JADIS
Lieutenant
[ss:Cloak]
Posts: 372
|
Post by JADIS on Sept 6, 2009 23:36:09 GMT -6
This is only for the ship captains that have starred in their own series.
Please add to your vote and explain why you think they are the worst.
I thought of this because a friend of mine told me he thought Captain Picard was the worst captain ever and he gave me a reason which he asked I didn't share yet. So that got me thinking, if you had to pick...who would be "the worst"?
|
|
|
Post by macawol on Sept 7, 2009 1:41:52 GMT -6
Janeway. It really annoyed me when she used her little girl voice. And just didn't make me believe in her position as Captain. And she lacked some underlying human qualities.
|
|
|
Post by andrewlee on Sept 7, 2009 8:55:12 GMT -6
I know who I like as the 2 best captains, but am not sure who I would say is the worst in a series, though some of the captains had some bad traits as mentioned above.
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Sept 8, 2009 7:55:27 GMT -6
I lost a lot of respect for Archer when he attacked a peaceful exploration ship to steal its warp coil (in "Damages"). Granted that he was under stress at the time, but I thought there were alternatives. But I would go so far as to mark him on a poll as "worst captain".
|
|
|
Post by sandran on Jan 28, 2010 7:49:45 GMT -6
Janeway. It really annoyed me when she used her little girl voice. And just didn't make me believe in her position as Captain. And she lacked some underlying human qualities. I completely agree.
|
|
|
Post by stark on Jan 29, 2010 11:54:05 GMT -6
I lost a lot of respect for Archer when he attacked a peaceful exploration ship to steal its warp coil (in "Damages"). Granted that he was under stress at the time, but I thought there were alternatives. But I would go so far as to mark him on a poll as "worst captain". Dude... That is why I have GAINED a lot of respect for Archer ) It is definition of a perfect captain- to know exactly what is moral and what is not, but not to hesitate to do bad things for greater good. And the worst captain is Sisko. He do not have a strict moral code AND he got a huge ego. Therefore he always consider himself as a righteous man no matter how badly he act. Oh yeah, he's an Emmisary, he cannot be wrong! It is the worst kind of fanatic. (Remember all Eddington episodes) And all his actions are coming from his pereverted nature, not from the logic. And he is STUPID. Do not argue on that, accept the fact. And his has an extremely repulsive voice. Every time I hear it I want to pull a trigger.
|
|
Arkroyal
Lt. Commander
I'm a historian, not an engineer![ss:Federation]
Posts: 440
|
Post by Arkroyal on Jan 30, 2010 13:57:17 GMT -6
Accept the fact that he's stupid? That's not fact that's opinion.
I actually don't have a "worst captain" myself. The fact they foul up makes them human because...well, they are. Humans screw up big time quite a lot and I can't imagine that'll change too much!
|
|
edify
Lt. Jr. Grade
Posts: 150
|
Post by edify on Jan 31, 2010 0:11:29 GMT -6
I lost a lot of respect for Archer when he attacked a peaceful exploration ship to steal its warp coil (in "Damages"). Granted that he was under stress at the time, but I thought there were alternatives. But I would go so far as to mark him on a poll as "worst captain". Dude... That is why I have GAINED a lot of respect for Archer ) It is definition of a perfect captain- to know exactly what is moral and what is not, but not to hesitate to do bad things for greater good. And the worst captain is Sisko. He do not have a strict moral code AND he got a huge ego. Therefore he always consider himself as a righteous man no matter how badly he act. Oh yeah, he's an Emmisary, he cannot be wrong! It is the worst kind of fanatic. (Remember all Eddington episodes) And all his actions are coming from his pereverted nature, not from the logic. And he is STUPID. Do not argue on that, accept the fact. And his has an extremely repulsive voice. Every time I hear it I want to pull a trigger. Starfleet does not take the position that the ends justifies the means. I know attacking a defenseless ship to steal something they needed was a human, flawed decision. But it wasn't a good one and it wasn't one he made lightly. The very fact that there's a Prime Directive at all goes to show that Starfleet does not believe the end justifies the means (although of course you have those captains who throw the Prime Directive to the wind and do whatever they want anyway). I don't know whom I would pick as worst captain. I don't know that we can. All the captains have good points and bad points. It all boils down to personal opinion. Captain Picard is the captain I can relate to the most. I believe in diplomacy over fisticuffs. As such, I constantly find myself annoyed at Kirk's seeming lack of respect for the Prime Directive, or just ignoring it wheneve it suited him. But I also realize that Kirk was still a great leader, and he cared about the people he led. He wanted good to be served just like any other Starfleet captain does, he just goes about it slightly differently. And personally, I was always scared of Sisko. I never wanted to be under his command. lol
|
|
|
Post by stark on Jan 31, 2010 1:47:56 GMT -6
Well, the ends DO justify the means. It is the way the world is functioning. And those who deny it are hypocrits. And so are the Starfleet. They present to everyone their sweet and kind First Directive, but they do have a "Section 31" who are not less "evil" then the Obsidian Order or Tal Shenar. And Starfleet command know they would not survive without "section 31". So humans as a race actualy not better then cardassians or romulans, only they are the worst hypocrits in a galaxy. And Sisko is the most disguasting of them all.
There are 3 levels of hypocracy. 1) The truth. The man always open about bad things he does. He also understands and defends justified acts of evil commited by others. (Jadzia, Quark, Garak) 2)The hypocracy itself. The man has the image of being sinless, recieved by hiding the truth from others. He condems the sins of others but applodes to them deep inside in his subcontiosnes. (Almost everyone in DS9) 3)The self-righteous. The man has convinced not only the others but also himself of being close to saint ). He still has a subcontions doubts about his own righteousness and that makes him fanatically intolarent to any sin and to any who oppose him. (Sisko, Gal Dukat)
That is exactly the reason why the people most intolerant to homosexuals are the latent gay themselves.
BTW, all star trek has a lot of denial of evil that IS inside us and will never disappear. Our universe is cruel and we have to be evil sometimes in order to survive. But we 1)have to be evil only when nesseccery 2)we must accept the evil inside us, and therefore to understand and forgive the evil in others. Isn't that what the Christ was teaching? "Let he who without sin throw the first stone"
|
|
|
Post by stark on Jan 31, 2010 1:51:32 GMT -6
BTW Bashir is a fake doctor. The real doctor always knows that sometimes in order to heal the patient you have to stab a knife into his belly...
|
|
edify
Lt. Jr. Grade
Posts: 150
|
Post by edify on Jan 31, 2010 8:55:16 GMT -6
Well, the ends DO justify the means. It is the way the world is functioning. And those who deny it are hypocrits. And so are the Starfleet. They present to everyone their sweet and kind First Directive, but they do have a "Section 31" who are not less "evil" then the Obsidian Order or Tal Shenar. And Starfleet command know they would not survive without "section 31". So humans as a race actualy not better then cardassians or romulans, only they are the worst hypocrits in a galaxy. And Sisko is the most disguasting of them all. There are 3 levels of hypocracy. 1) The truth. The man always open about bad things he does. He also understands and defends justified acts of evil commited by others. (Jadzia, Quark, Garak) 2)The hypocracy itself. The man has the image of being sinless, recieved by hiding the truth from others. He condems the sins of others but applodes to them deep inside in his subcontiosnes. (Almost everyone in DS9) 3)The self-righteous. The man has convinced not only the others but also himself of being close to saint ). He still has a subcontions doubts about his own righteousness and that makes him fanatically intolarent to any sin and to any who oppose him. (Sisko, Gal Dukat) That is exactly the reason why the people most intolerant to homosexuals are the latent gay themselves. BTW, all star trek has a lot of denial of evil that IS inside us and will never disappear. Our universe is cruel and we have to be evil sometimes in order to survive. But we 1)have to be evil only when nesseccery 2)we must accept the evil inside us, and therefore to understand and forgive the evil in others. Isn't that what the Christ was teaching? "Let he who without sin throw the first stone" First of all, why are you bringing up controversial topics? I can tell you that a good number of people staunchly oppose to homosexuality are NOT homosexuals themselves. Thank you for assuming the worst of people simply because you have no real argument against them. Secondly, believing the ends do not justify the means is not hypocrisy at all. Believe it or not, there are genuinely good people in this world, people who will not reject their moral code. That's the difference between an ethical and a moral person. An ethical person believes that adultery is wrong. But a moral person will not cheat on his wife.
|
|
|
Post by stark on Jan 31, 2010 10:04:34 GMT -6
Here is the example: You are a commander of a batallion in WWII. Your forces has reached the german village. Suddenly a heavy fire was laid down upon your soldiers from the village by the nazi batallion hiding there. You also have some heavy cannons with you, but you know for sure that the village is full of innocent civilians.
What will be your choice as a commander, 1)(suicide attack) to attack without the artillery support knowing you'll loose most of your soldiers who has entrusted their lives to you, or 2)(war crime) to open artillery fire on the village killing civilians along with nazi, or 3)(being coward) withdrow from combat taking some not critical loses but knowing that when nazi will fortify the attack by some other batallion commander will cost even more lifes?
My moral code is simple and strict- as a commander I am responsible for my troops, and I value their lifes much more then the lifes of enemy civilians. Hypocrit and "genuinely good man wannabe" will blame me for that choice and for killing innocent civilians. Self-righteous will even demand me to be judged. And the hypocracy is in the fact that they would do the same, unless they realy have no honor.
So your hippy "genuinely good people" simply never were in such a situations, and they exict only on expence of those "evil militarists" who do have to make the evil choices every day. I know it and I never blame the soldiers. I do not even condemn the atom bombs on Japan because it did save a lot of american lifes, and it has delayed the war between USA and USSR to the point where war was not possible at all. But the hippies of USA successfully avoided the army, and they blame the US soldiers for Vietnam bloodshed. Isn't that a hypocracy?
|
|
|
Post by stark on Jan 31, 2010 10:07:55 GMT -6
BTW French could also blame England and USA for killing civilians in WWII... Of course they can do it they have surrendered after 2 weeks of war ) But forgetting that the France is existing only because Allies have some blood on their hands is a worst hypocracy of all.
|
|
Dax123
Commander
[ss:NX-01]
Posts: 1,207
|
Post by Dax123 on Jan 31, 2010 10:52:08 GMT -6
Alright stark we get your point. You don't need to bring up topics like that!
|
|
Lady
Ensign
[ss:Federation]
Posts: 69
|
Post by Lady on Jan 31, 2010 11:16:10 GMT -6
I would say Janeway. She seems out of place a little as a captain on a ship. Janeway does a good job of it but the other captains seemes too me like they were ment too be in that place of command. She always seemd too timid a lot of the time and her decisions seemed like the opposit that a captain would have chosen.
|
|