I don't mean to hijack the thread, but there's something bothering me. As I recall, in the first episode he appears in, Sloan says his organisation has had many names, and that Section 31 is just it's current designation. Is that just my memory playing tricks?
Also, in what episode does Sloan claim that he operates under Article 14, Section 31 of the Starfleet charter? I remember Harris in Enterprise saying it, and Kirk reading about it in the first S31 novel.
I'm just saying that the idea that S31 operatives advertise who they are is not likely.
Because sources implied he'd said it, I assumed he had. A mistake. Sloan's exact words are; 'Let's just say I belong to another branch of Starfleet Intelligence. Our official designation is Section thirty one. and; Section thirty one was part of the original Starfleet charter." At no point does Sloan imply they've had many names. The Episode is DS9 "Inquisition."
Likely or not, it is exactly what 100% of our Section 31 sample did. For certain values of "advertise."
But remember, your sample is defined as "Section 31 agents who advertise that they are in Section 31."
So you're basically saying, "All of the section 31 agents who say that they work for Section 31 advertise that they work for section 31." Your sample selection introduces a bias which renders your conclusion meaningless.
My sample is the complete sample. There is not other sample to look at. You can define it any way you please but that doesn't override it's basic definition as "all known Section 31 operatives." (in this case I make the distinction between operatives and agents that the CIA makes. If you are an employee of the CIA you are an operative--officially Field Officer. If you are person in the field recruited because of your position you an agent--officially Agent. Harris was an operative, Reid was an agent. Harris knew the whole story, Reid did not)
Like I said, appeals to the unknowable aren't a basis for argument. As consumers of to Star Trek tales we can't know if someone is a Section 31 operative unless we are told. We were only told about Sloan and Harris. And there's no reason WE can't be told while keeping the characters on the show in the dark.
What you imply only makes sense if one assume I'm arguing that Section 31 is always telling people who they are. My argument is that Section 31 does not see telling people who they are as a major issue. It's not worth killing for. Given the choice of killing or saying, "We're authorized by Starfleet" they will choose the later, unless they have some other reason beyond protecting their cover.
Also from DS9 "Inquisition":
BASHIR: Captain, is there any word from Starfleet about Sloan or Section thirty one?
SISKO: There's no record of a Deputy Director Sloan anywhere in Starfleet. And as for Section thirty one, that's a little more complicated. Starfleet Command doesn't acknowledge its existence, but they don't deny it either. They simply said they'd look into it and get back to me.
BASHIR: When?
SISKO: They didn't say.
KIRA: That sounds like a cover up to me.
My initial statements and further argument are all based on the concept that Section 31 refuses to officially exist. If you see their patch they won't kill you because they know that when you go to look them up you won't find anything.
One last bit from DS9 Inquisition:
SLOAN: All I ask is that when you get back to Deep Space Nine, you consider what I've said.
BASHIR: What if I decide to expose you?
SLOAN: Let's just say I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
Here Bashir taunts Sloan with exposure. Sloan does not kill Bashir, and the first thing Bashir does is expose Section 31 to DS9's command staff (A staff which contains 2 foreign nationals--one of whom is also from the very species the Federation is currently at war with). You can, again, say my sample size is one, but I will simply reply that I don't need a larger sample to defend my point.
The only sample I need is one high-level Section 31 operative not killing someone for knowing that Section 31 exists. Since Sloan not only knew the details of the anti-Founder bio weapon but knew the details of the cure, one can safely say he's pretty high level.
The point is the objection to them having a patch--that they'd have to kill you if you saw it--does not apply based on canon.
There is no complete record of Section 31's operations, so there's no way to know for sure what their limits of action are. But the canon evidence leaves room for them to have a logo without killing anyone. Ultimately, that's the question; can they have logo without killing everyone who might have seen it? Clearly, the evidence says, "yes, they can."
In order to prove that I only need a sample size of one. I have a sample size of two and it covers all known high-level Section 31 operatives.
This doesn't prove they have a logo, but I don't have to prove that. The objection is that they wouldn't have one because they'd have to kill anyone who saw it. That objection is weak given that they
told people who they are. That doesn't mean they always do. But again, I don't have to prove what they always do to prove that there's room for them to have a logo.
In order to prove there's no room for Section 31 to have a logo you need only supply one example of Section 31 killing someone for knowing who they are. Just one counter example. If you can't there's nothing left to discuss. You can't appeal to what we don't know about them. That's speculation which makes it no more valid than the sample logos this thread is about.
In the end, my comment was a counter example to an objection suggesting that Section 31 can't have a logo. I think I've shown they can. Not that they do. If they do, it won't be discovered in a fan art forum. That they can. If they can't, someone needs to provide some evidence, not speculation. One counter example. Just one.
