|
Post by Geralyn on Jun 28, 2015 3:29:51 GMT
On the matter of realistic age minimums for Starfleet/Romulan Republic characters
This is probably one of the most often brought up issues, and one that has been eagerly awaited by many. The question of whether or not we should mandate realistic age minimums for characters in Starfleet or the Republic. The reasoning being, there is an absolute minimum realistic amount of time it takes for someone to work their way up the promotional ladder, and an absolute minimum age when someone would be permitted to enlist/enroll in Academy. And without establishing these guidelines, we have seen characters of ages that are wildly unbelievable for their rank and station, both inside the fleet and out. This topic has been brought up after dozens (no exaggeration, literally dozens) of members have asked/begged/insisted we address it. So here we propose the following to the fleet, and ask for your input: Note: The discussion is whether to implement the proposed age minimums. We will not be considering any younger ages, because it would specifically conflict with canon. We will not be considering any older ages, because we do not want to place too strict of a restriction on fleet members, and want to allow the option of making a character that can progress faster than average through hard work and dedication without exceeding believable boundaries.An absolute minimum age for enrollment in Academy or enlistment. This would be either at the age of adulthood for the species or within a couple of years of that age. (Wesley Crusher would have been allowed to apply for entrance to the Academy at sixteen, for example, if he had made it to the entrance exam.) An absolute minimum of four (4) years in Academy, no exceptions for 'being very smart' or 'having exceptional aptitude'. Data..DATA...who could have just downloaded all the coursework in a single day... had to do 4 years. This is because a service academy is a lot more than just teaching the technical things, like how to be an engineer, or how to do science, etc.. Cadets have to learn how to apply what they know to dealing with others, all while being watched and evaluated by staff to see if they're going to cut it. There's seeing how well the cadet handles stress, decision making, and leadership under multiple scenarios and varying circumstances that require the full four years. After four years, the cadet is an ENSIGN, and no higher. The only times people came out of Academy at a higher rank were cases where the cadet stayed longer, usually 2-4 years, for further training in the science or medical fields, graduating from Academy at Lt. Junior Grade. (As a note, Julian Bashir graduated Starfleet Medical Academy in 2368, at the age of 27, and at the rank of Lt. Junior Grade. Beverly Crusher's service record showed her as attending Starfleet Academy from 2342 until her graduation in 2350 at the age of 26.) As was mentioned in a previous post, the typical Ensign remains an Ensign for three years. (TNG: "Datalore") An officer reaches the rank of Commander after 10-15 years of service in Starfleet. It should be noted that Riker implied at one point the rank of captain is usually not seen till an officer reached his late 30's/ early 40's when he said he had "set lofty goals for himself, and hoped to reach captain before thirty-five years of age. (TNG: "Chain of Command, Part I", "Second Chances")" And the youngest Rear Admiral in all of real-world history was 44 (and a mere five months away from 45) when he was promoted to that rank. He later became the youngest Vice Admiral at 47 (one month away from 48). Based on this, and allowing for some wiggle room for characters that advance faster than others, we come up with the following: Rank Age in Earth Years*Cadet |
| 16 (average/normal is 18)
| Enlisted (non-com)/Uhlan |
| 18 | Ensign |
| 20 (average/normal is 22)
| Lt Jr. Grade/Sublieutenant |
| 22 (average/normal is 25)
| Lieutenant |
| 24 (average/normal is 26-28)
| Lt. Commander/Centurion |
| 26 (average/normal is 27-30)
| Commander |
| 28 (average/normal is 32-37) | Captain |
| 30 (average/normal is 35+)
| R. Admiral/Subadmiral |
| 40 (average/normal is 45+)
|
*For humans and most similar species in the Federation, who all share an average 120-130 year lifespan. Must be this age or within 2 or 3 months of this age. (Such as graduating in June, and turning the appropriate age by July or August). Romulans/Remans are considered adult at age 30, instead of 18, so for those species add 12 to all numbers. Vulcans are considered Adult at age 40, so add 24 to these numbers (not 22, because cutting one's education short, impatience, or ambition would be illogical...) Cardassians are considered adult in their mid-20's. Add 8 for all numbers. Caitan lifespans are not specified by canon, but a joint attempt by several roleplayers to fill this shortcoming put forward an age of adulthood at 10. This would result in subtracting 6 from the numbers above. And yes, different worlds have different year lengths based on planetary orbits. It is beyond our ability or reasonable effort to try to calculate all of these variables. We will base it on Earth years for a common reference. The following reasons have been offered for characters younger than the proposed age limits, to which we also provide responses: "Exemplary performance in Academy/one's duty as an officer, leading to a fast track..." As mentioned before, Data didn't 'fast track' through academy, and if anyone could claim exemplary academic performance, it would be him. And as mentioned in a previous post, exemplary performance does not translate into promotions. (That's what commendations, medals, and citations are for.) Being good at your current job does not necessarily give you the qualifications to do another. You can be the best carpenter in the universe, and those skills won't get you a job as a computer programmer. "I want to play a character who's young and daring and full of youthful vibrance." In Star Trek, humans live between 120 and 130 years, vs today's 80-90, with the oldest living human mentioned in canon being 137. (TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint") . Fifty years longer on average, and not all of which is tacked onto the end of the lifespan, but rather evenly spread over all of it. If your character is between 35 and 40 years old, physically they would be as youthful and energetic as a 20-25 year old. (Picard was 59 when TNG started, and he sure didn't look like today's 59.) And with the extension of lifespans, there's no social or cultural imperative to "hurry up and do something while I still can". People have plenty of time, and therefore plenty of time to do it right. "People get promoted faster in wartime." The ages established by canon in TNG were thoroughly established at the beginning of the series, at a time when the Federation just ended their war with the Cardassians. So there is no canon support for this statement. And the ages have been effectively valid even throughout the 20th century, at a time when computer records are nowhere near as comprehensive as they are shown to be in Star Trek. Remember, the youngest Rear Admiral in history was 44...even after World War I and II and all of the casualties suffered. "The war is creating a need/demand for more members in Starfleet due to casualties." When there's a war, the need/demand for more people is almost exclusively in the enlisted ranks. Since, after all, it's mostly the enlisted ranks that wind up directly confronting the enemy on the battlefield. Putting overly young/inexperienced/improperly trained people in officer's uniforms would serve no purpose at all. Especially since the Federation, and with it Starfleet, has been growing in the years since TNG. In the time of Kirk, in the 23rd century, it consisted of a thousand worlds (TOS: "Metamorphosis"), According to Star Trek: Star Charts, there are 183 member homeworlds and 7,128 colonies/affiilate worlds by 2378, and trillions of sentient beings (supported further by Bashir's fortunately inaccurate estimation of a possible 900 billion casualties by the end of the Dominion War in DS9: "Statistical Probabilities"). Starfleet has that, and now more, to draw from. And if they truly needed an influx of officers, there are three more ethical means of increasing numbers than throwing a 17-year-old in the Captain's chair: - Lower the standards. Starfleet Academy standards for admission are brutally strict and demanding. It's specifically mentioned that a majority of 1st year cadets wash out. Lowering the standards just a little (and I mean just a very little) could boost the numbers by 50% or more.
- Active recruiting drive. Sending people to all the worlds with honest reports of the situation would inspire a great many to volunteer, given the philosophies and mindsets of the Federation. If they only convinced a thousand people from each world to join, that's a million new people. And as we saw in America's history, there were far more than a thousand people who voluntarily enlisted just to protect one country
- Draft. The least desirable option, but still more ethical than putting minors in harms way. With over a thousand worlds , even the lightest draft quota spread across all the worlds would bring in millions of fully adult people to serve in Starfleet.
So let's hear your thoughts on this one. Post in the comments below to weigh in on the topic. Keep it to reasoned, rational comments, and be mindful that the discussion will be moderated. No personal attacks or calling anyone out by name for having "unrealistically young characters", just stick to the topic. We look forward to hearing your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by greeneagle346 on Jun 28, 2015 3:39:11 GMT
These numbers seems very reasonable, and honestly allow a "fast track" if someone -really- desperately wants it. As an absolute minimum, I approve, and I would suggest a few extra years here or there for what might be termed "recommended".
Think of it like STO: It has minimum system requirements, and recommended system req's. Here it is just for Ages. The bare minimum, and what's recommended is above the min.
In conclusion, Yes. Yes. Yes. And I've already adapted to these standards because they make for a more in universe feel.
That's my 2 EC anyway.
|
|
|
Post by starjumpersix on Jun 28, 2015 3:40:22 GMT
I have no issue with anything here.
|
|
ryftlord
Member
"The first lesson you learn is loyalty. The second is where it shouldn't be placed."
Posts: 86
|
Post by ryftlord on Jun 28, 2015 3:43:11 GMT
Eagerly awaited is a bit of an understatement.
I think this is a good middle ground for people on both sides of the issue. The biggest issue for myself being the "Promotions to fill ranks". The position means little if said person isn't qualified to fill it.
Consider this John Hancocked.
|
|
|
Post by Erika on Jun 28, 2015 4:05:34 GMT
I have several points. I don't really disagree with anything here, and reduced Erika in rank several weeks ago to match her age, But I had one or two things to point out. 1. As a counterpoint to the youngest admiral story, I will offer the youngest general ever, Brigadier General Galusha Pennypacker, age 20 when promoted to brigadier general, as a result of constant casualties during the Civil War. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galusha_Pennypacker2 I also think I read somewhere (Perhaps one of the Rihannsu novels, or maybe elsewhere) that Romulans were considered adults at 25, not thirty. I'd always operated under that assumption. In addition, your numbers for Vulcans don't take into account the most famous Vulcan (OOCly). Spock, who enlisted in Starfleet at 20, and was a Lieutenant Commander at the age of 35. en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Spock
|
|
|
Post by Geralyn on Jun 28, 2015 4:14:00 GMT
I have several points. I don't really disagree with anything here, and reduced Erika in rank several weeks ago to match her age, But I had one or two things to point out. 1. As a counterpoint to the youngest admiral story, I will offer the youngest general ever, Brigadier General Galusha Pennypacker, age 20 when promoted to brigadier general, as a result of constant casualties during the Civil War. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galusha_Pennypacker2 I also think I read somewhere (Perhaps one of the Rihannsu novels, or maybe elsewhere) that Romulans were considered adults at 25, not thirty. I'd always operated under that assumption. In addition, your numbers for Vulcans don't take into account the most famous Vulcan (OOCly). Spock, who enlisted in Starfleet at 20, and was a Lieutenant Commander at the age of 35. en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/SpockAddressing both points: Pennypacker was a general during the Civil War, during a time where laws concerning such things were not fully established and during a time and in a place where shortages of personnel would, in fact, result in desperation and enlistment of younger people. Such practices were not in place in the 20th century and later Spock is HALF Vulcan, not full vulcan, and therefore did not age the same as a full-blooded Vulcan. As per Roddenberry, Spock was also made possible by some 'tweaking' of the genes of both parents' biological contributions in order to make him possible in the first place, so being 18 when he joined Academy isn't a contradiction of the stated age of Vulcan majority at 40.
|
|
Claudius
Member
"Take it easy."
Posts: 38
|
Post by Claudius on Jun 28, 2015 4:14:51 GMT
All my yes! Minimum ages are needed. We don't wanna see a fleet full of ICly 14 year old captains or admirals. Very realistic numbers proposed. All looks good.
|
|
|
Post by firebringeraxel on Jun 28, 2015 5:09:31 GMT
/signed
I'm all for these age minimums. I think Eagle said it best as well, these are minimums. The average Starfleet officer should be anywhere from 5-8 years older than these for the higher ranks such as Captain and Admiral. This is specifically to address absolute minimal ages though and I think these are both reasonable and realistic.
As a note I know some will notice that the KDF has been left out of this discussion. That is because it was determined that with exception to the age of adulthood and entering service Klingon ascension through the ranks varies heavily from case to case depending on service and skill level.
For anyone wishing to have a point of reference Klingons can begin the Rites of Ascension at age 13 and can be finished anywhere from 14-18 (Worf completed his at age 15 but did not enroll in Starfleet Academy until 17). Upon completion a Klingon is considered an adult. So a Klingon in Starfleet could enroll in Academy anytime after the age of 14, though the average would be close to 16 due to cultural pressures to remain in the Empire and difficulties adjusting to Federation culture. Klingons raised outside of the influence of The Empire would likely use the same ages as Humans as they lack the "pressure to grow up" that the Klingon Empire places on its teens.
|
|
kigo
Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by kigo on Jun 28, 2015 11:24:04 GMT
Personally, I can't find any fault in Ger's post and completely agree with this. Being married to an officer who's gone through a service academy, and being active duty myself, I can 100% guarantee that there is NO 'fast tracking' what so ever. Even if you're top of the class through all four years, it's just that...you're top of the class through ALL four years. And to add a bit on what Ger mentioned about a service academy being more than just teaching the technical aspect, you can draw comparisons from modern service academies. It's about developing the future leaders morally, ethically, etc,..seeing if the cadets have the honor, integrity, and mutual respect that's expected and demanded of them. And with that, I've said my piece.
|
|
|
Post by Erika on Jun 28, 2015 12:25:50 GMT
Spock is HALF Vulcan, not full vulcan, and therefore did not age the same as a full-blooded Vulcan. As per Roddenberry, Spock was also made possible by some 'tweaking' of the genes of both parents' biological contributions in order to make him possible in the first place, so being 18 when he joined Academy isn't a contradiction of the stated age of Vulcan majority at 40. It seemed to me that Spock was treated as a full Vulcan in pretty much every way that mattered. He had the physical body of a Vulcan, the mental abilities of a Vulcan, the lifespan of a Vulcan. The only way he seem's to have differed at all from other Vulcans was that he had trouble keeping his emotions under control at times, sometimes that seems to be a rather common issue, considering that many diseases that affect Vulcans can do that.
|
|
|
Post by Geralyn on Jun 28, 2015 13:08:15 GMT
Spock is HALF Vulcan, not full vulcan, and therefore did not age the same as a full-blooded Vulcan. As per Roddenberry, Spock was also made possible by some 'tweaking' of the genes of both parents' biological contributions in order to make him possible in the first place, so being 18 when he joined Academy isn't a contradiction of the stated age of Vulcan majority at 40. It seemed to me that Spock was treated as a full Vulcan in pretty much every way that mattered. He had the physical body of a Vulcan, the mental abilities of a Vulcan, the lifespan of a Vulcan. The only way he seem's to have differed at all from other Vulcans was that he had trouble keeping his emotions under control at times, sometimes that seems to be a rather common issue, considering that many diseases that affect Vulcans can do that. This is not correct. The differences in his biology from human or Vulcan has been a plot point on more than one occasion. And as stated before, to even make him possible, (as per Roddenberry, the man who created the character) they had to do some fancy gene-splicing between human and Vulcan genetics. He is NOT a typical example of a pure-blooded Vulcan, emotionally or physically, as per the creator of the character (Roddenberry) and therefore not open for discussion as being otherwise. Let's stay focused on the original topic, please, and not diverge into the minutiae.
|
|
|
Post by Tiana on Jun 28, 2015 20:54:21 GMT
I was going to point out that Picard may have assumed command of the Stargazer as early as 28, but there's no solid information on this.
I was also going to point out that Ezri Dax was accelerated into Lt Jr grade at the age of 21, but it's not that far from the chart at 22, and her age isn't solidly established.
So, chart seems pretty legit to me.
|
|
|
Post by Geralyn on Jun 28, 2015 23:57:23 GMT
I was going to point out that Picard may have assumed command of the Stargazer as early as 28, but there's no solid information on this. I was also going to point out that Ezri Dax was accelerated into Lt Jr grade at the age of 21, but it's not that far from the chart at 22, and her age isn't solidly established. So, chart seems pretty legit to me. On the matter of joined Trill...they are not mentioned in the initial post, but they have been discussed during the forming of the proposal. It's fairly well established that Trill symbionts retain memories from previous hosts, and in the case of Ezri Dax, her immediate previous host was also a Starfleet officer. I'd say in a case where a joined Trill whose immediate prior host was a Starfleet officer would have SOME wiggle room, provided their memories of their previous career were clear enough. They would still have to spend four years in Academy, for observation and evaluation as well as brushing up on all the changes since last time they attended (technology, procedures, social/political changes in the Federation, etc.) but I could totally support one or two years of post-Academy flex in the age chart in a case like this. Not every species has been listed in the original post, but as we bring them up, we can certainly incorporate them into the overall framework.
|
|
pg5k
Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by pg5k on Jun 29, 2015 2:51:53 GMT
-Stamped and approved-
|
|
|
Post by Gremstein on Jun 29, 2015 6:24:55 GMT
It all sounds reasonable to me.
|
|
|
Post by LoonyEclipse on Jun 29, 2015 12:58:44 GMT
I approve!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 3:22:15 GMT
I am not in support of this as it stands... I would rather see the proposal altered that this considered a "guideline" rather than a rule. I shall expand on my thought as to why I have come to this decision.
1) One of the biggest arguments for people seems to be that the federation is at war. This is actually not a bad point. In reality, lets face it, you do crazy dumb shit that happens to turn a lopsided battle from you being dealt a heavy blow to winning is worthy of merit. Continue to do it and you get promoted... simple. During war there are always people that somehow turn the tide of an engagement in one's favour it seems. I feel as though people will be screaming for evidence but history is filled with them. Sometimes militaries will take the chance at something different and let someone else be in charge. If that person fails, lesson learned but if they succeed then perhaps military tactics change... We've seen that happen time and time again in history and I don't think I need to point anything too specific out. Within Star Trek Online, we see a fresh out of the academy ensign become a fleet admiral within less than 2 years... although the timeframe is unreasonable, who is to say that in times of war your going to let someone with a great strategy just sit out because they are wet behind the ears... NO! If it really is that good of a plan you might just take the chance and let them play it out. Personally I could see someone breaking some records for how fast they get promoted during war times... 2 years is excessive to hit fleet admiral but say 5 years to make captain is not out of the realm of possibility... just extremely unlikely.
2) Starfleet rewards based on merit and situation. One argument I've seen is that "hey, you did something cool! we are going to give you a medal instead of a promotion!". This statement is fairly true and I won't dispute that Starfleet would be happier giving out medals, citations and merits rather than promotions to people who may not deserve it. However, Starfleet is not above giving a promotion to someone who has earned it. If one continues to prove themselves in many situations that they are more than capable of handling the rigors and responsibilities of the next rank then they get promoted... plain and simple. Also in war, there are more chances of one showing off than during peacetime when on patrol. This concept of medals always before promotion is stupid... sometimes you just got to tip your hat to the other guy and give him the pips.
3) This proposal is essentially discriminatory. This proposal in its current state promotes the idea that you have to be "this old to ride". We know that is not always the case. There are older officers and younger officers at varying degrees of rank throughout the star trek universe. Yes I know that there are alien cultures with different ages and definitions of adult-hood but to say you are a vulcan commander and therefore you must be this old is at the heart discriminatory. Captain Kirk in his time was one of the youngest captains to attain that rank in Starfleet history! Age by no means should limit people to what they can achieve nor has it in human culture... ever heard of a child prodigy? The correct term for not letting someone be a captain say by age 28 even if they have advanced through each rank on the basis that they are not old enough to captain of a starship is called ageism. And since Starfleet does not condone discrimination why should we?
4) Starfleet Academy is a 4 year program... plain and simple and therefore results in people being a consistent age when they enter Starfleet... ya umm no... Starfleet academy is mostly a four year program that gives you enough experience and training to be competent enough to function within the ranks of Starfleet - to that I'll agree. However, Starfleet academy for all points and purposes is a post-secondary form of education. This means that the Academy is something like a trade or a college or a university. Even though there are fairly streamlined programs in each form of the three major post-secondary educations, there are also variations within that streamlined programming and sometimes this results in different lengths of time to complete the program. Why would Starfleet academy be any different? True enough, if you are in something like medical you are generally taking more time at the academy but like colleges and university, there are one year, two year, three year, four year and even 5 year programs for diplomas and degrees. Also, the academy can take into account previous education as was the case with Dr. McCoy who first got his medical degree then went to Starfleet. Any academic/training/educational institution worth their salt would obviously take into account the influences of other cultures, species, philosophies and pedagogy and as such would have different streams for different people and careers within Starfleet. Additionally, Starfleet seems to be on par with other forms of post-secondary education like universities and can compete with some of the best in the federation. This is a credit to the excellent training and knowledge one receives at the Academy but in order to be able to produce such excellence, there must be flexibility... therefore I cannot support the current proposal in its current state that SFA is strictly a four year program when lets face, there are likely differing forms of programming present to make sure that future Starfleet officers are ready for their chosen fields of study.
5) The Federation is vast in its varying cultures and number of species. To simplify things is simple ignorant on this point. The Federation is too vast for us to simple place an age restriction on anything. We do not know everything about Vulcans, Romulans, Klingons, Andorians, Tellerites Etc... therefore why should we simply say "here's the general age restrictions you have to follow". It is unmanageable! Different cultures and species yes see things differently, but if you want to place age restrictions for ranks, you have to figure it out for every single species in the Federation, Romulan Republic and Klingon Empire... and there isn't simply enough data at our disposal to do that.
6) Lets not forget about CONNECTIONS!!! Your Daddy plays golf with the federation's president, your uncle is a top notch Starfleet Admiral and your Mother is the most decorated ambassador in the last 10 years and your brother is an important Liaison to the Republic... ya lets face it someone with those kind of connections will be going somewhere... will they deserve it is totally up to their abilities and their attitude. Even though money is "non-exisistent" (cough cough... don't tell the ferengi...) knowing people is a part of being human. Frankly, most species in the federation are like this as well, sociable, and as such, are capable of developing friendships and contacts across the quadrant. Anyone who refutes this point is honestly an idiot and doesn't understand that where there is a friendship or a contact... there is a connection. And we see it all the time in Star Trek anyways, people helping others out. To say that personal connections would have no effect on someone's career would be a lie... the future is not as different as we like to think it is. People with connections tend to do well and get good assignments and have excellent careers... unless they are a total wreck and idiot to start with. But if you are as good as your connections say you are, you'll likely get a lot farther a lot faster than most other people... also depending on who your connections are...
While I do not fully disagree with the proposal, I have to vote against it for the above reasons. I would rather see this be more of a guide than a rule for us.
Sorry for the long post.
|
|
|
Post by Geralyn on Jun 30, 2015 4:20:42 GMT
I am not in support of this as it stands... I would rather see the proposal altered that this considered a "guideline" rather than a rule. I shall expand on my thought as to why I have come to this decision. 1) One of the biggest arguments for people seems to be that the federation is at war. This is actually not a bad point. In reality, lets face it, you do crazy dumb shit that happens to turn a lopsided battle from you being dealt a heavy blow to winning is worthy of merit. Continue to do it and you get promoted... simple. During war there are always people that somehow turn the tide of an engagement in one's favour it seems. I feel as though people will be screaming for evidence but history is filled with them. Sometimes militaries will take the chance at something different and let someone else be in charge. If that person fails, lesson learned but if they succeed then perhaps military tactics change... We've seen that happen time and time again in history and I don't think I need to point anything too specific out. Within Star Trek Online, we see a fresh out of the academy ensign become a fleet admiral within less than 2 years... although the timeframe is unreasonable, who is to say that in times of war your going to let someone with a great strategy just sit out because they are wet behind the ears... NO! If it really is that good of a plan you might just take the chance and let them play it out. Personally I could see someone breaking some records for how fast they get promoted during war times... 2 years is excessive to hit fleet admiral but say 5 years to make captain is not out of the realm of possibility... just extremely unlikely. History is only "filled" with examples prior to the 20th century, before any kind of standards were adopted as they were in the 20th century, when the complexities of war became such that doing it in the way you describe was impossible. In a service such as Starfleet, requiring knowledge of (as you pointed out) many cultures, as well as technology, it becomes ludicrous. And Star Trek Online used the two-years-Cadet-to-Admiral mechanic SOLELY to appeal to the MMO aspects of STO, not the roleplaying, and certainly not in any way connected to reality. As a note, though this proposal is still a proposal only, the two-years-Cadet-to-Admiral nonsense is utterly rejected, and not open for consideration in this discussion. 2) Starfleet rewards based on merit and situation. One argument I've seen is that "hey, you did something cool! we are going to give you a medal instead of a promotion!". This statement is fairly true and I won't dispute that Starfleet would be happier giving out medals, citations and merits rather than promotions to people who may not deserve it. However, Starfleet is not above giving a promotion to someone who has earned it. If one continues to prove themselves in many situations that they are more than capable of handling the rigors and responsibilities of the next rank then they get promoted... plain and simple. Also in war, there are more chances of one showing off than during peacetime when on patrol. This concept of medals always before promotion is stupid... sometimes you just got to tip your hat to the other guy and give him the pips. Promotions are given, indeed, to those who earn it, "proving they are more than capable of handling the rigors and responsibilities of the next rank." Not by showing off. As stated in the previous post on admiralty, nineteen people won the Medal of Honor TWICE...not one became flag rank, and very few of them were even commissioned officers. 3) This proposal is essentially discriminatory. This proposal in its current state promotes the idea that you have to be "this old to ride". We know that is not always the case. There are older officers and younger officers at varying degrees of rank throughout the star trek universe. Yes I know that there are alien cultures with different ages and definitions of adult-hood but to say you are a vulcan commander and therefore you must be this old is at the heart discriminatory. Captain Kirk in his time was one of the youngest captains to attain that rank in Starfleet history! Age by no means should limit people to what they can achieve nor has it in human culture... ever heard of a child prodigy? The correct term for not letting someone be a captain say by age 28 even if they have advanced through each rank on the basis that they are not old enough to captain of a starship is called ageism. And since Starfleet does not condone discrimination why should we? I'm well aware of child prodigies, and take exception to your confrontational choice of words. The age minimum of 16 for entering Academy is BASED ON WESLEY CRUSHER, CHILD PRODIGY. Standard is eighteen. And "ageism" is favoring the young over the old in hiring practices, in order to justify paying them less. Not requiring "x number of years experience in a field", which is in just about every job listing outside of fast food that you will find. And if there is a minimum age to get into Academy, and "x number of years required/preferred" for each rank above, there by necessity will be a minimum reasonable age to attain said rank. The attempt to classify an attempt to accurately represent the time it takes to gather experience necessary to fulfill a role that requires said experience as ageism is utterly rejected. 4) ...Why would Starfleet academy be any different? True enough, if you are in something like medical you are generally taking more time at the academy but like colleges and university, there are one year, two year, three year, four year and even 5 year programs for diplomas and degrees. Also, the academy can take into account previous education as was the case with Dr. McCoy who first got his medical degree then went to Starfleet. Any academic/training/educational institution worth their salt would obviously take into account the influences of other cultures, species, philosophies and pedagogy and as such would have different streams for different people and careers within Starfleet. Additionally, Starfleet seems to be on par with other forms of post-secondary education like universities and can compete with some of the best in the federation. This is a credit to the excellent training and knowledge one receives at the Academy but in order to be able to produce such excellence, there must be flexibility... therefore I cannot support the current proposal in its current state that SFA is strictly a four year program when lets face, there are likely differing forms of programming present to make sure that future Starfleet officers are ready for their chosen fields of study. Why would Starfleet be any different? Because as stated, time and time again, they only take the best of the best to start with. And they learned from the mistakes of the past, not pushing people faster or farther than was required. And your example, McCoy? He was thirty-nine when he was Lieutenant Commander. Well over the minimum age required by our proposal. 5) The Federation is vast in its varying cultures and number of species. To simplify things is simple ignorant on this point. The Federation is too vast for us to simple place an age restriction on anything. We do not know everything about Vulcans, Romulans, Klingons, Andorians, Tellerites Etc... therefore why should we simply say "here's the general age restrictions you have to follow". It is unmanageable! Different cultures and species yes see things differently, but if you want to place age restrictions for ranks, you have to figure it out for every single species in the Federation, Romulan Republic and Klingon Empire... and there isn't simply enough data at our disposal to do that. I refer you again to the original post: the age minimums use human as a baseline, and are adjusted based on species. Vulcans and Romulans are specifically accounted for, and Tellarites and Andorians have the same lifespan as humans (as do most species in the Federation) and so use that table. And we know plenty of the races you specifically mentioned, they're part of canon, after all. And we are nowhere near as diverse in our fleet as the Federation as a whole. Coming up with adjustments for each species that is actually in our fleet is not going to be difficult at all. 6) Lets not forget about CONNECTIONS!!! Your Daddy plays golf with the federation's president, your uncle is a top notch Starfleet Admiral and your Mother is the most decorated ambassador in the last 10 years and your brother is an important Liaison to the Republic... ya lets face it someone with those kind of connections will be going somewhere... will they deserve it is totally up to their abilities and their attitude. Even though money is "non-exisistent" (cough cough... don't tell the ferengi...) knowing people is a part of being human. Frankly, most species in the federation are like this as well, sociable, and as such, are capable of developing friendships and contacts across the quadrant. Anyone who refutes this point is honestly an idiot and doesn't understand that where there is a friendship or a contact... there is a connection. And we see it all the time in Star Trek anyways, people helping others out. To say that personal connections would have no effect on someone's career would be a lie... the future is not as different as we like to think it is. People with connections tend to do well and get good assignments and have excellent careers... unless they are a total wreck and idiot to start with. But if you are as good as your connections say you are, you'll likely get a lot farther a lot faster than most other people... also depending on who your connections are... Other than the fact that I do in fact object to the insistence on painting Starfleet as a corrupt entity by nature, presumably anyone who has "connections" like this would get far "better" assignments than a support fleet out by DS9. And the "helping out" we see in Star Trek has never been equated to "getting someone something they didn't earn" except as part of a moral lesson of why it's a bad idea. And considering how done to irreversible death the "I have connections" excuse has been, don't expect many people in this fleet to support this option. You won't find much support for it at all.
|
|
|
Post by Jay Capps on Jun 30, 2015 5:33:12 GMT
I'd have to go against the connections point as well. While yes, I have connections so I got into the naval academy more easily then others at most it'd probably just hurt me if I blab that to my fellow pilots and ranking officers. I could expect probably a cushy desk job and the station of my choice, but I doubt it'd get me above commander anytime soon. As to the doing stupid stuff that happened to work at the time, while yes it might change tactics in the future, more often then not it'll get you court marshaled before you can enjoy changing anything. Just my two sense.
|
|
kigo
Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by kigo on Jun 30, 2015 5:48:22 GMT
4) Starfleet Academy is a 4 year program... plain and simple and therefore results in people being a consistent age when they enter Starfleet... ya umm no... Starfleet academy is mostly a four year program that gives you enough experience and training to be competent enough to function within the ranks of Starfleet - to that I'll agree. However, Starfleet academy for all points and purposes is a post-secondary form of education. This means that the Academy is something like a trade or a college or a university. Even though there are fairly streamlined programs in each form of the three major post-secondary educations, there are also variations within that streamlined programming and sometimes this results in different lengths of time to complete the program. Why would Starfleet academy be any different? True enough, if you are in something like medical you are generally taking more time at the academy but like colleges and university, there are one year, two year, three year, four year and even 5 year programs for diplomas and degrees. Also, the academy can take into account previous education as was the case with Dr. McCoy who first got his medical degree then went to Starfleet. Any academic/training/educational institution worth their salt would obviously take into account the influences of other cultures, species, philosophies and pedagogy and as such would have different streams for different people and careers within Starfleet. Additionally, Starfleet seems to be on par with other forms of post-secondary education like universities and can compete with some of the best in the federation. This is a credit to the excellent training and knowledge one receives at the Academy but in order to be able to produce such excellence, there must be flexibility... therefore I cannot support the current proposal in its current state that SFA is strictly a four year program when lets face, there are likely differing forms of programming present to make sure that future Starfleet officers are ready for their chosen fields of study. Okay...not really sure where to even begin on this one. For what is all intents and purposes a service academy, to just 'fast track' students through, in part defeats the purpose of said service academy. This, much like other service academies (US Naval Academy, West Point, Merchant Marine Academy, etc..) are not just training future officers in Starfleet, but developing future leaders in the Federation as well. They're not training a future officer who's going to be sitting at a nice and cushy civilian job when they graduate, or just sit/stand behind a random bridge console and good at it, they're going to be producing commissioned officers who are going to be directly responsible for the careers and the lives of the men and women under their command. I honestly can not see there being any flexibility whatsoever with a service academy producing graduates who are going to have significantly more responsibility thrust upon them than those who come from a regular college or university.
|
|