Where did those pesky fraternization rules come from?

[Cogito]

Starfleet is at the very least structured like a military organisation and since military organisations do commonly have regulations about fraternisation it is entirely reasonable that Starfleet does too.

I'm also not too fussed about quotes in canon that seem to say whether it is or isn't military. I can easily rationalise that as poor choice of words by people who pride themselves on being explorers rather than warriors and might want to consider themselves as separate from the other armed forces. That distinction would be easier to make if Starfleet actually reported via the diplomatic corps rather than joint chiefs (or whatever the equivalent is at that time).

The fact that people in Starfleet occasionally refer to other people as 'the military' doesn't mean Starfleet isn't structured like a military organisation and doesn't mean that it isn't in fact a military organisation.

[WarpGirl]

But Starfleet DOES report to the diplomatic corps...

United Earth Starfleet Flag (22nd century) Prior to 2161, Starfleet was the primary space defense and exploration organization of United Earth in the early-to-mid-22nd century. The primary authority of Starfleet was referred to as either Starfleet Command or UESPA (United Earth Space Probe Agency) under the jurisdiction of the Command Council, and was located in the city of San Francisco, Earth. (ENT: "Broken Bow", "Terra Prime")

In 2153, following the Xindi attack on Earth and the numerous firefights that the Enterprise NX-01 had been involved in since its launch in 2151, it was determined that Earth's vessels would begin to carry detachments of United Earth's elite military unit, the MACOs, thus taking a step towards the unification of Starfleet and the military – and of the roles of defense and exploration. (ENT: "The Expanse")

Here's another direct quote from Home...

ARCHER: You may want to find someone with more field experience, a MACO.
ERIKA: I'm not sure how I feel about a military officer on the Bridge.

Can someone please explain to me how there can be multiple time when episodes clearly and bluntly make the statement that Starfleet is not a military organization, yet people still insist that it is one.

It doesn't matter "what it looks like" what matters is what it says it is.

To get back on the topic of frat regs, I'd like to take issue with what Kotik said about a fourth grader not knowing what "dating" is. I'm sorry to say the average 4th grader knows more about sex and dating than I do. Heck, my 4 year old neice knows more about sex and dating than I do. My 4 year old cousin loves Katy Perry, knows her songs by heart, and exactly what they are about. All kids have to do is watch the commercials between Saturday morning Cartoons. But when I got to see a PG-13 movie there are usually at least 10 kids all under age. Kids today are incredibly aware of sex and dating. I'm certain in the future with even more globalization, and information access, it will only get worse. Bottom line, someone who spends massive amounts of time with kids. Learns very quickly that the average 4th grader knows what a condom is and how it works.

So I very much doubt they didn't know what they were asking.

[Silverbullet]

In actual fact the coast guard in time of war is a military organization. Its personal drove the landing craft to the beaches when the marines and the army stormed ashore.. They manned Mine sweepers, etc.

In time of peace it is part of the Treasury department. But still military.

In regard to what the admiral said to Archer. could be interprsted as are you okay with another military organization on board. The admiral didn't question anything when Archer said he was taking T'Pol on board because he needed her. She would be a civilian on board a Starfleet Starship.

I will hark back to Lewis and Clark, they wr eexplorers but also a military group. Cook was a captain in the Royal navy and his ship was a royal Navy ship yet its mission was exploration. Admiral Bryd led an exploration of the Artic and ant Artic his group was amilitary. It is not uncommon for the miitary to take the lead in exploration. They can say they are explorers but they still are military.

The closest thing to what you are talking about WG is the merchant Marine. It is a quasi military organization. come to that the Salvation Army considers itself as an Army of God. so the have miitary ranks. but no one consideres them as actual miitary.

Starfleet all through the different series was military. Uniforms, Rankings, discipline, the lot.

One good rason for non fratrnization is tha t a Captain must send his subordintes in to dangerous places where they could get killed. If he has a girl friend he might not send her in when itis her turn to take a dangerous mission.

SB

[putaro]

So as far as the fraternization rules go, the discussion is loads of fun and should continue but I'd also like to know if anyone can think of any other actual mentions of them than the ones cited up above:

Way back in "Breaking the Ice", Archer tells the school kids when they ask about dating "Well, it's not discouraged, but there isn't a lot of privacy on a starship. Most of our crew share quarters with at least one other person, so it wouldn't exactly be practical." So, there's no general non-fraternization rule (unless one got added later but I don't think it's ever mentioned).

T'Pol claims in Fallen Hero that "Starfleet forbids officers from fraternizing with subordinates." You could take that as meaning that you're not supposed to fraternize with someone in your chain of command or that you're not supposed to fraternize with people of lower ranks.

In Raijin, T'Pol says: "We're both senior officers. If we were pursuing a romantic relationship it wouldn't be Lieutenant Reed's concern, would it?" She seems to be saying that there's no actual rule against the two of them having a relationship.

[Cogito]

Not about fraternisation, but regarding T'Pol's status in Broken Bow Archer advised Trip to think of her as a chaperone and they will be extending her 'every courtesy'. Which reinforces the assumption that she has no formal authority at that point. When she tried to take command, she did it by asking Soval to contact Starfleet to ask them to make her acting captain. Which implies that she was not in the chain of command at that time, but was in a position to be put in the chain of command if Starfleet wanted to. That seems consistent with her being treated as an officer of an allied power on a joint mission. On that basis, I imagine the fraternisation regs wouldn't apply to her unless she moved into the chain of command.

Later on when she said "we're both senior officers" that seems to imply that she was in the chain of command. Perhaps that change occurred around the time she resigned her commission - I don't think it was ever explained on what basis she remained on board after she resigned her post as Vulcan chaperone.

[Silverbullet]

Cogito, I will have to run Broken bow again. I don't remeber T'Pol contacting the Vulcan High command requesting them to ask Starfleet to put her in a command position. She still is an Officer in a foreign (alien) military. she cannot be put in the Enterprise chain of command until she resigns from the Vulcan High command and then is granted a brevet commision. that is legal as long a she has prior military experience and has srved in an forign military. I still have never seen an episode where T'Pol was designated first Officer. Starfleet would have to approve such a designation. Archer could not unilateraly do it on his own. He was still subject to regulations. Other than trying to make Enterprise like TOS by having a Vulcan Science Officer/First Officer there was no reason for T'Pol to be anything but a liason and observer.

SB

[Cogito]

Cogito, I will have to run Broken bow again. I don't remeber T'Pol contacting the Vulcan High command requesting them to ask Starfleet to put her in a command position. She still is an Officer in a foreign (alien) military. she cannot be put in the Enterprise chain of command until she resigns from the Vulcan High command and then is granted a brevet commision. that is legal as long a she has prior military experience and has srved in an forign military. I still have never seen an episode where T'Pol was designated first Officer. Starfleet would have to approve such a designation. Archer could not unilateraly do it on his own. He was still subject to regulations. Other than trying to make Enterprise like TOS by having a Vulcan Science Officer/First Officer there was no reason for T'Pol to be anything but a liason and observer.

SB

This was during the infamous decon scene:

Code: Select all

TUCKER: Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you just kind of an observer on this mission? I don't remember anyone telling me you were a member of Starfleet.
T'POL: My Vulcan rank supersedes yours.
TUCKER: Apples and oranges. This is an Earth vessel. You're in no position to take command.
T'POL: As soon as we're through here, I'll contact Ambassador Soval. He'll speak to your superiors and I'm certain they'll support my authority in this situation.

I'm sure your other points would be valid if Starfleet regulations were identical to current regulations in the American armed forces, but I think that's quite a bold assumption to make.

I still have never seen an episode where T'Pol was designated first Officer.

I have the distinct impression T'Pol was first officer, although I can't think of any episodes where that was explicitly stated. But ta the end of the Xindi arc Super!Archer put her in charge when he left on his suicide mission. That seems to imply that at that point she was in the chain of command and was superior to Trip.

Was there ever a scene in canon where Archer apologised to Trip for putting T'Pol over him as first officer? I'm sure I've seen it, but it might be in fanfic rather than in the show.

[putaro]

I have the distinct impression T'Pol was first officer, although I can't think of any episodes where that was explicitly stated.

The first mention I can find (I love Google) is in Vox Sola, where T'Pol says she's the First Officer. It's when she's having a little scene with Hoshi in the mess hall

T'POL: Allowing your emotions to control you won't help solve this problem, Ensign.
HOSHI: Neither will questioning everything I do.
T'POL: You asked for my help.
HOSHI: I didn't ask for you to keep count of every time I make a mistake, or to second-guess all of my decisions.
T'POL: As First Officer it's my duty to supervise you.

In the Andorian Incident, Archer refers to her as the "Science Officer"

Was there ever a scene in canon where Archer apologised to Trip for putting T'Pol over him as first officer? I'm sure I've seen it, but it might be in fanfic rather than in the show.

There doesn't seem to be. But my GoogleFoo may not be strong enough.

[WarpGirl]

In regard to what the admiral said to Archer. could be interprsted as are you okay with another military organization on board. The admiral didn't question anything when Archer said he was taking T'Pol on board because he needed her. She would be a civilian on board a Starfleet Starship.
SB

If that was the case then why didn't Forrest ask if he was okay with a MACO contingent aboard? For example in shows like NCIS, JAG, or Stargate, occasionally they worked with other branches of the the military. And the question was put as "Are you okay working with, Marines, Navy, Air Force, or Army." NOT are you okay working with another military organization.

The way the writers made the distinction with the lines in The Expanse and Home make it 100% clear that at this time period Starfleet considers itself seperate from the Military. Read the transcripts.

[putaro]

The way the writers made the distinction with the lines in The Expanse and Home make it 100% clear that at this time period Starfleet considers itself seperate from the Military. Read the transcripts.

And that line was delivered by a guy wearing an admiral's uniform. What is 100% clear is that the writers had no idea what the military IS.

In your mind, what is the difference between "Starfleet" and "the military" at that time? Semantics or something deeper?

[Cogito]

The way the writers made the distinction with the lines in The Expanse and Home make it 100% clear that at this time period Starfleet considers itself seperate from the Military. Read the transcripts.

And that line was delivered by a guy wearing an admiral's uniform. What is 100% clear is that the writers had no idea what the military IS.

In your mind, what is the difference between "Starfleet" and "the military" at that time? Semantics or something deeper?

Although Starfleet seems to be showing themselves as "less military" than the armed forces of the time, it's also very clearly that they are organised on similar lines and I imagine that people outside of starfleet might see that distinction as a matter of semantics. They have a rigid formal hierarchical command structure, they are government funded, they are armed with sophisticated weapons systems and trained to use them, and they routinely engage in armed conflict. They seem to do all the things that military organisations do, including the lavish headquarters, uniforms and badges, ranks, titles, the whole lot. In practical terms it seems somewhat irrelevant whether they think of themselves as a military organisation, because in every respect that matters it is clear that's what they are.

Back to the original topic, the argument that fraternisation regs would not apply because Starfleet is not a military organisation, simply doesn't hold water. If they aren't military, they are so similar that the distinction is meaningless imo.

[Silverbullet]

T'Pol tells Trip she intends to ask Soval to contact the High command and have it contact Starleet to have them include her in the command structure. That doesn't mean she actually did that.

Starfleet might have included her but they would not make her superior to Trip. He would be the senior commander on board and still first officer. Archer could not designate her rank. He would not have the authority to do so. Only starfleet could do that. They would not put a Vulcan in a higher position than Trip. It would cause a lot of problems.

One thing. If Starfleet put T'Pol in as second in command they would be setting a precedent. The Vulcans could demand that all Starfleet ships have a Vulcan second in command. That owuld be intolerable. Starfleet may be a little dumb but it is not stupid.

T'Pol was an unknown to the crew. they did know Trip. They would follow one of their own before a Vulcan. Starfleet did not trust the Vulcans as the vulcans tried to stop the launching of Enterprise. Why should they put a Vulcan in as second in command. They wouldn't. The crew would not trust a Vulcan so her orders wold not be obyed until cleared by a Starfleet Officer. Archer could not remove Trip as first Officer he would have to declare Trip incompetent to fill the position. He would need to hold an Ad Hoc board and if the boad agreed they would have to go back to SanFrancisco for a professional competency board to test Trip. If they found hm competent (which he would be) Archers Ass would be in a big sling. In addition while he might say Trip was incompetent he could not afford to remove him as chief Engineer. If Trip was competent enough to command the Engineering section (largest on board) he would be competent enough to be first officer. Archer could and would not take the risk of declaring him incompetent. So trip remains as first officer.

In Demons and Terra Prime Archer said T'Pol ws the science officer. No mention of her being first officer.

Again Archer could not make her first officer or give her the rank of commander on his own hook. In the days of Sail as soon as a ship got out of sight of land the Captain was law he had life and death authority over the crew. Not so in Starfleet as long as they were in contact with Starfleet ARcher was subject to Starfleet command.

SB

[WarpGirl]

And that line was delivered by a guy wearing an admiral's uniform. What is 100% clear is that the writers had no idea what the military IS.

In your mind, what is the difference between "Starfleet" and "the military" at that time? Semantics or something deeper?

I think that Starfleet was like the proverbial wagon trains of the old west to paraphraze Gene Rodenberry. In the beginning even before the USA existed members of the colonies took groups into unsettled territories to explore and colonize. These groups didn't automatically get military support. They were armed and organized, even with a chain of Command, but they were NOT Military. It was only as time went on and the settlements were established that the military came in and got settled.

SB Likes to compare the Lewis and Clark Expidition to ENT. Reasonable point but he forgets one important thing. So called "civilians" were exploring, settling, and killing off "hostiles" with Government support, but no military, way before the Louisianna Purchace ever occured to anyone.

[Cogito]

T'Pol tells Trip she intends to ask Soval to contact the High command and have it contact Starleet to have them include her in the command structure. That doesn't mean she actually did that.

Starfleet might have included her but they would not make her superior to Trip. He would be the senior commander on board and still first officer. Archer could not designate her rank. He would not have the authority to do so. Only starfleet could do that. They would not put a Vulcan in a higher position than Trip. It would cause a lot of problems.

One thing. If Starfleet put T'Pol in as second in command they would be setting a precedent. The Vulcans could demand that all Starfleet ships have a Vulcan second in command. That owuld be intolerable. Starfleet may be a little dumb but it is not stupid.

T'Pol was an unknown to the crew. they did know Trip. They would follow one of their own before a Vulcan. Starfleet did not trust the Vulcans as the vulcans tried to stop the launching of Enterprise. Why should they put a Vulcan in as second in command. They wouldn't. The crew would not trust a Vulcan so her orders wold not be obyed until cleared by a Starfleet Officer. Archer could not remove Trip as first Officer he would have to declare Trip incompetent to fill the position. He would need to hold an Ad Hoc board and if the boad agreed they would have to go back to SanFrancisco for a professional competency board to test Trip. If they found hm competent (which he would be) Archers Ass would be in a big sling. In addition while he might say Trip was incompetent he could not afford to remove him as chief Engineer. If Trip was competent enough to command the Engineering section (largest on board) he would be competent enough to be first officer. Archer could and would not take the risk of declaring him incompetent. So trip remains as first officer.

In Demons and Terra Prime Archer said T'Pol ws the science officer. No mention of her being first officer.

Again Archer could not make her first officer or give her the rank of commander on his own hook. In the days of Sail as soon as a ship got out of sight of land the Captain was law he had life and death authority over the crew. Not so in Starfleet as long as they were in contact with Starfleet ARcher was subject to Starfleet command.

SB

That's all fine in theory, but it seems to be based largely on speculation. You are making quite sweeping assumptions about what Starfleet would or could do that aren't based on anything but common sense - and unfortunately that's not something you can rely on where Trek is concerned.

After telling Trip that she would ask the VHC to contact Starfleet and have her appointed as acting captain, Trip didn't tell her she couldn't do that. And in fact she did take command. She told Archer later on in Broken Bow, when he regains consciousness:

T'POL: As your highest ranking officer I assumed command while you were incapacitated.
ARCHER: Are we underway? (Tucker nods) You didn't waste much time, did you?
T'POL: Is he fit to resume command?

Neither Trip nor Archer commented on whether she was entitled to take command or whether she was right to describe herself as the highest ranking officer. So it seems reasonable to assume that she was in fact an officer, and outranked Trip.

Then later on when Super!Archer was back saving the day T'Pol assumed command again:

T'POL: As Commanding Officer, it's my job to interpret the Captain's orders.

Nobody blinked an eye, nobody challenged her right to assume command. Either she was entitled to do that, or the entire senior staff were incompetent buffoons who didn't understand what their chain of command was. It's a tough call, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

[panyasan]

In 2153, following the Xindi attack on Earth and the numerous firefights that the Enterprise NX-01 had been involved in since its launch in 2151, it was determined that Earth's vessels would begin to carry detachments of United Earth's elite military unit, the MACOs, thus taking a step towards the unification of Starfleet and the military – and of the roles of defense and exploration. (ENT: "The Expanse")

So if I read this correctly, SF is something half between an exploration organization, diplomatic organization and para-militairy organization and the threat of war (Xindi-conflict, Romulan war) made SF move from this to be a more militairy organization.
This kind of development wouldn't take place without discussion - hence the remark by Forrest and Erika "are we okay with become an organization with a strong militairy component."

In Earth's history most explorers were looking for land, took that land from others, made it a colony or their own country and were very interested in using the goods of the country they were exploring for their own wealth. Only to defend the exploreres place of their own: then we get an army. An army is the militairy arm of the goverment of a country, while explorers have ties with their home country and government, but are less controled by that goverment. That can change when a settlement of explorers is being attacked, as we see with Starfleet.

As for the fraternization rules - I think Transwarp said it best. Especially in the militairy or organizations were people work together and risk of being in danger (police), having a personal relationship with your co-worker is a bad idea. Let's put it this way: I work in an office and even there getting involved with your co-worker is a bad idea. And if you do, you sure have to work hard it doesn't effect your work.