I've seen several episodes which just felt very gloomy and depressing in general, as well as being morally ambiguous, which I find is very un-Trek like. When I watch Star Trek, I want optimistic escapism. Our world is generally a horrible place, and I want to get a feeling that someday it won't have to be that way. Episodes such as "In the Pale Moonlight", for example, seemed to say that even if we achieve a better future for humankind, the whole thing is built on lies. It's a concept I don't particularly like, that in order to even maintain a footing in the war against the Dominion, the Allies had to manipulate the truth. This flies right in the face of my favorite Captain's stance on "The First Duty" of every Starfleet Officer in TNG. When the writers of Star Trek VI decided to end the war with the Klingons, they didn't make Kirk lie or cheat to achieve peace. And Sisko here is presented with no choice except to be all of the things he admitted to doing in his Captain's log, all to preserve the Federation. Asking big moral questions is a HUGE part of Star Trek, but in my humble opinion having the Captain basically abandon his morals not to definitively end the war, but just to give them a slight chance of success, makes me wonder if this is a Federation that SHOULD be saved at all. What other unspeakable crimes have been committed then covered up to preserve the name of the Federation? I shudder to think. And this is just ONE episode. I've seen many more. "The Jem'Hadar", "The Search", "The Changing Face of Evil, "Paradise Lost" and even the first episode of the show, "Emissary", ALL had story aspects I just couldn't stomach. But I've written a whole essay on just one episode, so that's probably more than anyone needed to know. As an aside, I don't blame Sisko for what he did. The poor man had been through enough. But I don't know about you guys, but I don't watch Star Trek for the tortured souls. I watch for the people who have built a society that I would want to live in myself, one that isn't built on lies.