TransporterMalfunction 1 Posted April 16, 2003 I like the TOS approach where the Captain is the boss and gets all the action. This becomes important when a series is often set on alien worlds as TOS was and if the captain was left behind then in plot terms it would leave him a bit redundant i.e. Captain Duncle. However, when a lot of action happens aboard the ship then it does not really matter quite so much. As TOS is my favourire series I will vote for 'Yes', but only because I like the way the stories were structured and it would be impractical to leave the Captain on the ship most of the time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bassgirl 0 Posted April 16, 2003 i vote yes as well! even though picard didnt get to go on so many landing party missions, he still WANTED to!! Kirk just made it his priority to be in the thick of the action, starfleet regs be damned! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Klingonmike 0 Posted April 17, 2003 I too voted yes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lessa_Soong 0 Posted April 17, 2003 I think no. As you move up through the ranks, the future captain would have lots of time to go on away teams. Once he hits captain, it is time to take care of the ship and the crew that is aboad her. Let your first and second officer do what they were trained to do and you sit in the center seat like a good boy and watch their backs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
A l t e r E g o 9 Posted April 17, 2003 Logical Lessa, flawlessly logical. :o Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bevfanK 0 Posted April 17, 2003 I think it all depends on the situation.. like in "Times Arrow" the Captain HAD to go with them.. I do agree with Lessa though.. The away team does need the Captain there on the ship watching thier backs... all hail Bev!! :o Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lessa_Soong 0 Posted April 17, 2003 Logical Lessa, flawlessly logical. you honor me...(blush) thanks, Alterego and Bevfank. :o Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Indy 8 Posted April 18, 2003 I voted NO - it's against regulations. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1 Posted April 18, 2003 I voted NO as well, but sometimes it's necessary for the Captain to lead an away mission. But, if the Captain went all the time... Look at how often Archer gets captured! I think he'll make the rule where Captains generally aren't suppose to lead away teams. The Captain's job is to command the ship, not lead the away team. :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
master_q 0 Posted April 21, 2003 I think it all depends on the situation.. like in "Times Arrow" the Captain HAD to go with them.. I do agree with Lessa though.. The away team does need the Captain there on the ship watching thier backs... all hail Bev!! Yeah I would agree it does really depend on the events in question. And sometimes the event in question really demands the caption, but for a normal mission like has been stated already the caption needs to be on the bridge for any possible future problem / emergency. Master Q StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Klingonmike 0 Posted April 21, 2003 They did not learn anything from Archer,Capt.Kirk got captured every other week!By the time they got to Picard's era they figured it out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ddillard 2 Posted April 23, 2003 I voted No, because the captain is one of the ship's most valuable resources. It would cause a lot of damage to the ship if the captain were lost. You don't see Generals in the trenches in our time do you? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
A l t e r E g o 9 Posted April 23, 2003 They did not learn anything from Archer,Capt.Kirk got captured every other week!By the time they got to Picard's era they figured it out. I cant choose between them, different eras, different rules. I vote both Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xenexian 2 Posted April 25, 2003 Of course, anytime you got off the ship and away from the captain, it turned into a party anyway. The captain along would just put a damper on things. And I'm all for landing and having a party, preferably on Risa. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VaBeachGuy 12 Posted April 25, 2003 Think about it this way, if NASA did it the way Starfleet does (the Capt can't leave the ship) then Buzz Aldrin would have been the first man to walk on the Moon in stead of Neil Armstrong. I understand why Starfleet would want to restrict the Capt to stay on the ship but I think there are times he/she would need/want to lead the away team. On the other hand, how many times does the Captain of an aircraft carrier fly a bombing mission over enemy positions? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
poguemahone 0 Posted April 28, 2003 I voted no, but it's tough to say which, but there are times when the captains needs to, to give who ever a clear sense of who's in charge, with the person other than the Captain the people on the planet may not recognize his/her authourity, if the situation is to dicy the Captain should monitor things from the ship. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
prometheus 0 Posted April 28, 2003 The Captain is like gold. You wouldnt beam down your warp core so why beam down your most important crew member. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cptwright 1 Posted May 6, 2003 regs, and logic, be damned, R.H.I.P. why be captain if you cant have any fun. not to mention why wouldnt you want the brains of the operation on hand when you get into trouble? also, i would want to follow the man that wouldnt have me do something he wont do. so the one that goes "into the trenches" is the one im following, courage and duty are what its all about. so go on away missions mr captain. as bass girl said picard always wanted too, thats where the fun is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Admiral Kirk 1 Posted May 11, 2003 I like the TOS approach but I voted no. I think due to his importance in the overall mission the Captain should go on away teams only if their is an absolute need for it. I think he or she should plan and command the expeditions from another location. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
judecat1 0 Posted May 12, 2003 I like the TOS approach but I voted no. I think due to his importance in the overall mission the Captain should go on away teams only if their is an absolute need for it.I think he or she should plan and command the expeditions from another location. I agree 100 percent. I like TOS, but having the captain putting himself in the path of danger every week is no way to run a Star Ship. The Captain is responsible for everyone. Also Captain are usually a bit older than Kirk, it takes a while to get the wisdom to be Captain -- but by then the body slows down a bit. I'm not talking about old and feeble -- I just talking about the difference between 30 and 50. Let the young'uns do the physical work, let the Captain make the decitions.. judecat1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KayTroi 0 Posted May 20, 2003 I think the Captain should go with the landing party when it is absolutley neccessary for him or her to do so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdigs 0 Posted May 20, 2003 I think no. As you move up through the ranks, the future captain would have lots of time to go on away teams. Once he hits captain, it is time to take care of the ship and the crew that is aboad her. Let your first and second officer do what they were trained to do and you sit in the center seat like a good boy and watch their backs. Yea that's my thoughts exactly..I knew whenever Picard left to go down to a planet..as well as Janeway something was gonna happen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thayln 0 Posted May 20, 2003 I couldn't choose. It does fit into the timeline to have Archer go galavanting around. I believe that it was actually Spock who pushed that regulation through Star Fleet. Think about all the times he and Kirk butted heads over the issue. I think its really cool how T'Pol is learning to "manager" Archer. She knows she can't stop him from going, but at least she kept him from running off by himself in First Flight. Even Trip couldn't do that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tank 0 Posted May 20, 2003 I voted "no" because it simply doesn't seem wise to have the captian lead away missions. I think it's a good regulation to have if for no other reason so that it can create friction between the captian and the first officer when the captian decides to go against it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Abakai2003 0 Posted May 20, 2003 I vote no But the big problem I have With the TOS way is you don't send ALL of you most senior officers into a dangerous situation It's the 1st officers job to lead away teams Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ddillard 2 Posted May 23, 2003 The Captain is like gold. You wouldnt beam down your warp core so why beam down your most important crew member. Very well said. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cptwright 1 Posted May 27, 2003 look at it this way, their explorers, and thats what archers doing, their not really into the whole military way like they are now both, their starting to figure out that just exploring will still get you into trouble but, the happy captain is off doing what he wanted to do his whole life,"EXPLORE SPACE". so i dont really think you can compare ENT, TOS, TNG. they all had their own way in the timeline. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nik 0 Posted May 29, 2003 Should the captain go on away missions? As long as he's not wearing a red shirt, he should do just fine. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lessa_Soong 0 Posted May 29, 2003 I can see the humor in that statement, but I still think that the captain's place in on the bridge of his ship protecting the rest of his crew and leading them with his experience. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites