Canon Starfleet Rules and Regulations

[Balok]

General Order 7 specifically refers to Talos IV.

There are two problems: first is the possibility that anyone who approaches will be fooled by the mental illusions the Talosians can generate. Such an individual could conceivably remove a Talosian from the planet and never realize it.

The other, and more insidious danger, comes from what the Keeper told Pike: that humans could learn their power of illusion. Since the power of illusion was largely responsible for the decayed state of their society, there is a perceived significant social risk.

That's also why the general order doesn't say why it's forbidden to approach the planet -- the framers didn't even want that temptation generally available.

Presumably, if another, similarly dangerous planet were discovered, Starfleet might generalize the order by including a reference to a list of planets that may not be approached for any reason. Perhaps that has not yet happend; there may well be planets that are dangerous to approach, but not absolutely forbidden.

General Orders are very broad in scope, and significantly influence the decisions of Starfleet personel. I could believe that, 70-80 years into space flight, there would be only six of them. (Remember that Pike's visit, which led to the General Order, occurred some years before the events of "The Menagerie".) These are the things, like the Prime Directive, that you Don't Want The Crew To Ever Forget. You achieve that best by not going overboard. The rest of it is covered by procedures, special orders, directives, and suchlike.

[Ezri's Toy]

Originally posted by JonA
I could've sworn that Section 31 is actually a reference to a clause in the a General Orders allowing for covert intelligence operations.

Although I may be thinking of the Federation Charter rather than Starfleet General Orders.

I recently found a used copy of Deep Space Nine Season 6 on DVD which contains the first Section 31 episode "Inquisition." In it, Sloan establishes that it was a provision in the Starfleet charter which authorizes Section 31. When Bashir blew the whistle on Section 31 at the end of the ep, Sisko mentions that some of the Starfleet brass was covering up Section 31's activities.

So, it means that there's corruption within regular Starfleet amongst high ranking admirals and officials. It also means that Starfleet does have the authority within itself to disband Section 31 if it so chooses.

This would be a great campaign springboard -- "White Knight" Starfleet regulars attempt to clean up and take down "Black Ops" Section 31 Starfleet intelligence.

[Sea Tyger]

You know, listening to Fesarius' argument, and it reminds me of the U.S. Armed Forces Code of Conduct.

The code consists of six simple articles which guides servicemen in times of conflict.
----------
Article I
I am an American fighting man. I serve in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

Article II
I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender my men while they still have the means to resist.

Article III
If I am captured, I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

Article IV
If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information nor take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take charge; if not, I will follow the orders of the senior prisoner, regardless of his branch of service (U.S. or allied nation).

Article V
When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.

Article VI
I will never forget that I am an American fighting man, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.
---------------
Now, while the Code of Conduct is a more personal guide than Starfleet's General Orders, I can see simliarities in the spirit of both documents.

And it makes sense that there could only be a few General Orders, even 90-odd years after the founding of the Federation.

[Ezri's Toy]

Originally posted by Sea Tyger
You know, listening to Fesarius' argument, and it reminds me of the U.S. Armed Forces Code of Conduct.

And, in the U.S. Army (established 1776), there are only three General Orders common to all soldiers; All other orders are considered Special Orders and are not necessarily common to all soldiers.

General Orders

1. I will guard everything within the limits of my post and quit my post only when properly relieved.

2. I will obey my special orders and perform all my duties in a military manner.

3. I will report violations of my special orders, emergencies, and any thing not covered in my instructions to the commander of the relief.

Ezri's Toy
Formerly of A Bty, 3 Bn, 75FA 102nd ARCOM

[varin]

The point about Section 31 is a good one- However in the book "The First Line" the SF Intel manual- it states that Section 31 existence's is due to the Federation Consitution-specially-Article 1 which established the basic outline of the Federation Government including the duties of each branch.

Part Four of the article above describes Starfleet's role in the Federation and its functions within-Chapter 7 of Part Four describes Starfleet Inteliigence-Section 31 is within that area and states the following.

"Starfleet Intelligence shall, from time to time and as deemed reasonably prudent and necessary to protect the security and the safety of the FEDERATION, conduct both domestic and foreign intel and CI activites."

Sounds like somebody WAY BACK stuck something in there. And no one high up has directly challanged it since them.

[Ezri's Toy]

Originally posted by varin
The point about Section 31 is a good one- However in the book "The First Line" the SF Intel manual- it states that Section 31 existence's is due to the Federation Consitution-specially-Article 1 which established the basic outline of the Federation Government including the duties of each branch.

Yes. But "The First Line" is not a canon source. Since this thread is "Canon Starfleet Rules and Regulations," the only canon source would be the DS9 ep "Inquisition."

But, as always, the STRPG is a game and you're expected to tweak it to make it fun for you and your group. So, . . . .

[strict31]

Originally posted by Ezri's Toy
Starfleet Security Protocol 28, subsection D: In the event of hostile alien takeover of a Starfleet vessel, the Emergency Medical Hologram is to deactivate and await rescue. ("Message In A Bottle" [VOY])

I have a question...admittedly, it may be based on incorrect or incomplete recollection, so feel free to correct me, here...Assuming the EMH was activated because of some (duh) emergency, wouldn't any normal EMH be incapable of deactivating himself? I thought it was only after a number of complaints of being "left on" that Voyager's Doctor was given the ability to shut himself down. If I'm remembering this correctly, what EMH could follow that protocol?

I just looked in the ST encyclopedia, and found that the Doctor, and presumably, EMHs created prior to the Prometheus could not deactivate themselves. Well, I guess we are to assume that at some point, EMHs are designed or updated with the ability to self-deactivate...

I never saw Message in a Bottle...Ezri, could you provide the context in which the protocol was mentioned?


Strictly Speaking

[Ezri's Toy]

Originally posted by strict31
I have a question...admittedly, it may be based on incorrect or incomplete recollection, so feel free to correct me, here...Assuming the EMH was activated because of some (duh) emergency, wouldn't any normal EMH be incapable of deactivating himself? . . . . I never saw Message in a Bottle...Ezri, could you provide the context in which the protocol was mentioned?

Unfortunately, "Message In A Bottle" is an episode I've missed also (Please, no spoilers. Thx.). And, yes, you've caught one of those inconsistencies that always crop up in shared worlds. All incarnations of Star Trek have them somewhere.

However, I suppose you could explain it away by saying that the average HoloDoc could deactivate itsself only under the conditions outlined in the regulation. Since those conditions weren't met in other instances, the AI was unable to deactivate itsself.

I'd speculate also that, under those conditions, a HoloDoc might be programmed to automatically execute a deactivation command. Rather than leaving deactivation as a decision to be made by the AI, it is by fiat of the programmer.

Of course, such a provision, while logical and smart, would preclude a number of cool stories involving invading ship boarding parties and the lone AI hologram rescuing the crew.

[KillerWhale]

Just a question, Sea Tyger, about the code of conduct, article II... Does that mean that you should never surrender, even if vastly outnumbered? Or does a battle that seems lost in advance qualify as acceptable conditions for a surrender, in order to avoid a useless slaughter?

Just curious

[strict31]

Originally posted by Ezri's Toy
Unfortunately, "Message In A Bottle" is an episode I've missed also (Please, no spoilers. Thx.). And, yes, you've caught one of those inconsistencies that always crop up in shared worlds. All incarnations of Star Trek have them somewhere.

However, I suppose you could explain it away by saying that the average HoloDoc could deactivate itsself only under the conditions outlined in the regulation. Since those conditions weren't met in other instances, the AI was unable to deactivate itsself.

I'd speculate also that, under those conditions, a HoloDoc might be programmed to automatically execute a deactivation command. Rather than leaving deactivation as a decision to be made by the AI, it is by fiat of the programmer.

Of course, such a provision, while logical and smart, would preclude a number of cool stories involving invading ship boarding parties and the lone AI hologram rescuing the crew.

Message in a Bottle is one of the few episodes of Trek that isn't re-run constantly. And it's one of the few eps of Voyager that I actually regret missing.

I guess there are explanations for the self-deactivation thing. I'd like to know when in the timleine of Trek it was enacted though, because a case could be made that Beverly ordered the Ent-E's EMH to break it...unless it did not exist at the time in which ST:FC occured.

Additionally, since EMHs and holograms in general were never officially declared sentient, it seems to be placing a lot of responsibility on what is still perceived to be (at least) a mechanism (holograms are obviously a function of a complex program, but would not exist or operate without the mechanisms of the ship's emmitters and computer core). It's like, holding the ship's AI accountable for the breach of non-lethality in a holodeck sim, where a user switches it off and forgets to turn it back on after he's done. I mean, the fact is, the Doctor was unique (at first) because he had been activated for such a long period of time. he grew and evolved beyond the constraints of his initial parameters. He could follow orders and be held accountable for the interpretation and execution of those orders because he had developed an awareness of self commensurate with that of a human or Data. But applying an order to all Holograms, which, ostensibly are not yet intended to replace living crew members except in emergencies, doesn't seem to be logical.

Like berating a light for not turning itself off.

Not that i have a problem applying such a protocol to holographic or mechanical entities deemed to be sentient. Not at all. it's just, the inconsistency, for me, comes because Message in a Bottle occured before the issue of holographic sentience was debated in the Alpha Quadrant IIRC.

I don't mean to derail the thread, so please don't assume that. It seems like this would be a valid issue that players and GMs would encounter if interpretation of that protocol arose in an adventure. If it does, in fact come down to a matter of canon inconsistency (instead of my own mis-remembering), on what side should the GM err? I guess on whatever side suits his campaign best...


Strictly Speaking

[Caitian Tourist]

Perhaps it's simply a mis-wording (or just poor wording) for a protocol which dictates the medical staff should deactivate a running EMH in the event of a take over, and that in ST:FC Crusher went against that protocol.

[Spotts1701]

Order 104, Section B "During a crisis situation where the commanding officer of a starship is incapacitated or otherwise unavailable, the senior officer present may assume command unless doing so violates Section C of this order."

Order 104, Section C "The chief medical officer of a starship may relieve the commanding officer of duty if the commanding officer is physically or mentally unfit for duty. However, any such action must be supported by the results of a physical examination."

Both from "The Doomsday Machine" (TOS). I may not have the wording right, but it does get the point across.

Starfleet Engineering Code: "A secondary backup for all mission-critical components is required in the event that the primary backup fails." - "Destiny" (DS9)

[Antonsb214]

Article II of the code of conduct mentions that while troops have the means to resist they will not surrender unless ordered to by their CO (Commanding Officer), we're not supposed to just decide "I don't want to fight anymore", even if we're outnumbered, we fight as long as we have the ability to or are ordered to do something else. As soon as a unit is no longer combat effective, the decision to surrender or whatever is up to the CO.

[TJLanza]

Originally posted by strict31
I never saw Message in a Bottle...Ezri, could you provide the context in which the protocol was mentioned?

If my memory serves, the comment was made by one EMH to another EMH. And I think we can all guess who the disobedient EMH was.