Dammit man, I'm a lawyer, not a mind reader.
CIVILIAN LIFE:
Q1. Name: Paleogymnast (you can call me Paley)
Q2. How did you find out about Elite of the Fleet? I saw your posting on the kirk_mccoy community, and it intrigued me.
Q3. When did you first become interested in Star Trek? I've been a Trekkie or Trekker or some form or another since the time I was, um, one or two? My parents wouldn't let ( Read more... )
Q1. Name: Paleogymnast (you can call me Paley)
Q2. How did you find out about Elite of the Fleet? I saw your posting on the kirk_mccoy community, and it intrigued me.
Q3. When did you first become interested in Star Trek? I've been a Trekkie or Trekker or some form or another since the time I was, um, one or two? My parents wouldn't let ( Read more... )
Comments 25
Reply
Reply
But, the tracks are filled with diversity of style and that is the way it is supposed to be. Your energy and determination fit well with our track. So yes, I recommend Tactical.
Reply
I am not convinced I belong in Tactical, and I really hope it didn't sound that way. Ok, let me add a little to that for the purposes of full disclosure. I tend to be very hyper-aware of my personality, personality type, and what that means for how I interact with others; before I was I used to have a rather miserably frustrated time interacting with others because my personality type is relatively rare and my unique spin on it even rarer and, therefore, before I developed more self-awareness I often found it challenging to relate to others. Based on that, my gut instinct before answering the questionnaire was that I thought I might do well in tactical. But then again when I finished the questionnaire, I actually thought my answers might make me look better-suited towards the exploratory sciences or possibly medical, both of which I am sure I would also enjoy (and if I wind up in ( ... )
Reply
*FLAIL* I THOUGHT I WAS ALONE IN THIS!
Ahem. I'm better now.
Your answer to Q9, describing your lack of patience, eliminated the possibility of Operations or Medical, at least in my mind. And while you are smart and would be good at research, you have the aggressive (not in a bad way) personality that I associate with the Tactical track.
Reply
Reply
Besides, sometimes Tactics is all about knowing exactly what you want and pulling out all the stops to make it happen. :)
Not to mention, I think that's possibly the longest/most detailed explanation of the Prime Directive I've seen yet, which suggests to me that the moral issues of command are something you're willing to think about carefully and understand the nuances of.
Punch it. ;)
Reply
I said it already, but I honestly did not try to push my application in any direction at all; to the contrary I worked very hard to give each category an even treatment. So, what may be coming through is my personality, or perhaps in my efforts to be even handed I gave some of my own self-perception away.
On the topic of the Prime Directive:
I love examining the edges and boundaries of gray areas, and the Prime Directive covers a great big gray area, so discussng it was particularly enjoyable. It's hard work figuring out the best strategy for dealing with a gray area, and the line-drawing tends to be very fact-specific, and even then there's always the risk that one's decision will be wrong or rather that there would have been a better way to handle this issue. But I am not the kind to shy away from trying to figure out the best decision for any given set of facts around a sticky moral question.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I am so sorry to hear you got outed. That sucks! We all have a right to control information about ourselves and reveal it only if and when we decide. Not when someone else decides it's their business.
Sorry about the lack of elaboration on strengths and weaknesses, mea culpa. As I said before, for some reason I got it into my head that those were supposed to be one-word answers.
I don't know if it helps, but here is a little more information:
Q11. What are your top five strengths?
01. Analysis I am very analytical; I like to look at all sides of an issue and figure how issues fit together or what attributes mean about a larger issue. In may day job I apply laws to facts and analyze the outcome. I like looking for unseen or unintended consequences both good and bad, in order to figure out if a proposal will work out as planned.
02. Contingency Planning I don't like to leave things up to chance; thus, I plan ahead and also make back up plans in case those fail. So, for example, for something as ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
There's the whole legal concept of relevance... it seems like so often when someone has a legitimate interest in knowing relevant things about someone for say job-related reasons, they decide that "relevant" is either a lot broader than it needs to be, or they forget the idea entirely and just think that say taking a job as a public servant entitles them to know everything about you. And there's also a difference between relevant information going to some people who have a reason to know versus mass dissemination in a manner that will primarily hurt. Just because you have a "diminished expectation of privacy" doesn't mean you have no privacy ever about anything anywhere.
Regarding expanding on strengths and weaknessesI completely understand why knowing the "why" behind why something is a strength or a weakness is incredibly good to know (relevant, no less). I ran out of characters (and didn't want to look like a comment hog), but the truth is several of my strengths (loyalty, tenacity, dedication) ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment