In the mind of the writers, but I wasn’t saying it was literally Section 31 but just abstractly something that they would do and thus be the wrong thing.Section 31 wasn't a thing then.
Sounds like you haven’t finished S2 yet.I've been watching some of Season 2 of Discovery, and I'm annoyed at how much screen time Section 31 gets. It's supposed to be this extremely covert deep cover agency, far from the eyes and ears of anyone in Starfleet, much less anyone in command of starships, and we just have agents on board a Federation ship, in full black leather, operating openly. It strains credibility that they were somehow beneath the notice of everyone for another century.
Imma just say, I don’t think it’s all that ridiculous if their secret spy service had an incident that maybe messed them up and drove them underground. Also 100 years is a lot of time for things to change as well. IRL secret secret people organizations don’t look or act at all these days like they did 100 years ago, and they won’t look/act the same 100 years from now.
Don't really disagree. I didn't mind conceptually that Disco S1 and 2 used Section 31. And ultimately I'll forgive any excuse used to continue bringing Michelle Yeoh back into the fold. But ultimately I don't think what they did with them in S2 fully worked. But that's mostly because S2 seemed primarily focused first and foremost about three things before all other considerations: 1) addressing fan grievances, 2) being a backdoor pilot for SNW, and 2) getting the show to Season 3.In a metatextual sense, plot devices like Section 31 ought to be like vanilla extract for a show like Star Trek. Put too much in the recipe and it overwhelms the end product.