Carpenter Street Archer is missing Criminal, Desperate, Hero, Hunter, Investigator, Marksman, Pilot, and Thief.
Criminal & Thief: Besides stealing a car, kidnapping and beating a man, he steals money and doesn't return it. Affirms the illegality of it.
ARCHER: It's a gasoline pump. We need to get fuel.
T'POL: Where?
ARCHER: Where isn't the problem. We're going to need money. US currency.
T'POL: That's going to be difficult at this time of night.
ARCHER: Not necessarily.
(The scanner persuades an ATM to dispense notes.)
ARCHER: People used to go to jail for this.
Desperate: So desperate to save all of humanity that he risks his and T'Pol's life, steals, beats a man in interrogation with his fists, allows himself to be "taken captive" by the Xindi...
ARCHER: If he's trying to destroy humanity, he's not going to be able to do it with that. They only modified the virus for six blood types.
T'POL: If they can infect three quarters of Earth's population, it's unlikely humans will pose a threat to them in the future.
Hero: He and T'Pol travel through time to stop murderous aliens hellbent on destroying humanity. Along the way, the save the immediate lives of six people kidnapped by Loomis. At the last possible moment (in slow-motion, mind you) he stops a toxin from being released that would wipe out 3/4ths of humanity: https://i.imgur.com/7ZkdcV9.png He even makes the cliché heroic Quantum leap across rooftops: https://i.imgur.com/pjqbgQg.png
Hunter: Archer and T'Pol track Loomis, apprehend him, and keep him tied up through a significant portion of the episode. They also use him to hunt down the Xindi reptilians and are successful in their bounty hunting by returning all three Xindi and their technology to the present.
ARCHER: Daniels and his team have discovered three Reptilians on Earth in the early twenty first century. He wants to send us back to find out what they're doing.
...
ARCHER: He said the three Xindi travelled to Earth from our century. They've been there for two months. They're not sight-seeing, T'Pol. We have to find out what they're up to.
...
ARCHER: He gave me this, said he'd return us whenever we signaled him.
(Archer opens the box to show sixteen little items.)
ARCHER: These are temporal tags. We can use them to bring back anything that doesn't belong there.
ARCHER: If that thing has a scanning radius of three kilometers, how far are we going to have to drive to cover the entire city?
T'POL: I have created a search grid that requires a journey of approximately eighty kilometers, but it's probably we'll find them before we complete it.
(They're waiting for Loomis to leave.)
ARCHER: Here he comes.
(They follow.)
T'POL: Why would they travel back through time?
ARCHER: Daniels said they might be hiding from someone. The past seems like a pretty good place to hide.
Investigator: The entire episode is Archer and T'Pol investigating a temporal incursion relayed to them by Crewman Daniels.
ARCHER: Daniels and his team have discovered three Reptilians on Earth in the early twenty first century. He wants to send us back to find out what they're doing.
...
They're not sight-seeing, T'Pol. We have to find out what they're up to.
Marksman: He hits a 7 centimeter beacon from 10+ meters away in a prone position and then hits an enemy center mass with his next shot and disables him. He later disables a second Xindi from distance with a single shot. https://i.imgur.com/pHp9KPz.png
Pilot: Pilot is a character-wide trait for Archer and assigned to other variants who do not pilot ships in their episodes such as Archer and Porthos, Ushaan Archer, Mirror Archer, etc. His piloting ability is directly referenced in this episode and he does learn to "pilot" the automobile.
T'POL: Have you ever operated a vehicle from this period?
ARCHER: I can pilot a starship.
Hippie Kira is missing the Veteran trait. Frankly, she has more traits than the scene(s) calls for already, but Veteran is a core character trait and she has so much wartime experience that the Cardassians literally call her for help to train their soldiers in season 7. One does not stop being a veteran.
Also not Displaced by what we were told about the trait:
- crew who unintentionally arrives in an alternate timeline, in the past, or in the future
- crew whose intentional action results in them arriving in the past, or future, with no way back
She and O'Brien transport back and forth at will.
Also not Federation, as with Prophet Kira just a few months ago. Bajor was not a Federation world.
Thank you. I remember the episode well, just could not recall that scene though.
Me neither. Probably because it was such a short scene, one that seems to have been a simple "comedy of errors" type showcasing how Kira & O'Brien are going to be "fish out of water" when-ever they go.
Strangely enough that's one of the most memorable scenes of ds9 for me. The old Decipher CCG game had a card called "peace is good for business" that I played in my ferenghi deck, the picture was kira giving the peace sign. I have zero recollection of what the card did, but I was pretty excited to see the new character here.
Archer was driving a stolen truck through Detroit. If that doesn’t make him a thief, not much will. T’Pol, when added to the game, should also have that trait.
It's still unlawful confinement and they didn't inform the authorities. Theft, kidnapping, GTA, B&E...I say Criminal!
Though they were working on behalf of the time authorities that had jurisdiction over the matter. Give them “constable” trait as they were deputized by Daniels.
These Objective Preparation Events drain more resources than they provide. "Let us help you prepare for the event... by making you spend every chroniton you have trying to immortalize a crew in the preparation."
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, did it make a sound?
In a society where people are considered innocent until proven guilty, if somebody does something considered illegal but is never tried and convicted, can you call them a criminal?
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, did it make a sound?
In a society where people are considered innocent until proven guilty, if somebody does something considered illegal but is never tried and convicted, can you call them a criminal?
Just because there is no one in the forest to hear the sound does not mean that the sound did not take place because objectively that is vibration that occurs even when there is no witness of that vibration.
And even if there is no air to make the sound, but the tree falls, then the tree falls even if you can't hear it.
That is the same as "If there is red light on traffic light and you drive through ignoring it but there is no one to see you do it, did you go through red light?".
That is only half of it. Alleged criminal acts without the context of judgement cannot be classified as crimes, and the perpetrators cannot be classified as criminals. In your example, say the driver was arrested and brought before a judge and the driver explains that they were seen driving through the light but were being chased by somebody attempting to harm them through road rage, or they made the decision to do it because a drunk driver was about to smash into them, or some other story and the judge finds them not guilty, they may have committed an act that the law considers illegal but a judge ruled they were not guilty, thus rendering them not a criminal.
Carpenter Street Archer may have done something considered illegal, but without the context of judgement we cannot correctly classify him as a criminal.
Luckily a trial and conviction is not required for the application of the Criminal trait in game (or they'd have to remove it from so many crew that it wouldn't be possible to complete the current collection).
Archer broke several laws and comments on the illegality of it, saying he should be in jail (providing "the context of judgement"). Aside from him with hands on cell bars and a big ol frowny face, there's not much more a character can do in an episode to earn the Criminal trait.
These Objective Preparation Events drain more resources than they provide. "Let us help you prepare for the event... by making you spend every chroniton you have trying to immortalize a crew in the preparation."
Are you immortalizing higher level crew? I just do some random 1* to fill the requirement. Today I spent 96 chronitons immortalizing 1* Spock, which brought back 400 in return (100 for leveling 90 times and 300 for the immortalization).
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, did it make a sound?
In a society where people are considered innocent until proven guilty, if somebody does something considered illegal but is never tried and convicted, can you call them a criminal?
Yes. I can call them a criminal. Though we ought to be clear that the connotation of the word is far harsher than it need be. Indeed, I would consider the word criminal to imply one who frequently and remorselessly commits crimes. Archer commits a crime, but that is jot a habital activity with him. And since we watchers know him and his situation, we generally consider the mitigating factors and character traits in the larger context. Thus we don't really call Archer a criminal. But if all we had were half an episode, we might.
In the larger scheme of things, it does not matter if someone is caught and convicted. Right is right and wrong is wrong. I had kids once tell me that stealing and traffic violations and such were only wrong if you get caught. Such an absurd attitude will bring complete ruin to a society. If it is wrong when people know you did it, then it is wrong when they don't know you did it. There are moral absolutes.
Ok, let’s compromise. Archer did criminal acts but in service of saving billions of people and he did it quickly and smoothly. So give him the trait Smooth Criminal.
These Objective Preparation Events drain more resources than they provide. "Let us help you prepare for the event... by making you spend every chroniton you have trying to immortalize a crew in the preparation."
Are you immortalizing higher level crew? I just do some random 1* to fill the requirement. Today I spent 96 chronitons immortalizing 1* Spock, which brought back 400 in return (100 for leveling 90 times and 300 for the immortalization).
We are starting to get off track here but you actually 'spent' way more than 96 chrons. Just because you earned the overwhelming majority of items in the past doesn't mean that it did not cost you anything to use those resources on Spock. Now, how many of the items used are also galaxy recipe items? I would not be surprised if you found that the net was result was negative.
These Objective Preparation Events drain more resources than they provide. "Let us help you prepare for the event... by making you spend every chroniton you have trying to immortalize a crew in the preparation."
Are you immortalizing higher level crew? I just do some random 1* to fill the requirement. Today I spent 96 chronitons immortalizing 1* Spock, which brought back 400 in return (100 for leveling 90 times and 300 for the immortalization).
We are starting to get off track here but you actually 'spent' way more than 96 chrons. Just because you earned the overwhelming majority of items in the past doesn't mean that it did not cost you anything to use those resources on Spock. Now, how many of the items used are also galaxy recipe items? I would not be surprised if you found that the net was result was negative.
But while he was spending the 96 chrons, he also received other items which removes your argument completely.
These Objective Preparation Events drain more resources than they provide. "Let us help you prepare for the event... by making you spend every chroniton you have trying to immortalize a crew in the preparation."
In this case, I'm afraid you are playing the game wrong unless you have no more crew to max.
If this is the case then this event is useless for you.
Since the objective events, for me personal, I can finish more crew much faster.
I am leveling crew , fusing, etc anyway. Now I get a bonus for doing it.
Also not Displaced by what we were told about the trait:
- crew who unintentionally arrives in an alternate timeline, in the past, or in the future
- crew whose intentional action results in them arriving in the past, or future, with no way back
Mmmmmm, by that definition, I don't think the "Year of Hell" variants should be displaced (They are in their own timeline, they are in an alternate timeline from our perspective)
If it is about the effects of the Krenim weapon... I guess the entire galaxy is displaced (ok, maybe just the Delta Quadrant)
In the larger scheme of things, it does not matter if someone is caught and convicted. Right is right and wrong is wrong. I had kids once tell me that stealing and traffic violations and such were only wrong if you get caught. Such an absurd attitude will bring complete ruin to a society. If it is wrong when people know you did it, then it is wrong when they don't know you did it. There are moral absolutes.
That to me is where the waters get very muddied. And I think the only way to accurately express my views on this without getting in trouble for violating forum terms of service is that IMO this subject is using criminal and law-abiding in place of moral and immoral. I reject that premise because far too often laws and morality are at odds, yet we are quick to brand somebody a criminal for doing the right thing, or brand somebody law-abiding for doing something clearly exploitive/immoral. Throughout history the "haves" are the ones in position to write the laws, and those laws tend to be written not to reflect morality but to keep the "have nots" from approaching a level playing field.
This to me is why I feel better branding somebody a criminal if they have been judged by a jury of their peers, because that verdict reflects the morality of the society far better than the laws that were put in place by an authority with a high probability of conflict of interest. Just one example of this using the traffic violations, but when a city starts to run low on money and they change a traffic law or speed limit for the purpose of catching additional violators to increase their fine collections, I have a hard time branding an offender as the problem.
In the larger scheme of things, it does not matter if someone is caught and convicted. Right is right and wrong is wrong. I had kids once tell me that stealing and traffic violations and such were only wrong if you get caught. Such an absurd attitude will bring complete ruin to a society. If it is wrong when people know you did it, then it is wrong when they don't know you did it. There are moral absolutes.
That to me is where the waters get very muddied. And I think the only way to accurately express my views on this without getting in trouble for violating forum terms of service is that IMO this subject is using criminal and law-abiding in place of moral and immoral. I reject that premise because far too often laws and morality are at odds, yet we are quick to brand somebody a criminal for doing the right thing, or brand somebody law-abiding for doing something clearly exploitive/immoral. Throughout history the "haves" are the ones in position to write the laws, and those laws tend to be written not to reflect morality but to keep the "have nots" from approaching a level playing field.
This to me is why I feel better branding somebody a criminal if they have been judged by a jury of their peers, because that verdict reflects the morality of the society far better than the laws that were put in place by an authority with a high probability of conflict of interest. Just one example of this using the traffic violations, but when a city starts to run low on money and they change a traffic law or speed limit for the purpose of catching additional violators to increase their fine collections, I have a hard time branding an offender as the problem.
I was with you until the end. Cities change speed limits because lower speeds are safer for pedestrians. And when cities install speed cameras and red light cameras they are catching people already breaking the law. But people claim the cameras are just a money grab instead of recognizing that the people being ticketed are breaking the law.
Also not Displaced by what we were told about the trait:
- crew who unintentionally arrives in an alternate timeline, in the past, or in the future
- crew whose intentional action results in them arriving in the past, or future, with no way back
Mmmmmm, by that definition, I don't think the "Year of Hell" variants should be displaced (They are in their own timeline, they are in an alternate timeline from our perspective)
If it is about the effects of the Krenim weapon... I guess the entire galaxy is displaced (ok, maybe just the Delta Quadrant)
Technically, Voyager developed special shielding that kept them isolated from the events altered by the Time Ship. They remained in placed, but the time stream moved around them. I seem to remember Janeway ordering those shields dropped at the end so they could "reset" with time. Been a while, but I remember the special shields.
W.W. CarlislePlayed since January 20, 2019Captain Level- 99 (May 9, 2022)VIP 14Crew Quarters: 485/485Most recent/Lowest- Anbo-jyutsu Kyle Riker (1/5* Lvl 30) 5/29/23Immortalized x-866 5* x184, 4* x 490, 3* x91, 2* x62, and 1* x27Most recent Immortal - Tearful Janeway 4* 5/25/23Current non-event project- Improving my Science base skill. Retrieval Project- Mestral 1/5*
In the larger scheme of things, it does not matter if someone is caught and convicted. Right is right and wrong is wrong. I had kids once tell me that stealing and traffic violations and such were only wrong if you get caught. Such an absurd attitude will bring complete ruin to a society. If it is wrong when people know you did it, then it is wrong when they don't know you did it. There are moral absolutes.
That to me is where the waters get very muddied. And I think the only way to accurately express my views on this without getting in trouble for violating forum terms of service is that IMO this subject is using criminal and law-abiding in place of moral and immoral. I reject that premise because far too often laws and morality are at odds, yet we are quick to brand somebody a criminal for doing the right thing, or brand somebody law-abiding for doing something clearly exploitive/immoral. Throughout history the "haves" are the ones in position to write the laws, and those laws tend to be written not to reflect morality but to keep the "have nots" from approaching a level playing field.
This to me is why I feel better branding somebody a criminal if they have been judged by a jury of their peers, because that verdict reflects the morality of the society far better than the laws that were put in place by an authority with a high probability of conflict of interest. Just one example of this using the traffic violations, but when a city starts to run low on money and they change a traffic law or speed limit for the purpose of catching additional violators to increase their fine collections, I have a hard time branding an offender as the problem.
I was with you until the end. Cities change speed limits because lower speeds are safer for pedestrians. And when cities install speed cameras and red light cameras they are catching people already breaking the law. But people claim the cameras are just a money grab instead of recognizing that the people being ticketed are breaking the law.
"The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself."
In the larger scheme of things, it does not matter if someone is caught and convicted. Right is right and wrong is wrong. I had kids once tell me that stealing and traffic violations and such were only wrong if you get caught. Such an absurd attitude will bring complete ruin to a society. If it is wrong when people know you did it, then it is wrong when they don't know you did it. There are moral absolutes.
That to me is where the waters get very muddied. And I think the only way to accurately express my views on this without getting in trouble for violating forum terms of service is that IMO this subject is using criminal and law-abiding in place of moral and immoral. I reject that premise because far too often laws and morality are at odds, yet we are quick to brand somebody a criminal for doing the right thing, or brand somebody law-abiding for doing something clearly exploitive/immoral. Throughout history the "haves" are the ones in position to write the laws, and those laws tend to be written not to reflect morality but to keep the "have nots" from approaching a level playing field.
This to me is why I feel better branding somebody a criminal if they have been judged by a jury of their peers, because that verdict reflects the morality of the society far better than the laws that were put in place by an authority with a high probability of conflict of interest. Just one example of this using the traffic violations, but when a city starts to run low on money and they change a traffic law or speed limit for the purpose of catching additional violators to increase their fine collections, I have a hard time branding an offender as the problem.
I was with you until the end. Cities change speed limits because lower speeds are safer for pedestrians. And when cities install speed cameras and red light cameras they are catching people already breaking the law. But people claim the cameras are just a money grab instead of recognizing that the people being ticketed are breaking the law.
It happens all the time. For example, in my uncle's town they changed a section of road from 40 MPH to 25 MPH in an arbitrary place conveniently very close to a speed trap location. And it is not just traffic laws, I just stuck with that since that was the example everyone kept using. Just look at how Congress came down hard on "meme investors" last year. The laws were written and changed to benefit the hedge fund managers who are actively exploiting the system for their own benefit, but the second a bunch of average joes got together and tried to use the same system suddenly THEY were the problem?
I do not want to get bogged down in minutia, this is already off topic enough, I just wanted to express that there is a big gap IMO between being seen as lawful and being moral, and vice versa. How many times did Captain Picard break the Prime Directive? That is the most important law of the Federation and yet he broke it many, many times because doing so in each case was the right thing, does that make Picard a criminal? In every case his actions were reviewed and he was given a pass, and I think we should be holding Archer to the same standard here. That is all I am trying to say.
Comments
Criminal & Thief: Besides stealing a car, kidnapping and beating a man, he steals money and doesn't return it. Affirms the illegality of it.
Desperate: So desperate to save all of humanity that he risks his and T'Pol's life, steals, beats a man in interrogation with his fists, allows himself to be "taken captive" by the Xindi...
Hero: He and T'Pol travel through time to stop murderous aliens hellbent on destroying humanity. Along the way, the save the immediate lives of six people kidnapped by Loomis. At the last possible moment (in slow-motion, mind you) he stops a toxin from being released that would wipe out 3/4ths of humanity: https://i.imgur.com/7ZkdcV9.png He even makes the cliché heroic Quantum leap across rooftops: https://i.imgur.com/pjqbgQg.png
Hunter: Archer and T'Pol track Loomis, apprehend him, and keep him tied up through a significant portion of the episode. They also use him to hunt down the Xindi reptilians and are successful in their bounty hunting by returning all three Xindi and their technology to the present.
Investigator: The entire episode is Archer and T'Pol investigating a temporal incursion relayed to them by Crewman Daniels.
Marksman: He hits a 7 centimeter beacon from 10+ meters away in a prone position and then hits an enemy center mass with his next shot and disables him. He later disables a second Xindi from distance with a single shot. https://i.imgur.com/pHp9KPz.png
Pilot: Pilot is a character-wide trait for Archer and assigned to other variants who do not pilot ships in their episodes such as Archer and Porthos, Ushaan Archer, Mirror Archer, etc. His piloting ability is directly referenced in this episode and he does learn to "pilot" the automobile.
Hippie Kira is missing the Veteran trait. Frankly, she has more traits than the scene(s) calls for already, but Veteran is a core character trait and she has so much wartime experience that the Cardassians literally call her for help to train their soldiers in season 7. One does not stop being a veteran.
Also not Displaced by what we were told about the trait: She and O'Brien transport back and forth at will.
Also not Federation, as with Prophet Kira just a few months ago. Bajor was not a Federation world.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Past_Tense,_Part_II_(episode)
Past Tense I and II (specifically II). That's the episodes with the Bell Riots.
Me neither. Probably because it was such a short scene, one that seems to have been a simple "comedy of errors" type showcasing how Kira & O'Brien are going to be "fish out of water" when-ever they go.
If you kidnap a criminal, are you yourself a criminal?
Though they were working on behalf of the time authorities that had jurisdiction over the matter. Give them “constable” trait as they were deputized by Daniels.
In a society where people are considered innocent until proven guilty, if somebody does something considered illegal but is never tried and convicted, can you call them a criminal?
Just because there is no one in the forest to hear the sound does not mean that the sound did not take place because objectively that is vibration that occurs even when there is no witness of that vibration.
And even if there is no air to make the sound, but the tree falls, then the tree falls even if you can't hear it.
That is the same as "If there is red light on traffic light and you drive through ignoring it but there is no one to see you do it, did you go through red light?".
Yes you did!
Carpenter Street Archer may have done something considered illegal, but without the context of judgement we cannot correctly classify him as a criminal.
Archer broke several laws and comments on the illegality of it, saying he should be in jail (providing "the context of judgement"). Aside from him with hands on cell bars and a big ol frowny face, there's not much more a character can do in an episode to earn the Criminal trait.
Are you immortalizing higher level crew? I just do some random 1* to fill the requirement. Today I spent 96 chronitons immortalizing 1* Spock, which brought back 400 in return (100 for leveling 90 times and 300 for the immortalization).
Yes. I can call them a criminal. Though we ought to be clear that the connotation of the word is far harsher than it need be. Indeed, I would consider the word criminal to imply one who frequently and remorselessly commits crimes. Archer commits a crime, but that is jot a habital activity with him. And since we watchers know him and his situation, we generally consider the mitigating factors and character traits in the larger context. Thus we don't really call Archer a criminal. But if all we had were half an episode, we might.
In the larger scheme of things, it does not matter if someone is caught and convicted. Right is right and wrong is wrong. I had kids once tell me that stealing and traffic violations and such were only wrong if you get caught. Such an absurd attitude will bring complete ruin to a society. If it is wrong when people know you did it, then it is wrong when they don't know you did it. There are moral absolutes.
We are starting to get off track here but you actually 'spent' way more than 96 chrons. Just because you earned the overwhelming majority of items in the past doesn't mean that it did not cost you anything to use those resources on Spock. Now, how many of the items used are also galaxy recipe items? I would not be surprised if you found that the net was result was negative.
But while he was spending the 96 chrons, he also received other items which removes your argument completely.
In this case, I'm afraid you are playing the game wrong unless you have no more crew to max.
If this is the case then this event is useless for you.
Since the objective events, for me personal, I can finish more crew much faster.
I am leveling crew , fusing, etc anyway. Now I get a bonus for doing it.
If it is about the effects of the Krenim weapon... I guess the entire galaxy is displaced (ok, maybe just the Delta Quadrant)
Public profile
Captain Zombie's Combo chain calculator
That to me is where the waters get very muddied. And I think the only way to accurately express my views on this without getting in trouble for violating forum terms of service is that IMO this subject is using criminal and law-abiding in place of moral and immoral. I reject that premise because far too often laws and morality are at odds, yet we are quick to brand somebody a criminal for doing the right thing, or brand somebody law-abiding for doing something clearly exploitive/immoral. Throughout history the "haves" are the ones in position to write the laws, and those laws tend to be written not to reflect morality but to keep the "have nots" from approaching a level playing field.
This to me is why I feel better branding somebody a criminal if they have been judged by a jury of their peers, because that verdict reflects the morality of the society far better than the laws that were put in place by an authority with a high probability of conflict of interest. Just one example of this using the traffic violations, but when a city starts to run low on money and they change a traffic law or speed limit for the purpose of catching additional violators to increase their fine collections, I have a hard time branding an offender as the problem.
I was with you until the end. Cities change speed limits because lower speeds are safer for pedestrians. And when cities install speed cameras and red light cameras they are catching people already breaking the law. But people claim the cameras are just a money grab instead of recognizing that the people being ticketed are breaking the law.
Technically, Voyager developed special shielding that kept them isolated from the events altered by the Time Ship. They remained in placed, but the time stream moved around them. I seem to remember Janeway ordering those shields dropped at the end so they could "reset" with time. Been a while, but I remember the special shields.
It happens all the time. For example, in my uncle's town they changed a section of road from 40 MPH to 25 MPH in an arbitrary place conveniently very close to a speed trap location. And it is not just traffic laws, I just stuck with that since that was the example everyone kept using. Just look at how Congress came down hard on "meme investors" last year. The laws were written and changed to benefit the hedge fund managers who are actively exploiting the system for their own benefit, but the second a bunch of average joes got together and tried to use the same system suddenly THEY were the problem?
I do not want to get bogged down in minutia, this is already off topic enough, I just wanted to express that there is a big gap IMO between being seen as lawful and being moral, and vice versa. How many times did Captain Picard break the Prime Directive? That is the most important law of the Federation and yet he broke it many, many times because doing so in each case was the right thing, does that make Picard a criminal? In every case his actions were reviewed and he was given a pass, and I think we should be holding Archer to the same standard here. That is all I am trying to say.