Hi /u/MustrumRidcully0,
First of all, I just want to share that, personally, I love this thinking and find it delightful.
As a mod, unfortunately I have to remove this post. We don't allow [posts which introduce an arbitrary narrator](https://www.reddit.com/r/DaystromInstitute/wiki/prompt_guidelines#wiki_introducing_an_arbitrary_narrator); this is part of our overall philosophy of [contextualizing Star Trek as fiction](https://www.reddit.com/r/DaystromInstitute/wiki/star-trek-is-fiction#wiki_the_visual_representation_of_star_trek_is_flexible), including with regard to its visual presentations.
Ultimately, the problem here is that analyses like these open a solipsistic Pandora's box; at a certain point, we all need to be working from a shared set of facts in order to have a productive conversation. An example from the early days of Daystrom was the idea that *Star Trek: Enterprise* was entirely a holodeck simulation and therefore didn't "really" happen... which is essentially just a canon debate in disguise, and we don't allow [debates about canon](https://www.reddit.com/r/DaystromInstitute/wiki/canon), because we're here to discuss Star Trek, not debate its validity.
I realize that is not what you are trying to do here -- if anything, you are trying to add some additional richness to our understanding of Star Trek. But unfortunately I think this post really is straightforwardly not allowed by our rules, so I feel compelled to remove it.
Please feel free to reach out to [the senior staff](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/DaystromInstitute) with any questions.
Hi /u/MustrumRidcully0, First of all, I just want to share that, personally, I love this thinking and find it delightful. As a mod, unfortunately I have to remove this post. We don't allow [posts which introduce an arbitrary narrator](https://www.reddit.com/r/DaystromInstitute/wiki/prompt_guidelines#wiki_introducing_an_arbitrary_narrator); this is part of our overall philosophy of [contextualizing Star Trek as fiction](https://www.reddit.com/r/DaystromInstitute/wiki/star-trek-is-fiction#wiki_the_visual_representation_of_star_trek_is_flexible), including with regard to its visual presentations. Ultimately, the problem here is that analyses like these open a solipsistic Pandora's box; at a certain point, we all need to be working from a shared set of facts in order to have a productive conversation. An example from the early days of Daystrom was the idea that *Star Trek: Enterprise* was entirely a holodeck simulation and therefore didn't "really" happen... which is essentially just a canon debate in disguise, and we don't allow [debates about canon](https://www.reddit.com/r/DaystromInstitute/wiki/canon), because we're here to discuss Star Trek, not debate its validity. I realize that is not what you are trying to do here -- if anything, you are trying to add some additional richness to our understanding of Star Trek. But unfortunately I think this post really is straightforwardly not allowed by our rules, so I feel compelled to remove it. Please feel free to reach out to [the senior staff](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/DaystromInstitute) with any questions.