355 réponses à ce sujet

[Pro_Consul]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Pro_Consul wrote...

and the other assumes their presence on the Council.

No, it doesn't. Human-led simply means something is led by Human(s). It doesn't imply composition: it is as accurate for either.

All-human is a composition description. Human-led is a leadership description. They are not mutually exclusive: this is demonstrated first and foremost by the fact that a all-human Council will be, by composition and mathematical possibility, human-led.

You are trying to stretch a semantic point well beyond its breaking tension. Your semantic point only holds water if one begins with the assumption that meaningless expressions have logical validity. To lead is a transitive verb that inherently implies two separate nouns, a subject and an object, IOW a leader and someone being led. Your entire logic depends on kicking out the inherent meaning of the verb so that leadership is a circular verb, i.e. one can lead oneself. The English language doesn't work that way. You cannot lead yourself. The one doing the leading CANNOT simultaneously be the one who is being led. There MUST be a distinction, or the verb and thereby the entire phrase is rendered completely meaningless. So your point only holds if one accepts that meaningless phrases are logically valid. Which I guess would work in a room full of politicians, but not anywhere else that language is used a means of communication.

[Dean_the_Young]

Pro_Consul wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Pro_Consul wrote...

and the other assumes their presence on the Council.

No, it doesn't. Human-led simply means something is led by Human(s). It doesn't imply composition: it is as accurate for either.

All-human is a composition description. Human-led is a leadership description. They are not mutually exclusive: this is demonstrated first and foremost by the fact that a all-human Council will be, by composition and mathematical possibility, human-led.

You are trying to stretch a semantic point well beyond its breaking tension.

It's someone else's semantic point that broke, but sure.

'I defend that language should be interpreted to what the language means, and not past that.'

Extreme stance, I know.

Your semantic point only holds water if one begins with the assumption that meaningless expressions have logical validity. To lead is a transitive verb that inherently implies two separate nouns, a subject and an object, IOW a leader and someone being led. Your entire logic depends on kicking out the inherent meaning of the verb so that leadership is a circular verb, i.e. one can lead oneself.

A group of humans isn't singular, though. So there is no kicking out an inherent meaning when an inherent meaning doesn't apply.

The English language doesn't work that way. You cannot lead yourself.

You can, however, lead a group of Humans.

Strange concept, I know. Managers, CEO's, Presidents, Mayors, Chairmen, officers.

The one doing the leading CANNOT simultaneously be the one who is being led. There MUST be a distinction, or the verb and thereby the entire phrase is rendered completely meaningless. So your point only holds if one accepts that meaningless phrases are logically valid. Which I guess would work in a room full of politicians, but not anywhere else that language is used a means of communication.

What might a room full of politicians be called?

A Soviet.

(Or, in english, a Council.)

[Schneidend]

jbblue05 wrote...

Why would SHepard want to distance him/herself from the Alliance when they volunteered and served in it for 12+ years?

Ideally, Spectres are intended to be impartial. Human or turian, Shepard is given this position for the benefit of the galaxy as a whole. My Renegon Shep considers himself principally a galactic citizen.

jbblue05 wrote...

So basically your crapping on the organization that made your rise possible and bending over backwards to
please the aliens

That's an extremely conservative and hyperbolic way of putting it. No, my Shepard doesn't disparage the
Alliance in any way, publically or otherwise, and he doesn't "bend over backwards" for anybody, especially the Council and other aliens. But, he is a neutral party now that he's a Spectre. Favoring the Alliance is an abuse of his newly unlimited powers.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

To be frank, I don't see a soldier with that sort of attitude being selected to be Humanity's first spectre, when the entire basis of the Alliance push to have a spectre was to directly advance and defend Alliance interests.

What sort of attitude? Before being selected as a Spectre candidate my Shepard had no idea he would ever be put in such a position. His attitude changed to reflect his position. Up until then, my Shepard was a dutiful Alliance marine who got the job done at all costs (Ruthless service record) and nothing more.

Modifié par Schneidend, 03 février 2011 - 10:48 .

[Jagri]

jbblue05 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

jbblue05 wrote...
Krogans use to have a high birth rate they gained their reputation of being great warriors when they won the rachni wars. and were beating the Council in the Rebellions
A big reason the won the rachni wars was their rediculously high birth rate.

Garrus left because Garm's crew showed up and it was an impossible battle to win.
Garrus should've brought some inferno rounds

Garrus has AP rounds which are more effective than inferno and still couldnt put Garm down. So tell me how are Krogan easy to kill ? 

I think inferno is better it stops regen. and does slighlty less damage to armor

The Krogan Idea strategy is to overrun the enemy. A heavy emphasis on the horde.
If you kill a dozen Krogan their are still a hundred more chargin at you..

The council killed plenty of Krogan in the Rebellions the Rachni killed plenty of Krogan in the Rachni wars but the Krogan had large numbers add into their damage resilience.

Krogan are easy to kill when you're at range and have a skilled sniper team

Since the genophage, the krogan can no longer afford the casualties of the old horde attacks. The Battle Masters are a match for any ten soldiers of another species. To a Battle Master, killing is a science. They focus on developing clean, brute-force economy of motion that exploits their brutal strength to incapacitate enemies with a swift single blow of overwhelming power. This change of focus from mass-unit warfare to maximal efficiency has increased employment demand in the fields of security and 'muscle for hire.' Due to the unsavory reputation of the krogan, most of these jobs are on the far side of the law.

So then the ideal tactics the Krogans would use to destroy a snipers nest would be to likely hit them from behind while someone else draws sniper fire. This can be for example like Blood Pack sending hordes of Vorcha to draw sniper fire while the Krogans move in from behind.

Modifié par Jagri, 03 février 2011 - 10:47 .

[jbblue05]

Schneidend wrote...

[
Ideally, Spectres are intended to be impartial. Human or turian, Shepard is given this position for the benefit of the galaxy as a whole. My Renegon Shep considers himself principally a galactic citizen.

Spectres aren't  politically-correct politicians they work behind closed doors promoting galactic stability staying out of the public's eye.
Judging by Shepard's background he/she never entered the CItadel until they were 29 I believe SHepard think of him/herself as an Alliance soldier than a galactic citizen.  I guess you can role play however you want to.

That's an extremely conservative and hyperbolic way of putting it. No, my Shepard doesn't disparage the
Alliance in any way, publically or otherwise, and he doesn't "bend over backwards" for anybody, especially the Council and other aliens. But, he is a neutral party now that he's a Spectre. Favoring the Alliance is an abuse of his newly unlimited powers.

By saying the Alliance is weak and have a lot to learn, your saying the Alliance isn't ready to join the Council.  The big reason you were made spectre was to progress the Alliance onto the Council.  Praising the other races and shooting down the Alliance is bending over backwards.  Spectres are above the law and most likely abuse their power in favor of their respective militaries and governments.  Shepard is suppose to favor the Alliance, Shepard represents the strength of the Alliance. Its Udina's job to  be politically correct not SHepard's job

[Schneidend]

jbblue05 wrote...

Spectres aren't  politically-correct politicians they work behind closed doors promoting galactic stability staying out of the public's eye.
Judging by Shepard's background he/she never entered the CItadel until they were 29 I believe SHepard think of him/herself as an Alliance soldier than a galactic citizen.  I guess you can role play however you want to.

Shepard is an Alliance soldier, and my canon Shep thought of himself as such, until a greater mantle of responsibility was laid upon him. Before then, he never imagined he'd be doing anything else but killing pirates and slavers by the truck-load. He was the Butcher of Torfan, and a marine, and then he became something more.

By saying the Alliance is weak and have a lot to learn, your saying the Alliance isn't ready to join the Council.  The big reason you were made spectre was to progress the Alliance onto the Council.  Praising the other races and shooting down the Alliance is bending over backwards.  Spectres are above the law and most likely abuse their power in favor of their respective militaries and governments.  Shepard is suppose to favor the Alliance, Shepard represents the strength of the Alliance. Its Udina's job to  be politically correct not SHepard's job

I never said the Alliance is weak and has a lot to learn. I never said the Alliance wasn't ready to join the Council.

That's only why the Alliance wants a Spectre. That's not what a Spectre is meant to do. I'm happy to help humanity get a Council seat, as that helps out humanity, but my concerns are for the bigger picture. My Shepard feels he has a sacred duty to put the galaxy as a whole before humanity.

I don't intend for my Shepard to praise other races while shooting down the Alliance, and he never does as much. He responds to Hackett's requests for help, but tells Mikhailovich off for treating him like a junior officer (which he is not).

That Spectres are above the law does not mean they are above responsibilities. Some police officers are corrupt, too, but that doesn't mean they're intended to be corrupt. Shepard is NOT supposed to favor the Alliance. Shepard is a Spectre, therefore he is supposed to protect galactic stability. It has nothing to do with being politically correct. It's about doing his job properly.

[Pro_Consul]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

No, it doesn't. Human-led simply means something is led by Human(s). It doesn't imply composition: it is as accurate for either.

All-human is a composition description. Human-led is a leadership description. They are not mutually exclusive: this is demonstrated first and foremost by the fact that a all-human Council will be, by composition and mathematical possibility, human-led.

You are just restating the same incorrect assertion. If a council is completely composed of humans, then the statement that this council is "human-led" is a meaningless statement - it communicates absolutely nothing. And indeed it implies something that is, in this circumstance, false, namely that humans are leading someone who is "other than human" rather than leading themselves, which is grammatically impossible anyway. It all comes back to the fact that leading is a transitive verb for which the subject and object MUST be different parties in order for the verb to have any meaning. Remove that rule, as you are trying to do, and you remove the meaning of the verb; remove the meaning of the verb and you remove the meaning of the phrase. Remove the meaning of the phrase and you are just making verbal noises that are not intended to be a means of communication at all. That last is the only context in which your point makes sense: one in which language is NOT by definition a means of communication. To say the wolf pack was "wolf-led" is a meaningless statement - it communicates nothing either by words or by context since by definition all wolf packs are led by a wolf. To use the verb "lead" at all in any way that fails to distinguish between who is leading and who is being led is, in itself, incorrect, since "lead" is NOT a passive verb, nor does its meaning permit of self-execution, i.e. subject and object being the same entity.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

'I defend that language should be interpreted to what the language means, and not past that.'

Extreme stance, I know.

Actually you are defending that language should be interpreted within the framework that it can have no meaning at all and still be considered a means of communication. It is a fundamental principle of linguistic analysis that any interpretation of language that renders the passage under examination completely meaningless is incorrect. In linguistics the very word "semantics" refers specifically to how meaning is communicated by words (as opposed to meaning communicated by context); any analytical hypothesis of a language construction which results in the words having no meaning has, by definition, run afoul of a semantic error, i.e. a failure to construct or interpret the words in a way that communicates meaning. Your entire "semantic" point relies on the assumption that that phrase, "human-led", has no meaning. It is therefore not a semantic point but a semantic error, and yet you claim this as proof that it is correct usage despite being, of itself, a semantic error.

[jbblue05]

Schneidend wrote...

I never said the Alliance is weak and has a lot to learn. I never said the Alliance wasn't ready to join the Council.

That's only why the Alliance wants a Spectre. That's not what a Spectre is meant to do. I'm happy to help humanity get a Council seat, as that helps out humanity, but my concerns are for the bigger picture. My Shepard feels he has a sacred duty to put the galaxy as a whole before humanity.

I don't intend for my Shepard to praise other races while shooting down the Alliance, and he never does as much. He responds to Hackett's requests for help, but tells Mikhailovich off for treating him like a junior officer (which he is not).

That Spectres are above the law does not mean they are above responsibilities. Some police officers are corrupt, too, but that doesn't mean they're intended to be corrupt. Shepard is NOT supposed to favor the Alliance. Shepard is a Spectre, therefore he is supposed to protect galactic stability. It has nothing to do with being politically correct. It's about doing his job properly.

Your missing the major point,'
We were discussing distancing yourself from the Alliance not what you do personally.

DIstancing yourself from the Alliance means giving into public perception that the Alliance isn't ready for more responsibilities and that the Alliance are bullies.  Which means bending over backwards to the other races.

A spectre responsibility is open to interpetation. "spectre are the right hand of the Council" etc.

If you tell Mikhailovich off you're abusing your power as a spectre to avoid Alliance regulations.

The Council made Shepard a spectre to test the strength of the Alliance and see if they are ready to join the Council and spectres

Shepard is suppose to FAVOR the Alliance.   That's the main reason Anderson, Hackett, and Udina were strong advocates for SHepard.

Favoring the Alliance and promoting galactic stability can both be done.

Shepard has no business in politics Shepard is a soldier through and through

[Dean_the_Young]

Pro_Consul wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

No, it doesn't. Human-led simply means something is led by Human(s). It doesn't imply composition: it is as accurate for either.

All-human is a composition description. Human-led is a leadership description. They are not mutually exclusive: this is demonstrated first and foremost by the fact that a all-human Council will be, by composition and mathematical possibility, human-led.

You are just restating the same incorrect assertion. If a council is completely composed of humans, then the statement that this council is "human-led" is a meaningless statement - it communicates absolutely nothing. And indeed it implies something that is, in this circumstance, false, namely that humans are leading someone who is "other than human" rather than leading themselves, which is grammatically impossible anyway. It all comes back to the fact that leading is a transitive verb for which the subject and object MUST be different parties in order for the verb to have any meaning. Remove that rule, as you are trying to do, and you remove the meaning of the verb; remove the meaning of the verb and you remove the meaning of the phrase. Remove the meaning of the phrase and you are just making verbal noises that are not intended to be a means of communication at all. That last is the only context in which your point makes sense: one in which language is NOT by definition a means of communication. To say the wolf pack was "wolf-led" is a meaningless statement - it communicates nothing either by words or by context since by definition all wolf packs are led by a wolf. To use the verb "lead" at all in any way that fails to distinguish between who is leading and who is being led is, in itself, incorrect, since "lead" is NOT a passive verb, nor does its meaning permit of self-execution, i.e. subject and object being the same entity.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

'I defend that language should be interpreted to what the language means, and not past that.'

Extreme stance, I know.

Actually you are defending that language should be interpreted within the framework that it can have no meaning at all and still be considered a means of communication. It is a fundamental principle of linguistic analysis that any interpretation of language that renders the passage under examination completely meaningless is incorrect. In linguistics the very word "semantics" refers specifically to how meaning is communicated by words (as opposed to meaning communicated by context); any analytical hypothesis of a language construction which results in the words having no meaning has, by definition, run afoul of a semantic error, i.e. a failure to construct or interpret the words in a way that communicates meaning. Your entire "semantic" point relies on the assumption that that phrase, "human-led", has no meaning. It is therefore not a semantic point but a semantic error, and yet you claim this as proof that it is correct usage despite being, of itself, a semantic error.

Tell you what: you break up into readable paragraphs, or at least by individual points rather than mess, and I'll actually try and read through your attempts at impressing me with your robust verbous dialect which, while flattering your word count, really isn't helping your communicative abilities.

Or, to make it shorter like you need to:

Get to the point.

By the point.

Reader-friendly paragraphs if you want a discussion rather than a rant.

(And not, human-led is not functioning as a transitive verb. It functions as an adjective in the context of the line: arguably a redundant adjective had more adjectives been made, but not a contradictory one.)

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 03 février 2011 - 11:53 .

[Xilizhra]

If you tell Mikhailovich off you're abusing your power as a spectre to avoid Alliance regulations.

I'm no longer subject to Alliance regulations anyway, but regardless, I convinced him of the necessity of the Normandy's specifications.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

If you tell Mikhailovich off you're abusing your power as a spectre to avoid Alliance regulations.

I'm no longer subject to Alliance regulations anyway, but regardless, I convinced him of the necessity of the Normandy's specifications.

You are subject, but they can't be brought to bear. When the Council decides you aren't worth protecting, those rules are the same you'll be crucified by.

[Xilizhra]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

If you tell Mikhailovich off you're abusing your power as a spectre to avoid Alliance regulations.

I'm no longer subject to Alliance regulations anyway, but regardless, I convinced him of the necessity of the Normandy's specifications.

You are subject, but they can't be brought to bear. When the Council decides you aren't worth protecting, those rules are the same you'll be crucified by.

I'll worry about that when the time comes. But I certainly haven't gone out of my way to antagonize the Alliance; I'm sure TIM's done his part to make them like me less, though.

[Dean_the_Young]

Such dirty, dirty lies to spread, that you're working with Cerberus.

[Schneidend]

jbblue05 wrote...

Your missing the major point,'
We were discussing distancing yourself from the Alliance not what you do personally.

DIstancing yourself from the Alliance means giving into public perception that the Alliance isn't ready for more responsibilities and that the Alliance are bullies.  Which means bending over backwards to the other races.

No, that's what you are saying it means. My Shepard wants to distance himself from the Alliance in that he is a public servant for the entire galaxy, and not just the Alliance's pet Spectre.

A spectre responsibility is open to interpetation. "spectre are the right hand of the Council" etc.

And Darius Shepard's interpretation is that he has a responsibility to the entire galaxy, and can't favor the Alliance or any other faction.

If you tell Mikhailovich off you're abusing your power as a spectre to avoid Alliance regulations.

As Xili points out, Alliance regulations no longer even apply to Shepard. If anybody is abusing their power, it is Mikhailovich for trying the give the "right hand of the Council" orders just because Shepard used to be a naval officer.

The Council made Shepard a spectre to test the strength of the Alliance and see if they are ready to join the Council and spectres

They made Shepard a Spectre to pacify the Alliance, and nothing else. It was not a test, but it would keep humanity from being resentful that the Council isn't directly addressing the Eden Prime massacre. It is win-win for them, because they have a new Spectre to chase down the old win, and Udina doesn't raise a stink diplomatically.

Shepard is suppose to FAVOR the Alliance.   That's the main reason Anderson, Hackett, and Udina were strong advocates for SHepard.

Their intentions are not more important than upholding the office of the Special Tactics and Recconaisance's ideals and protecting the entire galaxy. Even Anderson and Hackett support the fact that Shepard is no longer officially part of the Alliance chain of command.

Favoring the Alliance and promoting galactic stability can both be done.

I don't disagree that helping the Alliance and helping the galaxy are not mutually exclusive, and I stated as much. Especially since the Alliance is part of the galactic community and therefore simply by promoting galactic stability I help the Alliance.

Shepard has no business in politics Shepard is a soldier through and through

Hence why I don't allow the job to get political and choose not to use my Shepard's powers to overtly favor the Alliance.

Helping the Alliance foremost of all would be a political move, which as you say: Shepard has no business in.

[Pro_Consul]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Tell you what: you break up into readable paragraphs, or at least by individual points rather than mess, and I'll actually try and read through your attempts at impressing me with your robust verbous dialect which, while flattering your word count, really isn't helping your communicative abilities.

Translation: I didn't say what you wanted me to say...?

Dean_the_Young wrote...Or, to make it shorter like you need to:

Get to the point.

Check. Did that already. You just didn't like the point.

Dean_the_Young wrote...By the point.

Check. Did that, too. You just didn't like the point.

Dean_the_Young wrote...(And not, human-led is not functioning as a transitive verb. It functions as an adjective in the context of the line: arguably a redundant adjective had more adjectives been made, but not a contradictory one.)

• Human-led is two words incorrectly hyphenated.
• One of those words, human, is a noun.
• The other word, led, is the past tense of the verb "lead".
• That verb, lead, is a transitive verb.
• Transitive verbs require a subject and at least one object.
• Human must therefore be either the subject or the object.
• Human cannot be both subject and object of this verb, since someone/thing cannot lead him/itself.
• Therefore the fact that a human is stated as leading the council requires either that there be non-humans on that council (for the verb lead to be correct in this usage) or have no meaning whatsoever and be nothing but verbal noises which do not communicate anything.

There, all broken up into bite sized bullet points.

And then of course there is the logical look at circumstances. Would the vastly more populous and economically powerful Salarian, Turian and Asari races really allow humans to just completely take over and set up a dictatorial humans-only galactic council? Not bloody likely.

[jbblue05]

Schneidend wrote...

No, that's what you are saying it means. My Shepard wants to distance himself from the Alliance in that he is a public servant for the entire galaxy, and not just the Alliance's pet Spectre.

Your a terrible advocate for the Alliance

And Darius Shepard's interpretation is that he has a responsibility to the entire galaxy, and can't favor the Alliance or any other faction.

Your favoring the Council aren't you

As Xili points out, Alliance regulations no longer even apply to Shepard. If anybody is abusing their power, it is Mikhailovich for trying the give the "right hand of the Council" orders just because Shepard used to be a naval officer.

Mikhalovich is not abusing his power.  The Normandy SR1 was intended to be assigned to the 63rd Scout Flotilla and Rear Admiral is the rear admiral of the 5th fleet. So he's doing his job as rear admiral.  The Normany is still an Alliance ship that is on loan to the Council.
Refusing to submit to an inspection is using your status to avoid your superiors in the Alliance.

They made Shepard a Spectre to pacify the Alliance, and nothing else. It was not a test, but it would keep humanity from being resentful that the Council isn't directly addressing the Eden Prime massacre. It is win-win for them, because they have a new Spectre to chase down the old win, and Udina doesn't raise a stink diplomatically.

Its a test like I said.
Shepard fails- the Alliance will shut up and be set back for years.
Shepard Succeds the Counci looks good.

Their intentions are not more important than upholding the office of the Special Tactics and Recconaisance's ideals and protecting the entire galaxy. Even Anderson and Hackett support the fact that Shepard is no longer officially part of the Alliance chain of command.

Because Shepard can do the Alliance's dirty work without being subjected to red tape.
Spectres do the dirty work of the Council.  Publicly they are suppose to be noble Guardians.  "only an idiot believes the official story"

I don't disagree that helping the Alliance and helping the galaxy are not mutually exclusive, and I stated as much. Especially since the Alliance is part of the galactic community and therefore simply by promoting galactic stability I help the Alliance.

Not really  you can promote galactic stability and screw the Alliance over or weaken them and vice versa to the Council races

Hence why I don't allow the job to get political and choose not to use my Shepard's powers to overtly favor the Alliance.

Helping the Alliance foremost of all would be a political move, which as you say: Shepard has no business in.

You don't have to be in politics to promote the Alliance.

Remember the only way to distance yourselves from the Alliance is publicly.

[Schneidend]

jbblue05 wrote...

Your a terrible advocate for the Alliance

That is subject to interpretation. I just happen to think the turians have the right idea, putting the defense of the majority of the galaxy on equal footing with their own nation's defense.

Your favoring the Council aren't you

Not at all. When Councillor Velarn questioned my every move, I told him exactly what I thought of his attitude. Before they made me a Spectre, I accused the Council of favoring their pet Spectre over the Alliance.

Mikhalovich is not abusing his power.  The Normandy SR1 was intended to be assigned to the 63rd Scout Flotilla and Rear Admiral is the rear admiral of the 5th fleet. So he's doing his job as rear admiral.  The Normany is still an Alliance ship that is on loan to the Council.
Refusing to submit to an inspection is using your status to avoid your superiors in the Alliance.

I allowed Mikhailovich to inspect the Normandy, and then I convinced him what a jackass he was being with the Intimidate options. All I chose not to do was salute him. He and his position have my respect, but Shepard is no longer subordinate to Mikhailovich.

He has every right to take the Normandy, and I wouldn't kill him over it or anything. It's only a ship. Still, he was in the wrong about the Normandy's usefulness and my decisions as its captains, and I told him as much.

Its a test like I said.
Shepard fails- the Alliance will shut up and be set back for years.
Shepard Succeds the Counci looks good.

Succeeds at what, exactly? Demanding things that other races who have made greater contributions to galactic society haven't even achieved? At that point, the volus had invented the entire economy for Citadel space, and they still had to share an embassy with the elcor.

Because Shepard can do the Alliance's dirty work without being subjected to red tape.
Spectres do the dirty work of the Council.  Publicly they are suppose to be noble Guardians.  "only an idiot believes the official story"

And, as I said, I often do the Alliance's "dirty work." I took care of the warlord Darius (the guy stole my name, after all) and negotiated with my old CO Major Kyle, and I had Kasumi delete the data that was harmful to the Alliance. That doesn't mean they can order me to do these things or have any other authority over what my Shepard does.

Not really  you can promote galactic stability and screw the Alliance over or weaken them and vice versa to the Council races

If the Alliance is a threat to galactic stability in a given scenario and I don't agree with why they're threatening galactic stability, I will do whatever it takes to prevent things from escalating.

You don't have to be in politics to promote the Alliance.

Using my Spectre powers to promote the Alliance is a political move, regardless of whether or not I'm a politician.

Remember the only way to distance yourselves from the Alliance is publicly.

And I don't have to do that by disparaging the Alliance. However, when the public sees Ash and I fighting alongside Garrus and Liara that improves the Alliance's relations with other races. That promotes the Alliance, too.

[Dean_the_Young]

Pro_Consul wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Tell you what: you break up into readable paragraphs, or at least by individual points rather than mess, and I'll actually try and read through your attempts at impressing me with your robust verbous dialect which, while flattering your word count, really isn't helping your communicative abilities.

Translation: I didn't say what you wanted me to say...?

Translation: big needlessly long paragraphs of a dozen+ separate points hurt my eyes to try and read, and I seen no point in hurting myself on your behalf.


And yes, 'my eyes' is the actual reason for all your presumed 'didn't agree with me's.' Cut those out for simplicity.

• Human-led is two words incorrectly hyphenated.

And yet, it exists. And can be understood to easily works as a functional adjective for 'led by Human(s)'.

[

• One of those words, human, is a noun.
• The other word, led, is the past tense of the verb "lead".
• That verb, lead, is a transitive verb.
• Transitive verbs require a subject and at least one object.
• Human must therefore be either the subject or the object.
• Human cannot be both subject and object of this verb, since someone/thing cannot lead him/itself.

Therefore the fact that a human is stated as leading the council requires either that there be non-humans on that council (for the verb lead to be correct in this usage) or have no meaning whatsoever and be nothing but verbal noises which do not communicate anything.

Except Human is a collective noun, and collective nouns can lead collectives including themselves.

Examples: My men send men to lead more men. Judges judge the judges. Spies spy on spies.

Calling it a Human-led Human Council isn't even redundant, because there could be other types of councils that could be human-led (the dominated nominally multi-racial council), whereas it is possible for a exclusive group to be dominated and led by an excluded faction: occupational authorities and nominal national regimes. A Human-led Human council confirms that, as well as being composed of humans, it is also led by humans and not by an external force (or rather, not an alien external force).

There, all broken up into bite sized bullet points.

Impecably done. Much easier on my eyees.

And then of course there is the logical look at circumstances. Would the vastly more populous and economically powerful Salarian, Turian and Asari races really allow humans to just completely take over and set up a dictatorial humans-only galactic council? Not bloody likely.

For the same reasons they'd allow the Humans to set up effectively dictatorial control of a nominally multi-racial Council, which they do, yes.

The Council species lose power regardless.

[didymos1120]

jbblue05 wrote...

So he's doing his job as rear admiral. The Normany is still an Alliance ship that is on loan to the Council. Refusing to submit to an inspection is using your status to avoid your superiors in the Alliance.

One, Mikhailovich will admit he has no standing to make a formal inspection if you pick the right dialogue options (initially refuse, but then allow the inspection).  Two, Shepard is no longer subject to the Alliance chain-of-command once Spectre status is attained. Nor is the Normandy under the Admiral's authority.   Shep is perfectly within his/her rights to tell him to go the hell away, because the Admiral is indulging a personal grudge, not doing his job.

Modifié par didymos1120, 04 février 2011 - 01:09 .

[jbblue05]

Schneidend wrote...

That is subject to interpretation. I just happen to think the turians have the right idea, putting the defense of the majority of the galaxy on equal footing with their own nation's defense.

When Shepard joined the Alliance you swore an oath to promote the Alliance interests and to die defensding those  interests.
Judging by your arguments your in favor of the Council than the Alliance
Judging by the treaty of Farixen the Turians don't trust anybody else having the best weapons and more dreadnoughts than them.  The Turians want to be the top military dog  and they fear the Alliance are going to replace them.

Not at all. When Councillor Velarn questioned my every move, I told him exactly what I thought of his attitude. Before they made me a Spectre, I accused the Council of favoring their pet Spectre over the Alliance.

Your arguments have been Council>>> Alliance

I allowed Mikhailovich to inspect the Normandy, and then I convinced him what a jackass he was being with the Intimidate options. All I chose not to do was salute him. He and his position have my respect, but Shepard is no longer subordinate to Mikhailovich.

So how is Mikhailovich abusing his power?  In the Alliance you're still a subordinate to Mikhailovich you're using your spectre status as a way of saying I'm better than you Mikhailovich

Succeeds at what, exactly? Demanding things that other races who have made greater contributions to galactic society haven't even achieved? At that point, the volus had invented the entire economy for Citadel space, and they still had to share an embassy with the elcor.

You're suppose to be an advocate for the Alliance. Not a politically correct politician.
The Councill are elitist selfish pricks who only care about themselves

And, as I said, I often do the Alliance's "dirty work." I took care of the warlord Darius (the guy stole my name, after all) and negotiated with my old CO Major Kyle, and I had Kasumi delete the data that was harmful to the Alliance. That doesn't mean they can order me to do these things or have any other authority over what my Shepard does.

Once again you fail to realize we were discussing  "distancing yourself from the Alliance"  not what you personally did.
That is why you quoted my earlier posts

If the Alliance is a threat to galactic stability in a given scenario and I don't agree with why they're threatening galactic stability, I will do whatever it takes to prevent things from escalating.

So why did you destroy Kasumi's greybox? The Alliance could still be doing things that threaten the galaxy you mi9ght as well expose them to the Council

Using my Spectre powers to promote the Alliance is a political move, regardless of whether or not I'm a politician.

A political move as in doing something for the public to see.  Not destroying a VI base  on Luna or taking out the Warlord Darius

And I don't have to do that by disparaging the Alliance. However, when the public sees Ash and I fighting alongside Garrus and Liara that improves the Alliance's relations with other races. That promotes the Alliance, too.

The Alliance saving the Council promotes the Alliance as does abandoning the Council.
Just because SHepard is cool with one alien doesn't mean the Alliance is cool with the entire race now.

It can also be viewed negatively.  How strong is the Alliance that it has to recruit people off the streets.  Doesn't the Allliance have elite forces like N7 marines?  Why is SHepard running off with a teenage Quarian, a Krogan bounty hunter, A former turian C-sec offficer and an Asari scientist.
.

Modifié par jbblue05, 04 février 2011 - 01:38 .

[Pro_Consul]

When logic is a secondary concern behind supporting the pre-selected conclusion, then the pre-selected conclusion is impervious to correction, no matter how incorrect it may be.

This is rather reminiscent of the way the Council is portrayed, too. They have chosen what to believe, before looking at any of the actual facts and evidence. What they have chosen to believe is that Reapers do not exist. To prop up this grossly incorrect pre-selected conclusion they twist the evidence beyond recognition. And one cannot even accuse them lying about their pre-selected conclusion, because they sincerely believe it. It is only the evidence and the "logic" that they are lying about, and that more to themselves than any particular audience, in order to keep strong their faith in their more comfortable fiction and avoid perceiving any unpleasant truth. Nothing new in that, though. A very common human behavior, that.

[Dean_the_Young]

Don't be so hard on yourself, Pro_Consul. I realize a world in which, say, the equivalent distinction between the American-led American forces in Afghanistan, as opposed to the NATO-led American forces, is a gramatically troubling and confusing one, but it's okay.

Your streadfast nature is part of your- well, it's part of you.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 04 février 2011 - 01:53 .

[Schneidend]

jbblue05 wrote...

When Shepard joined the Alliance you swore an oath to promote the Alliance interests and to die defensding those  interests.
Judging by your arguments your in favor of the Council than the Alliance
Judging by the treaty of Farixen the Turians don't trust anybody else having the best weapons and more dreadnoughts than them.  The Turians want to be the top military dog  and they fear the Alliance are going to replace them.

I still serve Alliance interests by helping them with their problems like Luna and Darius. I am not going to go out in public and unprompted talk about how awesome the Alliance is. That's a waste of Shepard's time and talents.

As for Farixen, having more dreadnoughts is a privilege. Turians earned the right to have the most by being the most supportive of the galactic community as a whole and being instrumental in ending the Krogan Rebellions. At the inception of ME1, humanity had done little to compare to the turians' achievements. We hadn't done much compared to the volus' achievements, either.

A lot of the Alliance's advancement has been agreeing to colonize the Traverse, which the other races haven't really tried. This helped to accelerate humanity's rise to power, but it is not a particularly stellar cultural or military achievement.

Your arguments have been Council>>> Alliance

My arguments have been Galactic Civilization > Alliance. Galactic civilization as a whole (which includes the Alliance) is bigger than just the Alliance. It is bigger than just the Turian Hierarchy. It is bigger than the asari...multitudes of independent city-states. The big picture takes priority, in other words.

So how is Mikhailovich abusing his power?  In the Alliance you're still a subordinate to Mikhailovich you're using your spectre status as a way of saying I'm better than you Mikhailovich

As others pointed out, Mikhailovich himself will admit he doesn't really have the authority to perform the inspection, since the Alliance brass, his superiors, have changed the Normandy's original orders.

Shepard is no longer part of the Alliance chain of command. The only person Shepard is a subordinate to is the Council.

You're suppose to be an advocate for the Alliance. Not a politically correct politician.
The Councill are elitist selfish pricks who only care about themselves

The Council, like Shepard, has to work for the betterment of all, not just one race. This isn't easy, and it can appear to be favoritism at times. The Council has repeatedly given the Alliance a lot of special attention, however. They did nothing to assist the batarians when the batarians wanted the Traverse to be made exclusively theirs, and allowed the Alliance to continue colonizing the area. They gave the Alliance an embassy in only 30 or so years, while other races have had to wait centuries.

Once again you fail to realize we were discussing  "distancing yourself from the Alliance"  not what you personally did.
That is why you quoted my earlier posts

My Shepard distances himself from the Alliance by not showing them favoritism and not relying too heavily on their resources. They've already let me borrow a full frigate crew, a hyper-advanced frigate, and two marines. I don't really see the need to ask for more.

So why did you destroy Kasumi's greybox? The Alliance could still be doing things that threaten the galaxy you mi9ght as well expose them to the Council

We aren't really told what the data is, exactly, only that the Alliance could be implicated. If the Alliance did something dirty but ultimately not harmful, it is safer to simply bury it then allow it to turn into a potentially violent situation.

A political move as in doing something for the public to see.  Not destroying a VI base  on Luna or taking out the Warlord Darius

Exactly. I do those missions, because they help the Alliance, but don't make it look like all I care about is the Alliance, because nobody ever need find out about the Alliance's dirty laundry. The STG and the asari commandos, after all, are also working hard to not let their races' secrets get out.

The Alliance saving the Council promotes the Alliance as does abandoning the Council.

Depends on who you ask. The Rodam Expeditions salesman outright yells at Shepard for not saving the Council.

Just because SHepard is cool with one alien doesn't mean the Alliance is cool with the entire race now.

Maybe not, but it does mean the First Human Spectre isn't playing favorites and is willing to do what it takes to get the job done.

It can also be viewed negatively.  How strong is the Alliance that it has to recruit people off the streets.  Doesn't the Allliance have elite forces like N7 marines?  Why is SHepard running off with a teenage Quarian, a Krogan bounty hunter, A former turian C-sec offficer and an Asari scientist.
.

Shepard is running off with a teenage quarian (woooooooooooo!) because who joins his team is his prerogative. Once you're a Spectre, you can work with whoever you like. It's part of the basis for my Dresden Files RPG roleplay campaign Mass Effect: Spectral Line on Obsidian Portal, where the player-characters are specialists working with Tela Vasir on missions where she might need help.

Modifié par Schneidend, 04 février 2011 - 02:09 .

[Sentox6]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Calling it a Human-led Human Council isn't even redundant, because there could be other types of councils that could be human-led (the dominated nominally multi-racial council), whereas it is possible for a exclusive group to be dominated and led by an excluded faction: occupational authorities and nominal national regimes. A Human-led Human council confirms that, as well as being composed of humans, it is also led by humans and not by an external force (or rather, not an alien external force).

Turn off your PC, and enter into politics.

This is obfuscation at a professional level.

[earthbornFemShep]

I see your point, OP but we won't know until ME3 whether the paragon choices actually pan out. They /seem/ to be going well in ME2 but ya never know.  For all I know it all could bite me (normally paragon/paragade) in the bum:
-The rachni could get indoctrinated and start killing like crazy again
-Wrex having all the females in one location could make them easy pickings for the reapers... thus killing the species
-Not killing Rana could lead to info leaks to the reapers if she was already indoctrinated when you let her go.
-Keeping the greybox could lead to disaster if the info leaks and the alliance is discredited
-Rewriting the geth could lead to problems if they suddenly are recoded by another reaper virus
-Keeping the council could be bad because they all seem to be idiots who never listen to reason unless you beat them over the head with it

We won't know if paragons are favored until ME3. I don't suggest being pure anything. Just try to think things out best you can. They both have pros and cons.

Modifié par earthbornFemShep, 04 février 2011 - 07:13 .