StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Darth Wong wrote:

Solauren wrote:My take on it;

He tried the test the first time, and "failed". How he did is unknown. For all we know, he could have taken down half of the Klingon Battlecruisers.

He tried the test a second time, and "failed". Again, how he did is unknown.

Realising he's in a no-win scenario, or that the test itself is a cheat. (It's programmed to kill the federation shop, regardless), he decided to completely 180 degree turn it.

The idea that the test is a "cheat" is stupid; it implies that there's some kind of fair competition rule between the student and the faculty.

You know what? The test is designed to find out how a potiental captain responds to a no-win scenario. They've seen it now, twice. Once where he doesn't know it's no-win, and once when he goes in knowing it' no-win.

After the third time, they found out that he's a sore loser with attitude problems who stubbornly refuses to accept the possibility that some situations may be tactically hopeless, even though that does happen in real-life. Oh wait, I guess that means real-life "cheats" too, so it's not fair and he should appeal it to God.

They now know, under the requirements that had, how he handles that scenario. And given his performance during the later part of the movie, it's safe to say he handled it well.

They also learn something more and 'new' about him: He's going to do whatever it takes to win, and to hell with restrictions and regulations if need be. Whether or not that's if live are on the line or not, is up for the head-doc's to decide.

Quite frankly, his actions gave them more information then the standard test ever could.

I'd give him the standard results for the test, make a note on his about this, and recommend him for normal advancement with a captain that was good on discipline, or the captain that recruited him.

Starfleet needs captains that can think on their feet, back off and make decisions, and won't let the rule book hold them back.

An the rest of the movie proved it.

What a load of apologist horseshit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO0ij6MA3P4

Themightytom wrote:In all 3 situations he went where he was prhibited from going. Simulators computer, Enterprise under Spock's command and Nero's ship. You are suggesting he should only ever go where he is allowed to go in a training situation, I am pointing out if the training was the model and he had learned not to go where he wasn't supposed to, he would be stuck on an ice planet, OR he wouldn't ever have left SF academy, as Bones smuggled him onto the Enterprise in the first place (Though pike didn't mind)

What, are you fucking retarded? There was no reason for him to break into the simulator's computer to reprogram the thing. Bones smuggling him onto the Enterprise was ethically dubious and he should have been reprimanded for that, as well. Also, Kirk did get punished (though stupidly) by Spock for being a dumbass on the bridge, and the only reason why it worked out when he broke back into the ship was because of future Spock.

Also, breaking into an enemy combatant's ship that's poised itself to blow up your home planet is in no way comparable to breaking into a (admittedly dumb) simulator.

Themightytom wrote:When you write a fanfic you can depict Kirk failing spectacularly, but that is not how it happened in the movie. In universe there is no evidence that Kirk's character flaw is "crippling". The same writers who wrote Kirk's personality wrote the situations he responds to, you can't START with a fictional character, forecast the likely result in the real world, and then treat the character in universe as though it would happen in universe, you just installed a revolving door in the fourth wall.

Except had they followed Kirk's original reaction and charged headlong after the Narada they would have been blown to bits. Him throwing a fit on the bridge and getting kicked onto the magically plot convenient planet where future Spock explained everything and then handed him the keys to getting onto the Narada. Without that incredibly contrived set of circumstances what would Kirk do? They wouldn't have gotten there in time to transport before the drill cocked everything up, so what was his plan?

Themightytom wrote:His original atitude in not accepting failure and seeking to redefine situations resulted in him not giving hup when Spock shot him out off the enterprise in an escape pod (Perhaps a somewhat ironic homage to what Kirk did to him in ST II?), Kirk returned to the Enterprise and redefined the situation, instead of using a computer program, he used intel on Spock's psyche to manipulate the situation but the characteristics were all there.

Because he was told to by future Spock, not because he would have done that originally. Or else he, you know, would have.

Themightytom wrote:You say there is no "God mode" for Kirk when he goes out in the field, but apparently there WAS a future Spock to provide all the information Kirk needed, and a Scotty who could make it happen.

Because of magical plot contrivance, not because Kirk's inability to accept a no-win situation helped him to overcome reality. Thanks for admitting that it was all due to something outside his control.

Themightytom wrote:I think you object fundamentally to the Star trek universe. i can understand that. It regularly awards rediculous ideas and behavior with success.

Then why are you arguing with me if you admit that it wouldn't work without writer fiat?

Erik von Nein wrote: What, are you fucking retarded? There was no reason for him to break into the simulator's computer to reprogram the thing. Bones smuggling him onto the Enterprise was ethically dubious and he should have been reprimanded for that, as well. Also, Kirk did get punished (though stupidly) by Spock for being a dumbass on the bridge, and the only reason why it worked out when he broke back into the ship was because of future Spock.

Also, breaking into an enemy combatant's ship that's poised itself to blow up your home planet is in no way comparable to breaking into a (admittedly dumb) simulator.

No reason? He did it to prove a point obviously were you watching the movie? just because you don't approve of the reason doesn't mean there wasn't one. in the same situation in the original timeline he got a commendation, in this situation he was likely going to recieve no punnishment, so what he did was within the realm of acceptable behavior to Starfleet, even if it WAS illegal.

The "only" reason? Did future Spock goad young Spock into a temper tantrum? Did oldd spock relieve young spock and assume command? Future spock gave Kirk the players guide to young Spock, Kirk applied the knowledge.

At its root, the situation is entirely identical, Kirk thinks he's right, he rejects authority and alters the situation until the outcome suits his expectations. While that may appear ethically dubious in the case cheating in a simulator, that is because in a simulation the process has equal merit to the results. in the case of the attack on Earth, Kirk didn't accept Spock's asessment. by your reasoning Spock was in command, therefore regardless of Kirk's opinion he should have followed along and let the Earth be destroyed. the point of the test is that there is no way to win, Kirk's counter is that there is always a way to win, and for him this is true by all evidence presented.

Except had they followed Kirk's original reaction and charged headlong after the Narada they would have been blown to bits.

Kirk's goal wasn't to survive, it was to stop the Narada and save Earth, can you prove that he would have failed, or are we supposed to take your word for it. You can't because it didn't happen. There is evidence to suggest that suicidng the Enterprise into tthe narada WOULD ahve accomplished this goal, because the Kelvin crippled it, and Starfleet had a fleet on the way.

Him throwing a fit on the bridge and getting kicked onto the magically plot convenient planet where future Spock explained everything and then handed him the keys to getting onto the Narada. Without that incredibly contrived set of circumstances what would Kirk do? They wouldn't have gotten there in time to transport before the drill cocked everything up, so what was his plan?

You propose removing elements of the universe as depicted because they don't fit your xpectations? Play God all you want when you're the writer but in the universe as presented Kirk was not crippled by his character trait, he succeeded.

Because he was told to by future Spock, not because he would have done that originally. Or else he, you know, would have.

The first thing he did was head for the federation base. What did he do that makes you think he would have given up? The advice Spock gave him framed his response but he would have just tried something else. Either way unless you alter the story, the ingredients for successful resolution were available, and kirk was the only one who kept looking for them. The recurring theme here is that he redefines situations. You keep trying to impose an inability to redefine them which is at odds with what we saw.

Because of magical plot contrivance, not because Kirk's inability to accept a no-win situation helped him to overcome reality. Thanks for admitting that it was all due to something outside his control.

That doesn't mean it doesn't work in universe, you just happen to object to the way a fictional universe operates. You prefer to take Kirk's actions out of the context in which they were presented.

Then why are you arguing with me if you admit that it wouldn't work without writer fiat?

I didn't agree with you, I expressed empathy for your distress and comprehension of your difficulty in accepting the outcome of the movie. I don't agree that Kirk has a crippling character flaw, because if you live in a universe where rediculous ideas and behavior are awarded it would be character flaw for you NOT to take advantage of that phenomenon.

As I already said, you are unable to seperate a fictional universe and its operation from your experiences in the real world. You reject the merits presented in Star Trek as inapplicable in the real world, but you also apply that rejection to decisions made by characters in the context of a fictional world.

I didn't agree with you, I expressed empathy for your distress and comprehension of your difficulty in accepting the outcome of the movie. I don't agree that Kirk has a crippling character flaw, because if you live in a universe where rediculous ideas and behavior are awarded it would be character flaw for you NOT to take advantage of that phenomenon.

So your excuse for bad writing is to say that this is just the way their universe operates, even though it only operates that way because of the writers?

Do you honestly not realize what a ridiculous load of bullshit that is? You're saying that the writers can't be blamed for making their universe a certain way, because their universe is a certain way! By that logic, writers never do ANYTHING wrong.

In your mind, it's a smart move to do something which has a 95% chance of failure, because movie cliche means that it will work anyway. So hey, your decision to take an absurd longshot must mean you're a GENIUS!

Darth Wong wrote:

I didn't agree with you, I expressed empathy for your distress and comprehension of your difficulty in accepting the outcome of the movie. I don't agree that Kirk has a crippling character flaw, because if you live in a universe where rediculous ideas and behavior are awarded it would be character flaw for you NOT to take advantage of that phenomenon.

So your excuse for bad writing is to say that this is just the way their universe operates, even though it only operates that way because of the writers?

Do you honestly not realize what a ridiculous load of bullshit that is? You're saying that the writers can't be blamed for making their universe a certain way, because their universe is a certain way! By that logic, writers never do ANYTHING wrong.

In your mind, it's a smart move to do something which has a 95% chance of failure, because movie cliche means that it will work anyway. So hey, your decision to take an absurd longshot must mean you're a GENIUS!

Did you see the Last Action Hero? It actually addressed this issue. Someone from the real world in a movie setting wouldn't function properly, and vice versa. I'm not proposing anything more absurd than cultural relativity. Writers can certainly be blamed, but CHARACTERS should be evaluated in context.

Themightytom wrote:Did you see the Last Action Hero? It actually addressed this issue. Someone from the real world in a movie setting wouldn't function properly, and vice versa.

I see you missed the whole part about how it was lampooning the bad cliched writing in those action movies.

I'm not proposing anything more absurd than cultural relativity. Writers can certainly be blamed, but CHARACTERS should be evaluated in context.

In short, it's impossible for any action movie character to ever be stupid, because everything he does, no matter how stupid or foolhardy, will succeed thanks to action movie cliché. EVERY action movie character is a genius according to this idiot logic of yours.

Themightytom wrote:No reason? He did it to prove a point obviously were you watching the movie? just because you don't approve of the reason doesn't mean there wasn't one. in the same situation in the original timeline he got a commendation, in this situation he was likely going to recieve no punnishment, so what he did was within the realm of acceptable behavior to Starfleet, even if it WAS illegal.

And his point was ... that the test was unfair? Yeah, obviously. It wasn't unknown that the test was unwinable. A point he could easily have made without tampering with equipment or breaking into anything.

What happened in TWOK just proves that it was still written to Kirk's advantage without any apparent thought put into it. It also sounded as if he was never caught doing whatever his cheat was.

Themightytom wrote:The "only" reason? Did future Spock goad young Spock into a temper tantrum? Did oldd spock relieve young spock and assume command? Future spock gave Kirk the players guide to young Spock, Kirk applied the knowledge.

Yes, "the only reason." There's no way Kirk could have done anything without future Spock telling him what to do. Hell, he even told him how to sneak aboard the Narada, though the specifics of the plan were something thought up by Kirk.

Themightytom wrote:At its root, the situation is entirely identical, Kirk thinks he's right, he rejects authority and alters the situation until the outcome suits his expectations. While that may appear ethically dubious in the case cheating in a simulator, that is because in a simulation the process has equal merit to the results. in the case of the attack on Earth, Kirk didn't accept Spock's asessment. by your reasoning Spock was in command, therefore regardless of Kirk's opinion he should have followed along and let the Earth be destroyed. the point of the test is that there is no way to win, Kirk's counter is that there is always a way to win, and for him this is true by all evidence presented.

His rejecting authority and his attempt to push Spock into following the Narada would have gotten them AND Earth destroyed. With what they had at the time (you know, no magically convenient plot points) Spock was completely in the right and Kirk was totally out of order. His "altering the situation" consisted of pissing Spock off and attempting to get them all killed. He altered jack shit.

Themightytom wrote:Kirk's goal wasn't to survive, it was to stop the Narada and save Earth, can you prove that he would have failed, or are we supposed to take your word for it. You can't because it didn't happen. There is evidence to suggest that suicidng the Enterprise into tthe narada WOULD ahve accomplished this goal, because the Kelvin crippled it, and Starfleet had a fleet on the way.

Except no one ever said anything about ramming it and the Narada had just torn apart over half a dozen ships in the span of 10 minutes. Plus they could apparently detect them coming in at warp. Also, when did Kirk ever say anything about suiciding the ship? He just demanded that Spock follow it.

Themightytom wrote:You propose removing elements of the universe as depicted because they don't fit your xpectations? Play God all you want when you're the writer but in the universe as presented Kirk was not crippled by his character trait, he succeeded.

No, you dumb shit. I'm saying Kirk's inability to accept a no-win situation would have gotten them all killed by following his original impulse to chase after the Narada.

Themightytom wrote:The first thing he did was head for the federation base. What did he do that makes you think he would have given up? The advice Spock gave him framed his response but he would have just tried something else. Either way unless you alter the story, the ingredients for successful resolution were available, and kirk was the only one who kept looking for them. The recurring theme here is that he redefines situations. You keep trying to impose an inability to redefine them which is at odds with what we saw.

He didn't redefine anything, you moron. He was handed the keys by magical plot contrivances. Would have he known to goad Spock the way he did to emotionally compromise him? No. Would he have been able to even GET BACK ON BOARD THE ENTERPRISE? No, because Spock GAVE HIM THE ABILITY TO DO IT. The best he would have gotten without writer's fiat is getting his ass eaten by a monster. Or, had he avoided it, stuck on the base with Scotty.


approve of the reason doesn't mean there wasn't one. in the same situation in the original timeline he got a commendation, in this situation he was likely going to recieve no punnishment, so what he did was within the realm of acceptable behavior to Starfleet, even if it WAS illegal.[/quote]

And his point was ... that the test was unfair? Yeah, obviously. It wasn't unknown that the test was unwinable. A point he could easily have made without tampering with equipment or breaking into anything.

What happened in TWOK just proves that it was still written to Kirk's advantage without any apparent thought put into it. It also sounded as if he was never caught doing whatever his cheat was.

Themightytom wrote:The "only" reason? Did future Spock goad young Spock into a temper tantrum? Did oldd spock relieve young spock and assume command? Future spock gave Kirk the players guide to young Spock, Kirk applied the knowledge.

Yes, "the only reason." There's no way Kirk could have done anything without future Spock telling him what to do. Hell, he even told him how to sneak aboard the Narada, though the specifics of the plan were something thought up by Kirk.

Themightytom wrote:At its root, the situation is entirely identical, Kirk thinks he's right, he rejects authority and alters the situation until the outcome suits his expectations. While that may appear ethically dubious in the case cheating in a simulator, that is because in a simulation the process has equal merit to the results. in the case of the attack on Earth, Kirk didn't accept Spock's asessment. by your reasoning Spock was in command, therefore regardless of Kirk's opinion he should have followed along and let the Earth be destroyed. the point of the test is that there is no way to win, Kirk's counter is that there is always a way to win, and for him this is true by all evidence presented.

His rejecting authority and his attempt to push Spock into following the Narada would have gotten them AND Earth destroyed. With what they had at the time (you know, no magically convenient plot points) Spock was completely in the right and Kirk was totally out of order. His "altering the situation" consisted of pissing Spock off and attempting to get them all killed. He altered jack shit.

Themightytom wrote:Kirk's goal wasn't to survive, it was to stop the Narada and save Earth, can you prove that he would have failed, or are we supposed to take your word for it. You can't because it didn't happen. There is evidence to suggest that suicidng the Enterprise into tthe narada WOULD ahve accomplished this goal, because the Kelvin crippled it, and Starfleet had a fleet on the way.

Except no one ever said anything about ramming it and the Narada had just torn apart over half a dozen ships in the span of 10 minutes. Plus they could apparently detect them coming in at warp. Also, when did Kirk ever say anything about suiciding the ship? He just demanded that Spock follow it.

Themightytom wrote:You propose removing elements of the universe as depicted because they don't fit your xpectations? Play God all you want when you're the writer but in the universe as presented Kirk was not crippled by his character trait, he succeeded.

No, you dumb shit. I'm saying Kirk's inability to accept a no-win situation would have gotten them all killed by following his original impulse to chase after the Narada.

Themightytom wrote:That doesn't mean it doesn't work in universe, you just happen to object to the way a fictional universe operates. You prefer to take Kirk's actions out of the context in which they were presented.

Graaagh! Stop missing my point, you imbecile! Of course it worked in the movie because it was written to work that way. But if you didn't have that massive contrivance Kirk's actions would have led to, at best, him getting stuck on that planet and, at worst, him getting the Enterprise blown out of the sky. That's my point

Themightytom wrote:I didn't agree with you, I expressed empathy for your distress and comprehension of your difficulty in accepting the outcome of the movie. I don't agree that Kirk has a crippling character flaw, because if you live in a universe where rediculous ideas and behavior are awarded it would be character flaw for you NOT to take advantage of that phenomenon.

Wait, what? Did you just say that fictional characters should realize they're in a setting where the writer's hand them solutions based on their poor decision making abilities? This is a good thing?

Themightytom wrote:As I already said, you are unable to seperate a fictional universe and its operation from your experiences in the real world. You reject the merits presented in Star Trek as inapplicable in the real world, but you also apply that rejection to decisions made by characters in the context of a fictional world.

Oh, for the love of ...

Darth Wong wrote: In short, it's impossible for any action movie character to ever be stupid, because everything he does, no matter how stupid or foolhardy, will succeed thanks to action movie cliché. EVERY action movie character is a genius according to this idiot logic of yours.

No, according to my logic if they are successful in their environment they don't have a crippling character flaw.... though some characters DO have flaws that contribute to their own challenges, and often the point of the movie is them overcoming those challenges. Off the top of my head, and without de-railing into an analysis of THAT movie, Darth Vader had a bit of a character flaw which while not crippling to HIM neccesarily prevented him from being happy and successful. When he let his fear of losing his loved ones overcome him, he lost his loved ones. I'm not even sure you could say he overcame it, since he chucked the Emperor down a pit to save a loved one.

Vader is not a standard action movie main character. You're completely evading my point. In fact, he's clearly from the tragic character archetype, and by YOUR logic, all tragic characters in all literature are idiots, because things always go south for them so they must have chosen badly. That's the corrollary of your logic.

Erik von Nein wrote:
And his point was ... that the test was unfair? Yeah, obviously. It wasn't unknown that the test was unwinable. A point he could easily have made without tampering with equipment or breaking into anything.

No his test was that there is no such thing as a no win scenario and his "solution" even demonstrated a philosophy for overcoming such a scenario. he identifed the element on which the scenario was contingent and he altered it, in this case he couldn't win because the computer made it so, therefore he altered the computer.

What happened in TWOK just proves that it was still written to Kirk's advantage without any apparent thought put into it. It also sounded as if he was never caught doing whatever his cheat was.

They gave him a commendation for it, obviously he got caught when he "won" the situation.

Yes, "the only reason." There's no way Kirk could have done anything without future Spock telling him what to do. Hell, he even told him how to sneak aboard the Narada, though the specifics of the plan were something thought up by Kirk.

Spock gave him the tools but Kirk employed them, Spock could have accomplished much off the same himself, but didn't even try. he knew the bse was nearby, he knew the equation for transwarp transporting, he knew his younger self. he could very well have beamed himself aboard and persuaded his younger self but he lacked the motivation to do so until Kirk showed up with his defiant atitude.

His rejecting authority and his attempt to push Spock into following the Narada would have gotten them AND Earth destroyed. With what they had at the time (you know, no magically convenient plot points) Spock was completely in the right and Kirk was totally out of order. His "altering the situation" consisted of pissing Spock off and attempting to get them all killed. He altered jack shit.

It also resulted in him finding old Spock, who provided him not only a resolution to the first problem but information on how to ebat Nero, none of which would have happened if kirk had buckled under and let Spock rejoin the fleet. It also demonstrated to the crew that Spock may not be entirely stable, McCoy objected to Kirk's ejection. Kirk failed to realize that Spock was the primary obstacle, he was acting as if it was just nero. Kirk failed at the Kobiyashia maru a few times too ebfore he cheated, in both situations he identified the prevailing obstacle through trial and error.

Except no one ever said anything about ramming it and the Narada had just torn apart over half a dozen ships in the span of 10 minutes. Plus they could apparently detect them coming in at warp. Also, when did Kirk ever say anything about suiciding the ship? He just demanded that Spock follow it.

You stated they had no way to defeat the Narada, I pointed out there WAS a precedent, accomplished by kirk's own father. Kirk was advocating for the minimum produictive step, in addition to ramming we have no idea what defenses Earth had that could have been employed given a sufficient time to react.

The narada tore apart half a dozen ships that didn't know it was waiting for them, and it DIDN'T "Tear apart" the prepared Enterprise.

No, you dumb shit. I'm saying Kirk's inability to accept a no-win situation would have gotten them all killed by following his original impulse to chase after the Narada.

You WERE saying he demonstrated a "crippling character flaw" in the Kobiyashi maru, NOW you are saying it was a flaw that in one situation could have gone badly but didn't. You can't PROVE that he couldn't have defeated the Narada some other way. if Kirk rammed the Narada and enabled Earth's defenses, or the fleet to arrive in time would that be "failing due to a character flaw" or "heroic"?

He didn't redefine anything, you moron. He was handed the keys by magical plot contrivances. Would have he known to goad Spock the way he did to emotionally compromise him? No. Would he have been able to even GET BACK ON BOARD THE ENTERPRISE? No, because Spock GAVE HIM THE ABILITY TO DO IT. The best he would have gotten without writer's fiat is getting his ass eaten by a monster. Or, had he avoided it, stuck on the base with Scotty.

The "writer's fiat" is an out of universe explanation of why all off those plot elements were conveniently located. in universe, they were there, he took advantage of them when everyone else cruised right by. The same way Cadets consistently failed the same test class after class until Kirk said "Wait why doesn't someone cheat..."

Graaagh! Stop missing my point, you imbecile! Of course it worked in the movie because it was written to work that way. But if you didn't have that massive contrivance Kirk's actions would have led to, at best, him getting stuck on that planet and, at worst, him getting the Enterprise blown out of the sky. That's my point

Stop trying to back up a point that the evidence disproves by REWRITING THE MOVIE?? Would ahve could have or should have, they didn't.

Themightytom wrote:I didn't agree with you, I expressed empathy for your distress and comprehension of your difficulty in accepting the outcome of the movie. I don't agree that Kirk has a crippling character flaw, because if you live in a universe where rediculous ideas and behavior are awarded it would be character flaw for you NOT to take advantage of that phenomenon.

Wait, what? Did you just say that fictional characters should realize they're in a setting where the writer's hand them solutions based on their poor decision making abilities? This is a good thing?

I'm leaving the original quote because it is clear I in did not say that. I said that Kirk accurately views his universe and responds apropriately. You are incapable of seperating fact from fiction, real life from a story.

Themightytom wrote:As I already said, you are unable to seperate a fictional universe and its operation from your experiences in the real world. You reject the merits presented in Star Trek as inapplicable in the real world, but you also apply that rejection to decisions made by characters in the context of a fictional world.

Oh, for the love of ...

Sure if you can't offer a rebuttal, I'll take your conccession O.o

Themightytom wrote:No his test was that there is no such thing as a no win scenario and his "solution" even demonstrated a philosophy for overcoming such a scenario. he identifed the element on which the scenario was contingent and he altered it, in this case he couldn't win because the computer made it so, therefore he altered the computer.

Which totally goes against the point of the test in the first place, meaning he failed it. The test was stupid, but his solution wasn't any better.

They gave him a commendation for it, obviously he got caught when he "won" the situation.

I guess. Saavik was honestly surprised that Kirk cheated, so it was apparently not common knowledge.

Spock gave him the tools but Kirk employed them, Spock could have accomplished much off the same himself, but didn't even try. he knew the bse was nearby, he knew the equation for transwarp transporting, he knew his younger self. he could very well have beamed himself aboard and persuaded his younger self but he lacked the motivation to do so until Kirk showed up with his defiant atitude.

Okay, yes, and? How does that refute my point? Also, Spock was apparently (though I don't really know why) concerned with mucking up the timeline.

It also resulted in him finding old Spock, who provided him not only a resolution to the first problem but information on how to ebat Nero, none of which would have happened if kirk had buckled under and let Spock rejoin the fleet. It also demonstrated to the crew that Spock may not be entirely stable, McCoy objected to Kirk's ejection. Kirk failed to realize that Spock was the primary obstacle, he was acting as if it was just nero. Kirk failed at the Kobiyashia maru a few times too ebfore he cheated, in both situations he identified the prevailing obstacle through trial and error.

So, what, Kirk was totally awesome because he got really lucky after refusing to act rationally? Also, you didn't identify his so awesome plan for beating the Narada.

You stated they had no way to defeat the Narada, I pointed out there WAS a precedent, accomplished by kirk's own father. Kirk was advocating for the minimum produictive step, in addition to ramming we have no idea what defenses Earth had that could have been employed given a sufficient time to react.

You idiot. They never mentioned anything about the Narada being crippled. Yeah, deleted scenes mentioned it, but those didn't make the final cut. Also, they didn't talk about ANY plan to defeat the Narada. What, was Kirk going to make his argument empty-handed and THEN talk about ramming the Narada?

Also, Nero shut down or bypassed Earth's defenses when he got the codes from Pike

The narada tore apart half a dozen ships that didn't know it was waiting for them, and it DIDN'T "Tear apart" the prepared Enterprise.

Because Nero wanted to mess with them and capture Pike in order to gain access to Earth's defenses. He even had to tell his crew to stop firing so they DIDN'T destroyed the Enterprise.

You WERE saying he demonstrated a "crippling character flaw" in the Kobiyashi maru, NOW you are saying it was a flaw that in one situation could have gone badly but didn't. You can't PROVE that he couldn't have defeated the Narada some other way. if Kirk rammed the Narada and enabled Earth's defenses, or the fleet to arrive in time would that be "failing due to a character flaw" or "heroic"?

It was a cripple flaw in BOTH circumstances, you tard. He had no plan, no way of getting Earth's defense back up (if they even existed any more) and his whole point about going back to the fleet was that they wouldn't make it in time. THERE WAS NO PLAN, just "RAR! We have to follow him!"

The "writer's fiat" is an out of universe explanation of why all off those plot elements were conveniently located. in universe, they were there, he took advantage of them when everyone else cruised right by. The same way Cadets consistently failed the same test class after class until Kirk said "Wait why doesn't someone cheat..."

You ... what ... ARGH!

Like Wong said, you're defending shitty writing by saying it's shitty writing?

Stop trying to back up a point that the evidence disproves by REWRITING THE MOVIE?? Would ahve could have or should have, they didn't.

God, you're a fucking moron. Christ, no wonder you can't type worth shit.

I'm saying the incredibly lucky circumstance of landing on a magical plot planet SAVED HIS ASS when his inability to accept a no-win scenario would have doomed in. In a sane, rational world Kirk would have been totally fucked, but the writers wrote it so that he wasn't. How hard is that to grasp?

I'm leaving the original quote because it is clear I in did not say that. I said that Kirk accurately views his universe and responds apropriately. You are incapable of seperating fact from fiction, real life from a story.

Oh, right, sorry. It's a GOOD thing when characters with crippling flaws are rewarded in fictional stories. Yeah, I got ya.

Lordie.

Sure if you can't offer a rebuttal, I'll take your conccession O.o

Oh, fuck you. "Concession" my ass. You're just being obtuse as Hell and there was honestly no better response.

Darth Wong wrote:Vader is not a standard action movie main character. You're completely evading my point. In fact, he's clearly from the tragic character archetype, and by YOUR logic, all tragic characters in all literature are idiots, because things always go south for them so they must have chosen badly. That's the corrollary of your logic.

Well a tragic character archetype WOULD include a crippling character flaw in keeping with the traditions of the Shakespearean tragedy, but they would not be neccesarily "idiots". Characters in which everything goes badly through no fault of their own ARE however regularly depicted either as comedy or as victims, unless they overcome all of those circumstances in heroic fashion.

I concede that Vader was a bad example, because I did not make a distinction between types of characters. Heroes, Villians Main characters, supporting characters...

My original statement was that, if a character is successful in their environment than they are not crippled by a character flaw. You added the caveat that all action heroes are geniuses, which comes with the corollary you pointed out.

Themightytom wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Vader is not a standard action movie main character. You're completely evading my point. In fact, he's clearly from the tragic character archetype, and by YOUR logic, all tragic characters in all literature are idiots, because things always go south for them so they must have chosen badly. That's the corrollary of your logic.

Well a tragic character archetype WOULD include a crippling character flaw in keeping with the traditions of the Shakespearean tragedy, but they would not be neccesarily "idiots".

Yes they would, according to your logic. You seem to think that even the most idiotic, foolhardy decision must be smart if it works out, even if it only works out due to cliché. That's the crux of your moron argument.

In real-life, there are people whose whole idea of retirement planning is to buy lottery tickets. For a vanishingly small percentage of them, this actually works out perfectly. According to your moron logic, this makes them geniuses.

My original statement was that, if a character is successful in their environment than they are not crippled by a character flaw. You added the caveat that all action heroes are geniuses, which comes with the corollary you pointed out.

See above, dumbshit. Your moron logic leads to the conclusion that if lottery winners spend $50 per week on lottery tickets for decades and it actually works for them in the end, then they were not stupid to do so.

Darth Wong wrote:After the third time, they found out that he's a sore loser with attitude problems who stubbornly refuses to accept the possibility that some situations may be tactically hopeless, even though that does happen in real-life. Oh wait, I guess that means real-life "cheats" too, so it's not fair and he should appeal it to God.

One possibility I can think of for salvaging the whole thing: maybe the cheating wasn't a demonstration of him refusing to accept that he could lose, but a demonstration that he'll use any available tactic to win? Rigging the simulation was possible, and therefore he claimed it as fair game as a way to win.

This would have worked well in combination with Destructionator's idea that the test is designed to test your ability to cut your losses. Say the second time he took the test he simply refused to take the ship into the neutral zone, thereby demonstrating that he had the self-control to handle a real life no-win situation.

Of course, this is reaching for a charitable explanation that I readily admit is almost certainly not author's intent. I'd say it was pretty obvious actual author's intent was more along the lines of "test is unfair i don't believe in a no-win scenario mang lol".

Darth Wong wrote: Yes they would, according to your logic. You seem to think that even the most idiotic, foolhardy decision must be smart if it works out, even if it only works out due to cliché. That's the crux of your moron argument.

No its not, the crux of my argument is what criteria constitutes successful. Your definition of successful seems entirely contingent on intelligent decisions, because despite the fact that my argument has revolved completely around success or failure defining functionality, you keep throwing in "Smart" and "Stupid" "Idiot" and "Genius"

My definition of success is accomplishing the intended result. Even in the real world, intelligence isn't the only way to be successful. It Really Isn't.

In real-life, there are people whose whole idea of retirement planning is to buy lottery tickets. For a vanishingly small percentage of them, this actually works out perfectly. According to your moron logic, this makes them geniuses.

See above, dumbshit. Your moron logic leads to the conclusion that if lottery winners spend $50 per week on lottery tickets for decades and it actually works for them in the end, then they were not stupid to do so.

No because my "logic" applies to a fictional setting? A setting in which people routinely take risks, succeed and are regarded positively.

Themightytom wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: Yes they would, according to your logic. You seem to think that even the most idiotic, foolhardy decision must be smart if it works out, even if it only works out due to cliché. That's the crux of your moron argument.

No its not, the crux of my argument is what criteria constitutes successful. Your definition of successful seems entirely contingent on intelligent decisions, because despite the fact that my argument has revolved completely around success or failure defining functionality, you keep throwing in "Smart" and "Stupid" "Idiot" and "Genius"

My definition of success is accomplishing the intended result. Even in the real world, intelligence isn't the only way to be successful. It Really Isn't.

When a "success" comes about only through a one-in-a-million accident, that is not the marker of successful, intelligent decisionmaking guaranteeing the desired result. There is a reason why Mike keeps throwing in terms like "smart" and "stupid". In any real world, Kirk's rash actions should have resulted in Earth and the Enterprise being destroyed and in most cases would have.

See above, dumbshit. Your moron logic leads to the conclusion that if lottery winners spend $50 per week on lottery tickets for decades and it actually works for them in the end, then they were not stupid to do so.

No because my "logic" applies to a fictional setting? A setting in which people routinely take risks, succeed and are regarded positively.

There is a functional difference between taking risks and behaving idiotically and expecting blind luck to fix everything your way.

You know what, essentially I am proposing that irrational behavior is rational in an irrational world. I can't rationally defend that position I think I was doomed from the start.

Darth Wong wrote:Yes they would, according to your logic. You seem to think that even the most idiotic, foolhardy decision must be smart if it works out, even if it only works out due to cliché. That's the crux of your moron argument.

In real-life, there are people whose whole idea of retirement planning is to buy lottery tickets. For a vanishingly small percentage of them, this actually works out perfectly. According to your moron logic, this makes them geniuses.

That's a great example; if you have a stupid, dumb plan that is based entirely on luck and it works, that doesn't make you 'smart'. It makes you 'really, really lucky'. Saying Kirk is amazing because his no-plan eventually led to victory through a series of mind-blowing contrivances and coincidences is totally ridiculous.

But I have been interested to see how many people there are on SDN who think it's okay to cheat on tests you don't agree with or don't understand. I think that says a lot about them, just like Kirk's cheating says a lot about him.

Solauren wrote:An the rest of the movie proved it.

It proved the only way for an idiot to save the Earth was if the entire universe was designed to allow him to do so? What a great basis for a training program!

'In this class, we learn how being ejected from your ship for insubordination is the first step in any good plan. You will meet your mentor on the planet which also has the teleport needed to return to your ship armed with future intelligence.'

'Professor, what if there isn't anyone on the planet? What if there's no teleport? What if the teleport doesn't work or goes wrong? What if you're killed on arrival in a dangerous water-treatment facility? What if dangerous fauna eats you?'

'You have missed the point, student. Just close your eyes, say 'I want to fight the bad man', and everything will work out. Planning details, providing for things to go wrong or building contingencies are not a part of planning in Starfleet.'

Look, in any academic institution I've ever heard of, Kirk would have been drawn and quartered.

The book was almost as bad, but because of the additional characterization time around both the test and Kirk, it worked, not particularly well, but it worked. I liked the book more for everyone else's responses to the Kobiyashi Maru, and would really have liked to see Scotty's incorporated into the movie as the reason he was on the ice planet, rather than some stupid thing with the transporter. It would have made him less of a one trick pony, especially with a little backstory.

The Kirk's KM was, for me, always one of those rare instances where the show-not-tell rule must be violated. There is no way to show it believably, but it form created a great arc for Kirk in TWoK, so tell us about it and let us make up our own mind.

If I were writing this movie, I would have omitted the Kobiyashi Maru scene entirely, leaving the actual way he "changed the conditions of the test" a mystery.

I hope that the writers were pressured to put it in as fan service, but I really doubt it.

If this is off-topic for this thread, I'm sorry.

Stark wrote:

Solauren wrote:An the rest of the movie proved it.

It proved the only way for an idiot to save the Earth was if the entire universe was designed to allow him to do so? What a great basis for a training program!

'In this class, we learn how being ejected from your ship for insubordination is the first step in any good plan. You will meet your mentor on the planet which also has the teleport needed to return to your ship armed with future intelligence.'

'Professor, what if there isn't anyone on the planet? What if there's no teleport? What if the teleport doesn't work or goes wrong? What if you're killed on arrival in a dangerous water-treatment facility? What if dangerous fauna eats you?'

'You have missed the point, student. Just close your eyes, say 'I want to fight the bad man', and everything will work out. Planning details, providing for things to go wrong or building contingencies are not a part of planning in Starfleet.'

"If all else fails, student, you will go to the Dagobah system. There, you will meet Yoda."

Darth Wong wrote:

erik_t wrote:Only a general-fail due to his lack of subtlety or attempts to hide his actions. If a student stubbornly did a closed-book test with the textbook obviously open on their desk, I can imagine many instructors tearing their test up and dropping it in the trash, but I cannot think of many in my experience who would have written said student up for cheating.

Are you kidding? At my university, a student who behaved that way would have been expelled. They made their zero-tolerance cheating rule very clear to us on the first day.

That seems excessively harsh to me. I would be surprised to see such a strict policy even at a military academy, which traditionally are about as black-and-white on these things as they come.

Maybe U Waterloo felt similarly; I went and looked at their academic dishonesty penalty guidelines, and the only offense that recommends expulsion on the first offense at the undergraduate level seems to be "Forged documents for admission purposes and academic or admission fraud".

The most relevant case for the U Waterloo system re Kirk seems to me to be "In a [term test or final exam] situation - cheating; use or possession of unauthorized aid; violation of exam regulations /// Premeditated", which carries the guideline penalty of "0 on the test; a further 5 marks off the final course grade and failure in the course", with an additional two-term suspension for the final exam situation.

This is much more what I would expect, and I think what I suggested in my previous post.



For an alternative benchmark, we can look at recent cheating incidents at the US service Academies. West Point (US Army) has a similar set of ethics guidelines (PDF); it notes that "although the standard sanction is 'dismissal' the Superintendent grants discression on a number of cases based on the cadet admittance, potential, and commitment to living honorably in the future." In 1994, the Naval Academy expelled 24 of 62 midshipmen who were found guilty of cheating; this instance was pretty bad, buying and selling copies of a stolen EE exam for substantial sums of cash. A 2004 Air Force Academy scandal saw 18 students expelled/resigned and 13 placed on probation for cheating on (lol) a military etiquette test.

Based on these examples, I think expulsion of Kirk would be possible but would not the most likely outcome. Your mileage may vary, but I do not think my viewpoint is unreasonable.

Yes, but Waterloo, like pretty much all universities in North America, has loosened its policies since I went.

I wonder if Starfleet even counts subsequent takes of the KM test by cadets. I would presume that, after they've discovered that it was a "trick test", any further results would not be telling the instructors much of interest, so they may not care a whole lot what happens on the repeats. Cadets who repeat the test are probably just trying to really confirm that there's no way to "win", and they're generally satisfied when their second try proves that the scenario is just grossly unfair.

Kirk's third try was unprecedented. I doubt he made such an ass of himself in the TOS timeline, since he was never a juvenile delinquent in that reality. One wonders what the Starfleet instructors are really looking for in command-track cadets, since he got a "commendation for original thinking" in that timeline.

He answered that question in TWOK. "It had the virtue of never being tried." We really don't know more than that. For all we know, he was indeed reprimanded and grounded and even punished, but still got the commendation. Perhaps in that time line, it was a learning experience of a young man who was maturing.