Daystrom of Yore had a rule/guideline/policy, heretofore referred to as the "timeline rule," which stated this:

> In this subreddit we assume that any given event depicted in _Star Trek_ occurs in the universe or timeline that it is generally accepted to have occurred in.

That rule, along with many others, is not currently implemented on the startrek.website iteration of the Daystrom Institute. We're using this transformation as an opportunity to reexamine the utility of some of our more specific rules, a decision which was tested this week as the latest episode of *Strange New Worlds* is directly relevant. As such, we're taking a tricorder to the timeline rule first.

**What did this rule restrict?**

The text of the rule at the time of /c/DaystromInstitute's creation:

> The vast majority of _Star Trek_ occurs in the fictional universe which we now call the "Prime Universe" to distinguish it from the various alternate timelines and universes which have been depicted in the _Star Trek_ canon. Every _Star Trek_ television show and the first ten movies are primarily set in the Prime Universe. Installments which are _not_ set in the Prime Universe include:
>
>- The three [Kelvin timeline](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Alternate_reality) movies
>- Numerous [mirror universe](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Mirror_universe) episodes
>- Numerous [adventures to parallel universes](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Parallel_universe)
>- Numerous [occurrences of negated timelines](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Alternate_timeline#List_of_alternate_timelines)
>
> In this subreddit we assume that any given event depicted in _Star Trek_ occurs in the universe or timeline that it is generally accepted to have occurred in. (Check Memory Alpha if you are genuinely unsure about what timeline or universe any specific event occurred in.)

Sometimes this rule was described as the "all one timeline" rule and that isn't quite correct even if it arguably captures the spirit of the rule. A more precise way to describe it might be the "assume the obvious timeline" rule, but that's not as punchy.

**Why did Daystrom have the timeline rule?**

None of Daystrom's rules were created in a vacuum and even the rules that existed on day one were improved over time. However, this rule in particular changed forms *a lot.* It was originally created in response Trekkies who saw the first batch of *Discovery* promotional materials and decided that *Discovery* must occur in a different timeline because it's clearly "breaking canon," or whatever.

The timeline rule went into effect about a month before "The Vulcan Hello" was released and the rule got quite a workout through the first season of *Discovery.* It got worse when the mirror universe jaunt occurred, because this triggered speculation that *Discovery* had left a separate timeline and would return to the prime timeline—which was all promptly removed. Posts and comments casually excising *Discovery* from the rest of *Star Trek* continuity continued throughout seasons 1 and 2, basically any time something happened on screen that someone perceived as an inconsistency.

Then *Discovery* was flung into the far future and all running *Trek* was post-*Nemesis.* This specific brand of complaining about third generation *Trek* became less common and so we started adjusting the rule: making it less restrictive, making it part of the rules about shallow content or posting discussion prompts, before it finally found its current home on the "regulated topics" page where, in theory, it's not quite at the level of a hard-and-fast rule.

Even once *Strange New Worlds* debuted, "timeline tinkering" as we called it in modchat never rose back to the level we experienced during season 1 of *Discovery*. There are of course exceptions. One surprisingly common way this rule would get triggered post-*Discovery* season 1 were theories which suggested *First Contact* split the timeline and therefore all *Star Trek* released *before* 1996 and *after* 1996 are actually in subtly different timelines, which in turn implies that TOS and TNG are not in the same continuity as ENT and DIS.

**What's wrong with theorizing that *First Contact* split the timeline?**

I'm going to use this specific theory because it's common and instructive for illustrating the pitfalls. As a thought experiment, lets assume it's true. Jonathan Archer was a Starfleet captain and not a UESPA Captain because some ripple effect from the Borg incursion caused Starfleet to absorb UESPA much earlier, so UESPA itself never started operating crewed starships. All other little discrepancies between TOS/TNG and later *Trek?* Not a problem, the Borg did it.

As purveyors of in-depth *Star Trek* discussion, this creates some problems for us.

**Problem 1:** we don't want or need an "omni-answer" for all discrepancies. A huge body of *Star Trek* nerdery is coming up with creative explanations for these kinds of discrepancies, and so having one explanation which writes off all discrepancies as "wibbly wobbly timey wimey" kinda sucks. Once this kind of theory becomes sufficiently broad, it's a cop-out. If we all collectively decided "yes, *First Contact* split the timeline and this explains all these discrepancies" we've salted a huge patch of fertile ground for Daystrom-style speculation.

**Problem 2:** Lets say I love *Enterprise* and in particular I love the way it interwove existing continuity. You're not intending to cleave off my favorite show when you innocently float this theory but I still think it's kinda shitty that you think of my favorite *Trek* show needs to be "explained away" with a contrivance like this. You can tell me "nonono I'm not saying *Enterprise* isn't canon, I'm just explaining the discrepancies!" until you're blue in the face, I'm still skeptical. We don't want *Trek* to have invisible boundaries like this, it's detrimental to fostering interconnecting discussions.

**Problem 3:** Lets say you're fine with an omni-answer and you're practiced enough in assuming positive intent that you realize the person pitching this theory doesn't bear any ill-will towards *Enterprise* in particular. There's still nothing you can do with this theory because these kinds of theories aren't falsifiable. There is no way to prove that an instance of time travel did or did not result in a split timeline, as one of the hallmarks of fluctuating timelines is that changes are complicated enough to appear totally random and many things don't change at all. Sweeping altered timeline theories are too broad to elicit any real response beyond "cool theory bro."

**You sound pretty convinced this rule is good so why are you posting this?**

Well, look at "Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow." This episode is telling us virtually point blank that the prime *Star Trek* timeline is in a constant state of flux. There should be room to discuss wibbly timelines provided we discuss *specific changes*—Khan is killed as a child—and *specific potential effects*—Starfleet and the Federation never exist—and even the *metatextual implications* of certain events—the rise of Khan is a "canon event" to borrow a trendy descriptor. We've always recognized this, but we've never succeeded in honing the policy's language to a point where this is clear which is why the timeline policy itself was (poetically) in a constant state of flux and enforcement was inconsistent. Maybe we're better off doing away with it so discussion about temporal repercussions can flourish, because we can always remove theories which dismiss entire series from the timeline as being... well, dismissive.

**What should we do with this rule?**

To be clear, this isn't a vote or a poll, we're just looking for some feedback. We're genuinely not sure if we want to transfer this rule over or not. What do you think?