SFDebris : The Best of Both Worlds

[Sonic Glitch]

Yeah, good point. I like keeping an ensemble cast.

Anyone else notice that modifying the deflector dish like this was such a huge deal? Evacuate part of the saucer section and the forward half of the engineering hull IIRC.

No doubt a fair bit of radiation was engendered from firing the deflector-weapon.

It could have also been from the risk of the thing detonating and taking out a chunk of the ship Warp Core exploding as per usual if it did indeed go screwy.

I think that's what you really meant...

[Sionnach Glic]

Yeah, there's always that.

[Tiberius]

The Cubes in vendetta never combined. And that's a crappy idea anyway.

And the problem with the deflector dish weapon was that they'd have to fire it from so close to the Cube that the exploding Cube would blow up the enterprise too. That's why they increased the range - to get out of the Cube's blast radius.

[Praeothmin]

About the promotion discussion, and how it's hard to believe that people never got other jobs or never really moved from assignement to assignment.
It seems, in Starfleet, that you have a certain choice on whether or not you accept a promotion (don't know if it's the same thing in RL military or navy, but i'd guess so).
We've seen them receive rank promotions, but perhaps they were really confortable were they were:
LaForge as Chief Engineer, Worf as Chief Security and Tactical officer, etc, etc...
I know a lot of people (myself included) for whom the description of a great job is:
-Doing something you love:
-Working in an environement that makes you happy;
-Working with people you like;
-Having a certain "confort" in that the job is challenging, but you know what you're doing, and your stress level is lower then most because you're within your "confort zone".

I have been working at the same job for 4 years now, and while it has evolved (added responsabilities, a greater sense of accomplishment, added perks), my main responsibility is still the same it was 4 years ago, and I still love doing it.
I've passed over possible promotions in my current company because I felt (and still do) I had it all where I am today:
-Good salary;
-Good boss who knows what i'm worth;-
-Peer recognition;
-Great colleagues whom I like working with and see in social situations as well;

That's why to me, it isn't inplausible that for 7 years people received small "promotions" (rank) while still occupying the same post...

[Foxfyre]

Not sure how it would be in starfleet but in the US Navy you cna't sit at the same rank indefiently. You either move up or get out due to high year tenure, additionally you can't stay at the same command year after year, sooner or latter you either move on or leave the service. This applies to command level officeres as well as junior officers and enlisted. So having the same crew year after year on the enterprise or any other ship is very odd.....not that I relaly care however made for great TV (usually)

[Graham Kennedy]

Yeah, the US Navy has an "up or out" policy; if you fail to advance within a certain number of years you're fired. But it's been argued that this isn't necessarily a good system; "The Peter Principle" suggests that in a hierarchy like that people are promoted for doing their job competently; as they rise, they eventually hit a level where the job is too big or hard for them, and can rise no further so they remain there. The upshot of the Peter Principle is that the system tends to put everyone into a job that they can't do well.

Starfleet clearly doesn't operate anything like the "up or out" system. So long as a person is competent and content in their job, the fleet seems perfectly happy to leave them there forever; Picard commanded the Stargazer for what, twenty two years?

I have to wonder at the climate that creates, though. The common wisdom seems to be that the captain's chair is THE place to be in Starfleet, and with captains being left in place for decades, just how many slots are there for the ambitious officers? I'm reminded of Shelby, desperate for promotion and blocked because Riker wanted to sit in the Exec chair on the Enterprise for fifteen years. And Riker in turn, who was always willing to command the Enterprise but never could because Picard wouldn't accept promotion.

[Atekimogus]

Well I imagine for every command officer who wants to pilot his own ship there are ten other starfleet officers who do not really want anything to do with commanding a ship but are happy as mission specialists. I am thinking along the line of all the scientist, doctors etc which are supposed to be on a starship. They might very well be highly qualified, with multiple degrees in their respective field but still relativly low in rank structure as not to interfere with the opteration of the ship.

On that thought they are still way to high imho, Chief O'Brien beeing bossed around by a young medical doctor and a counselor both of which with no clue as to what they are doing comes to mind.

Somehow strange that they have a dedicated command department yet somehow all mission specialists, science and med officers etc. still operate within the same chain of command. Wouldn't it make more sense to operate them seperatly?

[Mikey]

I agree taht there seems to be no official impetus for people to advance if they seem content in their current position; however, it has been strongly implied at times that some brass had expressed concern of Riker's continuing refusal to accept a command of his own and stay in place as the E-D's first officer. There must be some other push for people to be promoted to command out of their specialization, because if they keep building new ships they will need new captains, new XO's, new department heads, etc., etc. Certainly Sulu seemed happy about his command; but Scotty was given a captaincy and seemed to be regretful of having left engineering, or at best ambivalent about it.

[Graham Kennedy]

It has been said that Riker was hurting his career by turning down commands - Admiral Hanson said so flat out. But in the end, Riker's response to that was basically "It's nobody's business but mine, and I'm staying here."

My impression is that the only real response from the brass to continued refusal of promotion is that they will stop offering you promotions. Which is fair enough, but it's only giving the guy exactly what he wants anyway.

[Deepcrush]

I'm not sure how navies function with the "Up or out" ideals. In the Corps, there's nothing wrong with staying in a rank/position. As long as you perform your duties to a level that serves your unit best. Though ground combat needs are rather different then naval combat needs.

[Atekimogus]

Though ground combat needs are rather different then naval combat needs.

But what could the reasons be to force people into positions they are not comfortable in?

As to Ryker, I do not find it unreasonable for him to stay on the E-D. I mean there are really only a handfull of Galaxy Class ships out there and altough some might prefer beeing captain on a smaller ship I guess it still would feel like a step down in responsibility.

He is a gambler after all and he probably gambled on Picard leaving or buying it at some time at which point he would be perfectly situated to step in, like it indeed happened in some occasions. (Unluckily for Ryker, Picard always survives/returns but really, what were the chances:).

[Graham Kennedy]

I never really got the point of up or out as a policy. I suppose it does motivate people to be constantly trying to improve, make sure that your navy mostly comprises ambitious go-getter types... but like you say, if a guy is perfectly happy loading ammo and he's good at it, why shouldn't he spend twenty years doing that if he's okay with it?

[Tsukiyumi]

Especially with (our military at least) all the griping about manpower shortages.

[Sionnach Glic]

Aye, it seems odd that they don't just let people stay were they're happy. Do many militaries do this, or is it mostly an American phenomenon?

It would also seem to imply that some people are just allowed rise through the ranks until they finally hit a level where they've no real grasp on what they're doing, and are then kicked out. Which seems a rather odd way of doing things.

[BigJKU316]

I never really got the point of up or out as a policy. I suppose it does motivate people to be constantly trying to improve, make sure that your navy mostly comprises ambitious go-getter types... but like you say, if a guy is perfectly happy loading ammo and he's good at it, why shouldn't he spend twenty years doing that if he's okay with it?

It serves two important functions.

1. It fights institutional inertia. If you have the same people in the same roles forever then you can get hidebound to their ideas. Anyone work with old people? I know I do and have with dealt with it in the military in the past before taking my current job. Simply put, you need young officers to look at problems in different ways and most importantly to understand what young enlisted folks (the majority of your personel) are capable of.

If you retain the same officers for a long time in the same positions then you run the risk of your service failing to evolve.

Why was British Naval Aviation not nearly on the level of Japanese or American during WWII? Well a lot of reasons but a big part was that those higher up in the chain never really bought into it. In the American system they did two important things. First they forced people who wanted to command a carrier to be aviation certified. Second they kept forcing these people up the chain and forcing people at the top out. So eventually there was enough of a voice to really get some productive things done in that area.

This only happened because they forced people out of their comfort zones and then forced people above them out over time, so that new ideas could make their way up the chain.

2. It allows you to evaluate people for high levels of command where you actually need officers. If there are 10,000 Ensign spots then there are 5,000 LT spots and 2,500 commander spots and so on. While you might drum out a few good officers who have not moved up it is death to military innovation to lose your best younger officers, but the best are not going to sit there and wait for natural attrition to weed out those above them.

If you do it right the best half of your LT's get promoted, the worst half get run off and the best half of your ensigns move up and become LT's. If you simply let people sit around at one rank forever then you block that spot for someone who might have ended up going far further.

In short, this is not about finding the best person to be a LT and oversee a few enlisted folk doing a task they likely know better than him. It is about making sure we find the best Admirals, Generals, Colonels, Capitans and Majors humanly possible. Frankly until you are about a Captain in a ground force unit the enlisted folk (especially your tenured Srgts) likely know the job far better than you do anyway and are far more important to the health of the small units than their wet-nosed officers fresh out of school.

The most important thing a new officer can learn is to work with and listen to the adivce of experienced Non-comms. It does me no good as an institution to have some guy sit as a Lt. for a dozen years doing a job that their assigned senior non-com could do just as well. I need that spot to evaluate my next up and coming officer.