Prime Directive

Here's the one I use as a definition:

"When contacting a planet making normal progress towardsa free and unified society, a Starfleet Officer shall make no identification of self or mission; No interference with the social development of said planet; no references to space, or the fact that there are other worlds or more advanced civilizations."

--The Primie Directive of Non-Interference, Revised 2278

By in large, Federation crews are expected to follow this to the letter. There are however, a few exceptions to the rule when Contact can be made:

1) Interference has already happened: this covers instances when said culture has already suffered cultural contamination by accident from Starfleet or Third party influence. The logic being is that the damage has been done, so you might as well try to help.

2) Natural disaster: this is a relatively contraversial option and the Fleet and Federation is rather split on the Issue. Does extinction by natural events count as 'natural development' or does the Federation have a moral duty to help in the event of natrual disaster.

3) Artificial Disaster: Disaster caused through an Unnatrual agency such as a starship or weapon impacting into said planet. For the rational, see Exception One.

Aside from these three caviats, the Federation and the Fleet are pretty hardline on enforcing the Prime Directive. and ti give starship commanders enough discretion to go down to planet side and initiate contact if needed. And no excuse to sit by and watch planets die because of The Prime Directive.

Except for those who are too towrried about thier careers to save a planet of innocents. And eys that was a shot accross the bow ofa certain bald paited captian.

note to self: do not post while half asleep and weaning self off of chemo

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BouncyCaitian
Except for those who are too towrried about thier careers to save a planet of innocents. And eys that was a shot accross the bow ofa certain bald paited captian.

---

could we perhaps please have this again, once you're on top of the situation? Please?

"Except for those who are to worried about thier careers to save a planet of innocents. And yes, that was a shot across the bow of a certain bald-paited captian."

I saw the episode where Picard told the command crew not to try to save a planet facing imminent destruction because of "The Prime Directive" I've never been so revolted and Archer had to be spinning in his grave on that one.

That sort of lame rationalization for not getting involved deserves nothing but contempt and Picard might be liked by the "Prime Directive Is Law" faction, but the "Prime Directive is a Good Idea" were utterly horrified when they heard about it and more than few Captains have given him the cold shoulder for it.

It makes for a more dynamic PD and more opportunites for roleplaying as opposed to the cold, unfeeling, and decidedly immoral PD we've seen in TNG

I am afraid I have to beg to differ on your oppinion of immorality.

Why should the Federation play god? The whole intent of the meaning of the Prime directive is to not interfere because by interfering you have no idea what chaos that could cause! The entire reason that the Fedseration is so strongly reactionary, with regards to interferance is preciselly because of the terrible damage that the Federation has done in it's past. Looking at the TOS series you can see why - the early earth vessels (even some belonging to the Federation and Starfleet) had introduced ideas and beliefs into several species which have wholely altered them. It's a natural extrapolation of that to see why they balk even at extinction level events, and by that I mean such events as that which destroyed almost all life on earth several times, such as which ended the dinosaurs existence on earth. Had some ancient federation decided to save the dinosaurs and stop whatever force itwas that ended them, WE might not be here today.

Perhaps you can only chose to take what you want from the game books, but from the histories of many of the Federation races in the past, they suffered terribly at the hands of natural and self made tragidies - those tragidies are what moulded them into become what they are now - Our third word war helped save us, The Vulcan mind wars, the voice wars on Tellar etc etc - that they survived and still prospered is as a result of that, and by interfering would therefore have been very bad!

Perhaps it's just an extrapolation of cold logic that leads me to see why they have to play it like that, but as always history is a great teacher - and not wanting to repeat the mistakes of the past are what has driven the Federation to take such a hard stance in their future - because they realised playing god always came back to bite you! At the end of the day it is always up to a Captain, because they represent the Federation deep in space, and it's on their neck, but I hardly see it as them looking after their necks, but rather a crisis of morals in their beliefs which ultimatelly drives them. Perhaps YOU find it questionable, but then you don't have to live with the consiquences of it, nor have the knowledge of hundreds of such botched interferences in the past, which forge your beliefs!

Risk is Starfleet's Business, other wise they have no business being out there.

As to playing god, Let's see, between the alternative of trying to help save a species on the brink of extinction and letting them die, I think I know which alternative I'd go with. If this might potentiall create a problem later...I'd deal with it then.

And you do ask a pertinent question: Who gave The Federation the right to play God. Answer: They exist. They live. They breathe just like the less advanced races. There are always possibilites both good and bad. And you are taking the possibility life might evolve as opposed to the life that is already there. What sort of messed up priority is that anyway?

Again, each commander will have to live with their decision. Not all attempts will succeed nor will they have positive outcomes. Some races won't like being saved for (fill in the blank reasons). But some will. They can live...and adapt. And that, in my book, negates the arguement against interference.

For those whom no threat is present and are going along nicely, leave them be. For those whose furuture is threatened and the reaper is staring them in the face, maybe intervention isn'ta bad idea and might spur them in a different direction.

That's my argument.