Trekkie fanboys on YouTube

I was wondering if anyone here has had interaction with any Fanboys on YouTube? I have had a run in with some really retarded FanBoys lately (especially ones who are posting YouTube compilations of Star Trek vs Star Wars/Battle Star Galactica/Babylon 5 battles). I know I shouldn't subject myself to the drama, but sometime I just can't help myself...LoL

One thing that keeps coming up is Canon (I understand the word and concept) and was wondering, what do you consider Canon? AKAIK there isn't a Canon site dedicated to Star Trek (if so please let me know the address as I would be very interested in seeing it) that is hosted by Paramount and written directly by the writers of Star Trek.

I view Memory Alpha as canon, am I wrong in that assumption?

One big issue lately was the warp speed charts, one Fanboy completely rejected the revised warp speed chart as non-canon and stated there was no canon referring to a revised warp speed chart (shifting from TOS to Next Gen/Voyager/DS-9 and then Enterprise) and the Memory Alpha warp factor chart doesn't correspond with the revised warp speed chart listed below. The primary issue was the TOS warp speeds (some times they were portrayed as being able to cross the galaxy in hours and the Enterprise capable of achieving 100,000's TSL) yet when I pointed out that even a Galaxy Class vessel could not achieve such a feat it was rejected as non-canon (even though I had all the right references)

http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Warp_factor

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/...speedchart.jpg

There has never, ever been any canon warp factor chart, period. Canon, by Paramount's own definition, is restricted to actual on-screen evidence. There has never even been a statement on how fast a Warp Factor is, aside from the implication that WF1.0 is the speed of light. That said, the closest thing we have is the chart printed in the STTNG Tech Manual. It is, unfortunately, pretty bad - they used a poor spreadsheet to produce it. They did, however give the definition of TNG Warf Factors, so it is actually pathetically easy to check their math. It is, however, not Canon. It says so right in the introduction. Gene Roddenberry was opposed to quantifying these things too tightly, and his successor, Riuck Berman was fanaticalabout not quantifying just about anything. Sorry, Waveman , but those are the facts of the matter.

Thanks Owen, it is as I thought. The big issue comes between the contradictions between TOS and the rest of the body of work. I suppose they also qualified (making it canon) warp ten (in Threshold) being infinite velocity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WaveMan

I view Memory Alpha as canon, am I wrong in that assumption?

---

Here's Memory Alpha's own take on it:
http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wik...Content_policy
http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wik...esource_policy

One thing to remember about MA, or any writing on the subject, is that there is still an interpretive act occurring in word choice and classification. For example, one can generally assume that, up until the end of TNG season 5, any mentioned species that was not explicitly referred to as non-local to the Federation (like Korob and Sylvia, the Mudd androids, or the Borg) could be placed on the Alpha and Beta Quadrant Species list. Then DS9 comes along and you can't necessarily assume from minimal dialogue that the species being referred to isn't from the Gamma Quadrant, particularly if they appear on DS9. Additionally, re-used makeups and the human appearance of many aliens (even in later series) means you can't assume that someone is, 'in canon,' any particular species. Script info and writerly intentions also makes things less clear—if DS9 is entirely Benny Russell's imagining, what about Enterprise? Is everything post-First Contact a separate timeline? Enterprise is described as occurring in the context of the Temporal Cold War as both an in-continuity anti-continuity event and as a writerly mandate to do whatever they want—where do you draw the line between stuff that's clearly intended by the writers to reflect pre-ENT continuity (like the founders of the Federation), stuff that's explicitly described as the result of messing about (the Suliban, first contact with the Klingons), stuff that conflicts with paracanonical materials and so might be a mistake or might be a new assertion by writers (Earth to Qo'noS in five days, or gene therapy being necessary for human-Vulcan pregnancies, the Klingon appearance change being explicable), stuff that's supposed to be one thing but might be another and it can go either way (Archer IV being the planet from 'Strange New World,' despite there probably being a lot of people named Archer), and stuff that got on-screen because you needed text to slap on a screen but that the writers or actors might never know about (the bios from 'In a Mirror, Darkly)?

These are rhetorical questions, of course. The point is that you can't treat Star Trek as a unified whole or as a signifier of a fictional world without making interpretive choices, and those interpretive choices are always made in the light of one's own creative goals, whether as a screenwriter, GM or wiki author.

Anyway, this page has been the one most people reference, probably because Bernd is just more exhaustive about these issues than most people care to be.

to be honest I am really disappointed in the level of arrogance displayed by many fanboy Trekkie wannabe's on YouTube, some of the crap they go on about is actually disturbing and ruins it for real Trekkie fans. I am just glad there are fan sites like this, where true fans can go and enjoy Star Trek. I am also glad those FanBoys don't come here.

TOS really muddies the canon pool, with the original Enterprise basically crossing the galaxy at will, and their warp scale going all the way through to warp 14 (while numerically higher the actual speed was around 2000TSL or around warp 9.3 on the revised table) or higher. FanBoys tend to latch onto TOS and want to say "well it's TOS canon" so it must there for override Next Gen/Voyager/DS-9 and Enterprise. It also doesn't help when in All Good Things Riker calls for Warp 13 in a Galaxy class refit. (the warp scale obviously being redefined again)

I had one rabid FanBoy actually say the Constitution-class (Enterprise) was obviously faster then Voyager (because of the quote 75000ly taking 75 years to travel) as the original Enterprise was shown to travel across the galaxy "all the time" in TOS. It's also hard to argue the point, as there is no canon revised warp scale chart.

Well, the Yorktown's maximum velocity started out as 0.73 light years an hour, so there ain't no clear waters to be found.

mate your link doesn't work (is blocked for me, is that because of my add blocker?)

here is the quote

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Memory Alpha

The transportation was the SS Yorktown (later renamed the USS Enterprise). The SS Yorktown was described as a "cruiser class" with a 190,000 ton gross. It had a crew complement of 203, and used space-warp drive ("maximum velocity .73 of one light year per hour"). It had a range of 18 years and was registered as a United Space Ship with Earth. The date was stated to be sometime in the future, possibly between 1995 and 2995.

---

yeah that came up, the rabid FanBoy quoted the 18 tears bit, going further and saying the vessel could travel at cruising warp for 18 years.

At .73ly/hour that's 17.52ly/day or 122.64ly/week. I calculate that at around warp 9.99 (revised scale) (.73ly/hr covers 4.38ly in 6 hrs; 9.99 covers 5ly in 6 hours)

The Sovereign-class Enterprise-E would struggle to keep up (max of 9.95 for 12 hours as per space dock Federation Recognition manual) and would not be able to sustain operations after 3 years (as it would run out of consumables...)

Not wishing to start a flame war or anything similar, I think that the problem with "Star Trek canon" is that there isn't one, well not a unified one anyway. TOS didn't have one (at first), the movies and books developed a TOS ish one, TNG reinvented canon (and, as Iunderstand it deliberately tried to eliminate everything that went before), DS9 & Voy seemed to (mostly) follow TNG, ST:First Contact & Ent rewrote almost everything and I won't even discuss the latest movie incarnation.

This, unfortunately, makes it way too easy for trolls and fanboys to argue almost everything is or is not canon.

So, I think that the first question about ST canon should be, which series and who's opinion??

And, before someone says that GR ruled that only what is shown on screen is canon, and then only everything from TNG onwards, yes I am aware of that. And in fact believe that is a major source of the problem!

I agree mate, a true Trek canon should be developed but it won't happen, Gene isn't around any more, and the rest would have zero interest in developing such a body of work.

Problems also arise when you start to take into account such things as RPG's (several systems, eg ICON and CODA) on-line games and novels, all of which while based on Trek some deviates significantly. Plus Space Dock, while not canon IMHO should be. As you noted TOS contradicts most of the canon that comes after it. (travel speeds alone, and distances traveled, AFAIK the original Enterprise crossed the Galaxy THREE times during it's "5 year mission")

Personally I dismiss or ignore most of TOS as far as canon goes, it isn't really relevant (to me) and to be honest is around 30 years out of date.(most of the issues TOS tries to tackle are of less of a problem these days).

The problem is that you guys don't understand what a literary or cinematic canon actually IS. Simply put, canon status denotes that a series of works deemed authorised and authentic according to a set of rules set by an authority. The first great literary canon was that of the Holmes stories, all written by a single author. Even being all written by the same author, who tried to maintain consistency, there were contradictions - Watson's wound from Afghanistan moved around, as did the details of his marriage. In the case of Star Trek, canon is set by Paramount, defined as all official filmed episodes and movies, and now includes the animated series and two or three specific novels by Jeri Taylor. All of it. Yes, it's inconsistent in places, even within individual works (How many decks does the Enterprise have in First Contact?). Given the simple realities of TV and cinematic production, constantly evolving cultural expectations and technology, and an enormous number of writers, directors and actors this is absolutely inevitable. Hell, even the original canon, the religious texts that make up the Christian Bible, have this problem. For example, the four Gospels purport to tell the same story about the same people over a stretch of far less than a decade, but are not only inconsistent but mutually contradictory. Yet they're all canon. Canon in that case was set by a group of bishops in the 3rd or 4th century choosing which books to keep in the canon and which to reject.

You're not asking for a true canon, by definition. What you're asking for is a one true consistent continuity to be retroactively imposed on Star Trek. Who would you propose be allowed to do the deciding? I'll absolutely guarantee that not one person out there would agree with all the decisions that this person or committee would make. Not one, and if it was a committee, not even everyone on the committee would agree with everything. What you're asking for is not only unrealistic, it's impossible.

I agree Owen, and said as much in the first line of previous post. As you rightly point out no one would agree on every thing (most likely anything). I would also point out NO ONE is an absolute authority on all things Trek, except maybe Gene Roddenberry (RIP) who actually develop the concept.

Agreeing totally with both Owen and Waveman, there is no consistent ST continuity, and ST canon (such as it is) isn't even internally consistent. So I always struggle to understand why anyone gets all tribal about it?

My personal preference is for TOS, the original Spaceflight Chronology, and the FASA game background which copied much of these sources. I know that none of this is now official or canon, but it's what I grew up on ( from TOS on the BBC back in the 70's onwards) and it will always be ST for me!

In fact I have just recently started re watching them, and am pleased that nothing has changed in how I feel about them. The magic is still there and makes me wanna roleplay FASA TOS now !!

I had always assumed that 'canon' as a term was applied to Trek in a sarcastic or joking manner at first, and then gradually less so as new generations absorbed previous fan writing. Nowadays it's just an assumed concept for every possible IP or continuity or whatever, and that's bewildering. But then again, I thought Aeon Flux was the best SF show of the 90s so my opinion might be in the minority.

Over at Onyxpath, I have seen people talking about their "head canon" for Exalted. While the term head canon apparently came from how fans filled out the blanks between canon information for some works, it also seems to be used among roleplayers as "this is how it works when I run a game."

For us who prioritize that internal consistency in our gaming worlds, especially when it comes to settings like Trek, I think that is a good way to look at it. But I actually think it is also why I don't game as much. I need to reforge so many thing until I'm happy enough with it ("What do you need the city is as big I want it to be?!?" A few weeks later; "hm, and this part of the city has 20.000 inhabitants per square kilometer..." :rolleyes: ).

IIRC headcanon showed up in tumblr fandom first, as some sort of intersection of 'one-person fanon' and 'unwritten fanfic.' It doesn't necessarily just 'fill in gaps' but also consists of radical reinterpretations of the viewed/read material or a kind of 'viewer's/reader's cut' of the material into a form more preferable to them. What I find interesting (and somewhat alienating) is that this personal read is often uninterested in or actively discarding authorial intent as a key component of absorbing the text.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King

IIRC headcanon showed up in tumblr fandom first, as some sort of intersection of 'one-person fanon' and 'unwritten fanfic.' It doesn't necessarily just 'fill in gaps' but also consists of radical reinterpretations of the viewed/read material or a kind of 'viewer's/reader's cut' of the material into a form more preferable to them.

---

Quite possible, and if so, the original is even a lot closer of how I look it as useful for a single gaming group. Just as long people don't think there has to be a consensus on it...

Quote:

---

What I find interesting (and somewhat alienating) is that this personal read is often uninterested in or actively discarding authorial intent as a key component of absorbing the text.

---

The intent of the author is always of interest to me, as it can give me new ideas I haven't thought of. I also want to understand the intent of the author before putting any values on it. It quite annoys me when people complains about a work being this or that, and their argument is just based on their own assumptions of the author. But if I'm preparing a game, or would write some fanfic, the intent of the original author is of absolutely no interest of me; then it is all about of how I can use, or mold, it to my needs.

Yeah, I like it when there's designer notes or at least relatively strong designer tone in games so that I can tell without too much analysis what they're trying to get at.