PDA

View Full Version : The Regs (Holy CRAP!)



UberAeryn
September 9th, 2004, 09:54 AM
Sheesh.

I just spent the entire morning plowing through Air Force Instruction 36-2909, (writing a fic where S/J get court-martialed) and according to this version of the regs, Jack can't:

Go out with;
Have sex with;
Be FRIENDS with;
gamble with;
loan money to;
live with;
CARPOOL with
go on vacation with;

anybody AT ALL at the SGC, whether enlisted, officer, civilian, contractor or other branch military without being in danger of being charged with conduct unbecoming of an officer. Heck, according to this version of the rules, he's already broken the regs simply by asking Carter up to the cabin. For that matter, taking Teal'c up there was a direct violation.

So. Lock him up and throw away the key - NOBODY's gettin' next to that guy!

Except maybe ME, I don't work at the SGC . . . ;)

Tracy Jane
September 9th, 2004, 10:11 AM
So, err, that's all of them up for Courtmarshall cos of Upgrades.... haha, the steakhouse gambling on pool scene, as well as the fact they were generally all out as friends.

What about Janet and Sam? Do they not count as superior/subordinate. I thought Janet had loads more more being Doctor.

This throws the regs thing into a whole new light. They've totally ignored regs everywhere else, so why say Jack and Sam can't have a relationship? And what about Kowalsky? I'm majorly confused (no pun intended)

UberAeryn
September 9th, 2004, 10:34 AM
No, no Sam/Janet either, if I'm reading this stuff right.

Really, this version of the regs covers EVERYBODY AND EVERYTHING.

Courts martial for everyone! ;)

Mr Prophet
September 9th, 2004, 12:12 PM
I'm pretty sure that what you've listed is examples of things which might - but don't deifinitely - prejudice the chain of command. Of course, I've never read the regs in the raw - very drafty where I live - but such is my understanding of the implications of the fraternisation regs. It gets stricter between officers and enlisted personnel of course, but it's a demonstrable fact that members of the armed forces speak to each other.

UberAeryn
September 9th, 2004, 02:44 PM
I'm pretty sure that what you've listed is examples of things which might - but don't deifinitely - prejudice the chain of command. Of course, I've never read the regs in the raw - very drafty where I live - but such is my understanding of the implications of the fraternisation regs. It gets stricter between officers and enlisted personnel of course, but it's a demonstrable fact that members of the armed forces speak to each other.


You're correct.

Everything I've listed is presented in the regs as actions that may be found prosecutable. However, even though the regs state specifically that all these violations are court-martiable offenses, later articles stipulating how such offenses are dealt with recommend counseling as the first course of action, after due investigation, and courts martial only where the relationship has degraded the integrity of the unit.

If you read between the lines, it's a CYA: If you do such and such and somebody complains, we'll go after you. If nobody cares, carry on.

Skydiver
September 9th, 2004, 07:54 PM
If you read between the lines, it's a CYA: If you do such and such and somebody complains, we'll go after you. If nobody cares, carry on.

---

basically, yes. Theyr'e written to be deliberatly vague. THey give commanders teh clout to spank someone who is being bad (and folks notice them being bad) and leave enough loop holes that a commander can ignore those whose actions don't get noticed.

It is really enforced between officers and enlisted, but between the same level, things are usually a bit more lax. I said usually, every commander chooses to interpret the regs to suit his/her own preferences. Some are more easy going than others.

courtmartails usually happen after joe and jane are bad. they're caught. the CO tells them to stop, they ignore the CO and carry on. THEN they're disobeying orders, that gets them courtmartialed.

And fans interpreting it, is usually the funniest thing. I've often seen the same folks illustrating how horrible it is for sam and jack to have anything to do with each other saying that it's ok for jack and daniel to be dear and close friends. One is just as 'wrong' as the other. Both cases can lead to preferential treatment and an accusation of favoritism. And both are just as against the regs. It would also apply if jack and teal'c hit a bar every saturday night.

Jack calling sam to tell her good night is just as wrong as him giving daniel a ride into work every morning.


vague s8 spoilers.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
if you want to interpret things strictly, Jack working to get teal'c an outside apartment in s8 is a violation of regs. He's giving teal'c preferential treatment. Especially after he goes head to head with other folks in the govt to keep pressing the issue.

It's not always the action that is wrong, but how others interpret it. And anything that leads to an illusion of preference, is what the regs are there for in the first place

Major Fischer
September 9th, 2004, 08:04 PM
There is also the matter of the effect on morale. The military encourages small units that have to depend on each other to bond (like an SG team).

There is a very good example of this in Band of Brothers. The company commander sees one of his lieutenants gambling with the men, and worse, he's winning. He repremands the lieutenant, and tells him that he doesn't want those men to ever think of thier leader as someone who has taken from them.

The question becomes though, if you are the airmen who works in the SGC, do you feel like you need to obey the rules. If that airmen thinks that he can't get a fair shake, or worse yet, that his life might be at risk, because his superiors are messing around? That's a problem.

Madeleine
September 9th, 2004, 09:22 PM
Sheesh.

I just spent the entire morning plowing through Air Force Instruction 36-2909, (writing a fic where S/J get court-martialed) and according to this version of the regs, Jack can't:

Go out with;
Have sex with;
Be FRIENDS with;
gamble with;
loan money to;
live with;
CARPOOL with
go on vacation with;

anybody AT ALL at the SGC, whether enlisted, officer, civilian, contractor or other branch military without being in danger of being charged with conduct unbecoming of an officer. Heck, according to this version of the rules, he's already broken the regs simply by asking Carter up to the cabin. For that matter, taking Teal'c up there was a direct violation.

So. Lock him up and throw away the key - NOBODY's gettin' next to that guy!

Except maybe ME, I don't work at the SGC . . . ;)

Hey, this is the Fan Fiction folder. So Jack can do all of the above. Simultaneously if he (and his author) so wish. :p ;)

But hey, Court Martials are fun too :)

Major Fischer
September 9th, 2004, 09:26 PM
Hey, this is the Fan Fiction folder. So Jack can do all of the above. Simultaneously if he (and his author) so wish. :p ;)


Standing on his head and wearing high heals too? Maybe those nice clunkers Janet's sporting from In the Line of Duty? :p :D

Mr Prophet
September 10th, 2004, 08:46 AM
The real problem is that Jack is still the direct superior and is respoinsible for sending Sam into dangerous situations or not. That would tend to make a relationship be deemed detrimental to order and the chain of command and so on. Of course, it's already that since there's an implication that Jack initiated the process of Sam's latest undeserved promotion (I won't go into details here, just refer you to Major Clanger, whose opinions on the subject are more inflexible than those on the matter of hats).

I remember Major Clanger mentioning once that in the British Army at least you can serve on the same base as your SO, but not go on field ops together.

prion
September 10th, 2004, 08:55 AM
Check here

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/weekly/aa061702a.htm

for the details on fraternization ...

Tracy Jane
September 10th, 2004, 08:56 AM
I reckon that you're right. I they got into a relationship, Jack would do everything in his power to try and stop her going on dangerous missions. He's reluctant already, I reckon, but a relationship would just turn him into a bit of a control freak.

However, he knows he never felt anything for Dr Carter, the girly one, and that's what he would turn Sam into by confining her to her lab. It would take someone like Daniel to point that out.

But screw regulations, when has that ever stopped Jack before? (Or, thinking back to certain episodes, Sam, for that matter?)

aschen
September 10th, 2004, 09:07 AM
Poor shippers that must have hurt!

Tracy Jane
September 10th, 2004, 11:44 AM
Truth always does.

Unfortunately I'm a HUUUUGGGGE shipper, I just see the problems with it, that's all. Jack wouldn't know what he was doing, not until it was too late, that's why Daniel would need to intervene.

What am I on about, it's a TV SHOW for crying out loud!

Skydiver
September 10th, 2004, 05:52 PM
I guess it depends on how you interpret jack's character. Time and time again, we've seen him willing to sacrifice a member of his team when he just can't save them.

teal'c in serpents venom, sam in entity

we've also seen the sgc not endangering lives to rescue jack (abyss)

Icon spoilers.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
yet in icon, the sgc worked for how many weeks to get daniel back?


Yes, the regs are there for a reason, however, like i said, they're open to interpretation. It all boils down to the attitudes and behaviors of the officers involved, and the level of trust between a co and his subordinates

Tracy Jane
September 11th, 2004, 03:45 AM
Yeah, and let's face it, look who's in charge now! He'll just sit back and enjoy the fun. Although McKay or someone might find themselves court marshialled!