This is topic An idea to sort out our S&T ideas in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/1932.html

---

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
 
I was just reading the new "Starship Registries" thread, and I'm probably not alone with the impression that the topic, like many others, has been discussed to death. But I think that even old Flarites don't really remember all the arguments and who said what (I know I don't), much less would a newbie find out without extensive usage of the "search" function. So let's start everything again...

But wait. The older members will remember our efforts in the last century to sort out arguments in a project Frank G dubbed "SWDAO". I have something similar in mind, only that we collect opinions from different members on the same topic. We could do that here. We would only need to set up (and have the discipline to follow) some rules. The statements should be restricted to a certain length (let's say 100 words, that's about the size of the Flare message input window), should be well thought-out (as opposed to a spontaneous forum post), and it should not be allowed to comment on other user's statements (if necessary only on "common belief" or such). And only one post per member. And we should try to keep out the off-topic stuff from the threads.

The result may be posted at appropriate places, in largely the same uncommented format as it appears here. If Frank is still interested, in some sort of a new SWDAO. Or at the sites of Flare members (you will never guess which particular site I have mind ). A concise collection of expert opinion may be a very important reference for future debates. We could even even include a vote count.

Any opinions on this? Ideas how to call it (and, like with the SWDAO, put the name in the thread title as a sign "Don't post off-topic!")? Volunteers to start a topic?
 

---

Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
 
hm.. this is a damn good idea.. if the threads were clearly marked, and everyone signed off on their writings to be used on a page, i would be glad to include this on a SWDAO footnote-type portion of the galactopedia.
 

---

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
So, which subjects should we dissect?

1) NCCs!
2) Whether transporters kill people or not
3) How fast is warp x anyway?
4) How do phasers work, and are they STL or FTL or perhaps both?
5) The deeper meaning of shirt colors (this has sometimes been banned from S&T, but the new boss welcomes back the subject!)
6) What really counts for "first contact" (another technical thread that may not be pure S&T but is still subject to expert opinion and debate)
7) The governmental structure of empire X (we're getting farther and farther from starships, but this is also a subject reiterated ad nauseum)
8) ???

Timo Saloniemi
 

---

Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
 
There's plenty of points of contention to discuss, and finally settle. This is a very good idea.

Here's some.

1. Starship types
2. Where variants fit in
3. Registires
4. Antares class
5. Soyuz - why the Miranda had such longevity
6. Age of Oberth
7. Transwarp failure
8. Universal Translators
9. TOS and TNG Klingons, etc
10. A set of rules to constitute precise defintions of Canon, Non-canon and (Argh) Semi-canon.
 

---

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
The whole class/varient/type thing...
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 

"...and it should not be allowed to comment on other user's statements..."

Why not? Seems to me like it would be better to have an actual discussion on the subject, then put that up on a page (possibly in an edited form to get rid of stuff that wanders off-topic).
 

---

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
 
Add "are kitbashes really kitbashes", "what is the size of the Federation", "where have all the Ambassador class ships gone", "how big are Spacedocks really", "how many ships are in Starfleet", and "what's inside the Akira" in there as well.

Then of course, there are the rhetorical questions like "how did Voyager get all those shuttles", "where is the true nature of Starfleet", "where did the transphasic torpedoes and Bat-armor end up", and "is the Breen homeworld a frozen tundra or what?
 

---

Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
 

quote:

---

where have all the Ambassador class ships gone

---

Gone to graveyards, everyone.

SCNR
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
Surely "What's inside an Akira" is fairly rhetorical as well?
 

---

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
 
Agreed to all of the above (I could use them all ). The questions would have to be as well defined as the answers.

For instance, not like "Does Starfleet have kitbashes?", but "Does Starfleet build custom ships from nearly arbitrary salvaged or spare parts?"

Not "Will we have universal translators?" but "Will universal translators as shown on Star Trek be feasible?"

Any idea for a special prompt? Maybe SWDAO again?

Is 100 words okay?

Are suggestions from non-canon welcome?
 

---

Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
 
Bernd, there are a few problems with this approach:

1) A lot of people will have similar opinions, making certain statements redundant.

2) The format allows people to post opinions without peer review in terms of questioning their evidence, which is not good. It assumes that the various opinions are the best agreement one is going to get.

3) It encourages majority rule rather than victory of the best theory.

This is why I'm more in line with TSN's suggestion, though I'd expand it into a full-fledged, businesslike, moderated discussion. I'm convinced that a lot of the SWDAOs could have been resolved earlier with a kind of discussion that rarely takes place.

Boris
 

---

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
 
TSN & Boris: I see the advantages of actually discussing something, but that's exactly what has been done here all the time. Someone who would want to make an archive of it, could simply dig up old threads. The information is already in there. Or open a new one about each topic, which would not really be that different.

But the actual problem would be that the statements are just not compatible as even the subject is subject to change, and removing irrelevant parts of a thread for a reader's convenience would be much like censorship. Who is to decide about that? That's why I have in mind to put the filter at the very beginning of the system.

Of course, it would be the best for an objective database if we could collect the votes/statements secretly. Maybe I could even find a script for that. But that would not involve Flare.
 

---

Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
 
Although discussions have been taking place, I would disagree with the statement that a -serious- discussion has been taking place here, for precisely some of the reasons you mention -- off-topic posts and irrelevant parts. I'd also include to this incompatible views about the precedence of sources and unsubstantiated personal opinions.

The best example of a serious discussion/analysis I can think of is Curtis Saxton's Star Wars Technical Commentaries (www.theforce.net/swtc/). A while ago, someone from Flare complained about the seriousness of these pages. And yet, I know that Curtis views this strictly as a hobby, with the significant difference that the hobby does not imply a lack of serious research. He also takes the approach that laws of physics and laws of reality/normal behavior are canon until proven otherwise, which *kind of* makes sense in a show featuring humans and behavior as we know it.

For instance, how often do we research real-world registry systems instead of making up on-the-spot theories? People insist that registry numbers must follow this or that system, whereas one look at the real world reveals a myriad different registry systems and nobody getting hurt because of their inconsistencies. USN ships have hull numbers assigned at construction and kept forever, but other navies' ships have pennant numbers that are regularily changed with missions. In a related oddity, the fighter F-117A might've been labeled been F-19 or so, but it remained F-117A because (according to one story), F-117A was an arbitrary designation during flight tests.

Here, we tend to be the most serious about analyzing screencaps, behind-the-scenes research, and drawing accurate schematics. The other aspects are still kind of loose, and could be improved on by actually researching subjects one talks about. Would it make sense to discuss the B5 station without reading Gerard O'Neill, or some of the published papers on stations of exactly the same design? With a few changes, they could be a technical manual on the thing!

Boris
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Thank goodness. Once these are done we can finally lock this place up.
 

---

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
 
Boris: It seems we disagree about the final product. My idea was to have a concise survey as a guide to the problems for ourselves and for Flare newbies, covering as many aspects and as many different opinions as possible, without the need to follow a thread or to read forth and back for cross-references. Of course, this can't be a complete discussion of the problem and it won't have a conclusion.

I understand your objections. But I doubt we could achieve more "seriousness" here (although I think that Flare is a comparably "serious" place considering that it's only a hobby). Since you have already mentioned Curtis Saxton, I think that something like that should be better done in a less "interactive" environment, not in a message board where people use to (and are supposed to) post spontaneous and often silly ideas, where they frequently deviate from topics, and where we have group dynamics that have nothing to do with the topic under discussion, but influence its course.

I can think of two possible compromises:

1. Open two threads: one for the discussion, and, some time later, one only for the final statements.

2. Allow testimonies and discussion in the same thread. Testimonies may be made at any time. They should be marked as such. They may be edited or replaced.

The first proposal sounds better to me.
 

---

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
This forum doesn't support polls does it? If it did it'd perhaps be the best approach to this project. We'd all be able to place a single vote per topic plus have the option to briefly comment on our choice.

Other possible topics: length of the Defiant, length of the BoP.
 

---

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
There's one aspect of these intensively researched, analysis-oriented sites that I consider a weakness. They are based on chains of deduction, starting from an as such objective analysis of "fact" A and proceeding to further analysis of "facts" B through Z but using conclusion A as the basis.

Flare doesn't do chains. A single analyst is mentally obligated to build a coherent whole, and is hesistant to abandon A and B because of C (especially since he cannot perform experiments or determine the relative reliability of evidence). A bunch of analysts can point out why C would be better than A and B. HOWEVER, they need not vote/fight for making C The Ultimate Truth, since D and E are likely to again shift the picture. But a good documentation of why they felt C was better than A and B will help enormously in treating D and E.

I'm all for SWDAOs, as long as the emphasis is on the "don't" part. A collection of concensus statements is less useful than a collection of caveats we have invented out of seeming dilemmas or constraining "facts".

Perhaps the most useful format of a SWDAO-FAQ thingamajig would be this: Each entry features a single-sentence (neutral or polemic) statement of a common Trek belief, and is followed by Flareite support or exception to that belief. The support and exceptions can take the form of scientific analysis of episode evidence, or of spelling out the practical and dramatic strengths or problems stemming from the belief, or of pointing out the conditions under which a real-world analogy or real-science analysis is applicable and under which it is not.

Example:

Subject line: "SWDAO: TNG warp speeds follow TNG TM formula"

Entry of scientific analysis type: "Although explicit evidence is rare, TNG episodes X and Y show a distance/time relationship that agrees with the given warp factors and the formula to within Z%, which is pretty good considering the distance was probably rounded by A% and the time by B%, and the assumption of steady speed may be false. However, statistically X and Y do not outweigh the large number of episodes that disagree with the TNG TM...."

Entry of dramatic implications type: "The technical consultants have generally been able to maintain the said formula only in instances where travel times and distances have not been crucial to the plot - the significant exception being the entire premise of ST:Voyager. The formula is generally too slow for the exploration of multiple star systems on a weekly basis...."

Entry of border conditions type: "The warp formula can hold true if we assume a tightly packed Federation located in a galaxy somewhat different from the real Milky Way. Alternately, modifying factors have to be introduced to compensate for time- or location-dependent variation, but these shouldn't affect the speeds more than 10-20%, or else the seeking of optimal times and locations would be a central element in starship navigation, and thus also a central plot element...."

Timo Saloniemi
 

---

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
 
I would agree with any of the types of entries, even if they get a bit polemic. As I suggested, it's only a collection of statements.

We may also encounter the following types of entries:

Entry of particular example type: "In the episodes ABC and XYZ, the given warp factors, distances and times don't comply with the TNGTM figures. We may have to accept that the actual speed may vary at while the warp factor is the same."

Entry of general plausibility type: "Warp factors have no basis in real science, and we simply shouldn't care if they are consistent with the real speeds mentioned in the TNGTM, as long as they are half-way consistent with each other on screen."

Entry of total denial type: "Come on. It's only a show. There is no point in talking about figures for something that does not and will probably never exist."
 

---

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
 
But what I actually wanted to say, is that we shouldn't overanalyze things. Just let people post. Then remove only bad language or obvious stupidity (which would also mean, leave errors in arguments or wrong quotes or observations).
 

---

Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
 
Bernd:

I'm all for an attempt at a serious discussion followed by final statements of individuals concerned, after the matter has been discussed appropriately in a thread. Alternatively, perhaps one could treat your survey as a set of well thought-out opening statements based on which a more reasoned discussion could proceed (if anyone is interested). In the end, the number of competing ideas/statements should be reduced to a reasonable number.

Timo:

As far as chains of deduction are concerned, I would point out that the "facts", or what I'd rather call best theories, are more easily arrived at because of a number of things -- one is constraints imposed by the laws of physics, real world practices, careful measurement, and above all, a lack of worry about what the writers might do in the future. The Commentaries do offer competing theories on some subject, but what they want to avoid is the notion that "anything goes" when only a few theories have a genuine support in the canon and real world practices. I sometimes feel people around here worry too much about what the writers might do to contradict us or what Rick Sternbach might do. We should be worried about what the real world does instead, and then the writers might listen in more carefully.

Dax: I would avoid polls, because that's promoting majority rule. At least, no polls until things have been well discussed.

Boris
 

---

Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
 
I, for one, love the whole idea, Bernd. Being relatively new here, I have at times wanted to raise some questions, but at the same time I didn't want to waste people's time with subjects that have been done to death two or three years ago. (Granted, the search function makes this easier, but it still can be an exercise in tedium if you don't phrase your searches in just the right way.)

Whoever moderates this, though, is probably going to have to run it with an iron fist. I've lost count of the number of threads I've given up reading after they devolved into pointless drivel.

Oh, and another suggested topic: the dreaded Enterprise B engine/shuttlebay debate.
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
If only Flare had a search function.
 

---

Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bernd:
Entry of particular example type: "In the episodes ABC and XYZ, the given warp factors, distances and times don't comply with the TNGTM figures. We may have to accept that the actual speed may vary at while the warp factor is the same."

Entry of general plausibility type: "Warp factors have no basis in real science, and we simply shouldn't care if they are consistent with the real speeds mentioned in the TNGTM, as long as they are half-way consistent with each other on screen."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sol System:
If only Flare had a search function.

---

quote:

---

Bernd: Er, remove bad language? Flare doesn't tend to do that as policy.

---

Well, "This is all BS" would be just acceptable, if there is a statement besides that. Maybe our members can restrain themselves if they know that their statements will remain on several websites for a long time.
 

---

Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
 
I fuckin agree with all those other assholes!
 

---

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
As the supposed head honcho hereabouts, I suggest a few preliminary measures to get this thing started in an organized manner. But only after I get enough approving grunts and mumblings here.

1) I'll initiate and dedicate a SINGLE thread to suggestions on topics for the SWDAO-FAQ. Those who already posted here will have time to think again. And folks, let's keep that thread VERY sanitary.

2) Dedicate a second thread to the overall developing of this project. For simplicity, I feel it should be the CURRENT thread, started by Bernd. I'll go and start thread 1) and in the first message inform everybody that the discussion should go here, and not in thread 1) or elsewhere.

3) Decide on a snappy acronym for the project, so that we can use it as a codeword for threads. "Ask Uncle Flare"? Auf, auf, auf... Sounds good. Like a bunch of dogs barking with a hint of irony to their voices.

4) One by one, begin new threads with the snappy codeword on the title to discuss items brought up in thread 1).

Comments on these, before we get the heads rolling.

Timo Saloniemi
 

---

Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
 
Akira62497 - that link doesn't work
 

---

Posted by Akira (Member # 850) on :
 
http://240sxs14.nissanpower.com/startrek/

I just tried it and it worked. Server might have been down at the time. Sorry about that.
 

---

Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
 
OK, link works, but the only file there is a "*.doc" and access is forbidden.
 

---

Posted by Akira (Member # 850) on :
 
pm me your email or something and ill send it to you
 

---