Phase "cloak" shouldn't really have violated Fed/R

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2003-02-07 04:00pm

OH NO THE THREAD WAS DRAGGED OFF TOPIC.

OH MY GOD WHATEVER WILL WE DO?

You are RIGHT Darth Servo

I am a BAD BAD PERSON for even suggesting that Picard and the Admiral could've been wrong about the treaty.

I am an absolutely TERRIBLE person for even thinking that the Federation could find a way to get the device past the treaty.

I am an absolutely HORRIBLE person for trying to state my oppinion, that there was a good chance that they could get it past the treaty.

I should've known better to argue with you about the treaty, since you apparently WROTE it and know what is allowed and what isn't.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2003-02-07 04:07pm

And one more thing

I haven't been arguing that it definately would, have or should have not been in violation of the treaty. I think that Picard was more than a little bit hasty in decloaking the ship exposing all this to the romulans without consulting starfleet command.

As for why the Admiral didn't look for a loophole, maybe he had one in mind but the Federation council members or Starfleet command didn't approve the project up front, which is why it had to be kept secret. WE JUST DONT KNOW.

It is highly possible, that this device would have been covered by the treaty, and then again there is a possiblity that it would not have.

As I said earlier, if you won't even open your mind up to the possibility then you came in with a pre-conceived notion and nothing I say or demonstrate will presuade you otherwise. The only way to SETTLE the argument would be for someone to present the treaty here in its exact wording which is ofcourse, impossible.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-02-07 04:07pm

Crying about it won't solve anything.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2003-02-07 04:09pm

Aleskya have you offered anything other than smartass comments in this thread?

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-02-07 04:10pm

Admiral_K wrote:

I'm sure Garak has had PLENTY of time over the years to learn how to fire a fucking fed phaser rifle
So, that would mean if said rifle had auto-targeting capabilities, Garak would know how to use it. Your words, not mine.
Learning how to fire a weapon, and learning all of the settings that go with an auto targeting system are two different things. Regardless, he would've originally learned how to fire using a scope, therefore that would be what is most comfortable for him. There is absolutely no benefit from holding the weapon like that that you wouldn't get from looking down the barrel.

You have given absolutely no proof that you can't use a phaser "rifle" accurately at range without a scope. That is your chief contention for an "auto targeting system" which IIRC it is never stated to have.

Your appeal to your "expertise" doesn't apply because phaser rifles have virtually nothing in common with modern rifles. They have no kickback, have a visible tracer, and are not affected by wind.

This statement entire line of reasoning is very... ignorant. You know absolutely nothing about firing weapons. You do not know the importance of iron sights (or scopes). You make absurd claims that they are well trained trick shooters. You claim they use a tracer, ignoring that they often hit on the first shot. Also, recoil has nothing to do with firing a modern rifle and hitting with the first shot. Recoil makes every shot after the first less accurate.
Strawman

I know just as much as you do about firing beam weapons. I also know more than you think about firing rifles. If modern rifles could fire with a tracer, and if they didn't have recoil that would throw off successive shots, and weren't affected by the wind, then they most certainly COULD learn to be accurate with them at moderate distances even without sights, and certainly within the 40 meters we saw in your only example of ranged combat.

If you use a beam weapon that is unaffected by wind, and is essentially straight over the distance you are shooting, you can learn to eyeball their target.

If they had auto targeting systems, how do you explain the MISSESover such a relatively short distance, despite the lack of jaming equipment or cover for the Jem troops?

You think its simpler to claim that Starfleet trains their "soldiers" to fire their weapons without sights, kinda like how trick shooters fire from the hip. This ignores the fact that the angles change, the distances and variables change, this requires YEARS of constant practice, and is, well, quite unreasonable.
The only one claiming they were "trick shooters" is you. I don't think starfleet trains them to fire weapons without sights. I would attribute it to bad acting/directing. Common sense would teach them to learn to use the sights on their guns, so that even if their "auto target" feature, should they have one, failed they would be able to use their weapons accurately. Just because a few of them are holding their weapons like 1930's bank robbers doesn't mean that they can't learn to be accurate this way.

Poor technique doesn't prove the existence of auto targeting featrues. Poor techniques, when practiced over the years, can still provide effective results. If you need a real life example, there are many major league Baseball players who have strange batting stances or swings, yet they are very effective with them because they have used them over the years.

And please STOP comparing them to modern rifles. They have nothing in commen with them save for a slightly similar shape and the word "rifle". Better yet, you show how a phaser rifle is similar to a modern rifle and we can go from there. You keep trumpeting the "importance" of having a sight on a weapon so how about you explain why you need one ok?

Until you actually demonstrate actual knowledge on the subject, concession accepted.
No concession has been offered. Until you can demonstrate actual evidence that you can't accurately fire a PHASER rifle without sights, then your claim is unsubstantiated.

Oh, BTW. Nice dodge on being called wrong. You shift the blame and try and hide from being called on your intial claim in this thread.
My claim was that it could've been legal under the treaty. No one has disparaged that claim. It wasn't even made in all that seriousness or I would've gotten quotes etc. I was merely broaching the possibility.

Eventually, people with no more knowledge about the treaty than myself came in and tried to claim there was "no chance" when I knew damn well that there was.

(shakes head)

I am not bothering to respond to that gargage. You have a fucking thick skull and can't understand a damned thing.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-02-07 04:10pm

Admiral_K wrote:I am an absolutely HORRIBLE person for trying to state my oppinion, that there was a good chance that they could get it past the treaty.

No, you're an asshole for blasting me for allegedly debating with nothign but opinions even though you just admitted thats precisely what you've been doing the whole time. Most people consider that 'hypocracy' and is usually frowned upon.

You can state your opinion all you want, but when everyone else provides evidence that said opinion is wrong, its expected around here for you to either conceed, STFU or expect flames. Get it yet?

I should've known better to argue with you about the treaty, since you apparently WROTE it and know what is allowed and what isn't.

Strawman. I never claimed to know what the precise wording of the treaty was. Thats what YOU tried to do with all this legalistic bullshit. I merely stated that the characters are certainly more familiar with it than YOU are and they certainly behaved in such a manner that conveyed the message that the phase cloak was a definite violation of the treaty. It goes w/o saying that the Romulans wouldn't have taken any of this legalistic bullcrap you're trying to sell.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-02-07 04:12pm

Admiral_K wrote:Aleskya have you offered anything other than smartass comments in this thread?

IMO, he's offered more than you have asshole.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-02-07 04:14pm

Admiral_K wrote:Aleskya have you offered anything other than smartass comments in this thread?

I shall leave that question up to you. Answer it correctly and people might change their opinion about you. Answer it incorrectly and people will continue to ridicule you.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2003-02-07 04:14pm

Explain why sights are neccessary to fire a beam weapon such as a phaser rifle with a tracer accurately over a short distance (40 m).

Now remember, this is only slightly farther than distance between home plate and second base in baseball.

OOPS dragging off topic again.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-02-07 04:19pm

Admiral_K wrote:Explain why sights are neccessary to fire a beam weapon such as a phaser rifle with a tracer accurately over a short distance (40 m).

Now remember, this is only slightly farther than distance between home plate and second base in baseball.

OOPS dragging off topic again.

Thats easy. Its impossible to hit anything except at point blank range when not firing with sights. You might as well fire from the hip, same accuracy.

And indeed, you are dragging this off topic again. Your not doing a very good jop supporting your position.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2003-02-07 04:19pm

Darth servo, you started with the insults. I tried to start over without them, and you responded with more insults.

I tried to explain my position. I am not worrying about what the romulans "would've thought". Or the fact that it may violate the spirit of the treaty. If you don't call it a cloaking device, and instead call it a phase inverter, then there is at least a decent chance that it was not covered by the treaty.

That is what I am saying and that is ALL I am saying.

How could I argue anythign else when I myself don't know the wording of the treaty?

Any other interpretrations of my comments are in error.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2003-02-07 04:27pm

Thats easy. Its impossible to hit anything except at point blank range when not firing with sights. You might as well fire from the hip, same accuracy.

WHY is it impossible? Over a longer distance (200 meters or so), I could agree it would be very hard to hit without looking through a scope on the first try, but 40 meters isn't that far.

A beam weapon, such as a phaser rifle, is more akin to a fire hose than it is to a modern rifle. The only different being, there is no water pressure that is fighting you for control of the phaser rifle and wind is not a factor. Firemen can hit burning windows, easily higher than th 40 meters distance we saw in rocks and shoals

And indeed, you are dragging this off topic again. Your not doing a very good jop supporting your position.

This argument is dead. Everything that could be said, has been said. You either believe in the possibility or you don't. If you like, we can move this debate to another thread. It doesn't matter to me.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-02-07 04:29pm

Admiral_K wrote:Darth servo, you started with the insults. I tried to start over without them, and you responded with more insults.

Blow me. Why should I not respond to your blatant hypocricy with flames? Walls of ignorance like your's are routinly treated with flames on this message board in case you hadn't noticed. Stupidity is whats considered bad around here, not flaming.

I tried to explain my position. I am not worrying about what the romulans "would've thought". Or the fact that it may violate the spirit of the treaty. If you don't call it a cloaking device, and instead call it a phase inverter, then there is at least a decent chance that it was not covered by the treaty.

Only if you define "decent chance" as the equivalent to "snowball in hell". The name of the fucking thing is irrelevant. In the real life example of Russian Air Craft Carriers, the name change fooled no one. They were allowed to use the particular sea way simply because they had no choice. Changing the name was just a formality to please legalistic assholes like you.

That is what I am saying and that is ALL I am saying.

Then why do you insist on arguing it even though you've been proven wrong.

How could I argue anythign else when I myself don't know the wording of the treaty?

On page two, you listed several of your possible "alternative" interpretations. Every single one was pure speculation yet you still tried to present it as an argument.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-02-07 04:36pm

Admiral_K wrote:
Thats easy. Its impossible to hit anything except at point blank range when not firing with sights. You might as well fire from the hip, same accuracy.
WHY is it impossible? Over a longer distance (200 meters or so), I could agree it would be very hard to hit without looking through a scope on the first try, but 40 meters isn't that far.

40 meters is quite far indeed. That is almost 1/4 the maximum distance of a standard assault rifle with ion sights. Without a way to aim the weapon (just pointing in the general direction is not aiming), you can't hit the target. Its that simple. Without iron sights, you can not aim the rifle. That is as simple as it gets.

A beam weapon, such as a phaser rifle, is more akin to a fire hose than it is to a modern rifle. The only different being, there is no water pressure that is fighting you for control of the phaser rifle and wind is not a factor. Firemen can hit burning windows, easily higher than th 40 meters distance we saw in rocks and shoals

Some minor differences. Fires don't run, they don't move. Fire fighters have to adjust their aim of the hose. If a fire fighter turns off the hose, when turning it back on they have to come on target again. You can not hit a target reliably with a rifle type weapon without some sort of sight or aiming device. That is as SIMPLE as it gets. Even at 40 meters that is beyond a "hip shot". I can not make it any simpler. You can't hit a target at that range without sighting down the weapon. It is humanly impossible unless VERY specially trained, which is not realistic in the least for soldiers.

And indeed, you are dragging this off topic again. Your not doing a very good jop supporting your position.
This argument is dead. Everything that could be said, has been said. You either believe in the possibility or you don't. If you like, we can move this debate to another thread. It doesn't matter to me.

Indeed the argument is dead. You refuse to acknowledge your defeat and because of that it is pointless for me to continue.

And as for splitting the thread, I shall leave it in here for the imediate future.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2003-02-07 04:40pm

I've been arguing possibilitys all along idiot.

The only Wall of Ignorance around here is the one you errected around your "It says phase CLOAK so it is a cloaking device and is therefore banned" statement.

I gave some examples because that is how legal documents such as treatys are drawn up.

I am arguing against morons like YOU because you seem to think that your oppinion is the end all, be all of the discussion. I haven't been proven wrong because it is IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE ME WRONG.

Can you say with 100% certainty, that based on the wording in the treaty this device is banned?

What?

You Can't?

Then shut the fuck up. You've proven NOTHING WRONG.

Sure the device has some of the characteristics of a cloaking device. Sure it makes it undetectable by other ships, but so does accelerating away at high warp.

You can bitch all day that a "cloaking device is a cloaking device is a cloaking device" but if the wording in the treaty is specific to bending light waves, masking drive emissions etc as standard cloaking devices do, then the phase inverter WOULD be legal under the treaty.

SO just stop! You can't win.

Look at it this way: Mike Wong can never win the argument that "creationism" is completely invalid. The only thing he can argue is the way creation took place because that is the only thing he has access to. He can't look into what happens when people die, or look back to the origin of the universe. By the same token, neither can they, but they simply have faith that it happened in the manner they believe. You are in much the same boat here.

[/b]

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2003-02-07 04:44pm

I've been arguing possibilitys all along idiot.

The only Wall of Ignorance around here is the one you errected around your "It says phase CLOAK so it is a cloaking device and is therefore banned" statement.

I gave some examples because that is how legal documents such as treatys are drawn up.

I am arguing against morons like YOU because you seem to think that your oppinion is the end all, be all of the discussion. I haven't been proven wrong because it is IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE ME WRONG.

Can you say with 100% certainty, that based on the wording in the treaty this device is banned?

What?

You Can't?

Then shut the fuck up. You've proven NOTHING WRONG.

Sure the device has some of the characteristics of a cloaking device. Sure it makes it undetectable by other ships, but so does accelerating away at high warp.

You can bitch all day that a "cloaking device is a cloaking device is a cloaking device" but if the wording in the treaty is specific to bending light waves, masking drive emissions etc as standard cloaking devices do, then the phase inverter WOULD be legal under the treaty.

SO just stop! You can't win.

Look at it this way: Mike Wong can never win the argument that "creationism" is completely invalid. The only thing he can argue is the way creation took place because that is the only thing he has access to. He can't look into what happens when people die, or look back to the origin of the universe. By the same token, neither can they, but they simply have faith that it happened in the manner they believe. You are in much the same boat here.

Calm down. Your argument has been demolished, and wall of ignorance debate tactics are NOT the way to go.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2003-02-07 04:52pm

40 meters is quite far indeed. That is almost 1/4 the maximum distance of a standard assault rifle with ion sights. Without a way to aim the weapon (just pointing in the general direction is not aiming), you can't hit the target. Its that simple. Without iron sights, you can not aim the rifle. That is as simple as it gets.

I agree with no visible trace, it would be hard to hit without sights at 40 meters. But WITH a tracer?

Some minor differences. Fires don't run, they don't move. Fire fighters have to adjust their aim of the hose. If a fire fighter turns off the hose, when turning it back on they have to come on target again. You can not hit a target reliably with a rifle type weapon without some sort of sight or aiming device. That is as SIMPLE as it gets. Even at 40 meters that is beyond a "hip shot". I can not make it any simpler. You can't hit a target at that range without sighting down the weapon. It is humanly impossible unless VERY specially trained, which is not realistic in the least for soldiers.

Actually, fires do run and do move. But that is beside the point. They aren't truly "shooting from the hip" as you say anyway.

You can't hit a target reliably at 40 meters away with a modern rifle. Point conceded. In fact it was never contended.

With a weapon with a tracer though, it is indeed quite possible especially in a set up ambush where you most likely would have taken some test shots to determine where the best kill zone area would be. Remember, they essentially chose when and where the battle would begin.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2003-02-07 04:54pm

Calm down. Your argument has been demolished, and wall of ignorance debate tactics are NOT the way to go.

Is that the blanket statement made by the intellectually challenged around here?

How could my argument possibly be demolished when ther is NO WAY TO WIN said argument either way? It is IMPOSSIBLE unless someone somehow has access to an approved copy of the treaty

.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-02-07 04:58pm

Admiral_K wrote:

Calm down. Your argument has been demolished, and wall of ignorance debate tactics are NOT the way to go.
Is that the blanket statement made by the intellectually challenged around here?

How could my argument possibly be demolished when ther is NO WAY TO WIN said argument either way? It is IMPOSSIBLE unless someone somehow has access to an approved copy of the treaty .

Okay, NOW you're being an ass.

Cpt Frank was being kind enough to you and I will be blunt: you are well on your way to a Village Idiot Title.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2003-02-07 05:23pm

Calm down. Your argument has been demolished, and wall of ignorance debate tactics are NOT the way to go.

Is that the blanket statement made by the intellectually challenged around here?

How could my argument possibly be demolished when ther is NO WAY TO WIN said argument either way? It is IMPOSSIBLE unless someone somehow has access to an approved copy of the treaty .

Okay, NOW you're being an ass.

Cpt Frank was being kind enough to you and I will be blunt: you are well on your way to a Village Idiot Title

Take shit from absolutely no one is my motto!

If that is how it is to be, then so be it. I'm not going to kiss anyone's ass just to post on here.

It has been clear from the start, that it is the "in club" with their little special titles all supporting their pals. I expected no less.

I see that "wall of ignorance" statement applied alot, and it simply didn't apply in this case. I'm not ignorant. Nore am I spouting anything ignorant. I've been criticized for looking for "legal loopholes", but that was the whole point of the post: could the phase cloak be arguably legal in the terms of the treaty. I never said that it HAD to be legal, merely that it was possible.

I do not accept the blanket statement that because it "hides" a ship means that it is automatically banned, as I seriously doubt the treaty would say "Anything that hides a ship" as that is FAR too general. Most legal documents, including treatys are very specific. The irony of that, is this is to prevent loopholes however in reality it only creates other loopholes.

After all, one mans loophole, is another mans noose.

Just because I do not agree with the "special titles" club doesn't make me an idiot. It's not like I am claiming that there is a 16 km Federation ship, or that some sort of special chain reaction is what destroyed Alderaan.

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-02-07 05:39pm

Admiral_K wrote: I see that "wall of ignorance" statement applied alot, and it simply didn't apply in this case. I'm not ignorant. Nore am I spouting anything ignorant. I've been criticized for looking for "legal loopholes", but that was the whole point of the post: could the phase cloak be arguably legal in the terms of the treaty. I never said that it HAD to be legal, merely that it was possible.

I have no problem with the assertion. It might be possible to argue that the "phase cloak" is not a cloaking device in the traditional sense. Nonetheless, I think such an argument would undoubtedly fail; the Romulans would consider it a cloaking device and withdraw from the Treaty of Algernon if the Federation did not destroy the device and the data (and they'd probably bug the Federation the way the US bugs Iraq for evidence of said destruction).

Admiral_K wrote: I do not accept the blanket statement that because it "hides" a ship means that it is automatically banned, as I seriously doubt the treaty would say "Anything that hides a ship" as that is FAR too general. Most legal documents, including treatys are very specific. The irony of that, is this is to prevent loopholes however in reality it only creates other loopholes.

I have no idea how a cloaking device would be defined in the Trek universe, apart from its capacity to hide a starship from sensors. You could try arguing that the treaty doesn't apply to it because the "phase cloak" makes the ship transparent to sensors instead of "bending light" around the ship. It would be unrealistic to expect such an argument to succeed, though, unless you were negotiating from such a position of strength (relative to the other parties to the treaty) that they had no choice but to accept your interpretation.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-02-07 05:48pm

The treaty of Algeron covers the phase cloak...why else would the Admiral be so nervous about the Romulans seeing it in action, why would Starfleet do the experiments in secret if not because the phase cloak was violating the treaty, why would the crew have mutnied after dicovering what was being done if not in violation of the treaty, most important of all PICARD THOUGHT it violated the Treaty.

The legal loophole argument does not work for the simple reason that it covered ALL cloaking devices. A phase cloak hides a ship plain and simpole, the mechanism of hiding it does not matter. Gene Roddenberry himself stated that he would never want a Federation ship to use cloaking devices because they were inherently underhanded.

No one is asking you to toe any party line, we are asking that you debate without using tactics like ignoring someone's counterpoint, repeating your own point ad nauseum or declarting that there is no answer...because then why debate the point, you already made up your mind and your just blowing wind at that point.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2003-02-07 06:04pm

Stravo, it may have violated the spirit of the treaty, but maybe not neccessarily the letter of the law. Picard is the most moralising captain we've ever seen in trek, perfectly willing to sacrifice human lives for his "ideals". He is not what I would consider an expert on the legality of a treaty drawn up by diplomats and lawyers.

As to why it was done in secret, well the Romulans were doing these experiments in secret as well even though they were not bound to do so by any treaty. The same goes for the Klingons. The Romulans didn't want the federation to know anything about it, even conspring to blow up the Enterprise rather than risk them figuring out what they were doing. Obviously, this is because such a device would prove to be very useful to whichever side managed to get it first.

I could accept that it might not be legal according the the treay.
What irks me is statements like your first line "the treat of Algeron covers the phase cloak" as if they are fact. When the treaty was drawn up, I highly doubt that phase cloaks were even considered. Hell, Laforge seemed to still consider it theoretical in "The Next Phase". We don't know what the exact terms of the treaty were. If you describe the device as something "alters the moleculer structure of matter so it can pass through other matter" and call it a phase inverter, then it isn't as clear cut that it is a cloaking device now is it?

Its not as if they used a standard cloak and called it a "stealth device" and tried to slip it past the treaty. And belive it or not, I didn't post my oppinion for it to be debated, merely as an observation.

Lord Sander · Post by **Lord Sander** » 2003-02-07 06:35pm

Admiral_K wrote:I stand by my original claim, that based on the wording of the treaty, this device could've slipped by.

We don't know the wording of the treaty, but considering even Starfleet officers considered the phasing device as a breach of the treaty, the treaty likely wasn't worded so that only standard cloaking devices were covered, but ANY devices that made a ships invisible to any Romulan sensors were.

Lord Sander · Post by **Lord Sander** » 2003-02-07 06:40pm

Admiral_K wrote:I could accept that it might not be legal according the the treay.
What irks me is statements like your first line "the treat of Algeron covers the phase cloak" as if they are fact. When the treaty was drawn up, I highly doubt that phase cloaks were even considered.

If the treaty stipulates that any device that makes a ship invisible to Romulan sensors is illegal, then that means that the phase cloak is covered by the treaty of Algeron, for it makes ships invisible to sensors. Whether by intent or side-effect is irrelevant.