89 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

And here I thought the Council's main problem was being an undemocratic influence racket dedicated to maintaining its own grip on galactic dominance and sustaining a racist galactic pecking order using both nearly legally unaccountable agents with a right to conduct nearly any sort of atrocity in the Council's name (or even just as long as it doesn't get in the Council's way) AND a penchant for both employing genocide on their own behalf and abandoning rising allied species facing genocide attempt from unquestioned mutual threats.

But that's just my take based on Council history. They've been around longer than humanity, ergo they must be wiser than us.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 06 décembre 2010 - 01:12 .

[General User]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And here I thought the Council's main problem was being an undemocratic influence racket dedicated to maintaining its own grip on galactic dominance and sustaining a racist galactic pecking order using both nearly unaccountable agents with a legal right to execute anyone or conduct nearly any sort of atrocity AND a penchant for both employing genocide on their own behalf and abandoning rising allied species facing genocide attempt from unquestioned mutual threats.

That AND cowardice faithlessness.

Modifié par General User, 06 décembre 2010 - 01:22 .

[Xilizhra]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And here I thought the Council's main problem was being an undemocratic influence racket dedicated to maintaining its own grip on galactic dominance and sustaining a racist galactic pecking order using both nearly legally unaccountable agents with a right to conduct nearly any sort of atrocity in the Council's name (or even just as long as it doesn't get in the Council's way) AND a penchant for both employing genocide on their own behalf and abandoning rising allied species facing genocide attempt from unquestioned mutual threats.

But that's just my take based on Council history. They've been around longer than humanity, ergo they must be wiser than us.

Your accusations of the Council being racist are remarkably hypocritical; they're no more racist than Cerberus, and you definitely don't think they're racist. As for issues of genocide, I've covered their reasons for those already.

[Dean_the_Young]

I wouldn't call them cowardice: cowardice is usually unfounded or unreasonable. They're just institutionally conservative because they have a lot to lose (or rather, a lot of money and people) but little to gain from any sort of conflict.



They, the Council, are not afraid to fight. If the Terminus attacked today, the only reason they'd respond tomorrow is because of the time it takes the Turian fleet to move. They just don't want to lose money and Council-species lives needlessly.



They aren't cowards. They've just taken a cost-analysis benefit of what they would gain if, say, they fought the rogue synthetic menace, versus what they lose if they don't, and said, **** it Quarians and Humans, we wish you the best. And if you don't win, it was already your fault for trying to correct your illegal mistake like we would want you to/settling in the Terminus like we encouraged you to.

[General User]

Was AI research illegal before the Morning War?

[cdtrk65]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

They aren't cowards. They've just taken a cost-analysis benefit of what they would gain if, say, they fought the rogue synthetic menace, versus what they lose if they don't, and said, **** it Quarians and Humans, we wish you the best. And if you don't win, it was already your fault for trying to correct your illegal mistake like we would want you to/settling in the Terminus like we encouraged you to.

You could even say they did the same with the Batarians and human desputes.

[Xilizhra]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I wouldn't call them cowardice: cowardice is usually unfounded or unreasonable. They're just institutionally conservative because they have a lot to lose (or rather, a lot of money and people) but little to gain from any sort of conflict.

They, the Council, are not afraid to fight. If the Terminus attacked today, the only reason they'd respond tomorrow is because of the time it takes the Turian fleet to move. They just don't want to lose money and Council-species lives needlessly.

They aren't cowards. They've just taken a cost-analysis benefit of what they would gain if, say, they fought the rogue synthetic menace, versus what they lose if they don't, and said, **** it Quarians and Humans, we wish you the best. And if you don't win, it was already your fault for trying to correct your illegal mistake like we would want you to/settling in the Terminus like we encouraged you to.

In short, heavily Renegade-ish.

[Exile Isan]

General User wrote...

Was AI research illegal before the Morning War?

Yes. Tali mentions in ME1 that they were "skirting the law" when they programmed the Geth.

[General User]

Neat, thanks!



On the Council:



Let’s not forget that the Council is also willing to use the Spectres extraordinary powers, not just in the name of “preserving galactic peace” but also to spare the Council political embarrassment.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And here I thought the Council's main problem was being an undemocratic influence racket dedicated to maintaining its own grip on galactic dominance and sustaining a racist galactic pecking order using both nearly legally unaccountable agents with a right to conduct nearly any sort of atrocity in the Council's name (or even just as long as it doesn't get in the Council's way) AND a penchant for both employing genocide on their own behalf and abandoning rising allied species facing genocide attempt from unquestioned mutual threats.

But that's just my take based on Council history. They've been around longer than humanity, ergo they must be wiser than us.

Your accusations of the Council being racist are remarkably hypocritical; they're no more racist than Cerberus

Actually, they are more racist. Far more racist. While they set up a largely defacto xenonationalist institutuion, they've left it so filled and guided by race-aligned rhetoric and policy as to make apartheid South Africa look small scale (if not as malevolent).

The entire basis for what sort of jobs are available to you on the Citadel depends on your race. Even something as basic as 'police officer' isn't simply a mericratic opportunity amongst the races, it's a political privilege that species fight for: a large part of what you can do in the Council system is based on your race. Jobs, opportunities, even the galactic economy is by and large handed off to the volus 'because they're good with money.' (Like Indians are good at tech support, or chinese are great factory workers, or Asians in US schools are good at math, or Jews are good with media and money.)

The reasoning for why this is given jumps straight out of 19th century race discussions. Certain species aren't 'wise' enough to be entrusted with certain rights and privaleges. Only powerful species are given weight, but that power is treated as proof of wisdom and they are proven wise because they have power, which is the same sort of self-supporting and justifying rhetoric that you could find in Europe and America during the imperial periods.

The Council and its systems established and run on the racist stereotypes everyone else is slotted into. The Asari are wise (except, you know, when you talk to them, and they turn out to be just as self-interested and presumptuous as everyone else), the Turians are honorable (except the most honorable Turian we ever meet is Garrus, who is considered a 'bad' Turian), the Krogan aren't even allowed onto the Praesidium without exceptional clerance, the Quarians are vegabonds and thieves and treated by the security aparatus as suchl, and humans-

Ah, I just love the renegade-ending quote from the Council leadership itself when they give Humanity a seat on the Council, and their rational for it.

"Your species has a fierce, savage spirit, which will not bend or yield. We used to believe this made humans stubborn, even dangerous. But now we understand that these traits are what make you strong."


Sure, Council. Way to go: let's shape and rationalize galactic policy around our beliefs of billions of people based on the character of one (wo)man. If Shepard's a Paragon, of course it means Humanity is wise and noble and a force for defense, whereas a Renegade Shepard means that that humanity is nearly primitive, but a good primitive. Shepard's human, and that's enough right?

Pricks.

, and you definitely don't think they're racist.

As a group? They're a xenonationalist group with some racists, but we've never gotten any sort of 'humans are inherently X while aliens are Y' rhetoric.

Yes, the deepest irony of the Mass Effect universe is that the xenophobic terrorists have less demonstrated racism than the good aliens.

Well, second deepest irony, perhaps. Deepest one may be revealed in ME3.

As for issues of genocide, I've covered their reasons for those already.

While our argument about whether setting a hostile race on a path towards extinction unless it responds positively to coercion counts as genocide has gone on for many threads, I apologize, as I apparently missed your reasoning why letting the Quarians be slaughtered and the Humans risk being slaughtered (and only saved by their own power) was not a condemnable pattern.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 06 décembre 2010 - 01:53 .

[Dean_the_Young]

cdtrk65 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

They aren't cowards. They've just taken a cost-analysis benefit of what they would gain if, say, they fought the rogue synthetic menace, versus what they lose if they don't, and said, **** it Quarians and Humans, we wish you the best. And if you don't win, it was already your fault for trying to correct your illegal mistake like we would want you to/settling in the Terminus like we encouraged you to.

You could even say they did the same with the Batarians and human desputes.

Ah, but no one likes the batarians, so abandoning a centuries long partner in favor of a decades-new arrival doesn't count.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I wouldn't call them cowardice: cowardice is usually unfounded or unreasonable. They're just institutionally conservative because they have a lot to lose (or rather, a lot of money and people) but little to gain from any sort of conflict.

They, the Council, are not afraid to fight. If the Terminus attacked today, the only reason they'd respond tomorrow is because of the time it takes the Turian fleet to move. They just don't want to lose money and Council-species lives needlessly.

They aren't cowards. They've just taken a cost-analysis benefit of what they would gain if, say, they fought the rogue synthetic menace, versus what they lose if they don't, and said, **** it Quarians and Humans, we wish you the best. And if you don't win, it was already your fault for trying to correct your illegal mistake like we would want you to/settling in the Terminus like we encouraged you to.

In short, heavily Renegade-ish.

Not really. Aside from the whole 'Paragons are politically aligned with the Council,' Renegades are for more willing to be proactive than reactive, be aggressive, and let others die for tactical basis as opposed to indifference.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 06 décembre 2010 - 01:52 .

[Johnny Chaos]

I love the ending where the Asari are "Thank the Goddess the Alliance has arrived" then Adrimal Hackett ordering Citadel channel to be shut off. i lol'd.

[Xilizhra]

sadf

Modifié par Xilizhra, 06 décembre 2010 - 01:59 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Not really. Aside from the whole 'Paragons are politically aligned with the Council,' Renegades are for more willing to be proactive than reactive, be aggressive, and let others die for tactical basis as opposed to indifference.

Hey, man, I play paragon, and I don't rely on any political power to back me up.  While I don't let people die solely for tactical reasons, I do play proactively and agressively.  Paragons don't necessarily support the status quo, nor do they pass up opportunities for epic badassery.

Furthermore, moral alignment has nothing to do with which body of governement you will support in the end.  After all, I've seen renegades that are alien sympathizers, and paragons that are very strongly pro-human.

Not everyone lets the game's blue and red text do their thinking for them, you know.

[Dean_the_Young]

The Destiny Ascension has been one of the most impotent, useless ships in the series. It doesn't go out into the Traverse to fight the Geth Invasion and attempted genocide of organic life, it doesn't go out to patrol the relays from the Terminus where Saren's fleet was expected to attack from, and it has an incredibly weak showing during the Geth surprise attack, completely meaningless in fighting Sovereign. Instead, the Council keeps it at the Citadel the entire time, including the time they specifically insist that the Citadel is under no such threat of direct attack, and keep it as a over-engineered watchdog to keep the shadows at by.



Which it fails at, because it doesn't even deter an attack on the Citadel by the only ship large enough to possibly be a meaningful fight for it.



And then they want you to increase the risk of galactic extinction to save that bucket of scrap, so that it can go out on a victory tour and return to being used the exact same way again?

[Xilizhra]

The entire basis for what sort of jobs are available to you on the Citadel depends on your race. Even something as basic as 'police officer' isn't simply a mericratic opportunity amongst the races, it's a political privilege that species fight for: a large part of what you can do in the Council system is based on your race. Jobs, opportunities, even the galactic economy is by and large handed off to the volus 'because they're good with money.' (Like Indians are good at tech support, or chinese are great factory workers, or Asians in US schools are good at math, or Jews are good with media and money.)

The physiological and aptitude differences between different species are quite a bit more noticable (and existent) than those between different human races. Mordin brings this up in his loyalty mission.

The reasoning for why this is given jumps straight out of 19th century race discussions. Certain species aren't 'wise' enough to be entrusted with certain rights and privaleges. Only powerful species are given weight, but that power is treated as proof of wisdom and they are proven wise because they have power, which is the same sort of self-supporting and justifying rhetoric that you could find in Europe and America during the imperial periods.

First of all, the fact that it's racial is coincidental; every species in the galactic community (except for krogan and yahg) achieved spacefaring civilization of its own accord. Monospecies governments were already established, and presumably their members didn't want to abolish them, and so had representatives from them establish the Council, which isn't itself a true sovereign government. Second, Council standards involve one having enough military power to protect oneself and embassy races; the volus' acknowledged total lack of military prowess is what's kept them off the Council for so long. Third, again, natural aptitudes.

The Council and its systems established and run on the racist stereotypes everyone else is slotted into. The Asari are wise (except, you know, when you talk to them, and they turn out to be just as self-interested and presumptuous as everyone else), the Turians are honorable (except the most honorable Turian we ever meet is Garrus, who is considered a 'bad' Turian), the Krogan aren't even allowed onto the Praesidium without exceptional clerance, the Quarians are vegabonds and thieves and treated by the security aparatus as suchl, and humans-

I have no idea where you got the turian thing; those C-Sec officers we talk with seem quite decent, including the executor; the councilor is abrasive but I can't see him as being dishonorable...

It's asari matriarchs who are renowned for their wisdom; the one lucid one we speak to, Aethyta, doesn't seem lacking in that department.

The krogan whom we do see on the Citadel are talking about killing people in plain sight, and the vast majority of overheard conversations from krogan we do hear about involve fighting/killing.

I'll give you the quarian thing, though.

Sure, Council. Way to go: let's shape and rationalize galactic policy around our beliefs of billions of people based on the character of one (wo)man. If Shepard's a Paragon, of course it means Humanity is wise and noble and a force for defense, whereas a Renegade Shepard means that that humanity is nearly primitive, but a good primitive. Shepard's human, and that's enough right?

What? They don't talk about how humanity is wise or noble in the Paragon ending, I think; regardless, though, this is also after the Fifth Fleet blew away Sovereign. It's not judging a species based entirely around Shepard (though they may not be used to a species with as much aptitude diversity as humans).

While our argument about whether setting a hostile race on a path towards extinction unless it responds positively to coercion counts as genocide has gone on for many threads, I apologize, as I apparently missed your reasoning why letting the Quarians be slaughtered and the Humans risk being slaughtered (and only saved by their own power) was not a condemnable pattern.

I didn't say that, although I explained their reasoning (some would argue that trying to avoid a much larger slaughter in all three cases isn't automatically condemnable, however; I daresay most of them are Renegades).

Not really. Aside from the whole 'Paragons are politically aligned with the Council,' Renegades are for more willing to be proactive than reactive, be aggressive, and let others die for tactical basis as opposed to indifference.

In screwing over people in the short term to avoid long term risks, however, they definitely match.

[The-Person]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And here I thought the Council's main problem was being an undemocratic influence racket dedicated to maintaining its own grip on galactic dominance and sustaining a racist galactic pecking order using both nearly legally unaccountable agents with a right to conduct nearly any sort of atrocity in the Council's name (or even just as long as it doesn't get in the Council's way) AND a penchant for both employing genocide on their own behalf and abandoning rising allied species facing genocide attempt from unquestioned mutual threats.

But that's just my take based on Council history. They've been around longer than humanity, ergo they must be wiser than us.

The council is democratic. If you do Thanes loyalty mission, you hear the guy running for a position in zackara ward. He implies that they need to get rid of the human appeaser on the coucil, which sounds more democratic then a violent revolution.

[Johnny Chaos]

I always wished for the option to nominate Admiral Hackett onto the Council, afterall the man that ran the Alliance could make a good representitive.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...
The physiological and aptitude differences between different species are quite a bit more noticable (and existent) than those between different human races. Mordin brings this up in his loyalty mission.

Mordin also admits he's wrong about just how far he's taken it, and the point about humans rather illustrates the point.

Racist is still racist. Humans didn't become magically more competent to be allowed in C-SEC, they passed a racial importance barrier that doesn't care about the competence of the non-important species.

First of all, the fact that it's racial is coincidental; every species in the galactic community (except for krogan and yahg) achieved spacefaring civilization of its own accord. Monospecies governments were already established, and presumably their members didn't want to abolish them, and so had representatives from them establish the Council, which isn't itself a true sovereign government.

The only unified species governments we've heard of are the Heirarchy of the Turian Empire, the Alliance (which is actually more of a unified spokesperson for a confederation of powers), and the Batarian Hegemony (which itself is undermined by warring nations on the Batarian homeworld).

The Asari have city states, the Salarians are a less unified than a constantly shifting tide of alliances by the matriarchial power-brokers, the Volus are clan based, and pretty much every species is shuffled into one species for the sole reason of that's how the Council does it. If you aren't politically aligned with your species representative, for any reason, you have no representation. You could be an independent Turian colony or a Human colony, or a group of them and you'd have no chance or avenue for any representation.

Second, Council standards involve one having enough military power to
protect oneself and embassy races; the volus' acknowledged total lack of
military prowess is what's kept them off the Council for so long.

This rather highlight the 'strongest of the strongest influence racket' aspect of the Council which is condemnable. The only standard (set by the Council itself, to a point where only it qualifies) is the military standard. The Alliance wasn't a good citizen for over a thousand years, didn't nearly single-handidly forge the galactic economy. Neither did the Turians. Both got in in under a generation for blowing things up for the Council.

There is no 'wisdom' or 'aptitude' barrier, only a strength barrier.

Third, again, natural aptitudes.

Which remains an explicitly racist way of maintaining a political caste system.

What? They don't talk about how humanity is wise or noble in the Paragon ending, I think; regardless, though, this is also after the Fifth Fleet blew away Sovereign. It's not judging a species based entirely around Shepard (though they may not be used to a species with as much aptitude diversity as humans).

Alas, labeling an entire species as savages with the sole differing factor being Shepard rather undercuts that assertion.

I didn't say that, although I explained their reasoning (some would argue that trying to avoid a much larger slaughter in all three cases isn't automatically condemnable, however; I daresay most of them are Renegades).

Then let's put it this way:

Those reasonings were **** justifications for keep the old Council around.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

The-Person wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And here I thought the Council's main problem was being an undemocratic influence racket dedicated to maintaining its own grip on galactic dominance and sustaining a racist galactic pecking order using both nearly legally unaccountable agents with a right to conduct nearly any sort of atrocity in the Council's name (or even just as long as it doesn't get in the Council's way) AND a penchant for both employing genocide on their own behalf and abandoning rising allied species facing genocide attempt from unquestioned mutual threats.

But that's just my take based on Council history. They've been around longer than humanity, ergo they must be wiser than us.

The council is democratic. If you do Thanes loyalty mission, you hear the guy running for a position in zackara ward. He implies that they need to get rid of the human appeaser on the coucil, which sounds more democratic then a violent revolution.

That's the equivalent of my city mayor wanting a new PotUS. It's a position. Talid has no influence on the council whatsoever.

[Dean_the_Young]

The-Person wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And here I thought the Council's main problem was being an undemocratic influence racket dedicated to maintaining its own grip on galactic dominance and sustaining a racist galactic pecking order using both nearly legally unaccountable agents with a right to conduct nearly any sort of atrocity in the Council's name (or even just as long as it doesn't get in the Council's way) AND a penchant for both employing genocide on their own behalf and abandoning rising allied species facing genocide attempt from unquestioned mutual threats.

But that's just my take based on Council history. They've been around longer than humanity, ergo they must be wiser than us.

The council is democratic. If you do Thanes loyalty mission, you hear the guy running for a position in zackara ward.
He implies that they need to get rid of the human appeaser on the coucil, which sounds more democratic then a violent revolution.

He's not running for Councilor or the actual Council seat. Those are determined by race (and that however each race decides to do it). The Turian seat is selected by the Turian Heirarchy, which is an undemocratic meritocracy. The Alliance selects its by unelected officials chosen in back-room deliberations that even Shepard can weigh in on. The Salarians are depicted as the outcome of the hidden machinations of the Salarian matriarch power brokers, much like they are the conspiracy/spy race.

The only possibly elected seat left is the Asari seat, who actually is a collection of democratic governments.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 06 décembre 2010 - 02:28 .

[Xilizhra]

Racist is still racist. Humans didn't become magically more competent to be allowed in C-SEC, they passed a racial importance barrier that doesn't care about the competence of the non-important species.

For starters, there were humans in C-SEC before, just not a lot because, y'know, recent arrivals who aren't fully trusted yet. After ME1, there were more humans because lots of the higher-ranking nonhumans were killed in the Battle of the Citadel.

The only unified species governments we've heard of are the Heirarchy of the Turian Empire, the Alliance (which is actually more of a unified spokesperson for a confederation of powers), and the Batarian Hegemony (which itself is undermined by warring nations on the Batarian homeworld).

I said monospecies, not unified; not all of the governments are fully unified, but all of the species are used to governments that contain members of only their own species.

There is no 'wisdom' or 'aptitude' barrier, only a strength barrier.

You can take the pessimistic version of the facts if you wish.

Which remains an explicitly racist way of maintaining a political caste system.

The aptitudes are only tendencies for which role a species will usually fall into. There are asari in C-Sec.

Alas, labeling an entire species as savages with the sole differing factor being Shepard rather undercuts that assertion.

No, there Shepard was just an example of a larger species tendency. As a Pargon, Shepard is more of an exception.

Those reasonings were **** justifications for keep the old Council around.

That wasn't what I was trying to do; all I intended was to provide an explanation. I support the Council because tearing down the system is absurdly unlikely to work and would lead to many deaths.

[Bourne Endeavor]

Rip504 wrote...

The loss of life is unaccecptable,but you justify this with the loss of life? By doing nothing you condone the loss of life by another force. So the loss of Coucil race life or the loss of life because of council force is unnacptable? So by not doing anything life is still being lost in mass numbers. So what if your council in ME2 is a human council? Are they still worried about wars that happen hundreds of years ago?

In a word, yes. The Terminus System is outside the Council's jurisdiction, thus they have no reason to be concerned with colonies of any kind, human or otherwise. The Alliance themselves has no immediate increased in investigating these abductions, nor would either believe it is anything beyond mercenary warfare. The Collectors are cited as much a myth as the Reapers, although unlike the latter, there is evidence of the Collectors. It may sound amoral or selfish, however such is war. From their perspective, the potential loss of their own is not worth the loss of colonies in the Terminus.

The TC has a logical conclusion as to why the Council remains inactive. That and of course Shepard's continual lack of evidence about the Reapers.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 06 décembre 2010 - 02:38 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Destiny Ascension has been one of the most impotent, useless ships in the series. It doesn't go out into the Traverse to fight the Geth Invasion and attempted genocide of organic life, it doesn't go out to patrol the relays from the Terminus where Saren's fleet was expected to attack from, and it has an incredibly weak showing during the Geth surprise attack, completely meaningless in fighting Sovereign. Instead, the Council keeps it at the Citadel the entire time, including the time they specifically insist that the Citadel is under no such threat of direct attack, and keep it as a over-engineered watchdog to keep the shadows at by.

Agree with you there.  No point in building a ship that big without the intention of using it.  The main gun is supposed to pack one helluva punch, though.  Shame they never used it.  Alas, political herp-derpery strikes again!

Which it fails at, because it doesn't even deter an attack on the Citadel by the only ship large enough to possibly be a meaningful fight for it.

Not that it could have.  Those geth came out of nowhere and were already raping the sh*t out of everything before anyone even realized they'd come through the relay.  REALLY bad move splitting up the Council fleets.

And then they want you to increase the risk of galactic extinction to save that bucket of scrap, so that it can go out on a victory tour and return to being used the exact same way again?

My intention was not to "save that bucket of scrap."  I could care less about the Council, really.  However, the geth were still out there and attacking everything and anything that wasn't Sovereign.  The forces charged with guarding the Citadel could not have taken them out, at least not without heavy casualties.  However, by calling in the Alliance, you could trap the geth between the two forces and completely overwhelm them, thus saving a few extra Council ships and giving you an even bigger overall attack force to fight Sovereign, with minimal loss on the human side as well because the geth simply could not fight a fleet that size.

Leaving the DA to fend for itself means that it and all other Council ships get creamed by the geth, leaving humans to deal with both the remaining geth and Sovereign alone.

Not to mention that the Destiny Ascention had a crew of thousands, and there must have been hundreds of others in those turian ships.  Less casualties and more ships = more pwnage and humans get to be big guddamn heroes.

Wasting reinforcements?  Oh ho ho, no.  Crush the enemy with overwhelming numbers, that's how you do it.