Doctor on the bridge?

[calguard66]

Originally posted by Tobian
. Troi, in that instance does have dominion because she istrained to handle situations like that. If the ship had been under attack then the command would probably have gone to Ro.

That's a negative, Ghostrider. The chain of command in any organization cannot be defined by the situation, because interpretation of the situation is subjective. That's the same reason why the stupid Voyager-ism of the commander of the vessel in the "superior tactical positition" having command won't work. Who defined what is the superior tactical position? The chain of command has to be based on something objective... predetermined succession, rank, date of rank, class standing, time in service, age, etc.

Voyager coulod have avoided it by making the commander of such a small vessel as Equinox a mere Commander and sidestepping the whole mess.

In Enterprise's case the senior officer present took command. You can't have officers arguing about who should command. You can't have staff officers dithering about whether to relinquish command in an emergency. You can't have senior officers from outside the vessel's chain of command jumping in and disrupting the crew (a-la Commodore Decker) in a crisis.

The crew should know immediately, no matter who is present at any given moment, who is senior to who and who takes command if something happens suddenly. "Attached casuals" such as Decker should know they have no place in the chain of command unless Enterprise is assigned to their command... or unless the chain of command was so disrupted by the disaster that no one else did step up and take charge.

[calguard66]

Originally posted by Tobian
Assuming that O'Brien, the majically decominnioned Lieutenant to Chief petty officer man,

I've often thought about O'Brien's status. It is possible he was given a battlefield or even brevet commission... which was recinded with the end of hostilities, or which he resigned when he decided he didn't want to go thru the process required to keep it, such as attending SFA... or perhaps he decided he didn't like being an officer. It's been known to happen.

Another option, which I doubt applies to O'Brien, is that he couldn't cut it as an officer or officer candidate. Many US NCOs given battlefield commissions in Vietnam flunked out of OCS and lost their commissions.

[Tobian]

... or it's a big continuity error - I vote for that one

Yes Calguard, I think having read through various people's statements and the evidence in the show there simply is no precedence for line or non line officers - I think this is doubly so because all Starfleet 'officers' are ammong the best and brightest of their generation and have undergone intensive training for 4 years in Starfleet academy - being an OFFICER means being an OFFICER - the end (in retrospect I was being placative!) - bottom line here is Ro was just being difficult and she wanted to take controll because that was her nature - Troi handled that and proved her stripes.

I think in a lot of situations the whole 'who is in command' comes down to loyalties and force of personality as it did with the equinox crew - generally speaking i don't think you can take captaincy off someone unless you either outrank them or have a very good reason to do so!

In any general sense an officer is the person who makes the hard choices, but also is the person who allocates the people who DO the work to do it so in that sense Troi is uniquelly qualified as she doesn't really do anything herself

[Pericles]

The "line and non-line" concept is a TOS concept. By the TNG era Starfleet has a much more rounded curiculum at the academy. Gene Roddenberry had an extreme dislike of any militaristic rigid command structure that the current US Army and Navy have, so while close, the modern military is at best an inexact standard to use for Starfleet. Calguard's comments are exactly correct for the US military, they are slighty less accurate for Starfleet.
During the instance where Troi ended up in command, she had the nominal rank of Lieutenent Commander, but the officer in command was the lieutenant that was killed during the collision with the quantum string or what ever it was, I still haven't remembered that detail. This tends to support that Starfleet doesn't necessarily go by senior person present is automatically in command. It wasn't until the lieutenant was killed that there was any question of who was in command.
Unless there is some unstated Starfleet reg that an ensign can't be in command of a starship, command should have fallen to Ensign Ro as the next senior surviving "Bridge Officer" present. However, O'Brien pointed out Troi's senority and the episode progressed as shown.
Given TNG doesn't use the non-line concept, Troi's rank put her in command even though she wasn't qualified for the position. Given she did have two very qualified junior personnel to advise her, she was very obviously unqualified to command the Enterprise in such an emergency. True, using her Starfleet officer training, her own instincts, good advice, and probably some of her Betazoid empathy she made the right decisions to save the ship and the bulk of the crew.
In a more critical situation where she wouldn't have had time or someone to advise her to make her decisions, Ensign Ro should have taken command. Given Ro's more callous concept of command would have resulted in far more crew loss, its a good thing she didn't.
I personally think someone who has not passed the bridge officer's course should never be a factor in who is in command. As calguard mentioned, they should be outside the chain of command. Troi's rank did not make her eligible just because she outranked Ro and command should have gone to the senior surviving bridge officer, in this case, Ro.
This goes back to the excellent role playing opportunity of do junior officers effectively mutiny and do what they are trained to do, or let someone that is not trained make a bad decision.


On a different topic, regardless of the rank tabs O'Brien wore, he was always referred to as "Chief." First, as the Transporter Chief, which was a lieutenant's position on the TOS Enterprise, then, as Operations Chief on DS9. I have always thought the most equivalent rank the US military has to cover O'Brien's title, and a few comments he made on screen, is that of Chief Warrant Officer. Warrants out rank enlisted, but are junior to officers and are always technical specialists extraordinaire. This fits O'Brien's character perfectly.

[calguard66]

I agree that US military ranks and procedure do not exactly fit Starfleet. However, ANY organization who's personnel might face danger or adversity have a system of seniority and command, even if it is only used during such emergencies. Oil drilling platforms, seagoing merchant or fishing vessels, fire departments, civilian airliners, even Antarctic civilian research stations have someone who is in charge and a defined chain of command placing everyone in relation to everyone else.

This isn't a military concept... it's been going on since humans were herd animals on the plains of Africa. It's a survival concept. When a crisis strikes there isn't time to decide who is in charge, who makes decisions who takes instructions from whom.

Such things may get muddled by civilians who often don't worry about who is 5th or 10th in the chain or organization, but a paramilitary organization like Starfleet that faces combat, alien whatsis and mysterious whosis every week would have it down to the last galley scrubber. We may argue about what form the succession takes... whether there are line, restricted line and staff officers... whether there are no such distinctions at all... whether counselors and other such personnel are more-or-less "honorary" officers outside the chain of command... whether the chain of command is the same Starfleet-wide or set by the commander of each vessel as they see fit. It's even possible O'Brien "fudged", claiming that Troi was in command when she really wasn't because he thought she would make better decisions than Ro.

What cannot be reasonably argued is that any Starfleet servicemember on board at the time of the incident in question, and who had been oriented to the standard operating procedure of the vessel (whatever that was), would not be able to look around them wherever they were and quickly tell who was the senior person present or who was otherwise in charge in any situation. Certainly personnel regularly assigned to the bridge would know who was in the chain of command and who had the right to assume command of the bridge.

Just because Troi was on the bridge and not in command of the vessel at the moment should not be used to imply that she wasn't in the chain of command. Again to use the US Navy example (SeaTyger correct me), the captain of a vessel or other senior officer may be on the bridge but may not actually hold command of the bridge. The officer of the deck (OOD) usually "has the conn"... that means that ONLY that officer is allowed to give orders to the helm. If the captain is on the bridge, but has not asked for _and_received_ the conn from the officer currently holding it the helmsman will not accept orders from him, or anyone else. Likewise, that Tactical Lieutenant was likely the OOD... physically in command of the vessel. Just because a more senior officer happened to enter the bridge does not change that. With the emergency and death of the OOD Troi and everyone else present should have known instantly if she had the authority to take command, and if not who did.

This brings up another point. If Troi DID have the authority to take command, then she should have known it herself AND she should have been at least minimally qualified. It makes no sense for Starfleet to allow the most senior officer present to take command of a vessel underway over other more qualified officers unless all officers are at least minimally qualified to take command. In this case that would mean being at least minimally qualified as a pilot, astrogator, and having some familiarity with the tactical systems and engineering spaces as well as standard and emergency proceedures... none of which Troi exhibited. Also, it makes no sense to require such training for promotion to Commander if she can take command over "line" officers anyway without having had such training. The only possible wiggle room is that O'Brien was disqualified due to his enlisted status and Ro was not bridge-command qualified either due to her junior, and perhaps somewhat probationary, status. In that case (EVERYONE being unqualified) the senior officer present would and should take command... in which case Ro was STILL very wrong. Also, military vessels never have only one qualified watchstander on watch... what if the qualified officer drops dead, exactly what happened to Enterprise? I'm not sure about the Navy, but in the US Coast Guard senior petty officers are often qualified to stand as OOD/ JOOD as well as comissioned officers, so O'Brien might have been standing as JOOD, but that doesn't resolve the issue with Troi taking command.

If Troi did have the authority, as she apparently did, anyone acting as Ro did would have been in deep kimshee. Even on a commercial fishing vessel with 5 crew questioning the orders or authority of the lawful master of the vessel, most especially in an emergency, would land the perpetraitor in such hot water as you couldn't even conceive. Rainbow Warrior, Greenpeace's protest vessel, has a lawful master who would expect to be obeyed by the crew. Even the owner aboard a yacht is lawfully bound to obey the vessel's licenced master while underway.

Again, this isn't a military thing... it's a survival thing. Nobody in their right mind goes anywere dangerous with a group of people without deciding who is in charge and who will make decisions... even mountain climbers and adventure racers do it. They may try to come to concensus, they may discuss and haggle under normal circumstances, but when Joe Snuffy falls in a crevice and the team leader says "frog" you darn well jump! It just has to be that way. Anybody who couldn't recognize the authority of a leader, and when the time for discussion was and when it was not would not be mountain climbing, expidition racing or whitewater rafting with anyone who posessed half a brain.

I understand that the writers took some liberty in order to write a story. I understand that Trek was conceived at a time when regard for all things military was at it's lowest ebb in US, and perhaps human, history. My problem with many Trek scripts is that with a little research and common sense they could still have a good story AND have it be halfway believeable. The idea that an organization, military or no, such as Starfleet and that the flagship vessel of such an organization would not have a precisely defined chain of command and concrete, objective criteria for who is in charge and when in any situation is absolutely beyond my ability to suspend belief.

[Tobian]

Yes this is very true, however Starfleet is generally speaking a quasi militaristic organisation - unless it is on a military mission rules and regulations can be relaxed allot. Even when they are, it seems to be the tradition of all of the officers to question whoever is in command - the real reason for that is for dramaturgic purposes BUT also because Starfleet has a tradition of not allowing knowledge and experience being overrriden by the chain of command. If someone has something to add which could defer a war, or stop the conflict with a word, they are encouraged to pitch in an opinion, rather than let the OOD blithelly render the ship into a state of war. Now quite often the Captain DOES ask any relevant people of their opinion on this BUT sometimes he doesn't have time to do that, and has to act based on the evidence at hand.

Ok an example of this. Data is in command of the Sutherland, and figures out a cunning way of revealing the Romulans position so he directly disobeys the commander of the fleet - it works... and is he punished for breaking the chain of Command - NO - why, because Starleet is more concerned with the outcome than that the Chain of command is obeyed, which sets it apart from most military organisations today - hence quasi militaristic! If Data had been in todays army he would have been brought up before a court martial - he may then have been cleared because of what he did, but equally he still disobeyed a direct order!

Of course this is an entirelly discretionary thing. Some Captains and admirals are extremelly hard lined and follow the rules to the letter - some are extremelly laid back and often it depends on the situation and what's going on!

[calguard66]

Originally posted by Tobian
If Data had been in todays army he would have been brought up before a court martial - he may then have been cleared because of what he did, but equally he still disobeyed a direct order!

Not at all. In the US Army there is a concept known as the "commander's intent". Soldiers, even junior enlisted soldiers but especially noncommissioned and commissioned officers, are expected to know what their commander intends to achieve. They are expected to use initiative to act in the absence of orders and to follow the commander's intent when the orders seem to no longer apply to the situation.

For a simple example, an infantry unit is ordered to attack the enemy on a hill. Preparations are made and a few hours later the attack is launched. In the mean time the enemy has moved to another hilltop. Does the infantry leader occupy the original hilltop, or does he divert and attack the enemy on the new hill? It depends on what the commader who ordered the attack intended to achieve. If he simply wanted that particular hilltop, perhaps as an observation post, the infantry unit has completed it's mission, fulfilled the commander's intent, and can be happy. If the commander wanted the enemy unit destroyed or captured, then they have NOT completed their mission if they occupy just occupy the original hilltop. They may not be able to divert the attack to the new hill for various technical reasons, but if it is possible to do so they should... their commander's intent was to destroy the enemy.

Likewise Data knows that Picard's intent is to expose the Romulan's assistance to House Duras. Even though Data is disobeying the letter of Picard's orders he is fulfilling Picard's intent and using initiative to act on information Data knows Picard doesn't have and taking an opportunity he doesn't have time to explain. If Data had been wrong, and the plan hadn't worked, Data might have gotten in trouble because he would have been disobeying orders and WOULD NOT have fulfilled his commander's intent. Depending on the commander he might have been busted or not... if the commander recognized that Data was acting in good faith, likely with Picard, and trying to fulfil his intent and acting on information Picard didn't have, ten everything would have been OK.

Another thing to realize is that in this situation Data was a commander himself, responsible for his vessel and it's mission. Vessel commanders, even in a fleet action generally have more latitude than subordinate officers aboard the same vessel. Data has a command an a responsibility to that command... Ro does not.

Lastly, even if you argue that Starfleet is only a quasi-military organization, it doesn't explain the confusion during an emergency. People likely died during their squabbles and inaction. Even the crew of the most tramp merchantman at sea doesn't get to argue about who is in charge when the lawful master has a heart attack in a hurricane. They know who is next, and who is next after that... and they know that they all could die if they argue about what to do or who to obey. I would expect at least as much from the crew of the Federation flagship.

[Tobian]

Ok that sounds reasonable to me, aince I am not that familiar with the dictates of modern military practice - aka while it sounds reasobanble to me, the chain of command is not there to be reasonable or nice, it's there to be obeyed Hence I could never be in a military hehe.

I still think there is a precidence of a junior officer questioning a senior officer's fitness to perform that role and relieve them from Duty. I think that Chakotay also did the same thing when Janeway went on one of her mad woman rants (of course Voyager is not the best example of consistiency hehe) - the point is Ro was just justified in that act, so therefore no one sided with her. We are also arguing the toss over a character who had numerous run ins over the chain of command and was always getting told off. Basically speaking Ro was in 'emergency' mode - she wanted to just do what she wanted to do to get done what she had too. She was brought up during the Cardassian occupation, and chains of command would have been there BUT very fluid and small (aka half a dozen people in the group!) - while really, with the harshness of Starfleet's psychological screning means Ro probably should never have been let in Starfleet, as she was clearly 'damaged' by her experiences - but that's a writer's fiat! Bottom line is Ro wanted to take controll because she wanted to be in controll, not because she was supposed to be!

[calguard66]

Originally posted by Tobian
Bottom line is Ro wanted to take controll because she wanted to be in controll, not because she was supposed to be!

That I can agree with.

Originally posted by Tobian
aka while it sounds reasobanble to me, the chain of command is not there to be reasonable or nice, it's there to be obeyed

Common misconception. Obediance is vital, but (at least in the US military system) not always the absolute most important thing. Completion of the mission is usually given higher priority is a crisis or wartime than strict obediance to orders. You can't do anything you want, you can't be openly defiant, and you can't USUALLY directly disobey and order... but creative interpretation and the use of "initiative" can cover alot of ground, especially during combat operations. Acting directly oposite orders is rare, but has been known to happen.

As a bit of trivia, enlisted soldiers in the US Army such as myself are sworn both to defend the US Constitution AND obey the orders of our superiors. We must obey every order that is not obviously illegal. Commissioned officers are ONLY sworn to defend the Constitution. They are legally bound to obey by the regulations of the service, but are not MORALLY bound to obey. What this means is that it is their moral obligation to decide when NOT to obey a legal but immoral order, and also their duty to face the consequences.

I expect Starfleet officers have a similar moral obligation.

[Tobian]

Hmm interesting, I didn't know that! Of course it's going to be nigh on impossible to determine what exactly Starfleet officers are sworn to protect etc. They serve the Federation, and are morally obliged to protect it's citizens, but equally they are bound to their oaths to Starfleet. It's a tough call as to who has to do what and when

[Pericles]

I think the ultimate answer to the ultimate question (Besides 42) in all thing Star Trek is as calguard points out falls on the writer's intent. Much like "Commander's Intent" the idea is to get something accomplished. The writer wanted drama between Troi, O'Brien, and Ro and he bloody well got it. Regardless of the common sense practice that calguard also points out of the survival concept of a clearly defined chain of command, the writer wanted drama, thus we had confusion over exactly who was in command.
In reality calguard is right, there would be no question of whom was in command. As presented Troi was not qualified to be in command. The OOD, the only really qualified officer on the bridge at the time was dead. Ro was only an ensign and too junior to be able to stand watch. O'Brien was even lower rank and not qualifed for the same reasons as Ro. Thus no one was qualified to be in command. Deep Kimchee indeed.
This is not a situation that is likely to happen in the US Military, which has already been pointed out, isn't the best model for the Trek-verse. As a long term soldier myself, I concur with calguard, the chain of command would be known and that person would immediately taken command.
In this episode however, we have to do some extrapolation. Given a set in concrete chain of command that calguard and I agree should exist, Despite her junior status and highstrung nature, Ro was the most senior QUALIFIED bridge officer on deck at that time and command should have fallen to her. Troi could have been a twenty star admiral in rank, since she didn't know her own status, bridge procedures, or the ship's systems she had no authority to take command regardless of her rank. Since Troi was unqualified, Ro by her qualification as a bridge officer should have immediately taken command of the ship.
This is of course in a universe with a concrete chain of command. since the writer was taking liberties, we ended up with a chain of command set in jello and confusion and most of all DRAMA. I guess us military types just have a hard time with this concept. The chian of command is hammered into us from day one and there is nothing to talk about WHO is in command. Now how quickly we respond to that person's commands can be a completely different topic.
The code of conduct and the Nuremberg trails have clearly shown that "I was just following orders" is not a defense that will save you from the gallows. Blind obediance to orders is a good way to end up as a co-defendent with your comannding officer if you don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to something you know is wrong regardless of "orders" or who gives them.
The oath of enlistment states "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." This is the critical part of the oath as it clearly states you are to follow orders that are legal under UCMJ. however, implicit in this is that you are NOT to follow orders that violate the UCMJ. (Which is why I look forward to those dribbling idiot MPs from Abu Garhab prison doing a long term of busting rocks at Levenworth. "I was ordered to do this by 'my higher command.'" My left foot! If they were ordered to do what is depicted in those photos then, they are all morally bankrupt for doing it)
Refusing a lawful order is, also as calguard points out, a much trickier situation. The Data in command of the Sutherland is a perfect example of how to disobey an order and not get crucified for it.
So, it boils down to the simple fact that in reality there would have been no question of who was in command during any event or situation on the Enterprise or in today's military, the only reason there was a question of command was because the writer wanted it to happen.
I would say as a Narrator it would be a good idea during the set up of a campaign to explain the chain of command and even have a written copy of it showing relevant PCs and NPCs so they players know exactly where they stand. This way if they run into an (insert treknobabble) that kills the deck officer they know who is and isn't in command to prevent any confusion.

[vinush]

Deanna took the bridge officer's test to become a bridge officer, not to cement her rank, or officiate it in any way. Her rank of Lieutenant Commander was not a technical rank, as pointed out by O'Brien in 'Disaster'.

When she passed the bridge officer's test she got the responsibilty of being a bridge officer with the added bonus of an increase in rank.

Personally, I think that the increase in rank was unnecessary, since there were already two officers on the ship at Commander rank already (Riker and Crusher) but at the end of the day, Riker was in the command division, and would have priority over the other commanders.

Vince.

[Tobian]

Well that and he's first officer, so it's not a tough one to work out

[vinush]

That would be because he's in the command division...

But that aside, on a rank basis, there are three commanders aboard...

[Tobian]

No what I mean is that regardless of rank the chain of command always follows:

Captain -> First officer -> Second officer...

Etc.

Their effective ranks are irrelevant. On a small duty station (imagine a remote outpost with a creww of 10) the CO could be a Lieutenant and the FO an Ensign... they are still captainand first officer, regargless of rank.

Because she is a trained Bridge officer (now) and because she holds the rank Command would default to her if the Captain, Riker (FO) and Data (2O) all dissapeared (and there was no standing orders present).

So far as I am aware it has never been stated if she is the 3O (if indeed there is one) and technically there COULD be a 3O who was a Lieutenant, who would default to recieve the chain of Command should the above happen.