Please help me to understand what is wrong with this question

Question

Why wasn’t it Worf attacking in the Yesterday’s Enterprise timeline?

While the question was on hold, I added the following addendum edit hoping that it would make my intent more clear "EDIT: I'm finding it difficult to understand why this question has been put "on-hold" as being opinion based. I'm not asking if it's a good idea or if it makes sense. I'm simply asking if there is any reason within canon that Worf could not have attacked the Enterprise during the alternate timeline of Yesterday's Enterprise or if anybody has any inside knowledge of the thinking of the writers."

How is this opinion based?

Addendum edit to the original question, Posted 9:40pm EST 1/2/14

FURTHER EDIT - NEW

MEMO

TO: Rick Berman

FROM: Michael Piller

DATE: Oct 3, 1989

SUBJECT: Pitch

Re: The Time Travel Story “Old Enterprise” by Trent Ganino…what about this as a twist… we’re in this routine action story when in flies this old Enterprise through a time warp, however we choose, and immediately, things change without anyone on board realizing it. Picard is still in command..Riker, number one Data in position, but Worf is gone (in fact a member of an enemy crew) and Tasha Yar is at security…

The above is a quote from The Making of Yesterday’s Enterprise by Eric Stillwell

The question of the possibility Worf's involvement in this episode as it relates to Khitomer is uninteresting and circular. As evidenced by the memo quoted above, at least at one point the possibility played in the minds of the series creators. As an answer to this question I would like to know why the creators chose not to use Worf in that way, or if there is a reason within canon that I am missing. Because the Khitomer Massacre happened (in our timeline) long after the events on Nerendra III, it's irrelevant to this conversation.

As written, this question is answerable. As a matter of fact, having found the memo quoted above, I might very well be able to answer this question myself eventually, if the question were reopened.

Answer 1

I didn't vote to close originally, but have reviewed this question, and the problems I see with it are:

• You've posited a scenario that didn't happen.
• The scenario seems attractive to you.
• But yet there seems to be nothing that could potentially support this scenario.

I'm not personally familiar with much Star Trek canon, so I can't comment on the actual ST-related items in your question, but the use of tell-tale phrases such as "It almost feels like", "It seems to me" (twice) support closure for the stated reason.

Let me put it this way: you ask "Is there any reason (in-universe or otherwise) NOT to give that line to Worf?" In order for the question to not be Primarily Opinion-Based you would have to first come up with a reason TO give it to him, and that reason would need to be stronger than "I think this would have been cool" (which is what your preamble boils down to). From there it's reasonable to say that an evidence-based analysis supports him having the line, so you want to know why he didn't. That's just not coming across in the current wording of your question.

So as it stands your question reads more like you want a discussion about a hypothetical alternative scenario, rather than a specific answer to a specific question. If you edit it to remove those elements, and add more support for your alternative scenario, I'll gladly cast a re-open vote for you.

Answer 2

Your current question, as-is at the time of this response, seems to be split between two different main concepts.

One is asking if there is a reason Worf didn't appear in the episode subsequent to his disappearance once the Enterprise-C appears.

The other is why a specific line was assigned to a different actor/character.

Both of these, taken strictly by themselves, would be calling for "primarily opinion based" answers, per the closure reason. They'd be purely speculative, and no different, really, than "why did Data have a cat for a pet, and not a dog?". Such questions are usually unanswerable, and simply not very interesting.

However, you have provided supplemental information in your question, which helps!

Specifically, the memo you cited does provide evidence that the writers may have been considering Worf's role to be larger than it was. That, in my opinion, makes it more interesting than some random speculation.

The memo, though, doesn't really do anything to help with the entire first half of your question. Speculation about which lines you feel would be best delivered by Worf, or what specific roles you think he should have had in the episode, are pure opinion, and at best are "discussion" points.

We're not a discussion forum. We're a question and answer site.

I think if you dropped the commentary and speculations from your question, and simply reduced it down to the question that arises directly from the memo (was there a reason Worf wasn't shown on the side of the Klingons?), it would make it much more firmly "on topic".