Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 21
07-19-2011, 12:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianDavion View Post
that's an AWEFUL idea.

if cryptic gave us those three canidates only I would invent a 4th canidate and openly campaign for everyone to vote by making a post saying they supported the 4th canidate.
who the $%^% wants to see the federation pretty much kneel down and kiss some lesser powers feet?

besides the Federation hardly needs to appease the true way. the true way after the "Cardassian arc" is pretty hurting.
Politics and war are the business of choosing which bad decision you want to make.

I'm not really getting that feeling from either the politics or the wars in the game but a deal with the devil would liven things up.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 22
07-19-2011, 12:35 AM
More specifically, I think every time a Federation president appeared, they did things that were at cross purposes with Starfleet and, generally, every military person or combatant in the show, the one exception being President Archer.

Hiram Roth convicted Kirk of crimes, under pressure from the Klingons. (But Starfleet gave him command of the 1701-A and demoted him to Captain as a backhanded thanks for saving earth.)

Ra-ghoratreii opened negotiations with the Klingons after Praxis and ordered Kirk to host the initial peace talks. He subsequently sent Kirk and McCoy to stand trial for Gorkon's assassination.

Jaresh-Inyo rejected heightened security to combat changeling infiltration. He subsequently invoked martial law and gave the rogue Admiral Leyton broad powers.

Whoever it is should probably wind up making decisions that put them in conflict with players or many Starfleet officers in general would see as wise, based on the IP. An appearance by the Federation President is almost always part of a story that tests the needs and judgments of Starfleet against civilian political interests.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 23
07-19-2011, 12:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The.Grand.Nagus View Post
I would prefer the Devs spend their time and resources on fixing the bugs introduced by S4 and working on new mission content.
While the sentiment is noble, and indeed quite right, it would be negligent of the devs to totally ignore amusing little fluff. Something like what the OP suggests now and again isn't a bad thing at all. It only becomes bad when it noticeably interferes with things like bug fixes and tweaks.

I'm just sayin'. In general and whatnot.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 24
07-19-2011, 01:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviathan99
More specifically, I think every time a Federation president appeared, they did things that were at cross purposes with Starfleet and, generally, every military person or combatant in the show, the one exception being President Archer.

Hiram Roth convicted Kirk of crimes, under pressure from the Klingons. (But Starfleet gave him command of the 1701-A and demoted him to Captain as a backhanded thanks for saving earth.)

Ra-ghoratreii opened negotiations with the Klingons after Praxis and ordered Kirk to host the initial peace talks. He subsequently sent Kirk and McCoy to stand trial for Gorkon's assassination.

Jaresh-Inyo rejected heightened security to combat changeling infiltration. He subsequently invoked martial law and gave the rogue Admiral Leyton broad powers.

Whoever it is should probably wind up making decisions that put them in conflict with players or many Starfleet officers in general would see as wise, based on the IP. An appearance by the Federation President is almost always part of a story that tests the needs and judgments of Starfleet against civilian political interests.

ohh really lemme demolish these "cross purposes" examples.

First of all, the inclusion of the POTUFP isn't common in the series obviously..

however your apparent idea that the federation President spends all his time going the exact oppisite way of Starfleet is rediculas, indeed, every example you cite is an example of when STARFLEET has clearly crossed the line.

Hiram Roth in Trek IV put Kirk on trial,but it wasn't due to pressure from the Klingons, it was because Kirk broke a ton of rules, up to and includeing theft and destruction of Federation property. This is a man who STOLE a Starship and let it be destroyed. and all he acomplished by doing this was the apparent ressurection of Spock, sure Spock's a hero and all but in an orginization such as Starfleet Kirk's behavior was simply put, inexcuseable. The Klingon Ambassador coulda been priaseing him and the result would have been the same, many militaries would take a man to a fireing squad for doing what Kirk did.

in Trek 6 making peace was hardly at cross intrests with Starfleet, heck did you miss the part where Spock was the one who negotiated the inital arrangements? as for sending Kirk and Mccoy to stand trial, consider that those two where in Klingon hands already, and the evidance against Kirk was pretty damning, had I been on a jury dureing Kirk's trial I proably woulda convicted.


as for Jaresh-Inyo he pretty much did, what his security advisors advised him to do once he was convinced of the threat.

I'd say this is pretty differnt from taking up a blatent policy of appeasement,
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 25
07-19-2011, 02:10 AM
If it could coincide with new content, I'd be okay with it.

However, I think the devs (namely Kestrel) might have an idea of how the story's going to play out.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 26
07-19-2011, 02:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eurrsk View Post
Hopefully this new UFP president will help us create more allies than start more wars. This current one really hasn't done much. Heck, we don't even know what he looks like other than he's a saurian. :p
I think it was a printing mistake in the office.... he's most likely sitting in his office eating cheese and sipping on whine.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 27
07-19-2011, 05:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianDavion View Post
ohh really lemme demolish these "cross purposes" examples.

First of all, the inclusion of the POTUFP isn't common in the series obviously..

however your apparent idea that the federation President spends all his time going the exact oppisite way of Starfleet is rediculas, indeed, every example you cite is an example of when STARFLEET has clearly crossed the line.

Hiram Roth in Trek IV put Kirk on trial,but it wasn't due to pressure from the Klingons, it was because Kirk broke a ton of rules, up to and includeing theft and destruction of Federation property. This is a man who STOLE a Starship and let it be destroyed. and all he acomplished by doing this was the apparent ressurection of Spock, sure Spock's a hero and all but in an orginization such as Starfleet Kirk's behavior was simply put, inexcuseable. The Klingon Ambassador coulda been priaseing him and the result would have been the same, many militaries would take a man to a fireing squad for doing what Kirk did.

in Trek 6 making peace was hardly at cross intrests with Starfleet, heck did you miss the part where Spock was the one who negotiated the inital arrangements? as for sending Kirk and Mccoy to stand trial, consider that those two where in Klingon hands already, and the evidance against Kirk was pretty damning, had I been on a jury dureing Kirk's trial I proably woulda convicted.


as for Jaresh-Inyo he pretty much did, what his security advisors advised him to do once he was convinced of the threat.

I'd say this is pretty differnt from taking up a blatent policy of appeasement,
Not opposite. Cross. The UFP President and civilian authorities in general in Trek episodes, may have the same ideals as Starfleet or the ideal Starfleet officer. But they always, always, always have personality conflicts or point-of-view disputes.

Having a council member or a Federation official or the President of the UFP interact with you is a source of tension, conflict. That doesn't make them wrong or the enemy. That doesn't mean YOU should disagree with them, necessarily. But they make your life difficult. You make their life difficult. Your methods simply won't line up perfectly and there will be some indication of officers who don't see eye-to-eye with a civilian authority. Sometimes it's rogue officers or officers engaged in criminal activity. Sometimes it's Chekov grumbling or Picard lecturing an official privately in his ready room.

You are in conflict with everyone in the galaxy, ideally, including your own officers, if the story is fully developed... But there is a rift with any politician. You don't have to be on opposite sides or even terribly different sides for conflict. You can be in conflict with someone who agrees with you.

The point is, if you're dealing with someone like the UFP President, you may agree with and respect him. He may be wrong. He may be right. But the fact that you're interacting with him means things are desparate. Dire. And he or she will give you a headache, even if he or she is right and you agree with them.

Without that TENSION, might as well be an appearance by random admiral #242.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 28
07-19-2011, 05:29 AM
It doesn't HAVE to come in the form of appeasement. But I think it's more interesting if the leader does something that has us storm into his office and tell him or her they're making a mistake. In MMO terms, I think ********'s story got more interesting when players were thrust into a position contrary to the racial leaders instead of having a big love fest of pride and support for them. NPCs and leaders don't have to be people you happily support.

I just think one compelling and fairly logical stance for a politician in STO is:

"We can't be fighting to put out brushfires everywhere. We need peace on at least one front, even if that comes at a price. Heaven help me if I'm wrong. I don't like it. It's a costly peace. But compromises have to be made somewhere."

DS9 gave us a war with a handful of closely allied enemies and most of this half of the galaxy on Starfleet's side and it required tremendous sacrifices and consequences. I feel like we need to feel that. We should be getting casualty lists in we post for our crews. We should feel stretched thin. We can't have instability on all sides without being crushed and we or our leaders should be forced to make weak, morally questionable, politically questionable, or dangerous decisions.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 29
07-19-2011, 05:32 AM
nah i dont want some sad ***. no lifer getting all ego tripped cause hes the federation president =p
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 30
07-19-2011, 05:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canmore
nah i dont want some sad ***. no lifer getting all ego tripped cause hes the federation president =p
I think we're talking about electing an NPC, not a player. Among other things, you can't be active duty in Starfleet and be the president.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:33 AM.