Daystrom Institute

3447 readers

2 users here now

Welcome to Daystrom Institute!

Serious, in-depth discussion about Star Trek from both in-universe and real world perspectives.

Read more about how to comment at Daystrom.

Rules

1. Explain your reasoning

All threads and comments submitted to the Daystrom Institute must contain an explanation of the reasoning put forth.

2. No whinging, jokes, memes, and other shallow content.

This entire community has a “serious tag” on it. Shitposts are encouraged in Risa.

3. Be diplomatic.

Participate in a courteous, objective, and open-minded fashion. Be nice to other posters and the people who make Star Trek. Disagree respectfully and don’t gatekeep.

4. Assume good faith.

Assume good faith. Give other posters the benefit of the doubt, but report them if you genuinely believe they are trolling. Don’t whine about “politics.”

5. Tag spoilers.

Historically Daystrom has not had a spoiler policy, so you may encounter untagged spoilers here. Ultimately, avoiding online discussion until you are caught up is the only certain way to avoid spoilers.

6. Stay on-topic.

Threads must discuss Star Trek. Comments must discuss the topic raised in the original post.

Episode Guides

The /r/DaystromInstitute wiki held a number of popular Star Trek watch guides. We have rehosted them here:

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Temporal Prime Directive: Get Out of Jail Free? (startrek.website)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Excuse me if this post isn't up to the usual standards of Daystrom Institute, but as I'm looking for an in-universe discussion of this topic, this community felt the most appropriate.

Does anyone else feel like the Temporal Prime Directive is a potential security risk? You're a security officer, and you find an intruder on board. Before you can call it in, they implore you "Stop! Temporal Prime Directive! This is important!"

Now you've paused, thinking any action could cause a temporal paradox, or damage to the future timeline.

Hell, just that pause alone might be enough for them to draw a weapon on you and neutralize you, if they are hostile.

But, assuming they don't attack, suppose the intruder says "I can't tell you what I'm doing or why, but just know it's imperative, and I have to remain hidden. Please go about your business and ignore me."

You're in a catch 22. If you leave them be, it could turn out they are an enemy spy or saboteur. If you report them, it could turn out they are telling the truth, and you cause a big temporal problem.

This question is inspired by VOY S05E24, "Relativity", where Seven of Nine is sent back in time to Voyager (before she had joined the crew), and she gets caught and confronted by Janeway. Ultimately, Janeway doesn't just take Seven at her word, and makes her explain what's going on, but I'm not sure we should be taking cues on the proper application of the Temporal Prime Directive from Captain Kathryn Janeway.

What are your thoughts?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The unspoken thing about the Prime Directive is that a Federation Captain's most solemn duty is deciding when to ignore it, and the same goes for the Temporal Prime Directive.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Sure, but what about random crewmen, like in my example? Are they expected to make such a decision?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

They should take it to their captain