89 réponses à ce sujet

[cdtrk65]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

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.

Except of course for the big friggin ship that nearly killed them...

Oh right that was Saren minipulation...

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

It wasn't the recency of humans that determined when humans were allowed in C-SEC, it was their rise in importance. Of course after they passed that initial mark they'd have more.

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.

Presuming any single government speaks for a non-unified species is a racism. It's like positing that a Nigerian can speak for all of Africa. Unless the species as a whole assents, the 'one species, one vote' policy is highly discriminatory.

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

Let's play game, then:

Name me one species that has has gotten onto the Council on the basis of a long-term good behavior, valued contribution, and ethics?

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

Asari are also one of the top-four races, and their political power has never been in dispute. What does this disprove?

Now, if we saw, say, minor species in C-SEC, or Elcor or Drell in the administrative positions, that might be a argument to carry a bit more weight.

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.

The Current Council is leading to many deaths, and keeping it around risks many more.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 06 décembre 2010 - 03:02 .

[Xilizhra]

It wasn't the recency of humans that determined when humans were allowed in C-SEC, it was their rise in importance. Of course after they passed that initial mark they'd have more.

Really, only the Council races would be any good at being C-Sec officers physically. Volus are terrible fighters, hanar don't seem much better when on land, elcor are too slow, quarians need extensive preparation if they want to fight on foot...

Presuming any single government speaks for a non-unified species is a racism. It's like positing that a Nigerian can speak for all of Africa. Unless the species as a whole assents, the 'one species, one vote' policy is highly discriminatory.

Well, Earth's governments have aceded the right to speak for all humanity to the Systems Alliance. I suspect the Asari Republics and Salarian Union did something similar, and the Turian Hierarchy is already a single government.

Name me one species that has has gotten onto the Council on the basis of a long-term good behavior, valued contribution, and ethics?

The asari themselves, but you misunderstood what I was saying; the reason for why they make military prowess an important qualifier.

Now, if we saw, say, minor species in C-SEC, or Elcor or Drell in the administrative positions, that might be a argument to carry a bit more weight.

You do know that drell are pretty much all indentured servants to the hanar, yes? As for elcor, I think that I did one in the C-Sec Academy...

The Current Council is leading to many deaths, and keeping it around risks many more.

Not as many as another war. We can try reforming it from the inside.

[AdmiralCheez]

Xil, Dean, you make me laugh.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

It wasn't the recency of humans that determined when humans were allowed in C-SEC, it was their rise in importance. Of course after they passed that initial mark they'd have more.

Really, only the Council races would be any good at being C-Sec officers physically. Volus are terrible fighters, hanar don't seem much better when on land, elcor are too slow,

You do realize that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of other Citadel Races, many used by the Turians for military purposes, don't you? And you do realize that there are a lot of officer jobs that don't require fast, lean, fighter build?

quarians need extensive preparation if they want to fight on foot...

No they don't, but the fact that the Quarians are an exiled race rather negates the opportunity for them to be in C-SEC.

Presuming any single government speaks for a non-unified species is a racism. It's like positing that a Nigerian can speak for all of Africa. Unless the species as a whole assents, the 'one species, one vote' policy is highly discriminatory.

Well, Earth's governments have aceded the right to speak for all humanity to the Systems Alliance. I suspect the Asari Republics and Salarian Union did something similar, and the Turian Hierarchy is already a single government.

And what about the non-Earth humans who left the Alliance? The Turian rebel colonies out weren't taken back during the Unification War? 

The asari themselves, but you misunderstood what I was saying; the reason for why they make military prowess an important qualifier.

Besides the minor detail that the Asari are the Galaxy's largest economy and remain one of the biggest military powers, the Asari founded the Council.


And they do remain

You do know that drell are pretty much all indentured servants to the hanar, yes? As for elcor, I think that I did one in the C-Sec Academy...

...let's not even get on the topic of the Council's flirtation with slavery-by-any-other-name.

The Current Council is leading to many deaths, and keeping it around risks many more.

Not as many as another war. We can try reforming it from the inside.

I love how you keep pushing this 'the Council or WAR' false choice.

[Xilizhra]

You do realize that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of other Citadel Races, many used by the Turians for military purposes, don't you? And you do realize that there are a lot of officer jobs that don't require fast, lean, fighter build?

Since we've never heard of or seen any of these other races anywhere, no, I can't say I truly did emotionally realize the first one. But by this point, it's starting to look a lot like gameplay and story segregation.

No they don't, but the fact that the Quarians are an exiled race rather negates the opportunity for them to be in C-SEC.

Did you miss Kal'Reegar's talk about how stuffed with supplies quarian marines need to be without things "get[ting] ugly, fast?"

And what about the non-Earth humans who left the Alliance? The Turian rebel colonies out weren't taken back during the Unification War?

The former don't get involved in Citadel politics, and I doubt that the latter do either (if there are any around).

Besides the minor detail that the Asari are the Galaxy's largest economy and remain one of the biggest military powers, the Asari founded the Council.

Then focus on my point about why they use military strength as a qualifier.

I love how you keep pushing this 'the Council or WAR' false choice.

We have pretty much the same desire when it comes to the Council, then; internal reform.

[Zan51]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
 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.  

Bad example, or didn't you see his bodyguard of Krogans collecting protection money etc? Guy's a thug, just lets his big, bad, intimidating Krogan minions deal with the peasants.

[Johnny Chaos]

If you look at how the Council handles the Batarians, they actually try to help humanity some, but still the First Contact War didn't help the Alliance that's why I think the Council is like how they are.

[Malanek]

I think you have over-analysed this. Their biggest problem is they refuse to acknowledge the possible existence of the reapers. This is because acknowledging them is scary, it is easier to continue with their head in the sand convincing themselves that there is no problem. Living with the knowledge that a doomsday event is about to occur is not pleasant to even consider. It has nothing to do with rachni, krogan, batarians, quarians or geth.

[Bourne Endeavor]

cdtrk65 wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

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.

Except of course for the big friggin ship that nearly killed them...

Oh right that was Saren minipulation...

From a objective, non directly involved opinion, which of the following sounds plausible?

A ancient race of alien sapient machines who having been committing mass genocide for millions of years at a predetermined interval that coincides with galactic evolution. In addition, the Citadel is actually a masqueraded Mass Relay that leads to dark space, wherein those aforementioned creatures will invade to continue their cycle and the gargantuan warship that led the Geth into battle was one of them. Our evidence? Guy/Girl has dreams...

or

A Spectre, whose actions were less than humane to begin with, went rogue and aligned with the Geth, an already established threat to the galaxy and who have systematically attacked any organic vessel that attempted to enter their space, twisting them into mindless husks. Subsequent to their alliance, they built a gargantuan warship to be the vanguard of their assault and failed in the ensuing invasion. Our evidence? The Geth actually did pretty much all that except build Sovereign.

Yeah... can you seriously blame them for not taking Shepard at face value? There was little left of Sovereign and rationality would disregard any notion of this reaper invasion. They may ponder over it however they certainly are not about to believe merely the words of one (wo)man, especially not when the theory sounds ludicrous.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 06 décembre 2010 - 05:47 .

[GodWood]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
You do realize that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of other Citadel Races, many used by the Turians for military purposes, don't you? And you do realize that there are a lot of officer jobs that don't require fast, lean, fighter build?

Despite agreeing with everything else you said I'm gonn have to call you up on that.
Bioware have stated they do not want a 'Star Trek-esque' universe where sapience is common place, so there is probably only a few dozen species at most.

I'll try and find the quote...

EDIT: It seems the old forums won't let me look at any posts before January this year.
How dumb.

Modifié par GodWood, 06 décembre 2010 - 09:10 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

You do realize that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of other Citadel Races, many used by the Turians for military purposes, don't you? And you do realize that there are a lot of officer jobs that don't require fast, lean, fighter build?

Since we've never heard of or seen any of these other races anywhere, no, I can't say I truly did emotionally realize the first one. But by this point, it's starting to look a lot like gameplay and story segregation.

They're mentioned regularly in the Codex and Cerberus Daily News.

Did you miss Kal'Reegar's talk about how stuffed with supplies quarian marines need to be without things "get[ting] ugly, fast?"

In a full-scale war.

Strangely enough, police work doesn't require a war effort.

The former don't get involved in Citadel politics, and I doubt that the latter do either (if there are any around).

They don't because the system is set up so that they can't. There is no dissenter's seat, no non-aligned representation, and the system is set up in a way that anyone opposed to the faction with the voting right has no representation at all because it is strictly a one race, one vote system.

Then focus on my point about why they use military strength as a qualifier.

The Asari do have military strength. They are in the top three in the galaxy.

We have pretty much the same desire when it comes to the Council, then; internal reform.

It doesn't have to be internal, nor does it have to be war, unless that's what the Council races choose as a matter of preference. That's a false dillema.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 06 décembre 2010 - 09:03 .

[lovgreno]

The Council has never claimed to be a democratic institution. It's more like a loose military companionship for mutual defense and to avoid war among the galactic superpowers. To have true democracy among absolutely all vastly different spiecies and cultures in the galaxy would be a pipe dream.

To be able to defend yourself and your allies as a Council race you need to be trustworthy, very militarily strong and have a stable economy and political situation. You may think whatever you want (from a limited human perspective of course) about how they manage this but only four spiecies manages to become this strong. The human ideas of democracy and morals are only one way of becomming strong enough to join the Council. Every race struggle to create the best way to rule themselves in what way is best for them. What works on Thessia doesn't work on Earth or Palaven and the other way around.

Of course the Council races tries to use their position and power to gain more power and priviliges for themselves, that is the nature of power. But they fully realises that without public support they won't last long in their comfortable position of power, and keep in mind that the Council has been popular enough to exist for a very long time. This is why they won't risk a big costly and unpopular war because of some strange new humans dreams of robot chtulus. More importantly this is also why they make sure no single race gets too dominating in the council. To stay in power you have to share power, wich is something the human dominated Council strangely failed to realise.

[Dean_the_Young]

lovgreno wrote...

The Council has never claimed to be a democratic institution. It's more like a loose military companionship for mutual defense and to avoid war among the galactic superpowers. To have true democracy among absolutely all vastly different spiecies and cultures in the galaxy would be a pipe dream.

Besides the mutual defense part (even when you're a Council member, apparently, given ME2), you don't need a Jeffersonian democracy across all demographics to have representation by each race for itself. The Council is a Senate-style democracy of the strongest races. It could just as easily be a Senate-style democracy of all the races, or a Council of all the races with ascending privilages according to species willingness.

But it isn't, and for all the claims of 'galactic unity' and 'cooperation', that's only gone as far as the Council doors.

To be able to defend yourself and your allies as a Council race you need to be trustworthy, very militarily strong and have a stable economy and political situation. You may think whatever you want (from a limited human perspective of course) about how they manage this but only four spiecies manages to become this strong. The human ideas of democracy and morals are only one way of becomming strong enough to join the Council. Every race struggle to create the best way to rule themselves in what way is best for them. What works on Thessia doesn't work on Earth or Palaven and the other way around.

This is the classic post-facto imperialist justification. We are vindicated because we are strong, we are strong because we are better, and sod all else that conflicts with the narrative.

The Council's position of relative strength is in large part kept because it keeps it that way through the Spectres and requirements on the rest of the Council species. Take military strength, for example: every species that even wants to stay on the Citadel (and like the Council or not, it's provided a solitary system for trade and science) is forced to sign a dreadnaught treaty that not not only codifies the Council Race superiority, but holds down anyone who would otherwise be willing to make such a buildup by strictly limiting their legal ability to do so, and thus in large part blocking their ability to make a case for themselves. They're limited by the dreadnaught treaty because they are weak, but they are weak because they are held down by the dreadnaught treaty.

At the same time, though, the Council actively discourages and bars the primary avenue of military strength that non-physically adept races could turn to in order to bolster their forces: synthetics. The geth, for all the preventable problems they came to later, proved that you don't need physical adeptness to build a significant military. You just need the money to put into research. It is both possible and viable, as the Alliance also proves with its reliance on VI.

It's also legally and politically difficult because the Council discourages and bars such developments. There aren't even a half-dozen legal AI research companies before the Humans come to play, even though building an AI is simple enough that isolated actors can do so on their own. The Council isn't letting research play out, and at the same time sends spectres to stomp at any sign of such research.



It's all fine and dandy for the Council to claim that it won't accept any race until it's strong enough (which goes back into the pathetic excuse that only might is a basis for representation and yet at the same time totally not what the Council System is about), but at the same time the Council is actively restraining species from being able to develop hard power according to their means. It's as balanced and sensible as a track club saying 'you can't join until you can run fast,' and then giving everyone who wants to join fifty-pound running shoes before timing them.

Of course the Council races tries to use their position and power to gain more power and priviliges for themselves, that is the nature of power. But they fully realises that without public support they won't last long in their comfortable position of power, and keep in mind that the Council has been popular enough to exist for a very long time. This is why they won't risk a big costly and unpopular war because of some strange new humans dreams of robot chtulus. More importantly this is also why they make sure no single race gets too dominating in the council. To stay in power you have to share power, wich is something the human dominated Council strangely failed to realise.

They also won't risk a war when their allies suffer attempted (even successful!) genocide from what they label as the textbook example of a rogue synthetic menace. They also won't risk war so long as others pay the costs.


We've yet to get any real sign that the Council is considered popular by anyone who is not already a full member and enjoys full benefits and privaleges. We have yet to see an estatically supportive Volus (or any sort of supportive Volus), or Drell, or Hanar, or Elcor. The closest we ever get are those who want their species to be on the Council.

But love for the Council itself? Maybe the Council races can convince themselves they're loved, but the closest we've seen is jealousy and resentment.

[Aurica]

Xilizhra wrote...

General User wrote...

I think you're right about the Councils motivations. 
 
It’s a dangerous situation. If they are so paralyzed by fear, that they fail in their legitimate duties, it will be their down fall, as it almost was during Saren’s attack. 
 
Well…I guess it WAS their down fall if you didn’t save the Destiny Ascension.

If they had sent a fleet to Ilos, it probably wouldn't have made a difference; the screen of geth there would have blocked them and they might have gotten attacked by Terminus forces. If Shepard was there, the Citadel would at least be saved still, but nothing really would have been gained.

No, they probably wouldn't made a difference on Ilos.  Since they are paralyzed by fear, then my renegade Shepard is "also paralyzed by the fear of losing our human vessels" to save a council that is largely useless and ineffective.
Why should I waste resources and sacrifice human lives saving the council who are incapable of action?

Modifié par Aurica, 06 décembre 2010 - 11:01 .

[Asheer_Khan]

Aurica wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

General User wrote...

I think you're right about the Councils motivations. 
 
It’s a dangerous situation. If they are so paralyzed by fear, that they fail in their legitimate duties, it will be their down fall, as it almost was during Saren’s attack. 
 
Well…I guess it WAS their down fall if you didn’t save the Destiny Ascension.

If they had sent a fleet to Ilos, it probably wouldn't have made a difference; the screen of geth there would have blocked them and they might have gotten attacked by Terminus forces. If Shepard was there, the Citadel would at least be saved still, but nothing really would have been gained.

No, they probably wouldn't made a difference on Ilos.  Since they are paralyzed by fear, then my renegade Shepard is "also paralyzed by the fear of losing our human vessels" to save a council that is largely useless and ineffective.
Why should I waste resources and sacrifice human lives saving the council who are incapable of action?

Like Human lead council do better job except driving everyone on the edge of new war <_<... especially when that  douchebag traitor is chairman<_<.

[Dean_the_Young]

Asheer_Khan wrote...

Aurica wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

General User wrote...

I think you're right about the Councils motivations. 
 
It’s a dangerous situation. If they are so paralyzed by fear, that they fail in their legitimate duties, it will be their down fall, as it almost was during Saren’s attack. 
 
Well…I guess it WAS their down fall if you didn’t save the Destiny Ascension.

If they had sent a fleet to Ilos, it probably wouldn't have made a difference; the screen of geth there would have blocked them and they might have gotten attacked by Terminus forces. If Shepard was there, the Citadel would at least be saved still, but nothing really would have been gained.

No, they probably wouldn't made a difference on Ilos.  Since they are paralyzed by fear, then my renegade Shepard is "also paralyzed by the fear of losing our human vessels" to save a council that is largely useless and ineffective.
Why should I waste resources and sacrifice human lives saving the council who are incapable of action?

Like Human lead council do better job except driving everyone on the edge of new war <_<... especially when that  douchebag traitor is chairman<_<.

Udina is only the Chairman if you chose him to be, and was never a traitor. That legal status would go to the muineers who defied the Council and national governments.

[Arijharn]

Asheer_Khan wrote...

Like Human lead council do better job except driving everyone on the edge of new war <_<... especially when that  douchebag traitor is chairman<_<.

How is he a 'traitor'? He's the Ambassador the the Systems Alliance. He stabbed Shephard in the back, but traitor is going a bit too far.

If Anderson 'stepped down' then that doesn't make him a traitor either.

To Dean; how do you think the Systems Alliance fit into the application of military superiority considering humanity circumvented the traditional balance of power treaties by constructing predominately carrier battle groups? Was it a 'good idea' or do you think it's just more evidence that humanity 'cant be trusted'?

[Tennessee88]

Xilizhra wrote...

After thinking about it for a while, I think I've determined what drives the Council through all of its most negative acts... amusingly, it's remarkably close to Renegade Shepard.

Namely, their fear of galactic war.

Where this comes from is probably obvious: two devastating wars one right after the other; first the rachni, then the krogan. After the krogan, the Council probably decided "never again" and to eliminate all risk of a galactic-scale war appearing on their watch. It's why they declined to aid the quarians against the geth and then ostracize them; the quarians could have started a galactic war if the geth had been more aggressive, and they needed an example. It's why they applied the second genophage; there were probably some asari still around who remembered the Krogan Rebellions from their younger days, and even those people who weren't had still heard many and vivid stories about the lethality of the krogan. Another unacceptable risk. And it's why they don't dare to do anything that might ****** off the Terminus Systems: the Council would probably win, but they'd deem the loss of life unacceptable, even if it means leaving human colonies out in the breeze.

Why I think everything you have said about the council is exceptionally well thought out, I respectfully disagree with their motivations regarding leaving human colonies out to dry. They obviously care very little about humanity, yet are intrigued and cannot deny that we are a force to be respected. My reasoning for this is the First Contact War. The Council was content to let the turians crush us. When the turians occupied Shanxi they thought they had us beat, and the council did nothing to intervene despite the fact that the turians had acted as the belligerents in the conflict. The Council only changed its tune when they realized humanity had the ability wage a war that would devestate sectors of space to a degree which was counter to their interest. Granted their change in tune was drastic as we did recieve an embassy rather quickly compared to other speicies. But this is only due to our ability to defeat an enemy that was considered the most powerful force in the galaxy. I would be interest to see their reaction should turians or asari start missing in droves.

[Dean_the_Young]

From Humanity's perspective? Fighter carriers were a stroke of fortune, luck, and genius that they got to them first (despite the fact fighters really don't make sense in space at all).



The Mass Effect parallels to pre-WW2 are hardly subtle, and many of the same things apply. Fighter carriers sidestepped the traditional Council controls on associate species, enabling the Alliance to build up it's hardpower credibility far in excess of dreadnaughts alone. Maybe fighter carriers will prove to be white elephants in combat, maybe the only reason other species didn't do it first was because the deemed it stupid and then were taken aback by a successful usage by the Alliance, but the introduction of fighter carriers introduced a new measure of power the Council still hasn't responded too yet.



I have little doubt that had another species done it before the Alliance, fighter carriers would be just as restricted over time, no other species would have been able to use them as proof of power. It was a matter of both 'firsts' and capitalizing on the opportunity.

[Marzillius]

I find that philosophy good. I'd rather have a bunch of human colonies attacked, than a war that destroys a whole lot of life of all kinds.

[Arijharn]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

From Humanity's perspective? Fighter carriers were a stroke of fortune, luck, and genius that they got to them first (despite the fact fighters really don't make sense in space at all).

The Mass Effect parallels to pre-WW2 are hardly subtle, and many of the same things apply. Fighter carriers sidestepped the traditional Council controls on associate species, enabling the Alliance to build up it's hardpower credibility far in excess of dreadnaughts alone. Maybe fighter carriers will prove to be white elephants in combat, maybe the only reason other species didn't do it first was because the deemed it stupid and then were taken aback by a successful usage by the Alliance, but the introduction of fighter carriers introduced a new measure of power the Council still hasn't responded too yet.

I have little doubt that had another species done it before the Alliance, fighter carriers would be just as restricted over time, no other species would have been able to use them as proof of power. It was a matter of both 'firsts' and capitalizing on the opportunity.

Do you think that fighter carrier prevalence in the Systems Alliance navy might provoke similar responses in other species' armaments, although not necessarily those that are Council species? I would presume that since the SA is now a full Council member, and seems to me as being placed as a peace-keeper species to counter-balance the Turian Hierarchy, then we might see that the Treaty of Farixen gives us the legal right of at least equal footing with the Asari and Salarian's, if not the Turian Hierarchy in allowed capacity.

[Dean_the_Young]

What I expect, sadly, is that the US will whole-heartily support putting restrictions on fighter carriers similar to the Farixen treaty on all the other races while claiming its own increased share as by Council-member right. (As a Council Member, the previous limitation of the Farixen treaty no longer applies, and the Alliance certainly has the right, if not the will/ability, to match the Asari and Salarians in strength.)



Now that the Alliance has it's share, now that it's 'in', it has an interest to keep others 'out,' to preserve the power of its own say. It's not going to be sympathetic to, say, the Volus financing a synthetic navy to gain power, or want the clash with the Elcor in the political room. The Alliance is going to be a part of the problem that is the Council, simply because the Alliance now gets more from staying 'in' then changing it.

[Dean_the_Young]

Marzillius wrote...

I find that philosophy good. I'd rather have a bunch of human colonies attacked, than a war that destroys a whole lot of life of all kinds.

After all, it's not like there wasn't a whole lot of life endangered regardless, or that there was any reason to believe the geth invasion was limited against humanity for any reason.

[Xilizhra]

It doesn't have to be internal, nor does it have to be war, unless that's what the Council races choose as a matter of preference. That's a false dillema.

But your own plan to do so is also internal, it just relies on an extremely shaky coalition of apolitical races to intimidate the Council.