406 réponses à ce sujet

[Moiaussi]

scotchtape622 wrote...

Moiaussi, the strawman was you saying?

"Really... so you really feel that the world is worse off because Kennedy and Khrushchev decided to talk instead of launch?"

How is that a strawman? Both sides perceived the other as a threat, just as the Quarians have reason to perceive the Geth as a threat and the Geth have reason to perceive the Quarians as a threat.

The world came a hairs breath from nuclear war. Both leaders backed down and talked. Peace continued and eventually the Soviet Union softened, the Berlin Wall came down, etc.

That seems to fly in the face of the suggestion that the Quarians had to go to war to survive, or that war is the only viable path for them now.

You can disagee with the degree of similarity but you have yet to show my arguement as being a strawman.

[scotchtape622]

Because Human-Human or even Organic-Organic communications work completely and totally different from Organic-Synthetic.



Because the Quarians and the Geth were both completely intermixed, unlike the Russians and Americans, who had an ocean and dozens of sovereign nations to separate them.



Because the Quarians had civilians to deal with, the Geth did not.



"That seems to fly in the face of the suggestion that the Quarians had to go to war to survive, or that war is the only viable path for them now."



You are arguing the wrong thing. In retrospect, the Quarians clearly did the wrong thing. They lost the vast majority of their population, and had to leave their planets. At the time, the Quarians were correct and completely logical to believe that if they did not act fast, the Geth could wipe out their entire species.



Secondly, I have never claimed that the Quarians' only viable path is war, and I have said in this thread that war should be a last resort, and only if backed by allies.



Thirdly, I still cannot find that supposed thing you are talking about from Tali, with the kill code. Maybe you misunderstood them. I only have seen her say "disable" them. That could mean many things.

[Moiaussi]

DPSSOC wrote...

My point, and in retrospect I didn't express it very well, is that the Council seem to have commandeered the DA.  It is there to defend them no one else.  If you save the DA or it's rebuilt this will not change.  The DA is the Council's ship and the only way we can make use of it is by putting them between us and the Reapers.

You are basing that off what? One battle? In a Neblula where noone could disengage easily? And the DA is an ASRAI ship, not the Councils, nor the Alliance's.

Exactly and the DA is a warship.  So why does it sit around the Citadel (the least likely place for an attack)?  Why is the most powerful weapon they have as far from the front lines as it could possibly be?  Why did the Council evacuate to the DA rather than a frigate or cruiser that could get them away faster without taking as much away from the military force?  With the Council aboard more ships would have been assigned to protect the DA rather than attack the Geth and the DA itself would have been trying to avoid fighting.  It is a wasteful use of the most powerful ship you have and it further shows the true function of the DA (Protect the Council).

?????? It is there for PR purposes and later because Shepard warned that the Citadel would be attacked. Were any Asari worlds attacked? No. So why are you trying to argue it was poorly deployed? Also Council military doctrine is to have central fleets and launch attacks from centralized bases en force. Unlike the Alliance, they don't garrison. It is simply a different military doctrine.

[Moiaussi]

scotchtape622 wrote...

Because Human-Human or even Organic-Organic communications work completely and totally different from Organic-Synthetic.

Basic economics are the same for both races. If anything, greater differences have proven historicly to mean greater gains from trade and thus greater reason for cooperation.

Because the Quarians and the Geth were both completely intermixed, unlike the Russians and Americans, who had an ocean and dozens of sovereign nations to separate them.

Which means absolutely nothing when both were armed with strategic nuclear weapons. They were both on the same planet, and both feared the other was intent on conquering/defeating them. The west was caught up in anti-communist rhetoric, misinterpreting Marx's theory that eventually communism would be adopted by the world as an economic system. The Soviet Union feared the Americans would try to eliminate them just as the west tried to support the Tsar in the Russian revolution, and Americican missle installations in Italy and Turkey gave them reason to fear.

Because the Quarians had civilians to deal with, the Geth did not.

If the Geth did not value their existance, they would not have had any reason to fight. They obviously had self preservation instincts. Geth were not all designed for military deployment. Many, likely the majority, were assigned to civilian roles. Would a Geth school teacher or crossing guard be as well armed as a Quarian soldier? Unlikely. The mobile units they piloted might be stronger than any given Quarian civilian, but not neccessarily. What I am saying is, what is the definition of 'civilian' anyway? Did the Quarian kill code differentiate between armed Geth and unarmed? No, it was targetted at all Geth.

Thirdly, I still cannot find that supposed thing you are talking about from Tali, with the kill code. Maybe you misunderstood them. I only have seen her say "disable" them. That could mean many things.

The Geth themselves consider themselves to be coding, software, and the mobile units such as the Geth Troopers Shepard fights as more resembling vehicles, or in the case of the docking stations on bases, apartment buildings. Legion, for example, isn't 'a Geth', but a colony of over 1000 Geth working together in unison to pilot the Legion mobile platform.

In that context, what does 'disable' mean? If your brain was cut off from your body by a group who considered you a non-entity who wasn't really a living creature and therefore without rights, why would you expect 'disable' to mean anything other than disabling your body so that *you* could be erased and replaced with something 'useful?'

[Moiaussi]

Shandepared wrote...

IIRC you can get the Colector ship and IFF mission any time after Horizon based on the number of missions you do. If you do a bunch of N7 missions it can trigger. You don't actually have to recruit anybody. For example I generally get it before I ever even go to Ilium because I recruit Tali and then do a few loyalty/N7 missions.

If that is the case, what happens if you show up at the Migrant Fleet with Legion on board? Or better, bring him with you? Even if the game doesn't let you, wouldn't having him on board result in an immediate summary conviction of Tali? Not to mention Shepard being under fire from the Migrant Fleet?

Is there any option to hand Legion over to the Quarians instead of TIM?

[AresXX7]

First of all, I would like to say (for anyone who has seen my previous posts) I will have to admit ignorance on my part with how I categorised the Geth's intentions regarding genocide in The Morning War.
I viewed the issue with too much of a black & white perspective and overlooked the obvious amount of grey area involved. After reading, beyond my posts, I realized the lack of emotions in Geth was a double edged sword.

As evidenced by Karvadas, Shandepared, & others - though the lack of emotions/morals could prevent them from seeking to do such a heinous act purposely, it also frees them from any ethical rationale against it just as equally.

Now that I said what I wanted to, I'm ready to rejoin the discussions at hand.

In regards to the Geth on Haestrom, the information we're given, or lack thereof, can go both ways.
Given how Bioware decided to put the emphasis on time after we obtain the IFF, most have decided to get Legion last. Unless you use the save editor/mod(s) to alter the order of recruitment missions (PC) or have no intention of saving the crew in the SM, you're not aware of what Legion says on the mission. I do believe it is too ambiguous to imply his or the Orthodox Geth's view on peace.

Because while it is not proven the Geth attacking the Quarians and Shep & co. are Heretics, neither is it proven that they aren't. IMO
As for my stance, I'd say Heretics because the drop-ships used are of the same design they used in ME1, made to resemble Sovereign. And they are capable of performing actions without the shared awareness of the Orthodox Geth. (i.e. Legion says in his loyalty mission they were unaware of the Heretics monitoring their patrols)

Sorry if this has been covered in detail already, I was busy writing my  apology "speech" 

[AresXX7]

Moiaussi wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

IIRC you can get the Colector ship and IFF mission any time after Horizon based on the number of missions you do. If you do a bunch of N7 missions it can trigger. You don't actually have to recruit anybody. For example I generally get it before I ever even go to Ilium because I recruit Tali and then do a few loyalty/N7 missions.

If that is the case, what happens if you show up at the Migrant Fleet with Legion on board? Or better, bring him with you? Even if the game doesn't let you, wouldn't having him on board result in an immediate summary conviction of Tali? Not to mention Shepard being under fire from the Migrant Fleet?

Is there any option to hand Legion over to the Quarians instead of TIM?

Basically you have a confrontation with the ship's captain, comments are made, but it affects nothing with the outcome(s).

[Moiaussi]

scotchtape622 wrote...

Thirdly, I still cannot find that supposed thing you are talking about from Tali, with the kill code. Maybe you misunderstood them. I only have seen her say "disable" them. That could mean many things.

The actual quote is 'permanently deactivate.' How does that not equate to 'kill?'

  Quote is at 8:29.

[scotchtape622]

"Basic economics are the same for both races. If anything, greater
differences have proven historicly to mean greater gains from trade and
thus greater reason for cooperation."

What? I'm talking about the spur of the moment choice to attack. There is no safe, direct way, to communicate with the Geth if you are an organic. The Geth had total access to all of the Quarian's infrastructure, including communications. Geth do not speak to each other in the same way as organics do. If the Quarians had waited for even a moment, they could have found themselves completely overwhelmed by highly advanced machines.

"Which means absolutely nothing when both were armed with strategic
nuclear weapons. They were both on the same planet, and both feared the
other was intent on conquering/defeating them. The west was caught up in
anti-communist rhetoric, misinterpreting Marx's theory that eventually
communism would be adopted by the world as an economic system.
The Soviet Union feared the Americans would try to eliminate them just
as the west tried to support the Tsar in the Russian revolution, and
Americican missle installations in Italy and Turkey gave them reason to
fear. "

Yes it does, because if  one side acted, the other would have time to react. Not in this case. If the Geth struck first, the Quarians would be doomed.

"If the Geth did not value their existance, they would not have had any
reason to fight. They obviously had self preservation instincts. Geth
were not all designed for military deployment. Many, likely the
majority, were assigned to civilian roles. Would a Geth school teacher
or crossing guard be as well armed as a Quarian soldier? Unlikely. The
mobile units they piloted might be stronger than any given Quarian
civilian, but not neccessarily. What I am saying is, what is the
definition of 'civilian' anyway? Did the Quarian kill code differentiate
between armed Geth and unarmed? No, it was targetted at all Geth."

1. Soldiers value their lives as much as civilians do.
2. The Geth do not have "instincts." They are machines.
3. A Geth is still made of metal, and could simply crush a Quarian with its body. Every Geth was a threat.
4. You still haven't proved there is a kill code.


"The Geth themselves consider themselves to be coding, software, and
the mobile units such as the Geth Troopers Shepard fights as more
resembling vehicles, or in the case of the docking stations on bases,
apartment buildings. Legion, for example, isn't 'a Geth', but a colony
of over 1000 Geth working together in unison to pilot the Legion mobile
platform.

In that context, what does 'disable' mean? If your
brain was cut off from your body by a group who considered you a
non-entity who wasn't really a living creature and therefore without
rights, why would you expect 'disable' to mean anything other than
disabling your body so that *you* could be erased and replaced with
something 'useful?'"

The Geth did not say that the Quarians tried to disable them, Tali did. This could mean a kill code, blowing them up, a self destruct button, it could mean tons of things.

EDIT: As to your new post, to me it sounds like some sort of off switch, not a virus. 

Modifié par scotchtape622, 14 septembre 2010 - 04:14 .

[Moiaussi]

AriesXX7 wrote...

Basically you have a confrontation with the ship's captain, comments are made, but it affects nothing with the outcome(s).

That makes absolutely NO sense. If Legion is allowed to walk around in the presence of the Admiralty, how could Tali be guilty of treason for indirectly allowing Geth to do similar in much more controlled circumstances? i.e. on an isolated unarmed ship whose functions could be locked down?

[Moiaussi]

scotchtape622 wrote...

What? I'm talking about the spur of the moment choice to attack. There is no safe, direct way, to communicate with the Geth if you are an organic. The Geth had total access to all of the Quarian's infrastructure, including communications. Geth do not speak to each other in the same way as organics do. If the Quarians had waited for even a moment, they could have found themselves completely overwhelmed by highly advanced machines.

If that was the case, there couldn't have been a general kill order sent out by the Quarians. The Geth would have had the upper hand in every battle, and even the starports would have been locked down. There had to have been some way to communicate with the Geth too, or they wouldn't have been useful for their intended purposes. Geth don't speak to each other as Organics do simply because of efficiency, but that does not mean the Quarians wouldn't have had interfaces. No clue what you are getting at there.

Yes it does, because if  one side acted, the other would have time to react. Not in this case. If the Geth struck first, the Quarians would be doomed.

Not really... the Quarians 'kill code' was a failsafe, and would have been isolated. And more importantly, the Quarians turned out to be doomed anyway given the choice they made. It became a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the code had worked, it would have worked quickly. Also, if either side in the Cold War had timed their launches right, especially using shorter range weapons which would reach their targets faster, such as submarine based missiles, or the missiles in Turkey and Italy which provoked the missile installations in Cuba, it was possible for one side or the other to have potentially 'won.' The problem is that they might not have too.

The Quarians faced what you claim was a nigh infintely superior force and provoked them by way of a genocide attempt. When has that ever turned out well?

1. Soldiers value their lives as much as civilians do.
2. The Geth do not have "instincts." They are machines.
3. A Geth is still made of metal, and could simply crush a Quarian with its body. Every Geth was a threat.
4. You still haven't proved there is a kill code.

1) How does that invalidate my point in any way?
2) You need more understanding of what instincts really are. They are usually geneticly programmed responses. On occasion, they are learned responses (see Pavlov). Either way the only arguement against the Geth having instincts would be semantic and irrelevant.
3) And a strong enough Quarian could strangle another Quarian, just as a human can strangle another human. That doesn't mean we shoot all strong humans. A Quarian with an Omni Tool can hack a Geth platform. Mind control isn't a violation?
4) See my other post regarding the general order for 'permanent deactivation.'

The Geth did not say that the Quarians tried to disable them, Tali did. This could mean a kill code, blowing them up, a self destruct button, it could mean tons of things.

All three of your examples equate to killing. I challenged you to provide an intrepretation that didn't equate to killing. You have evaded the question.

EDIT: As to your new post, to me it sounds like some sort of off switch, not a virus. 

Give me a break. Don't tell me that you don't understand the word 'permanently.' If you were 'permanently deactivated' how would 'dead' not apply to you?

[AresXX7]

Moiaussi wrote...

AriesXX7 wrote...

Basically you have a confrontation with the ship's captain, comments are made, but it affects nothing with the outcome(s).

That makes absolutely NO sense. If Legion is allowed to walk around in the presence of the Admiralty, how could Tali be guilty of treason for indirectly allowing Geth to do similar in much more controlled circumstances? i.e. on an isolated unarmed ship whose functions could be locked down?

I agree, though the only two excuses I can give are:
1.) Shep's persuade/intimidate abilities are that of legends.

2.) The whole trial was too focused on being a political ploy to begin with (?)   

Either one is too weak for me to even consider sustaining my belief of reality, even for a game.

Modifié par AriesXX7, 14 septembre 2010 - 04:37 .

[Moiaussi]

By the way, has anyone else noticed the discrepancy between Tali's description of Geth thought processes in ME1, and Legion's in ME2?

They are radically different. If the Quarians are basing their efforts on the original theories, they could end up way off base.

[Skyblade012]

AriesXX7 wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

AriesXX7 wrote...

Basically you have a confrontation with the ship's captain, comments are made, but it affects nothing with the outcome(s).

That makes absolutely NO sense. If Legion is allowed to walk around in the presence of the Admiralty, how could Tali be guilty of treason for indirectly allowing Geth to do similar in much more controlled circumstances? i.e. on an isolated unarmed ship whose functions could be locked down?

I agree, though the only two excuses I can give are:
1.) Shep's persuade/intimidate abilities are that of legends.

2.) The whole trial was too focused on being a political ploy to begin with (?)   

Either one is too weak for me to even consider sustaining my belief of reality, even for a game.

The admirals were bickering about what to do about the geth behind the scenes in the first place.  When the Alarei fell to the geth, it was used as an excuse to make the issue public.  The "trial" really had nothing to do with Tali, and every Admiral admits this.  It was basically just a public front for the decision about the geth.

The really odd thing is, two out of the three voters are on Tali's side in the first place.  Admiral Gerrell is a die-hard supporter of Rael and Tali, while Admiral Xen supports Rael's experiments, and mentions that it would have been "unfortunate" if Tali had been exiled.  So, since that makes the votes two to one, why exactly that if you do nothing, she gets exiled?

[DPSSOC]

Moiaussi wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

My point, and in retrospect I didn't express it very well, is that the Council seem to have commandeered the DA.  It is there to defend them no one else.  If you save the DA or it's rebuilt this will not change.  The DA is the Council's ship and the only way we can make use of it is by putting them between us and the Reapers.

You are basing that off what? One battle? In a Neblula where noone could disengage easily?

 
Yes.  As well as the whole guided tour thing.  In all seriousness it's just a general feeling I get from a combination of things like a warship like that should have been closer to the front lines to allow for easy deployment, it shouldn't have been used as a Council evacuation vessel and it definitely shouldn't be used for a joy ride when you're still engaging enemy combatants (the Geth are still around).

Moiaussi wrote...
And the DA is an ASRAI ship, not the Councils, nor the Alliance's.

 
You imply a disparity where none exists.  The Asari, Salarians, and Turians are the Council and as such any military might they possess is at  the disposal of the Council (like the DA or the STG).

Moiaussi wrote...
?????? It is there for PR purposes and later because Shepard warned that the Citadel would be attacked. Were any Asari worlds attacked? No. So why are you trying to argue it was poorly deployed?

Because I'm a firm believer that your most powerful weapon should never, ever, be used as a PR stunt.  It'd be like Americans post-Hiroshima saying, "Bring the kids and get your picture with a working A-bomb."  The DA is a weapon and I believe it should be treated like a weapon.

Moiaussi wrote...
Also Council military doctrine is to have central fleets and launch attacks from centralized bases en force. Unlike the Alliance, they don't garrison. It is simply a different military doctrine.

Correct me if I'm wrong isn't that the other way around?  Will recheck the Codex but I'm pretty sure it's the Alliance military doctrine to maintain a small garrisson at any outpost or colony to hold out until large Alliance forces can rush in from hubs like Arcturus.

Modifié par DPSSOC, 14 septembre 2010 - 11:37 .

[Moiaussi]

DPSSOC wrote...

Yes.  As well as the whole guided tour thing.  In all seriousness it's just a general feeling I get from a combination of things like a warship like that should have been closer to the front lines to allow for easy deployment, it shouldn't have been used as a Council evacuation vessel and it definitely shouldn't be used for a joy ride when you're still engaging enemy combatants (the Geth are still around).

It isn't exactly needed against the by then non-threat of the Heretics, is it? A victory cruise isn't exactly unheard of either. You could just as easily ask why the Council are off on a Victory cruise instead of doing their normal work as Councilors.

You imply a disparity where none exists.  The Asari, Salarians, and Turians are the Council and as such any military might they possess is at  the disposal of the Council (like the DA or the STG).

Not really. The Council seems much like the modern UN. It has forces under its command, but those forces are still the property of the original races. Council charter describes the level of commitment that each race must provide, but the specific ships put under Council command are up to the owning races. It is very unlikely that the Council charter requires the DA specificly to be placed under Council control given it wouldn't have existed when the charter was written, and it is likewise unlikely that the charter was amended just for one vessel.

The STG's likewise are still the SALARIAN task group, not the CTG. The Salarians don't field as large a navy, so they contribute in other ways, but the organization itself remains Salarian, just as the CIA remains US, MI5 remains British, CSIS remains Canadian, etc....

Because I'm a firm believer that your most powerful weapon should never, ever, be used as a PR stunt.  It'd be like Americans post-Hiroshima saying, "Bring the kids and get your picture with a working A-bomb."  The DA is a weapon and I believe it should be treated like a weapon.

You have never tried to maintain military funding in a democracy in peacetime. Reality isn't an RTS computer game. In RL, budgets are not under the absolute control of a single player answerable to noone but themself. Also, it is very unlike pictures taken with bombs. Starships (and modern naval vessels, as well as modern armed forces personel generally) are a lot more versitle than pure wartime deployment.

Using them for other tasks in peace time where practical is good economic sense as well as good PR.

Correct me if I'm wrong isn't that the other way around?  Will recheck the Codex but I'm pretty sure it's the Alliance military doctrine to maintain a small garrisson at any outpost or colony to hold out until large Alliance forces can rush in from hubs like Arcturus.

That is Alliance doctrine, but Council doctrine is no garrisons. This is why the Turians were confused in the First Contact War. When they defeated the Alliance garrison they thought they found and defeated the entire Alliance navy. When the Alliance

[DPSSOC]

Moiaussi wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
Yes.  As well as the whole guided tour thing.  In all seriousness it's just a general feeling I get from a combination of things like a warship like that should have been closer to the front lines to allow for easy deployment, it shouldn't have been used as a Council evacuation vessel and it definitely shouldn't be used for a joy ride when you're still engaging enemy combatants (the Geth are still around).

It isn't exactly needed against the by then non-threat of the Heretics, is it? A victory cruise isn't exactly unheard of either.

Fair enough.

Moiaussi wrote...
You could just as easily ask why the Council are off on a Victory cruise instead of doing their normal work as Councilors.

Believe me I do.

Moiaussi wrote...

You imply a disparity where none exists.  The Asari, Salarians, and Turians are the Council and as such any military might they possess is at  the disposal of the Council (like the DA or the STG).

Not really. The Council seems much like the modern UN.

 
Huh to me it seems more like a ruling Tribunal.  The individual races maintain autonomy for themselves but the Council is the ultimate authority (i.e. capable of demanding specific military deployments).

Moiaussi wrote...
It is very unlikely that the Council charter requires the DA specificly to be placed under Council control given it wouldn't have existed when the charter was written, and it is likewise unlikely that the charter was amended just for one vessel.

How old do you think the DA is (or how old is it if you know)?  The Council as it stands has been around for at least 1000 years so it makes sense any charter would have been in existence for around that (at least).

Moiaussi wrote...

Because I'm a firm believer that your most powerful weapon should never, ever, be used as a PR stunt.  It'd be like Americans post-Hiroshima saying, "Bring the kids and get your picture with a working A-bomb."  The DA is a weapon and I believe it should be treated like a weapon.

You have never tried to maintain military funding in a democracy in peacetime.  Reality isn't an RTS computer game. In RL, budgets are not under the absolute control of a single player answerable to noone but themself.

 
No I've not tried to maintain military funding in a democracy but the Council isn't a democracy.  Based on Anderson/Udina's rise it seems that Councillors are appointed, presumably for life, which would make them answerable to no one but one another.

Moiaussi wrote...

Correct me if I'm wrong isn't that the other way around?  Will recheck the Codex but I'm pretty sure it's the Alliance military doctrine to maintain a small garrisson at any outpost or colony to hold out until large Alliance forces can rush in from hubs like Arcturus.

That is Alliance doctrine, but Council doctrine is no garrisons. This is why the Turians were confused in the First Contact War. When they defeated the Alliance garrison they thought they found and defeated the entire Alliance navy. When the Alliance

Codex?  Or is this stated in one of the books?  Not doubting you just didn't come across this in my search.

[Moiaussi]

DPSSOC wrote...

Huh to me it seems more like a ruling Tribunal.  The individual races maintain autonomy for themselves but the Council is the ultimate authority (i.e. capable of demanding specific military deployments).

It is a lot more effective than the UN because there are a lot fewer politcal groups represented, but he Council is anaiogous to the US security council. The security council controls by way of each having a veto, though, so in terms of getting nothing done individual members have more power. In terms of getting something done, non members are powerless unless they can convince every security council member. With the Citadel council, only a majority need to be convinced.

How old do you think the DA is (or how old is it if you know)?  The Council as it stands has been around for at least 1000 years so it makes sense any charter would have been in existence for around that (at least).

It is implied to be relatively new. Consider that when Shepard questions the age of the Quarian fleet, Tali essentially says that the older ships are kept running, but not a lot more than that. In other words, she implies that their age matters at 300. Also, on a capital ship that size, how would you refit for newer tech? It makes no sense that a 1000+ year old dreadnaught would have 'more firepower than the modern Asari fleet combined.'

No I've not tried to maintain military funding in a democracy but the Council isn't a democracy.  Based on Anderson/Udina's rise it seems that Councillors are appointed, presumably for life, which would make them answerable to no one but one another.

That assumes that there is no civilian government to whom Anderson and for that matter Udina are answerable to. For that matter, presumably Hackett is answerable to someone.

It does not have to be a directly elected post to be answerable to an electorate, any more than any ambassadorial post in the world is elected. Even though we don't see it, there is a civilian government running the Alliance. In ME1, there is a demonstration on the Citadel by the Terra Firma party, who want Shepard to endorse their candidate for a parliament seat.

By the way, per the codex the Asari have pure democracy with no actual formal politicians. Salarians have hereditary system and the Turians have a meritocracy.

http://masseffect.ne...il_Races_(Codex)

Codex?  Or is this stated in one of the books?  Not doubting you just didn't come across this in my search.

I'd swear it was in the codex, but I don't see it there now.... might have to fire up ME1 to check there. The wiki doesn't even mention that it was the Turians that approached the Council asking for help.

[DPSSOC]

Moiaussi wrote...

No I've not tried to maintain military funding in a democracy but the Council isn't a democracy.  Based on Anderson/Udina's rise it seems that Councillors are appointed, presumably for life, which would make them answerable to no one but one another.

That assumes that there is no civilian government to whom Anderson and for that matter Udina are answerable to. For that matter, presumably Hackett is answerable to someone.

Hacket would most likely be answerable to the President of the Alliance, Huerta if memory serves, but my thinking is the Council is a higher authority than any civillian government.  Anderson points out that if the Council makes a decision the Alliance has to follow it, implying that the Council sits as a higher authourity than the individual governments of member races (even Council races).  Hence my statement about races maintaining autonomy in their own affairs but they must follow the rules of the Council.  Furthermore how could the Council create an organization answerable only to them if they were in turn answerable to someone.

If you answer to me then anyone who answers to you also answers to me and on and on until you get to the bottom.  Now if you answer only to me then I cannot answer to anyone else, I'm the top of the totem as it were.  Now the Council would be answerable to the people in the way that all dictatorships are in that if they ****** too many people off they risk revolution but other than that they don't seem to have anybody reigning them in.

Moiaussi wrote...

Codex?  Or is this stated in one of the books?  Not doubting you just didn't come across this in my search.

I'd swear it was in the codex, but I don't see it there now.... might have to fire up ME1 to check there. The wiki doesn't even mention that it was the Turians that approached the Council asking for help.

Alright I'm doing an ME runthrough now so I'm sure I'll stumble upon it.  Like I said wasn't doubting you just wondering where you'd found that tid bit.

And a point on the DA just starting the playthrough and got to the Citadel arrival where Kaidan refers to the DA as the "flagship of the Citadel Fleet." which would seem to imply a fleet dedicated to the defense of the Citadel and the orders of the Council.

Now it just occurred to me how dreadfully off-topic this discussion is so we may want to move it to a different thread or PM and let the thread get back on track.

[Torasan]

Geth are machines, machines are tools. I was very frustrated by the lack of options to help admiral xen. I wanted to send her the data & help the quarians regain control of the rogue machines.

Its an interesting concept to think of machines having free will, but theres no concrete evidence they have any concept of love, art or music.  cows have free will, but i'd hapily kill one for dinner.  with how many burger & steaks eaten across the globe i'd say most feel this way.  the geth are equivilant to live stock that escaped the field.  

I completely agreed with admiral xen. Gutted this option wasn't available in the game. e

Modifié par Torasan, 01 octobre 2010 - 12:08 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Just to clarify, is there any choice of events in which you can give the Quarians (or Admiral Xen in particular) the experiment data?



Losing Tali's loyalty included.

[brfritos]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Just to clarify, is there any choice of events in which you can give the Quarians (or Admiral Xen in particular) the experiment data?

Losing Tali's loyalty included.

Yes there is, but is not exactly "he's the data,use it", you recommend Xen to use Rael'Zorah research.
This only happens if you choose to use the evidence, loosing Tali's loyalty of course, so I'm assuming that among Rael's confession is also stored the research data.
And the text in the wheel is excatly this "you should use the research".

Oddly enough, when you receive the mail from Xen on the Normandy is like if you have completed the mission not giving the research to her (when Tali is exonerated).

I don't know if this is a bug or the actual choice is preserved, but is annoying choose something and the game don't respond according.

Modifié par brfritos, 02 octobre 2010 - 12:23 .

[Xilizhra]

Shandepared wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Just to clarify, is there any choice of events in which you can give the Quarians (or Admiral Xen in particular) the experiment data?

Losing Tali's loyalty included.

Nope. If you reveal the evidence at the trial Xen gets mad that now the research is politically toxic so she can't touch it or some such. Otherwise no matter what when you talk to her Tali buts in and all Shepard can do is voice his support (or not) for the retaking of the quarian homeworld. Even if you do you still get her spiteful email.

Definitely a missed opportunity that reeks of railroading. Most especially when you first talk to Xen and she offers her views on the geth but Shepard can't nod his head and say "I agree with you, Admiral." This irksome because Shepard can offer the exact same opinion on Legion's loyalty mission. So what gives?

Probably because rewriting one decision on the heretic geth isn't the same thing as reenslaving the entire race.