465 réponses à ce sujet

[Sbri]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Internet presents more of an opportunity than a problem to the guys on the top. It's easy to monitor, influence and control. Real troublemakers can be hunted down in a matter of hours if they are on home soil. With all the terrorism [beep-beep] craze, legislation has been passed giving green light to all kinds of electronic surveillance. The more you are dependent on the Internet, the more you are in the Big Brother's pocket.

  True, but sheer numbers present a challenge.  During the Cold War the US had tens of thousands under survailence, and still leaks occured with (to them) alarming frequency.  The responce to war crimes in Vietnam, goodness the people put on trial for war crimes during the current conflict show that government must respond to citizen outrage.  They would much rather cloak such things, but that is becoming less possible, not more. 

[Siegdrifa]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
Internet presents more of an opportunity than a problem to the guys on the top. It's easy to monitor, influence and control. Real troublemakers can be hunted down in a matter of hours if they are on home soil. With all the terrorism [beep-beep] craze, legislation has been passed giving green light to all kinds of electronic surveillance. The more you are dependent on the Internet, the more you are in the Big Brother's pocket.

No it's not.
In france lot of politic **** happen because internet and info leaked about politic mistake and lies.

Now French governement try to control internet and info leaked by making new laws, and in the end, it could turn to put a spyware in every computer to check what the user is doing, and of cause, their will be legal penalty for people not using / desable the spyware.

Lot of politic people and journalist TV try some dumb move to convince people that ONLY information through TV is true, and to not listen to what the internet is saying.

Of cause it's a big LOOOOOOL here, especialy because only gouvernement and TV journalist don't know how much we know about their lie.

French tv is manipulating information or giving only side of the story to make sure the people won't have a different oppinion.
The most fun into that is, TV sometimes use video from youtube without checking if the info is true.... pityfull.

[lovgreno]

Just because the Terminus systems are lawless doesn't mean that people and leaders won't know what you do there. Especialy not in the case of Cerberus, everyone seems to know what they fail to do in secrecy. This will have consequences for humanity, Cerberus and Shepard.

[Nightwriter]

I hate Cerberus because they are the cause of everything that bothered me about ME2.

Because of them, the writers found it necessary to alienate me from my former allies, lose faith in every other organization in the galaxy, turn the Alliance into an inept organization that no longer cares about the defense of humanity, hand the Council the idiot ball again even though it's totally stupid, force Kaidan/Ashley to spaz out on me whilst giving me no worthwhile comebacks, and generally act like I think working with Cerberus is a necessary and reasonable move when I never thought it was in the first place.

All to make their precious Cerberus plot work. /rant

[Arijharn]

Xilizhra wrote...

Not favoring one species over any other in particular, attempting to maintain galactic unity, moving towards dissolving xeno-nationalism, etc.

Nationalism/patriotism will always exist though, unless you think by some miracle Shephard will establish lasting peace (and say with conviction that the alliance held true today will be as strong some 200 years down the road).

I think mutual co-operation is a very good goal to move towards. Policies and alliances between species provides for a promising future and I think anybody who would say otherwise is rather foolish. On the other hand though, not seeking to maintain your own safety and even implicitly entrusting that to others is equally foolish.

Just because I like and even trust Garrus doesn't automatically presuppose that I should like or even trust to the same degree. Why? Because I don't trust all humans to that degree either. I dislike one of my neighbours but I like my other one well enough.

[Zulu_DFA]

Siegdrifa wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
Internet presents more of an opportunity than a problem to the guys on the top. It's easy to monitor, influence and control. Real troublemakers can be hunted down in a matter of hours if they are on home soil. With all the terrorism [beep-beep] craze, legislation has been passed giving green light to all kinds of electronic surveillance. The more you are dependent on the Internet, the more you are in the Big Brother's pocket.

No it's not.
In france lot of politic **** happen because internet and info leaked about politic mistake and lies.

Now French governement try to control internet and info leaked by making new laws, and in the end, it could turn to put a spyware in every computer to check what the user is doing, and of cause, their will be legal penalty for people not using / desable the spyware.

Lot of politic people and journalist TV try some dumb move to convince people that ONLY information through TV is true, and to not listen to what the internet is saying.

Of cause it's a big LOOOOOOL here, especialy because only gouvernement and TV journalist don't know how much we know about their lie.

French tv is manipulating information or giving only side of the story to make sure the people won't have a different oppinion.
The most fun into that is, TV sometimes use video from youtube without checking if the info is true.... pityfull.

Well, France is notorious for her tradition to have a major Day of Barricades at least once a century. Still, like Jacob puts it it's always "new politicians, same bull$h!t". As for the Great Revolution (and Napoleonic era), there is a version that the king fell victim to his own (and his predecessors') benevolent rule: too much population pressure => extreme poverty and BAM!

Sbri wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Internet
presents more of an opportunity than a problem to the guys on the top. It's easy to monitor, influence and control. Real troublemakers can be hunted down in a matter of hours if they are on home soil. With all the terrorism [beep-beep] craze, legislation has been passed giving green light to all kinds of electronic surveillance. The more you are dependent on the Internet, the more you are in the Big Brother's pocket.

 
True, but sheer numbers present a challenge.  During the Cold War the US had tens of thousands under survailence, and still leaks occured with (to them) alarming frequency.  The responce to war crimes in Vietnam, goodness the people put on trial for war crimes during the current conflict show that government must respond to citizen outrage.  They would much rather cloak such things, but that is becoming less possible, not more. 

The trick here is that even the Wikileaks can't tell you the whole story about the true extent of "atrocities" and "corruption". If you think that what you're shown is horrendous, it simply wouldn't occur to you that it's actually tenfold against that. These leaks create an illusion of transparency and a way to vent your ire. But it's a carefully orchestrated and controlled process. Call it PR, political management, anything. You may even be allowed take to the streets with your fellow citizens, but the "atrocities" will continue one way or another.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 03 janvier 2011 - 05:34 .

[Arijharn]

Xilizhra wrote...
For that matter, since when have experiments like this been helpful in Mass Effect? Or if they ever did have results, were they obtained in ways that could only have been due to their nastiness?

I would say yes atm, although obviously this is purely an academic exercise. If the nano-surgery performed on Jack allows for a greater understanding of biotic potential in humans, allowing for more biotic humans to reach their effective peak as a direct consequence of their studies, then Cerberus activities would have paid off for them, even if they are morally reprehensible.

Evidentally, some fruits of Cerberus' past efforts have paid off, because while some degree of trial and error with the Lazarus Project would have to of happened, the lion share of the research, no matter what their origins, would of come from somewhere. Given that Cerberus' past is pretty shady, I think it's probably safe to assume that it may have resulted in someone's death.

Another thing though is if Overlord remains, then Cerberus' actions could potentially divide Admiral Xen's control of the Geth if that eventuates as well.

Of course, we only ever know of the success of Lazarus Project because we are directly involved with it, our other experiences with Cerberus is as a clean up crew.

Xilizhra wrote...
Needed, maybe. To resurrect and infodump for Shepard. But with the Shadow Broker's network on Shepard's side, she no longer needs Cerberus, especially not when the galaxy as a whole will be mobilizing against the Reapers.

Why not have both? Shadow Broker seems to me to possess a relatively 'light' armed force whereas Cerberus is at least a paramilitary organisation with sizeable amount of assets. If Cerberus and SB's intelligence sources are relatively analogous of each other, then it can't hurt to have access to both sources.

Modifié par Arijharn, 03 janvier 2011 - 05:26 .

[Siegdrifa]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Well, France is notorious for her tradition to have a major Day of Barricades at least once a century. Still, like Jacob puts it it's always "new politicians, same bull$h!t". As for the Great Revolution (and Napoleonic era), there is a version that the king fell victim to his own (and his predecessors') benevolent rule: too much population pressure => extreme poverty and BAM!

France situation is not something to take as "ah well.... it's France for you".

Like it or not, France is one of the most influencing country in power in europe, mainly because 30 years ago, the duo Germany / France was known to be "the leading train" of the european union (just for History, after the WWII it started with partnership between Germany and France in the Ruhr valley. Germany / France seemed to be in charge in the early decade of the union, at that time they were in top 5 finacial power after USA, URSS) even if french position appear weakened since the Irac second war due to unpopular opinion toward his ally, many country in europe look at waht the france is doing to take some political decision.

Recently, France have voted new laws against piracy (manly music and video) on internet wihout understanding internet, resulting a lot of technicale bull **** in the law it self.
At that time many internaute fella nomatter the country made fun of it and this stupid law (it's not fighting against piracy that is stupid, it's the way the law that achieve that goal by supressing personnal freedom and have no way to prove the innocence of a suspected pirate).

hahahahaah ... haha... not for too long, what happen when country in the middle of europe make this kind of law... other governement think "hey.... if they do it, let's try it too".
I can tell you, what was a big joke for some other country cityzen is becoming their own problem now.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 03 janvier 2011 - 06:03 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Siegdrifa wrote...
Recently, France have voted new laws against piracy (manly music and video) on internet wihout understanding internet, resulting a lot of technicale bull **** in the law it self.
At that time many internaute fella nomatter the country made fun of it and this stupid law (it's not fighting against piracy that is stupid, it's the way the law that achieve that goal by supressing personnal freedom and have no way to prove the innocence of a suspected pirate).

hahahahaah ... haha... not for too long, what happen when country in the middle of europe make this kind of law... other governement think "hey.... if they do it, let's try it too".
I can tell you, what was a big joke for some other country cityzen is becoming their own problem now.

Just like I said, Big Brother is watching you now. Next time you type something like "Putаin Sarcozi", they might take you in for sharing a latest Alizee's clip with a friend. Welcome to the future!

I hear a girl have been sentenced to 4 years in jail in South Korea recently, for downloading some North Korean music. Not that it was copy protected, just the theme titles were "inflammatory and subversive". So much for democracy.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 03 janvier 2011 - 06:36 .

[Siegdrifa]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Just like I said, Big Brother is watching you now. Next time you type something like "Putаin Sarcozi", they might take you in for sharing a latest Alizee's clip with a friend. Welcome to the future!

I hear a girl have been sentenced to 4 years in jail in South Korea recently, for downloading some North Korean music. Not that it was copy protected, just the theme titles were "inflammatory and subversive". So much for democracy.

Oh but i can give you 3 quick exemple of what happen in my country and his governement.

A fun exemple:
Sarkozy when he was showing himself in a major agriculture festival (festival about farme, farmer, animals, truck etc), Sarko (like we call him Naboleon, mix of nabot(small/short) and napoleon because he think too much of him like an empror) was checking the hand of farmers (for tv and news paper stuff) and one of the farmer refused to check his hand, Sarko told him "casse toi pauvre con", i can't translate it in english properly, it was was as bad as saying "get lost dumb ass". not a proper word for a president ...

A sad exemple:
On a the train station in Lyon city (one of the biggest and most important city for french economi) some police men was doing some identity check on young people (only some "kind" of young people, "white" seem to never have identity check) and one teacher passing by said "Sarkozy, i see you", the policement heard him and took him to the police station for disturbing the peace in public place and insulting the president.

A none tolerable exemple:
There was a manifestion (i'm sure you know french are know to tomplain abuot everything héhéhé) and police was dispatched to watch over it (just doing their job for public security), the problem his, a policeman that were driving a vehicule hurted anothe policeman, and instead of taking his responsability, him and serval of his coleague took a manfestant accused him for the bad deed.
At the judgement, after the poor guy was judged coupable, the truth won, and the policemen got sever sanction, and now the minister of security is defending those dirty corp against justice.
There is no excuse to defend dirty cop that should enforce the law and instead accuse innocent to cover their crap.


I'll stop here, i have posted too much off topic comment and i'm sorry for that.
Modo can erase those post if they want, i would understand that, it's too much about politic and not about gaming, but from the turn of it, i though i could post some of them to illustrate that internet is for now a great média to let other people know what's goind on even in a démocratic country where freedome appear to be granted.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 03 janvier 2011 - 07:42 .

[The Smoking Man]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Revolutions happen only when the guys on the hill go blind or totally nuts. Until then the folks downhill reasonably believe that they have no way of seeing what's at the other side of the hill, or at the distance, so they let the  guys on top decide on the course of action. Once the course of action is decided on by the guys on the top, they either order everybody else around (in autocracies), or make everybody think that this course of action is what's best for everybody (in democracies). In both cases all the "atrocities" are kept secret and therefore the guys on the top are never accountable to anybody but their peers.

So long as it's seen as a requirement to perform such social engineering and building layers of cover-up stories, it discourages a person for thinking and making judgments for oneself - something that requires the development and use of intellect. The premise behind Darwinian evolution would appear to have truth outside of natural speciation; things only arise out of sheer necessity or by pure random chance. Thus, by discouraging people from engaging in logical thought and reasoning, the intellectual development that would lie upstream is also hindered. Of all the atrocities that politics incurs, this perpetuation, if not exacerbation, of human stupidity is the worst. Not to say that people of a more "progressive" or "revolutionary" political standpoint are necessarily more intelligent than ones who aren't; I suspect the majority of them have gained their views just from listening to their peers and jumping on their respective bandwagons, rather than (thoroughly) thinking it through themselves and coming to their own, original conclusions after carefully discerning and weighing all the evidence.

Granted, to fix that problem would more than likely generate consequences (that would be eerily similar with respect to the atrociousness of the problems, seen and unseen, in the current system, except these issues would need to be "seen", else it'd be grossly straying from the premise and goal of the whole thing to begin with) during at least the initial stages of the process. It's something that would have to be ridiculously well-orchestrated in order for it to not meet with total disaster, as even the smallest of mistakes could jeopardize such a mission.

Modifié par The Smoking Man, 03 janvier 2011 - 07:49 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Siegdrifa wrote...

I'll stop here, i have post to much off topic comment and i'm sorry for that.

On the contrary, I think your examples are a good illustration of my point, that despiteof all the internets awareness, the people can do very little when it comes to the concerns of the power, even in a country with such strong republican history.

What can be said about the "citizens" of the Systems Alliance, most of whom are probably bound by contracts with the major corporations that constitute it? It's a "political-economical pact", remember? Not a national goverment.

Of course, Commander Shepard is probably capable of putting some hurts on the "corrupt" organizations, and many players are itching for it, tired of the real life situations like those you've just described. But then it's escapism, not really role-playing. It's probably on the job description of the Alliance Marines that they may be put to function as riot police in case of "disturbances" in some colony.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 03 janvier 2011 - 07:50 .

[Zulu_DFA]

The Smoking Man wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Revolutions happen only when the guys on the hill go blind or totally nuts. Until then the folks downhill reasonably believe that they have no way of seeing what's at the other side of the hill, or at the distance, so they let the  guys on top decide on the course of action. Once the course of action is decided on by the guys on the top, they either order everybody else around (in autocracies), or make everybody think that this course of action is what's best for everybody (in democracies). In both cases all the "atrocities" are kept secret and therefore the guys on the top are never accountable to anybody but their peers.

So long as it's seen as a requirement to perform such social engineering and building layers of cover-up stories, it discourages a person for thinking and making judgments for oneself - something that requires the development and use of intellect. The premise behind Darwinian evolution would appear to have truth outside of natural speciation; things only arise out of sheer necessity or by pure random chance. Thus, by discouraging people from engaging in logical thought and reasoning, the intellectual development that would lie upstream is also hindered. Of all the atrocities that politics incurs, this perpetuation, if not exacerbation, of human stupidity is the worst. Not to say that people of a more "progressive" or "revolutionary" political standpoint are necessarily more intelligent than ones who aren't; I suspect the majority of them have gained their views just from listening to their peers and jumping on their respective bandwagons, rather than (thoroughly) thinking it through themselves and coming to their own, original conclusions.

Granted, to fix that problem would more than likely generate consequences (that would be eerily similar with respect to the atrociousness of the problems, seen and unseen, in the current system, except these issues would need to be "seen", else it'd be grossly straying from the premise and goal of the whole thing to begin with) during at least the initial stages of the process. It's something that would have to be ridiculously well-orchestrated in order for it to not meet with total disaster.

I can agree with much of this, but see how it is pertaining to this here topic: It's TIM who holds on to a "cause", advocates radical and unrestrained progress of Humanity. In other words, he wants to revolutionize Humanity. His methods and much of personal aesthetic also come across as that of a revolutionary. He just found a formula that doesn't really put him at odds with the Alliance and is mutally beneficial for his own goals and his sponsors' intererests.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 03 janvier 2011 - 07:51 .

[The Smoking Man]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

I can agree with much of this, but see how it is pertaining to this here topic: It's TIM who holds on to a "cause", advocates radical and unrestrained progress of Humanity. In other words, he wants to revolutionize Humanity. His methods and much of personal aesthetic also come across as that of a revolutionary. He just found a formula that doesn't really put him at odds with the Alliance and is mutally beneficial for his own goals and his sponsors' intererests.

And this is why I'm torn about TIM and Cerberus. It's hard to criticize someone for causing these kinds of repulsive consequences when the furthering of a radically "progressive" (paragon) ideal would incur a similarly heavy price. There may be a real fundamental difference in the nature of the pursuits of these respective goals, but it may all just amount to perspective - it's very easy to confuse the two. How would people (especially paragons) feel about Cerberus if their projects were able to produce significant results and yet were able to avoid severe consequences (keeping in mind that that would be nearly impossible, especially given the scope of TIM's ideals and actions)?

Modifié par The Smoking Man, 03 janvier 2011 - 08:16 .

[Arijharn]

The Smoking Man wrote...
And this is why I'm torn about TIM and Cerberus. It's hard to criticize someone for causing these kinds of repulsive consequences when the furthering of a radically "progressive" ideal would incur a similarly heavy price. There may be a real fundamental difference in the nature of the pursuits of these respective goals, but it may just amount to perspective - it's very easy to confuse the two. How would people feel about Cerberus if their projects were able to produce significant results and yet were able to avoid severe consequences (keeping in mind that that would be nearly impossible, especially given the scope of TIM's ideals)?

But isn't that the point? I mean, we don't have concrete examples but anyone who wants to analyse the scenario can tell that due to the fact that Cerberus still exists despite their misfortunes prove that generally speaking Cerberus has been successful. This means that Cerberus still successfully recruits qualified personnel (remember; Cerberus is also a company in and of itself due to their R&D) and they still have their private backers within the military-industrial complex as well as their own front corporations.

Any organisation that continues to exist despite being labelled a terrorist organisation by both the Council and the Systems Alliance, and manages to successfully engineer projects despite the fact that sometimes things go wrong is, in my opinion, doing something 'right' at some point. I don't think you can lay the blame on Cerberus' feet if things go wrong if they're outside their control or to what they can reasonably be expected to prevent anymore than you can lay that blame to any other organisation in a similar position.

[Zulu_DFA]

The Smoking Man wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

I can agree with much of this, but see how it is pertaining to this here topic: It's TIM who holds on to a "cause", advocates radical and unrestrained progress of Humanity. In other words, he wants to revolutionize Humanity. His methods and much of personal aesthetic also come across as that of a revolutionary. He just found a formula that doesn't really put him at odds with the Alliance and is mutally beneficial for his own goals and his sponsors' intererests.

And this is why I'm torn about TIM and Cerberus. It's hard to criticize someone for causing these kinds of repulsive consequences when the furthering of a radically "progressive" ideal would incur a similarly heavy price. There may be a real fundamental difference in the nature of the pursuits of these respective goals, but it may all just amount to perspective - it's very easy to confuse the two. How would people feel about Cerberus if their projects were able to produce significant results and yet were able to avoid severe consequences (keeping in mind that that would be nearly impossible, especially given the scope of TIM's ideals and actions)?

You can't cook an omelette without breaking some eggs, they say. But yeah, I can see the point of concern here. Ideally, TIM would want to impose his values on everyone (indoctrinate). Once that happens people will cease to see the abhorence of his methods they see now, therefore they find such a shift inherently undesirable. It'd be like death. Plus of course the prospect of actual physical elimination of those that would not accept his values, as it always happens during any revolution. This is what people are afraid of.

[The Smoking Man]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

You can't cook an omelette without breaking some eggs, they say. But yeah, I can see the point of concern here. Ideally, TIM would want to impose his values on everyone (indoctrinate).

That is, assuming that's the route he would want to take to further his plans. That may not be an outlandish assumption, mind you, but you should also entertain the possibility that he has other ideas.

If you take TIM's word for it (and all other evidence, also mainly words, from various sources), he didn't exactly order the operatives at the Teltin project to kidnap shiploads of biotic-potential children for live experimentation. If Miranda's assessment of his modus operandi is correct, all he did was just give them their assignment and told them to get it done. And when he found out how they decided to do their work, he dealt with it, according to the email you get after completing the relevant mission in ME2. If you look at it from his perspective that he's working to advance humanity, for whatever breakthroughs that project made, all those biotic-potential children were advancements of humanity in and of themselves, and the Teltin workers did a fine job at removing them from existence; thus, this does give him a very believable and rational reason to condemn their actions, even with his values. With that in mind, a rational paragon would really just be concerned that TIM isn't taking (enough) precautions to ensure things like that don't happen. And, realistically, TIM really should take heed to that - if you look at how businesses operate, you can see how we have this whole thing about "cost reduction". There's no reason why that concept could only be applied to money. When TIM says that he's willing to do what he does "at any cost", that could be construed as either that cost really isn't a concern to him, or that he's not going to be deterred from trying something even if it comes with a heavy price tag. If it's the former, that's probably not a good sign, but it's harder to argue with the latter possibility.

Modifié par The Smoking Man, 03 janvier 2011 - 09:06 .

[Zulu_DFA]

The Smoking Man wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

You can't cook an omelette without breaking some eggs, they say. But yeah, I can see the point of concern here. Ideally, TIM would want to impose his values on everyone (indoctrinate).

That is, assuming that's the route he would want to take to further his plans. That may not be an outlandish assumption, mind you, but you should also entertain the possibility that he has other ideas.

Well, logically, if taken to the extremes any agenda warrants universal support to be achieved faster and cheaper, so as a guy who believes in the "ends justify the means", TIM won't hesitate long and will go for it the moment he deems it expedient. And this can possibly constitute a plot for future ME games: the Reapers are dealt with and TIM goes completely bad.

And I've just created a topic for it:

http://social.biowar...5/index/5615337

The Smoking Man wrote...

If you take TIM's word for it (and all other evidence, also mainly words, from various sources), he didn't exactly order the operatives at the Teltin project to kidnap shiploads of biotic-potential children for live experimentation. If Miranda's assessment of his modus operandi is correct, all he did was just give them their assignment and told them to get it done.

Yet EDI speculates that TIM tends to oversee all current projects personally. So I bet he took some interest in where all those money were going every time Teltin needed a new shipment of kids. BTW, those containers had the same mmark on them asthose on the Purgatory.

The Smoking Man wrote...

And when he found out how they decided to do their work, he dealt with it, according to the email you get after completing the relevant mission in ME2.

Wouldn't be the first time TIM tried to BS Shepard to keep him comfortable.

The Smoking Man wrote...

If you look at it from his perspective that he's working to advance humanity, for whatever breakthroughs that project made, all those biotic-potential children were advancements of humanity in and of themselves, and the Teltin workers did a fine job at removing them from existence; thus, this does give him a very believable and rational reason to condemn their actions.

Hmmm...Or it would give him a reason to order more Eezo detonations like those Grayson performed.

The Smoking Man wrote...

With that in mind, a rational paragon would really just be concerned that TIM isn't taking (enough) precautions to ensure things like that don't happen. And, realistically, TIM really should take heed to that - if you look at how businesses operate, you can see how we have this whole thing about "cost reduction". There's no reason why that concept could only be applied to money. When TIM says that he's willing to do what he does "at any cost", that could be construed as either that cost really isn't a concern to him, or that he's not going to be deterred from trying something even if it comes with a heavy price tag. If it's the former, that's probably not a good sign, but it's harder to argue with the latter possibility.

To play a devil's advocate (and by the devil I mean TIM-haters here!), I think TIM is indeed prone to losing the grip at some point. Like a professional poker player, he has always won so far, so why not rise the stakes every time, when sky's the limit? Personally, I don't think it's happened yet, but can TIM really control it no matter what? Kinda like Saren and his gamble with Sovereign didn't go too well.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 03 janvier 2011 - 09:26 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Cerberus hatred is caused by people playing games where they want to end up on a sort of moral pedestal after they win a war, even though in reality there is no such bloody thing as a pedestal for morality after a war.

At it's core its blind idealism and naivety.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 03 janvier 2011 - 09:37 .

[Ryzaki]

...I hope you're not serious Costin. I like morally ambigious groups.



Ones that are actually doing something successfully without the protagonist holding their hands.

[The Smoking Man]

[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...

[quote]The Smoking Man wrote...

[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...

You can't cook an omelette without breaking some eggs, they say. But yeah, I can see the point of concern here. Ideally, TIM would want to impose his values on everyone (indoctrinate).

[/quote]That is, assuming that's the route he would want to take to further his plans. That may not be an outlandish assumption, mind you, but you should also entertain the possibility that he has other ideas.
[/quote]
Well, logically, if taken to the extremes any agenda warrants universal support to be achieved faster and cheaper, so as a guy who believes in the "ends justify the means", TIM won't hesitate long and will go for it the moment he deems it expedient. And this can possibly constitute a plot for future ME games: the Reapers are dealt with and TIM goes completely bad.

And I've just created a topic for it:

http://social.biowar...5/index/5615337[/quote]Yeah, like I said, it's probably a safe bet that he would pull something like that, but he could have a plan that'd be at least more original. Whether or not it'd be even more devious than what you've proposed, or if it'd be less so, is a different question.


[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...

[quote]The Smoking Man wrote...

If you take TIM's word for it (and all other evidence, also mainly words, from various sources), he didn't exactly order the operatives at the Teltin project to kidnap shiploads of biotic-potential children for live experimentation. If Miranda's assessment of his modus operandi is correct, all he did was just give them their assignment and told them to get it done.
[/quote]
Yet EDI speculates that TIM tends to oversee all current projects personally. So I bet he took some interest in where all those money were going every time Teltin needed a new shipment of kids. BTW, those containers had the same mmark on them asthose on the Purgatory.[/quote]Well, the Teltin project isn't a "current" project; it was a while back. Can't say for sure if his policy was entirely the same back then. Plus, if you don't dismiss Project Overlord, it didn't look like he had a whole lot of oversight on that, either. If I were TIM, if I had known about David's linquistic talent, I may have had them work on some sort of translator for Geth communications first before risking him on their little experiment, especially given that they were interested in such already, as evidenced by the "Cerberus decryption protocols" mentioned in the little teaser description for Legion's dossier in LotSB.

But there's evidence that says he likes to maintain oversight over the Cerberus cells, and evidence that he doesn't. Is this just bad writing?

[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...

[quote]The Smoking Man wrote...

And when he found out how they decided to do their work, he dealt with it, according to the email you get after completing the relevant mission in ME2.
[/quote]
Wouldn't be the first time TIM tried to BS Shepard to keep him comfortable.[/quote]Probably so, but the reason for the next sentence of my post was to give some evidence for that potentially not being the case.

[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...

[quote]The Smoking Man wrote...

If you look at it from his perspective that he's working to advance humanity, for whatever breakthroughs that project made, all those biotic-potential children were advancements of humanity in and of themselves, and the Teltin workers did a fine job at removing them from existence; thus, this does give him a very believable and rational reason to condemn their actions.
[/quote]
Hmmm...Or it would give him a reason to order more Eezo detonations like those Grayson performed.[/quote]Probably.

[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...

[quote]The Smoking Man wrote...

With that in mind, a rational paragon would really just be concerned that TIM isn't taking (enough) precautions to ensure things like that don't happen. And, realistically, TIM really should take heed to that - if you look at how businesses operate, you can see how we have this whole thing about "cost reduction". There's no reason why that concept could only be applied to money. When TIM says that he's willing to do what he does "at any cost", that could be construed as either that cost really isn't a concern to him, or that he's not going to be deterred from trying something even if it comes with a heavy price tag. If it's the former, that's probably not a good sign, but it's harder to argue with the latter possibility.
[/quote]
To play a devil's advocate (and by the devil I mean TIM-haters here!), I think TIM is indeed prone to losing the grip at some point. Like a professional poker player, he has always won so far, so why not rise the stakes every time, when sky's the limit? Personally, I don't think it's happened yet, but can TIM really control it no matter what? Kinda like Saren and his gamble with Sovereign didn't go too well.
[/quote][/quote]Probably. This is why I decided to show the Collector Base some nuclear honor rather than hand it over to him, even though it also means nobody will be able to work with that gold mine of intel (although I'm hoping EDI datamined a bit while she could; Joker's datapad with Harbinger's schematics on it suggests that). Plus, I think it'd be interesting to see how well we can manage to fare in ME3 without that resource.


[quote]Costin_Razvan wrote...

Cerberus hatred is caused by people
playing games where they want to end up on a sort of moral pedestal
after they win a war, even though in reality there is no such bloody
thing as a pedestal for morality after a war.

At it's core its blind idealism and naivety.[/quote]
That logic just about constitutes blind idealism and naivety itself, just in the other direction.

Modifié par The Smoking Man, 03 janvier 2011 - 09:57 .

[Costin_Razvan]

...I hope you're not serious Costin. I like morally ambigious groups.

Actually I am very serious. This does not equate to giving them the base or not.

Arguing over their ineptitude is something that doesn't matter, and I do not care for those who base their argument against Cerberus over that since it matters nil to me.

Those arguing from a moral perspective, now those I have an issue with.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 03 janvier 2011 - 09:45 .

[Ryzaki]

...And saying someone who objects to a group morally is a naive idealist? That's...pretty sketchy.

[Costin_Razvan]

Ryzaki wrote...

...And saying someone who objects to a group morally is a naive idealist? That's...pretty sketchy.

Saying that while fighting a war akin to the bloody Apocalypse against an enemy that has wiped life in it's entirety in the entire bloody galaxy without ever being defeated is not even being naive, it's being a bloody idiot or maybe just someone without a regard to the greater goal.

The context of the game should never be overlooked, but it seems people just love to ignore it and focus solely on specific cases without remembering that "Hey guys Armagheddon is here!"

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 03 janvier 2011 - 09:54 .

[didymos1120]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Those arguing from a moral perspective, now those I have an issue with.

Well....tough.  Also: you must have quite the list of "problem" posters at this point.