Talk: General Orders and Regulations

TAS Episode?[]

I have not seen the TAS Episode in which General Order 6 was mentioned, but I read a description in which it talks about how Spock had to decide if to carry our General Order 6, suggesting that the Order requires an officer to be carried out.

Source? Canon?[]

Where is this information from? Very few of these have actually appeared in canon Trek, and that's what this article should be based off, for now, anyway...

I suggest it is paired down to those Orders specifically mentioned in the canon. -- DarkHorizon 20:02, 1 Jan 2004 (PST)

General Order 15[]

In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, when Saavik quoted General Order 15, didn't Admiral Kirk note there was no such regulation? EAnchor 12:21 AM 16 May 2004 (EST)

Kirk was joking, because he didn't want to have an escort. ("Humor... it is a difficult concept.") ;-) -- Dan Carlson 16:37, 16 May 2004 (CEST)

Actually, I think Saavik was joking. She wanted to convince Kirk to take her with him on the away team and made up a faux regulation to remind him of the last time he ignored her advice (concerning General Order 12). -- Defstar 09:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Vulcans, though, usually would not lie for such a purpose. As it makes sense there would be such a regulation, I don't think we should assume Saavik was the one lying without evidence of it. The ST Encyclopedia states that Kirk was the one not being truthful.--31dot 11:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

General Order 7[]

General Order 7 is the General order from "The Menagerie" In which it is specifically said that it is prohibited Contact with Talos IV. General Order 4 is from "Turnabout Intruder" The exact reason for the Death penalty was never given, just that it is the only law that warrants the Death Penalty. Thus we can gather that General Order 7 is rescinded. But As having been a General order should still be listed. -- TOSrules 13:24, 25 Aug 2004 (PST)

I always assumed that in Turnabout Intruder, they meant that General Order Four says that there is no death penalty, unless excepted by another General Order. So when Chekov off says "yeah, General Order 4," he doesn't mean that general order 4 is the exception, but that General Order 4 states that. It seems to make sese to me.

Technically, Sulu says there's one exception, which Chekov agrees with, citing general order 4 (as the exception). There is, however, a very simple way to have these two in agreement. General Order 4 can state that "High Treason" is the only offense punishable by death. As long as General Order 7 is the only offense treated as "High Treason" in the books, it is therefore the only law that carries the death penalty, meaning that breaking General Order 7 enacts General Order 4. In that sense, either of the two can be referred to as the only laws that carry the death penalty, depending on which way you look at it. -- SomeGuy 15:40, 23 Jun 2009 (EST)

Order 104 precedents computer file[]

FEDERATION JUDICIAL CODE 21.0061

Federation Legal Code, Order 104

Re: Command Posting Precedents

Accessing

ORDER 104, SECTION B: Starfleet order that deals with chain of command. Commodore Matt Decker quoted regulaton 104-B to Spock when taking command of the Enterprise in 2267.

ORDER 104, SECTION C: Starfleet regulation states that the Chief Medical Officer may relieve a commander of duty if he or she is mentally or physically hurt. Precedent: (C. or G.) Stocker, a Starfleet officer who assumed command of Starbase 10 In 2267. Stocker was transported to the post aboard the starship enterprise. While en route, several Enterprise personnel became ill with a radiation induced hyperaccelerated aging disease. fearing the loss of these officers, Stocker assumed command of the Enterprise.

• I just came across this document that Janeway consults in 2376 from "Tinker Tenor Doctor Spy", and transcribed the text. This was an easy one, no question about the data. The text doesn't tell us anything new, but it's interesting to note the interchangability of Federation Legal Code and Starfleet orders and regulations. --Aurelius Kirk 20:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, I was wrong about one thing. After second close look, it could be "C. or G. Stocker". Possibly an abbreviation of title, possibly a first initial. --Aurelius Kirk 23:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Stupid, they even got dates wrong (So does this site) after all we know for a fact that "Journey to Babel" occurred in 2266. This is just Paramount trying to put there false history into canon. That's why I don't go beyond the TNG series for canon facts. the 2266 to 2270 were bald speculation that TOS combined with TNG refutes. Since this site takes the non canon canon I guess my points here doesn't mean much.

Stupid, they even got dates wrong (So does this site) after all we know for a fact that "Journey to Babel" occurred in 2266. This is just Paramount trying to put there false history into canon. That's why I don't go beyond the TNG series for canon facts. the 2266 to 2270 were bald speculation that TOS combined with TNG refutes. Since this site takes the non canon canon I guess my points here doesn't mean much. --TOSrules 20:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

General Order 4 & 7[]

Someone said this about the order "Most likely, given the multiple other references to previous episodes in "Turnabout Intruder," Chekov misspoke." The problem with this is, there are not multiple references. This is speculation but I am going to rephrase it. --TOSrules 20:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

When I saw the page, under General Order 4, there was discussion about general orders 4 and 7, but didn't state what general order 4 was. 206.53.196.249 22:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the information from the Star Trek:25th Anniversary be in the Apocrypha section?--Obey the Fist!! 15:01, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Procedure Q[]

I don't recall "Procedure Q" from TOS, and I checked the transcript for "Bread and Circuses". I was unable to find it. Is this real, and, if so, what's its real source? --24.118.228.23 17:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I confirm. I'm pretty sure this procedure is not in the cited episode. Leonard James Akaar 22:00, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Please do not replace my in-article comment with an {{Incite}} tag.

That tag means there is no existing reference.

Here we already have a reference, but an apparently false one.

Am reverting. Leonard James Akaar 00:30, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

An incite tag does not mean there is no reference. It means the reference needs to be cited- if it is false then there would be no citation. Someone must think there is one, otherwise they would not have put it in the article. The incite tag is an attempt to illicit what the citation is (i.e. how it was used in the episode given as the source).--31dot 01:05, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your patience, and sorry for the misunderstanding. Leonard James Akaar 04:27, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Since nothing has come up in half a year, and I am sure it isn't in that episode, I removed the note. Here it is for future reference:

• Procedure Q: If a state of deep hostility exists, a landing party is to beam down fully armed and ready for any kind of trouble.

– Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 06:43, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

General Order 0?[]

The Omega Directive could be considered general order 0 since it superscedes even The Prime Directive. Although its knowledge was limited to Starship Captains so it wouldn't have been published or readily acceptable. What do you think? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vince47 (talk • contribs).

I would oppose listing it as General Order 0, as that term was not used in the show. As the article on it mentions that it supersedes all other directives, no other mention needs to be made of it, in my opinion.

Also, please remember to sign your comments, either with the signature button or four tildes(~~~~).--31dot 19:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Transporter code 14[]

This was recently added to the list, but isn't this more of an operational protocol than a regulation?--31dot 21:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed as of now, placed here for the record-

• Code 14: A transporter operations code used to destroy an item by allowing it to dematerialize and then exploding it while the transporter's confinement beam provides relative safety from the concussion of the blast. Picard uses this code, also known as Transporter Code 14, to destroy the Tox Uthat so that a pair of time traveling Vorgon criminals cannot take it back with them to the 27th century. (TNG: "Captain's Holiday")--31dot 00:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

General Order 24[]

I understood that this order effectively means Exterminatus of a populated planet, am I right? And considering pacifistic approach of the Federation - what reasons should there be for giving such order? Massive borg infestation?– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 93.153.162.102.

My guess would be a bluff, as it's not carried out in A taste of Armageddon. Either that or it's an 'ultimate last resort' order; "Something that's a danger to the entire federation is here. Elimination of this planet is the only way to stop it." – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.184.78.

Removed[]

Removed from Apocrypha, General Order 16: It is unknown whether General Order 16 has the same exceptions as the Omega Directive, to rescind the Prime Directive or not, as it is not explained in the novels, even though the duology was written after Omega Directive, but given the power and danger of the artifacts, and the fourth held the mind of Malkus himself, it might be assumed to be.

I'll grant it's similar, but given that it's not addressed in the book, speculation is just that. Setacourse 19:46, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Rollback[]

Believe it or not, I did not intend to do this – I accidentally hit a random rollback link on the recent changes – and I was about to revert myself, but then I realized that the edits were a mix of incorrect text replacement, unnecessary additions, and unexplained removals. So, I won't revert this completely unintended rollback. --From Andoria with Love 16:20, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

I restored the bit about the alternate McCoy's citation of medical code though.– Cleanse 00:30, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need the whole explanation of the situation when McCoy cited the reg however?--Obey the Fist!! 14:50, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. This page is to list regulations and not necessarily to describe the circumstances of their use, except in a few limited circumstances(which I don't think this is)--31dot 14:54, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Removed this from Regulation 619...

...I actually posted that (one of a number little additions to the dialogue in the book that I wish they'd had in the movie), but without the explanation that Nimoy/Spock was advising Kirk on how to wrest command away from his younger self, it feels completely out with place.--Ten-pint 05:42, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Restored the 619 explanation - I agree with the general rollback to "a few limited circumstances", but I do think the character using it to tell someone how to beat himself at his own game qualifies as such.--Ten-pint 01:05, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Restored the "Doctor stays with patient" explanation, since the situation was manufactured so the rule could be invoked.--Ten-pint 17:30, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

General order 4[]

In Tournabout Intruder, Chekov says that the General Order Four has not been violated by any officer on the Enterprise. So there this episode has nothing to say on what this GO is about. Sylvain Auclair 204.19.189.165 01:57, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying the "invoked for mutiny" part should be removed? Haven't seen Turnabout Intruder in awhile, but weren't they going to be put to death for mutiny? --31dot 08:49, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

They were, but the crew seemed to respond that a death sentence for mutiny was improper; the only capital crime in Starfleet being the violation of General Order 4, and they claim no one had violated it. They seem to be setting it as distinct from mutiny. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 18:35, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I'll remove that portion. --31dot 20:08, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

General Order 7 (Again)[]

"This is also said to be the only death penalty left in the United Federation of Planets." This is overly broad and contradicted by, at least, "Wolf in the Fold" and "I, Mudd". I suggest "...the only death penalty under Starfleet regulations." GNDN 04:36, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Argelius II was never said to be a member of the Federation,(little discussion about that at Talk:Argelius II) and I'm fairly sure Deneb V wasn't either. --31dot 10:26, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

I'll concede Argelius' status, but Deneb V has a strong claim to membership, at least according to the sources cited. In any event, there is nothing in either "The Menagerie, Part I" or "The Menagerie, Part II" to suggest that a violation of GO 7 is a Federation offense. If I've missed another source, please let me know. --GNDN 21:44, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

I've actually come around to your position after reviewing transcripts of the episodes that mention a Death Penalty, the most relevant being 1) in The Menagerie Mendez says the death penalty is "the only one left on our books", which I presume to mean Starfleet; and 2) in Turnabout Intruder Chekov says "Starfleet forbids the death penalty". I would suggest, though, that we simply replace "United Federation of Planets" with "Starfleet". --31dot 22:02, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the discussion. --GNDN 22:44, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Suggested Regs[]

Should this include a regulation that someone has proposed (Before Dishonor - Spock suggests a new General Order more or less giving Picard free rein against the Borg) but doesn't exist yet? --Ten-pint (talk) 20:20, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

Directive 010 merge[]

This shouldn't be a seperate article, that's what General Orders and Regulations is for. Kennelly (talk) 14:35, November 17, 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Merge -- Capricorn (talk) 16:44, November 17, 2016 (UTC)

Likewise. --LauraCC (talk) 17:47, November 21, 2016 (UTC)

Cornwell "no death penalty"[]

I took Cornwell's statement about the Federation having no death penalty to be in reference to POW's specifically, as that was the general line of discussion- and not that there is no death penalty anywhere in the Federation for anything. The events of "The Cage" have already occurred so that death penalty exists. It's such a specific circumstance, though, that in casual conversation one would say "no death penalty". I think we should remove or reword the mention of Cornwell's statement. 31dot (talk) 00:47, December 11, 2017 (UTC)

I'm not completely convinced re the POW idea, but that whole bit (i.e. the stuff after the Turnabout Intruder cite) probably should be handled as a background note in any case, much like the apparent contradiction with The Cage is already handled. With these potentially confusing statements, I think it's better to keep the main text to just the facts and leave interpretive statements (if they're really needed at all) about what they may or may not imply to bg. -- Capricorn (talk) 09:12, December 12, 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to do as you suggest and consolidated the information into a background section at the bottom of the article, along with adding in Cornwell and The Cage. 31dot (talk) 11:50, December 12, 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I do agree with 31dot, in the extent that the discussion is more related to the treatment of prisoners of war than the actions of a Starfleet officer:

• L'Rell: What happens to those who Starfleet captures?
• Cornwell: In war? They're imprisoned. Interrogated, humanely. Eventually, they're returned to their people as part of any final peace settlement.
• L'Rell: So, you do not execute them.
• Cornwell: The Federation has no death penalty.

Regardless, stating that something is a contradiction, outright, is not very encyclopedic or in this case, very accurate. Cornwell's quote was made 11 years prior to the GenOrd7 reference (in "The Menagerie") and 13 years prior to GenOrd4 reference (in "Turnabout Intruder"). It's as simple as "In 2267, Starfleet had a single violation that provoked the death penalty; in 2269, this was superseded by a different single violation that provoked the death penalty; but before either of these cases, in 2256, it was stated that neither penalty existed."

This all, in a sense, is completely unrelated due to the passage of time, and the absence of information to support why something was what it wasn't before, and forcing one piece of dialog to contradict another that it predates may not necessarily be making a fair representation of what is valid.

I rewrote the GO4 and GO7 references to coincide with the episodes' dialogs, but to tag on the DIS reference is doing exactly what I just stated above. The background section should reflect that statement, more than drawing conclusions of contradictions, rather than not taking into account that over this 13 year period of time things were obviously not stagnant, and that opportunities for amendments, supersedences and repeals were present. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 13:27, December 12, 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I appreciate additional eyes on this. Thanks 31dot (talk) 13:43, December 12, 2017 (UTC)

The way it's handled now is pretty much as should be I think. I've made a further edit, thought I was just going to do some little tweaks but turned out a more major rewrite to lay out the contradiction in a more structured way and tailer them closer to the article subject. However, while I've rewritten text the structure of how its dealt with remains completely unchanged. I hope though that replacing the bg section title "The Federation and the death penalty" with "The only death penalty" isn't too un-encyclopedic. I thought it better reflected the core of what that section was about. -- Capricorn (talk) 13:34, December 14, 2017 (UTC)

What you added, literally repeats a lot of what is already stated in the main part of the text (about mutiny) and is still written in frowned upon form: stating essentially that "it is unknown". We have daily examples of removing those types of comments. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 13:42, December 14, 2017 (UTC)

What happened is I saw a background section that I thought offered some notes that were fair enough that they shouldn't be deleted but that as a result of the previous reorganization were a bit all over the place. So I went in to make a few small changes, but in trying to organize the info ended up doing a lot more. I tried to present the confusing set of facts in one place, that wasn't the main text, without going into detail - and that does seems worthwhile to me and I don't see much "we don't know in it". But I've got to admit I am vaguely dissatisfied myself and still get the rest of your criticism (not to mention I strongly agreed with your previous post and tried to reflect it, unsuccessfully apparently), it's just that I don't know how a better fix. So if you can be more specific in suggesting changes I'll make them, or alternatively, feel free to cut it down or otherwise things stuff as you see fit yourself. Though if you think a complete rollback is necessary, please consider limiting it to the bg section, I think the changes to the General Orders section are more clearly an improvement. -- Capricorn (talk) 14:10, December 14, 2017 (UTC)

Note, btw, that a lot of what I did in that background section was just adding dates etc tot the already existing info notes so it was clearer what it was trying to say. That's the dilema as I see it: by trying to make its point more easy to understand, I've made it closer to a duplicate of the info from topside. -- Capricorn (talk) 14:20, December 14, 2017 (UTC)

Removed[]

We know that Saavik couldn't have meant yellow alert because Kirk himself orders the ship to yellow alert, which has no bearing on the outcome of Khan's initial attack. Her reaction and Kirk's comment after the use of the prefix codes indicates a very different outcome would have occurred if Kirk had followed the general order. So, she could not have meant anything but red alert.|The novel Rules of Engagement appears to confirm that the order involves yellow alert, and the book also states that a Starfleet vessel is not to fire upon a potential hostile unless fired upon first. This is very strange because red alert does not require firing upon a potential hostile and yellow alert does nothing in defense of the ship.

I've removed the above discussion from the bg note for GO 12, which is mostly speculation and unnecessary explanation. 31dot (talk) 11:50, December 12, 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete Regulation[]

“…should there not be a higher ranking officer present” wasn’t spoken on screen as part of Regulation 191 ("Equinox"}, so where does it come from? The script? The novelisation? I’ve tried trawling through years of additions to find the citation but got fed up and stopped. Part of me is saying, “Now Pike’s said it it’s canon so who cares”; the fusspot part of me however is saying “I need to know!”--Archer4real (talk) 16:31, November 16, 2019 (UTC)

It would be amusing if that clause was added to this page in error, but the author of "Ask Not" referred to this page in his writing and included it, thus making it no longer an error. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 18:18, November 16, 2019 (UTC)

Got it: it was added some 10.5 years ago [1] by "98.111.57.61" in their only contribution; but with no source cited. It wasn't from the novel but haven't determined where it does come from yet--Archer4real (talk) 15:58, November 17, 2019 (UTC)

Artificial Lifeforms & General Order 24[]

Is the Federation ban on synthetic being an enactment of General Order 24 since it called for the destruction of all existing android-type lifeforms? Experiment632 (talk) 14:31, March 6, 2020 (UTC)