posted
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
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.
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...."
posted
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."
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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).
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
posted
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.
-------------------- The difference between genius and idiocy? Genius has its limits.
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
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."
Just a nit, sorry about doing it in this thread though, but I just couldn't resist----
The TNG TM does state that the figures given in it are not set in stone, they are approximations of the average based on certain variables. The variables, as the name implies, vary. Sometimes to a large degree.
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
posted
Bernd: Er, remove bad language? Flare doesn't tend to do that as policy.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think that was his sarcastic point.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
"Oh, ho, ho, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a, a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83, when I was the only practitioner of it. And I stopped because I was getting tired of being stared at."
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't believe I've ever skiied topless. But I'm sure we do that here.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
