Why? Just turn the channel if it isn't to your liking. What does it accomplish to take something away from folks who do enjoy it?
Spoilers Starfleet Academy General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
Why? Just turn the channel if it isn't to your liking. What does it accomplish to take something away from folks who do enjoy it?
Because! A true victory is to make your enemy see they were wrong to oppose you in the first place. To force them to acknowledge your greatness.
I'll chime in. This is piracy. That's not exactly the same, nor is it cut and dry, I'll admit. Giving leeway that this is based 1000+ years in the future, and a different government, this CAN'T directl apply, but I did turn to the US Federal register regarding piracy HERE and Cornell Law HERENot exactly cut-and-dry...
Using a Gun for Self-Defense: Laws and Consequences
Understand what's at stake if you use a gun for protections. Learn about self-defense, duty to retreat, and the castle doctrine, plus what charges are possible.www.criminaldefenselawyer.com
From Cornell: " a)Limitation on Liability.—
An owner, operator, time charterer, master, mariner, or individual who uses force or authorizes the use of force to defend a vessel of the United States against an act of piracy shall not be liable for monetary damages for any injury or death caused by such force to any person engaging in an act of piracy if such force was in accordance with standard rules for the use of force in self-defense of vessels prescribed by the Secretary."
From the register: ". Imminent danger means an attacker poses an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death to oneself or others...
Imminent danger would exist when an attacker manifests apparent intent to cause great bodily harm or death to oneself or others, as demonstrated by the following elements, each of which is present at the same time:...
Act. The attacker makes an overt movement which induces one to reasonably believe that he is manifesting a threat to cause great bodily harm or death to oneself or others (e.g., an attacker points or discharges a firearm or other weapon at crewmembers or security personnel, or employs or prepares to employ climbing gear for an armed, non-consensual boarding).
e. Great bodily harm means an injury to the body that results in unconsciousness, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. It is synonymous with “serious bodily injury”, “serious bodily harm”, “serious physical injury”, or “grievous bodily injury”."
We can lawyer this all day, but even skimming, Captain Ake had every right and possibly even a duty to order open fire. The bar seems to be as low as someone being knocked unconscious.
Yes, Starfleet should be better. I'll agree with you there. That's why many aspire to it. But if you want to bring law into it, I would argue that the history if the Venari Ral, the circumstances, and the passengers (including kids who may or may not have taken any oath yet, thus being civilians) gave her reason to remove the threat with predjudice.
She gave the order to fire without offering surrender.
The lead is no Mariner, though you can feel some of Tawny's influence in his approach. There's a danger that he becomes more annoying than intended and pushes folks off. 'You've had that conversation already' came to mind too often. Same with changing some of his attributes/capabilities from scene to scene. Boy also needs an Introspection roll.
A waste of Paul G's talents. Chewing up the scenery? Check. 1000 yo old anachronism? Write better. He could be a great counterpoint, continuing to highlight where Starfleet went seriously wrong and folks realizing they've got to listen to him.
Get some actual SF writers who can project into the timeframe.
The production design team needs to be let go of for Trek, period. Incessant branding, no hierarchy, the visual mix has been boring for a long while. They stayed right where they were, and that's not great. jfc falling back on 'cool' and lens flare, huh? 'Bunch of fucking 12 year olds'.
If you're only introducing lesson scenes for goop jokes or hook-ups, you're insulting the characters and the supposed drive of the show.
Keep tuning the Klingon's voice.
Ease off the throttle now on the char traits. We get them, go easy now. Some are close to red lining as caricature or stereotypes.
The 'Assistant Producers' are meaningless. At least half are keeping the show in the same ruts. Dig those grooves deeper, baby.
Flatline on the main theme, Doctor.
That ship absolutely needed the crap blown out of it; they attacked a boatload of children. Shut your fake indignancy down.
A waste of Paul G's talents. Chewing up the scenery? Check. 1000 yo old anachronism? Write better. He could be a great counterpoint, continuing to highlight where Starfleet went seriously wrong and folks realizing they've got to listen to him.
Get some actual SF writers who can project into the timeframe.
The production design team needs to be let go of for Trek, period. Incessant branding, no hierarchy, the visual mix has been boring for a long while. They stayed right where they were, and that's not great. jfc falling back on 'cool' and lens flare, huh? 'Bunch of fucking 12 year olds'.
If you're only introducing lesson scenes for goop jokes or hook-ups, you're insulting the characters and the supposed drive of the show.
Keep tuning the Klingon's voice.
Ease off the throttle now on the char traits. We get them, go easy now. Some are close to red lining as caricature or stereotypes.
The 'Assistant Producers' are meaningless. At least half are keeping the show in the same ruts. Dig those grooves deeper, baby.
Flatline on the main theme, Doctor.
That ship absolutely needed the crap blown out of it; they attacked a boatload of children. Shut your fake indignancy down.
Having differing (tactful) opinions positive or negative or Whether it's your " cup of tea or not" is called feedback. Subjective or otherwise That is why forums exists.
If all we see is people who like something on here all the time, it becomes an echoe chamber not a discourse.
Personally my enjoyment of something does not get affected if someone thinks "it sucks"
Last time I checked this is a discussion forums not a fan club.
With regard to destroying Braka’s ship, they had only just regained control of their own vessel after considerable difficulty following the programmable matter attack. Braka’s ship was still present, with its weapons trained on them. There was nothing preventing it from firing again on Athena, either with conventional weapons or another round of programmable matter.
This was an immediate and proven threat that had already fired on what was, in effect, a school. For all Ake knew, they were moments away from attacking Athena again. It was her responsibility to her ship, her crew, and her students to eliminate that danger. She absolutely did the right thing in blowing that ship all to hell.
This was an immediate and proven threat that had already fired on what was, in effect, a school. For all Ake knew, they were moments away from attacking Athena again. It was her responsibility to her ship, her crew, and her students to eliminate that danger. She absolutely did the right thing in blowing that ship all to hell.
I didn't say anything of the kind, nor did I call any one out for being critical. If you've noticed, I'm pretty critical of it.
It is different to say that everyone else should have something taken away from them because I don't like it.
"What does it accomplish to take something away from folks who do enjoy it?"
It doesn't take something away from those who enjoy it. My friend not liking or talking about how he doesn't like Pizza, doesn't take the enjoyment away from me liking pizza
I don't pretend to know the rules of engagement, but I can't imagine that after taking fire, you have to warn a combatant that you're going to fire back. The question is more whether overwhelming deadly force was needed here, versus something more surgial.
However, in my mind the biggest issue with the scenario here is even engaging to begin with didn't seem worth it for Ake. Braka just wanted to cut out the warp core and leave, right? And the cavalry was coming in 45 minutes. He wasn't going to kill anyone unless someone tried to stop him. So why not just surrender, much as Picard did back in TNG? Doesn't the Federation value lives more than property?
"My friend says their sick of the same political party being in power and thinks it should end"
Doesn't effect me if I think that political party is still relevant.
It's an opinion . One that's arguable . Technically any show that gets canceled in showbusines is being taken away from those who enjoy it.
You can also make an argument an extended absence can make it better and more enjoyable in the future for more people.
It's not unreasonable to be a drop in the ocean that wants it to "end" and posts about it.
Last edited:
Actually that's a good point, even without demanding their surrender, they should have gone for the standard "disable their weapons and engines" that is the usual response in cases like that.
This discussion here got way out of hand.
They were completely right to neutralise the threat first & foremost. "Target weapons" is something you can only do if you're so overpowered there's no real danger to you (e.g. Picard's or Pike's Enterprise disabling tiny attack ships).
What went wrong was:
1) the vfx shots going on for too long, making it look like they were still pummeling/double-tapping an already defeated enemy - but we don't know when the torpedoes were actually fired, they might have gone all in at once better safe than sorry, and:
2) After the big explosion they should have said something like "scan for survivors & render assistance" and then be done with it. But there is no evidence that they didn't do this either, off camera, a few seconds later & everyone was completely morally in the right and the audience just didn't see it
It's just that the writers/directors/producers really obviously did not care about this, at all, which gives a bit of a moral dissonance while watching.
An issue DIS also had several times, where the heroes started shooting first & killing mooks of the syndicate, simply because they were villain-coded, but hadn't actually done anything evil yet, and the writers only introduced later that they were actually badguys all along.
They were completely right to neutralise the threat first & foremost. "Target weapons" is something you can only do if you're so overpowered there's no real danger to you (e.g. Picard's or Pike's Enterprise disabling tiny attack ships).
What went wrong was:
1) the vfx shots going on for too long, making it look like they were still pummeling/double-tapping an already defeated enemy - but we don't know when the torpedoes were actually fired, they might have gone all in at once better safe than sorry, and:
2) After the big explosion they should have said something like "scan for survivors & render assistance" and then be done with it. But there is no evidence that they didn't do this either, off camera, a few seconds later & everyone was completely morally in the right and the audience just didn't see it
It's just that the writers/directors/producers really obviously did not care about this, at all, which gives a bit of a moral dissonance while watching.
An issue DIS also had several times, where the heroes started shooting first & killing mooks of the syndicate, simply because they were villain-coded, but hadn't actually done anything evil yet, and the writers only introduced later that they were actually badguys all along.
Last edited:
The only "child" on that ship was Sam, the rest were in their early 20s.
Is there any age established besides Caleb's?
She is relative when you have beings living over 200 years. 20 is still a child.
Similar threads
