Welcome to Star Trek Simulation Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest Professor Galen

*

30 posts in this topic

*

Edited by Professor Galen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Mudd or Bajor are Federation members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually generally imagine the "Council" itself to be set up much like the UN and it's "Security" council with several "Permanent " members that would be the Founding Worlds of the Federation, generally given as "Earth, Vulcan, Tellar, Andor, and Cait. (Though in ENT implies Denobula in their place, it could be possible that both Cait and Denobula have permanent seats.) Then a number of rotating 'at-large' seats from the 'General Assembly.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd imagined that every member planet gets a representative on the council, thinking of it more as a house of representatives than the security council. I don't know that we have much canon information on the subject. Mem Alpha refers to a DS9 episode where Bajor had to elect (a?) representative(s?) in order to join the Federation, which suggests this interpretation. On the other hand, the council chamber seen in STIV is probably too small, although it's possible that the matter of Kirk & Co was taken up by a smaller committee.

 

We also don't know whether the Federation president is elected by the council, determined by some political mechanism associated with parties, or is directly elected. I've usually assumed that the president is directly elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you were appointed to a seat on the Federation Council, which planet would you represent?

 

Andoria

Bolias

Earth

Benzar

Mudd

Tellar

Betazed

Cait

Bajor

Rigel

Coridan

Vulcan

Denobula

Trill

Other

Trill

 

Also I agree with LoAmi. Bajor was attempting to join the Federation (last I heard).

~Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The organization of the Federation government is one of the more unevenly depicted aspects of Trek canon. It gets even worse if one attempts to reconcile the Pocket books.

 

The general concept seems to have been that the UFP has similarities to the United Nations. If so, then it would have a large body consisting of one or more representatives of every planet, like the UN Assembly. These would pass laws and such. It would have smaller councils, notably the important Security Council. Trek lore has suggested it has five permanent members (the original founding planets) and rotating members, but this has never been established onscreen. There would be a huge administrative arm like the UN Secretariat. The "Articles of the Federation" suggested an independently elected president as head-of-state and head-of-government, as opposed to a parlimentarian prime minster chosen from among other elected representatives. This has its own issues.

 

Uninventively, everyone seems to be called Ambassador by default, regardless of their role as an external negotiator, an internal legislator, or a council member. TOS had Commissioners, a title I appropriated for my character in his civilian role (for the moment). But there should be envoys, attaches, civil servants, undersecretaries, ministers - a whole wealth of non-Starfleet titles.

 

I know Joy has done a lot of independent (and other sim-related) development considering the structure of the Federation government. I've often desired to try and think it through in a forum topic, but I've been reluctant; I wouldn't want the debate to close off other people's concepts or violate what any of the sims came up with. (Does one sim have the right to tell others who the Federation President is?) I did take a stab at creating a post-war Cardassian government, but I'm not sure anyone cares about that level of detail and can frankly ignore it.

 

So I guess I'd have to be: Vulcan.

Edited by Sorehl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I guess I'd have to be: Vulcan.

 

 

::scratches Lobes, picks a nit out of ear canal, wiggles finger in ear, takes it out and looks studiously, but questioningly at it, then mutters to himself::..A Vulcan, Guessing? (Ferengi)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to imagine the same version as what Sorehl describes, only going a step further. One of the big issues you'd get into with having something the massive size of the Federation that some "worlds" like Earth might actually have like 20-30 different colony worlds or more under their jurisdiction. So would they be elected from each "world" or each "race."

 

In general, I've tried to simply keep any sort of issue with that away from my own game, because it makes my head hurt. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. I cant help but laugh at the fact that we dont know our own imaginary world's government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed. I cant help but laugh at the fact that we dont know our own imaginary world's government.

 

I'm not sure if Roddenberry gave it much thought or even cared. As has been pointed out on these boards, Roddenberry's Trek was very much idealist and the logic would follow that if most of mankind's vices had been removed, how much government is really needed? I think when you moved into Berman Trek and saw a lot more exercise of Federation control and power did you begin to question who was calling the shots and how.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tend to imagine the same version as what Sorehl describes, only going a step further. One of the big issues you'd get into with having something the massive size of the Federation that some "worlds" like Earth might actually have like 20-30 different colony worlds or more under their jurisdiction. So would they be elected from each "world" or each "race."

 

In general, I've tried to simply keep any sort of issue with that away from my own game, because it makes my head hurt. :P

 

What he said.

 

Disclaimer: I am not knocking anyone who enjoys the process of intrigue or politics and creating from this fictional Trek government. But, hey, if I wanted to create a Star Trek political RPG (shoot me in the foot, now) game involving ambassadors and politicians and representatives (and would not be in danger of myself going ga ga) and such I would. I do not, so there we go. :-D

 

Normally, I'd choose Cait (biased!), but I have no RPG desire to represent; I'd be more interested in security for the council and such.

 

Has anyone read "Articles of the Federation"? I'm surprised, considering the topic, this book has not been mentioned. DeCandido is one of my favored writers, and I'm just curious as to how his book portrays the general Trek government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has anyone read "Articles of the Federation"? I'm surprised, considering the topic, this book has not been mentioned. DeCandido is one of my favored writers, and I'm just curious as to how his book portrays the general Trek government.

 

I have and it's a good read. DeCandido focuses more on the role of the Executive than the Council. I'm pretty sure in this book each member world gets a seat, but there is a special "Security Council" of sorts with veto power. My memory is a little vague.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you were appointed to a seat on the Federation Council, which planet would you represent?

 

I believe that if I were appointed to a seat on the Federation Council I would beg Q to take me into the Continuum and dispose of me in a galaxy far, far away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think when you moved into Berman Trek and saw a lot more exercise of Federation control and power did you begin to question who was calling the shots and how.

 

Another factor is that most of TOS took place close to the frontier, where direct decisions from far-off governments matter a lot less to day-to-day operations. In 80 episodes, you can almost count on your fingers the number of other Federation ships and planets that they saw. Later Trek took place in areas with more established Federation presence and a more mature Federation. The Enterprise-D interacted with the other ships in the fleet frequently and DS9 was a hub of fleet activity. So, you would expect to see more of the central government.

 

The Federation government is also far more powerful than the UN. It has direct control over a powerful military apparatus and makes foreign policy decisions for all member planets. It also sets rules that are binding on all planets, even in their internal affairs (eg, following the Federation charter); that's probably enforced through treaty obligations between the member planet and the Federation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to say Other since Delta IV isn't on the list.

 

The Federation government is also far more powerful than the UN. It has direct control over a powerful military apparatus and makes foreign policy decisions for all member planets. It also sets rules that are binding on all planets, even in their internal affairs (eg, following the Federation charter); that's probably enforced through treaty obligations between the member planet and the Federation.

 

I think you're right about a lot of this, LoAmi. Starfleet seems to be the only military force allowed by member planets, although they can probably keep their own versions of the "Coast Guard" and planet-based defense and police. And it's got to be more powerful than the UN Security Council. Can you imagine Tellar using veto power to not defend the invasion of Betazed?

 

And they can clear set Federation-wide domestic policies. We heard a DS9 episode state that a caste-based society can't join the Federation. I seem to remember slavery is not permitted for Federation members - can't recall the TOS-era source. And a joining planet would probably have to agree to the "Guarantees" mentioned by Picard in TNG: "The Drumhead".

 

But I'm not convinced there'd be all that much meddling in a planet's internal affairs otherwise. I can understand the argument that Deltans entering Starfleet have to take an oath of celibacy or they could simply not choose to join. (Although I still disagree. Starfleet is the public defense and exploration arm of government, not a private club like the Boy Scouts.) But can the Federation say the same to all Deltans who travel off-world? Can they legislate telepaths (which was treated on another discussion board)? Could they establish total alcoholic Prohibition? (Gasp! Now I bet I've got your interest.)

 

It's easy to be an idealist when you don't have to fuss with the details and everybody does things the way you want them to. "I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will live as one."

Edited by Gidgiddoni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the big issues you'd get into with having something the massive size of the Federation that some "worlds" like Earth might actually have like 20-30 different colony worlds or more under their jurisdiction. So would they be elected from each "world" or each "race."

 

One solution I've heard was the designation of "full members" and "associate members" with different voting powers. Full members can sit on the Security Council, get two reps in the Assembly versus one, and so forth. None of it established onscreen.

 

There's been a lot of fan fiction attempts over the years. The old FASA sourcebook "The Federation" made a pretty good attempt, although it looked like... the United Nations with a centralized military organization.

 

Also, from fan fic during the original TOS era, the fifth founding member was purportedly Alpha Centauri. But it never gained traction onscreen, so its hardly canon. Denobula is a good guess, but then where are they? (Which makes one wonder, has anyone tried to explain why we never see the Denobulans after ENT? Massive planetary disaster? A return to isolationism? Perhaps there's a Challenger plot idea in there...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ENT makes everything more complicated :P

 

In general I like the idea of differentiated levels of 'membership.' Again I generally assume the Federation not to be unicameral.

 

Actually I think instead of the UN, perhaps the model we might want to look at is a slightly more unified version of the EU?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say the Federation is more like pre-Civil War America or the US under the Articles of Confederation. A Confederacy probably describes the UFP better than a Federation...but the name holds some stigma (especially in TOS' first run in the 60's).

 

The TOS episode "The Cloud Minder's" is a nice hidden gem of insight into the working of the Federation. Planets are independent but must give aid to other Federation worlds. Their internal matters are still very much their own to deal with but they could ask assistance from Federation agencies. They're level of openness or isolation was theirs to dictate.

 

 

Personally, I'd ignore the Federal level of things and worry about my own planet and work within it's government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you'd agree with the idea of it being more like the EU then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you'd agree with the idea of it being more like the EU then?

 

That type of set up works well with separated groups. The EU can work because the people are separated by language and culture. Pre-Civil war America worked to a point because of distance and travel limitations. That is what works so well for the UFP, distance and limitation of travel. Now, in the UFP's future where perhaps a Dominion style transporter systems is established allowing planet to planet transport and suddenly cultures are being faced with one another on a regular and large scale the system would be in for some troubles.

 

Oddly enough I just read something about an animated Star Trek series in VERY early development that takes place in the future after a Second Earth/Romulan War and where a third party set off Omega bombs making large areas of space impassible and splitting the Federation in two. First it sounds interesting because it matches the split in the Roman Empire into East and West and Second it ticks me off because we already did the Omega bomb idea on Aegis some 10 years ago. In our plot a rouge Captain went insane and decided the only way to stop the Dominion War was to turn the Federation/Cardassian boarder into an impassible subspace void using Omega Bombs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the COL and CPA’s Federation Council sims, we generally used the Federation Constitution printed in the TOS Tech Manual. The TOSTM writers heavily plagiarized from the UN Charter, right up to permanent members in the security council with veto power. Most Fed Council sim hosts made some standard edits to the Constitution, including removing the permanent members and the vetoes. One player overturning weeks of debate with a veto was just not fun. Having some players be much more powerful than others is a Bad Idea™. Also, most of the time there was not that much interest in playing the permanent members. Most players had favorite planets they wanted to run, so the seats of the permanent planets would be empty, anyway.

 

The TOSTM Constitution had an Assembly where each member had one vote. The Assembly handled budget and taxes sorts of issues, and had a broad authority on all areas. In addition, there were several other specialized councils, one for colonial administration, one for scientific research, and one for security and defense related issues. The last is what we generally considered The Federation Council to be. We sort of assumed the Assembly and various other councils were working in parallel on less fun issues.

 

As in the UN, the TOSTM Constitution does not allow the Federation to use force in an offensive manner without authorization from the Council. As in the UN, the TOS Constitution does not allow any element of the Federation government police powers on member planets or the ability to alter member cultures. In the Council sims, where each player represented a planet and did not want the other players messing up their planet, the players came to hold the limitation on the power of the Federation government to be important. This is, I believe, consistent with the old Roddenberry Trek. Berman Trek seems to imply a the Federation Government has outgrown these basic limitations on the power of the central government. After having played for years on a Council where each player cares intensely about the integrity of his home planet’s culture, I am dubious. The planets were generally very firm in maintaining their role as a check on the power of the central government.

 

One of the standard conflicts was between the Roddenberry fans, who at times were called Idealists or Doves, against the Berman fans, sometimes called Pragmatists or Hawks. Usually, the Roddenberry fans had the majority, though during the Dominion War era the Pragmatists generally had the numbers. The Idealists favored strict limitations on the central government, including the Prime Directive and the Guarantees. The Pragmatists tended to see things in terms of military and economic power, and pushed a might makes right perspective. The pragmatists were also fond of covert ops dirty tricks solutions, regardless of what this does to the Federation’s reputation, or how it eroded the checks on the power of the central government. Quite often elements of the administration pushed Section 31 type methods, while the Council attempted to maintain rule of law.

 

Quite often, the problem might be presented from a Pragmatists perspective. Here is a problem. How does the Federation solve it? The Idealists might respond that it is a local problem, that the Federation is forbidden to solve it. They could offer assistance, however, if the locals wish help. What do the locals want to see done?

 

Joy, of course, is programmed with the Prime Directive, Rule of Law and preservation of lives as high priorities. She was always a strong voice on the Roddenberry side, and remains so in STSF. This dual vision of Trek can be a constructive source of conflict and plot, but it can also lead to problems. In the Council sims, if either faction got too strong a working majority, giving the other faction no chance of winning a vote, players in the minority party tended to have poor attendance. If there are no intense debates leading to close votes, the format isn’t very interesting.

 

And, yes, Joy represented Mudd. No, to my knowledge, Mudd never joined the Federation in any canon source. The second issue in the earliest incarnation of the Council Sim was a vote on whether Mudd should be given membership. I would suggest that any political sim similar to the old Council sims could not remain pure Paramount canon. The votes of the players have to become local canon. While on rare occasions we interacted with other sims in the group, there was no attempt to lockstep Council decisions as being binding on other sims. The general opinion was that each host team should be free to do their own thing. (COL and CPA were founded by players who found the old SFOL too rigid and rule driven. Freedom for the Host was their Prime Directive.)

 

The other major problem is one of culture shock for the hosts. Long tradition in all sim groups that have fallen out of the old SFOL tradition is that the hosts have control of the plot. Through issuing action statements and orders, what the host wants to happen is and ought to be what happens. This can lead to a large explosion in a political sim if what the host wants and what a majority of Council wants are distinctly different. The Council sims ran cleanest when the hosts presented a difficult problem with several plausible solutions, and sat back in a moderator’s role. Implement the Rules of Order. Let each voice be heard, but the majority prevail. When the hosts go in with a strong opinion on what the Council ought to do, and tries to force the Council to do something not in the interests of the planets... Well... Culture shock. The intensity of the sim is guaranteed to go up. There is such a thing as being too intense.

 

Anyway... I miss the old format. Not an easy format to host, however.

Edited by Joy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(COL and CPA were founded by players who found the old SFOL too rigid and rule driven. Freedom for the Host was their Prime Directive.)

 

Hey there,

 

COL was founded under...unique circumstances that had nothing to do with SFOL being rigid. CPA was founded due to issues with COL, having nothing to do with SFOL period. Freedom for the hosts was, actually, not originally a prime directive. When the Celestial Prime Alliance was at its peak, the group operated in a fashion very similar to the old SFOL administrative format. A desire to change from this mandate is what caused administrative issues in CPA in the late 1990s. One might argue that CPA's ultimate "fall from grace" was due to too much freedom going to the hosts and not enough centralized control.

 

To your point however, applications to TFC were always very limited. The structure of the game demanded that players be extremely capable log writers, have an ability to keep themselves busy as general plots didn't really provide for it and be able to keep up with not only Star Trek canon but the canon of the sim itself. As a result, newer players always had issues getting over the initial learning curve. For example, when the game started it had about a "full" roster of 13 players with two hosts. Getting past this glass ceiling always remained a problem. After all, how many players can you have and yet still give time to for in-sim debate? Character biographies were also forced to include a "planetary" biography. This provided for a lot of startup reading material and "boundaries" for players and hosts. So...if anything...The Federation Council could be called one of the most "restrictive" concepts that was put into place.

 

All that being said, the general idea is one I liked and believe had potential. However, I don't believe it was ever suited for a live-sim environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All that being said, the general idea is one I liked and believe had potential. However, I don't believe it was ever suited for a live-sim environment.

 

A lot to agree with and disagree with.

 

Ship sims commonly have four or more departments active, each in a different place working a different sub plot. The Council was traditionally run as a single 'department,' with all players working the same plot, attacking the same problem. Without department heads and multiple subplots, it is harder to handle large numbers of players. Most Council hosts believed from experience, and I agree, that the optimum number of players is in the 9 to 11 range. Fewer, and there aren't enough conflicting opinions for debates to get as interesting. More, and things bog down.

 

The planetary biography was a useful tool for helping introduce new players to the game. It took not much more time than the usual character biography common to the SFOL tradition. Yes, you got a lot more out of the Council experience if you put more into it. If one didn't spend the time thinking through the problems being debated and writing the logs arguing for one's position, it was not as involving an experience.

 

Still, almost all plots were independent, not depending on detailed knowledge of prior plots. I disagree that learning the past history of the Council sim is any more important or time consuming than, say, in Aegis or Excalibur, where there is a lot of history and new races one has to become familiar with if one is going to do more than follow orders.

 

I'm not sure that 'restrictive' is the best word for the old Council sims. STSF's political sims such as Aegis and Excalibur are generally prudently selective in bringing in players allowed to run diplomats. You want players who will show up regularly, write logs, and think things through. STSF's political players are generally long term veterans and often experienced hosts. The old Council games were more open, having more political slots to fill, and thus less experienced players were allowed to swim with the sharks. Not a trivial exercise, swimming with sharks. Some were not ready to put in the time and effort, while others grew into it quickly enough. The major difference is that with more political slots open, more players got a chance to determine if it was right for them.

 

I personally liked the mix of logs and chat room. E-mail and forum posts are good to initially set up the problem, and for longer speeches that defined a player's position and proposed solutions to the problem. The chat room was better for interrogating witnesses, point counterpoint debate, amending proposals and collecting votes. I'm not sure how one would make a pure e-mail council format work.

 

I'll also mention that Council is something of a competitive environment, while most ship and station sims are played as cooperative. In any give Council plot line, you would expect at least two competing solutions to develop, with those committed to a solution attempting to persuade the uncommitted. The more work and time a player put into it, the more apt he would be to be arguing for a position rather than being one of the uncommitted. The dynamics are different. A key for both hosts and players is to have interesting conflict while maintaining civility and respect. When it becomes clear one is not going to win a majority, players had to learn to back down gracefully so as to not build enmity and resentments. No matter how much one wanted to resolve the current problem well, one had to remember that one will need the votes of various other players in future plots. There comes a time to make the speech which would give one the ability to say 'I told you so' at some future unspecified time, then get out of the way of the majority. One should count one's votes and avoid burning bridges.

 

This element of managing competition and giving both factions a chance to participate and have fun changes the role of the host as well. The usual role in most station or ship sims is for the hosts to guide the plot. They know what has to happen, and use out of character action statements and in character orders to move things in desired directions. Some Council hosts got into trouble assuming they could run a competitive sim the same way. If a host went in thinking a problem should be resolved in a particular way, but a majority of Council became fond of a different solution, you could get a large collision between the host's out of character prerogatives in the SFOL tradition and the in character Federation Constitution. I would recommend that the the council hosts think of their role as more like a referee at a sporting event than as director of a play or movie. The job is more to stage a friendly competition than to tell actors where to stand and what lines to speak. The hosts that presented the players with a problem, ready to accept any solution that was fun to get to, fared much better than hosts who tried to force the players to follow a pre conceived plot. If one intends to run a majority rules sim, one had best be ready to let the majority rule.

 

Anyway, I miss it. It was a definite change of pace from the more traditional format.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway, I miss it. It was a definite change of pace from the more traditional format.

 

It was a lot of fun when the ambassadors left the Council Chamber and went on a junket.

 

::recalls a particular Fed Council sim where Ambassador Joy Eight, wearing the beatnik ensemble from Funny Face wielded her guitar with good effect when trying to stave off an influx of MIB::

 

And I would have to pick Risa. There's nothing quite so much fun as being the Risan Ambassador.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0