This seems like a hard-scifi vs soft-scifi kind of debate. Me being more of an hard-scifi advocate. 

Inconsistencies are like history twists that can go anywhere because of some really occult reason, or luck... something that the people involved have no control of. If someone has no control, then it's a bad history. End of story.
Though I can imagine some cases in that luck could come into play: What if there's no other way to reach something, and there's one only way of doing it? Then it's just OK to follow down that path, in fact, that's what should be done. Risks add the the story, and risks should be taken if necesary. Loose luck is dumb. Not following the premise is bad... and why wouldn't you? 

There might be an occult reason behind all this bad writing. Imagine why would it be done as a propaganda tool. 

I can still appreciate bad stuff because of bad reasons. Disturbing reasons. (Guess where it comes from).

On 12/23/2017 at 6:13 AM, Kavik Kang said:

In the final episode of TNG Riker says that the top speed of his refitted Enterprise is Warp 13.  This is a contradiction of the "physics" of how Gene Roddenberry said that his warp drive worked.  When you see a star in the sky you aren't seeing it where it actually is.  Space is curved, and the light from that star is being bent by gravity between you and the star.  Star Trek's warp drive pulls a ship out of normal space, and takes a "more direct path" to the destination through "subspace" at nearly the speed of light.  The ship never actually moves at the speed of light, it "takes a shortcut" through "subspace".  Warp 10 is a perfectly straight line through subspace between the origin and destination points, so obviously nothing in the Star Trek universe could ever possibly exceed warp 10.  Most people don't know this, so they don't even notice that Riker's "warp 13" comment was wrong. 

And that is a perfect example of story/character overriding established in-universe rules. Warp 13? That makes no goddamn sense if you care about the physics as you described it. 

But it doesn't matter. The last episode of TNG is well-regarded, both critically and commercially (it won a Hugo award and was massively popular). 

On 12/23/2017 at 6:13 AM, Kavik Kang said:

In JJ's first ST movie he has ships coming out of a black hole.  Obviously, nothing can ever come out of a black hole.  That's what makes it a black hole!  This kind of "stupid" level of inconsistency is what drives people away from a story.

Yeah, and that doesn't even come close to the "transport at warp" and the even more ridiculous "transport over systems" lunacy in Into Darkness. But those could easily be forgiven if the stories weren't trite and boring.

Personally I don't have any problem with "Something coming out of a blackhole" in Sci-Fi, as long as it is done with some manner of consistency within the written universe. After all it is easily handwaved away with "Physics gets weird around blackholes", so who knows what could be done with them if given the right technology?

Changing what something means, like how fast and loose different writers have played with Star Trek warp factors is far more jarring in my view. 

From the standpoint of a writer, I find private wikis to work wonderfully for it. Have an in world concept? Start a wiki page for it. Reference a new tech in your world? Update the wiki - Where was it used, how/why, and what constraints or limitations have been defined. Going to use a tech? Check the wiki - Is how you're planning to use it in the storyline fitting to established rules? If not, is there a logical exception to existing rules that could expand the tech in an interesting manner? If yes - Expand the lore, if not, backtrack and rework the concept.