No one place, but particularly bumming around this reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/DaystromInstitute/
Seems to be the “polite Star Trek theories and what-ifs” reddit. Just look for anything involving the Spore Drive, Lorca and Burnham.
Oho, I certainly hadn’t see that, thank you, will read it now!
EDIT - Half-way through the interview now. Jesus, it’s incredible. Literally every criticism I’ve had of Voyager generally, he articulates it, precisely and eloquently, and he was one of the writers!
Sounds like the key weakness, and I’d never really properly considered this, was internal writers-room politics. With DS9, all the writers (and most of the cast, from what I can tell) were pretty friendly with each other - “tight” as Moore puts it - and very able to criticise each other and writing decisions and so on “That’s shit” “That idea sucks!” “That would undermine what we’re saying with this character!” and so on. There was little internal politics and it shows in the writing which is tightest and most consistent, character-wise, in Trek.
But he says with Voyager, there was massive politics, and implies you basically couldn’t criticise bad ideas from certain people whilst good ideas from others (including BRYAN FULLER for god’s sake) were just shut down, and that people would just insist on sticking rubbish in to pad shows out or making weird rulings from on high about what was allowable (something it took TNG three seasons to properly get away from). That really explains an awful lot - all it would take would be one of the people you weren’t allowed to question to have some terrible idea, and then it would be in the show.
EDIT 2: Another key difference he points out is that with DS9, they had a point of view, and we’re afraid to say some difficult things.
For me a good example is the episode where eventually Kira gets kidnapped by a Cardassian who wants to kill her (essentially painlessly) for her crimes (he’s already killed most/all of her resistance cell, with no collateral damage). He was a non-combatant, just a servant at place she blew up. He’s desperate for her to confess she was wrong, for her to say “It’s wrong to blow up kids and spouses and servants to get to a legitimate target like a governor or general”. And she won’t. She just won’t. He makes a very compelling argument for how it’s wrong, how fucked her morality is (albeit he doesn’t seem much better, but he pretty much admits that), and she just won’t back down and makes her own argument for why it was right - an argument that absolutely justifies some of what we’d called “terrorism”, but equally is how people like the French Resistance operated (and indeed, every accusation of “illegal war” and “terrorism” that the West makes, was made by the Nazis against the Resistance), and in the end Sisko and so on turn up to rescue her, but she’s kind of already rescued herself, and she makes some kind of ambiguous comments, and you kind of wonder how Sisko et al would have felt if privy to the whole discussion. But it actually takes a risk, and offers a viewpoint, whilst not demanding you agree with it, because it’s very clearly Kira’s viewpoint, not the show’s, but it seems real and interesting because of it.
EDIT 3 - Hahaha and it will come as no suprise that Moore wrote that one.