( ok so maybe the choice of timing could have been handled a LITTLE better !! )
In this case I do not believe it to be a problem. The ruling was created when such a relationship was found to create a conflict of interest, where one partner would negate professional duties of a crew member for the sake of their personal safety.
For instance, a Captain who refuses to let their First Officer lead a ground mission into a hostile environment. That is not a problem upon the Enterprise. If anything, we deal with an opposite issue.
And I'm just saying we could've talked about it at a different time. Preferably not in bed.
[ yeah, that. ]
Wait a minute. Are you saying I send you into MORE hostile environments than necessary because of romantic feelings for you, or is this a 'tiniest variation in vocal tone' thing that doesn't translate over text? I'm a 'pulls pigtails' flirter, not a 'sends a hot guy into danger on purpose' flirter.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
wotcher) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
bakerstreet2024-08-16 11:57 am
hell yea
( ok so maybe the choice of timing could have been handled a LITTLE better !! )
In this case I do not believe it to be a problem. The ruling was created when such a relationship was found to create a conflict of interest, where one partner would negate professional duties of a crew member for the sake of their personal safety.
For instance, a Captain who refuses to let their First Officer lead a ground mission into a hostile environment. That is not a problem upon the Enterprise. If anything, we deal with an opposite issue.
no subject
[ yeah, that. ]
Wait a minute. Are you saying I send you into MORE hostile environments than necessary because of romantic feelings for you, or is this a 'tiniest variation in vocal tone' thing that doesn't translate over text? I'm a 'pulls pigtails' flirter, not a 'sends a hot guy into danger on purpose' flirter.
[ jim. ]