If you were in charge of a Trek reboot, what ten things would you change?

[Tenacity]

Star Trek isn't. It should NEVER be not a positive future though.

Disagree, it's should be neither utopian nor dystopian. It should be a future composed of normal people and not whatever the hell Picard thinks he is.

And Section 31 is definitely not a positive attribute. It's a clandestine organization undermining said positive future. Not actually protecting it.

It does protect the Federation (not "the future"), S31 assisted the Federation by way of bringing a swifter ending to the Dominion than would have happened, saving thousands of Federation lives.

The only thing the Founders cared about were the Founders, so S31 brought the war directly to them, not their proxies.

Don't like S31, you're really aren't supposed to. But saying that they aren't a benefit means you are pushing a philiosopy ahead of what is being shown on screen. Needs of many ... and all that.

Show me ONE TIME in history where "ends justify the means" has actually worked and not worsened the whole situation!

America fought back against the Japanese in the second world war, instead of immediately surrendering.

2. No Federation: It's the UN in space

This is how I see it as always being.

Okay not exactly like the UN, but more similar than different. I'd like to see a story where it's a issue that while a species is a Federation member, being such isn't the most important thing in their lives.

I disagree with you on the transporter, it's a part of the core of Star Trek. Although I think it should have been completely missing from ENT.

 

[Admiral2]

This is how I see it as always being.

Okay not exactly like the UN, but more similar than different. I'd like to see a story where it's a issue that while a species is a Federation member, being such isn't the most important thing in their lives.

That's how a lot of present-day countries see the real UN, because membership allows them to punch well above their weight, in that they can hold sway over more powerful countries politically that they couldn't defeat economically or militarily. As long as there's any kind of UN-style organization, some of its members will treat membership like the holy grail. Better to just be rid of it entirely.

I disagree with you on the transporter, it's a part of the core of Star Trek. Although I think it should have been completely missing from ENT.

It should be completely missing from the whole franchise. The point of a reboot is to rebuild the core anyway. Let's swap out the transporter for something else while we're rebuilding.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I'd get rid of this "no money" horseshit, believe you me.

Also do the same with Section 31 - fuck them, they are nothing more than a terrorist organization. They're no better than al-Qaeda or ISIL. If Starfleet Intelligence can't get something done legally, it doesn't deserve to get done.

And no, the Federation is not the UN in space. It is a full-fledged interplanetary state in its own right. It is a government, something which the UN definitely is not.

As for the transporter: I would keep it, but also redefine it as something which warps space so as to move objects and people around (like the Ansata transporters from "The High Ground"). Meaning: You are not actually disassembled and reassembled, but space around you is folded so that you appear to be. Kind of like warp drive, but on a much smaller scale.

"not primarily a military organisation"

Well, of course Starfleet is not primarily or only a military. But that doesn't change the fact that being a military is indeed ONE of the things that Starfleet is.

And on that note, I would make it a point to show Starfleet Marines. Yeah, I said it. So there.

 

[Admiral2]

I'd get rid of this "no money" horseshit, believe you me.

Hear, hear!

Also do the same with Section 31 - fuck them, they are nothing more than a terrorist organization. They're no better than al-Qaeda or ISIL. If Starfleet Intelligence can't get something done legally, it doesn't deserve to get done.

You do realize that breaking laws is how every intelligence agency ever created gets things done, right? Taking that stance you're saying that the Federation shouldn't have any intellligence organizations at all. Which would be ridiculous.

Section 31 is not a terrorist organization. Espionage and asymmetrical warfare are not the same things as blowing up restaurants in the name of a deity. Section 31 serves a useful function in that it conducts operations that more above-board Federation agencies can't, and it suffers from the fact that it can't celebrate its successes openly, and the necessary secrecy and methods tend to color outsiders' perception of them, just like the CIA.

But the US needs the CIA just as much as the Federation needs a Section 31.

And no, the Federation is not the UN in space. It is a full-fledged interplanetary state in its own right. It is a government, something which the UN definitely is not.

Then the Federation's the Articles of Confederation, which makes it almost as weak as the UN, especially if the Prime Directive applies to member worlds.

As for the transporter: I would keep it, but also redefine it as something which warps space so as to move objects and people around (like the Ansata transporters from "The High Ground"). Meaning: You are not actually disassembled and reassembled, but space around you is folded so that you appear to be. Kind of like warp drive, but on a much smaller scale.

Or, just stop trying to rewrite physical laws and just build a shuttle and land it. Seriously.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

You do realize that breaking laws is how every intelligence agency ever created gets things done, right?

Not even close.

But the US needs the CIA just as much as the Federation needs a Section 31.

Again: Not even close.

The CIA is a legitimate government organization. It has to justify its existence and budget. It has a clearly defined chain of command. And most importantly, it answers to the people, and to the government at large. Section 31 is NONE of these things.

I'm not saying the CIA always follows the law, but most of the time, it does. It has to report to its superiors in the government, up to and including the President of the United States. Section 31, on the other hand, literally does whatever it wants. Not even the CIA is like that. Section 31 answers to no one, and does whatever it feels like, when it feels like, for whatever reasons it feels like. Don't you see how dangerous that is? Hell, Section 31 even had a spy within the Federation President's cabinet! Does that sound legit to you?

Yeah, I know, Section 31 claims it exists to protect the Federation, but I don't believe that for a second. Section 31 exists to protect ITS OWN interests, nothing more.

 

[Nyotarules]

Starfleet as depicted is already too human centric making it even more so to pander to its tv audience will make it nothing more than NASA in space. It will be good for humanity to be treated as the other in the Starfleet universe might teach some of the TV audience a little lesson of how fellow humanare treated in the real world.

 

[Nightdiamond]

1.No more disaster porn. I think we got too much. Seeing too many catastrophes or attacks takes away from the impact after a while. The Xindi attack, destruction of Romulus, Vulcan etc., There just seems to be so many added and shoe-horned into the timeline. I think it results in less of an impact on the viewer after a while.

2. No more killing mystery. So many fascinating ideas or cool aliens or villains have been worn out. Q the Borg, time travel, etc.

3.Each character will have at least some type 3d personality and life and not be there to just fill a role.

4. No more plot of the week, romance of the week, danger of the week, or at least not as many. An interesting cast of characters with their own unique personalities can more than make up for this.

5. Characters would be seen discussing subjects about money, jobs work history etc., openly with a little more detail. Without hinting and then suddenly cutting off and dropping the subject.

I want to see what it looks like for someone to order something from his replicator then wonder if he has enough credits to get what he wants--(if that's the direction Trek want to go in.)

 

[Butters]

Section 31 is not a terrorist organization. Espionage and asymmetrical warfare are not the same things as blowing up restaurants in the name of a deity. Section 31 serves a useful function in that it conducts operations that more above-board Federation agencies can't, and it suffers from the fact that it can't celebrate its successes openly, and the necessary secrecy and methods tend to color outsiders' perception of them, just like the CIA.

But the US needs the CIA just as much as the Federation needs a Section 31.

Section 31 isn’t about intelligence, it’s dirty tricks. And it covers threats from within and without. It puts the existence of the federation above the needs and wishes of its people. That ain’t good.

No legitimate state needs a section 31. Section 31 belongs to the Federation of Blake’s 7, not Star Trek. Admittedly, Blake’s 7’s is more interesting.

 

[Tenacity]

1.No more disaster porn. I think we got too much.

If you mean entire planets being destroyed, or going to be destroyed, or all life on a planet, yeah lose that. And stop picking on Earth. And no more phenomenon that's going caused the destruction of the galaxy or universe while we're at it.

On the other hand it's part of Starfleet's job to handle problems, so small and mid-sized "disasters" can't completely disappear.

3.Each character will have at least some type 3d personality and life and not be there to just fill a role.

And could the characters (at least half) have nice loving extended families that they want to be around? Like the Sisko family.

5. Characters would be seen discussing subjects about money, jobs work history etc., openly with a little more detail.

How about a character talking about looking forward to getting out of Starfleet "next year," so Starfleet seem less like a life sentence they're all somehow trapped in?

I want to see what it looks like for someone to order something from his replicator then wonder if he has enough credits to get what he wants

Or one character talks about going to Risa, and another character saying they wish they could afford that.

It will be good for humanity to be treated as the other in the Starfleet universe might teach some of the TV audience a little lesson of how fellow human are treated in the real world.

Sounds preachy.

It puts the existence of the federation above the needs and wishes of its people. That ain’t good.

The people in the Federation wouldn't want their various planets not to be invaded and subjugated by the Dominion?

Why would the people not want pressure to be placed on the Founders so that they would surrender?

No legitimate state needs a section 31

But maybe the ordinary people do.

If Starfleet Intelligence can't get something done legally, it doesn't deserve to get done.

And if SF intelligence (for whatever reason) can't legally get something done, and people in the Federation die or have their communities destroyed or suffer in some other way, then what ... too bad?

Not even close.

Murder.
Assault.
Kidnapping.
Blackmail.
Theft.
Illegal wiretap.
Etc..

Section 31 even had a spy within the Federation President's cabinet

Or so Sloan believed, Bashir and O'Brien were going through Sloan's consciousness, not a computer database.

Thoughts, dreams, misconceptions, facts, fantasies, truth, delusions.

Section 31 exists to protect ITS OWN interests, nothing more.

When do we see this?

We do see S31 clearly acting with the intention of helping the Federation. You don't like their methods, okay. But again when is it shown that their own interests aren't solely aimed at preserving the Federation?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And if SF intelligence (for whatever reason) can't legally get something done, and people in the Federation die or have their communities destroyed or suffer in some other way, then what ... too bad?

If the Federation (or ANY government, real or fictional) has to violate its own laws in order to exist...then why does it deserve to exist?

Principles must be absolute, or they mean nothing. The law is meaningless if it isn't universally applied. You don't get to discard the rule of law whenever it becomes inconvenient; you are beholden to it, no matter what.

 

[Tenacity]

If the Federation (or ANY government, real or fictional) has to violate its own laws in order to exist...then why does it deserve to exist

I was asking about the people, ordinary people, not the governing organization.

Are your ethics more important than the lives of people who aren't you?

 

[Butters]

I was asking about the people, ordinary people, not the governing organization.

Are your ethics more important than the lives of people who aren't you?

It’s when the ordinary people and the ones in government are different that you need these secret unaccountable organisations, and they don’t work for the ordinary people.

 

[Rahul]

America fought back against the Japanese in the second world war, instead of immediately surrendering.

... are you actually for real?
Like, comparing defending yourself after an attack with attacking yourself? Jesus Christ, that's really messed up.

Assault.
Kidnapping.
Blackmail.
Theft.
Illegal wiretap.

Guess what: NONE OF THOSE THINGS ACTUALLY HELPED.
The only thing it accomplishes is to seriously, extremely tarnish the reputation of America abroad and not just creating a bunch of new enemies, but also giving them an actual reason to hate America - e.g. being right to a point. Even someone like Osama Bin Laden - someone nobody would defend as anything but pure evil - had not just legitimate reasons to hate America - he is an actual, direct creation of America. They formed him. They built him up. They prepped him. They created his whole terror organization. Until it turned against them. Great fucking job! Mission accomplished. That's what clandestine organization breaking the rules accomplish. Nothing more.

An official organization is only allowed to follow the rules of the State: The can use surveillence tools that are prohibited for the main population. They can arrest people.

But as soon as they start illegail shit - kidnapping and torturing people, killing via drones - they not only loose their moral highground - they actually become the badguys themselves. And start wrecking shit and ruin lives all over the world, which inevitable come back and bites them in the ass, because nobody likes to be treated like that and people start to actually fight back.

Just ask around in the world how many people like America right now. Compare that to a time when America didn't do such blatantly obvious evil shit, like pre- and WWII-era, where they actually followed their own code of conduct instead of outsourcing killing to private organizations, and then see the shit state of the world those exact actions inevitably lead to, and draw your own conclusions.

Doing evil will always bread evil. As such it's a self-strengthen system, one the civilised world actually got over for a while, but now apparently comes roaring back with people willingly cheering and advocating for this circle of ever increasing violence.

 

[Tenacity]

It’s when the ordinary people and the ones in government are different that you need these secret unaccountable organisations, and they don’t work for the ordinary people.

But seriously, if your rules and laws require you to do nothing when the group of people you're supposedly protecting need protection, doesn't that indicate that your rules and laws are flawed?

And if you're aren't willing to protect that group of people because your rules won't permit it, can you protest loudly when someone else steps forward to do your job for you?

Principles must be absolute, or they mean nothing.

Whose principles, yours, mine, someone else? My principles of peoples lives come before esoteric rules and ethereal philosophic concepts, would seem on the surface to be different than your principles of absolute laws.

If laws don't work in a given situation, you don't continue to follow them.

Guess what: NONE OF THOSE THINGS ACTUALLY HELPED.

The chain of posts was intelligence agencies break laws, follow by not even close, followed by my examples.

How (one example) would intelligence agents blackmailing a individual (a crime) for the location of important documents, breaking and entering a building (a crime) and stealing said documents (a crime) not help? Depending of course on the documents stolen.

 

[Rahul]

How (one example) would intelligence agents blackmailing a individual (a crime) for the location of important documents, breaking and entering a building (a crime) and stealing said documents (a crime) not help? Depending of course on the documents stolen.

You watched waaay to many movies. You're confusing your thoughts of what intelligence agencies do on popular fiction (get the documents! learn the location! Stop the bomb! ) with what they actually do in reality - crunching numbers and collecting intelligence and data.

All these armchair-James Bonds that never actually read a book, but know how they stop terrorism from "24" and schlocky action movies are the real menace to society - because they have no fucking clue about how the world works, which action actually would help, but are willing to commit purely evil acts for their side to win because their limited minds can't fathom actually complex solutions. It's exactly the same what the other side does - remember, one's terrorist is the other man's freedom fighter - while never actually adressing the root problem, and only causing more chaos and mayhem in the process and making the situation worse for everybody.

 

[The Old Mixer]

This tangent is both getting a little too personal and way too political. Please take it to PM, Miscellaneous, or TNZ.

 

[1001001]

This tangent is both getting a little too personal and way too political. Please take it to PM, Miscellaneous, or TNZ.

Agreed. Tried to say something but I'm still getting that weird formatting thing when multi-quoting.

 

[Admiral2]

You do realize that breaking laws is how every intelligence agency ever created gets things done, right? Taking that stance you're saying that the Federation shouldn't have any intellligence organizations at all. Which would be ridiculous.

Not even close.

Obviously, I must be more specific.

Intelligence officers accomplish their missions by breaking the laws of their target societies, starting with Espionage Laws. Every society has them, and depending on the perpetrator there's always one of three punishments: exile, life in prison or death. And committing that greater crime is usually done by committing several lesser crimes, namely fraud, bribery, blackmail and straight theft. That's how information is gathered. That's how secret objectives are met.

Do intelligence officers break their own societies' laws? Yeah, all the time. In the US, all you need is a sitting judge to write a letter giving you permisson to do it. What do you think a "wiretap warrant" is? It's a judge's sanction that allows law enforcement intelligence units to commit an act that under other circumstances would be against the law. And that's the US. In less democratic countries intelligence officers can do whatever they freaking please, whenever they please, in order to get the results they want.

So I stick by what I said to your other post. If you're going to take the absolute moral stance that your intelligence officers can never break the law, then you can't have intelligence officers, because breaking the law IS THE JOB.

The CIA is a legitimate government organization. It has to justify its existence and budget. It has a clearly defined chain of command. And most importantly, it answers to the people, and to the government at large. Section 31 is NONE of these things.

I'm not saying the CIA always follows the law, but most of the time, it does. It has to report to its superiors in the government, up to and including the President of the United States. Section 31, on the other hand, literally does whatever it wants. Not even the CIA is like that. Section 31 answers to no one, and does whatever it feels like, when it feels like, for whatever reasons it feels like. Don't you see how dangerous that is? Hell, Section 31 even had a spy within the Federation President's cabinet! Does that sound legit to you?

I don't know. Did a Federation judge sign a warrant permitting the infiltration?

See, here's the thing. You don't know that Section 31 has no official control or oversight. It's entirely possible that they do, and that the control and oversight are so highly classified that the characters we follow in the shows aren't cleared to know about it, and if they can't know about it, neither can we. It's also possible that the control mechanism is as simple as a letter of marque. Privateers and Pirates commit the exact same crimes using the exact same methods. What makes them different is, again, an official letter giving one type permission to commit those crimes on one society's behalf at the expense of another. So Section 31 might be an "Eyes Only" covert action team (Impossible Mission Force) or a group of privateers. Nothing we've seen of them in canon gives evidence one way or another.

And even if they really have no official oversight or control, that isn't automatically a problem since that might be the point. The goal of creating an off-the-books operation is to have an agency that can take on missions without people pointing at them and whining "You can't do that cause you represent THE FEDERATION!" "You can't do this because you represent THE FEDERATION!" An off-the-books agency can say "Go screw, because officially I have jack to do with THE FEDERATION!"

Yeah, I know, Section 31 claims it exists to protect the Federation, but I don't believe that for a second. Section 31 exists to protect ITS OWN interests, nothing more.

Oh, really? Then riddle me this, Batman: How many times in canon has Section 31 done anything that seriously hurt The Federation? Yes, individual officials and Starfleet officers have been affected by their actions, but I mean how many times has Section 31 hurt The Federation as a whole, beyond the society's moral sense? Because there is always somebody in The Federation that wants to "deal with Section 31 once and for all, because it's against our ideals," and if the section were as self serving as you think I'm sure they'd consider that a threat and deal with the Federation accordingly, and as I often say about the Federation's enemies, in an objective universe, the Feds would be f---ed in that instance. But we don't see that happening, do we?

Now tell me this: how many times has Section 31 done its level best to seriously hurt the Federaton's enemies?

You can believe whatever you like, and I'm sure if you were a Starfleet captain everyone would respect you because you have exactly the right mindset concerning Section 31.

if I were a Starfleet captain, I would go out of my way to find the nearest Section 31 agent, shake his or her hand and ask "How can I help you and how can you help me?" Then I'd use that person like a freaking Swiss Army Knife to get shit done.

Think what you like about that. I've said my piece.

You watched waaay to many movies. You're confusing your thoughts of what intelligence agencies do on popular fiction (get the documents! learn the location! Stop the bomb! ) with what they actually do in reality - crunching numbers and collecting intelligence and data.

Analysts crunch numbers, officers collect intelligence, and officers collect that intelligence by going into other countries and breaking their laws.

Fraud: "I'm just a lowly Embassy peon."

Bribery: "Hey, I'll give you money or move you to the states if you give me information..."

Blackmail: "So, i can get rid of that little incident for you if you tell me a little something about your boss..."

Theft: "So all you have to do is insert this thumb drive and it will copy everything on the minister's computer."

What part of intelligence collection is this armchair Bond missing? Satellites? They violate enemies' sovereign airspace. Electronic Surveillance? Wiretapping. Photographic surveillance? Taking pictures without permission.

Again, it's the job.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

You don't know that Section 31 has no official control or oversight.

Actually, yes, we know exactly that.

 

[Tenacity]

Nothing we've seen of them in canon gives evidence one way or another.

Which I thought was great about the way S31 was depicted in DS9.

Personally my thought is that S31 is a group of private individuals who live in the Federation, who bring different specialties to S31. Not every member of S31 is a Sloan. While there are connections with the Federation government and Starfleet, neither of those control S31. There is a senior management group of some kind.

Consider two movies.

Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014), Kingsman is a private intelligence and operations service founded by wealthy individuals in Britain after the first world war. There is no government oversight.

Men in Black (1997), MIB is a private secret organization that monitors alien activity on Earth and protects Earth. Recruited individuals have their previous existence erased. While some US government employees were involve with it's creation, by the time of the late 1990's there is no government oversight.

Either of these could be a good parallel to S31.

But DS9 doesn't make it clear if S31 is indeed private and it could be a government agency. It's possible that Sloan didn't actually know who he was really working for.

Actually, yes, we know exactly that.

No we don't, we only know what Sloan thought was going on.