Starfleet doesn't work that way: two Picards, with identical graduation dates, can make completely dissimilar rank progress in the same number of years, depending on which sort of experience those years bring. Supposedly, the Picard that got higher rank gathered command-related experience specifically.
But the number of links in the chain is something to be optimized, rather than maximized. Otherwise, we'd already have eighty grades of officer if not eight hundred, in every military of national size.
Timo Saloniemi
ST at least maintained some consistency with the real world ranks.
The original Battlestar Galactica was confusing as hell. Adama was the overall leader of the fleet, yet his rank was commander. Apollo had a rank of captain, which is a higher rank in the Navy than a commander, yet he was clearly a subordinate to Adama. Tigh was a Colonel.....which isn't even a rank used by the Navy, and also a Colonel, when compared to their Navy counterparts, is a MUCH higher rank than commander, yet he was also Adama's subordinate. Also a Captain in the Navy is equal to a Colonel in the other services but again it was pretty clear that Tigh was Apollo's superior.
Starbuck, Boomer and pretty much everyone else who had a title seemed to hold the rank of Lieutenant, which they got right in it was lower than all the aforementioned ranks.
But then it seemed like a good part of the Galactica's crew didn't seem to have a rank at all because they were never addressed by it, they were just called by their name.
And the lowest and highest officer ranks in the Navy: Ensign and Admiral were just left out completely.
It would have made sense if they called Adama a General because than all the ranks would have fit within the Army, USAF and USMC a General is superior to a Colonel who is superior a Captain (in the non navy services) who is superior to a Lieutenant. But by throwing in "Commander" as the head title is screws everything up and you wonder were they using Lieutenant and Captain in the non Navy ranks along with Colonel and they for some reason just decided to make Commander the leader. Or were they using Lieutenant and Captain in the Navy ranks and for some reason decided to make Commander a superior rank to Captain and then just threw in Colonel for the hell of it.
If you're going to use traditional military ranks you might as well keep them consistent with reality. It's kind of stupid to use ranks but then change their actual authority or mix in Navy and other service ranks together just to be different.
The original Battlestar Galactica was confusing as hell. Adama was the overall leader of the fleet, yet his rank was commander. Apollo had a rank of captain, which is a higher rank in the Navy than a commander, yet he was clearly a subordinate to Adama. Tigh was a Colonel.....which isn't even a rank used by the Navy, and also a Colonel, when compared to their Navy counterparts, is a MUCH higher rank than commander, yet he was also Adama's subordinate. Also a Captain in the Navy is equal to a Colonel in the other services but again it was pretty clear that Tigh was Apollo's superior.
Starbuck, Boomer and pretty much everyone else who had a title seemed to hold the rank of Lieutenant, which they got right in it was lower than all the aforementioned ranks.
But then it seemed like a good part of the Galactica's crew didn't seem to have a rank at all because they were never addressed by it, they were just called by their name.
And the lowest and highest officer ranks in the Navy: Ensign and Admiral were just left out completely.
It would have made sense if they called Adama a General because than all the ranks would have fit within the Army, USAF and USMC a General is superior to a Colonel who is superior a Captain (in the non navy services) who is superior to a Lieutenant. But by throwing in "Commander" as the head title is screws everything up and you wonder were they using Lieutenant and Captain in the non Navy ranks along with Colonel and they for some reason just decided to make Commander the leader. Or were they using Lieutenant and Captain in the Navy ranks and for some reason decided to make Commander a superior rank to Captain and then just threw in Colonel for the hell of it.
If you're going to use traditional military ranks you might as well keep them consistent with reality. It's kind of stupid to use ranks but then change their actual authority or mix in Navy and other service ranks together just to be different.
I think I remember reading somewhere in the original BSG, Glen Larson simply didn't understand military ranks at all and arranged Captain, Colonel and Commander in alphabetical order.
For the modern series, Ron Moore considered applying a more realistic rank system but decided to stick with the original for nostalgia purposes. Though there is some better thought and layout, it is still a weird amalgam of army and navy ranks for the officers, though the enlisted are consistently naval ranks.
The uniforms for cadets and enlisted personnel in that timeframe are identical. Only difference is the sweater worn underneath: red for cadets, dark blue for enlisted.
Both versions of the show at least allow for, if not explicitly establish, a rather hodgepodge establishing of the crew of the Galactica: instead of an assigned and functional crew, she relies on people hastily summoned or randomly arriving during an extremely rapidly developing crisis.
In the classic version, some of the heroes might not have been naval officers at all, but just pals of each other, old comrades from rival services. Indeed the ship might not have been run in a military fashion at all, but rather like a pirate ship, with all-new, utilitarian rules - and people would be called by "nicknames" derived from their previous lives. Surely Adama could have been commander of something-or-other by title at the time of the Cylon betrayal, say.
The new version of the show gives even more credence to the "pirate ship" thinking in terms of the plotline. It's too bad that the Adama there does derive his authority from rigid adherence to pre-Armageddon military protocol.
Timo Saloniemi
In the classic version, some of the heroes might not have been naval officers at all, but just pals of each other, old comrades from rival services. Indeed the ship might not have been run in a military fashion at all, but rather like a pirate ship, with all-new, utilitarian rules - and people would be called by "nicknames" derived from their previous lives. Surely Adama could have been commander of something-or-other by title at the time of the Cylon betrayal, say.
The new version of the show gives even more credence to the "pirate ship" thinking in terms of the plotline. It's too bad that the Adama there does derive his authority from rigid adherence to pre-Armageddon military protocol.
Timo Saloniemi
...If that. There are inconsistencies that might well warrant completely ditching this original idea.
For one thing, red still was what it used to be in TOS as late as ST:TMP. While ST2:TWoK invokes some changes, red is never explicated to become the "cadet color". Rather, it might be the color those cadets and enlisted-trainees destined for the Red Path wear, while cadets aiming for the Blue Path or the Gold Path or the newly available alternative paths wear some other color. (Picard wore a dark blue collar in his cadet days, as shown in ST:NEM, perhaps aspiring to become a scientist - see "Tapestry"! - even if he eventually graduated with a white collar.)
The bulk of trainees in ST2:TWoK are training with Scotty down at Engineering, so it makes sense for them to wear red for that reason alone already. Scotty himself has swapped from red to gold, of course, and would continue to swap to white later on, but we have seen goldshirted people commanding contingents of redshirts in Red Path Tasks before: perhaps Scotty just took on a more commanding role?
We also see red associated with people who may not be cadets at all (Saavik is never indicated to be one, and indeed already holds commissioned rank), as well as people who decidedly are not cadets (Valeris holds rather high commissioned rank), even after ST:TMP.
Heck, the case against a dedicated "cadet color" continues in the new movies! Starfleet Academy features people in both red and black. And neither of those colors is unambiguously associated with undergraduates: people who already hold rank, such as Sulu and Chekov, wear the very same red as Kirk does after all the adventuring is said and done. Uhura, OTOH, is called both Cadet and Lieutenant explicitly in the same piece of dialogue, making clear distinctions even less likely.
Timo Saloniemi
Similar threads
