268 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Alessar wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

All an asari mind link shows is sincerity of the claim, not the validity.Shepard could take lcd and it would be just as sincere.

So how were a cipher and relay locations passed along in ME 1 through it?

Any clarification would be appreciated, mass effect wiki doesn't say much.

...I'm afraid I don't understand your question. They transferred through the mind link mumbo-jumbo link.

Think of it in terms of this post. This post can have any information I want on it. You can then quote it, copy it, send it as much as you want. But that doesn't mean that the post itself is correct.

Shepard believes that Shiala's message is correct, and it is. But it doesn't have to be. And if Shiala misremembered something, as people are prone to do, it wouldn't be notable because, again, it's sincere. Again, like if you were to quote this post, and then changed the order of some words until it didn't make sense.

[TMA LIVE]

What I don't get is, whoever you pick, they won based off a vote from what Book 2 says (though most likely the Council themselves or whoever is in charge really makes the choice. And Shepard's opinion just tips the scale.)

[primero holodon]

lets see... 
 anderson is a friend of shepard, stands up for what he believes in regardless of how others view it, believes in the reapers, is single handedly responsible for shepard getting to Ilos in time, relenquishes the Normandy in order to give shepard a better chance at beating seran.

Udina hates shepard, does anything to further his poloitical standing with the council, denys the existence of the reapers, betrayed shepard and grounded the Normandy.

which do you think is a good Idea?

[Nightwriter]

primero holodon wrote...

lets see... 
 anderson is a friend of shepard, stands up for what he believes in regardless of how others view it, believes in the reapers, is single handedly responsible for shepard getting to Ilos in time, relenquishes the Normandy in order to give shepard a better chance at beating seran.

Udina hates shepard, does anything to further his poloitical standing with the council, denys the existence of the reapers, betrayed shepard and grounded the Normandy.

which do you think is a good Idea?

*waits for the renegades to call primero naive*

[Onyx Jaguar]

Nepotism needs to be killed with nukes and sharp sticks

[chris025657]

 I never felt this was a decision my Shepard should be making. Even if I considered someone a war hero, I wouldn't necessarily want that person to choose my political leaders. 
Anyway, I suppose there's pros and cons to each:
Anderson:Pros:

• Believes in the Reaper threat
• Desires peaceful cooperation with but not submission to other species
• Has a friendly relationship with Shepard

Cons:

• Believed in Shepard's visions and the Reaper threat without evidence.
• Not as much political experience
• Cronyism

Udina:
Pros:

• Assured to put humanity first
• More experience and more connections

Cons:

• Abrasive nature could cause tensions with other councilors
• Does not believe in the Reaper threat

Personally, I lean towards Anderson for greater cooperation with the other councilors, his acknowledgement of the Reaper threat, and for the usefulness of his perhaps irrational defense of Shepard. 

[MrFob]

I usually choose Anderson. Even if it doesn't work out long term for him and even if he may not have as much political experience, I think it sends the right message to put an honest and honorable man on the first council position rather than the manipulative politician.

BTW I can't for the life of me understand why Drew Karpyshyn canonized Udina as council member in Retribution. It is mentioned in one sentence snd it is so unnecessary. The book would have worked just fine without it, especially because Anderson goes rogue. DK managed rather ingeniously to avoid that sort of stuff until then so I don’t get why this is thrown in so randomly. Ah well, just another thing we’ll have to pretend we never read.

[Casuist]

Udina:

Cons:

Lousy track record.

[Casuist]

mosor wrote...

Casuist wrote...

....and giving a civilian authority over the military is positively unheard of!

Yes it's quite unheard of. This goes to show that this whole thing was planned in advance with everyone but Shepard involved.

Tell me- what nationality are you.... and then: tell me why I'm asking.

So what. Those lockdowns controls in Udina's office could be used for any ship. Thise controls don't know what ship they're locking down. It doesn't mean Udina could have done it without a go ahead from the proper authorities.

...speculation on your part, and I strongly suspect that Udina's terminal is not set up to detain any random elcor ship that is docked at the citadel.. The fact is that his terminal had direct authority over the decision.  

What you're not wrapping your head around is that Udina is simply the messenger of a decision already made. If Shepard had played ball and decided to help defend the citadel against Saren, and not run off on what they felt was a wild goose chase, there wouldn't have been a lockdown. The lockdown option was pre-agreed in case Shep didn't play ball. Anderson knew this was going to happen. It didn't take him by suprise.

Anderson's knowledge of Shepard being disallowed from pursuing Saren to Ilos is not evidence one way or the other in the matter at hand. What you are not grasping is that the Normandy is an Alliance military vessel, that Udina issues the order for lockdown, and that the council does not have the authority to issue that specific command at whim.

A government doesn't have the authority to charge a murdering foreign
diplomat. They can make a request to that foreign diplomats government
to press charges. If they don't, there will be a diplomatic incident.  The alliance is on their station. If the Citadel makes a request, the alliance has to take it seriously.

True, and now we're getting somewhere. Shepard has not committed a crime, and the Alliance is the entity with the authority to lock down the Normandy as you (now) admit.

Wrong. The fact that they believed the reapers and the conduit is a fantasy neuters your point. To prove it you have show that not believing Shepard was illogical. That a fantastic story about some lost prothean artifact and reapers should be taken seriously from their perspective, when they could have a state of the art ship defending the citadel.

There is no rational basis for disbelieveing the existence of the conduit, even if one assumes that the Reapers are a threat being used to manipulate the geth, as there is ample evidence that Saren is consuming considerable resources and running risks to find the Conduit.

The Normandy is not a key defense vessel. Its strength is in stealth capabilities that are irrelevant in a firefight... or, as Wrex says to Garrus, only an idiot would be exclaiming his desire to see the Normandy "in action."
There is no basis for thinking that the lockdown order is motivated by a desire to add to Citadel defense.

As long as his ambitions aligned with human interests, then I really don't see a problem.

Again, we're getting somewhere. As pointed out in the initial post which started this thread- his ambitions didn't.

[Inquisitor Recon]

The only reason I don't like Udina is that you can't get your Spectre status back with him. This is why Anderson has been my choice on all my ME2 runs.

[Weiser_Cain]

Shepard.

I would have said Anderson but he gets a little heated if you press the right button, even my evil Shepards are more even and deliberative.

[Casuist]

Shandepared wrote...
They didn't disbelieve in the Conduit. They didn't think it was important though, not after Saren's plan was exposed. The Council felt that sending the fleet into the Terminus was too dangerous and that Shepard was too reckless.

- Not thinking the Conduit is important is not a rational position, even taking into account the council p.o.v.

The lockdown of the Normandy was to prevent Shepard from getting himself kicked out of the Spectres.

-...assuming facts not in evidence

-as I stated earlier, kicking Shepard of of the Spectres would not in and itself present the Ilos mission.

-There is no rational basis for removing Shepard's status

[EffectedByTheMasses]

Edit: nvm.

Modifié par EffectedByTheMasses, 18 octobre 2010 - 04:35 .

[Casuist]

Shandepared wrote...

Casuist wrote...

- Not thinking the Conduit is important is not a rational position, even taking into account the council p.o.v.

What makes you so certain? You don't even know what it does.

What makes anyone so certain otherwise? Saren's resource expenditure and the Prothean link make it significantle more likely to be important than not. Disregarding it is, therefore, irrational.

Causist wrote...

-as I stated earlier, kicking Shepard of of the Spectres would not in and itself present the Ilos mission.

What? English, please.

Alliance officer Shepard in command of the Normandy chasing a fugitive who has murdered Alliance civilians would have ample authority to go after Saren. Shepard does not need to be a Spectre to accomplish the important task at hand.

Yeah, there is. He keeps spouting off about Reapers, he commits genocide or unleashes the rachni on the galaxy, and he set off a nuke on a garden world. The Council has had enough.

... so you're saying that either decision regarding the Rachni is basis for removing Spectre status? Damn, rough crowd. Joseph Heller- you are beckoned to the floor.

Virmire was 1) the idea of a salarian STG captain and 2) not questioned by the council at the time and 3) necessary and 4) a world that had been ruled out for any sort of council species colonization due to its proximity to the terminus systems.

[Casuist]

[quote]Shandepared wrote...
I'm not certain and that's why I'm not gonna start a war over it .
[/quote]

... a war starting because Shepard is chasing Saren to Ilos is not a particularly plausible outcome.

[quote]
[quote]Casuist wrote...

Alliance officer Shepard in command of the Normandy chasing a fugitive who has murdered Alliance civilians would have ample authority to go after Saren. Shepard does not need to be a Spectre to accomplish the important task at hand.[/quote]

What does this have to do with anything?
[/quote]

This particular argument concerns Udina's decision to lock down the Normandy, and the fact that it was indeed his decision. The council has the authority to remove spectre status (though doing so would likely raise a "political ****storm" - but this action and their power does not extend to preventing the Ilos mission.

[quote]Casuist wrote...

... so you're saying that either decision regarding the Rachni is basis for removing Spectre status?[/quote]

Yes.
[/quote]

Well then I guess we're just screwed then, aren't we?

...of course, the fact that the council did not choose to take such action after the decision was made 1) suggests your conclusion is wrong and 2) makes it clear that any future decision to revoke status would be motivated by some other event/concern.

[Casuist]

Shandepared wrote...

It is if they have reason to believe Shepard can't do that without rocking the boat.

...which they don't.  Note as well that this is not a discussion about whether the council and udina's specific idiocies and biases justified their decisions, but rather about whether those decisions and perceptions were justified by in-game evidence.

Your point being? He was doing what the Council wanted. It was about politics.

He was doing what was gratifying to the council and trying to improve/increase his own position with the council for his personal benefit. Doing whatever is immediately appealing to the council was not in Udina's job description. The relevant question in this thread is whether Udina's actions inform the decision regarding council position, and they do, in a negative fashion.

If anyone chooses to overlook that track record and personal shortcomings because of Udina's political acumen and connections, that choice is justifiable... but it's not a choice I (or, more accurately, any of my shepards... even the renegade) make.

Modifié par Casuist, 18 octobre 2010 - 05:05 .

[Casuist]

Shandepared wrote...

Casuist wrote...

...which they don't.

Yes they do. Everything Shepard has done has given them a headache.

Headaches mean that the Ilos mission will start a war?

That's an unfounded assumption. 

Headaches mean that the Ilos mission will start a war, and you're talking to me about unfounded assumptions? 

...beyond that, there is clear evidence of this interpretation in the ME1 cutscene. You're free to interpret it differently if you like, but there's ample reason (in both games) to perceive Udina as a character motivated in part by self-interest.

Anything that improves Udina's position with regards to the Council helps humanity as a whole.

Given the events of ME1 - obviously not.

[Casuist]

[quote]Shandepared wrote...

It looks that way. If the Council has no faith in you and they think you are mentally unstable then it stands to reason they don't think you can be discreet.
[/quote]

...and if that belief is irrational or unjustified, that proves the point regarding Udina and the council. In deciding between the two council recommendation options, it is reasonable to look at their performance regarding important decisions in the past (if you remember, that's the topic of this thread). Udina's audition went poorly.

[quote]
[quote]Casuist wrote...

Given the events of ME1 - obviously not.
[/quote]

What?

[/quote]

[/quote]
Udina's decision improved his position with the council and increased the likelihood of humanity's extinction. It's nice that you made a broad generalization with such a blatantly obvious exception.

Modifié par Casuist, 18 octobre 2010 - 05:34 .

[anmiro]

Shandepared wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Come on; our sacrifice to save the Council has won us the respect of the other races already.

You gambleld with the trillions upon trillions upon trillions of lives when you saved the Council. Sane people are horrified by the risk you took and you should be ashamed.

In any case, Anderson is corrupt and ineffective. Udina manages to get actual work done.

Really? Anderson is corrupt? Can you give an example of this? I agree that Anderson is ineffective, but thats because hes not a bureaucrat like Udina. Udina knows politics, unfortunately he's blinded by ambition and doesn't take the Reapers seriously either.

And what work is Udina getting done exactly?

Modifié par anmiro, 18 octobre 2010 - 05:42 .