One of the key factors that distinguishes this group from the earlier Technical Fandom, as well as a number of other analytical groups, is the lack of common standards. The earlier fandom based its interpretations on the show just like we do, this being the first and foremost standard. However, what they did afterwards was, they formed and adopted further standards which were apparently based on majority interpretations of the show. The Star Fleet Technical Manual was one of these standards, as well as a bunch of other books listed in James Dixon's files.

Another group that did something similar were the Baker Street Irregulars (what does this have to do with Trek?). I encourage everyone interested in Sherlock Holmes to read some of the analyses of the 60 stories. There are numerous disagreements, but there are also a number of standards. The date which was eventually established for Holmes' birth is January 6, 1854, even if disputes abound between 1853 and 1857.

With this in mind, I was wondering how different the discussion on these forums would be if, following discussion, all of its members were to agree on say, a common size for the Defiant by a 2/3rds majority vote. It would eliminate the nagging issues permanently, and allow us to get into more detail on some subjects, which would otherwise be impossible to examine because of these issues.

Of course, we would still have disagreements, as well as periodical reviews of the Standard in order to allow for the possibility of new data shifting the majority opinion. However, by the self-imposed rules of this -separate forum- (I guess people wouldn't want to change the entire framework here), the common interpretation written down in some kind of a Fandom Tech Manual would override any individual interpretations of the canon. Outside the designated forum, however, the common interpretation is just as valid as any other, so you can't make the argument "everybody agrees, therefore it's true", like some of the Tech Fandom folks have done in the past.

It's merely an intellectual exercise for those who are interested. I really hope that a number people will be interested, since these common statutes could then be used to write up Utopia Planitia-type fictional accounts that have a greater measure of validity and majority agreement, as opposed to being opinions of merely a couple of individuals. I actually find this kind of creativity interesting, but there has to be a measure of agreement behind the fictional details. The system proposed here might offer some of that.

What do you think?

Boris

------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide

Though it is a little ambitious and will definately not be accepted in many cases.

------------------
Photon torpedoes, once a finite supply, haven't been a problem since all those Wal-Marts opened up in the Delta Quadrant. -Jim Wright

No.

We have identified certain areas where conflict has arisen. These are covered in the SWDAO pages that Frank runs, as well as his Defiant length page and some others.

For the rest, yes, we conjecture. But we all have our different opinions. Every time a certain topic comes up, we all trot them out again - and that's where the fun of it is. We're not interested in setting an arbitrary standard and closing the subject forever!

Then there's the logistics of it. You're gonna have certain subjects where people don't have an opinion. What then - those who do campaign for their votes? Or do they abstain, thereby removing the possibility of having a quorum, and thereby removing the validity of the result and its credibility to ourselves and others.

Here's a personal example. I reckon the Excelsior really is ~550m long based on its structure. But I can see that the majority of you will always stick with the 467m figure no matter how much I argue about it. Does that mean I'm gonna change my mind? No way!

We can't expect anyone to change their faith.

I thought of it more as a separate experiment on a separate forum, which might be useful in certain areas such as writing of fan-produced manuals. For example, the fictional accounts of UP3, if it is still under development. Open input by a greater number of people might give it greater credibility in some of the details, eg. why do you use this name, or date, or theory of origins? Differences of opinion would abound, but since the intention that of establishing a framework of some kind (as in writing a manual), they might be handled more formally. What comes out might be FASA-like, but at least more people would have participated in it.

That with voting is an interesting problem. The reason people usually abstain from discussion is a lack of interest. I, for example, abstain from any discussions on ship classifications, and if people who thought about it were to decide on which class is which, I probably wouldn't care. It might be assumed that those people who are involved with the subject share the greatest expertese at that particular time. I could decide, in the future, to become involved with ship classifications, and then challenge the consensus at any time. It would be discussed again, and changes adopted.

Boris

------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide

As long as the majority agrees that:

1. The agreed-upon consensus is open to civil discussion, and may be modified if the consensus shifts, and

2. Those who disagree with the consensus do not take it as a personal affront that their opinion was not the one that carried the day (In other words, if you are in the minority, there is probably a very good reason others disagree. Get over it!)

I think having a Federation council for standards is a good idea.

--Baloo

------------------
If you speak and no-one listens, it still counts as long as [i]YOU[/] have learned something.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

1. Strictly canon and speculation how the canon can be interpreted and how different arguments can be weighed. In other words, our lists of canon ships, technology, galaxy maps, and the according SWDAO, either posted here in the forum or on Frank's SWDAO page. It is obvious that this perception of canon and consequences will never yield a flawless, undisputed and complete view of the ST universe. It can only be as good as what TPTB show us. At least a little bit of conjecture is necessary to supplement the strictly canon info, and the agreement on a common standard is already some kind of conjecture. After all, if we should agree on a Defiant length of ???m, we would already know more about it than TPTB!

This takes us to

2. Conjecture, more or less well-considered theories filling the gaps in canon info, while not contradicting it (everything else is rubbish in my opinion). This will be done by UP III, for instance. I also invite everyone to join the ASDB and a possible Starfleet Museum project.

I wonder if it is possible to keep the two issues separate, once we agree on interpretations which are a bit like the annotations in italics in the encyclopedia.

I think that we have already had a couple of fruitful discussions without explicitly agreeing on a common standard. This could be accomplished with the existing forum structure, maybe marked with a supplement in the title as we have used it for SWDAO.

I would support an additional forum, though. It would give this group more coherence than an occasional "I have an idea", and a few months later it is all forgotten, and the discussion starts again. This is often boring, if not annoying. I only wonder if it is possible to include a "vote" function.

One of the (hopefully) upcoming projects will probably be much like the way Boris suggested: We (this means Chris with a few contributions from me, supporting us is strongly encouraged ) are compiling a precise map of explored space, based on real astronomical data and canon info. I think this is the most important required standard, besides ship specs.

All: I'd certainly back this idea as a separate entity from this forum. It would be fun to come up with some "real" standards that the majority of forumites agree on. The talent is here. We could produce our own version of the Encyclopedia that fixes Okuda's This forum should stay as is, though.

However, as people have pointed out, writing a Large Tech Handbook has historically proven a bit ambitious. It might never be completed if we were to settle on a fixed plan of a book. If we were to make it a collection of completely separate essays (i.e. Resolutions), written by people interested in the particular subjects, we could accomplish a lot more. Every essay would be submitted to the group for discussion, changes introduced, presented again, and finally voted upon. Following 'ratification', the essay would become a standard which could then be added to a website.

Another thought: make this a SolarFlare website, might become quite popular in a while. It would also serve to present our common knowledge to the public, which at the moment is primarily influenced by the official tech manuals. I don't know how this would tie-in with UP3 though...what's the current status on the project?

The important thing is that these essays need not follow a fixed plan of action, they can be introduced whenever people feel like it. In time, the collection might become quite large.

Boris

------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide