Memory Alpha:AOL chats/Ronald D. Moore/ron024.txt

Subj: Answers Date: 4/25/97 2:56:45 PM From:  RonDMoore

Well, it's a wrap. DS9 officially wrapped production on Tuesday, ending principle photography for Season 5 with a final scene between Rom and Quark. We held our wrap party last night and today the writing staff is saying good-bye to Robert Wolfe and then we begin working on Season 6 next week. It was a good year for us and I hope you enjoy the rest of Season 5.

<>

I've read through these postings with interest and while many of the observations and arguments were intriguing I still find myself supporting a complete freedom to do as you please, to what and/or who you please on the Holodeck. Although the arguments against the idea of using images of real people approached the problem from different angles, they all seemed to fall into one of two categories: 1) It's bad for the person running the simulation; or 2) It's dangerous for the person who's being simulated. I find neither argument persuasive.

1) It's bad for the person running the simulation. To me, this is vaguely paternalistic.  If you want to fill your mind with trash, be it written, visual, aural, or holographic, that's your business.  I don't think the government, be it the USA or the UFP should put itself in the role of overseeing our fantasies and making sure that we're only indulging in "safe" or "healthy" scenarios.  Do you really want a governmental body telling you what images or words you see on the computer you're using right now?   Or what fantasy you play out on a holodeck?  Not me.  (And let's be perfectly clear here that we're talking about *adults*, not children.)

Will I lose touch with reality if I'm involving myself with Holo-people based on real people? I suppose that's possible (although we're kind of debating in a vacuum here without any real-life experiences with holographic people to guide us) but again, that's *my* fault for abusing the technology and my failings shouldn't prevent *you* from enjoying the holodeck. I would also like to think that the vast majority of people could separate fantasy from reality. After all, I work with a group of people who dress up in costumes and pretend to kiss/kill/love/hate other "make-believe" people every day, and so far it doesn't seem to make them lose touch with reality.

"But what about psychotics? Won't they abuse the technology?" Perhaps, but tailoring the rules of society for the psychos of this world is bad public policy. Let's face it -- a disturbed individual can abuse *anything* and we're not going to start outlawing kitchen knives or chainsaws just because of their potential misuse by the mentally unbalanced, and those are real tangible items that can be used in the commission of a crime, not a series of fantasy images that can't leave a holodeck.

2) It's dangerous for the person being simulated. This is the argument I find the least persuasive.  I still maintain that if you go into a Holodeck and interact with a Holo-person and when it's over you turn off the machine and go back to your normal life, there's been no harm done to the Real-person whose image was recreated.  No harm, no foul.  Now, if you step outside that Holodeck and then stalk the Real-person, then you've committed a crime and should be punished.  If you sell tickets to your fantasy simulation where the Holo-person is being humiliated, then you've also committed a crime and should be punished.  But the line to me is when you *take action*.  If I sit in my room and concoct an elaborate fantasy about someone assassinating a public figure, complete with graphics, photos, and gory detail about the murder, I've committed no crime.  But the moment I send that to someone else or advocate it or begin to carry out this plan, I've *taken action* and it's time to pay the price. I believe you should punish the *act* not the
 * expression* or the *thought*.

(...continued in next post) - Subj: Answers Date: 4/25/97 2:57:38 PM From:  RonDMoore

"But being simulated on someone else's holodeck gives me the creeps." Absolutely. However, lots of things give me the creeps, that doesn't mean they should be outlawed. As I said before, I *am* concerned about how my image made it to someone else's holodeck in the first place, but this is a pretty complex issue. You can take my photo on a public street, take it home and do whatever you want with it. At some point a computer will be able to take my photo and extrapolate a 3-D image from it and then create a reasonably accurate holographic representation. The step from there to a tangible, Holo-person is still a long one technically, but not ethically. If you can manipulate my photo as you see fit, then manipulating my 3-D photo is no different and manipulating a tangible hologram is still only a difference in degree, not in substance. On the other hand, I should have some "ownership" of my personality and my image, but where those lines should be drawn is pretty murky if you ask me.

All in all, this has been one of the more interesting debates within this folder and I've very much enjoyed it.

<>

The writer(s) come up with the names for starships, planets, characters, etc. It's up to the individual and there're no master lists we work from. Names are usually a personal preference and I don't think you'd have much success submitting a name for consideration.

<>

The costumes were changed for aesthetic reasons and also to make them easier to use. The costumes as established in TNG weren't designed for repeated use and they needed to be redesigned for more extended wear and tear. We haven't talked about Maset in a long time and I don't think he'll be coming back.

<>

I'll ask them out of curiosity, but I think the design from TMP was shelved because of the difficulty of the makeup used at that time and for aesthetic reasons.